tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21495478839751318352024-02-07T15:23:22.993+09:00Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of HappinessMy thoughts on philosophy, language learning, photography, theology, and life in general. All are welcome! I hope my random ramblings can somehow improve your life. I'm really only writing for my own benefit, as a journal of sorts. Hope you enjoy.Samuel Ronickerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15254647831303355637noreply@blogger.comBlogger210125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2149547883975131835.post-24639482279122302652023-05-09T05:00:00.005+09:002023-05-09T05:10:10.515+09:00Memo to Myself<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 29.333336px; margin: 0in; text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 32px;">Introduction<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 29.333336px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 32px;">Well, another semester down! Woohoo! I don’t know how much you enjoyed summer breaks as a kid going to school, but I <b><i>LOVED</i></b> it! Of course, that time of life is long gone now (over <i>twenty years</i> since I graduated high school!?!). But, I have come to the end of my penultimate semester of my Master’s of Divinity Studies. This semester has been very tough. I usually have some extra weekend times and take a day or two off work, but even taking two days this last week doesn’t seem like enough. Like Bob and Larry would always chat about after episodes of Veggietales, I want to take a moment to write a memo to my future self about what I have learned this semester. So what have I learned in my Research, Writing, and Ministry Preparation (RTCH500) class?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 29.333336px; margin: 0in; text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 32px;">Textbooks<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 29.333336px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 32px;">We had three texts to read and learn from this semester: Kaiser, Walter C., Jr., and Silva, Moisés. <i>Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning</i>; Lowe, Stephen D. and Mary E. Lowe. <i>Ecologies of Faith in a Digital Age</i>; excerpts from (same authors) <i>Orienting Adults to Learning in Graduate Theological Education</i>; and Zacharias, H. Daniel and Benjamin K. Forrest. <i>Surviving and Thriving in Seminary: An Academic and Spiritual Handbook</i>. All the texts were very helpful, interesting, and useful. They will be particularly useful in the future for research purposes. I have a love-hate relationship with how Liberty University does textbooks though … First off, they are wonderful when it comes to price/value! They provide almost every textbook I need as a part of the tuition! I do <b><i>not</i></b> (usually) need to buy textbooks in addition to paying for tuition. Also, I love that they are predominantly available and provided in digital format. They use the Logos Bible App to provide digital textbooks. That is incredibly useful and I can access these books anywhere from any device, even just online. However, this is probably my mistake, I dislike the textbooks because it seems like some are not permanent. I will be honest, I don’t read the whole text when we have a textbook assigned for a class. There is just too much to read and the important points from the text can be found with ‘ctrl-F’ or similar searching features on digital textbooks. I do the same with physical textbooks, though I have to use a couple different tools (books.google.com is one and of course, if the book has an index or the like). The point is that I love textbooks (most of my bookshelves have what could be used as a textbook). But, I don’t have time to read the whole book(s), but I don’t always have access to those books after the class. When I have completed this class and have completed my degree in full, I would like to go back and reread these texts in full. Unfortunately, for some, I cannot. I’d have to buy them for myself. For some I certainly will be interested in doing that, for others, they will likely just fall by the wayside. Lastly, I do not like the Logos Bible App that much. It has some useful tools (like searching all books, open books, or just the current book, and other sermon-writing tools), but in general I find it somewhat unwieldy. I like the OliveTree Bible App much better though it has fewer tools. It is easier to navigate and access my books. For example, I really cannot read more than one or two books at one time and really only need to access one or two references at one time. Logos allows for dozens of different books to be open at the same time, but that is distracting and really unhelpful. The OliveTree Bible App links tools so that you can access them quickly to reference them, but you can really only have two things open at any one time. It helps with focus and ease of navigation.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 29.333336px; margin: 0in; text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 32px;">The Elephant in the Sylabus<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 29.333336px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 32px;">What do I mean by that? Well, one of the biggest focal points for this class was digital learning. I’ve written a lot about my views on digital learning and this class has made me at least rethink those views. I haven’t really changed my mind though … I hope that’s not a disappointment to my professor or the writer of the textbooks (Lowe and Lowe). I love online tools for learning. I’ve already talked about using apps. I love those tools! I use them constantly! I haven’t taken my physical Bible to church in a long time because I take notes in my (aforementioned) Bible app. I have those notes forever now. If I want to reference a sermon that I know I’ve taken note of in the past, I can just search through my notes and find it! Every time I read through my Bible I see little icons (they can be turned off) of notes that I have taken previously. These can be simple interpretive notes or full sermons/notes that I have taken previously. Technology is a wonderful tool, if you doubt but have any interest in biblical languages check out <a href="https://biblehub.com/" style="color: #954f72;">https://biblehub.com/</a> sometime (or similar ones like <a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/" style="color: #954f72;">https://www.blueletterbible.org/</a>). These tools link the exact words of the original biblical texts with dictionaries and lexicons to do incredibly in-depth word studies, all for free! It’s not a complete substitute for Hebrew or Greek scholarship, but it grants even the casual learner access to the best scholarship on the original languages, for free online. There are other great online tools like Bible apps that come with a social aspect, digital joint prayer groups, study groups, etc. are all available for free online. We live in an age of digital access undreamed of by previous generations. So, in a sense, I don’t disagree with the notion that we can grow spiritually using these technologies. However, and maybe this is just me being an old fuddy-duddy, there’s still something missing in purely online relationships. I’ve made some friends online that I’ve never met in person and would love to someday. I’ve also made some friends online then subsequently met them in person and loved it. But, like the thought-experiment of <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-knowledge/" style="color: #954f72;">Mary, the colorblind neuroscientist</a>, there is something to be learned by experience and there is something to be felt in in-person relationships that is lacking in purely online relationships. To sum this up, let’s use these digital tools, but let’s still view them as tools, not the end-all of spiritual growth and interactions.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 29.333336px; margin: 0in; text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 32px;">Conclusions<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 29.333336px; margin: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 32px;">Where do I go from here? Well, as I said, this is my penultimate semester (minus an internship class). That means only two classes and an internship and I’ll have my MDiv in Christian Apologetics! I want to apply for a chaplaincy in the U.S. Air Force, but I’m not holding my breath there. I think God could use me there. I would love to have a career/job where my goal is to go in every day and make some Airman’s life better and help him or her with spiritual needs. How wonderful would it be to have that as a job!? Think about how you answer the question about what you do for a living. I currently answer, “I’m an intelligence analyst for the Air Force.” What does that really mean? Well, I go in every day and analyze/collect intelligence. That’s rather nebulous isn’t it? Well, if I can become a chaplain, my answer will be “Air Force chaplain, where I try to help people with spiritual troubles.” Talk about job satisfaction. I hope that works out. If it doesn’t, I’ll retire in a few years and seek to start a small church (or take over a church) and build a small homestead (probably in rural Tennessee or maybe western Michigan). When I retire and live off that pension and whatever part-time job I can get in Small-town-rural-Midwest, I’ll have a slower, less hectic lifestyle and work more and more in full-time ministry. I am looking forward to that day more and more every day.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 29.333336px; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 32px;"><br /></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHfxKKScFVZ8fexnwpUOW1lW6l4CSSqUVAHM83e6EJIl0NqtZ6rDH5h7z9sTlZD8udhIUe6OSqCXtwEI-J7Qvtp56QuGbeVX4WmiYppzH4djG5JfI2bVbZ5OWw-JU-vgb_nCLp-z7oNmdF6EqcKlPrbxLOUIDJfrXVAxZPX-a8iv_NHzqnOWjEAmwM/s2301/43A9BBBB-86F4-4015-8841-842BBC04CC15.jpeg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1536" data-original-width="2301" height="268" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHfxKKScFVZ8fexnwpUOW1lW6l4CSSqUVAHM83e6EJIl0NqtZ6rDH5h7z9sTlZD8udhIUe6OSqCXtwEI-J7Qvtp56QuGbeVX4WmiYppzH4djG5JfI2bVbZ5OWw-JU-vgb_nCLp-z7oNmdF6EqcKlPrbxLOUIDJfrXVAxZPX-a8iv_NHzqnOWjEAmwM/w400-h268/43A9BBBB-86F4-4015-8841-842BBC04CC15.jpeg" width="400" /></a></div><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 32px;"><o:p></o:p></span><p style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"></p>Samuel Ronickerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15254647831303355637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2149547883975131835.post-11639232799408621492023-05-04T13:07:00.003+09:002023-05-04T13:19:32.015+09:00Spiritual Formation - Blogging Assignment<h3 style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: small;">Introduction</span></b></h3><div>I know I have mentioned this before, but I am taking online seminary courses with the goal of becoming a military chaplain someday (soon I hope). Honestly, I need to review old posts more often … I noticed that I used the same picture twice in different blog entries! I’ll go back and fix that someday. But, as part of one of my classes this semester we have been reading <i>Ecologies of Faith in a Digital Age </i>by Stephen and Mary Lowe. Our assignment this week was to write 1,000 words on that book and my own experiences as if it were for an online blog. Well, as I have a blog that I run and write for occasionally I figured I’d just write it here for you to read and share.<div><br /></div><div>There are three different point for this post: 1) Two concepts about spiritual formation that I’ve found in the textbook that I need to incorporate into my life and ministry. 2) An outline of a plan of action to implement those areas into my life and ministry. And 3) a piece of advice from the other text <i>Surviving and Thriving in Seminary </i>for other seminary students to help them continue to grow in the faith while enrolled in seminary. As I have a fairly established format of informality I’ll continue that and of course I will share one of my favorite photos (hopefully not a duplicate this time) as I always do.</div><h3 style="text-align: center;"><b style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Ecologies of Faith Points</span></span></b></h3><div>1) Two points from <i>Ecologies of Faith in a Digital Age </i>that I need in my life: Well, one of the saddest points that I feel is missing from many ministries today is the lack of seeing ourselves as the Body of Christ (1 Cor 12:27; Eph 4:16; chapter four from the book). Why are we so independent (particularly here in the US)? I know it’s very much a cultural thing. I’ve studied some intercultural communication and one of the ideas that stood out to me is how independent people of the West tend to be. Even hinting at communal living and relating can lead to one being labeled a communist (which is worse, in the US, than being a heretic, or maybe the same). The fact is the church as described in Acts is described as very communal (Acts 4:32). This verse (and others) don’t seem very capitalistic! We seem to have been infected with the disease of self-sufficiency, but in reality we’re all reliant on God and in many ways, others, to live and do anything. Why do we seem to only care about ourselves both in our day-to-day lives and in our church lives? This is not Paul’s image (or the image from the textbook). We are a body. Sure, we don’t <i>have to </i>have all the parts, but imagine saying, “nah, I’m good, I don’t need both my eyes today,” and going about as if we don’t need others in our church or we ourselves are needed in our churches. Everyone is important and everyone needs to play a part; there should be no <a href="https://asana.com/resources/pareto-principle-80-20-rule">Pareto Principle</a> in our churches!</div><div><br /></div><div>Secondly, and this if from the very next chapter, I need to personally open myself up to digital spiritual formation. I have been going to online college for several years now, maybe I’ve grown tired of it? Maybe I’m not involved with the right online communities? It’s been very tough for me lately with this because an important part of my life, the Christian Apologetics Alliance and I have parted ways. I was trying to get the community back on track as being a premier online community of Christian apologists and be more active, but when my leadership was challenged, I decided it wasn’t the place for me. I don’t feel comfortable trying to lead a group that thinks I am not fit to lead them. Maybe it was just one vocal person, maybe I’m overreacting, I don’t know. But, I left what was the most meaningful and important (to me) online social groups for discipleship. I feel like something is missing in online relationships. Maybe it‘s just me being jaded about leaving that group, but I don’t feel any online connection with anyone, well, hardly anyone anymore. I would like to say that I’m using the time I used to spend on online relationships on more in-person engagement but not really. I’ve fallen behind in my classwork, I’ve not really been able to establish any better relationships in-person, and in general I’ve not been having a good last couple months. I pray that I’ll find some way to connect with someone soon and that I can get back into good relationships both in person and online. Right now, I’m in a desert and I don’t really see any way out.</div><h3 style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;">Plan of Action</span></h3><div>2) My plan of action! Well, I love the line from the Avengers movie from Iron Man, “I have a plan, <a href="https://youtu.be/_tUGy2IwNmw">attack</a>.” All that to say, well, I don’t have a plan. I guess I need to build one. First off, I think prayer would be the best place to start. I need to pray about better online (and in-person) communication and community. Spiritual formation definitely can take place online, I need to find the right community for it. Secondly, I need to find a better online resource for my spiritual gift(s), teaching. I have an in with a guy that runs an online seminary-level education website and I’ve discussed working with him. Unfortunately, the internship that I have to do as a capstone class will not accept an internship there with him. I have to find a place in a church to intern. Fortunately, as my church has a good relationship with Randy at the <a href="https://globalpastorinstitute.com/all-courses/?v=7516fd43adaa">Global Pastor Institute</a>, I’m fairly sure that some of my intern work will be in coordination with him as that would support my church and I would be able to support that ministry.</div><h3 style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;">Advice for Seminary Student</span></h3><div>3) What advice would I give to someone just getting started in seminary? Well, there’s a variety of things I would like to say to such a person. First off, in the vein of the topic of online Christian discipleship, don’t be like me and my situation right now. Keep a good cloud of witnesses around you (Heb 12:1), both in your church and online. Find a good small group or something similar if your church is too large or impersonal. Another tip would be to read a book like I mentioned above, <i>Surviving and Thriving in Seminary. </i>It gives great tips on getting through seminary, which can be broken down into three main categories (the different sections of the book). Prepare yourself. There are various ways to prepare yourself, but the more you prepare for seminary, the better you’ll be set up for success. Secondly, manage your time and energy well. This can take come preparation, but the better you manage your time and energy the more you’ll succeed. This is particularly important for someone like me who also has a full-time job and family to deal with. Balancing time spent on classes, work, and family can be tough, but is essential for success. One of the tools I use is time off work. Every semester I try to take off a few days near the end of the semester so I can be sure to get everything done. Unfortunately, that means that many times I am late on other assignments throughout the semester, but I make sure that everything gets done so that I don’t have any unfinished tasks by the end. The third tip in the book and the last for this entry is develop study skills. This too can be part of preparation, but don’t neglect this part of your studies. God will help you through this! Many others have gone before you and you can make it through too.</div><div><br /></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmGdL1VflR8wLxW2pZuG_08r3ZeSDDarE_0J2GgGVFc0h8oNo3vPj4Tfv_4xFNB-JaG5pqOrhS0cIQYnNo7Rqkn5LPLHQfPtP1icTi0FDMzsCt0MAhJH1cpjIolULyjSL3GOvZn8c5QBB7rIfzhWenVKlhvJVazpNRaj0lNnQCt9-zm0My0X7ffjjS/s1818/446538002056-R1-E005.jpeg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1818" data-original-width="1228" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmGdL1VflR8wLxW2pZuG_08r3ZeSDDarE_0J2GgGVFc0h8oNo3vPj4Tfv_4xFNB-JaG5pqOrhS0cIQYnNo7Rqkn5LPLHQfPtP1icTi0FDMzsCt0MAhJH1cpjIolULyjSL3GOvZn8c5QBB7rIfzhWenVKlhvJVazpNRaj0lNnQCt9-zm0My0X7ffjjS/w432-h640/446538002056-R1-E005.jpeg" width="432" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">My son’s dog, Shadow, longing to chase squirrels.</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><div><br /></div></div>Samuel Ronickerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15254647831303355637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2149547883975131835.post-12707555623945485442022-08-12T15:06:00.005+09:002023-01-13T13:54:57.767+09:00Politics and Me, Introduction<p> So, I don’t know how you spend your free time, but I like to spend my commute and my running time listening to various audiobooks. I used to listen to podcasts, but I’ve found that I live too close to the office and it’d take several days to get through just one podcast. So, I’ve switched to audiobooks and I’ve added them to my fitness time. I just finished an interesting book on politics and I have another on my docket for next. This book, <i><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/58684273">The Right; The Hundred-Year War for American Conservatism</a>, </i>really made me think about politics/political theory and my views. One of the main things it highlighted for me is that I don’t feel like I fit within any political party and that my political views are not party-focused or in support of any one party or candidate, but rather that I care much more about political philosophy and theory. Another thing that came to mind was how a Christian ought to approach politics. And, more specifically, how a pastor ought to approach politics (if at all).</p><p>I struggle with the very idea of being a politician. First, I don’t think anyone would really support me to the extent that I could be an elected official. However, I think such a person would be a good person to support. That is, the person who <i>wants</i> power and political influence is probably not the kind of person who would lead with his/her constituent’s best interests in mind. Another thought about being a politician that makes me fairly sure that I don’t want to be one is my distaste for red-tape/bureaucracy. I deal with just a taste of bureaucratic nonsense in my current job, and I hate it. I am certain that for the politician bureaucracy is a way of life. Maybe they like it, I don’t know nor do I understand such a view. I don’t know if it’s true, but based on my dad’s experience of bureaucracy even in the tiny town he lives and serves as a city councilman in, it must be terrible. I have always seen myself as a servant-leader. I don’t sit on high and tell my subordinates to “get to work.” I get out there with my subordinates and do the work with them. We’re in this together! Yes, when a decision is to be made, I’m the one who has to make it (sometimes), but that’s my burden and I bear the brunt of failed decisions. If I make a bad decision I own it and eat the humble pie. That’s my basic philosophy of leadership. Unfortunately, it seems like that’s not the way politics works! I think maybe this book, <i><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11612989">The Dictator’s Handbook</a></i>, and the <a href="https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs">YouTube video</a> based on that book, have made me jaded when it comes to politicians. To summarize the book and video in just a line or two, <i style="font-weight: bold;">all </i>politicians, everywhere really only have one goal in mind, staying in and increasing their power and influence. Servant leadership doesn’t fit with that idea of politics. How do we balance the idea that one ought to serve those they’re meant to lead with trying to maintain and grow one’s power at all cost. This is just one way in which my views don’t really fit with any particular political party.</p><p>Politics is such a huge topic I’m going to have to break this topic up into a series. In order to tackle everything I can, I’ve found a <a href="https://www.isidewith.com/polls">long list</a> of political issues from which I can draw topics.</p><p>Whew! That’s a <i style="font-weight: bold;">lot </i>of topics! To be honest I didn’t read through the whole list before considering it. I do want to write about everything on the list, but of course, some will be shorter answers than others. Most of these will require a lot of thought and more than simple one-word, yes/no answers. That’s part of what I see as wrong with American politics. Politicians are skilled at and are expected to give short, pithy responses to essentially all of these topics at any moment. However, some of them are way too complicated to be boiled down to a one-liner answer. I do look forward to so many options for so much content!</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMWuQiLN6pYYk7SCUcEzRtZCZrkQVlIyWLdvSKYE-UHOl0dFsogCzhBTwQ4gA-CCUn54z_fCvU5N1VxdjA3YnryUun-tNAMh7xw_tV3I0af7JnjiN2ymRsOeQHrgfCysjvBmw05yJ8vEKJr5gXPTEc5Wj_6mVLAX45LjzWYIJ9qcVG3QN6cruLgp5X/s1717/34DE7394-0915-4C5A-9EFB-9FABE61E14F5.jpeg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1717" data-original-width="1160" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMWuQiLN6pYYk7SCUcEzRtZCZrkQVlIyWLdvSKYE-UHOl0dFsogCzhBTwQ4gA-CCUn54z_fCvU5N1VxdjA3YnryUun-tNAMh7xw_tV3I0af7JnjiN2ymRsOeQHrgfCysjvBmw05yJ8vEKJr5gXPTEc5Wj_6mVLAX45LjzWYIJ9qcVG3QN6cruLgp5X/w432-h640/34DE7394-0915-4C5A-9EFB-9FABE61E14F5.jpeg" title="Bike at night American Village, Okinawa Japan Hand-held 100 ISO Film" width="432" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;">Bike at night in American Village, Okinawa, Japan; Hand-held 150 ISO Film</div><p></p>Samuel Ronickerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15254647831303355637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2149547883975131835.post-7700523633498199912022-04-04T04:18:00.000+09:002022-04-04T04:18:43.765+09:00Vacation and Life Plans - General Update<p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgai5JC-accL0UhPoaVU_-si3HsOuTGaoESKXy_Eqn_gvn9P21qDW0otDg0HSfDMzNnDpIBnxcolyw3duDNvk3-J7UNk0ExaHqflHxbNqgJpONXwEYOXnRtXXt0OQWzBHDlSLGiP60OvCdVSu9e2wbZh4D2a95-aYZuJOE459ESxkFVaTByn81OWJGd/s4032/IMG_1400.HEIC" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="4032" data-original-width="3024" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgai5JC-accL0UhPoaVU_-si3HsOuTGaoESKXy_Eqn_gvn9P21qDW0otDg0HSfDMzNnDpIBnxcolyw3duDNvk3-J7UNk0ExaHqflHxbNqgJpONXwEYOXnRtXXt0OQWzBHDlSLGiP60OvCdVSu9e2wbZh4D2a95-aYZuJOE459ESxkFVaTByn81OWJGd/w480-h640/IMG_1400.HEIC" width="480" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Northern Lights, taken while visiting Alaska Oct-Nov 2021</td></tr></tbody></table><br />Like I said in my I’m trying to get back into blogging more regularly. Something that has been on my mind for a while now is what I have planned for life after the military. Well, I know one thing … I do NOT want to stay in some kind of military-related job after retiring from the military. I joke all the time that I want all my clearances and certifications to expire at twenty years and never do anything military intelligence-related ever again after these years of service. I don’t hate what I do, but I’ve been looking for something of more significance in my life and in the lives of those I interact with. I want to do something more ministry-focused. I don’t know for sure what that will look like and I already do some ministry stuff, but I want to make that my main career, not a side-gig. Michelle (my wife in case you didn’t know) and I have been looking into what we want to do once I retire from the military. Our current plan goes something like this: retire from the military (4.5 years from now), shop around Michigan/Kentucky/West Virginia and maybe Ohio for 15+ acres of land to buy, buy that land and start building a farm/house/homestead, find a part-time or full-time ministry job like pastor for me. Of course, all of that is subject to change. If I finish my seminary degree and can be a military chaplain and I love that work, I might stay longer than twenty years in the military. If we can find an already established small farm/homestead, we’ll buy and renovate rather than buying and building a new house. Our goal is not really 100% self-sufficiency; we just want a nice-sized farm that provides much of our needs. I’ve also considered trying to run a small resort someday and that is still on the table. Essentially, we’d tag it on to the end of that plan and once our little farm is established we’d build a few cabins on the property and post them on AirBnB or have our own website or both. How involved we get with that is totally up in the air. We could make the resort our primary business (hosting camps/retreats for churches, business groups, etc.) or we could just have that as a feature of the farm where all we do is keep the rooms clean for the next set of visitors. We actually visited a camp not unlike what we are thinking of, yesterday after visiting with my parents. It’s called <a href="Higher Ground Camp https://goo.gl/maps/mxrUu7ctPaaxfdsP8" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Higher Ground Camp</a>. It is so small and obscure I literally cannot find a website for the camp, that link is to the Google Maps entry for the camp. The photos on Zillow/Realtor.com look lovely, but when we drove around it yesterday it certainly didn’t look as nice as the photos! Also, it was (sorta) on the market for $2.2M!? It’s not worth anywhere near that amount! I was talking with Michelle after our visit and on the drive back to her family’s house (where we stay when visiting family in Ohio). We talked about possibly working some kind of camp like that after I retire as well. The pastor who performed our wedding ceremony, his wife was a director of a camp in Bellefontaine, Ohio. I think that would be a good ministry for our family. I could lead the educational aspects of the camp and be the maintenance guy, Michelle could lead the other activities of the camp. And, if our boys want to be involved with the ministry, they could fit right in with whatever activities their talents lend them to. These are the kinds of things I’ve been thinking about while on vacation/visiting family in Ohio. We have already looked at some properties for sale down in Kentucky and got an idea of where we do NOT want to live. It was annoying because finding the actual properties that were for sale was virtually impossible; they weren’t marked. But, we were able to scope out the region/counties and see that we didn’t like the other properties in the area and ruled out some areas of Kentucky. We also drove up through rural, southern Ohio and love that area, but properties in Ohio are generally over-priced and mostly out of our budget. I would like to check out some areas in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan because I loved visiting Michigan all throughout my youth and think it would make a great place to build such a homestead/farm/resort/camp. Michelle used to work at a Boy Scout camp up in Michigan, so clearly that is an opportunity, though I think our camp wouldn’t be reserved for just Boy Scouts, but rather be open to churches and various other activities. We’ll just have to wait and see what God has planned for us! Until then, I’m going to keep plugging away at that seminary degree and working in military intelligence. Thanks for reading!</p>Samuel Ronickerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15254647831303355637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2149547883975131835.post-66051400161564250622022-03-19T13:04:00.005+09:002022-03-19T13:12:07.107+09:00Getting Back into Blogging<p></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi4YGeIrAMKcVf_Qu5paWVn_9O4NvSqksSF9yxaaNM1CuUdV8ip3slfVH5D5ZkBbHCmrzDo3isxb4U-9OesRn2E_FobkSxH_5XGzbCffPA80MtWMQYrMwFREryeABl2ImkkPLQE2OzcKSBaoBrXpSD0gX3RdGapUtXfqoLztVrBLAslIL6gwBWuoSPd" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img data-original-height="1078" data-original-width="728" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi4YGeIrAMKcVf_Qu5paWVn_9O4NvSqksSF9yxaaNM1CuUdV8ip3slfVH5D5ZkBbHCmrzDo3isxb4U-9OesRn2E_FobkSxH_5XGzbCffPA80MtWMQYrMwFREryeABl2ImkkPLQE2OzcKSBaoBrXpSD0gX3RdGapUtXfqoLztVrBLAslIL6gwBWuoSPd=w432-h640" width="432" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Night-time American Village, Okinawa, Japan 35mm film</td></tr></tbody></table>Well, it's only been almost two years since my last post! I think it's time to get this blogging going again. I used to love blogging. I don't know what happened! So much has happened in the past few years! My last post was back in July 2020, written mostly when I was deployed. One of the biggest changes in my life that I haven't written about before has been the introduction of penpalling. I found a penpal-finding Facebook page. It is a page dedicated to just posting something like: "I'm ____ and I'm looking for a penpal that is ...". In fact, the rules are written such that those are the only kinds of things you're permitted to post. Every once in a while there's a generic post about penpalling, not just looking for penpals. Well, I started writing a couple strangers and my parents. It's been a wonderful experience. Essentially, it's like having a couple new friends from all over the country. Unfortunately, because of various delays it seems like most of my penpals have dropped out of the penpalling hobby. One of them has stuck through the delays (while I was deployed I didn't write much), and I'm glad he has. I think hand-writing letters is a fun pastime that has died off. It makes me sad that people don't put pen to paper much anymore. I don't think it'll matter, but I'd love to think that my letters and my journals might matter to someone someday. I'm reading the book <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Severe-Mercy-Sheldon-Vanauken/dp/0060688246/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=a+severe+mercy&qid=1647659518&sr=8-1" target="_blank">A Severe Mercy</a> </i>and it entails some letters back and forth between the author, Sheldon Vanauken, and C.S. Lewis. I will almost certainly never achieve the level of C.S. Lewis, but I'd like to think that someone might like what I have to say and want to keep them and maybe share them with someone someday. Well, for that to ever happen, I have to actually write things! So, here I am, writing. Hopefully I can keep it up more this time. I only wrote five entries in 2020 and only one in 2019!<p></p><p>One piece of news that I do really think I want to share in this mini update. I sat with our unit's representative chaplain. He works with multiple units but he comes to our squadron three days a week. Well, today I had a chance to sit down with the chaplain and chat. Our chat reaffirmed that I want to finish my seminary degree and become a military (preferably an Air Force chaplain). I did find out an interesting piece of information today. Chaplains, when they gain their commission incur a four-year commitment. That's fine with me. And, if I really like the position I'll want to stay. If I stay over twenty years active duty I'll earn a better retirement. The chaplain I chatted with <i>started </i>his role as chaplain <i>after </i>he had served twenty years. The upside here is that if it doesn't work out for me to become a chaplain I will be able to retire. Hopefully, it's God's plan that I become a chaplain. I feel like that's what I'm called to do. I've wanted this for several years and I enjoy teaching and preaching. I just need to finish my degree and get some experience and then I'll apply.</p>Samuel Ronickerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15254647831303355637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2149547883975131835.post-83700591357118465252020-07-12T18:30:00.008+09:002020-07-12T18:41:53.202+09:00Hawking and Logic - From the book A Brief History of Time<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IBLu9Q5PbHE/XwrYY7QngmI/AAAAAAAC-Fg/mitbMmW-HNcdqnN0OEDu3qSXp3mk819SQCK4BGAsYHg/s640/IMG_0557.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="640" height="480" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IBLu9Q5PbHE/XwrYY7QngmI/AAAAAAAC-Fg/mitbMmW-HNcdqnN0OEDu3qSXp3mk819SQCK4BGAsYHg/w640-h480/IMG_0557.jpeg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Designed? Not designed? Can we infer design when we see it?<br /><br /></td></tr></tbody></table>So, as I wrote before, I'm currently working in the Middle East as part of my job in the military. I have lots of time on my hands and as part of using that time wisely, I've recently been listening to more audiobooks. This is a common practice for me back home, but here I have even more time to kill, which leads to listening to more books. I recently started listening through this work by Stephen Hawking, who I'm sure you've heard of as he was a popular leader in making scientific ideas consumable by the general public. A popular popularizer of science. This book is quite easy to listen to and comprehend and I highly recommend it. He (Hawking) makes clear that he doesn't believe in God, but there are some interesting points that I think he makes that might lead one closer to belief in God. For example, this paragraph from chapter eight (not sure what page):<div><blockquote>One possible answer is to say that God chose the initial configuration of the universe for reasons that we cannot hope to understand. This would certainly have been within the power of an omnipotent being, but if he had started it off in such an incomprehensible way, why did he choose to let it evolve according to laws that we could understand? The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they refect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired. It would be only natural to suppose that this order should apply not only to the laws, but also to the conditions at the boundary of space-time that specify the initial state of the universe. There may be a large number of models of the universe with different initial conditions that all obey the laws. There ought to be some principle that picks out one initial state, and hence one model, to represent our universe.</blockquote><div>What I read into his writing here is that Hawking would have been more inclined to believe in God if an actual “theory of everything” (TOE) were to be discovered. It’s interesting to me because I have said something akin to that whenever someone talks about a TOE. If such an equation exists, to me that implies, even more so, that there is a Grand Designer. The idea I'm going for is quite simple. Hawking says the idea in reverse: "if [God] had started [the universe] off in such an incomprehensible way, why did [God] choose to let [the universe] evolve according to laws that we could understand?" Or, more simply, we find the universe understandable, so if God made it understandable now, the initial conditions of the universe should also be understandable. I completely agree, and so do many others. What Hawking is hinting at here is what many call "teleological arguments" for God. Put simply, the universe is orderly, orderliness implies design, design implies a designer, the only being capable of such design would be what we call "God." This makes complete sense to me and I feel like a TOE points to design and therefore a Designer.</div></div><div><br /></div><div>Another interesting point in that same chapter is later when he talks about multiverse theories and the anthropic principle. I don't have a quote for this (audiobook), but two things stick out to me. He talks about infinity with regard to multiverse theories. I've written some about infinity and how people often misuse or misunderstand the concept <a href="http://www.samuelronicker.com/2012/07/infinity.html" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://www.samuelronicker.com/2014/08/atheists-agnostics-deists-and-theists.html" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://www.samuelronicker.com/2013/08/the-philosophy-of-thomas-aquinas-part-4.html" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://www.samuelronicker.com/2014/04/essay-on-plato-descartes-and-matrix.html" target="_blank">here</a> (infinite regress in epistemology), and <a href="http://www.samuelronicker.com/2013/08/the-philosophy-of-thomas-aquinas-part-3.html" target="_blank">here</a> (Aquinas' third "way"). Hawking talks about different theories of a multiverse and though he is carefully skeptical of them because of our inability to contact, view, get to, or understand such things, he addresses the idea quite a bit. But, when he talks of them he has a very small view of the word "infinite." As many philosophers have pointed out, an <i style="font-weight: bold;">actual infinite</i> creates or contains irreconcilable <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faQBrAQ87l4" target="_blank">paradoxes</a>. So, Hawking says that given an infinite number of universes or parts of an infinite set of local universes within a larger infinite space, there would be <b><i>more</i></b> universes that are incapable of supporting life. However, this idea illustrates his small view of the word "infinite." If there truly is an infinite number of universes, there would be an infinite number of universes that are capable of sustaining life. In fact, there would be an infinite number of universes identical to our own universe. "Infinite" really is that large of a concept (when used properly). In this same chapter he references the anthropic principle, which to me, is not a threat to theistic belief systems. Within the idea of the anthropic principle are two primary views. The "weak anthropic principle" is counter to the "strong anthropic principle." The weak version basically says that any design in the universe that we infer from the fact that we're here and alive is wrong. We wouldn't be here if the universe weren't this way and we're using survivorship-bias to say that we wouldn't be here if it were any different. The weak version is anti-design, saying that we are assuming design when we shouldn't. It's obvious that we have to be here because we're here and design has no part in it. Like looking at a painting that was made by throwing paint randomly at a canvas and seeing design in it, but in reality there is no design and our assumption of design is found in our bias toward assuming design in things. Honestly, I find the strong version more compelling because it's a version of the teleological argument for God. We're here and that's not surprising. Everything in the universe seems set up with the intention of producing a place where our observation of such things is possible, and we're here.</div><div><br /></div><div>To summarize my counterpoints. A TOE is one more in a <i style="font-weight: bold;">huge number </i>of elements of design in the universe. <a href="https://www.amazon.com/What-Atheist-Professor-Doesnt-Should-ebook/dp/B00CXOX3SC" target="_blank">This book</a> lists 93 just for the formation of the universe, 154 for the formation and growth of life on the Earth, and 10 more for the formation of life as we know it. If there's a TOE then it would make sense that a Grand Designer with intelligence beyond comprehension set up the universe with that as a framework. Also, an <i style="font-weight: bold;">actual infinite </i>is paradoxical and nonsensical and should not be a part of our understanding of the universe or multiverse. That idea that there even is a multiverse (either concurrent multiple universes or an infinite series of past and future universes) is taken completely on faith. How can someone who claims to be a scientist, who claims to care about evidence and logic, who asks for evidence for God, who claims there is no evidence for God, believe in something like the multiverse which, by definition, cannot possibly be tested for or evidence gathered for it? <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enough-Faith-Atheist/dp/1581345615/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=I+don%27t+have+enough+faith+to+be+an+atheist&qid=1594545849&sr=8-1" target="_blank">This book</a> has it right, it does take more faith to be an atheist.</div>Samuel Ronickerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15254647831303355637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2149547883975131835.post-50688893563678533932020-07-10T17:48:00.002+09:002020-07-10T17:52:43.788+09:00Day Two Writing - Still deployed and writing some about it<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKlxsMWyCEyTHJLBJtF4XsfQQN5H2ie5RkcpwA0RcS1HgXf42mXi2pLybfiD9HO0DVP5xtghYyKqQiUYxk69AvmPNelxcrSzYOBZA0a56mEUOM1NHZ75tKRmTRH5xh4GIDfZM3NoMqev4/s640/Deployed+-+1.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="640" height="375" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKlxsMWyCEyTHJLBJtF4XsfQQN5H2ie5RkcpwA0RcS1HgXf42mXi2pLybfiD9HO0DVP5xtghYyKqQiUYxk69AvmPNelxcrSzYOBZA0a56mEUOM1NHZ75tKRmTRH5xh4GIDfZM3NoMqev4/w500-h375/Deployed+-+1.jpeg" width="500" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">These were the temp buildings we started in, not where we are now.<br /></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><div>So, yesterday I talked about how I had some experience of being deployed with the military. Well, the main reason I was thinking about that yesterday is something happened here recently where a person on a backup crew complained pretty hardcore. I'm not talking about just whining and complaining just to complain. I'm talking about writing an email to all the leadership and even threatening to go to a higher authority with these complaints. I think what's bothering me is how that backup crew group has this trip even easier than the primary crews have it. Due to the nature of our mission, there's a small group of people here that aren't flying regularly, well, at all really. Their mission is not in high demand, so they're not being tasked to fly. So, they've been doing building-watch. Basically, they come in for about eight hours one or two days a week. Now, I don't want to put down this crew. For the most part, they're doing just fine. They come in, work their shift and that's that. They make it so that the regular ground support team doesn't have to work extra-long shifts and more days out of the week. My knee-jerk reaction was, how could we make it easier for that backup crew? Give them <i style="font-weight: bold;">more days</i> off? How do you give someone more time off if they're already not going into work? I suppose they could go home, but that defeats the purpose of having them out here. They're here for a special rare mission and mission support. If we sent them home then we couldn't do the missions that they're here to support. I get it, we're all away from home and that sucks, but really?!<div><br /></div><div>Another thought that hit me as I was out for a run this morning was this. Everyone ought to get the <i style="font-weight: bold;">worst possible </i>stuff that their job can give them early in their career. For example, in my own military career. I had only been in for less than two years when my son was due to be born and the military forced me to miss his birth, for training?! <i style="font-weight: bold;">What!? </i>That was some crap and an absolutely stupid situation that my leadership had no reason to put me through. At the time I didn't know this, but I did have recourse and I could have appealed to a higher-level authority. If I had done so, I probably would have been able to see my son's birth. Then, not long after finishing all my training, I got sent overseas on a deployment to Afghanistan. It wasn't as bad as other's experiences with that country, but as far as my cushy, flying, intel job, that was about as bad as it gets. I was away from home for training for three months, then in-country for six months. Nine total months away from home. Then, after I got home I was put on another trip. This time one month for training and six months in-country. I left for training after only being home for five months. Technically breaking the rules about 1-to-1 time off deployment because the training trips technically didn't count as deployment time.</div><div><br /></div><div>I have these tough experiences in my history and they've given me an interesting and I think, good perspective on other things. Like when I heard about what our schedule was to be like here I thought, "Well, I've had <i style="font-weight: bold;">much </i>worse!" Or, "It <i style="font-weight: bold;">could</i> be much worse!" If you start off with the worst your job can throw at you, the rest is easy.</div></div>Samuel Ronickerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15254647831303355637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2149547883975131835.post-40103322650454214492020-07-10T17:20:00.003+09:002020-07-10T17:21:04.814+09:00Apologetics Application Essay; Secular Humanism<div style="text-align: center;"><b>Introduction</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div>This paper seeks to analyze the worldview secular humanism and test it to see if it contains the truth about human origins and purpose. In analyzing this worldview, it will be beneficial to compare it with the Christian worldview to see which one better explains the human condition. Because the search for truth is the highest goal, this paper will attempt to compare the truth claims of secular humanism to see if it fits with reality and if it has any explanatory power. To start off, this paper will include a description and summary of the worldview and an overview of its major tenets including: its view of ultimate reality, its source of ultimate authority, its understanding of epistemology, its ontological view of human beings, and lastly its source of morality (if any).<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn1">[1]</a> After summarizing those tenets an evaluation of the worldview will include an analysis of that worldview including: how well it explains what it ought to explain, the worldview’s logical consistency or lack thereof, coherency of the view, its factual adequacy, its existential viability, and intellectual and cultural benefits (if any). As part of this analysis, this paper will also look at whether the worldview has had to radically change based on newly discovered counter-evidence and whether it provides the simplest yet complete explanation of all the facts.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn2">[2]</a> After thoroughly summarizing and analyzing secular humanism in that way, the same evaluative analysis criteria will be applied to Christianity as a worldview in order to compare the two views. The final sections will be a defense of how Christianity and concluding whether or not it is a better worldview.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Summary of the Worldview Secular Humanism</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><b>Ultimate Reality</b><div><br /></div><div>The first step in summarizing any worldview is to look at its understanding of ultimate reality, to understand what that worldview sees as really real. For the secular humanist ultimate reality is purely physical. Secular humanism is a what-you-see-is-what-you-get view of reality. It can be taken one step further, though philosophically minded secular humanists resist this, and can be expressed as only things provable by scientific inquiry are real. For the secular humanist God and anything non-physical does not exist.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn3">[3]</a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn4">[4]</a> Ultimate reality is nothing more than just physical objects such as sub-atomic particles, protons/neutrons/electrons, and other physical objects. Minds, God, spirits, and anything non-physical does not exist.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn5">[5]</a> Carl Sagan is famous for the quote “The Cosmos is all there is, or ever was, or ever will be,”<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn6">[6]</a> which sums up the secular humanists’ view of ultimate reality quite succinctly. The secular humanist view of reality leads directly to the only available source for ultimate authority, mankind.<br /><br /><b>Source of Ultimate Authority<br /></b><br />For the secular humanist, mankind is the measure of all things. And, for mankind, science is the ultimate authority, including on moral issues.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn7">[7]</a> There is no “ultimate authority” in the sense that there is some higher authority. There is only what we can see, feel, taste, touch, sense, test, measure, etc. There is no non-physical realm or authority stemming from such realm. Mankind is the only known intelligent being capable of making rational decisions about anything. And, as such is the only authority in anything, but that authority is not based on mankind’s ontology or by virtue of being human. That authority is merely a product of mankind’s ability to analyze information and apply the scientific method to the data and come to various conclusions. As such, the secular humanist can say that “science” is the ultimate authority. In addition to being secular humanism’s ultimate authority, science is secular humanism’s only source for epistemology.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn8">[8]</a><br /><br /><b>Understanding of Epistemology<br /></b><br />When asked how one can know what is true, the secular humanist must answer, “Science!” This leads to science (whatever that means) is also the answer to the question of what grounds knowledge. For many popular secular humanists, Bill Nye and Neil DeGrasse Tyson come to mind, this is the one-word answer to everything but particularly how we know anything. However, this philosophical position, scientism, is rejected by many philosophically-minded secular humanists, but it is still popular with social media atheists and the so-called “New Atheists.”<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn9">[9]</a> This position, scientism, fails its own test because the statement “Science is the only source for truth,” is not a statement of science. There is no way to scientifically test that statement. But, to continue summarizing secular humanism one must turn to how that worldview understand human beings.<br /><br /><b>Ontological View of Human Beings<br /></b><br />In many ways humans in secular humanism could be compared to God in the Christian worldview. Humans are the source of ultimate authority, science, morality, and the reason to do anything. The litmus test for moral actions is whether or not it will bring well-being for others, particularly humans.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn10">[10]</a> Also, under secular humanism humans are merely the product of time, chance, and natural pressures. There is nothing special or unique about humanity and it will someday be supplanted by a better species. Humans are nothing more than somewhat advanced animals with the curious ability to self-reflect and consider their actions with a wide-ranging view of its effects.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn11">[11]</a> Since humans are the sole source of authority in the secular humanist worldview it actually makes sense that humans are the source and authority for all moral issues as well.<br /><br /><b>Source of Morality<br /></b><br />In keeping with humans being the sole authority for morality, Harris, as seen in the subtitle of his book The Moral Landscape makes the case that science can give us morality and value.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn12">[12]</a> A position, no doubt that Dennett would support as he attempts to derive meaning from evolution.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn13">[13]</a> The position of secular humanism is that one is obligated to treat humans well. In many ways secular humanism is a kinder, gentler version of atheism. A version of atheism that says one must be kind to humanity. Harris’ whole moral edifice is built on this idea that human wellbeing is paramount and that the moral thing is to follow one’s biological directive to increase one’s own wellbeing as well as that of the human race.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn14">[14]</a><br /><br /><b>Summary<br /></b><br />In summary, secular humanism is the view that there is nothing but material reality to the universe, that humankind is the ultimate authority, that science is the only source of knowledge, human beings are merely highly evolved animals, and morality is a sort of scientifically derived rules that say to treat humans kindly.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Evaluation of the Worldview</b></div><br /><b>Explains What It Ought to Explain<br /></b><br />The first question in evaluating any worldview is whether or not it explains what it ought to explain. Secular humanism as a worldview fails to explain several features of reality that we know and experience all the time. For example, anything non-physical like mental activities, cannot be explained at all through this worldview.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn15">[15]</a> Also, as we explore more and more into the quantum realm even physical reality is seeming less and less explicable from a purely physical standpoint.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn16">[16]</a> Also, there are numerous features of the physical world that clearly cannot be explained by purely physical responses. For example, the existence of the physical universe itself fails to explain itself. More and more discoveries surrounding Big Bang cosmology are defying scientific explanation.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn17">[17]</a> Therefore, secular humanism fails to explain anything with metaphysical concepts at its core. There is no room for the metaphysical in secular humanism.<br /><br /><b>Internal Logical Consistency<br /></b><br />With the abandonment of any semblance of metaphysics there is one major logical inconsistency that is clear, ontology in general fails for secular humanism. Ontology is a metaphysical concept; therefore, it is not acceptable in secular humanist thought. Also, the epistemology of secular humanism, without any ontological grounding, is merely science as the only arbiter of truth, but that view cannot be tested by science itself and indeed is borrowing from the ontological ideas of religion to progress at all.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn18">[18]</a> If science is the only way to analyze truth, then the foundation of science is philosophical, not scientific and the system collapses without an internal logical consistency. Though it may be logically inconsistent, the next question must be whether it is it livable or existentially viable.<br /><br /><b>Existential Viability<br /></b><br />While at first glance, and by their own insistence, this view is existentially positive in nature, but in reality, they have to steal an important position from the Christian worldview. The secular humanist has to steal the idea that humans are valuable from the Christian worldview.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn19">[19]</a> Under secular humanism there is no ultimate reason to treat other humans well. This is merely an assertion that many people have rejected. This completely ad hoc assertion that one must treat other humans well leads to the next criteria in evaluating a worldview.<br /><br /><b>Radical Ad Hoc Readjustment<br /></b><br />One must ask if secular humanism has or needs to offer some radical ad hoc readjustment after new scientific findings have been made. There is at least one point where this view has sought to radically readjust itself. Before Big Bang cosmology was established those who rejected God as creator of the universe could rest comfortably assuming there was no ultimate beginning, which implies a creator. However, since science has fairly firmly concluded that there was an ultimate beginning, scientists have scrambled to find anything that will allow the dismissal of an ultimate beginning (Hawking’s rounded boundary for the universe, multiverse theories, etc.).<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn20">[20]</a> The multiverse theory is another radical ad hoc readjustment to Big Bang cosmology and the apparent design of the universe. One area where secular humanism claims victory is in simplicity, which is the next and last question in this analysis.<br /><br /><b>Simpler Explanations Are Better Than Complex Ones<br /></b><br />We take this idea for granted and secular humanists definitely tout this as a strength, that simpler explanations are better. Secular humanism claims to have simpler explanations than Christianity in nearly everything because it omits the Creator. However, there are two problems with this. One, just having a simpler explanation is not enough. It has to be a simpler explanation that also sufficiently explains all the facts. Secondly, removing God as an explanation seems like it would simplify things but it does not because it adds needed explanatory factors. Removing a creator means that in order for biological life to be come to exist time, chance, and natural pressures. Those are three (insufficient) explanatory factors, however, with Christianity only one explanatory factor is needed, God.<br /><br /><b>Summary of Evaluation<br /></b><br />In evaluating the worldview of secular humanism, it is clear that it fails every portion of the test. It is not able to explain existence or answer questions about why we are here and what we ought to do now that we are here. It fails to maintain a logical consistency since it has a logically incoherent epistemology and ontology. It is existentially unviable because it has no basis by which one ought to behave well and borrows from other worldviews to build that part of its worldview. It has gone through major turmoil with the discovery of Big Bang cosmology and has sought to redefine that aspect of its views in various ways. And lastly, it is not really simpler or at least not simpler in a satisfactory manner. In many areas it requires outside inputs to move forward and cannot explain anything fully within itself.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Evaluation of Christianity</b></div><br /><b>Explains What It Ought to Explain<br /></b><br />In order to fairly judge between secular humanism and Christianity one must subject both to the same evaluative criteria. So, in asking whether or not Christianity explains what it ought to explain we see that Christianity explains the human condition, sinfulness, and its uniqueness being made in the image of God. It also explains the source of all reality, God, and the source of morality, also God. In addition to explaining the human condition of sinfulness, Christianity gives a method of redemption and an explanation of the end of the problem with God making all things anew without the problem of sin. What else can be added to these questions? It seems as if Christianity certainly has the answers necessary here, but one must also ask if it is consistent.<br /><br /><b>Internal Logical Consistency<br /></b><br />Though many have attempted to point out logical inconsistencies with the Bible and with Christianity in general, it has stood the test of time and analysis. All of the supposed biblical inconsistencies are almost always due to an extremely literalistic reading of the biblical narrative. Also, though some have attempted to show a logical incoherence in the existence of God and evil, these attempts have failed.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn21">[21]</a> The same is true for attempts to show an inconsistency in the concept of omnipotence, they all fail. Christianity offers logically consistent responses to those arguments as well. Not only is Christianity logically consistent it is certainly existentially viable.<br /><br /><b>Existential Viability<br /></b><br />The Christian life is existentially viable in every way as it is consistently lived out by millions of happy, well-adjusted, thoughtful Christians all around the world in every level of social structure and in every cultural milieu. Not only is it existentially viable, it is existentially preferable. Christianity gives deeper meaning and goal-oriented life to its adherents. It gives a deep and meaningful source for humanity and an ultimate goal of loving God and following God’s guide for proper human living. Christianity is not just logical and preferable, is also is consistent.<br /><br /><b>Radical Ad Hoc Readjustment<br /></b><br />While some have felt the need to radically readjust Christian views (modern, ultra-liberal Christians), there is no need to nor is there any such readjustment in orthodox Christianity.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn22">[22]</a> <a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn23">[23]</a> In fact, the very concept of orthodoxy resists any such readjustment. The goal of many thoughtful theologians is how we can incorporate new information into orthodoxy not radically readjust our views. In many ways consistency is what is needed in this troubled world and Christianity can be that answer, but there is one more question to analyze in Christianity.<br /><br /><b>Simpler Explanations Are Better Than Complex Ones<br /></b><br />Is Christianity simpler? Though this may seem like “cheating” the Christian worldview can actually give the simplest explanation of all, “God did it.” However, clearly that answer can be a discussion-killer and need not be used for everything or indeed anything. In fact, this is a common criticism of Christianity, that it relies solely on a God-of-the-gaps explanation for everything. However, this is unnecessary as God has given us enough information and we can coherently combine that information with natural studies to come to logical and coherent views of virtually every facet of human existence. We might not know how God did it, but we can easily infer that God did it and that is the only explanation that can cover all the facts.<br /><br /><b>Summary of Evaluation<br /></b><br />While secular humanism failed in every aspect of evaluation, Christianity has passed and passed with flying colors. As Christ said that He had come that we “may have life, and have it abundantly.” (Jn 10:10, NASB)<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn24">[24]</a> As part of that abundant life Christians have explanations for all the important facets of life, logical consistency, existential consistency, stability, and simpler explanations that deal with what they must deal with to be worthwhile explanations. There are, of course, arguments against Christianity and it is to those one must turn next.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Defense of Christianity</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><b>Problem of Evil<br /></b><br />One of the most popular and in some ways difficult to answer criticism of Christianity (and theism in general) is the problem of evil. However, as Craig and others have shown Christianity’s answer to the problem of evil is superior in every way to secular humanism and indeed every other worldview. Although secular humanism gives no account for what it means to be evil at all, and secular humanism must rely on moral relativism which is a self-defeating view of morality, Christianity has no such problem. Under secular humanism nothing is actually right or wrong if there is no objective ontology for moral truth. The secular humanist view is that humans are the sole source for what is evil and the sole judge of what is evil, then what is evil today at one point was not evil at all. What is good today may someday become evil. This inconsistency is particularly clear in the moral problem of evil, but with the natural problem of evil is it also true. For the secular humanist, there is no evil in nature. In fact, without death and disease in nature evolutionary progress is impossible. On the other hand, Christianity has a knock-down argument concerning the existence of evil: “1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. 2. Evil exists. 3. Therefore, objective moral values exist (some things are evil!). 4. Therefore, God exists.”<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn25">[25]</a> Christianity takes the so-called problem of evil and makes it an argument for God. That is because if God does not exist, then objective morality and evil would not exist. Therefore, there really is no problem of evil for the Christian. At least not philosophically. There is an existential version of the problem of evil. That version is about degrees of evil. The problem there is in subjectivity. The existential version asks why there is so much evil in the world if there is a good God who could stop it. However, this fails because it is impossible to define how much is too much evil. Also, when exploring how God could eradicate evil without causing evil or removing free will there is no good answer. That is just one argument for God, there are others that one can look to that make the existence of God and the truth of Christianity more secure.<br /><br /><b>Arguments for the Existence of God<br /></b><br />First, the cosmological argument (Craig espouses what he calls the Kalam cosmological argument): “1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.”<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn26">[26]</a> Next logically follows concerning the universe and how it is arranged. The teleological argument can be phrased: “1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either law, chance, or design. 2. It is not due to law or chance. 3. Therefore, it is due to design.”<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn27">[27]</a> These two arguments taken together do not get to the truth of the Christian worldview. However, the absolutely essential argument for the Resurrection of Christ will put the nail in the doubting coffin.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn28">[28]</a> There is not space to go through all the parts of the arguments here but the basics are simple. There are no alternative explanations for the Resurrection. The various alternate explanations have been defeated in various ways and in various locations.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn29">[29]</a> There is much more to be said about the arguments for God but those three and the turned-on-its-head argument from evil are more than enough to establish the reasonableness of the Christian worldview.<br /><br /><b>Defense of Objective Truth and Moral Values<br /></b><br />Before concluding, a short word should be said about truth with regards to the Christian worldview. Objective truth and moral values can only be found in theistic worldviews and Christianity gives the most coherent version of this. In dualistic worldviews the idea fails because they allow a space for an equivalently-powered being to contradict the “good” version of God in every way. If there are two equally-powered beings, one good and one bad, one could never know if the revelation one is receiving is from the good version of god or the bad. However, Christianity offers a consistent position that God in his ultimate goodness and authority is the sole ontological source for objective truth and moral truths.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Conclusion</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div>Clearly, with the abject failure of secular humanism and the success of the Christian worldview one is only left with one remaining question, “What should you do if Christianity is true?” The only reasonable answer seems to be to embrace Christ. Once one does so, one “in Christ, is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.” (2 Cor 5:17b) There is new life and as mentioned before, life abundant. If Christianity is true why not embrace it? Truth the ultimate goal of this paper. If one has found “the way, and the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6) in Christ, one only has repentance and acceptance remaining to join the family of Christianity.<br /><br /><b>Footnotes</b>:<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref1">[1]</a> Douglas R. Groothuis, <i>Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith</i> (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011), 75.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref2">[2]</a> Ibid., 53-60.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref3">[3]</a> "Definition of Humanism," American Humanist Association, accessed December 14, 2018, <a href="https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/definition-of-humanism/">https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/definition-of-humanism/</a>.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref4">[4]</a> Marc Kreidler, "What Is Secular Humanism?" <i>Ingersoll Biography - Council for Secular Humanism</i>, August 16, 2018, accessed December 14, 2018, <a href="https://secularhumanism.org/what-is-secular-humanism/">https://secularhumanism.org/what-is-secular-humanism/</a>.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref5">[5]</a> Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, <i>The Grand Design</i> (Place of Publication Not Identified: Transworld Digital, 2015).<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref6">[6]</a> Agarthas888, <i>Cosmos 1</i> - "The Shores of the Cosmic Ocean,” December 18, 2017, accessed December 14, 2018, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfCc7ZJjHiM">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfCc7ZJjHiM</a>.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref7">[7]</a> Sam Harris, <i>The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values</i> (London: Black Swan, 2012), 2.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref8">[8]</a> Helen Longino, "The Social Dimensions of Scientific Knowledge," <i>Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</i>, April 12, 2002, accessed December 14, 2018, <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-knowledge-social/">https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-knowledge-social/</a>.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref9">[9]</a> James E. Taylor, "The New Atheists," <i>Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy</i>, accessed December 14, 2018, <a href="https://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/">https://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/</a>. The section of this article entitled “Works About the New Atheism” has a high quality selection of apologetic responses to New Atheists in particular and secular humanism in general.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref10">[10]</a> An interesting side note is that, as Bush states, in the secular world humans are losing their humanness.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref11">[11]</a> L. Russ Bush, <i>The Advancement: Keeping the Faith in an Evolutionary Age</i> (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 33.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref12">[12]</a> Harris, <i>The Moral Landscape</i> 2.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref13">[13]</a> Daniel C. Dennett, <i>Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meaning of Life</i> (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster 1996).<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref14">[14]</a> Harris, <i>The Moral Landscape</i> 1.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref15">[15]</a> Also, in many ways these cannot be studied by science, which is secular humanism’s sole arbiter of truth.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref16">[16]</a> Bush, <i>The Advancement</i> 54.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref17">[17]</a> Stephen J. Williams, <i>What Your Atheist Professor Doesn't Know (But Should)</i>. (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2013), 32.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref18">[18]</a> Frank Turek, <i>Stealing from God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case</i> (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2015).<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref19">[19]</a> Ibid., 92.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref20">[20]</a> S.W Hawking et al., <i>Brief Answers to the Big Questions</i> (London: John Murray, 2018), 47.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref21">[21]</a> William Lane Craig, <i>On Guard Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision</i> (Colorado Springs, Co.: Cook, 2010), Foreword and elsewhere.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref22">[22]</a> John C. Lennox, <i>Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science</i> (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 15. This first chapter of Lennox’s book draws an interesting parallel between the Copernican revolution of the moving earth and possible readings/understandings of the “days” of creation in Genesis.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref23">[23]</a> Bush, <i>The Advancement</i> 55.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref24">[24]</a> All Scripture references will be in New American Standard unless otherwise noted.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref25">[25]</a> William Lane Craig, <i>On Guard</i> Chapter 7.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref26">[26]</a> William Lane Craig, <i>On Guard</i> Chapter 4.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref27">[27]</a> Stephen J. Williams, <i>What Your Atheist Professor</i> 123. This text also has the most impressive listing of delicately balanced constants of the universe for life to exist.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref28">[28]</a> Douglas R. Groothuis, <i>Christian Apologetics</i> 529.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref29">[29]</a> Lee Strobel and Jane Vogel, <i>The Case for Christ: A Journalists Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus</i> (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017).</div><div><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Bibliography</b></div><div><br /></div><div>Agarthas888. Cosmos 1 - "The Shores of the Cosmic Ocean.” December 18, 2017. Accessed December 14, 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfCc7ZJjHiM.</div><div><br /></div><div>Beckwith, Francis, and Gregory Koukl. Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-air. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000.</div><div><br /></div><div>Bush, L. Russ. The Advancement: Keeping the Faith in an Evolutionary Age. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003.</div><div><br /></div><div>Craig, William Lane. On Guard Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision. Colorado Springs, Co.: Cook, 2010.</div><div><br /></div><div>Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. London: Black Swan, 2016.</div><div><br /></div><div>"Definition of Humanism." American Humanist Association. Accessed December 14, 2018. https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/definition-of-humanism/.</div><div><br /></div><div>Dennett, Daniel C. Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meaning of Life. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1996.</div><div><br /></div><div>Dillahunty, Matt. YouTube. October 05, 2016. Accessed December 14, 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKlycI9ZKsY.</div><div><br /></div><div>Grayling, A. C. The Good Book: A Humanist Bible. New York: Walker &, 2014.</div><div><br /></div><div>Groothuis, Douglas R. Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011.</div><div><br /></div><div>Harris, Sam. The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. London: Transworld Publishers, 2012.</div><div><br /></div><div>________. Waking up a Guide to Spirituality without Religion. London: Black Swan, 2015.</div><div><br /></div><div>Hawking, S.W, Eddie Redmayne, Kip S. Thorne, and Lucy Hawking. Brief Answers to the Big Questions. London: John Murray, 2018.</div><div><br /></div><div>Hitchens, Christopher. God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. London: Atlantic Books, 2017.</div><div><br /></div><div>Kreidler, Marc. "What Is Secular Humanism?" Ingersoll Biography - Council for Secular Humanism. August 16, 2018. Accessed December 14, 2018. https://secularhumanism.org/what-is-secular-humanism/.</div><div><br /></div><div>Lennox, John C. Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011.</div><div><br /></div><div>Longino, Helen. "The Social Dimensions of Scientific Knowledge." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. April 12, 2002. Accessed December 14, 2018. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-knowledge-social/.</div><div><br /></div><div>Plantinga, Alvin. Warranted Christian Belief. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.</div><div><br /></div><div>Russell, Bertrand. Why I Am Not a Christian; An Examination of the God-Idea and Christianity. Girard, Kansas: Haldeman-Jullius Company, 1929.</div><div><br /></div><div>ScienceToday. YouTube. May 21, 2017. Accessed December 14, 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=711VklH-4fA.</div><div><br /></div><div>Strobel, Lee, and Jane Vogel. The Case for Christ: A Journalists Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017.</div><div><br /></div><div>Taylor, James E. "The New Atheists." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed December 14, 2018. https://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/.</div><div><br /></div><div>Turek, Frank. Stealing from God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2015.</div><div><br /></div><div>Williams, Stephen J. What Your Atheist Professor Doesn't Know (But Should). CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2013.</div></div>Samuel Ronickerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15254647831303355637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2149547883975131835.post-75617297041637507572020-07-09T17:16:00.007+09:002020-07-09T17:21:49.220+09:00More Writing - This is still not a deployment blogI recently copyedited a friend of mine's book (fourth one I've edited for him). Reading his writing has made me want to get into writing more (again). I used to write much more often and it makes me sad that I haven't really written anything other than classwork-related essays for over two years! Also, I'm deployed (fourth time for that) and I have plenty of extra time and I've wasted much of that time and I've decided that it's time to spend some of that time doing something productive.<div><br /></div><div>I've been deployed to the Middle East for almost two months of a three-month trip. It's been an interesting and different experience from the previous three trips. Back in 2010, 11, and 12, I deployed to Afghanistan, Iraq, and a second trip to Afghanistan. Those trips were two six-month trips then one three-month trip. In all three of those trips, we were required to wear uniform 100% of the time. On those trips, I flew missions almost every day. And, on days when I didn't fly, I still worked building watch and cleanup. We did get days off but they came few and far between. In fact, generally, I got one day off of work each month. They weren't the worst times of my life and the time flew by even sometimes being fun. Those trips were deployments. This one is, well, not. For example, on this trip, we have a regular schedule that goes something like this: mission planning day (about two hours of work), fly a mission (about a ten-hour day), mission planning day again, fly day, down-day, repeat. Accounting just hours worked that's about twenty-four hours in a five-day cycle. The only downside is that there's no accounting for holidays, weekends or anything like that. So, if a fly day occurs on July Fourth, so be it. There are no weekends or holidays here, just that five-day cycle. On top of that, there's next to no uniform requirement here. Unless actually flying a mission there's no requirement to wear a uniform (more or less). Basically, this is a vacation in a crappy location that I'd never vacation in with a smattering of work thrown in. Not only is the schedule here a piece of cake, my crew is pretty cool. We have tons of fun pretty much every flight. They're chill missions, not much to do. We chat, laugh, and sing pretty throughout pretty much the whole mission. It's been a good trip.</div><div><br /></div><div>It's been a good trip but I'm glad that it's almost over (hopefully).</div>Samuel Ronickerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15254647831303355637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2149547883975131835.post-63241867628348793822020-07-09T16:31:00.000+09:002020-07-09T16:31:19.178+09:00Faith and Reason in ChristianityMuch like the previous entry, I'm sharing some essays I've written for my classes. This is one that I wrote for an apologetics class.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Introduction</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div>The word “faith” has had a difficult run the past few years. What with so-called “New Atheists” and typical internet activist atheists battering and changing the word to mean what they want it to mean, namely, blind faith.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn1">[1]</a> Christians need to shake off the anti-intellectualism that has taken root in the Church in order to meet those kinds of challenges.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn2">[2]</a> The Christian faith is completely different than what its adversaries make it out to be. Unfortunately, many Christians also struggle to define faith properly, and with an inadequate understanding of faith there is no hope for the anti-intellectual Christian to properly balance faith with reason. Therefore, before discussing the role of reason and the balance of reason with faith in Christianity, one must first understand faith itself. Then, after a thorough understanding of faith then one can proceed to attempt a balance, and lastly, this discussion must turn to applying these ideas in local churches and around the world.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Defining Faith - Introduction</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div>With so many wrong ideas out there on both sides, what really is Christian faith? In some ways trying to nail down a definition of faith, even among Christians, is difficult. What is particularly difficult about this is reading detractors of Christianity. Atheists, particularly Boghossian, and the like want to use one particular definition of faith.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn3">[3]</a> Are these valid definitions? Should Christians allow the opponents of Christianity to define faith? The definition of Christian faith includes three facets: a cognitive component, how faith means to believe certain things about God; a relational component, how faith is a type of trust in God based on beliefs; and a behavioral component, the response in faith to God. These three components come together to defy how opponents of Christianity define faith. Though these three together are a much more reasonable understanding of how Christians have and exercise faith, it is the relational component, faith that is more akin to trust, is the most important of the three.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Defining Faith - Cognitive Component</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div>The cognitive component of faith is probably what most non-Christians and non-philosophical Christians think of when they think of faith. It fits with Boghossian’s redefinition somewhat in that this is about epistemology.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn4">[4]</a> This idea of faith could also be called the doxastic theory of faith.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn5">[5]</a> That theory is defended in many places but do those positions truly represent the Christian faith fairly? Malcom and Scott’s critiques of non-doxastic views of faith, which this paper will support, all seem to fall flat.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn6">[6]</a> Their critique of “the argument from doubt” seems to not take the position seriously. Their critique of “the argument from linguistic data” has the same problem. It does matter how people use the word. If one consistently uses the word faith to reference a sincere trust in something for which they have some, little, or no evidence for, does have an important bearing on the meaning of faith. Then when critiquing “the argument from pragmatic faith,” though they describe the idea fairly well, they straw-man the idea, offering a syllogism that seems like one that no supporter of non-doxastic faith views would support:<br /><br />[1] Pragmatic faith is faith.<br /><br />[2] Pragmatic faith is not constituted by belief.<br /><br />[3] So, faith is not constituted by belief.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn7">[7]</a><br /><br />Clearly, this is a viciously circular argument for pragmatic faith that no proponent of a pragmatic view of faith would support. The next critique offered relies on there being imposter faithful. But, what does the possibility of imposters have to do with those that claim to have faith that is more like trust? The possibility of imposters does not detract from the actual faithful. The possibility of imposters only effects our ability to distinguish truly faithful from the fakes, not the actual existence of faith based on something other than mere belief. Though Malcom and Scott claim to be supporting a “belief-plus” paradigm of faith, they treat every argument for the non-doxastic theory of faith as belief only. Also, the paper even admits that they are only concerned with “faith that” ideas, ignoring “faith in” ideas.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn8">[8]</a> Craig uses a different phrasing, but the concept is similar. He uses the difference “. . . between knowing Christianity to be true and showing Christianity to be true.”<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn9">[9]</a> In knowing Christianity to be true we can trust (used somewhat ironically there) the inner witness of the Holy Spirit, by which, Craig here references but seems to agree with Plantinga that the witness improves upon the sensus divinitatis.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn10">[10]</a> What then is the conclusion for this component? The key here is the word, “component.” The Christian faith is multi-faceted and this is only one part and not even the most important part.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Defining Faith - Relational Component</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div>Having looked at the epistemological ideas behind what many think of as faith, it is important to turn to the relational component of faith, which is trusting in God based on what one believes. One thing that sits strongly in favor of the Christian view of faith as “trust” is that the online dictionary lists “belief and trust in and loyalty to God” (emphasis added) as one of the first definitions. In fact, if one consults the dictionary provided automatically (by Google) one sees it as even more supportive of this view, “complete trust or confidence in someone or something” as the first definition given.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn11">[11]</a> Though it is encouraging to read articles like Buchak’s “Can it be Rational to Have Faith?” even there she admits too much of the epistemological side of faith, wherein she says that “. . . faith seems to involve going beyond the evidence in some way.”<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn12">[12]</a> Unlike the Malcom and Scott essay, Buchak at least allows for more than just belief. Also, unlike the Malcom and Scott’s essay where non-doxastic faith was circular and irrational, Buchak’s position is that faith can be rational. Faith, to be rational, must be “based on a large amount of evidence.”<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn13">[13]</a> To take it one step further down the route toward a non-doxastic view of faith, Katherine Dormandy’s paper presents faith as primarily evidence-seeking.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn14">[14]</a> Dormandy’s analysis of the story of Job is particularly interesting because Job is often taken as an example of blind faith. However, Job does seek some support for his faith and he is driven to worship God because he rationally believes that God is good and just.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn15">[15]</a> Dormandy’s article expertly dismantles a common theme with Christians as Christianity has gone down the road of anti-intellectualism.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn16">[16]</a> More and more Christians are thinking less and feeling more. Seeing faith as seeking evidence is a great way turn the tide against anti-intellectualism. This component of faith, even taken alone, is the closest to seeing faith as a strong synonym to trust, which is really the way Christianity uses the word. It is still one component if it is the most important, so there is one more component to consider before closing.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Defining Faith - Behavioral Component</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div>Faithfulness in one’s response to God is the final component, the behavioral component of faith. Daniel Howard-Snyder’s article about propositional faith defines this well, “Propositional faith is not a proposition, state of affairs, process, or journey; it's an attitude, an attitude that is not to be identified with knowledge or assent; it need not be based on authority or testimony, and it need not involve certainty, eagerness, generation by an act of will, or entrusting one's welfare to someone.”<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn17">[17]</a> This attitude of propositional faith, the behavioral component, is longstanding. It can face adversity and doubts.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn18">[18]</a> Given one’s faith (that is, trust) in God, how does Howard-Snyder’s syllogism end if the proposition is “God exists”? (S = subject) If the subject believes that God exists, then, given the Subject’s goals, aversions, and other cognitive stances, the subject will tend to act in appropriate ways.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn19">[19]</a> This component is one of attitude, not belief and not relational in nature. Of course, that does not mean that the Christian faith is one of these components at the expense of the other.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Defining Faith - Conclusions</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div>The worst mistake one can make is pigeon-holing Christian faith into one of the components mentioned in this essay. The Christian faith is all of these components and more. One would do well to take a page out of Hegel’s dialectics and take these seemingly opposing components and synthesize them together.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn20">[20]</a> Perhaps it would be easier to say what the Christian faith is not. It is not: the absence of doubt, mere belief (pure doxastic faith), merely relational, or merely behavioral. None of these components are sufficient on their own. They must be put together and lived out. False caricatures of faith like those presented by Boghossian and other opponents of Christianity.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn21">[21]</a> This is only one side of the equation, next is reason.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Defining the Christians’ Use of Reason</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div>On the one hand, reason is fairly easily defined as properly applying logic and right thinking.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn22">[22]</a> Being reasonable is rightly applying logic and rational thought to various issues. One cannot think rationally without first studying logic and philosophy. The use of reason does not diminish one’s faith. Indeed, as one can see in the behavioral component of defining the Christian faith, faith is closer to trust than the epistemic concept of faith. Christian faith is truly non-doxastic. The Christian faith, is not merely belief, it is trust and obedience to Christ. Therefore, one must exercise one’s reason to have faith. Reason is an exercise that one must practice. It cannot simply be learned; it must be applied. There are many ways to learn and practice one’s reasoning skills. There are online courses available for free that teach the basics of philosophical thought and reason, and the best way to apply the lessons learned is to go out and meet with and dialogue with others about one’s thoughts, beliefs, and ideas.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn23">[23]</a> Engaging others in dialogue is another important part of building and exercising one’s reason. That can also be done for free and through numerous online resources. The easiest of which is social media. Particularly, there is the high-quality Christian Apologetics Alliance Facebook page where one can meet with other reason-oriented Christian apologist and discuss defending the faith reasonably.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn24">[24]</a> These are just some of the ways one can exercise one’s reason with regards to Christianity, but how does one balance just using reason and faith? That is where this paper turns next.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Balancing Reason and Faith</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div>The issue here is how can one balance reason and faith in one’s worship of God. Unfortunately, this is this not a regular practice and well understood throughout Christianity. It is not common in many Christian churches, at least not in the U.S. Midwest. In a typical church in the U.S. Midwest one will probably not hear anything about apologetics or the use of one’s reason in worship regularly if at all. How many churches recommend reading works like C. S. Lewis’ masterwork, Mere Christianity or Geisler and Turek’s I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist? This is not to say that every member of every church need be educated to the level of a Master’s of Divinity in Christian Apologetics. It is saddening that this kind of introductory apologetic education not a regular part of church education. Pastors and other church leaders do not (typically) discourage reason or apologetics, but there is generally little to no interest in apologetic teaching/learning. Churches can incorporate apologetics into both sermons and general church educational programs. But, so far, this is a huge failure of the Church today; apologetics should be an important part of every church’s educational programs, particularly for young people.<br /><br />Christ’s admonishes all His followers to, “… love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength” (Mark 12:30, NASB)<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn25">[25]</a>. This is something that is sorely missing from the typical Western church today. So, not only has the Church failed in loving Christ with their minds and teaching they have failed to heed 1 Peter 3:15 and give a defense for the faith. On the one hand, one might understand some reticence to study or encourage the study of philosophy/apologetics. However, it seems like so many churches have overemphasized a misunderstanding of Colossians 2:8 and overemphasized an emotional response to Christ.<br /><br />As Wolterstorff mentions the condemnation of Galileo and the Copernican view of the solar system as, “the most famous instance of the Church's scrutiny of the affairs of natural science.”<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn26">[26]</a> This wording could be improved and made stronger as this is the most infamous example of the Church’s insertion of itself into the affairs of natural science. In many ways the Church has never really recovered from this ignominy. Indeed, the age of the earth debate within the Church is the modern age’s Copernican model debate; Professor John Lennox’s text, Seven Days That Divide the World makes this very point.<a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftn27">[27]</a> Because the Church is suffering from anti-intellectualism it seems that the Church has backed itself into a corner over the issue of the age of the earth. People have even gone as far as to make this the only issue in science and philosophy worth engaging. The Church needs to be given an apologetic for learning and teaching apologetics. This can be the first, and most important step in balancing reason and faith. Of course, this is not the only way the Church can balance reason and faith, but it is most certainly the most important first part of a never-ending discussion within the Church about the relationship between faith and reason. Apologetics and philosophical study in general, can give us a way to balance critical thought and faith. It is also through such studies that one can increase in one’s faith because knowing Christianity is true can increase one’s trust in Christ, that is, one’s faith.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Conclusions and Application</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div>How can we apply this balancing act? Well, my personal goal is directly related to how I want to use my MDiv degree. I and my classmates can be the change we want to see in churches everywhere. I personally want to be a chaplain in the armed forces and then a pastor who uses, teaches, preaches, and encourages philosophical inquiry, apologetics, and other ways to love God with our minds. I have started some of this as a layman in the church. To do this I have taught a book study on Koukl’s superb text, Tactics. It is such an important and practical text for Christian apologetics and evangelism that encourages questions and seeking the truth. It is so important that I recommend every church study and teach such a practical text about loving God with your mind and using your mind to reach the lost. There is also a need more books that teach and encourage Christians to use their minds to defend the faith and reach the lost with reason.<br /><br />Footnotes:<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref1">[1]</a> Peter G. Boghossian, A Manual for Creating Atheists (Durham, NC: Pitchstone Publishing, 2013), Chapter 2. Also clearly exhibited by atheist Aron Ra in this debate: The Bible and Beer Consortium, YouTube, June 28, 2019, accessed July 2, 2019, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQBFY1z_RvI&t=5882s.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref2">[2]</a> James Porter Moreland, Love Your God with All Your Mind the Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul (United States: Navigators, 2014).<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref3">[3]</a> Boghossian defines faith in his own special way as, “Belief without evidence” and “Pretending to know things you don’t know.” Boghossian, A Manual for Creating Atheists, Chapter 2.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref4">[4]</a> Ibid.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref5">[5]</a> Finlay Malcolm and Michael Scott, "Faith, Belief and Fictionalism," Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 98 (2016): , doi:10.1111/papq.12169.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref6">[6]</a> Finlay Malcolm and Michael Scott, "Faith, Belief and Fictionalism."<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref7">[7]</a> Ibid., 267.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref8">[8]</a> Ibid., 271. This is in note #1. It seems very odd that they would chose to write and even admit this. Basically the paper ignores what many consider the more important concept of “faith,” that is, faith in something/someone rather that faith that something will happen or someone will do or is such-and-such.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref9">[9]</a> William Lane. Craig, Reasonable Faith - Christian Truth and Apologetics (Intervarsity Press, 2008), 43.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref10">[10]</a> Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith, 42 and James Porter Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2017), 141-155. The whole chapter is a study on religious epistemology and includes Plantinga’s use of sensus divinitatis.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref11">[11]</a> "Faith," Merriam-Webster, accessed June 8, 2019, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith. And "Faith," Google Search, accessed June 8, 2019, https://www.google.com/search?safe=active&q=Dictionary#dobs=faith.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref12">[12]</a> Lara Buchak, "Can It Be Rational to Have Faith?" Probability in the Philosophy of Religion, 2019, 227, doi:10.1002/9781119420828.ch8.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref13">[13]</a> Ibid., 246.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref14">[14]</a> Katherine Dormandy, "Evidence-Seeking as an Expression of Faith," American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 92, no. 3 (2018): doi:10.5840/acpq2018514154.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref15">[15]</a> Ibid., 416.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref16">[16]</a> James Porter Moreland, Love Your God with All Your Mind the Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul (United States: Navigators, 2014).<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref17">[17]</a> Daniel Howard-Snyder, "Propositional Faith: What It Is and What It Is Not," American Philosophical Quarterly 50, no. 4 (2013): 359. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24475353.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref18">[18]</a> Ibid., 358.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref19">[19]</a> Taken from Daniel Howard-Snyder, "Propositional Faith . . .” 359; altered to fit the proposition that God exists.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref20">[20]</a> Julie E. Maybee, "Hegel's Dialectics," Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, June 03, 2016, accessed June 8, 2019, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref21">[21]</a> Boghossian, A Manual for Creating Atheists.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref22">[22]</a> My own definition combined from various places.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref23">[23]</a> Some quality resources would be on https://www.coursera.org/ and numerous philosophical and educational YouTube channels. There are numerous other free resources online, one only need to search for them.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref24">[24]</a> The link to that group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/caalliance/ in order to join one must answer some questions about one’s faith and assent to following the group guidelines.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref25">[25]</a> Unless otherwise noted, Scripture references will be taken from the New American Standard Bible.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref26">[26]</a> Wolterstorff, Nicolas (2018). Reason within the Bounds of Religion (p. 16). Wordsearch. Retrieved from https://app.wordsearchbible.com.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.blogger.com/#_ftnref27">[27]</a> John C. Lennox, Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011).<div><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Bibliography</b></div><div><br /></div><div>Boghossian, Peter G. A Manual for Creating Atheists. Durham, NC: Pitchstone Publishing, 2013.</div><div><br /></div><div>Buchak, Lara. “Can It Be Rational to Have Faith?” Probability in the Philosophy of Religion, 2012, doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199604760.003.0012.</div><div><br /></div><div>Consortium, The Bible and Beer. YouTube. June 28, 2019. Accessed July 2, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQBFY1z_RvI&t=5882s.</div><div><br /></div><div>Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith - Christian Truth and Apologetics. Intervarsity Press, 2008.</div><div><br /></div><div>Dormandy, Katherine. "Evidence-Seeking as an Expression of Faith." American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 92, no. 3 (2018): 409-28. doi:10.5840/acpq2018514154.</div><div><br /></div><div>"Faith." Google Search. Accessed July 2, 2019. https://www.google.com/search?safe=active&q=Dictionary#dobs=faith.</div><div><br /></div><div>"Faith." Merriam-Webster. Accessed July 2, 2019. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith.</div><div><br /></div><div>Howard-Snyder, Daniel. "Propositional Faith: What It Is and What It Is Not." American Philosophical Quarterly 50, no. 4 (2013): 357-72. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24475353.</div><div><br /></div><div>Lennox, John C. Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011.</div><div><br /></div><div>Malcolm, Finlay., and Scott, Michael. (2017) Faith, Belief and Fictionalism. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 98: 257– 274. doi: 10.1111/papq.12169.</div><div><br /></div><div>Maybee, Julie E. "Hegel's Dialectics." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. July 2, 2016. Accessed June 8, 2019. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/.</div><div><br /></div><div>Moreland, J. P. Love Your God with All Your Mind the Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul. United States: Navigators, 2014.</div><div><br /></div><div>Moreland, J. P., and William Lane Craig. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2017.</div><div><br /></div><div>Wolterstorff, Nicholas. Reason within the Bounds of Religion. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub., 2009.</div></div>Samuel Ronickerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15254647831303355637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2149547883975131835.post-55059893814427098342019-01-22T22:34:00.003+09:002020-07-09T16:14:46.120+09:00Christian Apologetics in the Early ChurchSince I haven't written anything here for a VERY long time and I'm taking a break from classes and I thought I'd share a couple essays I wrote for my previous classes. This first one is a research paper I submitted for my History of Christianity class a while back.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Introduction</b></div>
The
apologetic arguments of the early and medieval church fathers are still
useful today. This short paper will discuss some of the history of the
early and medieval church fathers as apologists and some of their major
arguments and how modern apologists can use those arguments still today.
This paper will go through Justin Martyr, Augustine, Anselm, and Thomas
Aquinas; concentrating on these writings: Martyr’s First and Second
<i>Apology</i>, Augustine’s <i>Confessions</i>, Anselm’s <i>Monologium</i>, and Aquinas’
<i>Summa Theologica</i>. In these works, some arguments are no longer used,
some are still in use, and some should be revived. This paper will
attempt to show that there are various arguments and styles that
historical apologists used that have fallen out of style but should be
revived. Some of these are specific arguments and some are styles.
Modern apologists are removed from the Church Fathers not only in time
but in desires, thoughts, attitudes, and arguments. These trends are
some things that should be changed in modern apologetics.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Justin Martyr</b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
As
is appropriate this paper will open with the oldest of the Church
Fathers that is well known for his apologetics, Justin Martyr (c.
100-165).<span style="font-size: x-small;">1</span> Justin studied Greek philosophy including stoicism,
Aristotelian philosophy, Pythagorean philosophy, and Platonism before
becoming a Christian.<span style="font-size: x-small;">2</span> However, as Lane says, “[Justin] was not just a
Christian seeking to relate Christianity to Greek philosophy. He was a
Greek who had come to see Christianity as the fulfillment of all that
was best in philosophy, especially in Platonism.”<span style="font-size: x-small;">3</span> This is reminiscent
of a great quote from a modern Christian philosopher, William Hasker, as
he writes in his short book on Metaphysics, “[I am] a Christian who
loves philosophy and would like to consider himself a philosopher; [I
am] a philosopher who loves Jesus Christ and wants to be known as a
disciple. A Christian first, a philosopher second—but neither one at the
expense of the other.”<span style="font-size: x-small;">4</span> This modern quote seems to reflect the ideas of
Justin Martyr. Justin himself clearly held a high view of philosophy
and Greek philosophers. In his first <i>Apology</i>, he references philosophy
quite often and even writes a chapter saying that Plato’s <i>Timæus </i>
referenced the image of the cross from the Old Testament story of Moses
and the serpent lifted up in the desert.<span style="font-size: x-small;">5</span> How well this works as an
argument is not so clear. However, Justin does write quite a bit in
defense of Christians that were being unfairly mistreated. Justin
countered ideas like how Christians were called atheists, and he argues
that Christianity is the true philosophy.<span style="font-size: x-small;">6</span> One of the key points that
can be clearly seen in Justin’s “short” works (the first and second
<i>Apologies</i>) is his extensive use of non-Christian writings and thoughts.
He is not afraid to reference various Greek writings. If anything, he
seems to like co-opting Greek philosophers in his writing. It seems that
most modern apologetics works use Greek terminology, but do not often
reference Greek or other non-Christian writing to co-opt them into their
writings. Modern apologists could do well to use the philosophy of
non-Christian writers against them. Christianity does have the most
consistent philosophy and modern apologetics writers would do well to
emphasize that and demonstrate it using both biblical arguments and
non-Christian philosophy.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Augustine</b></div>
Augustine
(Bishop of Hippo) lived about 189 years after Justin had died
(354-430)<span style="font-size: x-small;">7</span> and is probably one of the most famous of the Early Church
Fathers to this day.<span style="font-size: x-small;">8</span> Augustine studied Neo-Platonism and became a
Christian after following Manicheism for a time and was a prolific
writer over a wide range of subjects.<span style="font-size: x-small;">9</span> His most famous work,
<i>Confessions</i>, is a somewhat dense autobiographical work that starts with
his childhood in book one and progressing through his life and
confessions/theology to book thirteen.<span style="font-size: x-small;">10</span> Like Justin, Augustine seemed
happy to incorporate certain (Greek) philosophical ideas into his own.
And, he wrote of his struggles using Neo-Platonic thoughts and
terminology.<span style="font-size: x-small;">11</span> These influences may or may not have been a good thing,
but Augustine and others that were influenced by Greek philosophy still
seem devoted to building their theology on the Bible. Augustine’s
apologetic writing is as varied as his theological works are, but his
famous line, “Thou madest us for Thyself, and our heart is restless,
until it repose in Thee”<span style="font-size: x-small;">12</span> is an early version of C. S. Lewis’ argument
from desire. “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.”<span style="font-size: x-small;">13</span> Also, Augustine’s view that evil is “nothing but a
privation of good,” is a kind of answer to the “problem of evil.”<span style="font-size: x-small;">14</span>
Augustine also referenced Romans 1 as a kind of cosmological argument.<span style="font-size: x-small;">15</span>
The lessons of Augustine are less in the form of what he writes about,
rather in how he writes. Augustine’s writings are very personal in
nature. Augustine also quotes the Bible very often. Many modern
apologetics texts tend to not reference the Bible hardly at all. So,
modern apologetics writers ought to follow Augustine’s example in how he
writes from personal experience and how he utilizes biblical arguments
throughout his work.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Anselm</b></div>
Anselm
has somewhat of a bad reputation among many apologists today as he was
one of the first, and certainly the most famous for using, the
“ontological argument.” Anselm lived in the early 11th century (c.
1033-1109) and wrote creatively as the Bishop of Canterbury.<span style="font-size: x-small;">16</span> As
mentioned above his most famous argument comes in the form of the
ontological argument. The argument, found in the <i>Monologion</i>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[A]ll
other goods are good through another being than that which they
themselves are, and this being alone is good through itself. Hence, this
alone is supremely good, which is alone good through itself. For it is
supreme, in that it so surpasses other beings, that it is neither
equalled nor excelled. But that which is supremely good is also
supremely great. There is, therefore, some one being which is supremely
good, and supremely great, that is, the highest of all existing
beings.<span style="font-size: x-small;">17</span></blockquote>
This argument has been reworded,
reformatted, and argued by multiple writers since Anselm penned it. The
<i>Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy</i> lists such writers as “St.
Bonaventure, St. Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Gassendi, Spinoza,
Malebranche, Locke, Leibniz, Kant, Hegel, … Charles Hartshorne, Etienne
Gilson, Maurice Blondel, Martin Heidegger, Karl Barth, Norman Malcolm,
and Alvin Plantinga.”<span style="font-size: x-small;">18</span> Unfortunately, though that is an impressive list
of writers, it is not considered a very good argument by many
apologists today. Many think of the ontological argument as defining God
into existence. And, though that is a fair critique, others, most notably
Alvin Plantinga, have revived the argument with some success. The
<i>Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</i> (online) has an entire article
devoted to this argument that often references Plantinga’s version.<span style="font-size: x-small;">19</span> It
is the position of this paper that apologists have too long ignored
this argument, which in its own way also reflects the ideas expressed in
Romans 1. All people actually know intuitively that God exists and this
argument can move other arguments into the realm of possibility. It can
establish the idea that belief in God is reasonable, because after all
it is possible that there is a “Best Being” (God), to use the term
“good” that Anselm uses, and if it is possible that such a being exists,
then it is at least reasonable that it be so. This argument can be used
as a stepping stone. If one can get a skeptic to at least admit that it
is possible for such a being to exist, then one can move on to
other arguments like the cosmological arguments, which were very popular for the next apologist
this paper will discuss.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Thomas Aquinas</b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Thomas
Aquinas, who lived from 1224-1274, is well known for his use of Aristotelian philosophy.<span style="font-size: x-small;">20</span> This may be a weakness of Aquinas because
critics of Christianity often say that it is unduly influenced by
various Greek philosophers and there are even some Christians who
disagree with the Greek influences and refuse to listen to anything
written by such theologians because they deem them unbiblical in their
reliance on Greek philosophy.<span style="font-size: x-small;">21</span> Aquinas was so enamored with Aristotle
that he took to simply calling him “the Philosopher.”<span style="font-size: x-small;">22</span> Aristotle not
only heavily influences Aquinas, but Aquinas heavily referenced the
writings of Anselm and Augustine (though not always agreeing with
them).<span style="font-size: x-small;">23</span> He was and still is revered, particularly by Roman Catholics,
as the best philosopher/theologian/apologist of his time, perhaps of all
time.<span style="font-size: x-small;">24</span> Undoubtedly, Aquinas’ most famous and influential apologetics
work is in his “five ways.”<span style="font-size: x-small;">25</span> The "first way:"</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
It
is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things
are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another,
for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that
towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is
in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from
potentiality to actuality. … It is therefore impossible that in the same
respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved,
i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must
be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be
itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by
another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity,
because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other
mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put
in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put
in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first
mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be
God.<span style="font-size: x-small;">26</span></blockquote>
This is just the "first way" and each of the
other arguments are just as powerful. They each deal with different
aspects of the universe, so they could be taken together as all
cosmological arguments. The "second way" deals with efficient causes
(again using Aristotelian terminology); the "third way" deals with the
nature of being and not being; the "fourth way" deals with the gradation
of goodness in everything (somewhat similar to Anselm’s ontological argument); and
the "fifth way" is an argument from design.<span style="font-size: x-small;">27</span> What can one learn from
Aquinas’ apologetics? Clearly, there is a ring of confidence in the way
Aquinas writes. So, perhaps the best point to learn from Aquinas is his
tone. He writes as one having authority, interestingly, as Jesus was
described (Matt. 7:29 and Mark 1:22).<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Lessons</b></div>
The
lessons we can learn from these great masters are too many and too
powerful for this short paper to express. However, let us try to sum
them up here. Justin Martyr has a few weaknesses. His weaknesses are not
born out of his inabilities or anything like that; it is just that he
was writing to a different audience in a different time period. In fact,
when he was living/writing the canon had not even been established
yet.<span style="font-size: x-small;">28</span> Justin’s weaknesses are that he appeals almost exclusively to the
Scriptures to make arguments. But, this is also a strength. Modern
apologists have been drawn to a style the reflects that of Aquinas, who
relies more on philosophical argument to make apologetic points. But,
Augustine is not without his weaknesses as well. He had an unfortunate
emphasis on Church authority that Counter-Reformers latched on to, as
well as a view of faith-leading-to-salvation that Reformers admired.<span style="font-size: x-small;">29 </span>
Perhaps the best lesson in that is for modern apologists to be careful
not to espouse overly contradictory views. Regardless, Augustine’s
candor and self-reflection are things that modern apologetic writing
would do well to emulate. When one comes to Anselm there is much to be
said (indeed much has been said), but one of his weaknesses could be
that his work is dense; it is nearly impenetrable. It takes scholarly
work well beyond the scope of this short paper to truly understand even
small parts of this master’s work. Despite being opaque with difficult
phrasing Anselm certainly has a powerful apologetic tool in the
ontological argument. Modern apologists should follow Plantinga as he
follows Anselm in pushing this argument as a starting point. Lastly,
this paper explored some of Thomas Aquinas’ work and it is certainly
tough to find a weakness here. Perhaps the only one, as has already been
mentioned, is Aquinas’ near infatuation with Aristotle. Aquinas’ style
of authority is certainly to be respected and emulated, but there is a
danger in speaking too authoritatively as well. That style can push away
people seeking God. Yes, as previously mentioned, Aquinas’ strength is
his confidence, but that strength can be a liability. It can push people
away.<div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Conclusion</b></div>
This
paper is too short to contain all that is needed to really make the
point expressed in the introduction. However, it should be clear that
these four and many other major Christian Church
thinkers/apologists/theologians of the past should still be studied
today. There is much we can still learn from these masters. That is
indeed why they are often referred to as “masters.” This paper on Justin
Martyr, Augustine, Anselm, and Thomas Aquinas is just the tip of the
iceberg concerning Church history with regards to apologetics. It is
great thinkers like these that should encourage all of us to do our
research and learn from these masters as they have learned from <i>the</i> Master<span style="font-family: "times new roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">Notes:</span><br />
<div style="text-indent: 48px;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman", serif;">1
Robert C. Walton, <i>Chronological and Background Charts of Church
History</i> (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005) Chart 1.</span></div>
<div style="text-indent: 48px;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-indent: 48px;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman", serif;">2 Tony Lane, <i>A Concise History of Christian Thought</i> (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007), 10.</span></div>
<div style="text-indent: 48px;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-indent: 48px;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman", serif;">3 Ibid., 10.</span></div>
<div style="text-indent: 48px;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-indent: 48px;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman", serif;">4 William Hasker, <i>Metaphysics: Constructing a World View</i> (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Pr., 1989), 25.</span></div>
<div style="text-indent: 48px;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-indent: 48px;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman", serif;">5 Justin Martyr, <i>The Apologies of Justin Martyr</i>, trans. Rev. Alexander </span>Roberts,<span style="font-family: "times new roman", serif;"> and James Donaldson, Suzeteo Enterprises), Kindle Locations 1038-1054.</span></div>
<div style="text-indent: 48px;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman", serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-indent: 48px;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman", serif;">6
"3. A Brief History of Apologetics," <i>Bible.org</i>, accessed July 10, 2018,
https://bible.org/seriespage/brief-history-apologetics.</span></div>
<div style="text-indent: 48px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-indent: 48px;">
<div>
7 Walton, <i>Chronological and Background Charts</i>, Chart 1.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
8 Lane, <i>A Concise History</i>, 47.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
9 "3. A Brief History of Apologetics."</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
10
A concise summary and the full text of each book can be found here:
"The Confessions," <i>Catholic Encyclopedia</i>: Miguel Hidalgo, accessed July
10, 2018, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1101.htm.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
11 Mark A. Noll, <i>Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity</i> (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 85.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
12 Augustine and E. B. Pusey, <i>The Confessions of St. Augustine</i> (No publisher information), Kindle Edition, 1,</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
13 C. S. Lewis, <i>The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Classics</i> (San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 2007), 58.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
14 Augustine, <i>The Confessions</i>, 20.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
15 "3. A Brief History of Apologetics."</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
16 Walton, <i>Chronological and Background Charts</i>, Chart 1.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
17 Anselm of Canterbury, <i>Monologium</i>, (The Fig Classic Series, 2012), Kindle Locations 72-75.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
18
Greg Sadler, "Anselm of Canterbury," <i>Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy</i>, accessed July 10, 2018, https://www.iep.utm.edu/anselm/.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
19
Graham Oppy, "Ontological Arguments," <i>Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy</i>, February 12, 2016, accessed July 10, 2018,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
20 Walton, <i>Chronological and Background Charts</i>, Chart 1.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
21
This observation is based on years of interacting with various
believers and unbelievers on social media platforms about theology and
philosophy, and some of the comments in this article: Paul Vincent
Spade, "Medieval Philosophy," <i>Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</i>, March
15, 2016, accessed July 10, 2018,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/medieval-philosophy/.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
22
This series of lectures from Recorded Books give a very thorough
treatment of Aquinas’ philosophy: Peter Kreeft, <i>The Philosophy of Thomas
Aquinas Course Guide</i> (Prince Frederick, MD: Recorded Books, 2009), 38.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
23 Ibid., 7.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
24 Ibid., 6.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
25
"3. A Brief History of Apologetics," As the footnote on that page says
there is an abundance of literature written about the “five ways.” There
is no way to capture all of that here.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
26 Thomas Aquinas, <i>Summa Theologica</i> (Complete & Unabridged) (Coyote Canyon Press.), Kindle, 10.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
27 Kreeft, <i>The Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas</i>, 17-19.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
28 "3. A Brief History of Apologetics," though to be fair, this is true of many of the Early Church Fathers.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
29 Lane, <i>A Concise History of Christian Thought</i>, 47-48.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Bibliography</b></div>
Anselm of Canterbury. <i>Monologium</i>. The Fig Classic Series. Kindle, 2012.<br />
<br />
Aquinas, Thomas. <i>Summa Theologica (Complete & Unabridged)</i>. Coyote Canyon Press. Kindle.<br />
<br />
Augustine. <i>The Confessions of St. Augustine</i>, trans. Edward Bouverie Pusey. No publisher information available. Kindle.<br />
<br />
"The Confessions." <i>Catholic Encyclopedia</i>: Miguel Hidalgo. Accessed July 10, 2018. <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1101.htm">http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1101.htm.</a><br />
<br />
Hasker, William. <i>Metaphysics: Constructing a World View</i>. Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Pr., 1989.<br />
<br />
Kreeft, Peter. <i>The Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas Course Guide</i>. Prince Frederick, MD: Recorded Books, 2009.<br />
<br />
Lane, Tony. <i>A Concise History of Christian Thought</i>. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.<br />
<br />
Lewis, C. S. <i>The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Classics</i>. San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 2007.<br />
<br />
Martyr, Justin. <i>The Apologies of Justin Martyr</i>, trans. Rev. Alexander Roberts, and James Donaldson, Suzeteo Enterprises. Kindle.<br />
<br />
Noll, Mark A. <i>Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity</i>. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012.<br />
<br />
Oppy, Graham. "Ontological Arguments." <i>Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</i>. February 12, 2016. Accessed July 10, 2018. <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/">https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/.</a><br />
<br />
Sadler, Greg. “Anselm of Canterbury.” <i>Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy</i>. Accessed July 10, 2018, <a href="https://www.iep.utm.edu/anselm/">https://www.iep.utm.edu/anselm/.</a><br />
<br />
Spade, Paul Vincent. “Medieval Philosophy.” <i>Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</i>. March 15, 2016. Accessed June 10, 2018. <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/medieval-philosophy/">https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/medieval-philosophy/.</a><br />
<br />
Unknown Author. “3. A Brief History of Apologetics.” <i>Bible.org</i>. Accessed June 10, 2018. <a href="https://bible.org/seriespage/brief-history-apologetics">https://bible.org/seriespage/brief-history-apologetics.</a><br />
<br />
Walton, Robert C. <i>Chronological and Background Charts of Church History</i>. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.</div>Samuel Ronickerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15254647831303355637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2149547883975131835.post-7957776243913945002017-11-30T23:18:00.000+09:002017-11-30T23:19:51.106+09:00Review of Bertrand Russell's Lecture "Why I am not a Christian" Part 2Here we go again! Let's finish this. I started review/critiquing Bertrand Russell's lecture and I highly recommend that you read <a href="http://www.samuelronicker.com/2017/11/review-of-bertrand-russells-lecture-why.html">part one</a> before continuing here. Without any more intro, let's jump right back in.<br />
<br />
"The Moral Arguments for a Deity" -- His understanding of the argument is fairly rudimentary, but I agree with this first part, "One form is to say that there would be no right and wrong unless God existed." The way Dr. William Lane Craig phrases the argument is actually in the negative form: "If God does <i>not </i>exist, then objective moral values and duties do <i>not </i>exist. Objective moral values and duties <i>do </i>exist. Therefore, God does exist." So, his phrasing isn't a problem at the outset. Then he goes into this:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I am not for the moment concerned with whether there is a difference between right and wrong, or whether there is not: that is another question. The point I am concerned with is that, if you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, then you are then in this situation: is that difference due to God's fiat or is it not? If it is due to God's fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God's fiat, because God's fiats are good and not bad independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God."</blockquote>
Here's the problem I have with this section. It's all stolen. It's basically a modern version of Plato's famous Euthyphro problem (often called the Euthyphro dilemma). To boil it down, either God commands goodness, or God is subject to goodness. This is a problem for the Christian making the moral argument because the crux of the issue is "objective moral values." If God commands goodness then is it "objective"? Russell doesn't have much more to say, other than it could very well be some other source of morality, he calls it a "superior deity." There are lots of good answers to the Euthyphro problem and I don't want today's issue to be as long as yesterday's so I'll merely point you to my <a href="http://www.samuelronicker.com/2012/07/sophists-and-relativism.html">two previous</a> <a href="http://www.samuelronicker.com/2013/06/discovering-philosopher-in-you-part-6.html">writings</a> on the subject and <a href="https://creation.com/what-is-good-answering-euthyphro-dilemma">this other post</a>.<br />
<br />
"The Argument For The Remedying Of Injustice" -- Here we come to what seems like the least invested of Russell's arguments. He says that, "they say, that the existence of God is required in order to bring justice into the world." The odd thing that doesn't make sense in this argument is I can't see where one can conclude, "therefore God exists." Maybe one might conclude, "therefore it'd be better if God existed." Essentially, we have a cruel world where is seems that bad people are rewarded and good people suffer. I don't see this as a very strong argument so Russell's critique is fair. He uses this analogy: "Supposing you got a crate of oranges that you opened, and you found all the top layer of oranges bad, you would not argue: 'The underneath ones must be good, so as to redress the balance.' You would say: 'Probably the whole lot is a bad consignment;' and that is really what a scientific person would argue about the universe." Even though I don't think the argument can conclude that God exists. I do think the existence of Heaven/Hell does make living more comfortable for the Christian. Think about it, if bad people are guaranteed to get their comeuppance, that could give some comfort to believers, but not necessarily.<br />
<br />
Here is seems that Russell finally tips his hand. He says, "What really moves people to believe in God is not any intellectual argument at all. Most people believe in God because they have been taught from early infancy to do it, and that is the main reason. Then I think that the next most powerful reason is the wish for safety, a sort of feeling that there is a big brother who will look after you. That plays a very profound part in influencing people's desire for a belief in God." Basically, Russell seems to portray a level of omniscience here. Has he interviewed every believer ever? Interesting though, surely Russell knows of the Apostle Paul. Paul is well known as one of the most prolific Christian missionaries, and he certainly didn't seem to have a wish for safety. Paul lists the "safety" that he was enjoying as a Christian teacher in 2 Cor. 11:24-31. It's only the modern "prosperity gospel" teachers that really state that Christianity really brings a comfortable life. Still none of this concludes, God does not exist or even that God does exist. In fact, this is a textbook kind of genetic fallacy. Even if every Christian everywhere only believes in God because of emotional desires and because they were "taught from early infancy to do it," that doesn't mean that God does not exist. What does it matter why people believe in God?<br />
<br />
"The Character of Christ" -- This series of arguments are, again, rather unconvincing to the existence of God, though they are aimed directly at Christianity. As I said in part one, if Christ isn't divine, then Christianity is worthless/false. This leads to an interesting conundrum though, because Russell freely admits that he just doesn't agree with some of the teachings of Christ. This whole bit is just Russell's opinion. Also, this is just Russell saying, in a sense, I don't like these teachings. This also wouldn't conclude, "Therefore, God does not exist." The best one could conclude is that Russell doesn't like the teaching of Jesus. He starts with the "turn the other cheek." But, he dismisses this by saying that it wasn't original to Christ. Does Russell really think that an itinerant rabbi in first century Israel would steal a teaching (or even know, without being divine)? This is a teaching that Russell says came from "Lao-Tse and Buddha some 500 or 600 years before Christ." Which is more reasonable, that Jesus simply taught this or that he somehow had access to Far Eastern thought and teaching centuries before the rest of the Western world? I guess this is just Russell complimenting Jesus' teaching, but then dismissing it because others have had similar teachings. Next he takes aim at, "'Judge not lest ye be judged.' That principle I do not think you would find was popular in the law courts of Christian countries. I have known in my time quite a number of judges who were very earnest Christians, and they none of them felt that they were acting contrary to Christian principles in what they did." So, Russell likes this teaching but has a problem with Christians following His teaching!? This, like so many other things in Russell's lecture, betrays a serious lack of logical reasoning. This is kind of like Russell saying that because Christian judges ignore Jesus' teachings, Jesus wasn't a good teacher. Clearly that is a total non-sequitur. One last thing that Russell likes, "Then there is one other maxim of Christ which I think has a great deal in it, but I do not find that it is very popular among some of our Christian friends. He says, "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor." That is a very excel ent maxim, but, as I say, it is not much practiced. All these, I think, are good maxims, although they are a little difficult to live up to." Again I have to ask, what does this prove?<br />
<br />
"Defects In Christ's Teaching" -- Here Russell falls in with some extremely outlandish views. "Historically, it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about Him, so that I am not concerned with the historical question, which is a very difficult one." Why would he go and say a silly think like the existence of Christ is doubtful? The existence of Jesus Christ is one of the best attested things in history. There is more textual evidence of the biographies of Jesus Christ (the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament) than there is anything else of that age. We have more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than is necessary to conclude that Jesus certainly existed. His first actual problem with Christ's teaching is, "[Jesus] certainly thought his second coming would occur in clouds of glory before the death of all the people who were living at that time. There are a great many texts that prove that." Here's the kicker for Jesus' supposed claim that His second coming would be soon. The key phrase in the passage is that certain things will not happen until "the Son of Man comes into His kingdom." What exactly does Jesus mean by "come into His kingdom"? Now, clearly some in the early Church thought this was true. However, Paul specifically taught early Christians at the church of Thessalonica that they need to not live lazy lives just waiting around for Christ to return. So, sure Christians in the early Church thought that Jesus was returning in their time, but just because people have misunderstood this teaching doesn't mean that it was false. One interesting point though, Russell quotes Jesus as saying, "Take no thought for the morrow," but like so many before, Russell is taking a verse out of context. But, here it's used to deceive. The context for Jesus instructing his followers to not worry about tomorrow is not in the context of the Second Coming.<br />
<br />
"The Moral Problem" -- Russell now aims his criticism of Jesus' teaching to what he calls moral deficiencies. He says, "There is one very serious defect to my mind in “Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person that is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment." So, despite Russell previously saying that Christians don't have to believe in Hell to be Christians and that he's not going to criticize that view, he now says that Christ can't be moral if He teaches about Hell. Russell also seems to have a problem with how Christ speaks to those with whom He disagrees. He compares Jesus' harshness with Socrates, but again this is a misunderstanding of Christian theology. Jesus doesn't level criticism toward those that merely disagree with him. That's not what salvation in Christianity is about. You don't have to "agree" with Jesus to be saved. Sure, if you are a Christian you will agree with Christ's teachings. But, salvation is a matter of accepting the teaching that Christ is the payment for one's sins, not just agreeing with Jesus' teachings. This doesn't sound like a convincing argument, "I really do not think that a person with a proper degree of kindliness in his nature would have put fears and terrors of this sort into the world." Russell doesn't think that a kind person would preach in a way that makes people afraid!? I've heard this analogy a few times so I don't remember the exact source. Imagine you know that someone is walking towards a cliff. Is it a kind person who just lets that person walk off the cliff? Is there even a time when telling someone that they might die that might be scary for that person? Is that okay? Again, the kind person would be the one that tries to keep the person from dying, even sometimes using fear.<br />
<br />
His other criticism was fairly personal. He doesn't like Jesus cast out demons into some pigs that then run off a cliff. He thinks that wasn't very nice and that a kind person wouldn't do that. Same with the withered fig tree. A kind person wouldn't do those mean things. These are petty and not very powerful arguments against Christ's teaching. Just because you don't like the way Jesus did things doesn't mean that he wasn't kind. Russell's opinion, for what that's worth, is clear, "I cannot myself feel that either in the matter of wisdom or in the matter of virtue Christ stands quite as high as some other people known to History. I think I should put Buddha and Socrates above Him in those respects."<br />
<br />
"The Emotional Factor" -- "One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous," I think Dennett stole this (at least I don't recall him giving credit to Russell). He talks about this in his work <i>Breaking the Spell. </i>Why does this seem to be an unspoken, often spoken of, rule? If anything, Christianity has welcomed a huge history of probing and analyzing of its claims. It's also interesting to note that the very existence of the supposed New Atheists is the 9/11 attacks. The New Atheists responded to the 9/11 by trying to debunk all religion as dangerous. Please convince me that religion makes men virtuous and yet, is somehow the cause of more bloodshed than anything else and dangerous. Either Russell is wrong, or the New Atheists are wrong (they could both be wrong). Here again Russell fails in his rhetoric, "That is the idea -- that we should all be wicked if we did not hold to the Christian religion. It seems to me that the people who have held to it have been for the most part extremely wicked. You find this curious fact, that the more intense has been the religion of any period and the more profound has been the dogmatic belief, the greater has been the cruelty and the worse has been the state of affairs. In the so-called Ages of faith, when men really did believe the Christian religion in all its completeness, there was the Inquisition, with all its tortures; there were millions of unfortunate women burned as witches; and there was every kind of cruelty practiced upon all sorts of people in the name of religion." He contradicts himself. We can't attack religion because it keeps people behaving morally, but people behave very badly when they are religious. He insists that Christianity is morally bankrupt: "I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world." Dawkins rips off this idea in <i>The God Delusion. </i>He refers to a moral zeitgeist. That morality is progressing, but Christianity is holding it back. Funny word though, progress, what would it mean to progress morally? Progress implies an intended direction. Where are we heading morally speaking?<br />
<br />
"How The Churches Have Retarded Progress" -- Here is the main quote:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Supposing that in this world that we live in today an inexperienced girl is married to a syphilitic man, in that case the Catholic Church says, 'This is an indissoluble sacrament. You must stay together for life,' and no steps of any sort must be taken by that woman to prevent herself from giving birth to syphilitic children. This is what the Catholic church says. I say that that is fiendish cruelty, and nobody whose natural sympathies have not been warped by dogma, or whose moral nature was not absolutely dead to all sense of suffering, could maintain that it is right and proper that that state of things should continue.</blockquote>
But, we don't really have a good accounting for what is moral or immoral action. This critique of the "Catholic Church" (by which I assume he means the Roman Catholic Church) is nothing more than, Russell doesn't like the presumed teachings of the Church. This is nothing more than Russell's opinion. As such, it doesn't really deserve a response. Just as the previous issue, if we don't know where morality is progressing, we can't say that the Church is retarding its progress.<br />
<br />
"Fear, The Foundation Of Religion" -- Russell says, "Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing -- fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand-in-hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things." Again, mere speculation. Is this really the truth? How does Russell know that Christianity is based on fear? Sure, there can be aspects of Christianity that are scary, but really, does Russell think that it's all about fear? Russell says that science can alleviate these fears, but how is that? He doesn't explain what science has to do with alleviating fear.<br />
<br />
"What We Must Do" -- Finally, we come to Russell's conclusion and not a moment too soon. Russell says, "We want to stand upon our own feet and look fair and square at the world -- its <i>good facts</i>, its <i>bad facts</i>, its beauties, and its ugliness; see the world as it is and be not afraid of it." (Emphasis mine.) Again, what's the meaning of "good"? Russell hasn't given us what goodness means, so these are just his opinions. Also, facts cannot be good or bad, they're just facts. This final quote I completely agree with, except the idea that Russell is implying that Christianity is what's wrong with the world and it is what needs changing/abolishing. "A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. It needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence. It needs hope for the future, not looking back all the time toward a past that is dead, which we trust will be far surpassed by the future that our intelligence can create." I find a bit of irony in Russell implying that Christianity is full of "ignorant men." Christianity has long been a bastion of education. Maybe today it's not as focused on education as it has been in the past, but it definitely isn't full of "ignorant men." In this final thrust, we have another genetic fallacy. Even if Christianity were full of and lead by only ignorant men, that wouldn't make it false.<br />
<br />
Let's wrap this up. I don't have much more to say. This lecture was pretty sad. If anything it was like Dawkins' book <i>The God Delusion. </i>Just like that book, reading this lecture actually strengthened my faith. If this lecture represents the best arguments against Christianity, then Christianity is almost definitely true.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUY0fdlD2-XHDyakSFTnvSAxCgfoWkNBMbWrLhzQXQtwuFpcF9AL_0GKsqIta3XN3YuVwCIikdMr3PtMxVisNVfuX6pfWop0FvlWZ9XZnVkHdXkstM_CX1BH6Ex_1gVVUq7z0mYznuel4/s1600/DSC_0425.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="512" data-original-width="1600" height="204" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUY0fdlD2-XHDyakSFTnvSAxCgfoWkNBMbWrLhzQXQtwuFpcF9AL_0GKsqIta3XN3YuVwCIikdMr3PtMxVisNVfuX6pfWop0FvlWZ9XZnVkHdXkstM_CX1BH6Ex_1gVVUq7z0mYznuel4/s640/DSC_0425.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />Samuel Ronickerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15254647831303355637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2149547883975131835.post-85561287007963609822017-11-26T01:34:00.001+09:002017-11-26T01:34:08.557+09:00Review of Bertrand Russell's Lecture "Why I am not a Christian" Part 1So, two instigating factors drove me to read this famous lecture given by Bertrand Russell in 1929 (or at least the text I have was copyrighted in 1929). The first was a conversation online with a skeptic. We were discussing the moral argument for God. To be more specific we were discussing whether or not the skeptics I was engaging (on a Facebook site specifically for discussing religion) were actually atheists or "simply lacking belief in God." The discussion was started by the page owner sharing a post that said there were only three options, you either accept the proposition that there is a God, reject the proposition, or just don't care or know. This kind of discussion comes up all the time as modern (New Atheists) online skeptics often like to shirk the burden of proof (or really any responsibility in their position) by saying that they don't <i>believe </i>that God <i>doesn't exist</i>, they simply lack the belief that any god exists. Basically they often try to claim the null view, as opposed to a negative view. Anyways, that's backstory. One of these atheists quoted Russell's famous lecture as a response to my posting of the moral argument for the existence of God. Then, Friday night I met up with a small apologetics discussion group to watch the recently released movie, <i>The Case for Christ.</i> I'd seen the movie before, but on this viewing it struck me that Lee Strobel had once been strongly influenced by Russell's teachings (he specifically references this lecture). I then decided that if this was a good enough lecture for them, I ought to know what this great lecture actually taught. I didn't expect it to dissuade me from Christianity, but I want to know what Russell actually taught rather than hearing it secondhand. Without further ado, here we go.<br />
<br />
I'm going to tackle each section separately:<br />
<br />
"What is a Christian?" -- Here I actually appreciate Russell's honesty. He is clearheaded enough to not attack a straw man. He talks about watered-down Christianity that was, and still is, popular. He's right to say that Christianity is more than just "... a person who attempts to live a good life." I disagree that "The word does not have quite such a full-blooded meaning now as it had in the times of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. In those days, if a man said that he was a Christian it was known what he meant. You accepted a whole collection of creeds which were set out with great precision, and every single syllable of those creeds you believed with the whole strength of your convictions." I know Christians that could be described that way, in fact, I consider myself to be one! I also disagree with the notion that a Christian can believe that Christ was the "best and wisest of men." A fundamental doctrine of Christianity has to be that Jesus Christ was more than just a wise man, but that He is divine. If Christ isn't divine then Christianity is false, and the surety for that truth is the truth of the resurrection. I also agree with his point concerning the abandonment of the doctrine of Hell. While I accept that Christians can, without abandoning Christianity altogether, have different views of Hell. There still needs to be some kind of understanding of an afterlife, which generally entails Hell and Heaven at the least. It's interesting from a rhetorician's point of view that while he here says that he's not going to include belief in Hell as part of fundamental Christian views, but later he <i>does </i>attack the theology of Hell saying that, "I do not myself feel that any person that is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment." So, believing in Hell isn't fundamental to Christianity, but it is a fundamental teaching of Christ and Russell can't be humane and believe in Hell at the same time. Despite what seems like Russell going back on his statement that Christians don't <i>have to </i>believe in Hell to be Christians, let's move on.<br />
<br />
"The Existence of God" -- I was hoping that this would be where his really heavy-hitting arguments against God would start to come out, but alas this section is more about how this is too big of an argument to condense into such a short space (this was a lecture), and that he was only going to summarize his position. It is curious though that he brings up the Roman Catholic Church's teaching "that the existence of God can be proved by the unaided reason." This is a bit confusing because it seems like he's lambasting the Roman Catholic position as being about faith without reason, but then he says that he's going to take on only a few of their arguments here. I am puzzled. If their position is that it's a matter of faith and <i>not reason,</i> then why would they have arguments at all? Arguments are a feature of rational inquiry and persuasion, not blind faith.<br />
<br />
"The First Cause Argument" -- Here we go, finally. His first critique of this argument is to call into doubt the concept of causation entirely. He says, "The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause, and it has not anything like the vitality that it used to have; but apart from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First Cause is one that cannot have any validity." I don't appreciate the hubris. He hasn't made an argument yet and yet he's already assuring us that it cannot have any validity!? Also, it seems he's trying to say that science has somehow removed the need for a First Cause. How so? He hasn't offered any explanation of that, just a throwaway phrase that "men of science" have somehow debunked this argument. If anything, this argument has only <i>gained</i> traction in the area of science. Big Bang theory has exploded (yes a pun) on the scientific scene as a cosmology that destroys Russell's claim that "men of science" have reduced the vitality of this argument. They have demonstrated quite convincingly that there was an ultimate beginning to the universe, which plays right into the Christian's hand. In Russell's defense Big Bang cosmology was still young in the 1920's but he still doesn't have a scientific leg to stand on here. In addition to floundering scientifically, I think Russell just hasn't contemplated the philosophical arguments against a temporally infinite universe. He says that "the philosophers" have gotten at this as well, but still doesn't address how there could be an infinite past.<br />
<br />
After this failure Russell commits probably his worst philosophical argumentation misstep (at least so far), he sets up an easy straw man. He says that when he was eighteen he was convinced by John Stuart Mill's autobiography that there is this question that kills the First Cause argument: "Who made God?" Really? That's your knockout blow? His parody (well, I wish it were a parody, apparently he take this seriously) is, "If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument." First, no theist ever says, intentionally, that "everything must have a cause." There are different varieties of this argument, so I can't include them all, but suffice it to say that Christian theologians/apologists who use First Cause arguments aren't so stupid as to clearly paint themselves into a corner with "everything must have a cause." The phrase that I've heard from most is, "Everything that begins to exist has a cause." That is a fair premise and it doesn't sound anything like Russell's straw man of First Cause arguments.<br />
<br />
This next section was particularly humous to me so I have to point it out. He tells of how the Hindus believe "that the world rested upon an elephant, and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, 'How about the tortoise?' the Indian said, 'Suppose we change the subject.'" And, then proceeds to do the very same thing! He says, "The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause." In a sense, he's saying that we're just too naive to see how something could not have a beginning, and like his imaginary Indian says, "suppose we change the subject." Let's hear it, what is your best argument that the universe did not have a beginning. It's no use saying that we're just not imaginative enough to see how that's possible. That's like saying that we've never observed anything starting without a cause nor have we seen anything be infinitely existent, nor could we even imagine what that would look like, but it certainly is just our lack of imagination, it <i>is </i>possible. Just saying that something is possible doesn't make it so. I could say that a married bachelor is "possible" all I wanted, that doesn't make it so. I've said too much on this one part, let's keep going.<br />
<br />
"The Natural-law Argument" -- This one is a more interesting one to me because I think Russell has something going for him, at least in part. These types of arguments are commonly called teleological arguments, arguments from design, or fine-tuning arguments. Russell is trying to take on what is, in my opinion, one of the strongest arguments for God. Unfortunately for Russell he didn't have modern science to again demonstrate just how delicately balanced the universe really is. He speaks of the popularity of these types of arguments in Sir Isaac Newton's day as they appealed to the "laws of nature" and that those laws are best explained by the existence of God. He does get something quite wrong here though. He says that once people had God as their explanation that it was "a convenient and simple explanation" and that it "saved them the trouble of looking any further for any explanation of the law of gravitation." Really? He even says that "Nowadays we explain the law of gravitation in a somewhat complicated fashion that Einstein has introduced." But, if we now explain gravitation differently, how did we get to that new understanding if we stopped looking for any further explanation of the law of gravitation back in Newton's day? He contradicts his own position! I will read him with a bit of charity here though and say that what he's really trying to say is that we've now come to understand gravitation differently and that it's not the law that we used to think it was. That's fair enough. "We now find that a great many things we thought were Natural Laws are really human conventions. You know that even in the remotest depth of stellar space there are still three feet to a yard. That is, no doubt, a very remarkable fact, but you would hardly call it a law of nature." This is his strongest point, though it misses the mark.<br />
<br />
His strongest point is that what we call "laws" of nature, are really just as subjective as the length of a yard. This is a good point because it cuts out the common phrase (I've heard it from numerous Christians, I've probably even said it) "if there's a law, there must be a lawgiver." The tact that many try to take here is that the laws of nature are like the governing laws of humans. That God wrote the, if you will, constitution of the universe, which included things like the law of gravity. I think this phrase, "laws require a lawgiver," is wrong-headed. I think Russell (and others) have a point. The law of gravity <i>is, </i>at its heart, just a human construct. It's not that gravity would go away if we didn't know about it or if our law were wrong (clearly we've had numerous wrong scientific ideas in the past). However, here's where I think this strongest point misses the mark. The teleological/design/fine tuning arguments don't rest on what we call "laws." What these arguments are really pointing to is the fact that the universe has qualities that only make sense given a divine Designer. Take the law of gravity, it's one of many that has to be a certain strength or the universe would collapse. Cosmologist have techniques and computer models where they have simulated, using complex mathematical modeling, what would happen if any one of the universal constants were somehow different than it is. It's not that there's some law that requires a lawgiver, per se, it's that there's a delicate balance that could only have been set up on purpose.<br />
<br />
Russell points out that "Human laws are behests commanding you to behave a certain way, in which way you may choose to behave, or you may choose not to behave; but natural laws are a description of how things do in fact behave, and, being a mere description of what they in fact do, you cannot argue that there must be somebody who told them to do that, because even supposing that there were you are then faced with the question, Why did God issue just those natural laws and no others?" I believe I've sufficiently answered his question in my previous paragraph, but let me summarize it. In cosmological modeling there are very few that will "work" that is, there are very few settings on the cosmological dial that will actually allow for the existence of a universe at all. So, while Russell is right to point out a distinction between human laws and natural laws, we're talking about a different situation altogether. One could say by way of analogy that the universe <i>does seem</i> to be running by a set of laws not unlike a country runs by a set of laws. And, just as a country needs a good set of laws to keep running a universe does as well. <i>Only </i>a perfectly knowledgeable, powerful Creator could set up laws and enforce them in such a way that keeps the whole universe running. Here's another important point that I think Russell gets completely wrong, "if there was a reason for the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary." This doesn't take into account what it means to be all-powerful. It seems that Russell is taking omnipotence to mean "able to do absolutely anything." Again, he's breaking with Christianity. Christianity teaches that even God is bound by His own nature, logic. Nonsense is still nonsense even when spoken of about God (I think that someone smarter than me said that, but the closest quote I can find is from John Lennox "Nonsense remains nonsense, even when talked by world-famous scientists.") God can no more make a married bachelor than you or I, because the very concept is nonsense. God chose to use gravity, atoms, quarks, strings (maybe), photons, strong and weak nuclear forces, etc. etc. to build His creation. Those physical things are limited by their natures to be physical. As physical things they have to be arranged in a certain way or else they wouldn't be anything. That is the design. Less like "laws," and more like a delicately balanced masterpiece.<br />
<br />
"The Argument from Design" -- He starts off his critique of design arguments with a lot of silly things that people say things are designed for, but they are clearly misconstruing the purpose for which things are designed. Yes, we who hold to a design argument will need to give an accounting for this. If we say that such and such a thing was designed, we have, in a sense, said that we know for what purpose that thing is made. This is obvious with man-made objects. The lamp sitting beside me is clearly purposed to give light to an area. Knowing that purpose I can then say whether or not it was designed and if it was designed well. But, there is another level that Russell doesn't even attempt to address here, probably because it destroys his whole counter to design arguments. He says, "When you come to look into this argument from design, it is a most astonishing thing that people can believe that this world, with all the things that are in it, with all its defects, should be the best that omnipotence and omniscience have been able to produce in millions of years. I really cannot believe it." While I support the first part, we can't speak to the mind of God and say for what purpose the universe was designed (except with God's revealed truth, that is, God has told us some of His purpose for creating), we also cannot speak to whether or not that design is good or bad without knowing the mind of God. But, that is just what Russell is doing. He's saying that the design is bad. How could he know whether the design is good or bad? This is like an ordinary child looking at the design of the so called "Bird's Nest Stadium" (the actual name is the Beijing National Stadium) and saying that the design was bad! Who knows how to design a stadium better, the architects that built that amazing structure or this snotty, haughty child? God is many, many orders of magnitude above our understanding of design than the architect is above the child. So, who is Russell to say that the design is bad?<br />
<br />
In addition to claiming to know that this design is bad, Russell also seems to think that the idea that this world will come to an end someday is a point against God's designing the earth. Once again it seems that Russell has fallen into his own trap. He has implied that we can't know something is designed without knowing for what purpose it was designed. But, here Russell has implied that God probably didn't design the world or at least didn't design it well because it will someday be dead and lifeless. Does Russell know for what purpose God made the world? If and only if one knows the ultimate goal of the existence of the world can one say that its dying is a bad design. Think of an analogy here, a lightbulb. It gives light and works. Is it poorly designed if it eventually wears out and stops working? Russell seems to be implying that an omniscient/omnipotent God would be able to design a lightbulb (from our analogy) that can last forever. But, again, does he know God's goal in making the lightbulb? Maybe, and I don't know for sure, God wanted the lightbulb to last only this long and no longer. Only if one knows when something is <i>supposed</i> to go defunct can one say whether or not it performed as expected or not.<br />
<br />
When I first started writing this I had hoped I would be able to keep my comments to one entry. But, as I reach this point I realize I should have broken this up into multiple entries. So, I'll do just that. This is part one. Come back tomorrow for part two!<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQk6RokUOlGQa3s1iSpKVg5m39ymZZUYLr_dM6vgUV-SwKMwqezl1woyI4PLyCbw4dqfFIthSqRMAge1EQEzEdozN0Ao9AyVnWKJUD_hmzyAUbCpzXC7QhUSjyZ6XWa5eLMMt8N_6obd8/s1600/DSC_0392.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1067" data-original-width="1600" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQk6RokUOlGQa3s1iSpKVg5m39ymZZUYLr_dM6vgUV-SwKMwqezl1woyI4PLyCbw4dqfFIthSqRMAge1EQEzEdozN0Ao9AyVnWKJUD_hmzyAUbCpzXC7QhUSjyZ6XWa5eLMMt8N_6obd8/s640/DSC_0392.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Ancient Okinawan Village on Ikei Island</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />Samuel Ronickerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15254647831303355637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2149547883975131835.post-85729999706440778502017-10-06T02:40:00.003+09:002017-10-06T02:40:49.504+09:00Do We All Need to Become Scholars?This is a response to Richard Bushey's post <a href="https://thereforegodexists.com/christians-stop-apologetics-start-real-scholarship/">here</a>. I <i>highly </i>recommend you read his post first. Here I'll give you a few minutes.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
Okay, ready? Let's talk about why I disagree with him. Here's the first sentence wherein I think Richard has really gone awry, "A possible resolution to this problem is to start doing real scholarship." Particularly the wording, "real scholarship." What kind of career are you involved in right now? If you regularly read my blog you'll know that I'm in the military. When I read "real scholarship" I think consistent, long-term studies. I think reading original sources in the original languages of those sources. I think there's no way that I have time to seriously devote myself to "real scholarship" at this time except in small chunks when I'm taking a college class. I would rephrase this as, "A possible resolution to this problem is to start being more scholarly." I have no problem with the conclusion being, let's work hard to be smarter on a particular subject (particularly when one enters the arena to defend that subject). In order to illustrate why I think Richard is wrong I made some graphics about how I see the world of Christianity divided up:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hKdbctbEDbM/WdZhAmrJMuI/AAAAAAACR1A/PJO6rGxK624ixVN-5hYjflNmEZz-K-wWwCLcBGAs/s1600/Levels%2Bof%2BScholarship.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="880" data-original-width="1082" height="520" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hKdbctbEDbM/WdZhAmrJMuI/AAAAAAACR1A/PJO6rGxK624ixVN-5hYjflNmEZz-K-wWwCLcBGAs/s640/Levels%2Bof%2BScholarship.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
I realize there are definitely more subdivisions that this, but I feel like I captured all the relevant sections in this. There are certainly LOTS of Christian scholars, and I do honestly have a goal of someday being a professor and being considered a scholar. Authors, I think, are often more keenly aware of this distinction when they write. If you go to a bookstore and pull a book off the shelf on _____ topic. More than likely you're reading a popular-level book on _____ topic. If you go to a college bookstore, the opposite is true; you'll more than likely be reading a scholarly text on _____ topic. This graphic is what I feel Richard is trying to push:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0WN9IApqJ3s/WdZiZnQ4fDI/AAAAAAACR1M/CWRDKLJwW8AZMfg58C-qX20D5_u_b5K_gCLcBGAs/s1600/Richard%2527s%2Bproposal.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="880" data-original-width="1074" height="327" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0WN9IApqJ3s/WdZiZnQ4fDI/AAAAAAACR1M/CWRDKLJwW8AZMfg58C-qX20D5_u_b5K_gCLcBGAs/s400/Richard%2527s%2Bproposal.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
And here is a more balanced proposal that I'd offer:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiC_d0M9aNqxlN3twGXo9rbqoPbPK2WZe50iRipSdD-xLOy-bsJjwFlc1c4ixSQTrEccut0W1UH5Zlp4Q874UGCRN85AuyN-dFaA9R1f8RW-Pg7VbKhZCK53exqOtfuAX8NY9xhLy-eEKQ/s1600/A+more+balanced+approach.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="877" data-original-width="1082" height="323" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiC_d0M9aNqxlN3twGXo9rbqoPbPK2WZe50iRipSdD-xLOy-bsJjwFlc1c4ixSQTrEccut0W1UH5Zlp4Q874UGCRN85AuyN-dFaA9R1f8RW-Pg7VbKhZCK53exqOtfuAX8NY9xhLy-eEKQ/s400/A+more+balanced+approach.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Now, before Richard rips my head off I want to point out an important distinction (one that I feel Richard didn't deal with at all). If we change our triangle to be <i>behaviors </i>as opposed to <i>people</i> it will look very different, and it'd be one that I'd be more inclined to agree with.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicdNCNdqX-Pzy6lik3ygZHfzVfB2j_BDpeJIcNIKRXus1m_qyR1hibtcq3jGXuhTQ8xFIe5NbBvlCgXWcljywDE-2-WsGe-8CAJUzSakK9qH81CODYQCjXKx4fIeNIzAAeFjeLxjxxLgA/s1600/Another+Option.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="874" data-original-width="1076" height="323" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicdNCNdqX-Pzy6lik3ygZHfzVfB2j_BDpeJIcNIKRXus1m_qyR1hibtcq3jGXuhTQ8xFIe5NbBvlCgXWcljywDE-2-WsGe-8CAJUzSakK9qH81CODYQCjXKx4fIeNIzAAeFjeLxjxxLgA/s400/Another+Option.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
I think all Christian apologists would agree that the bottom tier is something people shouldn't do. In fact, it denies some biblical instructions "... always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you ..." (1 Pet 3:15b). And, I agree with Richard that merely memorizing answers to skeptics' questions or giving generic, basic arguments for the Christian faith is not the best. However, I'd argue that not everyone is cut out for true scholarly studies. As I started this off with, for many of us scholarly studies runs secondary to the rest of our busy lives. Let's look at a prominent scholar who also works tirelessly in the field of Christian apologetics. Dr. William Lane Craig has been a scholar since 1971 (that's ~46 years, longer than I've been alive!), he has a B.A. two M.A.s, a PhD, and a D.Theo. He's been published over 234 times (only about a third of which would be considered "popular level" [<a href="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/william-lane-craig">source</a>])! Don't get me wrong, I have great respect for Dr. Craig and all the great work he does as a scholar and as a Christian apologist. But do I really think that ANY of my readers can get to that level? Maybe one of you but certainly not all of you, not me, and probably not Richard himself (though he might be on track). This is the sign of life-long devotion to scholarship. We would do well to emulate him. But, if you're shooting for and expecting that, you're probably going to be disappointed. I'm aiming for a much more modest goal. I want to become a military chaplain and then retire to a small college philosophy professorship (or associate professorship).<br />
<br />
One other key point that I disagree with Richard on is this: thinking purely from a practical perspective with regards to apologetics. In fact, I completely agree with Greg Koukl's points in <i>Tactics </i>(available on <a href="http://amzn.to/2yL5wMz">Amazon</a>) that there is not enough focus on the practical perspective in the field of Christian apologetics. He says, "These three skills — knowledge, an accurately informed mind; wisdom, an artful method; and character, an attractive manner — play a part in every effective involvement with a nonbeliever." He goes on to say this and it's something that I think Richard seems to be completely missing, "The second skill, tactical wisdom, is the main focus of this book." A practical perspective is what many are missing!<br />
<br />
What do I think we should do? I think we should all study harder. We should all study arguments from people with whom we'll (probably) disagree. We should devote more time than we already are doing these kinds of scholarly activities. All in all, I don't really disagree with Richard, we need more Christian scholars. But, as Koukl says, I think we also need more, better diplomats -- ambassadors for Jesus Christ.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGsVbAOdMXO738P_mPZndA_XcbEAsbuTYeRiUV5_JU2keaxLrMuFcGjyJ8kDJF3Mh6OQCdoe2wls8XWeJ7ChVpuFgH3ls0-lT2yewUN0plKcKYLAf5eKwkEy22Xzaq1ZlMan_ZIDuEcBU/s1600/7B0C480A-FB30-4B78-848B-EC12A45F06AB.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="1440" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGsVbAOdMXO738P_mPZndA_XcbEAsbuTYeRiUV5_JU2keaxLrMuFcGjyJ8kDJF3Mh6OQCdoe2wls8XWeJ7ChVpuFgH3ls0-lT2yewUN0plKcKYLAf5eKwkEy22Xzaq1ZlMan_ZIDuEcBU/s640/7B0C480A-FB30-4B78-848B-EC12A45F06AB.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />Samuel Ronickerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15254647831303355637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2149547883975131835.post-49201437852231196482017-09-17T04:52:00.001+09:002017-09-17T04:52:21.572+09:00The Book of JobThe following synopsis of the book of Job was posted by a friend of mine the other day expletives edited out:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div>
<br />
The Book of Job in a nutshell:<br />
<br />
Job is a rich guy with tons of bling. Hot wife, loads of kids, all kinds of stuff.<br />
<br />
God and Satan are talking. Satan's like, "Job only likes you cuz you gave him an easy life. Take it away and he won't like you anymore."<br />
<br />
God's like, "You're on. Let's [mess] up his life."<br />
<br />
So they do.<br />
<br />
Now the cliffnotes version of the story you'll hear in a [bad] church is that Job remained faithful, so<br />
God gave Job all his [stuff] back.<br />
<br />
The ACTUAL version that's ACTUALLY in the Bible does not say that.<br />
<br />
In the actual version God and Satan wreck Job's [stuff]. Job is like, "man, this... really sucks. I'm not being flippant here. My kids are all dead. I am... I am not in a good place right now."<br />
<br />
Job's friends show up and are like, "DAMN, dude! God is seriously pissed at you! What did you DO?"<br />
<br />
And Job says, "Nothing, seriously. He just wrecked my life and killed everyone I loved for... as far as I can tell, literally no reason at all."<br />
<br />
And Job's friends are all, "Ok, there's no way. God would only do this to you if you REALLY sinned. You'd better beg for forgiveness."<br />
<br />
And Job says, "I've got no forgiveness to beg for. I didn't do anything. This all happened for no reason."<br />
<br />
And his friends, "No, this definitely happened for a reason. God liked you so he gave you a good life, now God doesn't like you so he screwed your life up, obviously you sinned and he's angry with you, you need to apologize so he'll give you back the high life to which you were so sweetly accustomed."<br />
And Job says, "No. I didn't do anything. I'm not apologizing for [stuff] I didn't do."<br />
<br />
And his friends are like, "Man, [forget] you. Not only did you sin, like, MASSIVELY, you aren't even repentant. You suck. I don't know how we didn't notice this before."<br />
<br />
And then they bail on him because no one wants to hang out with a secret pedophile or whatever they thought Job was.<br />
<br />
So Job sits there and is all, "Ok... God? I'm not fooling here. I'm in pain. Do you not... do you not understand that people... hurt? When you hurt them? Do you not... get what suffering is? Do you not understand what you've... what you've done here? Are you just so far away that you... don't... understand how fragile we are? Or that you can't... care?"<br />
<br />
So God here's this and is SUPER PISSED. Because he just told Satan that Job was all pious and [stuff[ but now Job is calling him out. So he shows up and SCREAMS at Job. He goes on this big rant about all the monsters he's killed and the things he's seen and how amazing he is and HOW DARE JOB QUESTION HIM! He gets super into it, and REALLY threatening.<br />
<br />
And Job just falls on his face and begs forgiveness because seriously what else is he going to do, he doesn't think he can take God in a fight.<br />
<br />
So God takes some deep breaths and counts to ten and goes to his happy place for a minute and gets himself under control again.<br />
<br />
Then he says, "Ok, ok... so... we all gotta move on from here... Tell you what. You did tell the truth about me, back there. That's worth something. You at least get me, even if you don't always RESPECT. So I'ma give you new women and kids and cows and [stuff]. Not your old ones, Satan and I killed those. New ones though. These are gonna be better, I swear. And, what else. Oh yeah, your so called friends. They didn't tell the truth about me. So I'ma murder them all."<br />
<br />
And Job begs God not to do that, because Job really is a stand up guy, that's been established. And God lets them live.<br />
<br />
So... the thing Job did that was telling the truth about God was stating that God sends good and evil to us without respect to our righteousness. And the thing that Job's friends did that was telling lies about God was claiming that God sends wealth and easy living to the righteous, and misery to the unrighteous.<br />
<br />
In other words, the moral of Job is that if you believe in the prosperity gospel God will straight up ice you unless Job asks him to chill.<br />
<br />
Just kidding, God's not real.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div>
<br />
First, I want to admit that I failed at how I handled the subsequent discussion. I was overly critical of some of the comments that others posted and I didn't offer much in the way of answering the challenge. Now, let's have a quick rundown on orders of causes/effects. A first order cause, is the actual, immediate cause for a certain effect. Now, think of a row of dominoes. A second order cause would be the next domino in the chain of dominoes, the one that knocked down the one that knocked down the final one. Then of course it goes on and on up the chain. In addition to this causal chain there's cause by inaction. In our example, a person standing by a chain of dominoes could stop the chain, but doesn't, that person could be said to have a secondary cause or at least secondarily culpable for the final effect. But, think about how this works. Am I culpable for my inaction concerning abortion doctors? I'm not actively intervening by stopping abortion doctors from going to work, am I responsible for their evils? If I buy a latte from a company that supports an organization that supports abortion, am I causing abortions? Clearly not. Now let's look at the passages from the book of Job and see how the parallels go. First act that God does in chapter one is God talks to Satan. What did God say? He asked Satan what he's been up to. Then asks if Satan had considered Job, since he's blameless and upright, fearing God. Then God says, "Behold, all that he has is in your power, only do not put forth your hand on him." (All my quotes will be from the NASB.) The <b>only </b>actions God has actually done so far is speak. However, what actions were taken against Job in the first chapter? The "Sabeans" (apparently it refers to people from "Sheba") kill the servants and steal all his oxen and donkeys. Here we finally have something else God does, or do we? The phrase translated "The fire of God fell from heaven." It could be translated "a mighty fire" or "a divine fire." Again, this doesn't actually say that God did _____. It says that a divine fire came from heaven and killed the sheep and the servants watching them, which is not the same as God killing them, especially since we have Satan in the beginning of this chapter being given permission to test Job. Then the "Chaldeans" kill the servants and steal all his camels. Lastly, it says, "a great wind came from across the wilderness and struck the four corners of the house, and it fell on [Job's children] and they died ..." We've come to the end of the first chapter and God hasn't done anything to Job.<br />
<br />
Before we move on, let's compare to the summary given above. The summary gets that Job is rich; that is clear. The description of the interaction between Satan and God starts out as a more or less a decent summary. Then everything is completely wrong in the next phrase. God does <b>not say, </b>"You're on. Let's [mess] up his life." And, "so they do," is a completely inaccurate description of the way the story is actually described. "They" don't <i>do </i>anything really (at least so far in the story). God permits Satan to test Job, but God hasn't done anything to Job.<br />
<br />
Now we come to the second chapter. It starts in basically the same way as the first chapter. Satan now says that Job still has his health and that's the only reason he still worships God. So, again, God gives permission to Satan to tempt Job this time, he's permitted to harm Job but not kill him. Then another key phrase: "7 Then Satan went out from the presence of the Lord and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head." Again <i>they </i>didn't do anything, Satan did. Job's wife is actually the first one to counsel Job. She says, "Do you still hold fast your integrity? Curse God and die!" Then Job replies with the real message of the book: "Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?" On to the third chapter. Job laments his birth. Then the lectures from his friends start in chapter four. Their themes are: innocent people aren't punished by God, God is just, God, and a rebuke. Now, each one is answered by Job and their lectures are a bit of a read. I don't blame the author for criticizing the book. It is a bit of a rough read. The longest portions of the text are the series of lectures and they're somewhat repetitive in theme. You've sinned, Job, confess, Job replies that it doesn't work like that, and then they renew their attack. Quite possibly the most famous line is, "Though he slay me, I will hope in him," which is vital to the message of the book. Again, the above summary completely misses that point. It's interesting to me that the summary above completely misses so much of the points made in Job's responses to his "friends." He says in many ways that no matter how bad things are, he honors and loves God. Yes, Job laments and tempers flare, but the goal is all about how God is truly in control.<br />
<br />
Now we come to the part when God shows up. God speaks to Job and rhetorically asks (in a way), "Who are you to question me?" Now, we come to one of the clearest mistakes in the summary. This line: "Oh yeah, your so called friends. They didn't tell the truth about me. So I'ma murder them all." Where is that in the text? The closest thing is God saying to one of the friends: "My wrath is kindled against you and against your two friends, because you have not spoken of Me what is right as My servant Job has. Now therefore, take for yourselves seven bulls and seven rams, and go to My servant Job, and offer up a burnt offering for yourselves, and My servant Job will pray for you. For I will accept him so that I may not do with you according to your folly, because you have not spoken of Me what is right, as My servant Job has." Maybe the phrasing is unclear, but it reads as God saying, "I'm unhappy with you, make a sacrifice and repent." There is a consequence of disobedience, that is, "that I may not do with you according to your folly." No, that's not, as the summary says, "I'ma [sic] murder them all." Job didn't beg God not to do that. They offered sacrifices and God followed through on the promise.<br />
<br />
Just what is the moral of the story here? Yes, part of the point is that good and evil happen to both good and evil people. As Jesus said, God "sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." But, the other main point is that God is in control and yet will I praise Him. One other important point to not miss is that God never chastises Job for lamenting. Getting to the end here and the original post betrays that it's all a troll. There's no real point in the summary except to illicit anger from, I presume, Christians. At the risk of feeding the troll, I have written this as a reasoned response to an unreasonable, emotional post.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-YqpKOFftHFj0OR92QbSs3yIU2riWZ7kJo__Oc7Se3HSYAaiECkebxyD-wmhuGOj9ZGPIht2OB_IpKFpZHwQEEUEUdJWxm2DWOsgCFP2FObBRqGi6CB4HuvvrLMzqWGoe5MGQ8mX-D0w/s1600/IMG_0536.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="281" data-original-width="1600" height="112" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-YqpKOFftHFj0OR92QbSs3yIU2riWZ7kJo__Oc7Se3HSYAaiECkebxyD-wmhuGOj9ZGPIht2OB_IpKFpZHwQEEUEUdJWxm2DWOsgCFP2FObBRqGi6CB4HuvvrLMzqWGoe5MGQ8mX-D0w/s640/IMG_0536.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />Samuel Ronickerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15254647831303355637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2149547883975131835.post-13675715209862198652017-08-29T12:05:00.000+09:002017-08-29T12:07:41.785+09:00Church Shopping ...So here I am ... sitting in a church service (I won't name the church because I don't want to defame the church), and I'm hit by various disappointments. Those of you that are 30+ years old and raised in the church (particularly in Baptist/conservative churches) probably remember what I grew up in when it comes to church services. When I was young, we always sang with the hymnal. In fact, it was a big deal when we started adding praise songs to the service. Even then, when we started adding praise songs, they were still in a book. Then it was another huge step to add slides (bring back the nostalgia, the slides were transparencies on an overhead projector). The praise song books were still available and most of the songs were still sung out of the hymnal. Don't get me wrong, modern praise and worship music can be rather beautiful, and I love the integration of my old favorite hymns into newer songs (and one of the songs this morning did just that). Really, I don't think it's the music that bothers me; it's more that the spectacle of it all that makes me feel uncomfortable. It's a stage (not an altar) and the stage is lit like a concert stage. The words are on two giant screens with cool, moving backgrounds. The ambience is more like a really tame rock concert, not that of a church.<br />
<br />
Then, it got worse ... Well, I wouldn't say "worse," just not the atmosphere I want or really think of when I think "church." I knew this was a multi-location church, their website says as much. But I went to, what I thought was, the main church building. But no, the music was live, and there was announcements, but then a screen dropped on stage, the lights dimmed and the pastor appeared on a giant screen on stage. Why? I understand that the pastor is only one guy (and the message was good, a hard-hitting application of James 3), and he can't be in multiple locations at the same time. But, could this be done better? It's confusing, because it looks like he was videotaped giving the message on a similar stage, but where is he? I feel so disconnected. When a church gets so big it can't fit in one building, why not split up and make multiple churches!? If a church gets too big for two buildings (this particular church has, I think, four or five buildings), why not make many churches. Surely the huge congregation can afford to pay multiple pastors. This church is so large it not only has multiple locations, but it has multiple services!<br />
<br />
The overall feel, because of the stage-performance-style praise and worship session, the video-broadcasted sermon, the drive-by-style communion, and just how it seemed like everyone left immediately after the service, was that of a shopping mall church. Stop in, get your deals, buy your Christianity for the week (not that they emphasized the offering, on the contrary, they just had a box in the back of the auditorium). It doesn't feel like anyone knows anyone else or that they want to get to know newcomers, though the pastor encouraged visitors to go to the visitors' desk to get a free gift (a t-shirt) multiple times. It's almost like they relegated interpersonal relationships to a specific welcome-table. The service didn't feel like people coming together to worship God and get to know one another.<br />
<br />
One last thing that bothers me about many (not just this church) Sunday morning services. When I was young Sunday morning services consisted of Sunday School (for adults and kids, separately), then regular worship services. I don't know, but there's just something special about a church that seeks to educate its congregation. When did we go from churches that seek to educate in small group settings, then worship corporately, then engage with each other in person? Maybe that's boring? I'm not trying to say that the "old way" is better. Rather, I want to draw attention to things I don't like about the "new way" and see if we can have the best of both ways. Can we educate and have authentic relationships in a fun, creative environment?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGWSdl6YYsAUaD_VMFGYUhaV-8XIxYQv_tCY4mgmaeifocL1uq4SnF7aMWF-A55noNFcrBWbkkVdUHs9aPWcEaTcF71nfQlDPnmIshh31YnZZDRqx1YbE06dzNkXrLtm7hyTKw9y0Q6-E/s1600/IMG_0545.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="380" data-original-width="1600" height="152" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGWSdl6YYsAUaD_VMFGYUhaV-8XIxYQv_tCY4mgmaeifocL1uq4SnF7aMWF-A55noNFcrBWbkkVdUHs9aPWcEaTcF71nfQlDPnmIshh31YnZZDRqx1YbE06dzNkXrLtm7hyTKw9y0Q6-E/s640/IMG_0545.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />Samuel Ronickerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15254647831303355637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2149547883975131835.post-21884218832939007662017-04-09T18:01:00.002+09:002017-04-24T20:27:03.273+09:00The Future of My CareerSorry I'm so flaky on posting. I doubt I have any "regular" readers, so I doubt anyone actually missed my entries, but I apologize nonetheless. I have made some career plans recently that may be taking me in a totally different direction than I thought I'd go for a LONG time.<br />
<br />
First, a little background. If you know me in person or have followed me on social media or this blog for a long time you'll know that I'm currently serving as a linguist in the US Air Force (USAF). Technically the name for my job is "Airborne Cryptologic Language Analyst" but that's a mouthful. Linguist is simpler ... though technically incorrect as I'm not really a student of language as the term "linguist" means. Regardless, I digress. I've been an enlisted military linguist for going on eleven and a half years at the time of this writing. I've often joked that I would have signed a twenty-year contract when I first enlisted. At the time I was certain that I wanted to be a linguist and that I wanted to retire from the military. However, I've recently completely changed my mind. I've thought about this before. I've looked into various commissioned officer programs. I first tried to just get my bachelor's degree so I could apply for Officer Training School. When deploying to the Middle East derailed my educational goals, I sought for another option. I tried to get in an application for the Airman Education and Commissioning Program (AECP) (formerly called the "bootstrap" program). This route to commissioning, at first, wasn't available to me. I am a Korean linguist and as such the AECP wasn't open to me. Chinese was on the language degree lists when I first looked into the AECP, but it wasn't until I was nearing the age cutoff that Korean was added to the list. I never completed my application because the bureaucratic nonsense that is commissioning programs got in the way, and I passed the age waiver (sort of, I deployed and moved overseas, both of which interfered). About that time I gave up on my dreams of commissioning. Though I looked into other programs (the nursing program and chaplaincy program both came up), I didn't think I could make all the requirements for them.<br />
<br />
However, three major things just recently changed my mind. First off, my position at my unit has steadily and inexorably gotten worse and worse. I feel like I have been passed over for multiple positions. I've sort of been shafted by being placed in (and somewhat in charge of) one of the toughest offices in the unit. These things and some others have really struck me hard because I'm a very hard worker. I think nothing of staying late, working weekends and holidays, and I intentionally shield my subordinates from the most trying parts of the job. I work in the scheduling office (over the last year) and as just an example, this past Christmas I worked my tail off. I went in on Christmas eve, Christmas day, the day after, and the day after that. We were supposed to get a four-day weekend (Monday and Tuesday were "down days," basically free leave days for holidays). So, on a four-day weekend for the holiday, I worked every day. Now, I didn't go in all day each day. I went in only a couple hours on Christmas eve, about five hours on Christmas day and only a couple hours the two following days. Regardless, I didn't get a holiday at all really. I had to go in and make multiple phone calls for schedule changes all weekend. I did this voluntarily because I didn't want my subordinates to lose their holiday. Basically, I'm saying I work my butt off, but it doesn't matter, I've been passed over for upgraded positions and marked down on my performance report. One quick addendum since I first wrote this piece. I have just recently been selected for an upgrade position. I start training this year in August. Though I've asked for this upgrade, I doubt very much that this change in position will effect my career plans in any way.<br />
<br />
Secondly, my good friend recently punched his ticket and went for this. His daring willingness to serve God has inspired me. He got out, he had served as an enlisted member for about twelve years (I'll be at about fourteen when I reach the end of my enlistment), and he got out and is now attending Liberty University Seminary full-time. He plans on finishing his M.Div. degree and applying for chaplaincy in the USAF. I want to follow his footsteps (though I'm thinking of going to Denver Seminary).<br />
<br />
Thirdly, and this one is the oddest one, I ran into a vociferous liberal chaplain. He spoke of being proud that he was the only (military) chaplain on Okinawa that would perform same-sex marriage ceremonies or counsel same-sex couples on marital issues. Two things in our conversation really spurred me on to this career change. One is that Bible-believing chaplains need to be strong in the military if only to respond to people like that liberal chaplain I met. Not unlike CS Lewis' comments about philosophy: "Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered." I feel that one can substitute "chaplains" for "philosophy." Secondly, and this was huge(!), I found out that one can complete one's ministry experience preparation simultaneously with one's seminary attendance. One of the most important prerequisites for becoming a military chaplain is two years of practical ministry experience. When I first looked into military chaplaincy I considered the way closed to me because I didn't think I would be able to support my family while getting that experience. I was worried that if I tried to become a chaplain I'd have to find some way to support my family for about four years without a job (two in seminary and two getting ministry experience). Armed with this knowledge I now know I only have to do two years "unemployed" or "minimally employed" while getting the requisite credentials.<br />
<br />
So, here's the plan ... I'm planning on finishing out my current enlistment (separation date: Aug 2020). Immediately upon separating I'm planning on enrolling in seminary (where is still up in the air). While in seminary I'm going to seek part-time ministry at a church. As soon as I finish my M.Div. degree and have the requisite two years of ministry experience I am planning on getting ordained (sponsored) and rejoin the USAF as a chaplain. From the time I rejoin, I will only have to serve about six years and I'll be eligible for retirement from the military, and I plan on doing so. After that, I'm not sure. Maybe working as a chaplain will fit me so well that I keep going until the military kicks me out for being too old ... I don't know. I've been told by several people that I'd make a good chaplain. And, based on some of the above description of what's going on with my current job, I'm immensely more excited about a career as a chaplain than I've been about being a linguist since when I was in language school.<br />
<br />
Is this God's will for my life? Well, I'm not certain. I think so, and as I said I've been encouraged by multiple people that it is. However, my wife has proposed a kind of fleece (as the story of Gideon setting out the fleece to test God's will/message). Basically, it goes like this. IF at the end of this overseas assignment (March 2019) I get an assignment to the language institute in Monterey, CA (DLI), I'll take that as God's saying, "stay where you are." I've wanted to teach at DLI since I attended from 2006-2008. If God wants me to stay a linguist, He'll open up that path for me to continue in this job. If I get the assignment to teach at DLI, I'll, more than likely, stay as an enlisted military linguist until 2026 when I retire. Again, after that, I have no idea what I want to do. That's too far in the future to really make plans. Given all this I think "chaplain Sam" or "chaplain Ronicker" has a good ring to it, doesn't it? We'll see.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-L3x6syAGqE4/WOn3124dRnI/AAAAAAAB-PM/FtZoMbMQc8E4yZIGnnbjuLjdwezQyBn8wCLcB/s1600/DSC_5264.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="424" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-L3x6syAGqE4/WOn3124dRnI/AAAAAAAB-PM/FtZoMbMQc8E4yZIGnnbjuLjdwezQyBn8wCLcB/s640/DSC_5264.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />Samuel Ronickerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15254647831303355637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2149547883975131835.post-11463643432595661592017-02-21T00:21:00.000+09:002017-02-21T16:38:51.504+09:00Determinists' DelusionBefore I get to this topic I want to apologize. I have been over a year without an entry (I have been busy but that's a lame excuse). Before I get into the meat of this issue I want to talk about what started me thinking about this issue. I got into a short discussion on Facebook about the HBO show <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0475784/">Westworld</a> and the ramifications of artificial intelligence (AI) (I have since started also watching the British TV show <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4122068/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">Humans</a>). They both deal with AI and how humans would interact with <b><i>very</i></b> human-like robots.<br />
<br />
The premise of the show <i>Westworld</i> is complicated and I won't give any spoilers away. Essentially a group of people (only one of the founders of this company appears to be still alive, that is somewhat of a mystery) started a theme park. At this theme park, instead of riding roller coasters, you get to experience a fully authentic style Old West town (and surrounding area). The visitors to the park are free to do, say, behave, kill, rape, etc., etc. anyone and anything they can imagine. The park is set in the future (obviously, since we don't have human-like robots today) and the park's technology keeps the visitors safe. The "hosts" (the term the show uses for the robots) can fight back, and they're programmed to behave in the typical manner of an Old West town, but the "hosts" are incapable of hurting the visitors. The "hosts" can try to shoot the visitors but the bullets don't really hurt the humans (they sting a little), and if a "host" tries to stab or otherwise seriously harm a visitor their primary programming stops them and they freeze (usually). I can't say that I actually recommend the show ... I wish HBO hadn't done it. It intentionally and brazenly uses nudity/sex/violence/etc. to sell the show to a crass, sex-addled society. I understand the nudity (in a sense); basically, when the "hosts" are in the shop for "repair," they never (unless it's to practice a scene from the theme park) wear clothing. So, there are <i style="font-weight: bold;">lots </i>of scenes with <i style="font-weight: bold;">lots </i>of naked "people" in them. Also, there are a wide variety of sensuous and violent scenes, including rape scenes and scenes depicting slaughter of random "people/hosts" (I don't recall if there are any scenes directly displaying the slaughter of children). What often happens in the theme park is, visitors come to the park and live out their wildest fantasies. There appears, the non-violent characters are not highlighted, that there are some who just come to the park and have fun, explore, play games, get their picture (there is an old-timey photographer often shown in the background), and leave. But, of course, the show revolves around several characters living out their darkest, vilest, cruelest dreams in the park.<br />
<br />
The show <i>Humans</i> (technically the 'a' is upside down) is a much less (so far, I'm only on episode three of season 1) dark show. There certainly is much less nudity, the "synths" are nude in some scenes but they're mostly covered or clothed throughout the show (the nudity has not been full-frontal-nudity as it is <i>Westworld</i> several times). However, the show tackles similar philosophical and existential issues with AI. It seems, so far, that the theme is, some of these "synths" are gaining full consciousness or at least seem like they are (what does it even mean to have full consciousness). And, in a sense, some of them seem to be rebelling against their human masters. There are some clear displays of how "synths" are enslaved (some even in the sex industry), but mostly they are just unpaid, unfeeling, slavish (but most often not mistreated) household servants. For example, the primary family characters bought their "synth" to help around the house because the mother was often away on business and the father also worked outside the home and just neither of them had time for domestic issues like cooking or cleaning. So, they bought a "synth" to cook and clean for them and to free them up to spend time together as a family. There are a couple side-plots that haven't fully developed, but apparently, "synths" are hackable and some have gained a certain level of independence/consciousness. They're governed by something similar to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics">Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robotics"</a> 1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. 2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. 3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. It isn't overtly stated that they must obey these laws (the Will Smith movie <i>I, Robot </i>makes these laws a quintessential part of the plot, but the writers of <i>Humans</i> are more subtle. The "synths" aren't permitted to touch a human unless given direct, explicit permission. Also, and this comes up in the plot, children are not permitted to be "primary users" and may not be touched by the "synths" unless given express permission by an adult/"primary user." Anyways ... I prattle on. These two shows illustrate human depravity like few others I've ever seen. But, all that is just the precursor to what I <b><i>really</i></b> want to talk about. That is something that Sam Harris and Paul Bloom discussed in <a href="https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/abusing-dolores">this podcast</a>.<br />
<br />
Sam Harris is (in)famous as one of the "four horsemen of atheism" and is an outspoken author and speaker on the subject of atheism. Even in this podcast, which isn't really about atheism/theism, Harris seems to be unable to control himself in deriding the Christian God. He says that God is the worst possible "mind criminal" (a term from an author that he references in the podcast). He says this because God created minds, and then tortures them in Hell (I believe he may have phrased it, "consigns them to torture in Hell"). Nevertheless, the discussion is very interesting. They talk about empathy and compassion. They talk about it with regard to how we will or should treat (future) AI (I'm not going to keep calling these "robots" by the monikers used in the TV shows, I'm just going to call them "AI"). The biggest thing that hit me in this whole conversation wasn't directly about AI. In the course of the conversation Harris insisted (without much argument or support) that though determinism leads us to less anger when people do evil, but doesn't lead us to less desire or love of empathy/compassion (those are not the same, but in this discussion we can treat them together). This inexplicable insistence leads me to think that Harris (and presumably his guest) is deluding himself. Let me put this more straightforwardly. Determinism is the idea that <i style="font-weight: bold;">everything and I mean everything, </i>is determined. There is no escape. This is not the "nature versus nurture" argument. This is a combination of nature and nurture that says, essentially, given the combination of one's genes and upbringing that one will behave exactly the way one behaves. So, we cannot blame the despot because he was programmed to be despotic because of his genes and upbringing. If the despot had been born with different genetic makeup he would be different, and if the despot had been born to different parents, he would be different. Regardless, one cannot change one's genes or upbringing, so we shouldn't be mad at the mass murderer because he's just acting out his genes and upbringing. People are just complicated forms of biological machines.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, though, Harris insists that we can praise the virtuous person. How does this make sense? He says that we can praise this person because she chooses to care about the wellbeing of others. But wait, doesn't determinism mean that a person is <i><b>merely</b></i> the sum total of his/her genes and upbringing, there's not <b style="font-style: italic;">really</b> any such thing as "choosing" something at all. Choosing requires an agent, a person. But determinism destroys personhood. The bad person is just being bad because his genes and upbringing make him do so, just as the good person is just being good because her genes and upbringing make her do so. Harris phrases it something like, people with compassion want the best in others. When I heard him say this, "With loving kindness, you really just ... you want that person to be happy." Isn't "wanting something" a choice? He says that it's different in two ways: first because in hating a bad man, we're assigning ultimate agency to the man, and under determinacy, there is no ultimate agency. But, loving kindness doesn't ascribe ultimate agency to the good person, it's just wanting that person to be happy. Well, no offense to Harris, but his logic is clearly flawed here. The statement may technically be true; that loving kindness doesn't claim that the good person that you're loving has ultimate agency. However, what he's clearly ignoring (perhaps unintentionally), is that his idea of loving kindness clearly ascribes ultimate agency to the person doing the loving kindness. Also, the good deeds for which Harris is saying one might show loving kindness to someone requires that he/she must have ultimate agency (despite Harris' claim otherwise). Harris is deluding himself if he thinks he can have his cake and eat it too. Either determinism absolves both bad and good behavior or the determinists are just lying about their insistence on determinism. Harris (and many, many others) only really claim determinism in a way that suits their preconceived notions.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfpQLwzxS4vxm5xoGbqXAUzPAaUMNdFACWlk287OvC6yUST71FQpzgysjL2Q0EUGmThnKMh9rU-EfRdueq3DKn_tsfuxLRRoh6nBDDqw7eUoCh8QIiCJBO_jLDyCDgA-fhZQgU8MYn6RA/s1600/DSC_6364.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfpQLwzxS4vxm5xoGbqXAUzPAaUMNdFACWlk287OvC6yUST71FQpzgysjL2Q0EUGmThnKMh9rU-EfRdueq3DKn_tsfuxLRRoh6nBDDqw7eUoCh8QIiCJBO_jLDyCDgA-fhZQgU8MYn6RA/s640/DSC_6364.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Samuel Ronickerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15254647831303355637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2149547883975131835.post-39106678310841369482015-08-04T20:19:00.000+09:002015-08-04T20:19:40.659+09:00Running and RelativismI know, these two topics seem unrelated, but I'll try to explain. First off I want to preface this entry with my intentions here. Specifically, I am <i style="font-weight: bold;">not </i>here to proselytize you to any particular view. In fact if anything, this is just a rant and a rather random observation.<br />
<br />
As you may or may not know, I've been a barefoot/minimalist runner for about seven years and a runner in general for almost twenty years. I'm not saying this to boast, but to give my background to show that I have an idea and know a bit about running. I know, being a lifelong runner doesn't really make one an expert, but let's just leave it at, I know running and barefoot running. I've been noticing a trend when people ask for advice about shoes and I recommend barefoot running. They say something like "that's not for me," or "that might be fine for you" or something similar. Anything seem familiar about those kinds of statements? To me they sound just like things one might hear in a discussion about truth objective morality versus relativistic morality. Is there really a right or wrong way to run? I'd say there's no clear cut answer to that question, but one thing is certain, there is such a thing as a more natural way to run.<br />
<br />
Does natural equal better? I wouldn't say for certain, but I can say that millions of people all around the world spend millions of dollars (more than they really have to spend) to buy things that are "natural." If you don't believe that check out Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, dōTERRA, Lemongrass Spa, Norwex, MovNat, and many many others! All these retailers seek to capitalize on the overwhelming sense that most people have that natural = better. All other things being equal (particularly price), wouldn't you pick the natural alternative over a chemical/synthetic/artificial option? So, with regards to the question of barefoot/minimalist running/walking/living, tell me what would be more "natural." I understand, we, especially in the West, fight an uphill battle against our nurture. Many (probably almost everyone) since the 1980s have been indoctrinated into the idea that barefootedness is unsafe. Like the mom in <i>A Christmas Story, </i>we're told not that, "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YleZvTSDC6s">you'll shoot your eye out</a>," but that you'll cut your foot if you walk around barefoot.<br />
<br />
I won't lie, there is a definite danger of cutting your foot, but I'll be honest, in my seven years (including a half-marathon) of barefootedness I've only cut my foot a handful of times and every time it hasn't been serious. In fact the worst cut I ever got was when I was a teenager swimming barefoot and exploring an island in Michigan. That one hurt (it was right on the arch) and seemed to last forever. But, in reality the danger is minimal (pun intended)! When you walk or run barefoot you're much more attentive than you are normally and your footfall is such that you don't drag your feet across the ground. Even if you do <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGdH77Tr49Q">step directly on a piece of glass</a> you still probably won't cut your foot.<br />
<br />
The key in all this is, I think, twofold indoctrination. First, the whole it's dangerous thing, with glass and nails and rocks etc etc etc. The second and I think more difficult portion of our indoctrination is the "I have low arches" or "I overpronate/supinate" or something similar. Basically, and I blame shoe companies, we're taught from the moment we think about starting running, that everyone's foot and gait are totally different and each person needs a special shoe to deal with that difference. While there is a real difference in how everyone walks/runs, and that can make a difference when it comes to speed or style/gait one runs with. These differences do nothing to undermine the foundational truth that we are all fundamentally built the virtually same. Obviously this excludes people born with deformities or various handicaps, I'm not saying there aren't abnormalities. I'm saying that fundamentally humans are all born with the same basic bone and muscle structures. If one has a "flat foot" or a "fallen arch" do you think that person was born with that or did that happen over time? Does the person with flat feet have the same basic number of bones/joints/ligaments/tendons/muscles in his or her feet? YES! I'm not a medical professional and I haven't done direct research on why people have flat feet, but I can assure you no amount of flat-footedness will change whether or not that person can walk/run barefoot. Whether you believe in God directly creating humans or evolution through natural unguided evolutionary process humans came to be what they are today, it doesn't matter. Humans naturally are barefoot.<br />
<br />
Let's bring this back around to the relativism issue. People assume that these differences (which I feel are more the result of shoe company indoctrination) somehow preclude them from the truth that barefootedness is more natural. If that one thing is true and true for everyone then why not follow the truth? Perhaps people don't really want truth. I know in all my discussions with atheists about things relating to God they definitely don't seem honest in their seeking of the truth. I even recently <a href="http://christthetao.blogspot.jp/2015/07/why-is-jerry-coyne-atheist.html">read</a> about Jerry Coyne's "conversion story" to atheism. I think in both the shoe-wearing world and in the atheist world, sticking one's head in the sand to avoid the truth is much more comfortable than dealing with the <a href="http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm">truth</a>. It is more comfortable and easy to say, "well, that's true for you but not for me," than to really address one's views and look for the answers. Is it more reasonable to believe this or that?<br />
<br />
For more info about barefooting check out <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0897935543/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0897935543&linkCode=as2&tag=liflibthepuro-20&linkId=N43V3YI52T6ZGPBP">this book</a>. For more about how belief in God is more reasonable that atheism check out <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1581345615/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1581345615&linkCode=as2&tag=liflibthepuro-20&linkId=J4SNWAVVYSM63Q47">this book</a> (there are many others but that is my main suggestion today).<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Y6_sC7d_BBw/VcCfL5p_ZjI/AAAAAAAAfJE/DL7ja0o17bE/s1600/DSC_3153.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="426" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Y6_sC7d_BBw/VcCfL5p_ZjI/AAAAAAAAfJE/DL7ja0o17bE/s640/DSC_3153.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">It's kinda hard to see, but that's an octopus. We found it on our last snorkeling outing.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Samuel Ronickerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15254647831303355637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2149547883975131835.post-6390307445203349462015-06-20T20:10:00.001+09:002015-06-20T20:10:03.948+09:00On the Existential Argument for GodFirst, I'd like to point out that I very much dislike any existential argument, somewhat related to the <a href="http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/desire.htm">argument from desire</a> (for God or anything else). They're very much appeals to the populous. And, while there is a point to be made, I hope I make it as we go, I dislike appeals to popular opinion. Just because a large group of people feel such-and-such does <i>not </i>say anything to the truth of that feeling.<br />
<br />
As a bit of background: I was doing some searching for existential arguments when I happened upon this page from "<a href="http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=11041">Common Sense Atheism</a>." This article written by Luke Muehlhauser is a response to an article by Tawa Anderson on "<a href="http://www.apologetics315.com/2010/04/essay-does-god-exist-by-tawa-anderson.html">Apologetics 315</a>," and I decided to respond to both of them here.<br />
<br />
The first of Tawa’s arguments for God and the one that I want to discuss here is "Can Man Live Without God? An Existential Argument from Human Religiosity.” Luke points out: "Tawa notes that every ancient and medieval culture was highly religious, and that 'there is indeed a hole in our hearts that can only be filled by God.'" However, Luke has no (real) response. He only scoffs, "Tell that to the healthy, satisfied, well-educated atheists of Scandinavia and they will laugh at you." Will they? <a href="https://libertella91.liberty.me/sorry-bernie-scandinavian-isnt-a-socialist-paradise/">This article</a> and <a href="http://nypost.com/2015/01/11/sorry-liberals-scandinavian-countries-arent-utopias/">this article from the New York Post</a> and <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/27/scandinavian-miracle-brutal-truth-denmark-norway-sweden">this article from the Guardian</a>, all tell very different stories about Scandinavian happiness than seems to be touted in the atheist blogosphere. The basic points in those articles are that Scandinavians are actually among the saddest people in the world, it's the social norm there to conform and claim happiness and uniformity above all else. Sure they might be among the best educated in the world, as Luke seems to fall into the confusion between causation and correlation as he blogs on <a href="http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=3189">this topic</a> <a href="http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=3265">quite frequently</a>. Let's not assume that just because they're unhappy atheists that that is why they are highly educated or vice versa. Perhaps education and atheism are only corollarily related.<br />
<br />
After scoffing and wrongfully claiming that Scandinavians are happy atheists, Luke moves on to an appeal to the majority in the educated world: "Tell that to the most prestigious scientists and philosophers in the world, <b><i>most of whom</i></b> are atheists, and they will laugh at you. (More scoffing/emphasis added.) Tell that to the millions of fulfilled, moral, successful atheists around the world and they will laugh at you." Again not really an argument just mocking scorn. But, since he's gone there let's play the numbers, and if we're playing we might as well play big right? On Luke's other post about the causes of atheism he references this statistic: "non-believers skyrocketed from 3.2 million in 1900 to 918 million in 2000, or 0.2% of world population in 1900 to 15.3% in 2000" from <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195079639/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0195079639&linkCode=as2&tag=liflibthepuro-20&linkId=TS45EHHACNKZTWIG">this source</a>. So, given approximately 10,000 years of recorded human history the largest percentage ever recorded was a measly 15.3%!? I am not a mathematician (I'm a linguist), but even I can tell that the incredibly vast majority of human beings throughout the entirety of human history were definitely religious, at least in some fashion. If anything this supposedly educated majority of people that are happy atheists is completely false given simple statistics. Also, let's look at educated religious people. This interesting article on "<a href="http://www.examiner.com/article/of-10-highest-iq-s-on-earth-at-least-8-are-theists-at-least-6-are-christians">Examiner.com</a>" counts some of the top IQs ever tested as being Christians or at least theists. Maybe the test is skewed to allow for a religious person to score higher (that was sarcasm!)?<br />
<br />
So let's go back to Luke's only critique so far, "The claim that 'there is … a hole in our hearts that can only be filled by God' is empirically false." Is it? We've shown clearly that trillions of people throughout history have had a desire for the ultimate, the other-worldly, the infinite. But, because there's been a jump in atheism in the past hundred years or so the claim that most people have a desire for God is "empirically false"? Perhaps Luke is misunderstanding the definition of <a href="http://lmgtfy.com/?q=empirically+false">empirically false</a>. How is this argument "a shameless, cult-like attempt to prop up human insecurities so that people cling even harder to the superstitions that feed off their insecurity"? It's a verifiable claim from history that most people want to connect with God. This verifiable fact implies that there is a hunger deep within humanity. What are we to make of this hunger? CS Lewis uses the analogy of one's hunger for food. If an animal was born without the hunger for food, that organism would die within one generation. Why are we still living with this desire if it's genetically disadvantageous to desire God, why is it still here? If it's genetically disadvantageous to desire moral actions why do we still have those desires as well? Luke's "critique" falls flat.<br />
<br />
Luke's prejudice is clear when he calls belief in God "lies" that we ought to leave behind. Claiming that "meaning and morality and happiness ... is available without fear and superstition (again a sign of prejudice), that is when they leave childish (and again) and comforting notions about gods behind." I'm genuinely confused here though. In the very next paragraph Luke claims that religion "thrives on existential insecurity," but he just said that it's "childish and comforting." How can it be both comforting and full of insecurity? Again a weak critique here because it's internally inconsistent. Supposedly religion is childish and comforting, yet it seeks to unsettle its adherents. Apparently this one book, <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008IU3PWO/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B008IU3PWO&linkCode=as2&tag=liflibthepuro-20&linkId=SUMEJGSM6FSJTGGK">Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide</a>, </i>is Luke's bible and much of his blogging apparently is founded on it. It may have something interesting to say, but so far based on Luke's comments reflecting what it says, I'm not impressed. That book claims that "Religion does not provide existential security – instead, it thrives on existential insecurity. It thrives on poverty and ignorance and fear and instability and risk." And, that "the poorest nations in the world are the most religious," to which I wonder if this took into account the difference in wealth between Islamic countries and Christian or (post-Christian countries) or atheist nation-states like China. Also, in a sense this is to be expected! "When people live in a society that already provides them with [any] security ... [that has] stability and safety and education and health care ..." etc. etc. "then people don't need (or want) gods anymore." (Quotes taken from the blog not from the book.) Of course, if you lacked nothing in your life, would you want something more? Oh wait that's the hallmark of the rich! They become rich because they want more and more. I found this interesting quote in <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743222989/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0743222989&linkCode=as2&tag=liflibthepuro-20&linkId=OPKPQZM6563KBBMB">Authentic Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology to Realize Your Potential for Lasting Fulfillment,</a> </i>(I do NOT recommend the book in general, this is merely a quote) "The change in purchasing power over the last half century in the wealthy nations carries the same message: real purchasing power has more than doubled in the United States, France, and Japan, but life satisfaction has changed not a whit." Even Jesus taught this concept in Matt. 19:24, Mark 10:25, and Luke 18:25. Why would one think that people with money and security would want God? They already have security and all the "happiness" that money can buy, which if they're honest isn't really all that much. Apply this on a societal scale and see a similar result. If the government supplies all the money, food, health, lodging you could ever want why would you look to God for anything. That worked so well in the Soviet Union (again with the sarcasm). So what can we conclude from this? Safety and security provided by the state quickly and quietly errodes religion (particularly the weak, liberal religions that seek to appease society rather than God). Scandinavia is the poster child for this. As the weak, socially watered-down church there stopped appealing to God it became less and less appealing to people as their physical needs were all met by the socialist state.<br />
<br />
This last bit is obvious and the clearest indicator that Luke has no understanding of the argument being discussed: "Does my yearning to be the next Matthew Bellamy suggest that I will be? Alas, no. Wishful thinking does not indicate truth." That is not what the existential argument is saying whatsoever. The argument does not say that wishing for God makes God exist. It says, there is an overwhelming desire within humanity for the divine. Therefore, there probably is something to that desire and the best explanation is that God put that desire in us. The argument is not saying that wishful thinking makes it so. Luke's critiques present a clearly flawed view and a deep misunderstanding of the argument in general. As I said, I don't particularly like the existential argument(s) for God, but Luke Muehlhauser clearly doesn't understand them. There is a big difference between not liking or thinking that an argument is ineffective and misunderstanding an argument and poorly critiquing it.<br />
<br />
One last thing and this is more for my own edification than anything else. I'd like to try to put the (correct) argument in a syllogism.<br />
<br />
P1) The vast majority of humanity has had a desire for God<br />
P2) People *generally* do not persist in desires that have no possibility of being fulfilled<br />
C1) There *probably* is a God<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEGduHTitYDdzLUU9ey499QKijz5_ZbzCxnm3tyMm-ma26Mkl_Hftq5IkqTe0a9kwDtfUL_Et5cogTjt5cM0-FzzTU8el0R6Ld0q7E3u1Bh5chk4JPNld3hBLSd7ZOiZ2Bp4cSsKFthuo/s1600/DSC_9160.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEGduHTitYDdzLUU9ey499QKijz5_ZbzCxnm3tyMm-ma26Mkl_Hftq5IkqTe0a9kwDtfUL_Et5cogTjt5cM0-FzzTU8el0R6Ld0q7E3u1Bh5chk4JPNld3hBLSd7ZOiZ2Bp4cSsKFthuo/s640/DSC_9160.jpg" width="426" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">From my recent trip to Korea</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />Samuel Ronickerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15254647831303355637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2149547883975131835.post-25134998226757500502015-06-09T09:02:00.001+09:002015-06-09T15:02:44.136+09:00Educational ResponsibilitySo I recently got into a rather heated discussion about this with a friend. The question I've devised, related to our discussion is this: Who is at fault when the student misunderstands the presented material?<div><br></div><div>This dicussion revolved around Sexual Assault Response and Prevention training that we are required to attend rather frequently. I won't give the full discussion but it went something like this:</div><div><br></div><div>Me: We were taught X in training.</div><div>Friend: No, that's not what the training says. I am and have been a trainer for that program for 3+ years.</div><div>Me: I know the most recent training was different but I've definitely been trained X in the past.</div><div>Fr: Well then you messed up. You're at fault for misunderstanding.</div><div><br></div><div>I COMPLETELY disagree. Then my friend said that I was shifting blame.</div><div><br></div><div>Before I go into why I disagree I want to make something crystal-clear. I DO NOT blame any teacher for students' bad grades. In most, or at least many, educational situations the concept, "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink," applies. If the teacher teaches a list of 1,000 facts, and the student is responsible for regurgitating 100 of those facts on a test, when the student doesn't memorize the facts through thorough study, it is COMPLETELY the student's fault. The situation in question is different in many ways.</div><div><br></div><div>In situations wherein there is a reasonable chance of misunderstanding, or in situations wherein the teacher actually makes a mistake the responsibility falls mainly on the teacher to rectify the mistake. In the former, the teacher should not hold the student responsible, because it is up to the teacher to verify that everyone understands. Now, in this type of situation it's somewhat the student's fault. The student should engage in active learning. He/she should be actively asking questions to verify the message. In the situation in question someone DID ask questions and the teacher repeated/confirmed the message, X that I recall. In the latter situation, when the teacher legitimately makes a mistake, the student could still be at least somewhat at fault, but it is primarily--well, pretty much 99% the teacher's fault. The reason it <i>could be </i>somewhat on the student's shoulders is, in the course of reviewing/studying, the student <i>should</i> have found the truth and come to the teacher for clarification.</div><div><br></div><div>The training in question here was a perfect storm of failure. The trainer/teacher was an authority on the matter (well sort of) and when he/she made a mistake no one challenged the trainer with the truth. Hence I had the wrong information, and it falls on the trainer, not me. If you know me in person you'll know I don't have a problem saying, "I'm wrong," or ''I'm sorry."</div><br><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Sj0g9olcgns/VXaBaDt8wvI/AAAAAAAAey8/xTApJi-GhcY/s640/blogger-image--448751316.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Sj0g9olcgns/VXaBaDt8wvI/AAAAAAAAey8/xTApJi-GhcY/s640/blogger-image--448751316.jpg"></a></div>Samuel Ronickerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15254647831303355637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2149547883975131835.post-10430994851888022782015-03-25T23:43:00.000+09:002015-03-25T23:43:08.853+09:00Ten Things Christians Should Keep in Mind When Debating Atheists Number ThreeBased on my <a href="http://www.samuelronicker.com/2014/12/writers-block-fix-hopefully.html">post back in December</a> about trying to break my writer's block (obviously it didn't work), I'm tackling this list of ten things Christians/theists need to keep in mind. See <a href="http://www.samuelronicker.com/2014/12/ten-things-christians-should-keep-in.html">this link for number one</a> and <a href="http://www.samuelronicker.com/2014/12/ten-things-christians-should-keep-in_23.html">here for part two</a>, this is the third point:<br />
<br />
There is a gap between natural theology and revealed theology. Arguing for a prime mover is not the same thing as arguing for any faith tradition.<br />
<br />
This is a tough one to tackle in a whole blog entry because I totally agree. Thomas Aquinas and others' "prime mover" argument for God really only gets to the first point of theism. However, if just this initial part of the argument stands, at the very least atheism is false.<br />
<br />
P1) All things that begin to exist have a cause for their existence<br />
P2) The universe began to exist<br />
C1) The universe has a cause<br />
<br />
That is just the beginning of the argument. That only gets to the point that there is some sort of God that created the universe. That basic argument does not get us to the Christian God. However, if we add these next few premises we can come to that conclusion:<br />
<br />
P3) The cause for the material universe cannot be material itself<br />
P4) The cause for the material universe cannot be with the scope of time<br />
C2) The best description of such a Being is found within Christianity<br />
<br />
Also, there is a long and complex argument for Christianity from historical facts:<br />
<br />
P4) If Christ rose from the dead, He is God incarnate<br />
P5) Christ rose from the dead (and there is historical evidence to support this)<br />
C3) Christ, as revealed in the Bible is God (the God described above)<br />
<br />
So there you have it; there is a gap between natural/general and revealed/special revelation, but it is not a huge gap and easy to cross. Show me another religion that can claim anything near as powerful as the arguments for Christianity and I'll at least give it some thought. Though I've done quite a bit of comparative religious studies and I've found other views wanting.<br />
<br />
Denominational differences are another question altogether and doesn't belong in this particular discussion, so I'll leave that for another day.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnA1-dzrCafu7b2muGJ8j7_pwLhyphenhyphen3PWRD6RvyfsEihsmSpoMIG24pMGT7XBAloK2oXA4CeFJuPFOgDAMI3wpv0LINSJgpPOkDrrq_1qQT_8D_dDa1ZblqmQFIUHspU8_OqCZygjba5mV8/s1600/DSC_1245.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnA1-dzrCafu7b2muGJ8j7_pwLhyphenhyphen3PWRD6RvyfsEihsmSpoMIG24pMGT7XBAloK2oXA4CeFJuPFOgDAMI3wpv0LINSJgpPOkDrrq_1qQT_8D_dDa1ZblqmQFIUHspU8_OqCZygjba5mV8/s1600/DSC_1245.jpg" height="426" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Photo credit goes to my beautiful wife, Michelle Ronicker</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Samuel Ronickerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15254647831303355637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2149547883975131835.post-83891860491406459332015-03-17T21:44:00.001+09:002015-03-17T21:44:26.070+09:00Freedom of SpeechBefore I get started let me say "I'm sorry." I know I probably don't really have regular readers, but if I do, I know I haven't posted regularly since December! I've had writer's block and then I went on a business trip in January and started classes. Now my classes are over and I'm going to try to get back into blogging more.<br />
<br />
It may seem odd to you, what with a title like "Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness," that I don't often blog about political ideas. I know, sometimes I think I ought to change the name of my blog to reflect my thoughts, but in a sense I feel that regardless of my specific topic, it <i>always</i> falls under those liberties. However, today I want to talk about something I've been thinking about for a couple days now, the freedom of speech.<br />
<br />
As with all rights, I feel that this right also ends when it infringes on someone else's rights. Some may claim that my position on <a href="http://www.samuelronicker.com/2013/11/a-philosophical-approach-to-abortion.html">abortion</a> doesn't make sense in light of my position on the death penalty, but in the sense that one's right to life ends when it infringes on someone else's right to life it makes perfect sense (at least to me). The freedom of speech though is a bit tougher concept though. In a literal sense one's speech cannot ever really infringe on someone's right to life/speech/etc., unless you count someone simply yelling so loud that no one else is able to speak at all. In the light of the <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-30710777">Charlie Hebdo</a> incident, <a href="http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/545-freedom-of-expression-must-include-the-license-to-offend">this debate</a> about the freedom of speech including the right to offend, and <a href="http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/1310-liberals-are-stifling-intellectual-diversity-on-campus">this debate</a> about liberals stifling intellectual diversity on campus; I've had to rethink what it means to infringe on one's freedom of speech. First, is hate speech a thing? Does it exist and what does it look like? Second, how can one infringe on another's right to speech <i>with</i> speech? Can that ever happen? And third, are there other ways to infringe on freedom of speech and expression? Can and does that happen?<br />
<br />
So, hate speech, what is it? Should the government regulate/restrict it? What about decency? Should the government regulate that? Wikipedia has two definitions that are quite significantly different: "[O]utside the law, speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation." That definition is way too broad, it's basically saying, hate speech is any bigoted communication. Is saying that you dislike someone because of X characteristic wrong? That seems clearly covered in free speech. If you want free speech you have to be willing to sometimes be offended. Offensive speech is not and should not be defined and enforced by law. It's a slippery slope to over-censorship. The second definition is better: "In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it <i>may</i> incite violence or prejudicial <i>action</i> against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by certain characteristics." (emphasis added) If I say, "So-and-So (S&S) is a jerk." I'm <i style="font-weight: bold;">not </i>using hate speech! That, by itself is not hate speech. If I say, "S&S is a jerk and you ought to hate S&S too, S&S did this, that, and the other (all true), so you need to get on board with hating S&S. If you don't hate S&S you're wrong. S&S is evil incarnate, etc. etc." That seems pretty clear cut to me, that is hate speech. I'm encouraging and even shaming you into hating or treating S&S in a particularly bad way. Notice what I didn't include there. If I say S&S is doing some sin, like homosexuality or stealing etc. That is <i style="font-weight: bold;">not</i> hate speech. Perhaps it borders on indecent speech, as in, I don't walk up to people every day and confront them in their sin. In fact if you do, you're not following the Bible's guidelines on that, as Christians are <i>supposed </i>to confront <i>other Christians</i> on their sins, <i style="font-weight: bold;">not </i>non-Christians. That's not to say that sermons and evangelists ought not talk about the doctrines around sin, it's just that evangelism in a sense doesn't really need to tell people that they're sinners. Romans 1:18, 19 makes it clear that people, really, deep down know when they sin. It may be offensive to some of you, but really think about what you've done in your life and I'm sure you'll see that every time you've done something that is wrong, deep down you knew it was so and felt remorse for doing it. (This does not necessarily include psychopaths, that's an issue for another discuss/time.)<br />
<br />
So, hate speech is when someone incites or tries to incite hatred and mistreatment of a person or group of people. Saying someone has sinned is not hatred. Indeed if you think about the message of the Gospel, it's one of the most loving things a person can do. But I digress. The next (and arguably more important) question is, "Should the government regulate/enforce hate speech laws?" Before I get started on this, don't say, "you can't legislate morality." That's complete crap. All legislation, even seemingly unrelated legislative acts, are a form of legislating morality. So, in a sense I'd be perfectly happy with legislated speech, but in another sense that scares me quite a bit. If you listen to second debate I mentioned above, about liberals stifling intellectual freedom on campus, you'll hear arguments that on campuses all around the U.S. liberals are trampling on the freedom of speech. That's one of my fears on this issue. I know that rights, once given up to the government, will never be gotten back. And, if the government is going to restrict free speech, it will most likely err on the side of liberal ideals. There should be at least some limitation on speech, hate speech should certainly be treated as different than free speech. I certainly don't have a problem with the right to free speech including a certain amount of offensive speech, but there should be a limit. I don't want the government to draw that line though. If people would have more self restraint, we wouldn't need government intervention.<br />
<br />
Let's look at infringements on free speech. As I often repeat, one's rights end where they infringe on another's rights, but that's much more nuanced when it comes to speech. In a very literal sense there's not really a way to use one's speech to restrict someone else's free speech (excluding the already mentioned possibility of using a super megaphone). However, there is a way of using one's speech to minimize or marginalize someone to the point that they are not able to speak freely. Say for example, people call me a bigot or intolerant so much that I'm no longer respected (not that I'm really all that respected). Those people can use their freedom to speak their mind (even in an offensive way), to the extreme point that restricts my freedom to express my opinions. This is obviously more nebulous than murder, assault, etc., but the point is still there you can use free speech to limit someone else's freedom of speech. However, the same comments all apply with regards to litigation. It would be a terrible idea for the government to try to limit free speech in order to limit this type of abuse of the freedom. It is too nuanced to be dealt with by legislation, and the right to free speech includes some amount of the right to offend. No matter what position one takes, we must all be prepared to accept the idea that someone will probably say something that will offend us. Offense is a regular part of freedom to express oneself.<br />
<br />
There are other, more obvious ways people, especially those in positions of power, can limit other's freedom of speech. As the debate mentioned above and some of the research conducted by the <a href="http://www.thefire.org/">Foundation for Individual Rights in Education</a> indicates, liberal administrators on college campuses all around the U.S. are doing just that. They are using their positions of influence to restrict or limit various groups' freedom of speech. The vast majority of academics are decidedly liberal, and in many cases they are using their positions of authority to limit conservatives' freedom of speech. That's a scary thought. If free speech is restricted, it will be on the side of liberals, and against conservatives. I am a conservative, well, sort of. Regardless, I hope the government keeps its nose out of free speech. However, with free speech, comes a price tag ... be prepared to be offended, and that's okay. Free speech, will mean that someone will eventually step on your toes, and that's okay.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiS5t1O-U6I4rOyhKP35soVzKaK-y5c1fdn1eqfIeelVT9PWdnJH71B-AG518oWSP6kQIBeRfPR_bqBLn9ERxLgtjzgeTKeWBldQt1ajycQ9B_iu8IUCHBAR-VDyfmoXhqr3VjLxDeCZPE/s1600/Screen+Shot+2015-03-17+at+21.41.13.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiS5t1O-U6I4rOyhKP35soVzKaK-y5c1fdn1eqfIeelVT9PWdnJH71B-AG518oWSP6kQIBeRfPR_bqBLn9ERxLgtjzgeTKeWBldQt1ajycQ9B_iu8IUCHBAR-VDyfmoXhqr3VjLxDeCZPE/s1600/Screen+Shot+2015-03-17+at+21.41.13.png" height="398" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Image source <a href="http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/545-freedom-of-expression-must-include-the-license-to-offend">here</a>.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />Samuel Ronickerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15254647831303355637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2149547883975131835.post-45024194039968068162015-03-15T21:30:00.000+09:002015-03-15T21:33:17.277+09:00How to Fight ... GracefullyFirst let me give some background. My friend and editor of the <a href="http://www.christianapologeticsalliance.com/equipped-a-caa-quarterly/">CAA Newsletter EQUIPPED</a>, <a class="g-profile" href="https://plus.google.com/103602568481388269599" target="_blank" wrc_done="true">+Glen Richmond</a><span class="wrc_icon wrc13" rating="{"icon":"icn_extensiontop_green.png","rating":1,"weight":3,"flags":{"shopping":null,"social":null,"news":null,"it":null,"corporate":null,"pornography":null,"violence":null,"gambling":null,"drugs":null,"illegal":null}}"></span> recommended that I blog about online debating in light of a rather heated, yet civil discussion that has been taking place on my Facebook page for a few days now. And since sleep is overrated, I've decided to at least start writing about it. If you'd like to read the full conversation check it out <a href="https://www.facebook.com/sam.ronicker/posts/10153003657745539">here</a>, though I'm no longer following the conversation I might respond to further comments.<br />
<br />
The first rule of fight club is probably the hardest.<br />
<br />
#1 - Be polite!<br />
<br />
This one is particularly tough. People are smarter (sometimes) than you might think. If you disguise your disdain for someone as a person, you'll probably fail. Dawkins attempts this in his book <i>The God Delusion</i> with disastrous effects. If, I'm assuming this is true, his goal in that book was to get people to rethink their beliefs in God, he completely failed because he unsuccessfully attempts to hide his disregard/disdain for that type of person. This one is also quite difficult because it's not a common rule for discussions online. Many a YouTube video comment stream has fallen into multiple people slinging so many insults that people who aren't even involved in the discussion are disgusted.<br />
<br />
I tried my best to be polite throughout both the online discussion that triggered this entry and the two discussions I've had recently in real life. As much as it might seem impossible, tolerance is certainly possible. However, don't make the mistake of applying a modernist view of the word "tolerance." To be polite you do not have to agree that the opposition is right and a mutually contradictory view is also right. Tolerance doesn't mean what people think it means. Today tolerance is used to mean, "treat <i>all views</i> as true." What it really means, "treat <i>all people</i> respectfully, regardless of their views." I think Ravi Zacharias, who is a model of great tolerance, has some great points about this and I suggest you listen to/read his stuff to get a sense of what it means to be tolerant. This is important because one's view of tolerance can shape the whole debate. If your opposing side wants you to be more tolerant and accept their view as true they need to prove that their true is correct. Because, remember you can be tolerant without accepting their view. When modern debaters ask for tolerance (especially from conservatives) what they're really asking for is approval. You do <i style="font-weight: bold;">not </i>need to approve of someone's position to be tolerant, but in all this you must still maintain politeness!<br />
<br />
#2 - Be gracious<br />
<br />
This one is also tough. Indeed depending on your personality this one may be more difficult than the first rule. What do I mean by gracious though? Well, at the risk of sounding condescending let me put it like this. You may be an experience intellectual who has debated on national stages about your particular area of expertise (that's not me!), but your "opponent" may be a high school dropout with an axe to grind after reading some internet news article, or you both may be somewhere in between. The point, if you don't get it already, is to be gracious to the opponent's argument(s). Maybe they phrase the argument in an odd way, maybe they ignore too many suppressed premises. Maybe they don't know what any of the typical terms in debates are at all. Then again they may have taken the Coursera class <a href="https://www.coursera.org/course/thinkagain">Think Again: How to Reason and Argue</a> and frame their argument intentionally ignoring certain premises. The issue is <b><i>not</i></b> that you need to engage your opponent(s) and go in for the kill, the point is getting to the real arguments and dealing with them, not with your opponent's inability to frame his/her views well.<br />
<br />
One of the best ways to be ungracious is to focus on the minutiae, e.g. grammar/spelling/punctuation among other things. If you're unwilling or unable to look past those kinds foibles you ought not debate either in person, but particularly online. Nothing kills your witness and credibility faster than pointing out someone's misuse of punctuation or grammar. Sure, you may be right, and there may be times when you need to clarify something, but you need to do so graciously and be able to look through the "mistakes" and understand the real arguments and deal with them, not the grammatical mistakes.<br />
<br />
#3 - READ!<br />
<br />
Though the first two were probably the most difficult to do, this one is easy to do, yet incredibly important. First, read every, single, reply. Every, single, time. If you don't read what your opponent has written, you're being neither gracious nor polite. In fact, you ought to read your opponent's writings <i>twice</i> especially if he/she is not particularly competent, or if he/she is beyond your level of understanding. If you don't really understand a particular sub-point your opponent brings up, <i style="font-weight: bold;">ask! </i> Do <i style="font-weight: bold;">not</i> just proceed as if you understand! You probably will make a terrible mistake in your arguments and end up both losing the argument (if there's even such a thing) and looking like an idiot in the process. Also, every internet argument will most likely include one or both sides providing links to support the arguments being made. Do <i style="font-weight: bold;">not</i> ignore these posts. Read each link with an open mind, searching for the argument(s) being presented and weighing those statements just as you would in the discussion forum. Then, after you've read and reread, attempt to comment one what the person is <i>trying</i> to say. Keep the conversation focused (see rule #5). (I almost forgot to mention the one exception here. If someone posts a link to a whole book, you do not <i>have to </i>read the whole book to be able to comment. There is a reasonable limit to the amount of reading you have to do in order to respond, you draw your own line then be gracious in responding even consider reading books with which you will not agree.)<br />
<br />
#4 - Eschew Obfuscation<br />
<br />
I've always loved that joke! Eschew: deliberately avoid using; abstain from. Obfuscation: obscuring of intended meaning willfully ambiguous or harder to understand (often with the connotation that one is using longer/larger/lesser known words to do so). It may be difficult, and I imagine some people read my stuff and assume that I don't follow my own advice. Perhaps. But if I do confuse people it certainly isn't intentional. I like to be clear, and I generally try to use "clarity of language" to borrow a line from "The Giver" (movie). In debate/discussion and in philosophy in general it is important to convey one's thoughts as clearly as possible. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't use technical language, just that you ought to explain your thoughts in a way that your audience will understand your point. If you confuse your opponent you haven't "won" the debate, you've merely irritated him/her to the point that he/she has given up, or soon will give up on the discussion.<br />
<br />
#5 - Stay focused<br />
<br />
As I'm writing this, I've come to realize that I've said that each different rule is the hardest. Unfortunately, this one also falls into that category! Haha. Well, tell me. How many discussions online have you been involved in that actually stayed on topic? Now, I understand a bit of a tangent. (If you know me in person, I'm sure you've experienced my ADD-like conversational style.) However, when you're discussing ... say ... abortion online, don't get sidetracked into discussions about war or the death penalty. That's not to say you should ignore those tangental discussions, just politely bring the discussion back to the primary topic. Obviously those (and other) topics could be related to the topic at hand, but if you want the discussion to proceed try to keep it on track. This one is more difficult if the discussion is taking place on someone else's page, because it's not your page and you cannot <i>really</i> control the flow of conversation. If it is your page, then you can use any number of methods to control the conversation. I typically delete completely unrelated comments; I also delete completely emotional attacks or completely insensitive and rude comments. When it's your own page, you can control the flow much differently/better than when it's not your own forum.<br />
<br />
Before I close this entry, I need to apologize. I had this entry started months ago as a response to an online conversation I had, and since then I've had at least one other discussion on Facebook that went, more or less, the way I wanted it to go. Then after some incredibly unsavory discussions, I decided to forgo Facebook for Lent. I won't be back on Facebook until after Lent so I won't be engaging in the types of discussions addressed here for some time. I do not really recommend Facebook as a forum for discussion, but it's a decent option because it's wide open and there is more openness with a wide range of interlocutors. God bless you in your discussions.Samuel Ronickerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15254647831303355637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2149547883975131835.post-75879458840235605822015-03-12T21:43:00.001+09:002015-03-12T21:45:46.486+09:00Book Review: Is Jesus the Only Savior? by Ronald H. Nash Part 2This is the second of a two-part review of Dr. Ronal Nash’s <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0310443911/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0310443911&linkCode=as2&tag=liflibthepuro-20&linkId=RUKFWMHBQPFDFA4G">Is Jesus the Only Savior?</a></i> (“Inclusivism”). This review was much better than the <a href="http://www.samuelronicker.com/2015/03/book-review-is-jesus-only-savior-by.html">first half</a> (in my opinion).<br />
<br />
Analysis<br />
<br />
Before delving into the arguments for or against inclusivism, Dr. Nash gives an introduction to the concept. First off, it is important to understand that the topic has nothing to do with tolerance, in the sense that people ought to not mistreat those that believe things that are false. The inclusivism in question here is soteriological in nature. It is an answer to the question, “What about those that have never heard the Gospel?” According to Dr. Nash, inclusivists would say, “devout believers in other religions will be saved, but only on the basis of Christ’s atoning work.” (emphasis added) Dr. Nash also quotes Dr. John Sanders, “[T]he work of Jesus is ontologically necessary for salvation (no one would be saved without it) but not epistemologically necessary (one need not be aware of the work in order to benefit from it).” As part of defining inclusivism Dr. Nash presents what he calls the starting point for the ideas of inclusivism: the “particularity axiom” and the “universality axiom.” Dr. Nash references Dr. Clark Pinnock as insisting that Jesus Christ’s lordship is non-negotiable, Christ as the particular Lord of all and savior of all. Dr. Nash references Dr. Sanders with regards to the universality axiom, referencing 1 Tim. 2:4, “[God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” and Tit. 2:11 “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men.” As Dr. Nash’s introduction of inclusivism continues, he discusses the growth of this view within evangelical circles, its widespread acceptance within Roman Catholicism, inclusivism and its relation to non-Christian religions, and finally a comparison of inclusivism and universalism. This section seems a bit out of place, with the exception of the comparison to universalism, this series of sections would have been better suited as a separate chapter, but Dr. Nash brings all these ideas together in the conclusion which also serves to introduce the next two chapters.<br />
<br />
Dr. Nash continues this discussion of inclusivism with the next two crucial sections. Chapter eight focuses on the theological ideas presented in inclusivism and chapter nine on the relationship between inclusivism and the Bible. Dr. Nash admits that in reality the biblical discussion concerning inclusivism and the theological discussion are closely related, but in order to present the ideas in a more logical progression he breaks them up into separate chapters. The first, and possibly the most important, theological issue Dr. Nash mentions is the idea of “general” or “natural” revelation. Defined by Dr. Bruce Demarest in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology: “The divine disclosure to all persons at all times and in all places by which humans come to know that God is and what he is like. While not imparting truths necessary for salvation …” (emphasis added). Dr. Nash seems to do Dr. Pinnock a disservice aiming at what he sees as an inconsistency in the inclusivist position when it comes to evangelicalism. Dr. Nash seems to set his sights, in this chapter at least, on the argument in inclusivism that says one need not know about the particulars of Jesus’ work and person to be saved. However, in a sense, Dr. Nash does not seem to address the main thrust of the inclusivist’s argument, which revolves around the question, “What must one know to be saved?” It seems that Dr. Nash does not completely address the question of what salvation means to prior to the work of Christ. The argument Dr. Nash seems to offer against the inclusivists with regards to “holy pagans,” seems to be an argument from silence. The Scripture does not say that Melchizedek, Job, Jethro, etc. ever participated in the sacrifices of the Old Testament Hebrews. If faith, evidenced through obedience, in the one true God is all that is required for salvation (Heb. 11). Why would that not to Old Testament heroes Deuteronomy? Is not God the same in all times for all people? It does not seem that Dr. Nash responds to this particular argument very thoroughly.<br />
<br />
Another particularly weak point in this chapter is in Dr. Nash’s critique of the inclusivist’s use of God’s love for all as an important argument for the universal availability of salvation. Dr. Nash claims that Dr. Pinnock’s argument: “If God really loves the whole world and desires everyone to be saved, it follows logically that everyone must have access to salvation,” is both counter to other Arminian theological points and is logically fallacious. Dr. Pinnock’s argument may run counter to Arminian theology, but that seems a non sequitur. The goal is to find the truth, not necessarily that which is in agreement with a particular theological view. Also, Dr. Nash does not clarify what logical fallacy Dr. Pinnock’s argument commits. The argument seems perfectly logical: P1) A loving God that wants all to be saved (2 Pet. 3:9) P2) God can establish a logical system wherein salvation is available to all C) God would make salvation available to all. It seems that Dr. Nash’s phrasing of Dr. Pinnock’s argument is not very clear and dismisses quite a few suppressed premises that could completely change the argument’s effectiveness.<br />
<br />
Probably one of the worst sections of the whole book falls in this chapter (chapter eight). Dr. Nash turns his critique not towards the ideas of inclusivism, rather towards Arminianism, and a misrepresented form of the Arminian position at that! Dr. Nash lumps Dr. Pinnock’s view of God’s sovereign foreknowledge in with Arminianism, though Dr. Pinnock’s book calls it “process theism” and in many circles the rather new term “Open Theism” has recently gain some prominence. It sounds as if Dr. Nash’s argument in this section is something like this: P1) Dr. Pinnock’s (and other Open Theists’) view of God is incorrect C) Inclusivism is incorrect. That may not be the best way to phrase the argument presented in the text, but with the phrasing and tone of this section that is how Dr. Nash’s arguments sound. The characterization of the Arminian view of salvation is also poorly represented in this section. It is not that salvation is “ultimately up to that person” it is more in response to the Calvinist view of irresistible grace, saying that each person has the ability to reject or accept salvation. The Arminian position does not emphasize mankind’s will over God’s will, more it does not view God as forcing, even against their will, people into salvation. Also, there are many other philosophical and theological positions that reconcile God’s sovereign foreknowledge with free will namely, Molinism. None of the different views of sovereignty and free will necessarily directly relate to the inclusivist position. Even the Calvinist position can be made to fit an inclusivist view. For example: God through His abundant grace provides irresistible grace to the elect not based on any conditions (unconditional election), therefore God could elect any number of people that have never heard the name of Jesus for salvation. If one’s soteriological position relies solely on the unconditional election of whomever God wills, one cannot question whom God elects. To summarize this section (chapter eight), Dr. Nash aims his critique in many odd directions and never truly hits home with the inclusivist’s position.<br />
<br />
Now in chapter nine Dr. Nash turns his critique more directly towards the biblical passages used in support of inclusivism. The first clear issue with this section is in this quote, “Morally and spiritually [Cornelius of Acts 10] was in precisely the same condition as any faithful and believing Jew of that time who had not yet encountered Jesus. We could go so far as to say that his relationship to Yahweh was similar to that of an Old Testament believer.” There are several issues here. First off, the text does not directly say but rather implies, that Cornelius and his household was not circumcised, which was (and still is) a religious requirement (Gen. 17:9-14; Ex. 12:48) of Judaism. Apparently Cornelius was not circumcised, so none of the Old Testament sacrifices should have applied and he had apparently not acted on his faith in wholeheartedly following Abraham and his descendants in obedience to the Lord. So, he would not be in the same moral and spiritual situation as Old Testament believers. Again, the whole argument of inclusivism does not necessarily rest on this one text, despite Dr. Nash’s clear assertion as such. This chapter, both the verses taken in defense of inclusivism and those taken against, seem tantamount to cherry-picking or prooftexting. Dr. Nash presents an argument against the usage of the words “all men” and “world” to defend inclusivism in various texts (1 Tim. 2:3-4; Tit. 2:11; 2 Pet. 3:9; and 1 Jn 2:2). The same type of criticism can and has been levied against the verses Dr Nash gives in defense of exclusivism. To his credit Dr. Nash does mention in a footnote that there is more to this argument than will fit in the context of this section of this one book, but it seems as if he proceeds with critiquing inclusivism as if that point has been won. To illustrate the ineffectiveness of this type of prooftexting here is a counterexample using Rom. 10:9. “[I]f you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;” though Dr. Nash gives Dr. Sanders’ argument that this does not exclude the possibility of being saved without confessing “Jesus as Lord,” one can take an even more basic track to derail this prooftext. What about a person who is unable to speak? Since that person is incapable of confessing anything with his or her mouth, is that person not able to be saved? Clearly, this verse is not as exclusive as some might want to make it. Though this chapter is rather effective as an argument because of its reliance on the Scripture, it runs contrary to good biblical study to take one (or even ten) verses out of their context, quote them, and claim that they support a certain position.<br />
<br />
In the penultimate chapter Dr. Nash takes on two important points relating to some inclusivist opinions. The first is the concept of postmortem evangelism; the second is various concepts of Hell. On the topic of postmortem evangelism Dr. Nash discusses the importance of 1 Pet. 3:18 - 4:6, though it seems unnecessary to carry the reference out to 1 Pet. 4. It seems clear from 1 Pet. 3:19, that in some sense Jesus preached to spirits in prison. The Roman Catholic catechism and the Apostles’ creed both speak to this concept, and Dr. Nash seems to overemphasize the break between chapters three and four in 1 Peter, when in the original there was no break. It does not seem to be as big an exegetical leap as Dr. Nash seems to say to claim that 1 Pet. 4:6 is referencing the same situation as 1 Pet. 3:19. Also, Dr. Nash seems to dismiss without explanation why Jn. 5:25 “Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.” Does not matter in the discussion of postmortem evangelism. It requires one to translate “dead” to mean spiritually dead, to which the text does not necessarily lend itself. The last section of this chapter Dr. Nash devotes to a short discussion of Hell and the various implications for the exclusivist’s position. Primarily the issue is, that if the exclusivist’s position is true, then billions of people who have never had the opportunity to hear about Jesus will be, indeed are right now, burning in intense eternal torment in Hell. Both the annihilationist view and the segregated levels of hellish torment stand in favor of the exclusivist’s argument. If Hell is non-literal, or if the souls of the non-elect are annihilated some time after death, the exclusivist position is no longer so difficult. The un-evangelized are not tormented for eternity just because they happened to be born thousands of miles from where Christianity had reached, they are simply destroyed. Dr. Nash does not employ this type of argument (perhaps because he has a literal view of Hell), but it might have served to strengthen this section of his work.<br />
<br />
In the final chapter of this text Dr. Nash presents some basic reasons why he is not an inclusivist. He starts with an important statement that many dogmatists of all types would do well to consider. That is, one should be willing to honestly answer that one cannot fully know what salvation means to those that have never heard. An interesting note here though, Dr. Nash says we cannot know what names will be in the Lamb’s book of life mentioned in Rev 20:12ff, but he neglects to address this small line: “And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life …” (emphasis added). What are these other books that are opened here? One pastor in this area claims that this is a possible reference to books that have the names of those that are not in the Lamb’s book of life, but are nonetheless saved. Dr. Nash is right in saying that inclusivism can be dangerously close to pluralism, but it does not have to be. One can square inclusivism with theology, philosophy, and biblical texts. The arguments may not be strong, but Dr. Nash would do well to take his own comments to heart about the details of salvation referencing Deut. 29:29, God has not directly or overtly declared His plans concerning those that have not heard, neither the inclusivist nor the exclusivist should claim to know otherwise. <br />
<br />
Personal Conclusion<br />
<br />
In general the arguments in this section of Dr. Nash’s work are clearly not as powerful nor as pointed as in the first section (against pluralism). Honestly, this topic is quite difficult, and this critique could have continued for many more pages. Time and space are limited however, and this critique needs to come to a close. One passage from CS Lewis’ classic children’s book series came to mind in defense of inclusivism. In the Last Battle the characters pass through a figurative death into Aslan’s country (the Christ figure). One such character was a young enemy soldier who had a passionate desire to meet his idea of God (Tash in the story), and after finding himself in Heaven face to face with Jesus worships Him, and says that he does not belong there. When that character, Emeth, is telling his story later he speaks of the words of Aslan: “For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. Dost thou understand, Child? I said, Lord, thou knowest how much I understand. But I said also (for the truth constrained me), Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days. Beloved, said [Aslan], unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.” Obviously, one cannot hold CS Lewis to speak for God in such terms, but it is an interesting argument nonetheless.<br />
<br />
God is goodness personified, and while the Bible clearly states that no one measures up to God’s holy standard (Rom. 3:23 and others), Lewis is saying that one cannot do good in service of the Devil. And vice versa, one cannot do evil truly in the service of God. It may seem like the Bible teaches that unbelievers cannot do good at all, but that is primary from a Calvinist view of total depravity which seems to take the depravity of sin beyond what the Bible actually teaches. Personal experience teaches, that though unbelievers are often sinful and often exchange the truth of God for a lie (Rom. 1:25), it does not necessarily follow that an unbeliever cannot at least try to act in accordance with their conscience and the prompting conviction of the Holy Spirit of their sin. It seems that though Dr. Nash references various theological points against inclusivism and various biblical references against the idea, he does not defeat it nearly as completely as he seems to think. This shortcoming is particularly clear in the concluding chapter when Dr. Nash directs his criticism to the inclusivist’s rationale for missions. Interestingly, the same critique can and is levied against strict Calvinist views. If God has already chosen whom He has elected to be saved, what point is there in evangelism? As if our human efforts in evangelism somehow effected the will of God in whom He has already elected for salvation. The question may also apply to the inclusivist, but it seems much easier to answer.<br />
<br />
Another important issue that Dr. Nash does not seem to take into account at all throughout this second half of his book. When one is investigating these claims, one must be careful to not let one’s feelings influence one’s conclusions on both sides of the discussion. Though the inclusivist’s claims are much easier to swallow emotionally, that does not have any bearing on the truth of that claim, and vice versa, despite one’s strong feelings toward a particular theological system, those feelings do not make one right. It seems that Dr. Nash is rather passionate about Calvinism (or at the least against his idea of Arminianism), which seems to cloud his assessment of Drs. Pinnock and Sanders’ Open Theism. One other very important thing to keep in mind in this discussion. These arguments (specifically inclusivism, as pluralism is not Christianity and pluralists need to be evangelized) must be held only within the Christian family. When it comes to apologetics and evangelism, one should not claim to know for certain one way or another when it comes to the details of soteriological ideas (with some exceptions). Imagine an exclusivist giving a message at a funeral for a person who had never heard of Jesus giving a message to the deceased’s family that their family member was most certainly in Hell suffering for eternity! Within Christian circles it is important to discuss these types of theological differences, but when one brings the Gospel, though it is offensive in itself, to the unsaved one must lay aside one’s theological opinions and simply preach Christ’s work. <br />
<br />
------------------------<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>"Catechism of the Catholic Church - Christ Descended into Hell." Catechism of the Catholic Church - Christ Descended into Hell. Accessed March 6, 2015. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a5p1.htm.</li>
<li>Lewis, C. S. The Last Battle New York, New York: HarperCollins, 2010, 188.</li>
<li>Lockman Foundation (La Habra Calif.). New American Standard Bible. La Habra, Calif.,: Foundation Press Publications, 1977.</li>
<li>Nash, Ronald H. Is Jesus the Only Savior? Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1994, 104.</li>
<li>Ibid. Quoting from: Sanders, John, No Other Name Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1992, 131.</li>
<li>Ibid, Quoting from: Pinnock, Clark H. A Wideness in God’s Mercy, 130.</li>
<li>Slick, Matt. "What Is Open Theism?" CARM. Accessed March 6, 2015. https://carm.org/what-is-open-theism.</li>
<li>“Revelation, General." In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, edited by Walter A. Elwell, by B. Demarest. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 2001.</li>
</ol>
Samuel Ronickerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15254647831303355637noreply@blogger.com