A False Dichotomy

While scanning iTunes for new music, I kept running across an annoying thought trend throughout almost every review of the Christian bands I was checking out. The reviews basically said that that these bands not only sing of "Christian" issues like faith, the Bible, and God, (amongst others), but also "non-Christian" issues like pain, angst, doubt, and despair (amongst others). This dichotomy blew my mind. Are there really people out there who actually think that pain, angst, doubt, and despair (amongst others) are not "Christian" issues? Does the ideology that follows Christ, "a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief," have no say in such things? I think not. There is no such thing as "non-Christian" issues, because Christianity (at bottom) is dealing with the truth, i.e., that which conforms to reality, that which is real and actual. Thus, it touches all issues, and therefore there is no such thing as "non-Christian" issues.

Two things: First, this is not to say that the Bible has a direct answer to everything (ex: no verse directly mentions cloning). As Mr. Schaeffer would say, the Bible gives us true truth, not exhaustive truth. Be that as it may, the Bible still gives us the groundwork whereby we can apply our minds to any and all issues and subjects, and engage anything either directly or indirectly (ex: the Bible does not mention cloning, but it does say something about the proper nature and view of sex and reproduction). No matter what you are engaging, you do not need to check your Christianity at the door.

Second, I am not talking about the whole "sacred/secular" debate (i.e., is there a "sacred" and a "secular," and what are they). That is another thing entirely. What I am talking about (and disputing with) is the notion that there are some issues Christianity does not touch, or worse still, cannot touch. I am defiantly claiming that there are no issues that Christianity does or cannot touch in some way.

Mere Subterfuge

This article by an atheist (let's call him "Quark") proportedly lays down an "unsolvable" puzzle. I would normally ignore such trivial pursuits, but Quark also claims that his puzzle's 'unsolvability' has implications for the existence of God. As such, a gauntlet has been thrown, and I accept it. I will see if I can solve the unsolvable (something we pesky Christians always try to do).

The article is short, but I'll still give a summary. There is an old logic puzzle that asks, "If you came to a crossroads and didn't know which way to go, and two men were standing at the same crossroads, and you knew that one always lies and one always tells the truth, and you can only ask one question to these two men, what one question could you ask them to ascertain the correct way to go?" Somehow, the atheist who wrote this article uses this logic puzzle to "prove" that there is no way to know which religion is right and which one is wrong because (according to him) once you add more liars to the mix, the logic puzzle becomes "unsolvable," i.e., there is no way to tell who is the truth-teller amongst all the liars. I would like to try and solve it if I may (as well as point out a few criticisms).

Quark correctly asserts that the one question you can ask to solve the puzzle is to ask, "Which road would he tell me [is the right way]?" In this scenario, the two men are forced to answer the way the other one would answer. Thus, the liar will lie about the way the truth-teller would say, and therefore say the wrong way; likewise, the truth-teller would truthful tell the way the lair would recommend, which is also the wrong way. Therefore, you would go the opposite direction they both mentioned. So far so good.

Quark goes awry, however, when he claims that adding more liars to the mix (making the lie-truth ratio 4-1) makes the question "unsolvable." You can determine, even in this scenario, who is telling the truth and who is not, and you can do it by asking them all the same exact question: "Which road would they tell me to take?" It works slightly different than before, but the result is the same. It works like this: the truth-teller is the only one who will say that the four other men would say the same thing; conversely, the liars will always say that three of the other men would say the same thing but one would be different.

Remember: according to our scenario, there are still only two ways to go, with only one way being right. The possible lies and truths available to the liars and truth-teller are limited to only two responses: this way or that way. Consequently, the liars will all be in agreement with there answer (because they all lie), but the truth-teller will be the lone dissenter (because he alone tells the truth). Thus (as said before), if the man you ask answers that all four of the other men would say the same thing, you know that you are dealing with the truth-teller; likewise, if the man you ask answers that three of the men would say one thing and one would say another, you know that you are dealing with a liar. Paradoxically, the liar cannot lie about the truth-teller's dissension; if the lairs are saying one way, but the truth-teller another, and there is only two ways to go with only one being right, then no matter what a liar says, he will always have one of the other four as being different.

The result is that you know who is who, and thus you can navigate your decision: whatever the truth-teller says about the other four, you should go the opposite way (because he is truthfully telling what the liars would say, which is a lie); whatever the liars say (watch this!), you should follow whatever direction the liar says that three of the four men say because he will lie about what the liars would say and thus tell you the truth (of course he will lie about the truth-teller, who you will recognize because he is the only dissenter)! Liars lying about liar's lies and thus telling the truth; as you can see, Quark was dead wrong when he said the scenario was "unsolvable". Quite the contrary, the puzzle actually becomes easier, because you will easily know who is who and which way to go because the liars will lie about the other liar's lies and thus tell you the truth (which you will be able to identify). In addition, this scenario can work no matter how many liars you insert, because you can always identify the truth-teller as the lone dissenter (and the liars will always lie about liar's lies, etc.). Thus, I have solved the "unsolvable" puzzle. Since I obviously won't be getting a cookie for my efforts, I will move on to my criticisms.

Quark makes a logical snafu when he tries to apply his "unsolvable" scenario to world religions. First of all, the scenario is no longer "unsolvable." It is actually easier to solve. Thus, his hopes to use his unsolvable puzzle for atheistic purposes are utterly dashed, as his original scenario no longer works for his purposes.

Second of all, however, even if the original scenario was indeed "unsolvable," it would still not apply for one small yet vital reason: in the original scenario, there are only two paths with one right way; in the world religions analogy, however, there are now multiple paths with only one right way. Since the structure of the puzzle has fundamentally changed (for the number of paths is key to the puzzle), any applications made in the original puzzle cannot apply to this new analogy because this new analogy is based on a completely different puzzle: the puzzle has changed from a two path/one right way structure to a multiple path/one right way structure. This analogy has introduced a scenario that is fundamentally different from the original scenario, and thus Quark's attempts to apply the original scenario to this new scenario is erroneous.

Let's look at this new puzzle laid down by Quark: "Imagine we replace the town [you are trying to reach] with Heaven, and replace the men with a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Jew, a Christian and a Muslim, and add a road for each. How can you determine who is telling the truth and who is not?" Quark's solution? "All you can do is just pick a direction and go." What's his conclusion then? "That doesn't seem like something that was set up by the supreme intellect in the universe. That strategy violates the principle of minimizing as much uncertainty as possible to increase the likelihood of a successful outcome."

Now, the short (and Christian) answer to the puzzle is that God is not only there (i.e., He exist) but is also not silent (i.e., He has made Himself known). Aside from general revelation (i.e., creation [Romans 1:19, 20] and mankind's "mannishness" [Romans 2:12-15]), there is special revelation: the word (i.e., the Bible) and the Word (i.e., the Incarnation [John 1:1, 14; Hebrews 1:1-4]). Not only did God drop signs of His presence in our world and in ourselves, He also wrote a book and came down in person to tell us that He is there and all that He says is true. In Quark's scenario, this is the equivalent of the owner and founder of the town coming down to you and telling you, "That's the right way." Then he leaves you his notes on the subject so you do not forget what He said. This same scenario can not only answer this multiple path/one right way scenario, but also the "black box" scenario (i.e., you can know what is inside the impenetrable box if what is inside the box [1] is there, and [2] is not silent).

Of course, atheists will claim, "The bible is full of errors!" "Jesus never existed!" "The Bible's claims have been disproved!" "Jesus was not God!" That is my point, however. I have just spent the last few paragraphs solving an "unsolvable" logic puzzle that could be applied to world religions only to find that the whole atheistic argument here was not about a logic puzzle or world religions at all; this was about Christ and the Bible. Quark's world religion scenario is unsolvable only if you assume that Christ and the Bible (as well as creation and man's humanity) are discounted from the get-go. It sounds like Quark is doing a new thing, but he is not. He is simply dressing up old issues in new clothes, clothes that do not fit or even match. His "unsolvable logic puzzle" is mere subterfuge disguising the real issues, which are Christ and the Bible, not the presence of world religions against the reality of God; if Christ is God and the Bible is true, then the presence of world religions is irrelevant in regards to the reality of God.

To my fellow believers, remember: to be an engaging, critically thinking Christian means you hear the issues behind the issues. Atheists will mount what seems to be innumerable arguments against your faith, but do not be fooled; they are merely blowing smoke to cover the few real issues that they actually have. The real issues are were the battles must be fought, and atheist's smokescreens will only serve to cloud the issues from you. You must learn to disperse such clouds.

I.D. Required

One of the common themes touted amongst postmodern/emergent types is the despisement of metanarratives (i.e., a worldview, an overarching structure of concepts that inform your view of the world). A direct result of this despisement is the outcry, "Don't label me!" What people mean when they say that is that they do not want others fitting them within the confines of some sort of metanarritive-esque definable category. To be placed in such a definable category is considered an enslavement to that definition and category; to be "labelled" is to be imprisoned within a metanarrative. For postmodern/emergents, it is an atrocity to be labelled, and a cardinal sin to label others.
This despisement of "labels" is ludicrous, however, because it is fundamentally flawed in its views of what a "label" is. The fundamental assumption wherein postmodern/emergent types are in error is the assumption that a "label" is an arbitrary assignment from outside your person, i.e., it is another person making you into the label, or requiring that you be the label. Common sense requires that such an assumption is ludicrous. When I "label" a painting Cubist or a philosophy Nihilistic, I am not making those things anything; I am merely responding to what I actually see. I may be well-informed yet still wrong in my response, but it is still a response, i.e., a passive and not active action. When I (or anyone else) "labels" anything or anyone, that is not an act of creation, but an act of identification; I am attempting (like any rational human being) to understand what I am engaging. This should be embarrassingly obvious: I do not make a person a Christian/Republic/Liberal/Atheist/Realist/Apathetic/etc. by calling them that any more than me calling them a "dog"will give them a furry tail and wet nose.
This erroneous assumption that flaws postmodern/emergent despisement of "labels" is the result of a misunderstanding about beliefs. It is not people that make you this or that; it is your beliefs that make you this or that. Like it or not, your beliefs make you something. Even if you believed that there are no beliefs (a true contradiciton), that still makes you something; and that something is a real something. Even if there is not a label discovered are stated yet that properly defines the real thing that you are, that real thing is still there; and when people engage it, when they engage you, they will seek to understand (and therefore "label") you. "Labels" are not arbitrary assignments, but response to and expressions of what is really there, a response to and expression of you. "Labels" are not tyrants; they are revelations. Without them, you could never begin to identify who you are, and concretely identifying who you are (in any way) is vital to your humanity.
I am a Christian Protestant Baptist, Federalist Republic Conservative, Logocentric Trinitarian, Fantasy Realist, already-but-not-yet, resurrected-fallen lover of pie. These are not arbitrary assignments given to me by others. I was not made into these by the tyranny of metanarratives; I assigned them to myself after I discovered (through much prayer and critical thinking) that I really am those things. They are my "labels," and I dare not part with them! They help me state concretely and definitely (if not still incompletely) who I am, and such knowledge serves as a reference point to help me navigate myself through the world.
"Labels" are a matter of identity, not slavery. The only true slavery is confusion and doubt; the only true freedom is stability and certainty. Knowledge--concrete, certain, actual knowledge--is indeed power. If you do not "know," then you are helpless, lost in a fog. Should not that be obvious, though? Practical experience reveals that a man is at his most helpless when he has "no idea" of what to do, where to go, or what is going on. It is only when he knows some things that he has the power to act.
That is not nonsense; it is a bare truth about existence. All doing is dependent upon being. Who you are defines what you will do; action requires an I.D. If you do not know who you are, then what can you do? In truth, nothing. You cannot vote (for you do not know what issues you stand for), you cannot learn (for you do not know what type of learner you are, or what things you want to learn), you cannot dream (for you do not know what you desire), you cannot love (for you do not know what kind of love you seek), you cannot laugh (for you do not know what you find funny), you cannot cry (for you do not know what hurts you), you cannot worship (for you do not know what beauty is), you cannot fight (for you do not know what is worth fighting for), you cannot help (for you do not know what is wrong), you cannot hurt (for you do not know what is wrong with you), you cannot create (for you do not know what your tools are, or what is worth creating), you cannot destroy (for, again, you do not know what your tools are, or what is worth destroying), you cannot stand (for you do not know what you should stand for), you cannot sit out (for you do not know what you should ignore), etc., etc. In every case, you are in the ninth circle of Hell, frozen solid, truly a slave and in prison.
If, however, you know who you are; if you have found your "labels," then you have the power to do. You can vote and everything else because you know (in some way) who you are dealing with when you deal with yourself. Identification is not a slavery, nor is it arbitrary assignments. Definable categories are not your enemy; they are navigation points by which you can navigate yourself through yourself. If you are (in any way) certain of your self, then you have found a true freedom.

The "Problem" of Evil

I believe I speak from experience (however minor) that the only real substantive argument that atheists have against Christianity is the so called "Problem of Evil." Frankly, all their other arguments besides that one are trivial at best and idiotic at worst. Because the Problem of Evil (POE) is consider such a stalwart opponent, I feel that I have not lived up to my obligations as a critical thinking believer until I have engaged (however badly) this impressive beast. So, for better or for worse, here is my attempt to add my two cents into the long debated subject. I have no doubt my own small pebble will do nothing in the collective sea of human thought other than to serve as a reminder to myself of my own ideas.

Let's begin by saying what POE is. It goes something like this (and you have probably heard this before): "God is good. God is all-powerful. If God were good and all-powerful, He would not allow evil to exist. Evil does exist, however, so God must not be good, all-powerful, or both." Here it is in short: if God is good and all-powerful, then why is there evil, and why does it continue? That is the insurmountable question leveled against Christianity, the rocks upon which many a faith has supposedly wrecked.
The answer to POE is so blindingly obvious, however, that once I (quite unexpectedly) fumbled upon it, I began to seriously question what all the fuss was about. It also made me sad, because the implications of POE's persistance in the marketplace of ideas is that Christians have suffered a serious bout of amnesia in regards to their own foundational doctrines. It is the equivalent of a bard forgetting a story that he has told for years (incuding just yesterday); it is inexcusable.
POE is answered by the simple reassertion of Christian doctrine; namely, that there are two sides to the story of God and man: one side is the Fall; the other side is the Cross. Both of those sides serve as an answer to POE that puts it to bed so suddenly and quickly before the eyes of mortal men that its simplicity may be its only weakness (as honest men may not take it seriously). It is, however, the foolishness of philosophic thinking to demand complexity on all counts; simple things can level entire kingdoms faster than convoluted argumentation. POE itself stands as a prime example of this; its simplicity is its true venom. It is also its downfall, however, since simple questions usually incur (after much thinking) simple answers; and I am defiantly proclaiming that the Christian answer to POE is simple.
As to why evil is, the Fall is the response; a response as simple yet as shocking as lightning. I could hazard some sort of ridiculous commentary here, but I believe better men have put the issue of the Fall in a much more adequate and simple fashion. Francis Schaeffer was one such man, and he put it this way:

Christianity's answer [to evil's existence] rests in the historic, space-time, real and complete Fall. The true Christian position is that in space and time and history, there was an unprogrammed man who made a choice, and actually rebelled against God. (From Escape From Reason)

The presence and continuance of evil on earth is the result of man's choice, leading to fallen men and a fallen creation (I Corinthians 15:21, 22 & Romans 8:19-22). The Fall gives meaning to both men making evil choices and a world breeding disease and disaster. All men are wounded, and so is their world.
As to what God is doing about all this, the Cross is the equally simple yet shocking response. According to Christianity, there were only two ways God could have "dealt" with evil when the Fall happened. First of all, He could have destroyed us. Such a response would not have satisfied POE for two reasons: firstly, there would be no one to question God and thus no one to ask POE in the first place; and secondly, such a response would reveal God to be indeed all-powerful, but not good, since He is meeting evil with evil (i.e., destroying all things). Thus it would prove POE's point: God is not God if He answers in such a way.
The second way God could have dealt with evil, the way He did take, the way for which we fall on our knees and worship Him, is that He could have saved us. This, of course, is the whole meaning behind the mysterious and immutable reality that is the Incarnation. In response to honest men asking, "What has the good, all-powerful God done about evil," we can most definitely say, "Good sir, it is Christ." Romans 5:8 is the summation of Christian apologetic thought on the subject of what God is "doing" (or has done) with evil.

Objections can be raised. One is that if God is all-powerful, why is destruction and salvation His only options? Why not instead prevent evil from happening at all, or prevent it from continuing to happen? I have heard something like this before, and I am afraid that it does not escape the same problem that occurs when God decides to destroy us, i.e., in order for God to do what is good (i.e., deal with evil) He must do something that is evil (i.e., removing freewill). Again, God is revealed as merely all-powerful and not good; He is no longer God.
Another objection that can be raised is that if salvation (through the Cross of Christ) is God's response to evil, His way of "dealing" with it, then why not save everybody and be done with it? The answer is the same as before: that would be God meeting evil with evil (i.e., removing freewill). Like evil actions, salvation is a choice, though, unlike evil actions, it is not a choice between doing or not doing, but rather between receiving or not receiving. Evil is an active choice; salvation is a passive one (which is why Christianity has often described it as a "surrender"). If you receive the salvation of Christ, all well and good; if you reject it, however, then you are (for your part) responsible for the continuance of evil. Salvation is God's dealing with evil; rejecting it is tantamount to saying, "I'm sorry, sir, but I very much like evil, and wish it to continue."
The Fall and the Cross are Christianity's final and only answer to POE. Any answer that does not include them is asinine, and ultimately satisfies no one. In response to POE (and all of its proponents), we defiantly say this: it is mankind who chose to unleash Hell on earth, and God who chose to send Heaven to earth. You can be mad at men who perpetuate evil by committing evil acts or by rejecting salvation; you can even be mad (as you should be) at the Church for being slack in its job of proclaiming the gospel; but enough of this childish nonsense that blames evil on God, or uses evil to disprove God. He has chosen to save us and not destroy us (or our freewill), and has sent people (including Himself) to bring us His salvation. What more would you have Him do?

Make Ye the Way Straight for the Next Christian Fad

Oh, beautiful, beautiful satire. I love it!

The Return of a Pet Peeve

Early on in this blog's life, a reoccuring theme of mine was the devestating effects that removing the doctrine of Sin have on the gospel. Past examples of my concerns can be found here and here.
One of my fellow bloggers reignited my interest in the subject (if only for a moment) by posting this excellent article on his blog. I recommend reading his entry entitled "Smart Baptist" (which contains a link to the article).
In times like these (when the gospel is turned into a cloak for political or consumerism agendas), I like to read more G.K. Chesterton (a Catholic) and Oswald Chambers (a Protestant) because both of these men firmly point to the fundamental reality of Sin and the fundamental reality of Redemption (and to the fact that without a proper view of the fundamental reality of Sin, there is no proper view of the fundamental reality of Redemption).

Letter to Limbaugh on Hypocritical Lunacy

I sent this letter in an email to Rush Limbaugh yesterday. I have posted it here to display the rare occasion when I touch on politics:

Even though I know that the liberal left is nothing but a pack of two-faced powermongers ready to do whatever it takes to secure more power towards implementing their liberal agenda of socialism and big government, I am ashamed to say that I still find myself flabbergasted at the audacious lengths of hypocrisy that the left is willing to go to in order to win an election. Their recent rantings about Sarah Palin and the RNC have completed frustrated my natural human inclination towards intelligent thought.

So let me get this straight:

1. The liberal left that wore as a feather in its cap the liberation of women from the unbearable chains of motherhood is now attacking Sarah Palin for being a "bad mother" because she took the VP nomination?
2. The liberal left that crusaded tirelessly for the emancipation of a woman's sexuality out from under the tyranny of archaic and patriarchal constructs such as "matrimony" is now attacking Palin's daughter for having a child out of wedlock?
3. The liberal left that constantly brandishes "separation of church and state" like a rapier and is a well known enemy of traditional Christianity now cites God's wrath and vengeance in regards to Gustav's "interruption" of the RNC earlier this week?

I know that I should not be surprised at the willingness of the liberal left to throw every cherished belief that they claim to have under enumerable buses, and sacrifice every sacred cow they have on the altar of their agenda; but the above mentioned examples of hypocritical lunacy just frustrate me to no end. It has given me considerably cruel headaches.

I endure my headaches, however, and here is why: I know that all of the latest nonsense spewing forth from the liberal left is merely signs of desperation. Palin has scared them to death, McCain is gaining more momentum, and the Messiah's downfall is looming like the twilight of the gods. It is desperate times for the liberal left, and desperate times do call for desperate measures. Thus, I endure all my headaches because I know that all of the latest bile from the left is merely them refusing to see the death throes of their once thought invincible campaign for the presidency. It is a fun (yet still frustrating) spectacle to watch.

On Immortality (or, Why the Universe is Out to Kill Us)

A common buzz amongst Scientism and futurists types is how one day (in a galaxy far, far away) humanity will (through genetic manipulation and technological augmentation) be able to defeat death and become immortal. This, of course, is nonsense. There is no way for you to make yourself immortal; it is impossible.
Common sense would say that it would be (at the very least) difficult: even if you somehow stopped the aging process and completely immunized yourself, it does not matter--there is always the possibility of the emergence of a new disease or condition not yet discovered or considered, or the possibility that you will be hit by a bus.
Common sense, however, only tells us why human manufactured immortality would be difficult. To see why it is impossible, we must use our imagination for a second. Imagine a human (maybe the last one) who has, indeed, become "immortal" in every sense that this person could be: they have somehow stopped the aging process, immunized themselves against all diseases known and unknown, and have placed themselves in an environment where they are completely safe and sustained. Even then, immortality is not and cannot be obtained, for the following reasons:
Immortality (i.e., always being) is not contingent upon you; it is contingent upon the reality that you live in, upon the plane of existence that you inhabit. Unless your reality is immortal (always being), or eternal (has been and always will be), you will not be immortal, no matter what genetic or technological wonders you invoke.. Simply put: if your universe dies, you die with it. If you inhabit a dying universe (and therefore are a part of a dying universe), then immortality is negated as a manufactured possibility (for we "manufacture" with what we have, and all that we have is a part of our dying universe).
We, of course, do inhabit a dying universe. Even science knows that the universe (or at least our universe) will die; it may take a few billion years, it may be a "big crunch" or a falling apart, but it will happen. Thus, even if you somehow managed to achieve the aforementioned conditions of "immortality," you will only live until the universe dies, until it collapses or "runs away," or until the Sun burns out, until all suns burn out, until entropy finishes its deathly task and all energy is expended, equilibrium is reached, and everything (including "immortals") freezes and becomes static, cold, and dark. Again, a dying universe negates the possibility of manufactured immortality or immortal beings.
Since a dying universe creates the impossibility of manufactured immortality (and since we inhabit a dying universe), therefore the only way to guarantee the possibility of immortality is to: (1) somehow guarantee the immortality of the universe (i.e., keep the engine running); (2) find something (or someone) that can guarantee the immortality of the universe; (3) find another universe (preferably one that is immortal/eternal); or (4) find something (or someone) that is separate from (and yet still in contact with) our universe that can give immortality to either us, our universe, or both. Unless one of those four ways is satisfied, humanity's desire to make themselves immortal will be an eternal chasing of the wind.

(Note: To see the Christian stance, look here.)

The Great Escape

I found an excellent article by an ex-atheist writing about how he escaped atheism, or (as he put it) escaped from nihilism.

Further Frustrations

Several months ago, I mentioned my frustrations in dealing with atheism. Now I want to give a practical example. A random atheist (signed in as "anonymous") told me to check out this "well researched" (his words) site in regards to all of the "lies" that Christianity is founded on. I checked it out, and all I can say is if that site is what is consider "well researched," then perhaps you (my readers) will understand my frustrations a little better. Citing old, long debunked atheistic arguments ("Jesus never even existed"), idiotic statements ("following a star would only lead you in circles"; they do not even understand the basics of navigation!), and the quoting of verses that butchers the context and reveals a severe lack of understanding in regards to textual criticism, only furthers my conviction that atheists really have no clue what they are talking about.
I am never surprised by these things; what else can you expect from those who deny the existence of a source of ultimate Truth? Still, that such nonsense is touted as "enlightenment" makes my blood boil.