212 - Calvary High School Ministry

A Brief Explanation of the Name Change

“There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven… a time to plant and a time to uproot… a time to tear down and a time to build.”
Ecclesiastes 3:1, 2b, 3b

As we have sought the Lord about the direction of this youth group, He laid upon our hearts that there is a time for change. This change involves the direction and structure of the youth ministry and a desire to promote Calvary’s mission of helping people Know Christ, Grow in Christ, Serve Christ, and Share Christ. When I first came to Calvary, my intention was to keep WAVE as the name. It has so much familiarity and history; I did not want to take away from that. However, it became clear to me that in order to accomplish the change the Lord set on our hearts, changing the name is necessary.

There were several names suggested. All of them were wonderful and catchy. However, the name change had little to do with preference, and more to do with direction. The name that best fit with Calvary’s mission was 212º. This will refer to anyone who attends any High School activity on any regular basis.
212º is the boiling point of water. At 211º water is very hot, but nothing changes. But at 212º, everything changes.

We at Calvary Student Ministries want to live at the boiling point in our lives. So often, we live mundane lives. God, however, promises abundant life where we are experiencing incredible things that not only change us, but change the world around us. If we are going to live this abundant life, we need God to bring us to the boiling point.

In Acts, when the Spirit first went out, we see a time when lives changed (Acts 2:1-2 – which promotes 212º):

“They were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were”
Acts 2:1-2

My prayer is that God would fill us when we gather and change us in unimaginable ways just like He did in Acts.

Three things must be present for water to boil:

Water (H20)
Energy (Fuel)
Change (Catalyst)

These three things will be offered to help students reach the ‘boiling point’ in their lives:

H20 Service – Sundays at 7 PM
If the Word of God is applied to hearts that are open to change, the Spirit will do great things. With games, worship, and God’s Word applied to our lives, we will fulfill our mission to “Know Christ”.

Fuel Groups (small groups) – various times
People need a smaller community where they can be vulnerable. We offer a safe place where people can be supported, ask tough questions, and grow and in the grace and knowledge of Jesus. This will fulfill our mission to “Grow in Christ”.

Catalysts – Sunday Mornings at 9:30 and 10:45, and other opportunities.
Everyone has a ministry that God has prepared for them. We will discover and develop each person by offering opportunities inside and outside of Calvary each week through Sunday School. This will fulfill our mission to “Serve Christ” and “Share Christ”.

Through these and other activities not mentioned (Solid Rock, Missions, etc.), the Lord will change our students and the world around us.

To All my Artists, Writers, and Preachers

For everyone who is involved in the arts, writing, and preaching, you will find that there are some striking similarities in the art of preaching/proclaiming truth and the task of the artist. Alexander Solzhenitsyn said in his 1970 Nobel Prize speech, "In this cruel, dynamic, explosive world, on the brink of a dozen destructions, what is the place and role of the writer? We writers have no rockets to blast off, we do not even trundle the most insignificant auxiliary vehicle, we are indeed altogether despised by those who respect only material power... writers and artists can do something more: they can vanquish the lie... We must not seek excuses on the grounds that we lack weapons... we must go out into battle... One word of truth outweighs the whole world. And on such a fantastic breach of the law of conservation of mass and energy are based my own activities and my appeal to writers of the world."
The power of a word of truth must not be underestimated. Today, our culture has a disenchantment with all words. We deconstruct and manipulate them to mean whatever will be most expedient for us. Though words are ignored and fall on deaf ears, we must never fail to recognize the power of one word of TRUTH.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God." John 1:1 Jesus is this Word of Truth (John 14:6) with all the power of God in Himself.

Art & the Christian - Part III

Art Appreciation
“Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things.” Philippians 4:8

There are some things we can learn from this passage that will help us understand, and appreciate art in any form. It should be noted that you cannot turn your mind off when you view art. Movies are not merely entertainment, but teachers (for good or for bad).

“Whatever is TRUE…”Questions to ask yourself as you view the art”
What sort of statements is this art trying to make? Are there truth statements being made in it? Are these truth statements consistent with what really is true? What false statements are being made?

Example: Bob Dylan’s “To Make You Feel My Love”. I think this is a powerful work of art because it displays the truth that Love is self-sacrifice. Often, music proclaim love as something you feel or experience (an example would be the Diamond Rio song “How Your Love Makes Me Feel”). Dylan however gives us this wonderful other-person-oriented view of love that sacrifices itself for the other person rather than focusing on personal wish fulfillment. Jesus agrees with Dylan when He says “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends (John 15:13).”

When the rain is blowing in your face
And the whole world is on your case
I could offer you a warm embrace
To make you feel my love

When the evening shadows and the stars appear
And there is no one there to dry your tears
I could hold you for a million years
To make you feel my love

I know you haven't made your mind up yet
But I would never do you wrong
I've known it from the moment that we met
No doubt in my mind where you belong


I'd go hungry, I'd go black and blue
I'd go crawling down the avenue
There's nothing that I wouldn't do
To make you feel my love

The storms are raging on the rollin' sea
And on the highway of regret
The winds of change are blowing wild and free
You ain't seen nothing like me yet

I could make you happy, make your dreams come true
Nothing that I wouldn't do
Go to the ends of the earth for you
To make you feel my love

“Whatever is honorable…”
Because man is created in the image of God, man has dignity. We cannot deny the creativeness of men, degrade the art of another, or dismiss someone as useless because of the One whose image they are made, including yourself. You have value because of God and the artist who create art in our culture have value because they have been created in the image of God. To dismiss art because we disagree with it is neither fair nor right. We need to find the truth in it and talk about why we disagree with it.
Example: American History X. This is a movie that was very hard to watch about the story of a Neo-Nazi white supremacist who sought to kill and show hate toward people of other races (particularly African-Americans). In the movie, he finds himself in jail and working alongside a black man in his daily duties. He also found himself being helped by his African-American high school principal (even though he is no longer in high school). For months he would have nothing to do with these people. However, over time he discovered the value of people and began having friendships with them. This is a beautiful picture of finding worth in people. I disagree with many aspects of that movie, but I recognize that the central theme is a good one. Men have value.

“Whatever is right…”Not all art makes a moral statement, but when it does Christians must deal with it, not ignore it. We must consider whether this system of morals is in line with what is true according to Scripture.
Example: Picasso's painting, Guernica, is a moral statement protesting the bombing by the Germans of a town by that name just prior to World War II. Protesting injustice is a cry for justice. We have to consider this and take into account what we believe.

“Whatever is pure…”Also touching on the moral ideal, “by contrasting that which is innocent, chaste, and pure from that which is sordid, impure, and worldly “
Example: The fresh and innocent love of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet up against the erotic lust of pornography.

“Whatever is lovely…”What is attractive? What is beautiful? This can be much more than simply physical, but how things are artistically put together.
Example: American Beauty: This movie is creatively and cleverly put together with its visual themes that help communicate the point of the story through roses, the plastic bags (if you have seen the movie you know what I am talking about), and the ordinary (Ricky finds beauty in the ordinary – then falls in love with the cleverly named Jane – plain Jane).

“Whatever is of good repute…”
In other words, does this have a good reputation. You can view something in terms of the person who created it as well as the use of the piece itself. The bad reputation of the artist does not, however, obliterate the value of the art itself if it expresses good and true things.
Example: Harry Potter Series. Many argue against it and say it is evil. We need to think about these things as we take in the art. I don’t think it is ever ok to dismiss the art based on the reputation it has, though. It should be understood in light of it, but not tossed aside because some disagree. I don’t think Harry Potter is evil, but I would be doing a disservice to the Christian community if I didn’t take that into consideration as I read the books.

“Whatever is excellent…”This is a term which implies that it is above or better than other things: qualitative. There is something to be said for the technical quality and the durability of the art. The old saying is “great art lasts”.
Example: Great Symphonies of Bach, Beethoven, or the Italian Art Songs that are still the classics after all this time. Somehow, I think these can be seen as qualitatively better than “Achy, Breaky Heart” by Mulletboy.

“Whatever is worthy of praise…”This refers to the effect that the art has on the culture, for good or for bad. The timeliness of art, or the expression of a particular truth for a particular time is something to consider. How it is received is also a very important concept.
Example: Rap has had profound impact on our culture. Its affects on contemporary African-American inner-city culture has been at times good, but often bad. Specifically, the way that Rap has been sited for its degradation of woman. The N.W.A was pointed out for teaching hatred of police. This art form had an impact on its society.

The Final Sum: 1 Thess. 5:21-22“test everything, hold fast to what is good. Abstain from every form of evil.”
As Christians, we must look for the truth, the honor, and the morals in all art. The purity, the loveliness, the good reputation of all art and see the excellence and where it is worthy of praise.

Final Discussion
Do you see a danger in dividing things up into non-Christian/Christian in light of the idea that all Truth is God’s Truth?
What dangers do you see in trying to appreciate non-Christian art?
What dangers do you see in trying to appreciate Christian art?
Is art a worthy calling for a Christian?
In light of this information, what do you think about the division between Christian music and secular music that is pervasive in our society?
How are we to watch movies/theater/listen to music in light of this discussion?
Can art be an effective springboard to discuss the truth of God with others? How?

Art & the Christian - Part II

True Stories/Myths, Real Art, Expressive Music
At its core (Jessitron!!!), what is a story/myth? What makes them wonderful? What catches your attention in them?
It’s the truth, the reality of the struggle, the longing of our hearts satisfied in the end of the stories that we love. Art should be an expression of truth and of beauty. This is more than simply what is pleasing to the eye (which I hope to discuss in my discussion on beauty, should it ever show it’s ugly head, or uh... type). What is it that we love about music? What words draw you in?
Music expresses our deepest thoughts, struggles, emotions and truths. It communicates those things through the chords (minor vs. major and forte vs. piano), through dynamics, through tone/dissonance, through the words chosen to accompany them, through a number of means. That is why it sounds weird to hear a love song in a minor key. It communicates a happy thought in typically sad tone.
I disagree with Plato on his fundamental assertion. I believe art is not a fabrication of what is real, but it is a reflection of things kept inside the heart and mind. I also believe that good art displays truth.

A Myth Come True
J.R.R. Tolkein thought that stories captured the hearts of people because they are echoes of truth. He called Christianity (when witnessing to C.S. Lewis) the “true myth”. You can find every major literary plot within the Bible (the STORY of Christianity). The stories we love appeal to us because they are saying true things (or at least things we perceive to be true). I believe that we love happy endings because we long for the happy ending that we have in Christ. What do you think about his concept?
Let’s talk more about how we are to understand art as people and as Christians.

Story: Bach or Rock? (this is not original to me, but I don’t remember where I got it: Sorry whoever wrote it)
“Several years ago I was having dinner with a group of young people when our conversation turned to the subject of music. During the discussion I made a comment about how I believe there is a qualitative difference between the music of Bach and that of a musician who was popular among Christians at the time of our discussion. When one of the group at our table heard this, he immediately responded in anger and accused me of flagrant prejudice and a judgmental spirit. Even though I attempted to elaborate my point, the young man had determined that I was an elitist and would not listen any longer. This incident serves as a reminder that one of the most prevalent ways of approaching art is to simply say that "beauty is in the eye (or ear) of the beholder." The incident also serves to show that concepts of "good" and "bad," or "beautiful" and "ugly," or other adjectives, are part of our vocabulary when we talk of art. This is true whether we believe such terms apply only to individuals or everyone. The vocabulary pertains to a field of philosophy called aesthetics. All of us deal with aesthetics at various times in our lives, and many of us incorporate aesthetic statements in daily conversations. For example, we may say, "That was a great movie." Or, "That was a terrible movie." When we make such statements we normally don't think seriously about how such terms actually apply to what we have seen. We are stating our opinions, but those opinions are usually the result of an immediate emotional response. The challenge comes when we attempt to relate qualitative statements about the movie as part of a quest to find universal guidelines that can be applied to all art. When we accept this challenge we begin to explain why some artists and their art is great, some merely good, and others not worthwhile.”

Can you talk about art qualitatively? Is this beauty really in the eye of the beholder? Is beauty all there is to talk about concerning art and appreciating it? How should a Christian view art?

Art and the Christian
Have you ever heard someone say “that’s an ugly sunset?”
What about “that’s a beautiful sunset?” When you hear that, you probably don’t hear any arguments against its beauty. As a Christian, we can recognize that the statements about the beauty of the sunset is not merely a statement of the art, but the artist as well: God. When you praise something aesthetically, you are praising the artist as well.

“The Christian knows that the very fabric of the universe expresses God's presence with majestic beauty and grandeur. Psalm 19:1 states, "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows forth his handiwork." Nature has been called the "aesthetics of the infinite." Through telescope or microscope, one can devote a lifetime to the study of some part of the universe--the skin, the eye, the sea, the flora and fauna, the stars, the climate. All of nature can be appreciated for its aesthetic qualities which find their source in God, their Creator.”

Have you ever had someone ask you if you are an artist? If so, what did you say? Most of us don't see ourselves as imaginative, artistic people. Indeed, most of us tend to think of the artist and imagination as terms that apply only to certain elite individuals who have left a legacy of work. "The truth is that in discussing the arts we are discussing something universal to mankind." You were created in the image of God and God is the great creative creator. Because of that, you are made a creative being. You have an innate ability to create, perhaps not music or paintings, but everyone has creativity because of your Creator.

“A bent and twisted nature has emerged, tainting every field of human endeavor or expression and consistently marring the results. The unfortunate truth is that divinely-endowed creativity will always be accompanied in earthly life by the reality and presence of sin expressed through a fallen race. Man is Jekyll and Hyde: noble image-bearer and morally- crippled animal. His works of art are therefore bittersweet. Understanding this dichotomy allows Christians to genuinely appreciate something of the contribution of every artist, composer, or author. God is sovereign and dispenses artistic talents upon whom He will. While Scripture keeps us from emulating certain lifestyles of artists or condoning some of their ideological perspectives, we can nevertheless admire and appreciate their talent, which ultimately finds its source in God. The fact is that if God can speak through a burning bush or Balaam's donkey, He can speak through a hedonistic artist! The question can never be how worthy is the vessel, but rather has truth been expressed? God's truth is still sounding forth today from the Bible, from nature, and even from fallen humanity.
Because of the Fall, absolute beauty in the world is gone. But participation in the aesthetic dimension reminds us of the beauty that once was, and anticipates its future luster. With such beauty present today that can take one's breath away, even in this unredeemed world, one can but speculate about what lies ahead for those who love Him!”

Why should we appreciate art as Christians? How should we appreciate art?
The sacred/secular split is a foreign concept to the Bible (and really all cultures up until the Enlightenment). All truth is God’s truth. If art expresses something true, it is good and worthy of beholding. We can appreciate art that expresses truth because it expresses God Himself (John 14:6). We, as Christians, must be careful to go about understanding art and recognizing the truth of God in it. There are some things we must do as we evaluate art, whether it be music, film, paintings, comics, or any other art form we encounter.

In the next post, I will discuss some things Christians must take into consideration when viewing art. I will offer practical ways of viewing art and also some examples of them as we go along. For now, happy blogging.

Quote Reveal

The quote from last week (that only jessitron commented on) is from the Reformation theologian John Calvin. I am not typically a fan of Calvin, but I agree with him on this one. Spurgeon said something very similar when he said (not an exact quote) if your sin is small, your savior will be small as well. If your sin is great, however, your savior will be great. I think there is truth in seeing ourselves in light of God's holiness and greatness. The real blessing comes in knowing that God has made us of great value because he loves us and cares for us, even in the midst of our sin. That is true love. "But God demonstrates His own love towards us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8.

Art and the Christian Part Two will be put up a little later this week (maybe tomorrow). Keep adding your great comments to the posts.

Art & the Christian - Part I

Art and the Enlightenment
“Traditionally, the arts had been regarded as an expression of Truth. Even though they make use of myth and metaphor, the arts conveyed deep truths about the human condition. In the Enlightenment, however, rationalist critics began to denounce the arts. They argued that poetry and fairy tales – with their unicorns, dragons, monsters, and fairies – were nothing but harmful illusions. The “true world” revealed by science was contrasted to the “false world” invented by poets and painters”. Nancy Pearcey
“At best, art was nothing more than a pleasing falsehood, a Noble Lie”.

Plato and Art
Even prior to the Enlightenment, Art was getting dogged by Plato. Plato’s Allegory of the cave and his idea of real vs. shadows in our perception seeks to demonstrate that art has no bearing on reality. Why? Because it seeks to describe something, but will always do so imperfectly. Plato specifically had a problem with art because he believed that the real world was merely imperfect copies of the true and perfect which we would experience in the afterlife. If this is how he understood reality, what does that mean about art? Art, according to Plato, was a copy of a copy and therefore useless.

Can We Really Say that Art, Music, Film, Theater and Novels are useless? Think about it, In what ways are you effected by music/art? In what ways are you effected by film/novels/theater? How are you effected by the creators/artists/writers and actors? We seek and find truth in them with which we relate. We find our heart’s struggles and desires displayed in these. Many times we find ourselves emulating the creators, artists and actors who are responsible for the art. This leads to perhaps a bigger question: How do the arts effect our identity? Do you learn about truth and our identity (as a culture/male – female/individual through these)?
Two Examples: Why do men (typically younger men) love movies like “Braveheart” and “Fight Club”?
Our culture is one of the few that has no rite of passage for men to pass from boys to men (not to be confused with the ‘Boyz II Men’). Young men find themselves asking “at what point do I become a man” and in a culture where the men act like grown up boys they ask “what does a real man look like? I would suggest that boys love these movies because they display the struggles that men deal with in seeking identity (Fight Club), and also give answers to how we are to live as men and what it means to be a “real man” (Braveheart).

Think with me on this. What movies/music affect you?
A negative example of the impact of art would be The opera “Thus Spake Zarathustra” by Strauss and Novel of the same title by Nietzsche. These had a profound impact on one individual. This individual thought so much of the ideas in these that he not only put them into practice in his own life, but he was also very fervent in his approach to changing culture using these ideas. He gave copies of Nietzsche’s book to his followers (I think for Christmas) so that they would understand these "truths", as he saw it, as well. This was more than simply looking at a Novel as being pretty, but he believed that truth was being displayed through this novel and opera. The man who was impacted was Adolf Hitler and he put the ideas into practice through the Holocaust. Nietzsche never suggested for anyone to eliminate a race, but he did say that morals have no bearing on the individual and that you should rise above “herd morality”. This is precisely what Hitler did. I am not trying to suggest that Novels and Art are always dangerous, but I am suggesting that Art done well has a huge impact on society for good or for ill. Why? Because they communicate ideas and perceptions of TRUTH. I think this is something that we must take seriously.

In part two, we will further develop these ideas while discussing whether or not art can be 'qualitative' with the intention of discussing how the Christian should view art. Ultimately, in part three, I will give some specific ways to understand art and how to view it with the mind of Christ.

Please post any comments you have, and feel free to post on the quote I have put up as well. For more on Art, see the previous discussion entitled "Art, Truth, and the American Way" from 01.05.2006. Just scroll down and feel free to leave a comment there too.

Three Part Series

Tomorrow, I will begin a three part series on "Art and the Christian". I hope it will generate a lot of great discussion. Get your comments in as much as possible. Just because I have posted something new doesn't mean you can't post on the old still. Happy Blogging!!!

A New Quote:

This one will certainly generate discussion. The meaning is evident, but I would bet many of you will disagree. Be civil and articulate, ladies and gentlemen. Here it is:
"We cannot seriously aspire to God until we have begun to be displeased with ourselves."

Mescaline and Contemplation

The quote from last time was from Aldous Huxley (who I believe identified himself as agnostic, but I am sure someone will find something that contradicts that). It is from his famous book "The Doors of Perception" (which is where the band "the Doors" got their name). It describes his experience with Mescaline (a hallucinogenic drug) and how it supposedly opened the doors of perception so that he could see more clearly. I would assert that he was actually having his perception falsely altered, but who cares what I think... While I disagree with his method of discovering truth, I think he brings up a very interesting idea in this book by saying what he did in this quote. Essentially, he is saying that we must have activity to balance out and make affective our contemplation. So, for those of your prone to contemplation, put these thoughts into practice. For those who go, go, go, without processing and contemplating the bigger picture, slow down and think!!!!

GOOD NEWS:
I am going to stop putting up these obscure quotes for you to frustratingly make sense of. I think that it puts off an attitude of pseudo-intellectualism. I apologize for putting you through that. I am going to continue to put up quotes for discussion, but ones that have an evident meaning. Thanks for bearing with me thus far. I am gathering some great info to post on beauty and "Are the God of the Old and New Testament the same God?". Stay tuned for that. I am going to post on Christianity and the arts in the next few days. Thanks for stopping by. Feel free to leave a comment. I love to hear from you!!!

Working and Quoting

I know I have been alluding to and promising a post on beauty for a while, but I am having incredible difficulty expressing what I want to express (which is funny if you knew what I was trying to say). I can assure that I have been working diligently on this and hope to post in the very near future. To pass the time, I thought I would throw out another quote for discussion from a book I have been reading lately. It's from another athiest (or maybe an agnostic, I am not sure... I will have to research that one). Here it is:

"The age-old debate between the actives and the contemplatives was being renewed... now I knew contemplation at its height. At its height, but not yet in its fullness. For in its fullness the way of Mary includes the way of Martha and raises it, so to speak, to its own higher power."

I know this is hard to follow not knowing where it can be found and from whom, but I think it should start interesting conversation. I think you will be surprised by the author and what this person is talking about as well. Happy Blogging.

Quote Revelation

The quote from last week was from "The Myth of Sisyphus" by Albert Camus (pronounced KAM-OO). Camus was an atheist philosopher/writer who wrote several works such as "the Plague", "the Fall" and "the Stranger".

New Quote

A new feature on this blog will be some out of context quotes that have enough in them to gather the meaning and create discussion. My hope is that you will read the quote, post on what you think the unknown author is trying to say, whether or not you agree (and why), and a guess from whom/where the quote came. Don't do an internet search to figure it out. That takes the fun out of it. Here is this week's quote, which is on the subject I have been pushing for a while now: BEAUTY

"At the heart of all beauty lies something inhuman, and these hills, the softness of the sky, the outline of these trees at this very minute lose the illusory meaning with which we had clothed them, henceforth more remote than a lost paradise. The primitive hospitality of the world rises up to face us across millennia. For a second we cease to understand it because for centuries we have understood in it solely from the images and designs that we had attributed to it beforehand, because henceforth we lack the power to make use of that artifice. The world evades us because it becomes itself again. That stage scenery masked by habit becomes again what it is."

Wisdom Quote

The quote posted last is from Proverbs. It is Proverbs 28:26. I greatly enjoyed the discussion on Wisdom. I put this quote because it affirms what we have been discussing in the "knowing" series about wisdom being outside of ourselves and also an act of obedience rather than certainty grasped. We should most definitely seek to be wise, but the wisdom comes from the All-Wise LOGOS (as Jesus is referred to in John 1, meaning wisdom/word/logic) who gives generously to those who ask. Remember the story of Solomon? The LORD said to him "Ask whatever you want me to give to you." That is a bold offer from God. Solomon could have asked for anything, but he asked for wisdom.

The verse in 1 Kings 3 says:
"9 (Solomon said) 'Give your servant therefore an understanding mind to govern your people, that I may discern between good and evil, for who is able to govern this your great people?' 10 It pleased the Lord that Solomon had asked this. 11 And God said to him, "Because you have asked this, and have not asked for yourself long life or riches or the life of your enemies, but have asked for yourself understanding to discern what is right, 12 behold, I now do according to your word. Behold, I give you a wise and discerning mind, so that none like you has been before you and none like you shall arise after you. 13 I give you also what you have not asked, both riches and honor, so that no other king shall compare with you, all your days. 14 And if you will walk in my ways, keeping my statutes and my commandments, as your father David walked, then I will lengthen your days."

Wisdom is from God. I know this can be a difficult thing to grasp, but ultimately we are gaining our wisdom from some source of authority that we consider credible. You can never be certain of your knowledge unless you are certain of the authority that confirms it. Some have themselves as the authority for knowledge, others science, and still others intuition. I think that God has instituted all of these, but all are under His ultimate authority.

I will post a new quote for discussion next week. I am working on finally posting on beauty, but it may take some time. In the mean time feel free to discuss and challenge what I have said in this or any other post. Happy Blogging.

Wisdom

I ran across an interesting quote. I wanted to see what you think. Leave a post waxing eloquent about this quote:
"Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be kept safe."
Please comment when you get a chance. I still would like to hear thoughts on beauty as well (the post below).

A Discussion Worth Having

I have been hoping to generate more conversation on this blog. One way that I thought might be helpful is to introduce a discussion topic and allow you to discuss. A topic I have been thinking a lot about is the subject of beauty. Here are some questions to answer or riddle with more questions:
Is beauty subjective or objective?
Is it helpful to think in these terms at all?
What is the definition of beauty?
Why is it that our culture speaks a great deal about beauty, but you can ask anyone on the street what beauty is and they will be utterly perplexed?

I went to get my haircut once (this isn't a set up for a joke) while I was thinking about this subject and decided I would ask the ladies working at the 'Great Clips' what they thought beauty is. I thought that surely women working in a place which seeks to make everyone who walks in the door beautiful (at least their hair) would have an answer. To my surprize, they were so disinterested in talking about it they merely paused to hear my question and changed the subject altogether. I hope you will not do the same. Let's think through this one together.

I'll Come Back to That???

Someone pointed out to me that I kept making statments that I would come back to things in my "Knowing" series and then I never did. I wanted to try to clear some of that up. I think I caught all of them, but I am not sure. One thing I should note: I really do plan on covering the topic "the Objectivity of Beauty" but will need some time to work on it. Here is what I found in the "knowing" series. Let me know if I missed anything.

"The point is that all knowledge is both subjective and objective. I will build upon these ideas in the next post"

I was not trying to say that I would spend more time on this topic, but that I would build upon what I said in the next posts. In other words, I will use this as a foundation to bring up new topics. In Part IV – I do build on it (and I hope the rest).

"Augustine also believed that faith is not arbitrary, but quite rational (although faith can be abused to naively accept false things). We will not believe what we don’t think is valid, as cited above. We simply cannot believe that something is both “A” and “not A” at the same time. The law of non-contradiction prohibits it. We will revisit this later on."

Here I have a failure to explain what "this" means. I am referring to what Augustine said, not the law of non-contradiction. I hope I don't need to labor the law of non-contradiction. Anyway, I do revisit Augustine (my mysterious "this") in Part IV.

"To think that all things came about by a blind, impersonal force, would be more costly than we might think. If we sacrifice purpose, relationship, and goal, we will sacrifice also logic, meaning, beauty, good and evil. To talk as if reason (or anything else in that list) came about by blind impersonal chance is difficult because we have no reason at all to think that what we are perceiving at all corresponds to reality. This is a point that I don’t have time to debate here, but will have to defend when discussing the existence of God in a future post. My point is simply that this world seems to be quite personal, which reflects a personal creator. Assume for now that this is true, and we can discuss it in detail in another post."

I admit that I did not do as great of a job as I could have with this one. I did address it in my arguments for the existence of God posts (Two and Four), but did not spend enough time on it. That is my fault. I wrote those posts for an hour long teaching session I did with high-school students. So, they needed to be abbreviated and a little more simple than I might present here. If you are interested (which you can let me know via posting) I can spend more time on these. Please remember that my arguments for the existence of God are neither exhaustive or adequate for proving God's existence. I hope you know that after reading the "knowing" series.

Art, Truth, and the American Way

Art, Literature and Philosophy tend to work hand in hand. While this communion was clearer in centuries before the advent of television, film, and radio, we still see this marriage today. Contemporary mass media is presented as an objective information source, but it finds it’s true desire is to serve up a new art and an audio/video literature. Art’s purpose and perspective has shifted over the course of time with the changes to what source people go to find truth. Initially, art’s desire was to present reality (Realism) both in history and present day. This reality was fixed in the understanding that we could know truth both historically and presently. The renaissance shook the foundations of truth and questioned all that can be questioned. People began to question what is really true and how we could attain knowledge. During this renaissance period the source of truth shifted from the church and God to science and reason. Once science was challenged and tapped dry and seen as unable to hold infallibly true, the Romantics searched for truth in intuition. They quickly learned that without a God or at least a basic metaphysical understanding, we have no reason to trust our intuition. Quickly truth became less of something to be sought, and more of something to be created. Art walking hand in hand with these shifts had previously desired to present some form of truth, but now sought to present perception. The realism of the renaissance died out and the mysticism of the Romantics was ushered into art. As mystic/romantic ideas dwindled, impressionism became the art form. Impressionism sought to present the artist’s impression of reality rather than reality itself. The artist was not bound by what is real or true, but only what he/she perceived to be real or true. Again, the foundation of truth was shaken by Kant’s and Hegel’s questioning of perception. They asked if we could even have a right perception of reality since we are biased and are always looking from our own particular perspective (for a discussion of this, see my post on ‘knowing’ parts 1-5). Sliding once again down the slippery slope, we find an anthropocentric truth where symbolism arose. Symbolism “combined the Romantic preoccupation with emotion with an emphasis on sensory perception” (Grasping For The Wind, Whitehead). Symbolism was focused on experience and perception. Drugs, alcohol and sex became useful tools to understanding. Why? Because reality was not found outside one’s self, but inside one’s self. As we manipulate our perceptions, emotions and experiences, according to this thinking we are manipulating truth as well. We find similar tendencies of Impressionism to be true today. TV, radio, and film (today’s art and literature) is not focused as much upon truth in reality, but truth inside ourselves. We focus more one what we see to be true. We have seen a much quicker changing of the guard in century, though. The 50’s focus on the good and the true had a sense of realism. The 60’s and 70’s ushered in a mystic/romantic grasp for truth. 80’s and 90’s more bland desire to find truth in one’s self (if it’s true for you…). We find humor and truth in that which we experience. My question is this: will we/have we seen a change toward symbolism where we forsake even trying to describe reality, but simply live for the experience of today? Do you think American culture will cease trying to seek truth, morality, and realism and simply “feel”? I have to say, it seems to be the trend of postmodernism to do such a thing. Such advertising slogans in media as “feed your crave”, and “it just feels good” have been pervasive. But I am interested in what you think. Please post any comments.

I Still Remember...

Don't worry, I have not forgotten about this blog. I have been busy with Christmas and New Year's. I hope to have a new series up this week. Keep checking and maybe read something on here you have not read yet.

Science or a Religion Called Darwinism??? Part 3

So, are Science and Christianity at odds? No, not at all. In fact, they should work together to demonstrate truth. Just like Christianity does not give an exhaustive record of all truth (such as science, cell theory, physics, mathmatics, etc.) Science cannot give the answers to questions about spirituality, God, morality, purpose or meaning. Neither category is inferior to the other. The fact is that all truth is God’s truth. We should seek to know all of the truth God has revealed to us, even that of the natural world.

So, what’s the problem?
Answer this question: Are we dealing with Science or a religion called Darwinism? Why is this a question?

Science tells us true things about what has been observed. Darwinism is a belief system that make assumptions based on a set of presuppositions about the world, not necessarily based on facts. Whatever evidence there may be, it cannot be proven and is a belief system just like anything else. This system of beliefs is called Naturalism. The focus of Darwinian Evolution is not factual evidence, but a philosophical belief in Naturalism. Once people have made their commitment to Naturalism, they can be persuaded by relatively minor evidence. Most ordinary people believe that science is impartial, unbiased empirical investigation based on facts, strictly adhering to the evidence. While this should be the case, and is what is portrayed in textbooks, the problem still remains that, in practice, many scientist cross the line from science to philosophy and do not do so very well.

Consider the following quotes by well know scientists:
“Even if there were no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory…we would still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories” Richard Dawkins

“Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic” A Kansas State University Professor

“Many people believe that a supernatural force or deity created life. That explanation is not within the scope of science.” A High School Textbook.

“By attributing the diversity of life to natural causes rather than to supernatural creation, Darwin gave biology a sound scientific basis”. Another High School Textbook

Conclusion: It is neither simplistic, ignorant or wrong to reject evolution based on the evidence. In fact, I believe it is more rational to believe that there is a creator. However, there are some who would teach you that you are foolish if you reject or question evolution. What we come to is an issue of which you believe. In this vain, you and the Darwinian are on equal ground.

Happy Blogging!!!

Intelligent Design

It's interesting that I happen to be doing this series on Darwinism as the decision for this court case is decided. I don't know exactly where I stand on the ruling just yet, but if you would like to read about it, you can at the following link:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179256,00.html

I will post one more time on Darwinism. Let me know what you think.

Science or a Religion Called Darwinism??? Part 2

This is the second in a three part series discussing Darwinism. The final post will be whether or not Christianity and Science are at odds. For now, we will look at the facts given by actual high-school text books for evolution.

What evidence is there for evolution? Check out these developments from the things you were taught in your high-school science class...

A. Darwin’s Beaks: One of the most widely cited pieces of evidence for evolution is the variation among finches on the Galapagos Islands off the cost of South America. The idea is that these finches’ beak size would differ according to the place where they lived – which suggests that they evolved with their environment to the varying conditions. The text book page says “The evolution of the various species of finches on the Galapagos Islands shows how geographic and behavioral barriers and reproductive isolation eventually lead to the formation of new species.” But that is not the end of the story. You are supposed to believe that these new species remain, and eventually continue to evolve into something new, yet again. Of course, carried out over Billions of years, they must form new species altogether (in other words, eventually a finch could evolve into a giraffe). But that is not the end of the story. What you are not told in this text book is that eventually, the rains on the Galapagos Islands returned and the seeds (which caused the beaks to change in the first place) was back to the original size. What happened then? The beaks of the finches changed back to the original size as well, leaving no new species. This was not a road to evolving into a new kind of bird, instead, it was simply a minor adaptation that allowed the species to survive in dry weather. This teaching leads you to believe that things evolved to finches, and these finches are in the process of evolving into something else, but it failed.
Nancy Pearcy says “It did not demonstrate that they originally evolved from another kind of organism, nor that they are evolving into anything new.” When the National Academy of Sciences put out a booklet on evolution for teachers, it failed to put the fact that the beaks returned to their original size. Instead, the Academy speculated that that if the change had the opportunity to continue for hundred of years, it would have produced a new kind of finch. How is this based on evidence? This is a lie and a distortion of facts.

B. The Famous Fruit Flies: Realizing that little “new species” evidence is in existence to support evolution, scientists began trying to produce mutation in a laboratory to show support for evolution. They used fruit flies because they reproduce in only a matter of days, which means changes and mutations can be seen in several generations in a very short amount of time. So, the scientist exposed these flies to a series of radiation tests, toxic chemicals and then observed. Sure enough, mutations did occur. What was produced? Larger Wings, smaller wings, no wings, even legs growing out of the head instead of antennae. The scientist, excited by the discover touted that they have proven evolution. Unfortunately, the changes in the flies were coaxed, and never formed into a new insect at all. In fact, non of the flies were even improved. None of the mutated flies could fly as well as the original form, and absolutely would not survive in the wild. The conclusion is that Darwin can explain the survival of the fittest, but cannot explain the arrival of the fittest.

C. Peppered Moths, glue and a lie: In England, it is said that during the Industrial Revolution, new factories in the area would pour out black smoke and suit, which would darken the surrounding tree trunks where the moths perched. The moths used to blend in with the tree trunks, but when the suit and smoke covered the trunk it made it easier for birds to see their lighter variety of color and eat them. Over time, the moths evolved into darker moths which could blend in with the darker tree trunks.
However, there is a problem. Peppered moths don’t actually perch on tree trunks in the wild. How, then do we explain the photographs we see in the textbooks? THEY WERE STAGED!!! To create the photos, scientists actually glued dead moths onto the tree trunks. One scientist who helped make a television documentary acknowledged that he glued dead moths on the trees in producing the film. This scandal has been thoroughly aired in scientific literature, to the great embarrassment of evolutionists. Yet, the story still remains in science text books (like yours) because it demonstrates the principle behind Darwinism.

D. Is that all? No, unfortunately. The list of fakes and lies goes on and on. So, what’s the point of all this? It’s not so that you no longer believe your textbooks. Science teaches you things that are important, true, and necessary to know. However, you must know where they also begin to teach you things that are false and wrong. It is imperative to think critically.

A few more things you should be aware of are the following:

Irreducible Complexity of the Cell: Darwin admitted that the existence of irreducible complexity would stand as a refutation of his theory. Darwin even went so far as to say “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down”. That is precisely what science has discovered in recent years. The cell is irreducibly complex and cannot be made into something simple at all.

Darwin’s Detestable Dogma: The theory of evolution was founded upon racist ideas. The subtitle to the famous book “Origin of Species” by Darwin reads like this “The Origin of Species by means of natural selection or the preservation of the favoured races in the struggle for life”. Carrying this dangerous racism to its conclusion was Adolf Hitler who was an outspoke supporter of Darwinian ideas and set out to destroy the weaker races in a human survival of the fittest. This does not demonstrate the falsehood of the theory, but definitely something worth noting.

Punctuated Equilibrium: A pattern of long stable periods interrupted by brief periods of change. This can also be called Macroevolution which seeks to explain the gap between fossil records. Basically, this believes that a new species will arise out of an existing species without the slow small changes that Darwin suggested. This explains gaps in fossil records, evidence that the earth is not as old as it says it is and snuffs anyone demonstrating the false evidence for microevolution. The problem? There is no evidence for “Punk Eek”.

The final post in this series will discuss the whethr or not Christianity and Science are at odds.

Science or a Religion Called Darwinism??? Part 1

Why is this a question? We will revisit this at the end. I need to note from the outset that I have no problem with theistic evolution (or whatever you want to call it), and I am not at all interested in arguing about which specific belief should be taken (although I do have my opinion). I am more interested in exposing the lies and misrepresentation of supposed facts for the cause of Darwinian Evolution. I am also interested in showing the ways that scientists have overstepped their bounds in order to maintain their belief in this theory. Anyway, read through this three part series and let me know what you think.


What we are not doing: Debating the finer points of evolution and Darwin’s theory. If you are interested in learning more there are a number of great books, but one small and simple one is "Answers", by Josh McDowell.

What we are going to do: Discuss the role science plays in knowledge, what evidence is there for evolution, and discuss the question “Are science and Christianity at odds?” I will weigh heavily on a book by Nancy Pearcy called "Total Truth".

What is the role of science?
Science is a method of learning about the physical universe by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways.

The primary focus of Science is to observe the physical universe, that is what can be experienced through the five senses and report what has been learned.

Science can say nothing about things that are experienced by other means than the five senses. How many of you believe that we can only know things through the five senses? That is likely what you have been taught. However, this idea was not something that was taught until the last 300-500 years following the enlightenment the Enlightenment. People used to have a more comprehensive view of knowledge in that we can know things outside of the five senses as well. The idea that we can only know things in that way is actually self-defeating. You cannot prove by the five senses that this is the only way to know things. I talk much more about knowledge and how we go about knowing things at all (particularly as it pertains to science) in my post, Knowing Part I and II. Check it out for further explanation.

My point is not to say that science is bad, evil or even dangerous. Science is a wonderful thing that we must have and is very helpful in our world, but science has crossed the line when it says anything that is not simply observed through the five senses.
C.S. Lewis said “Science works by experiments. It watches how things behave. Every scientific statement in the long run, however complicated it looks, really means something like, “I pointed the telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 2:20 AM on January 15th and saw so-and-so,” or “I put some of this stuff in a pot and heated it to such-and-such a temperature and it did so-and-so.” Do not think that I am saying anything against science: I am only saying what its job is. And the more scientific a man is, the more (I believe) he would agree with me that this is the job of science – and a very useful and necessary job it is too. But why anything comes to be there at all, and whether there is anything behind the things science observes – something of a different kind – this is not a scientific question. If there is “something behind”, then either it will have to remain altogether unknown to men or else make itself known in some different way.”

Science has ceased doing scientific things when it tells you anything about the origin of the universe, whether or not there is a god, whether something is moral or immoral, or anything that is not able to be observed.

Tests to see if it is science or not science from high-school and junior high text books:
“Evolution theory is the foundation on which the rest of biological science is built. Is evolution a fact or a theory? We could say both.”
Do you see a problem with this statement? Yet, it came directly from a students text book!!!

“In order to explain evolution – to even recognize that evolution had occurred – it was essential for Darwin to realize that the Earth was very old. The long periods of time it would have taken for millions of species to have evolved from a common ancestor could be accounted for only if the Earth was very old”.
Does anyone see a problem in this line of thinking? It presupposes certain things to be true without evidence provided. This kind of thinking would be destroyed in any other arena of thought. Yet, it is accepted as the truth in this text book.

“Darwin observed that wild animals and plants showed variations just as domesticated animals and plants did. Darwin did not understand the reasons for these variations, but he realized that many of them were inherited.”
Any problems here? No, he is simply observing and reporting. Not making assumptions.

From the Berenstain Bears: “Nature is all that IS, or WAS, or EVER WILL BE!”
Carl Sagan, Darwinian Evolutionist used to say “the Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be”. How does science prove this through observation?

Listen to this and tell me how this is testable:
“A huge cloud of swirling dust and hot gases glows in the eerie darkness of space. Over many billions of years, gravity begins to pull the dust and gas toward the center of the cloud. In time, the cloud condenses into a giant sphere of matter. A planet has formed. Half a billion years pass. The planet has begun to cool, and solid rocks dot its surface. Volcanoes spring up everywhere, shaking the planet with their constant eruptions. A poisonous atmosphere begins to form. Another 200 million years pass. The planet is now cool enough to allow liquid water to flow on its surface. Thunderstorms begin to drench the planet with rain – year after year after year. In time, planet-wide oceans form. Although it will take another 300 million years, eventually living things will call these oceans home. Slowly but surely, these living things will become more and more complex and begin to change, or evolve. Over the next 3.5 billion years, many living things will come and go on this planet as it floats in space. But one day very special living things will arise – living things that can pick up this textbook and discover what life is all about. Try it!”
Wow, this is nothing more than a fairy-tale, unsupported by actual scientific evidence. This is merely accepted, because it is the best they can come up with if they want to maintain that evolution, as an origin of all things, is true. There is no support for this story. There is support for things slowly evolving, but not to a new species. Science has gone too far teaching this in school text books. This is a new religion called “Darwinism”. I do not deny that things evolve. However, the fact that things evolve does not mean that all things came about as a result of things evolving into completely new creatures. There is evidence that species improve, but there is no evidence that things become new and different species. Huston Smith said, “Darwinism is supported more by atheistic philosophical assumptions than by actual scientific evidence”.

In my next post, we will look at some facts that exploit the lack of evidence for Darwinism and how textbooks have lied about certain supposed facts they have taught as truth.
Disclaimer: I am very hesitant to jump to conspiracy theories. I don't like using such harsh language as this, but I think that when you see the evidence behind the facts that are presented in school text books, you will be appalled. Come back tomorrow and blog away!!!

Thanks for Stopping By...

Recently I posted something I worked very hard on for you to consider and comment on called the "knowing" series (parts 1-5). I am new to blogging, so I did not realize until today that some of the posts were not showing up on the page, and that some had the exact same date. I have corrected the first problem. I am concerned that some people may have read one section and did not see the others. They definitely go together. If you get a chance, take a look at them.

Also, I just posted below the final post on arguments for the existence of God. They are not exhaustive, but I think they are helpful. Let me know what you think. Next I will be posting on Darwinism and some of the things you were taught in high-school. I think you will be VERY suprized as what you will find in this three part series. Please leave comments.

Arguments for the existence of God Part Four - Meaning and Conclusion

Meaning and Conclusion
Without God, everything in life is meaningless. If there is no god who created everything, then there is no purpose. If there is purpose without a god, who purposed it? If there is no god who created everything, then there is no meaning. If there is meaning, who meant it. If there is no god who created everything, then there is no truth. If there is truth, how could we know it? Truth, meaning and purpose left only to man to decide is not only irrational, but is useless in that it cannot govern anything at all. If you were to run across some scribbles on a piece of paper, you may decide to spend some time trying to figure out who wrote those scribbles and what they mean. However, if you found out that the scribbles were randomly placed there and had no meaning, but only ended up there by chance, you would stop searching for the purpose for them and the meaning behind them. If this universe is the result of chance in evolution, then there is no reason to look for meaning in life. There is no reason to look for purpose in life. You simply live, and when you die, you are dead and cease to exist. However, there is meaning to life and there is a purpose for our being here. We do not all know what that meaning and purpose is, but we know there should be one. There indeed is meaning and purpose, but it exists because God meant it and purposed it when He created the universe and everything in it. In order to disregard a god, you must accept things most atheists are unwilling to accept.

Things you must believe to be a true and rational atheist:
• God does not and has never existed
• Right, wrong, virtue, love, beauty, and truth are merely man-made inventions that have no objectivity or reality to them.
• There is no meaning to life whatsoever.
• Everything is random and even your thoughts and logic have no real meaning.
• When you die, you are dead and that is all. No Heaven.
• Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer, Mother Theresa, Jesus Christ and you are all on the same level morally, spiritually, and ontologically. None is more right than the other.

Arguments for the Existence of God Part Three - Morality

Morality

“If God does not exist, everything is permissible” Ivan Karamazov and Jean-Paul Sartre
“God is dead” Friedrich Nietzche
Most of the facts that you encounter are about the way the world is. Thes are facts like the capitol of Missouri, and that four quarters equal a dollar, and so on. Moral facts are not like that. The fact that we ought to do something about the problem of homelessness is not a fact about the way the world is, but a fact about the way the world ought to be. There is nothing out there that makes a moral fact true because moral facts are not descriptive of a real thing, but prescriptive of a change to be made to things that already exist. Moral facts are like commands in that sense. They are intended to bring about a result that is not already present.
Similarly, there are things in this world that cannot exist without something else existing with them. There cannot be something carried unless there is something else carrying it. There can’t be something that is popular unless there are lots of people that like it. Commands are like this, they cannot exist unless something else commands them. The moral argument shows that if there is a command, there must be a commander.
Moral commands are such that they over-ride anything else. If you know that it is right to give money to a charity, but would like to buy something for yourself, while it might be in your best interest to buy and not give, morally you know you ought to give. You can make a decision one way or the other, but you know what you ought to do.
Commands are also only as good as the authority who issues them. If I say that you should pay extra taxes on things that you buy so that we can have better education in schools, you and no one else would do it because I have no authority. However, if the governing authorities decree it, we would have to by law. Those who do not would face a consequence. Without the consequence, the governing powers would have little power.
Without God, only men create and issue morals. If there is no god, there are no morals. If there are morals, but no god, then a man created them and we don’t really need to obey them. Why? Because they are no better than the morals we create for ourselves. Nietzche, as I said above, claimed god was dead. As a result, he concluded that there is no right or wrong, just the will to power, meaning the power to punish those who don’t listen to what you say. That is the only way anyone should believe you if there is no god.
But doesn’t it seem some things are right, even without a consequence you must suffer? Everyone would agree that there is a generally agreed upon morality across all cultures. If not, then why isn’t murdering ok in some cultures. C.S. Lewis said, “I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five”.
The truth is that we all accept an objective morality, but some wish not to own up. If you do not believe in God, then you ought not believe that what Hitler did was wrong, that child molestation should be illegal, and that having your car stolen is an injustice. Who are we to say it is wrong if there is no real authority issuing the command. It is just mere men choosing that which they think is right. Morality is real and true. People may sometimes get them wrong just like they get a sum incorrect in math class, but they are not a matter of taste and opinion any more than the answers to a math quiz.
There can be no moral command without a moral commander. If man is that commander, even a large group of men, then we should flee there rule and live as we please. However, because so many people have agreed on many things that are moral, then we should think that there is a greater commander than any man.

Upcoming Topics

I wanted to preview a little bit what you can expect to see in the future. Here are some questions and topics I hope to address in the next month or two:

How do I know Christianity is true?
Is Jesus the only way?
Science or a Religion called Darwinism?
How can the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament be reconciled?

I hope you all will continue to check these things out. Below is the newest post on Arguments for the Existence of God (part two)

Arguments for the existence of God Part Two - Design vs. Chance

Design vs. Chance
This universe and more specifically, this earth is set to the exact conditions needed to sustain life. Any change one way or another would destroy all life on planet earth.

Here are some examples:
The Earth: Its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.4 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.
The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.
And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet it restrains our massive oceans from spilling over across the continents.5

Water: It’s colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You'll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life:
• It has an unusually high boiling point and freezing point. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 98.6 degrees.
• Water is a universal solvent. This property of water means that thousands of chemicals, minerals and nutrients can be carried throughout our bodies and into the smallest blood vessels.6
• Water is also chemically inert. Without affecting the makeup of the substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and used by the body.
• Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees.
• Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter.
Ninety-seven percent of the Earth's water is in the oceans. But on our Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water and then distributes that water throughout the globe. Evaporation takes the ocean waters, leaving the salt, and forms clouds which are easily moved by the wind to disperse water over the land, for vegetation, animals and people. It is a system of purification and supply that sustains life on this planet, a system of recycled and reused water.7
The Human Brain: simultaneously processes an amazing amount of information. Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see, the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the texture of this article in your hand. Your brain registers emotional responses, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands.
The human brain processes more than a million messages a second.8 Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. A brain that deals with more than a million pieces of information every second, while evaluating its importance and allowing you to act on the most pertinent information...can we say mere chance brought about such an astounding organ?
Consider for a moment an illustration:
Imagine that you were on an Amtrak train that was headed for Baltimore. While on the rain, you look out the window and notice that some rocks on the side of a hill spell out “Amtrak Welcomes You To Baltimore”. How do you assume that they got on the side of that hill to spell that message?

A.They fell from the sky and landed in that exact place.
B.They rolled down the hill over time to exactly that place with no help from an intelligent being (man or god).
C.They were placed there by some men to communicate a welcoming message to people who see it by Amtrak. Any intelligent person would find it most rational to believe that the message was placed there by men.
However, let’s say that I believe that they did indeed roll down the hill over time by chance and ended up in that exact location. This is definitely possible (although not likely) that these stones could have rolled down the hill to that position. The chances would be through the roof that they would do that, but it is still possible. While this is a position that is difficult to accept, it would be infinitely more bizarre for me to believe, solely on the evidence provided by the stones that I was actually entering Baltimore !!! If, I suppose that the stones might have come to that arrangement accidentally, over the course of time, simply by rolling down the hill, one by one, and finally just happening to end up that way, or if they were strewn upon the ground that way by the forces of any earthquake or storm or what-not, then my argument would in no sense constitute evidence that I was actually entering Baltimore, or anything at all connected with that message is true because the message was simply brought about by chance. It has no way of communicating anything at all if it was the result of random accidental chance over time. Just like it is possible for a collection of stones to present an intelligible message on the side of a hill over time, so also it is possible for such things as our cells, organs, and mind to be the accidental, unintended result, over ages of time, of impersonal, non-purposeful chance. However, even if one does believe that our bodies did come about by chance, it is irrational for one to say that your mind, emotions, and thoughts reveal any truth about the world with respect to themselves. If your body is a result of chance, then your mind is as well. So, any message your mind may communicate to you would be just as non-purposeful and random as the process that brought it about. Without God, there is no way to believe in truth or logic.

Arguments for the existence of God Part One - The First Cause

Here are some arguments for the existence of God which I put together several months ago. I have this posted on my other blog as well. These are not arguments for the Christian God (nor the Hindu or Muslim). I am simply trying to establish that a god exists. I do plan to cover why it is the Christian God who alone exists at a later date. Anyway, this series will be four parts. Here is part one. Please let me know what you think.

The First Cause
History consists of a series of events that have happened over time one after the other. Each of these events has a cause and most are a result of the previous event, but all are certainly affected by the previous event. The world as it is came from the result of the world as it was which also came from the world as it was before. If we trace these events all the way back, what will we find? You will either find the first event, or the past stretches back into infinity. If it went back into infinity we run into many problems logically which we don’t have time to get into tonight. It seems common to all that there must have been a beginning at some point. Scientist call this the big bang, because the idea that it stretched back into infinity is ridiculous and illogical. But the questions still remains, who caused the big bang? Where did everything come from that banged? It couldn’t have just appeared out of nowhere. A common axiom of philosophy is “from nothing, comes nothing”. You cannot believe that everything just appeared. It is equally ridiculous to believe that this universe has just always existed. So, where did it come from. Who caused the bang, if there was one?
Ancient philosophers noted that there must be an “unmoved mover” or a god who cannot be changed, who is not affected by time, who set things in motion. God is not bound by time like we are. We had to have a beginning. Everything we experience in this universe had to have a beginning, but God doesn’t. He created it from nothing and started it all. The fact that God has always existed is impossible for us as finite humans to understand, but it is not illogical like the idea that the universe has always existed. God is our first cause.

Tomorrow will be another argument for the existence of God.

Are You Out There?

I have been posting for the past week and I am wondering if anyone is reading this? Could you leave a comment if you are indeed reading this? It can be anonymous or whatever. This is not a plea for attention, or a desperation call. It is simply that I put a lot of work into these posts and want to see if my labor is worthwhile. I am about to post a four part series on "Arguments for the Existence of God" and a three part series on Evolution and would like to know if anyone is reading what I post. Leave your comment!!! Happy Blogging.
jim

O Come, O Come, Emmanuel

Here is an exerpt from the advent hymn "O Come, O Come, Emmanuel". I think it is particularly applicable to what I have presented in the "knowing series".

O Come, Thou Wisdom from on high,
and order all things, far and nigh;
to us the path of knowledge show,
and cause us in her ways to go,
Rejoice! Rejoice!
Emmanuel Shall come to thee, O Israel!

(Words: Latin Hymn; John Mason Neale, Henry Sloane Coffin.)

Knowing Part V

The LOGOS
John 1:1-2 In the beginning was the Word (logos), and the Word (logos) was with God, and the Word (logos) was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.
John 1:14 The Word (logos) became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, {14 Or the Only Begotten} who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

When John said “Wisdom (logos) became flesh” he created a new understanding of this word, logos which would cause one of two things to happen in the reader:
The reader can walk away in disbelief and claim that John is talking nonsense, or can read on and listen to the story and perhaps believe that this LOGOS is the foundation of the world. Proverbs 3:19 The LORD aby wisdom founded the earth, By understanding He bestablished the heavens. This wisdom must be the cornerstone of all our knowledge. We must cause all of our knowledge and means of attaining knowledge to fall under submission to the LOGOS.

1 Peter 2:7 “The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,"1

The stone that the builders rejected:
1 Corinthians 1:21-24 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

Rejected Stumbling block:
We are all building our knowledge upon some cornerstone. For the Jews, their cornerstone was signs or miracles. For the Greeks, it was philosophy. For contemporary America, it is science and reason. All of these may be helpful tools for attaining knowledge, but it must be built upon the cornerstone of the LOGOS.
For us, it is Jesus Christ Himself who is our cornerstone. He is the foundation for our knowledge. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom-logos”

There is no proof for Christ, for God, or for the Bible. Your only response is either belief, or disbelief. It is a matter of divine revelation accepted on faith.
John 1:18 18 No one has ever seen God; the only God,1 who is at the Father's side,2 he has made him known.
It is the same with all men everywhere who must make a decision about what will be their cornerstone. They have no proof that theirs is right, only belief, or disbelief. We must trust God to reveal the truth to us.

The certainty we have:
2 Timothy 1:12 I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me.1
The location of our certainty is not in the competence of our own knowing (as by pure reason, science, or any test that proves it), but in the faithfulness and reliability of the one who is known.

IF the biblical depiction of the human situation is true (fallen and finite) and
IF the supreme reality is a personal God whose we are and to whom we are responsible
THEN there is something quite absurd about the posture of those who claim infallible certainty about God by means of their own reason/means of knowing and on the strength of their own rational powers.
We do not make that type of claim about other people we know, how much more absurd to do so about God!!!

So why do we use our own competence of knowledge? We attempt to be the end all/be all of knowledge. We tend to think that we decide what is true or false. Sometimes we are right, often we are wrong. We may be wrong because of false premises that we chose to accept causing our conclusions to be wrong or whatever. I am convinced that we can only be sure of the knowledge we have if we are either outside of space and time, or are told by a trustworthy Informer what is true or real. When we reject the truth revealed to us by our trustworthy Informer, we are not honoring Him and his knowledge and who He is or his power or His being God, but we are exalting ourselves as being smarter than God and inevitably become fools. In closing, Romans 1:20-22 says, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that we are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man…”

The knowledge we have of God, and the certainty we have in Him is relational. It is a relational knowledge by which we know God, not scientific. “for I know whom I have believed.” “Knowledge of the Holy One IS understanding”

“I have called you friends, for everything I have learned from my Father I have made known to you” John 15:15
Jesus and our relationship with Him is the foundation of our knowledge. We can use reason, science, doubt and other tools, but they must be submitted to Him.
To look outside of Jesus and His gospel for a starting point (reason, science) for the demonstration of the reasonableness of Him is a contradiction and implies that we look for the LOGOS elsewhere than in the incarnate Logos, Jesus.

We are not talking about a blind leap of faith, but a personal response to a personal calling from a personal God, Jesus. When Jesus told his disciples “Follow Me”, he did not first demonstrate the reasonableness of His existence or His calling. He did not even tell them where they would follow Him. Our undeniable indisputable faith is not based on us, but on the reliable, personal God who extends to us a call “follow Me”. He is our cornerstone. He simply said, “follow Me”. Jesus has entered the room, how will you respond?

Knowing Part IV

Today, we have a prejudice of doubt over faith. We believe that if something can be doubted, it should be. However, we fail to apply this to every aspect of our lives.
We hear phrases like “blind faith” or “leap of faith” and assume that it is less true if things are accepted on faith. We believe that faith is for things we cannot prove. The problem is that we cannot prove anything with certainty. So, how do you go about knowing things?
Let’s first talk about doubt…
Doubt can be a very good and a very dangerous thing.
How can it be good?
How can it be dangerous?

The problem with doubting anything that CAN be doubted is that anything can be doubted. If we doubt everything, we can have no true knowledge. It is not a genuine belief (but an intellectual abuse) to only hold things that can be believed with total certainty. So long as we live, we will assume certain things to be true and others to be untrue based on a belief commitment, rather than certainty.
Is this a problem for you?

Let’s talk about how you know anything at all.
What comes first, Knowledge or Belief (Faith)?
Does the order matter??
Augustine said, “credo ut intelligam”
“I believe in order to know”. Similarly, Newbigin said, “One does not learn anything except by believing something and – conversely – if one doubts everything one learns nothing.”
Further, the Bible says something similar: Proverbs 9:10 – The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.
What does this mean? “Fear of the LORD” does not mean being scared or afraid, but trusting and revering God. Knowledge is based of faith in God. Knowledge has everything to do with following Him. How are we to understand this?

We spoke earlier of knowledge being incomplete. We said that if we have an all-knowing friend, we can know all that He would reveal to us and complete our lacking knowledge. Obviously, God is the only one who is outside of space and time and is the only one who can tell us the fullness about the past, present or future. He would serve as our all-knowing informer/friend. We may know some things correctly already, but it is based on faith. I must be careful here to point out that truth is truth whether we believe it or not, but that is not the question at hand. The question is how can we be sure of what we know?

God is outside of time and only He knows for sure, so unless He is deceitful, He is the only way we can attain knowledge completely. We will one day “know fully, even as I am fully known” (1 Corinthians 13:12), but that will not happen until God reveals Himself to us completely. God knows everything about my past, present and future and one day He will reveal Himself. For now, I must rely on what He reveals. He revealed what He has to bring me to Him. Acts 17 says, “He made from one, every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times, and the boundaries of their habitation, that they should seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and exist…”
This knowledge is personal. This knowledge is one where we can learn from the all-knowing knower.

Personal Knowledge:
We typically seek knowledge by asking questions which we formulate based on our experiences of the world. In this enterprise we are in control of the situation. We decide what questions to ask which will affect the nature of the answers. This is how science works.
But there is another kind of knowing. Many other languages use a different word for it, but we do not. It is the kind of knowing that we seek in our relationships with other people. We are not in full control in this type of knowing. We may ask a question, but we must also answer questions put by the other person. We can only come to know others in the measure in which they are willing to share. The resulting knowledge is not our own achievement; it is also the gift of others, and never complete.
Example:
Have you ever had a conversation about somebody behind their back?What happens when they walk in the room? You have two options – stop talking about them or change the way you talk about them.
If you ask questions of that person who enters the room, you have to listen to their response. You can begin to see how this type of knowing is different than scientific knowing. When we are discussing how to know God, we are talking about a personal knowledge where the questions we ask are not discovered, but answered by a personal being.

Also, we may be asked questions by the person who entered the room. The God who entered the room in our discussion has a question for us…
Luke 9:20, Jesus said “who do you say that I am?”
Our answer to that question will not be based on some fact which science has uncovered, nor by some strange method of inquiry which will give us certainty. It can only be answered by relationship.
“Personal knowledge is impossible without risk: it cannot begin without an act of trust, and trust can be betrayed. We are here facing a fundamental decision in which we have to risk everything we have. There are no insurance policies available.” Newbigin

Knowing Part III

So, if all is based on faith, then how can we be sure we know anything at all? This very question caused Descartes to reason that the only thing you may know for sure is that you exist. He said, “I think, therefore I am”. For even to disagree, we argue for this axiom’s truthfulness. I cannot argue against it without thinking and existing. It should be noted that Augustine came up with this famous idea long before Descartes when he asserted, “If I err, I am”. This says that a person who does not exist cannot err. Therefore, even if a person errs he cannot err without first existing. Augustine used Particularism to explain the problem of the criterion by saying making a similar axiom to Descartes which stated “I believe in order to understand/know”. Faith is an essential ingredient of all knowledge. Not necessarily faith in the Christian God, but we must believe something at some point if we are going to claim to know anything at all. Even if we claim to know nothing at all, we must first assume our own existence. Augustine also believed that faith is not arbitrary, but quite rational (although faith can be abused to naively accept false things). We will not believe what we don’t think is valid, as cited above. We simply cannot believe that something is both “A” and “not A” at the same time. The law of non-contradiction prohibits it. We will revisit this later on. Let’s first talk about the personal side of knowledge.

So where does all of this take us? It takes us to the arena of faith. We have discovered that in order to believe anything, we must accept something on faith. At any given point we think we know the past and the present. While we do to some degree, we do not know the fullness. For example, I may know that I just finished riding the bicycle in the gym for 76 minutes. I remember doing this, but it is only based on probability and my memory. It is likely that I am correct, but how can I be sure that I was not born five minutes ago with this knowledge programmed in me, or perhaps my eye site was mistaken when I looked at my timer and I actually only rode for 56 minutes? I cannot, as we discussed in the problem of the criterion. I simply must assume according to what seems to be clear and obvious items of knowledge. Assuming that I am correct to make this assumption. I still have an even bigger obstacle of knowledge to face in that I am completely unaware of anything outside my sphere of sensation. I walk into my house knowing that all is well as it is everyday, because it probably is. However, because I am limited in space, I cannot be sure that someone did not come into my house and set a bomb that is triggered when I flush the toilet. It is highly irrational to think that someone would do this, but how can I know for sure? I cannot completely know the past, present or future without something else, but what?

The point? Since we are limited in space and time, we must have an “Informer” who is where we cannot be to tell us and/or guide us through those areas we cannot know. If we do not have an informer who is outside of space and time, then we are left to guess on our own which way to go and hope we make the right guesses.
I am attempting here to answer both questions in the problem of the criterion at the same time. What do we know? Well, we can’t really know anything (except perhaps that we exist) with absolute certainty. However, if we have an all-knowing friend, we can know all that He would reveal to us. I am jumping the gun here, but it’s a necessary point. Our knowledge is based on faith.

If that is true, then to talk about discovering truth in any other terms than relational terms would be to misunderstand the world. When we discuss science purely in terms of facts perceived, we are missing the necessary, inescapable elements of purpose, relationship, and goal (all intensely relational terms). To think that all things came about by a blind, impersonal force, would be more costly than we might think. If we sacrifice purpose, relationship, and goal, we will sacrifice also logic, meaning, beauty, good and evil. To talk as if reason (or anything else in that list) came about by blind impersonal chance is difficult because we have no reason at all to think that what we are perceiving at all corresponds to reality. This is a point that I don’t have time to debate here, but will have to defend when discussing the existence of God in a future post. My point is simply that this world seems to be quite personal, which reflects a personal creator. Assume for now that this is true, and we can discuss it in detail in another post.

Explanation:
If this world is created by a personal God, our knowledge must be personal as well. Not only personal in that it involves the commitment on behalf of the knower but also in the sense that our knowledge will not be complete unless it presses beyond the impersonal realities (explored with the tools of physics, chemistry, biology, and the human sciences) to that personal reality which alone can carry a purpose for the whole, since purpose is a personal category.
All truth is personal truth, because God (a personal being) created it.
To explain things as merely impersonal facts is to ignore the personal Creator.

Truth Claims are not only relational to God, but to others as well…
If you are going to say something is true, you should be right about it…
Let’s say we are going to a movie. I say “hey, the movie starts at 8, let’s grab something to eat beforehand so we don’t grow broke on the overpriced popcorn and soda”. We all meet and go to “Alligator Bob’s House of Grits” and enjoy a great meal. Afterwards, we head over to the movie “Jingle All the Way 7” and arrive at the theater only to find out it started at 7. Disappointed, we go home and rent “Jingle All the Way” 1-6 and lament that we could have seen number 7 if I had been right about the time.
The point? The truth is not relative. Other people are dependent upon my being right.

You are dependent upon other people to be right as well…
Teachers, Parents, Reporters, Friends, Pets (maybe not that last one), Media.

When a television show says a category 5 hurricane is headed for New Orleans, you take their word for it. Not because you can prove it, but because you believe the people telling you. When a teacher tells you that Henry VIII was married six times, you believe him/her because you have no reason to doubt her. You cannot prove it (and neither can she) but it is accepted as a fact.

Our knowledge is necessarily based on faith assumptions on some level, but also a relational trust of other people to report things accurately. This is the way language works. When someone says "There is snow outside", you trust that they are talking about the same thing you are when they say the word snow. We will build upon this idea of relational knowledge in the next part. Please feel free to comment, however remember that this is only part three of five parts.

Knowing Part II

This is the second part of a 5 part series. If you have not read the first, it may be helpful to do so (although not imperative). Please feel free to disagree or agree, ask questions or raise concerns, but more than anything... please comment. Feel free to challenge and affirm the other people who comment as well. Here is part two of five.

Searching out and defending truth is the most common and natural thing a human does. We are attracted to anything that appears to be true or real, even at the peril of being wrong. Ms. Cleo and the Psychic friends have had some impact on our culture because people want to know if they really know the truth about there future. The goal of science whether it be natural science, psychology, sociology, anthropology etc. is to observe, identify, explain, and theorize what is true.
Some may disagree that truth seeking is natural to humans. However, the one who disagrees only illustrates my point. You see they believe it is true that I am wrong. Because they see this to be truth, they seek to show the fallacy in my claim. They are living by and defending truth.
The problem lies not in whether or not we search for truth. The problem lies in whether we believe the right things. In logic, arguments are not true or false, but valid or invalid. You may have a logically sound argument that is as false as a square circle. If you start with false premises, you will have a false conclusion even if your argument is valid. Here is an example:
A circle has four sides
The definition of a square is a shape that has four sides
Therefore, a circle is a square
It is not difficult to see the error in this line of thinking, but this argument by definition is valid though not true. It’s truthfulness lies in the premises, which in this case, the first is false. However, if I believe my premises to be true, I will have a false conclusion that I see as rational, valid and true. So the question arises, “How can we know what is true or real?” In the case of the square circle, “How do I know whether or not a circle has four sides or not?” This introduces the problem of the criterion.
The Problem of the Criterion:
There are two questions we must ask in our pursuit for knowledge,
1. What do we know?
2. How do we know what we know?
Here lies the problem. We cannot know the answer to the first question without knowing the answer to the second. Similarly, we cannot know the answer to the second question without knowing the answer to the first. Think about it. If we do not know what we know, how can we say we know anything at all? Especially how we know. In the same way, we cannot know how we know something without first knowing something. There are three ways to confront this problem: Skepticism, Methodism and Particularism.
Skepticism is the simplest of the three. It says there is no good answer to either, so there is no knowledge. They take comfort in that we cannot answer either question rationally, so all is absurd and irrational.
Methodism attempts to answer the second to explain the first. They say we must first know some general criteria for knowledge (or how we can attain knowledge) in order to find out what we know. This however is not satisfactory, because they must then present criterion for how they know their proposed way of attaining knowledge is true. Then, if they do present criterion for knowing this, they must then present criterion for that. As you see, this places them in an infinite regress.
Particularism is the only one we can use effectively. It starts by knowing some clear and obvious items of knowledge and drawing criteria from these items of knowledge. The particularist does not attempt to prove how he knows them. If he did, he would then be using Methodism and end up with the same problem the Methodist has (not the denomination, of course). I think that it is obvious that we can simply know certain things without explaining how we know them. However, we do this at the peril of being wrong. One may say that we are “cheating” by simply assuming certain instances of knowledge. However, the person who doubts our knowledge must present a reason for doubting this assumed knowledge. If he/she fails to do so, she/he is not presenting an argument that is worthy of consideration and there is no reason to answer his/her question. You can doubt anything at all. However, the real question is ‘do I have good reason to doubt?’ We may present the question to our doubter “Why do you think that this assumed knowledge is false?” It places the skeptic in the place of the Methodist (not the denomination). The mere possibility that I am wrong does not suffice. The skeptic must present good reason for thinking my assumptions are false. I already claim the possibility of being wrong, but mere possibility is not sufficient for something to be considered false.

The inescapable truth is that all knowledge is based on faith (or your belief in the premises you accept). You cannot know anything without first accepting certain things without any proof or means of verification.

Knowing Part I

Religions in America
Christian 78% (Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%), other 10%, none 10%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1% (2002)

How is religion viewed in America?
Is it useful? Is it for the weak? Jesse the Body Ventura, former Governor of Minnesota said that religion is a crutch for weak minded people. Is that the case? Freud believed God is simply a projection of our minds. Is that how it works?
How does religion help people? How does religion harm people? These are questions we must ask. But, there are bigger, more important questions.

Can it be proven? Can we say that one is right or wrong? How? What do you think?

The buzzword: Relativism
(can also be nuanced by calling it syncretism, pluralism (religious), or ecumenicalism)
What does it mean? Is it true?
Statements everyone has heard: We all worship the same God. Different religions are just different paths to the same God. What’s true for you is true, but is not necessarily true for me. We can’t know which God is true
What do you think about these things?

The heart of the Issue:
What does it mean for things to be either subjective or objective?
What are things you can know objectively?
What are things that you can know subjectively?
The idea behind describing things in this way is that things that are subjective are up to personal choice and cannot be proven because they are outside the realm of what is provable or objective. Things that are objective are provable by means that are absent of human influence and subjectivity.
Is this an accurate way of looking at things?

The objective/subjective lie:
The problem...
“is the divorce between the objective and the subjective poles in human knowledge and the consequent polarization between objectivity and subjectivity. This has led, in turn, to a popular image of science as a realm of objective facts which are quite sanitized of any elements of subjectivity, with the corollary that all other claims to knowledge – for instance, claims in the realms of art, literature, poetry, and religion – are merely subjective. The best scientists in all times, and recent scientific work in particular, have totally repudiated this image…”. Lesslie Newbigin
Our knowledge, scientific and religious alike, are equally subjective and objective. They are objective in that they are talking about a real world which can be understood and observed, but also subjective in that we bring our point of view, our historical influences, and our personal biases to the table. This does not make it less true.

Example:
I am currently sitting at my desk in my office. As I look at the window, I can see cars pass by on the road. If I look out and see a purple car pass by, I can make the statement "I saw a purple car pass by a moment ago" (let's leave aside foolish talk about 'what do I mean by purple' and 'moment ago'). Now, I am talking about a real car out there in reality that actually passed by. However, I am making a statement from my subjective point of view. The subjectiveness of my view could make my statement false, but doesn't have to. If could be false if my window were tinted purple. However, if it is not tinted purple and my subjective perspective is not skewed, then I am right to say I saw a purple car. Just because something is subjective does not make it false, no more than it makes it right. Let's move on.

Science:
“The scarcely concealed assumption is that the word “scientific” refers to a kind of study which has no prior commitments about the nature of truth but has a totally open mind, as thought he scientific mind were a sort of empty page on which nothing had already been written. The truth, of course, is that both approaches – the confessional (religious) and the scientific – presupposes (as all rationally inquiry must presuppose) a long tradition of thought and practice that determines which beliefs are plausible and which are not.” Newbigin

The problem is that science can only give us so much. It can only tell us what it perceives about the world. It cannot tell us why things are the way they are, nor can it tell us the purpose for which they exist. Yet, you will find scientists falling into this kind of language all of the time. All humans do. Evolutionary scientists inevitably use phrases like “Nature has made provisions for…” or “natural selection has seen to it that…”

Facts are not entities which are implanted in an open, vacant mind, but are only grasped by a mind trained in a particular culture to understand them.

The point is that all knowledge is both subjective and objective. I will build upon these ideas in the next post. Please feel free to leave comments.