Reductio Ad Absurdum
I’m going to pick on BibleAlsoSays, Twitter phenom, one more time tonight then I am going to bed.
Though I know that what I’m about to do commits the same fallacy, allow me to do it anyway:
https://twitter.com/#!/BibleAlsoSays/status/159482750057988096
Which, apparently, means that we should close every school. Because they inculcate our kids with math, science, history, language arts, and other truth. If it was true, it wouldn’t require so much inculcation, after all!
Okay, now that I’m done engaging in reductio ad absurdum, let’s unpack this a little bit better.
We need to look at inculcation. According to dictionary.com:
[T]he act of inculcating, or teaching or influencing repeatedly or persistently and repeatedly so as to implant or instill an idea, theory, attitude, etc. (source)
I fail to see why religion is wrong for doing that. Ever been to school? They drill math into your head, make you memorize dates in history, practice handwriting the same letters again and again; and frequently you are penalized for creativity or outside-the-box thinking.
I remember once I wrote a poem about the sunrise in English class. I tried to coin a word, which poetry is the medium for doing that. I got marked off for it!
This tweet fails as an argument against religion because it commits a category error. It assumes religion is self-evident truth.
There are truths that are self-evident, such as 2 + 2 = 4. No argument. A baby can see that if you take two walnuts, and put two more walnuts with it, you will have four walnuts.
On the other hand, a claim like E = mc2 requires a defense, or a persistent (and perhaps in-your-face) teaching or influencing to implant the theory. Matter is really energy? It defies casual observation. Yet, upon much, much, much examination and experimentation it does wind up being true.
Religion, or more specifically religious concepts, are not necessarily self-evident. The existence of God, I think, is self-evident. But that fact alone becomes a war of semantics to define God. Which god really exists, therefore, is not self-evident.
The deity of Christ is also not self-evident. It must be examined and wrestled with, as scientists did for years with E = mc2.
There is no education required for self-evident truth. However, there is much required for more subtle truths, and the truth of the Christian religion is one such subtlety that requires both a solid education and a firm defense.
Twittering Away at Philosophical Naivety
I’ve addressed philosophically naive statements before. They always seem to come from Twitter, which is why I had to absolutely laugh at the recent issue of Writer’s Digest when it suggests writing dialogue in Twitterspeak (140 characters or less) as an exercise in creativity.
Sure. That might work for a good writer, but not for Average Joe Twitterhead.
Enter BibleAlsoSays, a frequent contributor to mass ignorance. He has struck again with two statements. First:
https://twitter.com/#!/BibleAlsoSays/status/159474512163897344
Then:
https://twitter.com/#!/BibleAlsoSays/status/159474546288762881
Well, let’s break this down a little bit.
First, BAS is operating from a faulty definition of the word “faith.” Faith is not “belief without evidence,” but loyalty based on prior performance. That loyalty is manifested in the actions of the believer; which means both belief and practice are required for a truly biblical faith.
We see now that BAS’s statement misses the mark entirely. I take ownership of my faith by my actions, regardless of who passed the knowledge to me. My wife brought me to faith through seeds planted years earlier by my grandpa, and the church, the Bible, and influences too numerous to name have taught me what it means to own the faith I was given.
My actions — primarily through my writing, but also through a local youth ministry co-op and by assisting in the presentation of church services — have made my faith my own.
Second, even if we allow for BAS’s faulty definition of “faith,” he’s still off-base. Taking ownership of abstract ideals is the same as taking ownership of concrete objects.
The computer I’m typing this on is a perfect example, as it came from my church. I didn’t build this computer, I didn’t load the original software on it, and I didn’t use it for the first few years of its existence. The Dell factory built it, loaded the software, and shipped it to my church, where it sat on the secretary’s desk for a few years. They sold it to my father-in-law, who then gave it to my wife and I after he realized that he didn’t need it.
I didn’t build it. I didn’t use it at first. But it is my computer now. It served many before me, now it serves me.
Same with a belief. It becomes my belief when someone shares it with me, and I accept it as true. So it is now mine in a sense, yet it still resides with the original person — the advantage abstract ideals have over physical objects.
A belief is never really “owned” by anyone. Rather, it is shared by a group of like-minded people.
A belief will pass from one to another, from generation to generation. Each generation is free to question and discard it. Religion is not immune to this — in fact, the growing number of nonreligious is testament to the fact that many do question religious belief and eventually discard it.
But to say that no one can take ownership of a religious belief because it was passed from parent to child is philosophically naive. No belief is really one’s own, since all or most of our most fervently held beliefs were taught to us by someone at some point.
Yet, despite this, people take ownership of beliefs all the time. And we let them, never questioning the source of the belief. If I say, for example, that I believe Mercury is the first planet from the sun, no one scolds me by saying, “You discover that yourself, there, Copernicus?”
Whoever discovered it, it was taught to me by a science teacher and is my belief now.
Religious belief is not in a special category by itself. What applies to it applies to every belief under the sun — though I much doubt BAS wants that to be true. His hatred of religion blinds him to a lot of philosophical truth. In sum, if faith is solely equal to belief, we can still claim it as our own in the same semantic sense we claim any belief our own despite it being part of a collective body knowledge that we did not personally discover.
Interesting Twitter Exchange
I haven’t been on Twitter since November. I decided to check in because I got an e-mail saying that Lee Strobel, author of The Case for series of apologetics introductory books, followed my Ratio Christi account.
Nothing much on my main account, so I thought I’d put up a tweet just for ole time’s sake. I posted why I even checked Twitter at all. And that elicited a fascinating reply:
https://twitter.com/#!/LeeStrobel/status/156238102271242240
Twitter. Where else can the ordinary everyman gab with best-selling authors?
Which brings my “Authors I’ve Chatted With on Twitter” total to 2. I also had a brief interaction with Greg Boyd, author of The Jesus Legend. Mostly I was warning him to stop interacting with a particular Twitter user who shows no love of truth — only a desire to squash Christianity and persist in his fervent unbelief. Mr. Boyd took my warning, I’m happy to say.
Now, if only Rachel Vincent will respond to me!
Contradiction Tuesday: Jesus in the Pecking Order
Better late than never, right?
I skipped the next contradiction in line. It’s easy to resolve, but I’m saving it for Easter.
So for today’s contradiction Tuesday, we have another both/and resolution.
I and my Father are one. (Jn 10:30)
set against
Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. (Jn 14:28)
The Trinity is the most misunderstood doctrine of Christianity. Atheistic challenges to it amount to little more than “I don’t understand the Trinity, so it must be false. Now I shall mock it to appear clever.”
Jesus and the Father share an essence. But they do not share an identity. Meaning they are ontologically the same, but still separate people. John 10:30 refers to sharing the essence, while the pecking order established by 14:38 refers to the separate persons.
2011 in review
The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2011 annual report for this blog.
Here’s an excerpt:
The concert hall at the Syndey Opera House holds 2,700 people. This blog was viewed about 25,000 times in 2011. If it were a concert at Sydney Opera House, it would take about 9 sold-out performances for that many people to see it.
Scripture Saturday: The Christmas Story (Lk 2:1-20)
No lesson this week, just a long reading:
In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration whenQuirinius was governor of Syria. And all went to be registered, each to his own town. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, 5to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.
And in the same region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with fear. And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.And this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger.”And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!”
When the angels went away from them into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let us go over to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has made known to us.” And they went with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby lying in a manger. And when they saw it, they made known the saying that had been told them concerning this child. And all who heard it wondered at what the shepherds told them.But Mary treasured up all these things, pondering them in her heart.And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen, as it had been told them.
Merry Christmas!
Contradiction Tuesday: Who is the Father of Joseph?
Jesus’ earthly father, Joseph, has a curious genealogical quirk.
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. (Mt 1:16)
versus
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli. (Lk 3:32)
Unassailable contradiction? Nope:
Scripture Saturday: Why Some View God as a Moral Monster (Prv 28:5)
So far, I’ve been on time with Contradiction Tuesday, but late with Scripture Saturday. Every single time.
This new job has really cut into my blogging time!
Not that I’m complaining, mind you. After all, I need the money. And, for the first time since I can remember, I actually like my job.
Now on to Scripture Saturday.
Many atheists argue that God is a moral monster. They say that he has appalling standards compared to us humans.
Have you ever wondered why this is so? Why do atheists think God is evil for punishing sinful people (like the Canaanites)? Or why do they think he is a bumbling moron for allowing the Fall or creating Satan?
Simple. Atheism isn’t just a rejection of the concept of a deity. It is a decision with a serious moral dimension, and terrible consequences for the atheist — and I’m not referring to hell. I’m referring only to earthly consequences, especially in the way one thinks as an atheist. Let’s look at the Scriptures:
Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the LORD understand it completely. (Prv 28:5)
Are atheists evil? Maybe some are. Most aren’t by human standards. But by divine standards, they are as messed up as the rest of us (Rom 3:23). The bigger picture is the second clause — people who seek the Lord understand justice.
Without seeking God first, perfect and flawless justice will mean nothing.
The atheist can hem and haw all he wants about how he sought God and there was no God to be found. Balderdash. He fails to understand true justice because he is not seeking God.
Therefore, God’s actions against people like the Canaanites seem to the atheist inexplicable and mysterious; evil or disgusting. The atheist isn’t seeking God when examining the Bible, he’s really just window shopping “the god of some other religion” and comparing its actions with what he already believes morality to look like. He finds this god as coming up short, and therefore Christianity is yet another religion that fails to meet his criteria.
No wonder he doesn’t believe in God.
Instead, reverse all that. Let God set the bar, since God is (after all) God. Then measure yourself by his standard.
What’s happening, according to Scripture, is that since the atheist is not seeking God, he cannot understand justice.
Contradiction Tuesday: Is God a God of War or Peace?
God is often cited as the God of peace, for example:
Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen. (Rom 15:33)
However, the Bible also describes God in terms related to battle:
The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name. (Ex 15:3)
So, “Which is it?” asks Jim Merrit.
Why not both?
Humans are made in the image of God. Humans are dynamic. Humans don’t act the same way in every circumstance. We adapt. So why can’t the One in whose image we are made not adopt a different approach based on the circumstances?
It’s ludicrous to reduce God to a one-dimensional construct who can’t act on a case-by-case basis. Christians do this with God’s love, assuming God loves everyone the same and in equal measure — and that leads to the absurd notion that God couldn’t get mad at someone or that he won’t judge people and that everyone will end up in heaven by his side.
The truth is that God is more complex than we are in his behavior and his character. God loves us all, but in different ways. For example, you don’t love everyone in your own life in equal measure. Many people might let you down or disappoint you, and that changes the way that you feel about them.
And so it is with God.
When the circumstances call for God to be a God of peace, he is. When circumstances call for God to be a man of war, he is. Same God, but acting differently in different circumstances.
Scripture Saturday: Who Conceives Evil? (Ps 7:14)
Recently a commenter going by Patrick asked me, regarding this article, if it mattered whether God created calamity or evil. He wondered if that was just semantics.
Well, no, it isn’t just semantics. Evil here means “moral evil.” If God created moral evil, then he cannot be good by any definition of the term. A perfectly good God could not look back on his creation and say it was “good” if he had created moral evil.
On the other hand, “calamity” is neither this nor that. It’s a force of nature, neutral. In the hands of a righteous God, argues Clay Jones, calamity is a powerful call to repentance.
So for this Scripture Saturday Sunday (better late than never, right?), I wanted to take a peek at Psalm 7 to determine just who creates “moral evil.” The answer is in verse 14:
Behold, the wicked man conceives evil and is pregnant with mischief and gives birth to lies.
This verse describes a potentiality — the potential to sin. It all begins with the will to evil; a desire to commit mischief and that gives birth to lies. James, the brother of our Lord, explains it this way:
Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death. (Jms 1:15)
So the desire is our own, not the fault of God. The desire, having taken root, produces the sin. Sin, fully realized, is death. That’s why God takes all of this so seriously — and why we should, too! But, alas, Francis Schaeffer was right to observe “. . . that none of us in our generation feels as guilty about sin as we should or as our forefathers did.”