Sunday, November 20, 2011

Zeus, Jupiter, Jehovah—Are they all the same?

Recently I listened to a friendly exchange (definitely not a debate) between two atheists, Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins, and two theists, Francis Collins and Benjamin Carson[1]. The reader may go online and check the credentials and peer respect that all four of these men have earned.

During the informal discussion an objection was voiced that often comes up. If Zeus and Jupiter were gods and were mythological, then why isn’t Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, also mythological? If all gods have been gotten rid of one, then take the next logical step and get rid of the last one.

Though there is a natural flow to that argument, there are problems with it. In summary, there are such differences between the literature of Zeus and other gods versus Jehovah that any generalization of them into the same pot of meaning simply makes no sense whatsoever.

As mentioned in other essays, I had no real religious upbringing or environment. Christianity was not scoffed at; it simply was not mentioned. I knew it existed, but little else. The few times I had gone to church (well, Sunday school) I had heard about God, the usual children’s story; but I cannot recall a single one in particular. Yet, I am sure I heard the typical statements about God (Jehovah).

In comical contrast are the mythological gods of the Greek. I recall reading The Iliad and The Odyssey as a preteen, and the gods were an absolute joke. What I mean is that I laughed as a young kid. These gods seemed to be very big humans with super powers who were sexual perverts, bullies, adulterers, and unbelievably messed up.[2] I grew up in the days of The Lone Ranger (who never shot anyone), Ozzie and Harriet (a superb family), and Father Knows Best (just good decisions by Dad instead of the nincompoop of today’s shows). Compared to them, the Greek gods were monsters. This was not because I had the indoctrination of “the right God.” If I had been asked, “Is Christianity the only true religion,” I would not have had the slightest idea what that might have meant. The neighbor’s son was more real to me than God’s son.

Later after becoming a Christian (age 21 in the US Navy) I faintly recall the first time I heard the criticism that the gods of the ancient world were as real (or fake) as the God of the Bible. My initial reaction was, “Are you serious? Have you read anything about these drunken, in-bred, adulterous sots of Olympus?”

Besides the absurd social behavior of the gods of the ancient world, there are several other problems that markedly and unalterably distinguish the gods from God. The first and foremost is Ultimate Being, First Cause, Supreme Authority. Though Zeus and other “head” gods were the strongest, they answered to a higher power. Staying with Zeus, he was subject to the Fates[3]. In other words there was a higher power (or powers if the trio is considered). I have never understood why the God of the Bible is compared to the lesser gods of mythological pantheons. The ancient world understood the ultimate power of the Fates.

But then, the Fates, though having control over the gods, were born themselves. So the Fates had ultimate power, but they were not eternal. The breakdown in the nature of God when compared with the mythological gods reveal the same distinction over and over: God is clearly superior in intelligence, power, control, moral distinction.

Anselm also illustrated this difference quite well in his key comment in his Proslogion: God is a “being than which no greater can be conceived.” Very little imaginary effort is needed to consider how the gods of mythology could be greater that what they were … in a number of areas. Candidly it does seem impossible that anything could be greater than a self-existent, eternal being which created all physical matter and energy[4]. The gods of mythology are far, far less than self-existent and certainly not eternal.

Another difficulty was the lack of urgency for the gods. For instance, the philosophers did not hesitate to argue their position on truth, justice, good, beauty, etc. Philosophers would name peers and disagree with them, explain what was wrong in their arguments, dismiss their position for cause, etc. In other words, they were intensely apologetic about philosophy and would argue forcefully for what they believed was the truth … as we do today for what we believe. Yet, there is no urgency or interest in defending the gods, contrasting them with false gods (which was the originally meaning of the word “atheist”), defending them, promoting them, attacking false ones, etc.

For men who believed deeply in knowledge, logic, and truth, they were pathetically indifferent to the gods, either in praising them or criticizing them. Except for an occasional comment now and then, the philosophers ignored the gods. The question is why? Of course it is understandable why a writer would not criticize the gods in his own culture, but why the silence on others? Why not a vigorous, hearty philosophical attack or defense? No, essentially … silence.

The reader may decide for himself, but the only credible answer for me to the silence is that the mythological gods were simply not important to the philosophers. There was no meaning worth discussing. If these god were believed to truly exist, this belief did not create any urgency in thought.

Along with this philosophical silence is the lack of military silence. That is, there was little if any “spreading the faith” by conquest. Judaism established Jehovah in the Promised Land by conquest. Christianity was spread by military conquest (certainly the defense of Christianity during the Crusades), and Islam was definitely a religion of the sword after the death of Mohammad. The use of the military to spread the faith has been leaped upon by atheists. Though I do disagree with evangelism by conquest, what it illustrates is belief in an ultimate God and the urgency to spread the truth.

Alexander the Great was not concerned about which gods were worshipped. Rome allowed any gods to be worshipped as long as allegiance was given to Rome and eventually the emperor. The only exception were the Jews, “the second race,” who were allowed to only worship Jehovah. Again, no urgency. If the gods were true, why weren’t there philosophical evangelism, military evangelism, and personal evangelism? There was no truth element to the gods.

A hallmark of monotheism is the urgency that the one God is true; it is not so with polytheism. Why? I fail to see any compelling reason aside from the simple observation that the ancients saw the gods for exactly how we see them … mythological.



[2] No, I didn’t use those words back then. But as a young boy I could tell they were petty, sex maniacs, and comically dysfunctional.

[3] In Greek, Roman, and Norse mythology the Fates were comprised of three female immortals who had ultimate control over gods and humans. No god could break the decrees from the Fates.

[4] I am not suggesting the reader has to believe that God exists because of Anselm’s a priori argument. I’m merely suggesting that it is not possible to conceive of anything greater that a self-existent, eternal entity that created all physical matter and energy. Certainly, confirmed evolutionist will simply reply that matter/energy itself is eternal and self-existent. And that merely confirms the statement that nothing greater can be conceived. Whatever is eternal and self-existent from which all else is derived is the greatest entity that can be conceived. Whether the entity has to have mind (God) or not have mind (matter/energy) is a different argument altogether and is not addressed in this essay.

Friday, October 7, 2011

Make Them Play Fair

Every discussion we have on whatever topic will involve our using terms that are concrete or abstract. Most of us do not use those two words, but we do use the concepts in our speech whether we consciously acknowledge them or not. It is critical important to know the difference and how we use evidence or proof to support our arguments. This article will define these terms and illustrate how we use different methods of proving what we say depending if we are discussing the concrete or the abstract.

Candidly many of the arguments against Christianity, which seem sound and irrefutable, are a mingling of the concrete and the abstract. The field of argumentation should be the same for Christian and non-Christian. If you wish to discuss and defend Christianity in today’s culture, then you must know this distinction. Let’s explore the differences.

The concrete is that which is perceived by the senses or by instruments that magnify our senses. The concrete may be an object (a pan of water) and/or a process (a pan of water that is boiling). The abstract is that which cannot be perceived by the senses or instruments. An abstract may sound like a concrete object (say, a unicorn), but, it is an abstract; and, until perceived by the senses, it will be treated as an abstract.

The concrete may readily be defined and described. Additionally, when objects are brought before a subject, the subject can typically categorize them immediately, assuming the object is not unknown. A very, very young child can with little repetition distinguish a toy puppy from a toy kitty. Moreover, the child can very quickly distinguish all live cats from live dogs. Even if a 3 year old is asked to describe a kitty, he will give some sort of consistent description.

Moving from the child to an adult then the descriptions can become very precise because there are agreed upon objective standards for the description and properties of an object. For instance, think of a pair of pants; both of us will have similar ideas in mind. The pants don’t have to be a particular color, just have the property of a color. If the two of us look at the pants of a passerby, I daresay that most of the time we will have nearly identical descriptions of it.

If we differ on the description, we have means that are universally agreed upon to determine our differences. If I say the color was a gray or a shade of tan, you might respond, “No way. Those pants were green.” Perhaps the pants were neither of our colors because of the lighting and shading. (By the way, I am red-green color deficient.) But, we do have the means to precisely determine the color of the pants. We could use a chromoscope (or similar instruments if available) to settle the matter. If the two of us differed how far away Chicago is via Interstate 65 (the weakness of memory), there are means by which we could determine the distance that would be agreed upon.

When we ask for “proof” concerning any of these objects/processes of the concrete, we are referring to universal, objective standards. Though I may have an opinion how heavy you are, my opinion disappears before the evidence of a scales.

The abstract is totally different. An abstract can only be defined and described as to what it is like.

Consider an abstract like “love.” Without question this abstract resonates for theists and atheists alike; yet, it cannot be directly perceived, only interpreted from events. Take a group of people. Make the group to be comprised of uneducated, highly educated, or a mix. Ask this group to define love. Do you think the definition will differ … and some radically? Absolutely. Look up definitions of abstracts, such as love, in any dictionary and see how the word is widely used.

Take this same group of people to a movie. Their task during the movie is to write down incidents that illustrate love and incidents that are the opposite of love. I cannot prove how the results of this thought experiment would turn out, but based on 35+ years in teaching in a world of abstracts (God, morality, love, justice, hate, forgiveness, bitterness, truth, mercy, etc) I’ve learned this: there is no agreed upon standard by which to measure an abstract object/process.

I have been to a restaurant several times over the years with someone else who has remarked, “That waitress is so rude.” She didn’t strike me as rude in the least. I couldn’t figure out where that even came from. The reason for the statement is that there are no agreed upon standards of determining (interpreting) if an event truly is cruel, kind, loving, rude, etc, etc. There is absolutely none.

I would like to suggest the reason for this lack of agreed upon proof.

When truth statements are made, they are usually determined to be true or false by one of two tests of truth.[1] There is the correspondence test (or theory) of truth, and there is the coherence test. They are quite different, though the common feature between them is comparison.

First and foremost is that the tests of truth are applicable to statements, not questions, not commands, and certainly not things. An object (a cat, a person, a tree) is simply there to be observed. If I say, “That cat is black,” what makes the statement true or false is whether the cat is, indeed, black. If the cat were dark gray, then my statement would be false. If we disagree, we have a means to measure. So, when I say “is” and whatever actually exists or when I say “is not” and whatever actually is not, then the statement is true. As Josiah Royce humorously put it, “A liar is a person who has willfully misplaced his ontological predicates.”

The coherence test is quite different. Essentially a statement is true if it matches a “body” of truth. For instance, parents leave a 10 year old at home for an hour. When they return, there is milk on the floor. It wasn’t there when they left. When they ask the boy if he did it or if someone had come over, his reply is “No.” So, since spilt milk requires an agent, the options now are poltergeists or an intruder into the house or something. The child’s answer doesn’t cohere. The statement per se makes sense, but it doesn’t make sense with the whole. Most children are caught in lies because of the lack of coherence.

Correspondence works marvelously with the concrete. As the name infers, the assertion in the statement (e.g., I weigh 180lbs) and simply be compared with a standard that is agreed up, a scales, a tape measure, and the thousands of more precise tools and instruments that are available.

Sometimes correspondence is not enough for a concrete item. Coherency is called into play for the concrete when uncertainty in correspondence occurs. Coherency is not needed to determine if an object is 218 cm from top to bottom. Coherency would come into play if different results were recorded or different from a standard. Let’s say I measure an object to be 218 cm, and you measure the same object to be 371 cm. There’s no way one tool of measurement could have such a difference. It does not cohere. If it is an electronic instrument, perhaps it needs to be calibrated. Perhaps one of us read it incorrectly.

Also, if a measurement is out of the standard, it is coherency that alerts us to this. If some measured the distance of the sun from the earth and said that is was 300,000 km, it would immediately be suspect because it does not cohere to the body of accepted truth.

With the abstract, the only test that works is coherence. There is nothing objectively to measure the abstract against. All that can be done is to define the abstract, illustrate it, and go to it … with the guarantee there will be differences as to what incidents fit and those that don’t. “Was the waitress truly rude or not?”

Without question the existence of an abstract is based upon its definition. Of course, someone might say, “That’s a standard that is being used.” No, not really. A dictionary does not state what a definition should be; it states how the word is used, and usage determines the most popular definition of an abstract.[2] When abstracts are discussed, then it is necessary to insure that those involved agree on a definition; otherwise, a “conversation” may be held, but totally different meaning is understood.[3]

Quite often a challenge is made, “Where’s the proof? Show me the proof!” If a concrete is being discussed, then concrete proof may be given. If an abstract is being discussed, there is NEVER concrete proof, only illustrations and “evidences” than seem to fit the definition of the abstract (assuming the people having the discussion have agreed upon a definition, which is rare). I’ll leave this to the reader to illustrate or demonstrate otherwise. Give an illustration of any abstract that can be unequivocally proven by a universally, agreed upon standard.[4]

Besides the lack of a common objective test for abstracts, there is the language problem. Because abstracts cannot be perceived, invariably, the language used will employ words as if the abstract could be perceived or use words that personify the abstract with the properties of mind.

Theist are commonly criticized for anthropomorphing[5] God by ascribing to him attributes of which they have no proof. “Prove to me that God is omniscient. Show me the proof that God is loving.” The problem with this, of course, is that it is nearly impossible to discuss any abstract without personifying it[6]. The only time personification or attributes are not ascribed is when other abstracts are used. For instance, a dictionary will define an abstract word with other abstract words. This sounds literal, but it is not concrete. I’ll use an abstract that scientists are quite familiar with, evolution.

The theory of evolution exists only in the mind. Evolution per se cannot be perceived. Objects and events are perceived and then interpreted. Notice now how anthropomorphism is applied to Evolution. It is very common to read comments like this: “Evolution decides … selects … chooses … guides.” Perhaps the reader of this truly believes there is some sort of entity, called Evolution, that has the properties of a conscious mind; but I doubt it. These are figures of speech, ways of expressing the process. Evolution, frankly, has been personified. A personified shape has not been given to Evolution, but the process has been given, figuratively, a personality, a mind.

Getting down to the dust and bones of the issue, Evolution is no more than a description of what has happened. Mutations simply occurred. They were not “chosen” or “selected” any more than two atoms of hydrogen “choose” one atom of oxygen in order to make water. Some entity called Evolution or Natural Selection did not willfully, purposely, and deliberately “weed out” certain ones. This process of genetic mutation and genetic drift and environmental change simply happened. There was no personality called Evolution with a mind pushing and prodding the genes so they would change.

This personification does not make Evolution or Natural Selection true or false. It is no more than a juiced up way of making listening and reading more interesting. There is no relationship to real or unreal, true or false, or significant or insignificant because of ascribing properties of the mind (personification) to Evolution or Natural Selection (or God). When someone asks, “How does Evolution work,” the response that “Natural Selection is the mechanism that guides the process” is, once again, no more than using personification to make a chemical, uncaring, cold process come “alive” in the imagination of the reader or listener.

Personifying the process is not an attempt to be disingenuous. It is not an attempt to mislead. It is just about the only way to discuss an abstract. Consider these: “Justice brings meaning and hope … Love unites a couple … Joy is a thing of beauty forever.” I like all these statements, but let’s not kid ourselves. None of these statement are literal, not any of them. They are abstracts that occur in the mind.

A slave owner could easily have said, “Finally, those runaways are back on the farm. Justice brings meaning and hope.” A Nazi could easily have said, “Getting those parasitic Jews out of our town was the right thing to do. It really is true. Justice brings meaning and hope.” I suspect most readers of this will be horrified by the two examples; yet, what is our objective standard for the abstract of justice? Justice is only determined in the mind.

To recap, the concrete is determined objectively and has agreed upon methods of measuring and identifying. Proof for the concrete is by the correspondence theory of truth. The abstract is conceived only by the mind, and there is no agreed upon method of identifying or measuring when an abstract “occurs.” The language for the abstract is heavily interlaced with metaphor and personification (ascribing properties of the mind). A coherence theory of truth is used to determine the truth of an abstract; however, the “body of truth” to which the statement is being compared … has no universally agreed upon standard.

Frankly, when people says, “You have your truth, and I have mine,” what they are referring to is the coherence theory of truth when used with abstracts, for the body of truth for coherence exists in each person’s mind, with no two bodies of truth the same. For someone to say “You have your truth, and I have mine” in referencing objective science, then they are simply foolish. Truth may be subjective with abstracts, but truth is 100% objective with the concrete.[7]

So, when challenged with “Show me the proof that God loves,” keep in mind that the person is asking for a concrete proof, a proof by correspondence; but there is NEVER a proof for an abstract by correspondence, i.e., in the sense of an agreed upon standard in which a perceived object can be measured. The proof for ANY abstract is by coherence and the proof chosen is subjective, subject to interpretation.

You can ask in return, “Show me the proof that Evolution selects and chooses.” Prove to me that an entity called Evolution exists and has a mind. It can’t be done anymore than proving that God selects. Advocates of both views will give proof how Evolution or God must exist in order for the whole to make sense, the coherence proof of truth.

Note, the issue here is not whether the argument for Evolution or for God is actually true or false, real or unreal. The emphasis of this entire article has been that the method of proof should be the same for all abstracts, not selected ones.

When non-theists scoff at believers for “attributing” characteristics to God, they must realize that they are doing the same thing with their pet abstracts. Such arguments by non-theists are no more than the pot calling the kettle black.



[1] There are others, e.g., pragmatic test of truth. But pragmatic is a sub-type of one of two that will be explained. The other “tests” will easily fit within the same two.

[2] The numbers next to words in the dictionary typically give the order of popular usage. The exception to this is when there is a bracketed word: [obsolete], [archaic], [poetic]. Otherwise, (1) is the most popular usage, (2) is the second, etc.

[3] Years ago I met a person for lunch. He wanted to meet somewhere else after lunch, which was about three miles away in a city. I said, “I’ll meet you there. I’ll ride my bike.” “Are you sure,” he replied. It’s a ways. We went back and like this for about a minute. Something was wrong. He even asked, “Do you want to put your bike in my van?” I was referring to a motorcycle, whereas the other person thought I mean a bicycle. In this case, the object was concrete. It would have been easy to determine the meaning of bike; yet, the abstract is far more elusive.

[4] Mathematics is an exception … in a way. Every expression in mathematics is abstract; so abstract proves abstract. However, mathematics is an imposed language determined solely by definition and is, frankly, a system of logic using tautologies. Obvious all tautologies are “true.” To prove a person is a bachelor is no more than to illustrate that the person does not meet the definitional criteria. Yet, even in proving such, what if the person is secretly married? Believing the evidence becomes the issue. We have to find documentation or testimony (birth certificate, newspaper birth announcements) and then we have to believe those. What if our bachelor produced a marriage certificate and introduced his wife. Does that 100% prove he is not a bachelor? There is no objective test to prove bachelorhood as there is to prove that a man is 5’9” tall. Objective proof cannot be fooled or disguised. (Of course, someone could cheat.) A bachelor is a simple either-or with no gradation in it, and we still cannot know for certain; we have to believe. Consider many other abstracts: love, truth, beauty, justice. The gradations can be incalculable especially when determining if this or that particular meets the definition.

[5] Anthropomorphic is giving human characteristics to a non-human. For instance, Mother Nature loves her children. Nature is simply nature. It is there. Only something with a mind can “love.” Anthropopathic is similar. It is attributing emotion, e.g., Nature hates a vacuum. Again, nature does not have feelings.

[6] The word “God” is an abstract. Remember, abstract means it cannot be perceived with the senses or instruments. That doesn’t mean “God” is real or unreal, only that He cannot be perceived by our senses.

[7] Obvious error can occur. If I suddenly look up and see someone being mugged, I might get a detail wrong. The issue here is surprise and the increase in emotions. Five people will, no doubt, give different details … though none of them will say, “There was no mugging.” In contrast, take those same five people and say, “That person walking toward us will be mugged in five seconds. They are actors. Watch carefully. When it is over, write down what happened.” I daresay the reports will be nearly identical (allowing for poor eyesight, color blindness in males, lighting, angle of view, etc). Dawkins in Unweaving the Rainbow spent a lot of time discrediting eyewitnesses. There is nothing wrong with eyewitness per se. Surprise and emotion are the problem. The more time to think about an event before it occurs, the more likely details will be amazingly accurate. It’s quite common for couples to remember all kinds of details of their wedding fifty and more years afterwards. If a mugger would tell the truth, the details would be 100% correct.

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

Works and Faith: How Are They Related?

For by grace have you been saved through faith, and not that of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Works and faith, what an unending issue. Conservative Protestants will look at Catholics and say, “They believe in works; they aren’t saved.” Baptists will look at the Church of Christ and say, “They believe in baptismal regeneration[1], which is a work; they aren’t saved.” Reformed will look at the entire free will crowd of Christians and say, “They believe in works and deny the sovereignty of God. They may be saved, but it’s hard to tell.”

The various conservative Baptist denominations are very forceful in using the cry of the Reformation, sola fide.[2] Anything that smacks of a human work is decried and denounced if it is associated in any way with salvation. This would include Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopals, Church of Christ, and others. In ironic contrast, the Church of Christ questions if Baptists are saved because of their distance from baptism. The theological squabblings would be the stuff of a Master Mad Hatter’s party.

I was so intrigued by this insistence by the Baptists that associating baptism with salvation was a works theology that I went to the home page of the Southern Baptists, General Association of Regular Baptists, Freewill Baptists, Conservative Baptists, and, a non-Baptist but with very similar doctrines, the Independent Fundamental Churches of America. On each page I visited the doctrinal or positional beliefs. Except for “works” being included in Ephesians 2:8-9, the word was not mentioned except for one site, which did say that one purpose of salvation was for “good works.” That was it. Not a hint of works was stated under any of the doctrinal sections.[3]

The observation that “baptismal regeneration” was omitted by all groups was not as glaring as another omission, much, much greater. What was that? “Works” is never defined! This might seem a gross, exaggerated reaction on my part, but let’s think about it for a moment.

One Christian group will call baptism a work, and another Christian group will not. I have learned a long time ago that when nomes[4] are used, they must be defined. Since a nome cannot be perceived by our senses or instruments that magnify our senses, then all that can be done is to define the word and illustrate what it is like.

Before illustrating Christian works as contrasted with faith, I wish to start with a common, non-religious issue. Let’s assume a person, W´, is dying of thirst. Two people (A´ and B´) give the person a drink of water. Is it possible for A´ to have done a good deed and B´ to have done a selfish deed? I believe so, if you count attitude and motive. A´ gives the water merely to relieve C´’s suffering. It will be difficult to find critics of A´.[5] However, B´ could have given water for a number of selfish reasons: 1) he wanted to know where C´’s wallet was so he could steal it later; 2) he wanted an attractive woman who expressed sympathy for W´ to notice him; 3) he saw A´ going to get water, and B´wanted to do it first because he disliked A´so much and is disgusted at how much attention A´ receives. (You use your imagination and continue your own illustrations.)

W´ did receive water and was relieved of suffering. A good result occurred regardless of the motives, but did B´ actually do a good work? Perhaps a die-hard pragmatist will merely point to W´’s relief and say, “Leave well enough alone. If everyone helped others, even for mixed motives, people are still helped.” Certain W´ was helped, but what about the wallet that might be stolen later, or the woman misled by B´, etc.? As long as there are bad attitudes and bad motives, there will eventually be bad deeds.

With the previous paragraph I wanted to establish that motive and attitude affected the giver doing a selfish work though the receiver gets a good result. All of us recognize that good works, as far as a personal commendation, requires a good motive and/or a good attitude. We also see this dual nature of good works when a person, with good motives, does a work that produces a bad result for the receiver. For instance, a young child wants to make a special birthday cake for his mother and nearly sets the kitchen on fire. Though the parents will show anxiety about the near fire, the anger toward the child will be mitigated. If the child had meant to start a fire, the whole situation changes again. Means, opportunity, and motive are required for a criminal conviction, at least in the popular mind. The mindset is what defines the quality of an act; though it may be undiscoverable in any particular incident, we still recognize this principle.

Before continuing to the religious question, let’s settle what a work is, any work. I would be baffled if a work were more than energy expended to do something. “Wait, that would include recreation, and recreation is not work.” Really? I know people who love to work in their lawn, planting flowers (seemingly unendingly), attacking each weed as if it were a pervert seeking to molest the innocent. They love it. In reference now to moi, simply mowing grass is a curse from Adam. Why not let the goats take care of it? There is NOTHING relaxing or recreational about working (see the word—WORKING) in the yard! The difference between work and play is in the mind, not in the exertion and energy of the body. The exertion of energy is precisely what work is. That definition will cover all examples and usages of the word.

Simply because some activities are less strenuous does not mean energy is not needed. The energy needed to think of my next sentence is less than the energy needed to type it, which is less than the energy needed to carry the keyboard, which is much less than the energy needed to carry a board, and on and on. Because thinking does not seem to take energy does not mean that it doesn’t require energy. (Besides, haven’t you ever heard writers discuss how hard it is to write, how tiring?)

With all these ideas, definitions, and thoughts in place, let’s consider how a person can be saved WITHOUT some work. Can you think of a single example? I can’t, and I’ve been puzzling over this for 20 years or so. To even think, “Jesus, I trust You and want You to be my savior” takes energy and is a work of the person thinking it. Raising the hand to receive Jesus is a work. Repeating the sinner’s prayer is a work. Crying for joy is a work. Being baptized is a work. It’s not possible to have faith without thinking, and thinking requires work. Any physical activity or any religious activity is a work.

If we are saved without works and work is needed for anything that we do, what is going on? How is this reconciled? We need to move from the physical to the mental. What makes a work a good one or a bad one is again the attitude or the motive. A good work or good works or a bad work or bad works may appear to be the same by observers. Only the faith differs.

Can two people stand before a church, confess some statement of faith concerning Jesus, and one is saved whereas the other is not? The answer is yes. Reciting words does not require faith. Any atheist reading this article may now read, “I believe Jesus died on the cross for my sins, and I accept Him as my Savior,” and he will not be saved … if he doesn’t believe it.

Neither words nor works are the issue; it is faith. Works are the expression of faith, but they are not faith. A work may be done by anyone, but only faith can make it a work of faith. As long as the work is not a sin, then all other works may or may not be a work of faith.

The accusation, “That person cannot be saved because he believes in works,” may be true if a person truly believes what he is doing is saving him and not Jesus, but even that can be iffy. For instance, consider a person who has taken chemotherapy and the cancer has remitted. What saved the person: the doctor who discovered the cancer, the technicians who tested the biopsy, the equipment used to determine the biopsy, the people who created the equipment, the chemo, the people who administered the chemo, etc, etc, etc? Ultimately there are two factors: 1) the patient had to believe the doctor(s) and 2) the patient had to follow the regimen.

The question now is “How much did the patient have to believe the doctor? What did they need to know about the doctor or the regimen?” The answer is that they only needed to believe enough to do what was prescribed. Perhaps more details might be needed by some who want to know more about the doctor or the procedure, but that would not be needed for everyone. What is needed to be believed about the doctor is that he knows what he is talking about.[6]

Also, if the person believed whatever was needed to follow the procedure, does it make any difference if the motives or attitudes were not “pure.” Let’s say a person is thinking, “What choice do I have” or “The drug companies just want to make a fortune” or “If I don’t do this my family will nag me without end.” The analogy between medicine and religion break down at this point. A patient can believe the doctor is totally incompetent, but he goes through the motion because his wife wants him to. In a medical procedure the result would statistically be the same (allowing for the fact that the patient’s negative attitude would not affect the result). In Christianity the belief and commitment to Christ is necessary.

Why does the medical analogy beak down, and why is belief in Christ necessary? The difference is that the doctor, for any medicine or procedure, is pointing to something else, something other than himself. All of us have heard a doctor say, “I haven’t healed anyone.” Other religions point to something else: do these works. Christ points to Himself as the healer! He does say, “I heal people. I do it.”

With medicine as long as the medicine or the regimen is followed, then results follow. In Christianity Jesus Himself IS the medicine. Instead of saying “Take two of these pills after a meal,” Jesus says, “Choose to become like me.” He says, “Follow me.” He says, “Leave your old way of life and choose this new way.”

Many times I have read or heard atheists ask, “Why is belief necessary to be saved?” My counter-question is, “Is it possible to follow someone, truly follow him, without believing him and believing in him?” I agree a person can follow a crowd without realizing there is a leader in front, but a time will come when he will realize that the leader is asking for commitment to him.[7] Jesus requires a commitment to Him, not to a medicine or a procedure. When Jesus is asking people to believe Him is the same thing that all leaders ask of those who wish to follow. Even the atheists who are asking, “Why believe in Jesus,” are saying, by a subtle implication, “Believe me that you don’t have to believe Him” or “Believe me when I say you don’t have to believe in belief.”

To summarize, to say that someone believes in works and is not saved only makes sense if the person does not believe in Jesus at all. It is impossible to believe in Jesus without some works, impossible. Everyone has to do SOMETHING to indicate he believes in Jesus. As long as the person is responding to Jesus in some way, even with faith the size of a mustard seed, then “by grace has he been saved through faith.”

So the criticism of some conservative Christians that others believe in works because they think they have to be baptized to be saved does not make sense if Jesus commands baptism. Jesus was baptized, his disciples baptized, the Great Commission commands baptism (Matthew 28:19-20), and there are commands to be baptized throughout the book of Acts.

If a person was baptized and then said, “Now Jesus will save me because I’ve been baptized,” he is still lost if he does not believe in Jesus, but, if he believed in Jesus prior to the baptism, then he is saved. Faith in Jesus is the key, and works are an expression of that faith. When James wrote, “Faith without works is dead,” he could just as easily have written, “Faith without works is impossible.”



[1] This is the belief that baptism actually causes salvation.

[2] This Latin phrase translate to the equivalency of “faith alone” or “only faith.”

[3] Perhaps the reason is to avoid negative statements, i.e., the doctrinal position is what a group believes, as opposed to what they do not believe.

[4] A nome is an acrostic for Non-material entity. Essentially, a nome is anything that is not matter or energy. A ready response might be, “Is that simply an abstract idea? Is so, why not use abstract?” It has to do with reality. Typically the position is taken that abstract ideas have a true reality (Plato’s forms, Platonic realism) or abstract ideas are simply names for a category of material objects or a designator for material objects (nominalism). These abstract ideas include spiritual terms: God, angels, heaven, soul, etc. I am merely asserting here that some abstracts truly have reality, the spiritual ones. Other abstracts, e.g., truth, good, love, mathematics, are nominalistic. In order to avoid the dualism of existence that is created by concrete/abstract or realism/nominalism, I am introducing a hybrid term, nomes, a non-material entity.

[5] There is always a critic somewhere. Perhaps C´ had broken into a bank, killed a person or two and then attempted suicide. He is near death and is begging for water. A´ could be criticized for giving help to a worthless person who deserved to die, particularly after killing people. As I said, there is always a critic somewhere.

[6] Obviously a quack could be believed. His procedure would not help anyone. Faith per se does not save, but faith in someone, and this someone has to have the credentials to save him. A child who has a brain tumor might believer his daddy can save him because daddy can do anything. That faith is misplaced.

[7] A recent historical example would be the personal pledge that German soldiers and civil servants gave to Hitler. They pledged to follow him personally. Obviously a person could still lie when he gave pledge, but he could later be prosecuted if his behavior did not conform.

Friday, July 29, 2011

Mystery and Reason

This article is about mystery and to what degree reason or reasonable is related to mystery.

Most of us have heard or said, in giving Christian counsel or encouragement to another, “God works in mysterious ways.” Atheists, as you might imagine, leap on this phrase and respond, “That only means you don’t have the slightest idea.” Yet, there are mysteries, not merely in Christianity but just in life.

Before we go any further, we need to define mystery; for the word is used in a range of meanings: something unknowable and inexplicable, something that has raised curiosity, secret rites, a sense of wonder that cannot be expressed.

Since the word mystery is an abstract word (i.e., it cannot be perceived as matter or energy by our senses), then my first interest is always in the original meaning of the word as a concrete object. The word mystery is a transliteration from the Greek word, μυςτήριον. It meant secret religious rites that were only revealed to members. These rites and the teaching behind them enabled the initiate to understand the times and the seasons. The rites provided the why behind the what of life. Essentially a mystery was something unknowable except by those who were on the inside.

Because of books, TV, and movies the verbs we usually associate with a mystery is “solved” or “unsolved.” Behind this solving is figuring out what happened, who did it, when, and why. This is quite different from the mysteries of ancient Greek religions in which a mystery was known, but only by a few who would pass on the secrets (the mysteries) after due commitment and process.

Between these two extremes, do we arbitrarily pick which one we wish to use for the Bible? One way to answer this question is to consider the verbs that are used in the Bible with mystery: know, do not be ignorant, revealed, was kept secret, did not speak in mystery, may understand, may see.

The primary meaning in the New Testament for mystery is something that was unknown but is now known. In what way are the mysteries known? Typically when we say we “know” something, our three primary sources are experience, reason, and faith (we believe what we read or are told, hopefully by competent authorities). Are these the tools that help us to understand the mysteries of God?

Faith would be the means by which we understand. In the same way that an author will reveal “who-dun-it” in a mystery by his characters and plot, so God reveals to us in the Bible His mysteries. Once revealed they are no longer a mystery.

Let’s return to the mystery writer. A means of interacting and having fun with a mystery is trying to figure it out with the clues that the writer leaves. The best mysteries are the ones in which all the clues were given, but the user interprets them incorrectly. After the story is over, we can see how we let ourselves be misled. Though reason may not figure out the mystery, after the mystery is revealed, then it needs to be reasonable. Once the writer has revealed that the murderer was Colonel Mustard in the library with a candlestick, then it is not reasonable if Colonel Mustard was somewhere else on the night of the murder or if he had died the day before. This principle is important. Though reason may not be able to determine a mystery, a revealed mystery should still make sense, it should still be reasonable AFTER the fact.

I can use all the reason I wish with the Old Testament, even as the Jews have for centuries, and I cannot come up with a replacement for the mission of the Jews called the church. The church was a mystery as stated in the New Testament … UNTIL God revealed it. After that it is no longer a mystery. Yet, after it is revealed, it still needs to be reasonable, to make sense. Once the church has been revealed, there are passages in the Old Testament that I read differently. The connection between the Old Testament and the New Testament make sense in a new way.

There is another use of mystery and a misuse that I wish to discuss yet. Let’s consider the misuse first.

Mystery is often used as unquestionable. “There are issues we cannot explain in the Bible; they are mysteries and simply must be accepted.” The implication is that reasons and questions are to cease.

My response to that is, “It depends.” I agree that I cannot use reason to discover new spiritual truths like I can use reason to discover new laws of physics, but I can use reason to find new perspective and new application for revealed spiritual truth.

When people ask the question, “Why would God send people to hell who have never heard the gospel,” the reply, “We do not understand God’s justice,” is not an answer or even helpful. The question is being asked because there are hundreds of examples in Scripture of what God calls just; beyond this justice is God’s mercy, again with hundreds of examples. It is precisely because of all this revelation of justice and mercy that the hell question arises. Sending people to hell because they were born in the wrong place at the wrong time is not reasonable in comparison to all the other examples of justice and mercy. There has to be an explanation. Justice is a revealed truth; it is not a mystery.

Another proper use of mystery is the idea of wonder or awe. Wonder is always something we can’t fully comprehend … but we comprehend it some. It is the shortfall in comprehension that creates the wonder. The impression is usually given that a mystery means we understand nothing, whereas I maintain that we can understand something. Frankly, what do we comprehend fully in nature? Comprehension is not either-or in color; it is a gradation of color.

In summary, what we do understand, regardless how little, needs to be reasonable. That doesn’t meant that reason had to be used to discover it. Revelation is God’s granting of discovery to us, in the same way that the secret ceremonies of the ancient mysteries reveal new thoughts to the initiates. The issue is this: whatever God does reveal, whatever He does give to us has to be reasonable.

A final illustration: I do not understand the mystery of suffering. Yet, God has revealed SOME truths about suffering. Those truths, as we reflect on them, are reasonable when we compare them with other revealed truths. What He reveals to us has to make sense with other truths He has revealed. If not, then there is nothing to discuss. All there is, is nonsense (i.e., non-sense).

Saturday, April 30, 2011

How Does Nothing Become Something

The current best-selling atheist writers have something in common. They seem angry or frustrated that Christians DARE PRESUME that mankind is the center of the universe. They retort vigorously how unimportant we are in the grand scheme of things, how indifference reigns in the universe, how unimaginable are the distances of space with billions and billions and billions of galaxies.

“My goodness,” the atheists will exclaim, “don’t these dimwits of pompous believers know there is no center within an infinite number of stars? How stupid can they be? We are less than dust of dust of dust in the cosmic unendingness. We are nothing but temporary passengers in time. On the scale of 3000 miles that reaches from California to New York, the total existence of mankind is less than 20 yards. What is the significance of driving from coast-to-coast, and when all that mankind has ever done is back out of the driveway?

“Consider the insignificance of our lives. We do not control where or when we are born. Our existence is on a fragile balance with bacteria and viruses that could wipe us out with the most minor change in the environment. When we die, our atoms will scatter throughout the universe. And someday the universe will continue to expand until everything freezes, or the universe collapse into an apocalyptic conflagration. We are NOTHING. To pretend we are is unqualified arrogance.”

There are two implied features of the above evangelium of the Prophets of Insignificance that are ironical. One is size, and the other is meaning. Let’s briefly consider these.

How big does something have to be to be truly important; or, conversely, how small does something have to be to be truly insignificant? Is an elephant more important (significant) than a fly; they must be because they live longer, have much greater mass, and eat more. An adult must certainly be more significant than a baby.

“No, no, no,” responds the atheist. “You are missing the point. Your arguments are absurd because the examples given are biological units which we can readily perceive. What is being discussed is beyond our imagination … spaces so vast that we have to make up illustrations to get a feel for them … galaxies and black holes so large that our entire solar system could be swallowed thousands of times over. Even our Milky Way could be swallowed up and not particularly be noticed. We are talking BIG.”

Atheists and many scientists are talking as if “Big” has just been discovered! C’mon, guys, you know the history of science better than I do. “Big” has been around for centuries. Ptolemy stated in his Almagest that the size of the earth was a mathematical point in comparison to the distance of the stars. (A mathematical point is a concept and is infinitely small.) Boethius wrote in The Consolation of Philosophy in Book VII, “The whole of this earth's globe, as thou hast learnt from the demonstration of astronomy, compared with the expanse of heaven, is found no bigger than a point; that is to say, if measured by the vastness of heaven's sphere, it is held to occupy absolutely no space at all.” That sure sounds like they understood what big and little were. The concept of infinity was around for centuries before either one of these two men. Surely we are not pretending that our understanding of infinity is better or more expansive than those in centuries before, are we?

Big is a relative term that simply means larger than something else. Without question there was an enormous amount that the scientists in previous centuries were ignorant of. Current atheist writers enjoy pointing out that the theologians of the Middle Ages would be simple ignoramuses today. Let’s be fair. If Galileo were suddenly transported to our current age, he too would be an ignoramus. Newton would be lost (for a bit) with relativity, particles, and black holes.

It seems that when “Big” escapes quantification and becomes a concept, then that is when it is really, really big. Again, the concept of really, really big (infinity) has been around for centuries. Our telescopes and Hubble’s only give us better pictures of big; that’s all. Infinity is no more beyond imagination and wonder than it was in 400 B.C. I too marvel at the pictures of Hubble, but I also marvel at an orchid. There are wonders that I’ve seen in my travels that take my breath away as much as “the Pillars of Creation” (http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap070218.html).

In conclusion on my first reply to the Prophets of Insignificance is that “Big” does not cause people to be unbelievers. There is nothing inherent in “Big” that causes belief or disbelief in God. Infinity has not been rediscovered. It is as unfathomable now as it was 2,500 years ago.

My second argument begins with a question. If it is true that the universe is as Richard Dawkins wrote, “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference,” then why do we care (or seem to care) that meaning or good is important?

Why do we try to find out what things mean? Why do we seek to do good? Here is the difficulty. We are products of the universe if there is no God. If the universe has no meaning, purpose, or notion of good or evil … then why do we? The brief interlude that we experience called either the human race or our individual lives are a part-and-parcel of this meaninglessness, purposelessness, and amorality.

This is a colossal problem. If we, as humans, truly have meaning, then the universe has meaning … because we are part of the universe. I’m puzzled why telescopes and microscopes are used, and the conclusion from observation is, “There is no meaning”; yet, we look at each other and conclude, “We need to seek new meaning from science, and we need to do good.”

If, on the other hand, there is no real meaning, purpose, or good, then what we are experiencing is an illusion. There is no more right or wrong for a group of atoms that form a meteor to smash into the group of atoms called Jupiter than it is for the group of atoms called my hands to strangle and “kill” the group of atoms called a baby. There is no “killing” or “death.” There is only a rearrangement of atoms and transference of energy.

I’ve always puzzled why all atheists demand good ethics; yet, why should we care in a meaningless universe. Why should I care if that set of energy called Katrina rearranged billions of atoms in that insignificant piece of cosmic dust entitled New Orleans? Nothing “good” or “bad” happened, for there is, ultimately, not good or evil, only “pitiless indifference.”

One of the main criticisms of the Bible is the “cruelty” of God. But cruelty only exists if good and bad are real; otherwise, it is no more than an inconvenience for one set of atoms compared to another set of atoms. If there is no good or bad in the universe, then all that ever occurs is an action and reaction of matter and energy … nothing else. Why pretend there is more?

Any “meaning” that we ascribe to events is illusion if there is no meaning in the universe, that is, real, true, genuine meaning. If humans experience true meaning, then the conclusion is that meaning exists in the universe, not merely among humans. Christians are constantly criticized for being inconsistent. What is fair for one is fair for all.

So, does meaning exist in the universe? Either it does or it does not. Humans are part of the universe, regardless how small they may be. We believe and act as if there is meaning and good. Either it is illusion, or it is real. Which is it? If the statement by Dawkins is true, then meaning and good are illusions. A mother is no more “good” for raising a child than another parent is “evil” for eating her child. (Aren’t there a lot of animals that eat their young? Are we not a product or result of those animals? What’s the problem if we eat our young? Swift thought it could solve Ireland’s hunger problem. Surely there isn’t a meaningful difference between the group of atoms called humans and the group of animals called non-humans … is there?)

The irony of all this baffles me. The Prophets of Insignificance have made their own arguments insignificant. Atheists will readily admit that the arguments for morality are “problematic.” That is a nice way of saying there is no good argument, no real reason for being good boys and girls. Regardless how these Prophets will give arguments for the good of all, working together, being pragmatic, whatever, they leave out something critical every time.

What they leave out is this: if there is no meaning or purpose or good in the universe, then that includes all of us boys and girls, no exceptions. All that is really happening is a rearrangement of atoms and transference of matter to energy and energy to matter. Ahh, the wonders of the conservation of matter. A person “savagely” murdering a family is no more significant than a black hole swallowing a galaxy. (Actually, the person’s act is insignificant because it is so small. If there is a “bad guy,” it’s that big, Big, BIG black hole.)

My guess is there may be a lot of repulsion for this second argument. There shouldn’t be any. Christians believe in ultimate consequences. There is good and bad. What we do now affects the souls of others. The second argument should have no affect on them. Atheists should not be repulsed either. A person who is indifferent to good and bad is only reflecting the universe of which he is a part. There is no “savagery” anywhere in the universe. There is only action and reaction.

Either there really are meaning and good, or we are deluding ourselves. If the door is cracked open … even an inch … then there is an immaterial reality. Furthermore, if humans are the only ones who have this reality, then how do we avoid the conclusion that humans are the center of the universe … not in space, but in meaning?

Without question atheists have excellent arguments that marshal our skills and abilities to respond, but one of those arguments is not the massive size of the universe. That argument is not the “pitiless indifference” of the universe. Actually, size and indifference can be excellent arguments if the atheists believe in the same consistency that they demand of Christians. The arguments for ethics are not “problematic,” but they are impossible if there is no true meaning. If there is meaning, then there is something that transcends matter and energy. Something does not come out of nothing; that includes meaning and good as well as matter and energy.