Without trying to come up with something desperate the last month or so has been rather uneventful. I wanted to ensure when and what I write about is worth your time to read and give serious thought to. In one of my regular bible study groups we recently finished the Way of the Master series, a very interesting study but I found extremely useful because I did not agree with ample portions of the material. I also had a very stimulating and possibly a seed planting conversation last night.
The Way of the Master series is designed to show us simply how to introduce people to Christ. The primary audience in the style presented by example were random people they met in various places, be it the beach, mall or sidewalk. From the beginning of the study I had reservations about how simply they presented sharing the Gospel. As the weeks went on it would build how to answer certain reservations or having on-the-spot rebuttals to what people had to say. The gist of the technique was "Do you consider yourself a good person", "Have you ever ____ (go through the Ten Commandments)", "Since you have admitted to ______, do you think you will get into heaven?" Then if appropriate present the Gospel to the person on the spot.
My initial reservations were the presentation of the Gospel in this form of evangelism was to be practiced on a street corner to get people to say a prayer and be sent on their way. I know that was not the goal, because as the leaders presented the message it was the Holy Spirit to work in them to get plugged into a Christian community after they make a commitment via the sinner's prayer. I have been to too many weeks at summer camp, weekend retreats, and choir tours to see a radical emotional change in a person's life at a powerful moment only to see them fall away spiritually within an unspecific span of time. Do I contest the validity of their faith or attempt to know if they truly are "saved" or not? No, that issue is between them and God. However, those who have prayed and had the emotional heart moving moments and then fall away are not living the Christian life as it was meant to be. I am frustrated that often the church will measure success by commitment cards or some other empirical method and not by how much the people lives are changed. I realize being able to quantify such results would be much more difficult. I wonder at times if I am so reserved about presenting the prayer of salvation because I think there is so much more than an emotional moving in the heart and a person repeating after what is lead in prayer.
I have this inclination that the idea of bringing people to Christ is so based from Romans 10:8-9 & 13, I already addressed some frustrations about how those passages seem to be frequently taken out of context in Semantics Or More. Another objection I have about the presentation of such a simplistic method of evangelism is the lack of personal care. As the weeks go on in the study you can quickly see how simply and 1-2-3 method of presentation is taught. In the recent years I think I have developed a good deal as a teacher. I am not satisfied with follow steps 1-3 to teach anything. The joy of discovering a concept is far too valuable than to hand someone a plate of Christ. Are the methods used in the study supported by scripture? Yes, one clear example is the Woman at the Well. So I cannot completely turn off their method as unscriptural or useless.
I tend to point out the Gospels as a whole as a counter example. The growing of the twelve that Jesus invested so much into shows to me that we ought to concentrate much more on discipleship. I am reminded of an analogy I heard at Hume concerning discipleship. If I were to personally evangelize to 1000 people per day it would take me 160 years to bring the world to Christ. On the other side if I spent 1 year discipling a person and the following year disciple another person, in addition to the person I discipled would disciple 1 person the following year, then the entire world would be reached in 20 years. What is more believable to actually bring a thousand people to Christ a day or discipling one person in a year?
My final objection to the methods presented was almost a constant apprehension to evangelizing to the intellect. Often it is mentioned to not let the person's objections to what may believe intellectually but continually speak to the heart and the conscience will speak for itself. Although I understand the reason for wanting to keep the conversation direct and to the point I found it profoundly unsatisfying, then on the study addressed how to reach atheists the method seemed particularly weak. Dave, one of the leaders of the study and a fellow fan of apologetics would remind me of how easy it is to get caught up discussing the particulars of creation vs evolution, the historicity of the Gospels, or the philosophy and miss the Gospels because the other topic gets so engaging. One of my prime joys of the intellectual discussions is it assists in seeing where their heart is as well as removes the smoke screen that "science" seems to pull of the majority of people I have encountered.
Enough of me providing my dissensions with the Way of the Master series, as a whole it was one of the most interesting and thought provoking bible study series I have encountered. You know how I like to discuss controversial material. The lesson plans were simple each week and in depth enough that we could have a deep conversation without being too general about an single topic. Throughout the series they were very scripture based, which is something one finds as not as often as you'd think for bible study lessons.
The most interesting part about the series is each week there would be a segment of either Ray or Kirk talking to a number of people using the methods they just taught about. I couldn't think of a better form of how to apply what was learned by actually showing us. To actually see the people's reactions and real answers on the spot more than proved the series validity. It was a huge reminder that people are not afraid to talk about their beliefs. I think that was one of the immediate results I have come away from so far. Granted I am not asking every person I encounter how they measure up to the 10 commandments but the fearlessness they showed was a true reminder how I can be more bold in my faith. What is the worst thing that could happen to invite someone to church or bible study? They say "no"...
Feb 6, 2007
Jan 17, 2007
Growing Out of Faith
While I was home I got a chance to go to church college group for a couple weeks. The group discussions we had are one of the things that I miss the most about being away from home. One of the discussions was concerning the results of a recent Barna Group poll showing the majority of young adults who attended church in their teens cease to continue church attendance in their 20's. This was a particularly interesting topic to me considering my location and environment which I can confirm the poll's results in my sphere of influence.
According to the survey 81% of teens have attended some sort of church for a period of 2 months or more. From face value that is an awesome progress report. Youth workers of today are reaching the future generation. Too bad the study didn't just provide some encouraging information that we can quantitatively see that we are making a difference. The survey also reports 61% of now twenty-somethings who were engaged in church are now disengaged. Even more, only 20% of the twenty-somethings polled have maintained their level of spiritual activity consistent with their high school days.
Before I get too far on the statistics I find it necessary to point out that these results were found over the course of sample surveys for the last 5 years interviewing more than 22,000 adults, 3500 twenty-somethings, and 2100 teens. I know statistics can be manipulated to express anyone's agenda, I think the most important thing we can consider for ourselves when questioning the data is, "How true is this around those I know?” I know in my situation it is seems right on par. I can't tell you how many people I have encountered in my experiences that had once been active in church activities in their youth, some even being leaders in the youth groups, but now do not even attend chapel services at all. The reasons are various, be it faith is not something they want the military to dip their hands into or church is something they do at home.
I don't expect to claim there is a clear formula as to why the young adults of today stop attending church; there are too many variables to account for. What can be addressed are issues or methods that might have better success at keeping people active in the church. I also wish to make clear that by no means does one attending church show or define their devoutness to the faith. I believe it is so important to be active in a Christian community of some sort for two reasons: teamwork at any task is more effective and Christianity is not meant to be practiced in isolation. Hopefully, the goal of active Christians is to introduce people to Christ. This is a very trying task and is much more difficult to do so without a support structure or encouragement that ought to come from a church.
I think one of the most contributing factors as to why there is such a dip in church attendance is how teens are prepared spiritually as adults. For some reason in the recent 40 years of history, so little is expected of the 18-24 age group that most don't bother to develop themselves. I understand the importance of further education, but remember that for the majority of civilizations people were fully fledged adults by 18 if not earlier. Today, as I hold similar bias, an 18 year old is barely getting started with life. I know of more than a couple people that I have wondered "Did your mommy know you're in the Army?"
I think one of the first steps that ought to be taken is to empower the young adults. If today's young adults realized what they are capable of great things will happen. It would not be a stretch to say the only thing society expects from the 18-24 age range is to continue education or start a career. Not bad expectations but with it comes the impression that they are not expected to accomplish anything grand until they are complete in the final form of education. With such an expectation the majority of the nation's young adults express themselves accordingly. I think that is one of the main reasons why there is so much carefree drunkenness and promiscuity. This suggestion is more to combat the overall culture war, not so much to keep the pews filled.
Consider the factors that dramatically change upon entering the young adult stage. Most people leave home, be it college, just moving out, military, Peace Corps or some other adventure. Just from that point there are huge changes that have great influence as to which direction a person might choose to live. Leaving high school is huge in itself. Education is likely to continue, however, the method of hand-holding and minute-by-minute structure is gone. Leaving home reduces the influence parents have by proximity. The sphere of friends is also likely to change due to distance. For those that did attend church in their teens, they are no longer in the high school group. That looks to be if not all almost all the support structures that had existed in the young person's life for the previous years of development.
Venturing into the new world with so much freedom most young people are not prepared for so much change so radically when the only thing that is familiar is themselves. Is it easier to navigate from high school student to adult with or without a map and a start point? Those who leave home and don't know who they are do just that. This is why I think it is so important high schoolers define who they are when the support exists so they don't get defined by the pressures around them when those pressures outweigh their support structure. I know for myself one of the main reasons I have been able to hold my ground is because I know who I am and who I want to be. I knew this before I entered the military, seeing so many people who don't know who they are around me is a regular recipe for disaster.
Once the youth of today know who and what they are I think the next step is to answer their questions. Sadly, the church has been failing miserably to answer their questions. I don't think the lack of answers is limited to the youth, other polls I have seen are showing an overall decrease in church attendance in all age groups. The most logical conclusion why such a large demographic of people would cease attendance is that they don't see a relevance to continue attending. Life is a busy thing so if time will be invested in something like church it had better be worth it, if not why waste their time? How many of us have attended church for a decent period of time and been unsatisfied or unaffected by the experience?
How many topics are there that the culture talks about almost constantly but the church remains silent? Granted some churches will make a stance but even fewer will explain why. Why does the Bible speak against premarital sex and homosexuality? What does it mean by sexual immorality? Is evolution true? Is the Bible reliable? Is there Truth? How do we know what is right and wrong? These are just a few of the many that either took years of studying to find the answer or took years for the answer to come to me. I know that for some of the most meaningful answers it is more than the concept that must be conveyed but a heart ready to accept the answer. Answers discovered always have more meaning than answers explained. That does not mean those of us who know the answers can't help guide those searching in the right direction.
I am more than aware a Sunday morning sermon can only cover so much to reach so many people, the real change happens in small groups. I suppose this will count as a shout out to that every mature Christian should lead some kind of small group. There is always the difficulty of getting the skeptical to invest even more time than they already do in something as personal as a small group can be. The nice thing about a church service, it is easy to get lost. I can attend church for years without ever opening up to someone; in fact I did it for years. There is the common small talk but that is on the similar level of "how are you doing?" and we all know what that really means. For some the impersonal side of the corporate church is all they know. There is a general fear in our culture to be real. The most effective thing about small groups is the personal atmosphere present.
According to the survey 81% of teens have attended some sort of church for a period of 2 months or more. From face value that is an awesome progress report. Youth workers of today are reaching the future generation. Too bad the study didn't just provide some encouraging information that we can quantitatively see that we are making a difference. The survey also reports 61% of now twenty-somethings who were engaged in church are now disengaged. Even more, only 20% of the twenty-somethings polled have maintained their level of spiritual activity consistent with their high school days.
Before I get too far on the statistics I find it necessary to point out that these results were found over the course of sample surveys for the last 5 years interviewing more than 22,000 adults, 3500 twenty-somethings, and 2100 teens. I know statistics can be manipulated to express anyone's agenda, I think the most important thing we can consider for ourselves when questioning the data is, "How true is this around those I know?” I know in my situation it is seems right on par. I can't tell you how many people I have encountered in my experiences that had once been active in church activities in their youth, some even being leaders in the youth groups, but now do not even attend chapel services at all. The reasons are various, be it faith is not something they want the military to dip their hands into or church is something they do at home.
I don't expect to claim there is a clear formula as to why the young adults of today stop attending church; there are too many variables to account for. What can be addressed are issues or methods that might have better success at keeping people active in the church. I also wish to make clear that by no means does one attending church show or define their devoutness to the faith. I believe it is so important to be active in a Christian community of some sort for two reasons: teamwork at any task is more effective and Christianity is not meant to be practiced in isolation. Hopefully, the goal of active Christians is to introduce people to Christ. This is a very trying task and is much more difficult to do so without a support structure or encouragement that ought to come from a church.
I think one of the most contributing factors as to why there is such a dip in church attendance is how teens are prepared spiritually as adults. For some reason in the recent 40 years of history, so little is expected of the 18-24 age group that most don't bother to develop themselves. I understand the importance of further education, but remember that for the majority of civilizations people were fully fledged adults by 18 if not earlier. Today, as I hold similar bias, an 18 year old is barely getting started with life. I know of more than a couple people that I have wondered "Did your mommy know you're in the Army?"
I think one of the first steps that ought to be taken is to empower the young adults. If today's young adults realized what they are capable of great things will happen. It would not be a stretch to say the only thing society expects from the 18-24 age range is to continue education or start a career. Not bad expectations but with it comes the impression that they are not expected to accomplish anything grand until they are complete in the final form of education. With such an expectation the majority of the nation's young adults express themselves accordingly. I think that is one of the main reasons why there is so much carefree drunkenness and promiscuity. This suggestion is more to combat the overall culture war, not so much to keep the pews filled.
Consider the factors that dramatically change upon entering the young adult stage. Most people leave home, be it college, just moving out, military, Peace Corps or some other adventure. Just from that point there are huge changes that have great influence as to which direction a person might choose to live. Leaving high school is huge in itself. Education is likely to continue, however, the method of hand-holding and minute-by-minute structure is gone. Leaving home reduces the influence parents have by proximity. The sphere of friends is also likely to change due to distance. For those that did attend church in their teens, they are no longer in the high school group. That looks to be if not all almost all the support structures that had existed in the young person's life for the previous years of development.
Venturing into the new world with so much freedom most young people are not prepared for so much change so radically when the only thing that is familiar is themselves. Is it easier to navigate from high school student to adult with or without a map and a start point? Those who leave home and don't know who they are do just that. This is why I think it is so important high schoolers define who they are when the support exists so they don't get defined by the pressures around them when those pressures outweigh their support structure. I know for myself one of the main reasons I have been able to hold my ground is because I know who I am and who I want to be. I knew this before I entered the military, seeing so many people who don't know who they are around me is a regular recipe for disaster.
Once the youth of today know who and what they are I think the next step is to answer their questions. Sadly, the church has been failing miserably to answer their questions. I don't think the lack of answers is limited to the youth, other polls I have seen are showing an overall decrease in church attendance in all age groups. The most logical conclusion why such a large demographic of people would cease attendance is that they don't see a relevance to continue attending. Life is a busy thing so if time will be invested in something like church it had better be worth it, if not why waste their time? How many of us have attended church for a decent period of time and been unsatisfied or unaffected by the experience?
How many topics are there that the culture talks about almost constantly but the church remains silent? Granted some churches will make a stance but even fewer will explain why. Why does the Bible speak against premarital sex and homosexuality? What does it mean by sexual immorality? Is evolution true? Is the Bible reliable? Is there Truth? How do we know what is right and wrong? These are just a few of the many that either took years of studying to find the answer or took years for the answer to come to me. I know that for some of the most meaningful answers it is more than the concept that must be conveyed but a heart ready to accept the answer. Answers discovered always have more meaning than answers explained. That does not mean those of us who know the answers can't help guide those searching in the right direction.
I am more than aware a Sunday morning sermon can only cover so much to reach so many people, the real change happens in small groups. I suppose this will count as a shout out to that every mature Christian should lead some kind of small group. There is always the difficulty of getting the skeptical to invest even more time than they already do in something as personal as a small group can be. The nice thing about a church service, it is easy to get lost. I can attend church for years without ever opening up to someone; in fact I did it for years. There is the common small talk but that is on the similar level of "how are you doing?" and we all know what that really means. For some the impersonal side of the corporate church is all they know. There is a general fear in our culture to be real. The most effective thing about small groups is the personal atmosphere present.
Jan 5, 2007
What is Truth?
I was laying awake pretty much the whole night from the jet lag cause I just got back to Germany in the recent 24 hours. Needless to say my transition to the time is less than smooth. While I was thinking in my bed amidst uncomfortable silence I gathered thoughts about life and its meaning. Well, not so much the meaning of life for me, I settled was a while ago. However, the significance of Truth in this world, I did come to some interesting thoughts. How do I know Truth exists? How can Truth be known?
I know there is a Truth for two primary reasons. First, I am aware of this thing we call conscience; there is a part of us that knows how things should be. The knowledge of what the world should and ought to be like that I believe to be present in all people is very similar at the most fundamental stages. Typically as we mature our ideas of how things should and should not be gets tainted by our own selfishness and personal interests. While some call that growing up, I think that is us realizing who we are. Upon learning who we are we all choose to live for ourselves or for someone/something else. Secondly, the mere existence of the attitudes of "should" or "should not" instantly implies that there is right and wrong. I'll explain that more in the following paragraphs. The biblical reason for knowing Truth exists is from Romans 1:18-20, although it does not say Truth in its exact words but it describes it quiet clearly.
Since I made such a bold pronunciation that there is Truth I should probably attempt to explain how it can be known. The first point that comes to mind I classify as common sense. Why would there be Truth that cannot be known? After all if there is Truth then there must be a Truth Giver (God), and what is the purpose of having something that cannot be known or utilized? The only option would be a sort of cynical or twisted Truth Giver that likes to treat us like rats running through the maze of life. Good thing I don't believe in such a God that treats the creations like that. Coming to such conclusions about God is not even needed by Scripture. In modern philosophy a similar deduction is known as the Teleological argument, it too points to a caring personal God independently of any religious bias.
The first question I pose to people whom claim to deny Truth is, "How do you tell right from wrong?" The answer is usually somewhere between "I decide" or "based on what society holds to be right or wrong", although many people disguise their explanations in fancier terms I have yet to encounter a relativist that has an answer that cannot be answered by the following points. The only other answer to "what is right and wrong?" that people might claim is there is no such thing.
For those who claim to hold to their own truth the mere ownership proves their definition to be false. By definition, truth is independent of what it is applied to. In English, if I hold to my own personal truth then my truth has no authority over anything or anyone including myself. The truth I might pronounce can only apply to what I control, which is nothing. Since I can change my own truth then I don't even abide by my own reality. Aside from a personal truth holding no authority, it is very easily false. I can claim it is my truth that the earth is not round. However, there are a number of scientific methods that can prove my truth to be false. One can claim anything as truth, whether it can be verified as true is completely different.
For those who claim their truth to come from society, which very few actually do, all one needs is history. What society values changes as time passes. Truth is static, it does not change. This is mostly true of any developed nation from which one would most likely encounter people in such a mind set. For the United States the Dred Scott case was not one of the most proud moments in modern history. For the Supreme Court to pronounce an African American a non-person is rather outrageous in today's worldview. However, it is rather common in today's worldview to pronounce an unborn child a non-person; a view which taken back 100 years ago would be seen to be just as absurd as we see Mr. Scott’s judgment. Aside from a society's inconsistency in what is right and wrong, the authority might apply only to members of the specific society. For example, the ethnic cleansing between the Hutus and Tutsies in Rwanda shows that what is acceptable to one society is not necessarily acceptable to another. This might be an extreme example, but it is the extreme examples that such logical flaws which also scream the loudest.
For those who are willing to claim there is no such thing as right or wrong, they are either in denial or simply trying to take the logical upper hand by throwing a curve ball. If they are in denial simply violate some commonly held principles to prove to them that they do indeed believe in right or wrong. Suppose Bob pronounces there is no right or wrong, I therefore proceed to take his TV, unplug it from the wall and load it into my vehicle. I continue this process until Bob makes an objection, which unless he has sworn off personal property; he will do at some point. When questioned what I am doing I reply that I am taking his stuff. The natural reaction will be one of passionate objection, Bob will likely then claim that is not right! Point proven, now I must unload Bob's possessions from my car. In the event that he has sworn off personal property figure out something that he holds dear and violate it. It is upon violation of our rights and values people are most clear of what we do value and believe.
I know there is a Truth for two primary reasons. First, I am aware of this thing we call conscience; there is a part of us that knows how things should be. The knowledge of what the world should and ought to be like that I believe to be present in all people is very similar at the most fundamental stages. Typically as we mature our ideas of how things should and should not be gets tainted by our own selfishness and personal interests. While some call that growing up, I think that is us realizing who we are. Upon learning who we are we all choose to live for ourselves or for someone/something else. Secondly, the mere existence of the attitudes of "should" or "should not" instantly implies that there is right and wrong. I'll explain that more in the following paragraphs. The biblical reason for knowing Truth exists is from Romans 1:18-20, although it does not say Truth in its exact words but it describes it quiet clearly.
Since I made such a bold pronunciation that there is Truth I should probably attempt to explain how it can be known. The first point that comes to mind I classify as common sense. Why would there be Truth that cannot be known? After all if there is Truth then there must be a Truth Giver (God), and what is the purpose of having something that cannot be known or utilized? The only option would be a sort of cynical or twisted Truth Giver that likes to treat us like rats running through the maze of life. Good thing I don't believe in such a God that treats the creations like that. Coming to such conclusions about God is not even needed by Scripture. In modern philosophy a similar deduction is known as the Teleological argument, it too points to a caring personal God independently of any religious bias.
The first question I pose to people whom claim to deny Truth is, "How do you tell right from wrong?" The answer is usually somewhere between "I decide" or "based on what society holds to be right or wrong", although many people disguise their explanations in fancier terms I have yet to encounter a relativist that has an answer that cannot be answered by the following points. The only other answer to "what is right and wrong?" that people might claim is there is no such thing.
For those who claim to hold to their own truth the mere ownership proves their definition to be false. By definition, truth is independent of what it is applied to. In English, if I hold to my own personal truth then my truth has no authority over anything or anyone including myself. The truth I might pronounce can only apply to what I control, which is nothing. Since I can change my own truth then I don't even abide by my own reality. Aside from a personal truth holding no authority, it is very easily false. I can claim it is my truth that the earth is not round. However, there are a number of scientific methods that can prove my truth to be false. One can claim anything as truth, whether it can be verified as true is completely different.
For those who claim their truth to come from society, which very few actually do, all one needs is history. What society values changes as time passes. Truth is static, it does not change. This is mostly true of any developed nation from which one would most likely encounter people in such a mind set. For the United States the Dred Scott case was not one of the most proud moments in modern history. For the Supreme Court to pronounce an African American a non-person is rather outrageous in today's worldview. However, it is rather common in today's worldview to pronounce an unborn child a non-person; a view which taken back 100 years ago would be seen to be just as absurd as we see Mr. Scott’s judgment. Aside from a society's inconsistency in what is right and wrong, the authority might apply only to members of the specific society. For example, the ethnic cleansing between the Hutus and Tutsies in Rwanda shows that what is acceptable to one society is not necessarily acceptable to another. This might be an extreme example, but it is the extreme examples that such logical flaws which also scream the loudest.
For those who are willing to claim there is no such thing as right or wrong, they are either in denial or simply trying to take the logical upper hand by throwing a curve ball. If they are in denial simply violate some commonly held principles to prove to them that they do indeed believe in right or wrong. Suppose Bob pronounces there is no right or wrong, I therefore proceed to take his TV, unplug it from the wall and load it into my vehicle. I continue this process until Bob makes an objection, which unless he has sworn off personal property; he will do at some point. When questioned what I am doing I reply that I am taking his stuff. The natural reaction will be one of passionate objection, Bob will likely then claim that is not right! Point proven, now I must unload Bob's possessions from my car. In the event that he has sworn off personal property figure out something that he holds dear and violate it. It is upon violation of our rights and values people are most clear of what we do value and believe.
Dec 4, 2006
Back To Basics pt. I - Why Do I Beleive
I was lying in bed last night restless from thought; I was pondering what I should write about. My recent writings based on magazine articles have left feeling like I have been getting unattached and rather impersonal. I do enjoy doing such writing, but I want to remember my primary reason for writing. To share what God has been teaching me. I never laid out down much of a foundation of the whats and whys of my beliefs.
Why do I believe? A rather unspecific question in itself. I recall the first time I was ever asked that. I was at Hume my sophomore year. I don't know why I was asked or for what purpose but I was asked, "Why do I believe in Christ?" The best answer I could come up with on the spot was, "because I know I am sinful and I know I need forgiveness." I am convinced if anyone is honest with themselves they can come to the same conclusion. That moment was almost six years ago, upon further analysis there is not a more simplistic answer I think to answer the same question.
One of my initial objectives for this topic was to try to prevent people from foolishly saying I am a Christian "because that is what I was raised with". I have no doubt my upbringing a great deal to do with who I am but why I am the way I chose, is because that is what I want. I would say until my junior or senior year, when people asked how long I had been a Christian I would usually refer to a prayer I said at the dinner table when I was four. Not that I disregard that moment, after all I still remember it today, but I don't think that was any momentous turning point in my life at that point. When people ask me today when I became a Christian it was at Hume my freshmen year. I was in a kayak watching some of friends getting baptized. There was something different about that moment that I think I was finally honest with myself with what it meant to be a Christian. I knew all through jr. high I was holding back a little bit, whether I was actually "saved" from the dinner table prayer I said so many years ago I don't know, nor have put much thought into it. Guessing over past states of faith like that seems rather frivolous. I suppose the best way to phrase what happened at Hume was I realized God wanted me, personally.
Years following my personal spiritual development have lead to a much grander picture of why I believe. I think it was that same year at Hume I was introduced to apologetics. The main pursuit of apologetics is to reconcile reason with faith. Not to say that faith is contrary to reason, but generations of "enlightenment" philosophy and science has hailed faith to be separate if not incompatible from reason and logic. I personally love apologetics so much because I am able to know why I believe through logic which reinforces what I know to be true in my heart. In addition to apologetics my thirst for understanding has lead me to study just about any secular topic that might impact our faith. Be it the origins of the universe in understanding the Genesis creation or microbiology to show how complex we were made from God's breath. 1 Peter 3:8-17 has been my motto to live by. From where I stand now, I know my faith to be true by: personal experience, philosophy, history, biology, chemistry, and psychology. The list of olgy's is growing and getting more in depth with every book I read.
I recall a tidbit I heard on the radio some years ago. I think it was Chuck Colson speaking. He said something along the lines that even if he chose to live a completely selfish life he would still arrive at the conclusion to be a Christian. He would arrive there simply by logically comparing the pro's and con's of what God asks of us in return for what we get. The offer God has presented to us is enough that through reason we can know his existence, our purpose and who God is. The funny thing is so popular today in any discussion of Christianity and logic mixing the common perception is that one must sacrifice some logic for some faith or vice versa. The easiest response to why so many highly educated people proclaim to deny God has come to light on several occasions that the primary reason for disbelief is desire. A common mindset, the more independent one strives to be, the more alien it seems to spend it selflessly living for God. I suppose from the military stand point we can appreciate that a little bit. Freedom we had as civilians is a weak comparison to the freedom from sin. One of the major apparent differences is every person knows when they are in the military and most people are blind or in denial that they are chained by sin.
I know anyone can read the same books I have read and see where I am coming from to see how I know the empirical facts about Christianity are true. The most important part about why I believe is based on my personal experience with God. This is where many people tend to claim that they are spiritual and sense God in and around them. Often it is more of a pantheistic god in nature or spirit of earth mixed with an idea of God. I cannot discount those claims as legitimate experiences except by what they are lead to do or how it guides them, I might be able to point out that the "spirit" is certainly not the God of the Bible. I say this so there is no confusion when I claim I have heard God, that it is not muddled as my unique form of spirituality that speaks to me in my own little world. I have found with my own experiences and examples of scripture that when God speaks to someone it will radically shape them.
I am convinced that God has spoken to me first because what he told me was not what I wanted to hear but consistent with what I should do and second because it was such a direct answer to a present situation. I remember when I contemplating being called into the Army, I was waiting for "the call". At that point I looked into scripture to see what kind of examples there were of the Holy Spirit's leading. Much to my surprise the instances in which individuals were called by the Holy Spirit was in relation to an immediate and specific event. As influential as those two instances in my life were presently they are reference points. When I draw near to the spirit it is a daily meeting that I know he is near.
Why do I believe? A rather unspecific question in itself. I recall the first time I was ever asked that. I was at Hume my sophomore year. I don't know why I was asked or for what purpose but I was asked, "Why do I believe in Christ?" The best answer I could come up with on the spot was, "because I know I am sinful and I know I need forgiveness." I am convinced if anyone is honest with themselves they can come to the same conclusion. That moment was almost six years ago, upon further analysis there is not a more simplistic answer I think to answer the same question.
One of my initial objectives for this topic was to try to prevent people from foolishly saying I am a Christian "because that is what I was raised with". I have no doubt my upbringing a great deal to do with who I am but why I am the way I chose, is because that is what I want. I would say until my junior or senior year, when people asked how long I had been a Christian I would usually refer to a prayer I said at the dinner table when I was four. Not that I disregard that moment, after all I still remember it today, but I don't think that was any momentous turning point in my life at that point. When people ask me today when I became a Christian it was at Hume my freshmen year. I was in a kayak watching some of friends getting baptized. There was something different about that moment that I think I was finally honest with myself with what it meant to be a Christian. I knew all through jr. high I was holding back a little bit, whether I was actually "saved" from the dinner table prayer I said so many years ago I don't know, nor have put much thought into it. Guessing over past states of faith like that seems rather frivolous. I suppose the best way to phrase what happened at Hume was I realized God wanted me, personally.
Years following my personal spiritual development have lead to a much grander picture of why I believe. I think it was that same year at Hume I was introduced to apologetics. The main pursuit of apologetics is to reconcile reason with faith. Not to say that faith is contrary to reason, but generations of "enlightenment" philosophy and science has hailed faith to be separate if not incompatible from reason and logic. I personally love apologetics so much because I am able to know why I believe through logic which reinforces what I know to be true in my heart. In addition to apologetics my thirst for understanding has lead me to study just about any secular topic that might impact our faith. Be it the origins of the universe in understanding the Genesis creation or microbiology to show how complex we were made from God's breath. 1 Peter 3:8-17 has been my motto to live by. From where I stand now, I know my faith to be true by: personal experience, philosophy, history, biology, chemistry, and psychology. The list of olgy's is growing and getting more in depth with every book I read.
I recall a tidbit I heard on the radio some years ago. I think it was Chuck Colson speaking. He said something along the lines that even if he chose to live a completely selfish life he would still arrive at the conclusion to be a Christian. He would arrive there simply by logically comparing the pro's and con's of what God asks of us in return for what we get. The offer God has presented to us is enough that through reason we can know his existence, our purpose and who God is. The funny thing is so popular today in any discussion of Christianity and logic mixing the common perception is that one must sacrifice some logic for some faith or vice versa. The easiest response to why so many highly educated people proclaim to deny God has come to light on several occasions that the primary reason for disbelief is desire. A common mindset, the more independent one strives to be, the more alien it seems to spend it selflessly living for God. I suppose from the military stand point we can appreciate that a little bit. Freedom we had as civilians is a weak comparison to the freedom from sin. One of the major apparent differences is every person knows when they are in the military and most people are blind or in denial that they are chained by sin.
I know anyone can read the same books I have read and see where I am coming from to see how I know the empirical facts about Christianity are true. The most important part about why I believe is based on my personal experience with God. This is where many people tend to claim that they are spiritual and sense God in and around them. Often it is more of a pantheistic god in nature or spirit of earth mixed with an idea of God. I cannot discount those claims as legitimate experiences except by what they are lead to do or how it guides them, I might be able to point out that the "spirit" is certainly not the God of the Bible. I say this so there is no confusion when I claim I have heard God, that it is not muddled as my unique form of spirituality that speaks to me in my own little world. I have found with my own experiences and examples of scripture that when God speaks to someone it will radically shape them.
I am convinced that God has spoken to me first because what he told me was not what I wanted to hear but consistent with what I should do and second because it was such a direct answer to a present situation. I remember when I contemplating being called into the Army, I was waiting for "the call". At that point I looked into scripture to see what kind of examples there were of the Holy Spirit's leading. Much to my surprise the instances in which individuals were called by the Holy Spirit was in relation to an immediate and specific event. As influential as those two instances in my life were presently they are reference points. When I draw near to the spirit it is a daily meeting that I know he is near.
Nov 29, 2006
My Turn: Intelligent Design vs. Evolution on Time
As I noted in War has been declared Time ran a cover story titled "God vs. Science". Keeping to my word, this is my two cents. Much to my delight it actually contained a short debate between Francis Collins and Richard Dawkins. Richard Dawkins is perhaps one of the foremost speakers in the evolutionist arena. The person representing the intelligent design was Francis Collins. I am not too familiar with any of his writings, but his street credit was being the head of the Human Genome Project, which completed mapping the human genome (DNA) in 2000. As a whole, I found the article an awesome opportunity to represent intelligent design at its finest but was left lacking and at some points greatly disappointed.
I found it interesting that Richard Dawkins primary claim to fame was his most recent book, The God Delusion. In addition to this piece, Daniel Dennet and Sam Harris, contributors in Wired's cover story were also mentioned. The scary part about their writings, they apparently are very popular, being noted as God Delusion has been on NY Time's Best Selling list currently at no. 8. Aside from Darwin's Black Box, I cannot recall when an intelligent design piece had received so much attention.
I took the opportunity to compare and contrast the articles between Time and Wired (especially since they were released the same month). I was able to gather some of the strategy the atheists are using. For instance, in the Wired article the New Atheists clearly express that they believe the faith in any kind of religion to be evil (the idea was initially put forth by Dawkins); however, no such condemnation is even hinted to in his debate with Dr. Collins. The overall tone Dawkins approaches Dr. Collins with throughout the article is rather friendly and respectful, far from what he proclaims should be the logical response to people who believe in God. Two-faced? Perhaps, I think he is simply smart enough not to be honest about his true beliefs because he knows he would gain more enemies than support to make such a claim. I believe Dawkins is using the same tactics as the earliest "scientists" that initially pulled people away from creationism.
For the sake of modern history, let's start in 1795 with James Hutton's Theory of the Earth. He suggested the way things are now has been the way things have always been. Then in 1830 Sir Charles Lyell wrote Principles of Geology in which he invents the geologic column. The geologic column, although never to be found anywhere on Earth suggested the age of the Earth to be more than 6000 years old as believed by most based on scripture. In 1859 Charles Darwin wrote The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection Or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle For Life (yes this is the real title in its entirety), he observes the variation within the Galapagos finches and then concludes all life to be related to one another. Then in the 1860's Earnst Haekel created charts of similar embryology (now known as homology) to suggest that all creatures during development look the same and thus there is no difference in their makeup with ours. Despite being found guilty for fraud and confessing the charts were false in 1875, his theory continues to be promulgated in biology books as fact.
Each person contributed a little more to the now present theory of evolution. It all had to start with doubting what was believed to be true and denying scripture. Although they are hailed as scientists, they did not prove anything. Hutton's ideas encouraged people to doubt the biblical timeline. Lyell's ideas encouraged people to doubt the age of the earth. Darwin's ideas encouraged people to deny creation. Once the foundations of who we are were unknown, man anxiously made himself god. The baby steps in logic brought people from belief to unbelief to denial. This is how Satan operates with any sin. It starts out being rather harmless and unbenunced to us or those around us and it builds. It continues to build until we are right where he wants us.
Back to the article, after the resume and recent success from the evolutionists to summarize who is speaking for "science", to introduce the hard lining intelligent designers TIME says this, "Dawkins and his army have a swarm of articulate theological opponents, of course. But the most ardent of these don't really care very much about science". I certainly feel like my beliefs were given credit as legitimate science... Perhaps it was not meant that way, but the article speaks for itself. At this point in the article the reference to science is in terms of strides in medical treatment, such as brain scans and MRI's. Not a problem, I would be hard pressed to find a bible-believing Christian to proclaim medical treatment as sinful.
Upon introducing the contender for Intelligent Design, he is noted as a "foremost of those arguing common ground" in the midst of the Science vs. God debate. If Time was looking for a good debate that might actually show the sides, they should have picked someone else. Richard Dawkins is in no terms a moderate in his atheism; he is the complete front runner of the growing religion. Francis Collins by description and his explanation in belief is a middle of the road intelligent design proponent. That is, he does not deny they age of the universe currently set around 14 billion years old & he does not deny evolutionary theory. Although far more common in the intelligent design camp, it is a weaker position from the start. To have a real debate of interest would be between a creationist and Richard Dawkins; actually it would only be fair. Take the hardliner from each team and then debate, not the Goliath from the atheists and Jesse's middle son from the intelligent designers. The debate's outcome was decided before it could begin, only how badly intelligent design would be beaten was up for grabs.
TIME: Professor Dawkins, if one truly understands science, is God then a delusion, as your book title suggests?
TIME: Dr. Collins, you believe that science is compatible with Christian faith.
The first question, worded differently to each is essentially "can science prove God's existence if God does exist?" Dawkins claims that it can and that is the primary objective of science. Collins claims God is bigger than the natural world and thus science cannot prove or disprove God's existence. Dawkins wins in this situation, he takes the "a crusader for answers" approach, people want answers and he makes a promise to search for an answer. Collins went wrong by playing into the definition Dawkins presupposed by his answer. Science is limited to natural causes. The definition of empirical science is that which is observable and repeatable. Anything more than what is observable and repeatable is not pure science. It is religion and faith more than Christianity. By not defining what is meant by "science", Collins comes across as not having an answer and plays right into the "religion" side and Dawkins is firmly planted as "science's" spokesman. To go oppose "science is against reason" is logical suicide. Evolutionary theory requires far more faith in unknown variables. It places its faith in undiscovered laws and molecules rather than faith needed to believe the Bible is the real Word of God.
TIME: Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvard paleontologist, famously argued that religion and science can coexist, because they occupy separate, airtight boxes. You both seem to disagree.
The next question being setup by a claim of a late anthropologist and evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould asked if religion and science could successfully coexist because science and religion are in two different areas of thought. Dawkins was right, that position was suggested "simply to win middle-of-the-road religious people to the science camp." Dawkins continued claiming miracles completely defy science. Collins responded that there is no differentiation or separation between science and religion. While Collins might appear to take the higher road he does essentially skirt the issue. Once again if he defined science to the definition of what it is, his response would have been sufficient. My first thought to Dawkins claim that miracles contradict or defy science is "yea... that's what makes them miracles because there is no explanation science can offer". Miracles cannot exist if there is nothing more than natural causes, I dive deeper into this in When you believe in Miracles.
TIME: Professor Dawkins, you think Darwin's theory of evolution does more than simply contradict the Genesis story.
This is the ultimate death of intelligent design getting any points in the debate. Dawkins masterfully plays the "millions of years" card that can adequately explain the variation in the world today. Collins responds, "I don't see that Professor Dawkins' basic account of evolution is incompatible with God's having designed it." Instead of suggesting irreducible complexity (working systems that could not have formed or been functional without all parts present), which is the entire point in Darwin's Black Box; that is essentially a response to Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker. Dawkins did attempt to answer Dr. Behe; Dr Behe replied that such examples were not answers to the problems posed. There has been no further answer from science or atheists to address irreducibly complex systems. Worse, Collins by attempting to appease people who believe in evolution that Christian faith is compatible with evolutionary beliefs. If one wants to take scripture as the Word of God, I address that in Can Christians believe in Evolution? Collins undermines the Bible's authority and waters down the stance of creationists.
TIME: When would this have occurred?
It continues to get worse for the ID community. Collins suggests God activating evolution as a valid theory, this is like watching the goat being set out for the T-Rex in Jurassic Park... and the T-Rex in the debate devours the goat just the same. Dawkins calls out Collins that it doesn't make sense for a God to design a system that would take 14 billion years to get to a stage that we could start sinning and needing redemption. This is precisely why there cannot be a middle ground between evolution and the Genesis creation account. One of the two events happened. Sadly Collins attempts to defend his position that one cannot reason like God, while I do agree with that statement, in the context it was used it offers his theory no redemption.
TIME: Both your books suggest that if the universal constants, the six or more characteristics of our universe, had varied at all, it would have made life impossible. Dr. Collins, can you provide an example?
Although Collins does give a good example, the gravitational constant being so precise that "if it were off by one part in a hundred million million, then the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang would not have occurred in the fashion that was necessary for life to occur." Dawkins finally starts to suggest the naturalistic explanations through constants that narrow vastly improbable odds and multiple universes that Collins was able to pounce on because there is no scientific evidence for such ideas. In addition, Collins suggests Occam's razor, Occam's razor suggests the most simple and straightforward answer makes most sense.
At this point in the debate the two engage in some direct back and forth dialogue. Dawkins claims that the idea of God is just as improbable as chance. Collins responds that God does not need explanations, he is the explanation. Dawkins fires back attacking the answers God provides to be the duty of scientists to discover. Collins responds with the lacking of evidence with current ideas to counter fine tuning and then requests that people allow God as a possibility. They continue going back and forth until Dawkins belittles God by suggesting that God could be anything from God of Martians, inhabitants of Alpha Centuri or Yahweh.
TIME: The Book of Genesis has led many conservative Protestants to oppose evolution and some to insist that the earth is only 6,000 years old.
Here Collins gets a chance to offer creationists a little credit in the scientific arena. Instead Collins shoots down the Genesis account because "is inconsistent, frankly, with our knowledge of the universe's age or of how living organisms are related to each other". In this sentence Collins conceded that he believes the earth is billions of years and that he believes evolution to be true. To make it worse he cites St. Augustine's contentions that Genesis is difficult to understand if it is taken literally. The only problem with that suggestion is that science has advanced plenty far enough to explain what science in Augustine's day could not. Seeing the agreement and weakness in Collins scientific and religious stance Dawkins gets into friendly banter about the disagreement between old earth intelligent design advocates and young earth creationists. Dawkins goes as far as suggesting that creationists be dismissed altogether.
TIME: Dr. Collins, the Resurrection is an essential argument of Christian faith, but doesn't it, along with the virgin birth and lesser miracles, fatally undermine the scientific method, which depends on the constancy of natural laws?
TIME: Doesn't the very notion of miracles throw off science?
Collins appropriately applies that God is not bound by nature so he could defy natural laws when he chooses. Collins goes further to explain his belief in science and faith can intertwine, especially in the investigation of miracles. Dawkins, knowing the possibility of miracles is the very embodiment of everything he is against, proclaims that to refer anything to a miracle is a cop-out and undermines as well as invalidates any possibility of scientific credibility. To quote him "Once you buy into the position of faith, then suddenly you find yourself losing all of your natural skepticism and your scientific--really scientific--credibility." According to Dawkins anyone who prescribes the possibility of anything beyond nature, they have lost all scientific credibility. Despite any appearance of respectfulness he had or even apparent friendliness he had towards Collins, his most blunt statement confirms that he has no scientific respect and Collins has no credibility as a scientist. A fine example of the Atheist’s tactics, discredit possible competition before they are allowed to come to the table to talk.
TIME: Dr. Collins, you have described humanity's moral sense not only as a gift from God but as a signpost that he exists.
Sensing that TIME does not share similar conclusions about moral behavior, Collins refers to sociobiology or evolutionary psychology as current social studies seeking to explain good behavior amidst evolutionary origins. Collins successfully points out that since behavior applies to individuals, to be moral, selfless or altruistic, it is often not beneficial to behave in such a way thus, the concept of good must have come from something more which ought to be attributed to God. Dawkins attempts to explain the value people have for good behavior to be remnants of prehistoric life. Since the early civilizations lived in close proximity to extended families and it is natural to want to preserve genetics, "do-gooding" is based in the drive to help ourselves by helping those that share our genes around us. Dawkins uses this as an acceptable reason to explain human behavior by evolutionary benefit. What he didn't mention is that he also believes behavior such as rape, murder, theft, and other forms of immorality must have had some social benefit because the behavior continues to exist today. This is a prime example of being stuck between a rock and a hard place for Dawkins. On one hand, there is pain in world, aspects people will classify as evil. If evolution is the only cause available, because a person is nothing more than interacting chemicals reacting with one another, then for even the most disgusting behavior there must be an evolutionary benefit in order for it to still exist. Furthermore, according to Dawkins there is no such thing as good or evil, he admits there are good things that happen and evil things that happen but he does not attempt to define what is good or evil. Instead, he denies any existence of absolute good or evil.
TIME: Dr. Collins, I know you favor the opening of new stem-cell lines for experimentation. But doesn't the fact that faith has caused some people to rule this out risk creating a perception that religion is preventing science from saving lives?
TIME: But to the extent that a person argues on the basis of faith or Scripture rather than reason, how can scientists respond?
The final topic of the debate, stem cell research (STR) one of the hotter topic issues that is receiving most of the objections from the religious community. Collins explains that he understands why people are against STR and will value people's opinions. Dawkins compares a killing a human embryo to killing a cow. He also refers to why religious people object to STR, "the issue is, Are they human? If you are an absolutist moralist, you say, "These cells are human, and therefore they deserve some kind of special moral treatment." What both people failed to do was explain what kind of stem cell research. There is embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) and cord blood stem cell research (CBCR). For ESCR an embryo must created (fertilize the human egg with human sperm), then killed to harvest stem cells. For CBSCR blood from the umbilical cord is saved and stem cells are harvested from there. I object to ESCR for the same reasons I object to abortion, that is exactly what it is. I have no objections to CBSCR. The funny thing is, the most recent studies, CBSCR has had far better success than ESCR. The "scientific" community wants to pursue science in a manner that requires the killing of embryos, sounds more like the abortionist community to me...
Wow, this turned out to be really long. I decided against summarizing the conclusions, each person said their peace. Congratulations if you actually read this. As always your $.02 is always appreciated
I found it interesting that Richard Dawkins primary claim to fame was his most recent book, The God Delusion. In addition to this piece, Daniel Dennet and Sam Harris, contributors in Wired's cover story were also mentioned. The scary part about their writings, they apparently are very popular, being noted as God Delusion has been on NY Time's Best Selling list currently at no. 8. Aside from Darwin's Black Box, I cannot recall when an intelligent design piece had received so much attention.
I took the opportunity to compare and contrast the articles between Time and Wired (especially since they were released the same month). I was able to gather some of the strategy the atheists are using. For instance, in the Wired article the New Atheists clearly express that they believe the faith in any kind of religion to be evil (the idea was initially put forth by Dawkins); however, no such condemnation is even hinted to in his debate with Dr. Collins. The overall tone Dawkins approaches Dr. Collins with throughout the article is rather friendly and respectful, far from what he proclaims should be the logical response to people who believe in God. Two-faced? Perhaps, I think he is simply smart enough not to be honest about his true beliefs because he knows he would gain more enemies than support to make such a claim. I believe Dawkins is using the same tactics as the earliest "scientists" that initially pulled people away from creationism.
For the sake of modern history, let's start in 1795 with James Hutton's Theory of the Earth. He suggested the way things are now has been the way things have always been. Then in 1830 Sir Charles Lyell wrote Principles of Geology in which he invents the geologic column. The geologic column, although never to be found anywhere on Earth suggested the age of the Earth to be more than 6000 years old as believed by most based on scripture. In 1859 Charles Darwin wrote The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection Or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle For Life (yes this is the real title in its entirety), he observes the variation within the Galapagos finches and then concludes all life to be related to one another. Then in the 1860's Earnst Haekel created charts of similar embryology (now known as homology) to suggest that all creatures during development look the same and thus there is no difference in their makeup with ours. Despite being found guilty for fraud and confessing the charts were false in 1875, his theory continues to be promulgated in biology books as fact.
Each person contributed a little more to the now present theory of evolution. It all had to start with doubting what was believed to be true and denying scripture. Although they are hailed as scientists, they did not prove anything. Hutton's ideas encouraged people to doubt the biblical timeline. Lyell's ideas encouraged people to doubt the age of the earth. Darwin's ideas encouraged people to deny creation. Once the foundations of who we are were unknown, man anxiously made himself god. The baby steps in logic brought people from belief to unbelief to denial. This is how Satan operates with any sin. It starts out being rather harmless and unbenunced to us or those around us and it builds. It continues to build until we are right where he wants us.
Back to the article, after the resume and recent success from the evolutionists to summarize who is speaking for "science", to introduce the hard lining intelligent designers TIME says this, "Dawkins and his army have a swarm of articulate theological opponents, of course. But the most ardent of these don't really care very much about science". I certainly feel like my beliefs were given credit as legitimate science... Perhaps it was not meant that way, but the article speaks for itself. At this point in the article the reference to science is in terms of strides in medical treatment, such as brain scans and MRI's. Not a problem, I would be hard pressed to find a bible-believing Christian to proclaim medical treatment as sinful.
Upon introducing the contender for Intelligent Design, he is noted as a "foremost of those arguing common ground" in the midst of the Science vs. God debate. If Time was looking for a good debate that might actually show the sides, they should have picked someone else. Richard Dawkins is in no terms a moderate in his atheism; he is the complete front runner of the growing religion. Francis Collins by description and his explanation in belief is a middle of the road intelligent design proponent. That is, he does not deny they age of the universe currently set around 14 billion years old & he does not deny evolutionary theory. Although far more common in the intelligent design camp, it is a weaker position from the start. To have a real debate of interest would be between a creationist and Richard Dawkins; actually it would only be fair. Take the hardliner from each team and then debate, not the Goliath from the atheists and Jesse's middle son from the intelligent designers. The debate's outcome was decided before it could begin, only how badly intelligent design would be beaten was up for grabs.
TIME: Professor Dawkins, if one truly understands science, is God then a delusion, as your book title suggests?
TIME: Dr. Collins, you believe that science is compatible with Christian faith.
The first question, worded differently to each is essentially "can science prove God's existence if God does exist?" Dawkins claims that it can and that is the primary objective of science. Collins claims God is bigger than the natural world and thus science cannot prove or disprove God's existence. Dawkins wins in this situation, he takes the "a crusader for answers" approach, people want answers and he makes a promise to search for an answer. Collins went wrong by playing into the definition Dawkins presupposed by his answer. Science is limited to natural causes. The definition of empirical science is that which is observable and repeatable. Anything more than what is observable and repeatable is not pure science. It is religion and faith more than Christianity. By not defining what is meant by "science", Collins comes across as not having an answer and plays right into the "religion" side and Dawkins is firmly planted as "science's" spokesman. To go oppose "science is against reason" is logical suicide. Evolutionary theory requires far more faith in unknown variables. It places its faith in undiscovered laws and molecules rather than faith needed to believe the Bible is the real Word of God.
TIME: Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvard paleontologist, famously argued that religion and science can coexist, because they occupy separate, airtight boxes. You both seem to disagree.
The next question being setup by a claim of a late anthropologist and evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould asked if religion and science could successfully coexist because science and religion are in two different areas of thought. Dawkins was right, that position was suggested "simply to win middle-of-the-road religious people to the science camp." Dawkins continued claiming miracles completely defy science. Collins responded that there is no differentiation or separation between science and religion. While Collins might appear to take the higher road he does essentially skirt the issue. Once again if he defined science to the definition of what it is, his response would have been sufficient. My first thought to Dawkins claim that miracles contradict or defy science is "yea... that's what makes them miracles because there is no explanation science can offer". Miracles cannot exist if there is nothing more than natural causes, I dive deeper into this in When you believe in Miracles.
TIME: Professor Dawkins, you think Darwin's theory of evolution does more than simply contradict the Genesis story.
This is the ultimate death of intelligent design getting any points in the debate. Dawkins masterfully plays the "millions of years" card that can adequately explain the variation in the world today. Collins responds, "I don't see that Professor Dawkins' basic account of evolution is incompatible with God's having designed it." Instead of suggesting irreducible complexity (working systems that could not have formed or been functional without all parts present), which is the entire point in Darwin's Black Box; that is essentially a response to Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker. Dawkins did attempt to answer Dr. Behe; Dr Behe replied that such examples were not answers to the problems posed. There has been no further answer from science or atheists to address irreducibly complex systems. Worse, Collins by attempting to appease people who believe in evolution that Christian faith is compatible with evolutionary beliefs. If one wants to take scripture as the Word of God, I address that in Can Christians believe in Evolution? Collins undermines the Bible's authority and waters down the stance of creationists.
TIME: When would this have occurred?
It continues to get worse for the ID community. Collins suggests God activating evolution as a valid theory, this is like watching the goat being set out for the T-Rex in Jurassic Park... and the T-Rex in the debate devours the goat just the same. Dawkins calls out Collins that it doesn't make sense for a God to design a system that would take 14 billion years to get to a stage that we could start sinning and needing redemption. This is precisely why there cannot be a middle ground between evolution and the Genesis creation account. One of the two events happened. Sadly Collins attempts to defend his position that one cannot reason like God, while I do agree with that statement, in the context it was used it offers his theory no redemption.
TIME: Both your books suggest that if the universal constants, the six or more characteristics of our universe, had varied at all, it would have made life impossible. Dr. Collins, can you provide an example?
Although Collins does give a good example, the gravitational constant being so precise that "if it were off by one part in a hundred million million, then the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang would not have occurred in the fashion that was necessary for life to occur." Dawkins finally starts to suggest the naturalistic explanations through constants that narrow vastly improbable odds and multiple universes that Collins was able to pounce on because there is no scientific evidence for such ideas. In addition, Collins suggests Occam's razor, Occam's razor suggests the most simple and straightforward answer makes most sense.
At this point in the debate the two engage in some direct back and forth dialogue. Dawkins claims that the idea of God is just as improbable as chance. Collins responds that God does not need explanations, he is the explanation. Dawkins fires back attacking the answers God provides to be the duty of scientists to discover. Collins responds with the lacking of evidence with current ideas to counter fine tuning and then requests that people allow God as a possibility. They continue going back and forth until Dawkins belittles God by suggesting that God could be anything from God of Martians, inhabitants of Alpha Centuri or Yahweh.
TIME: The Book of Genesis has led many conservative Protestants to oppose evolution and some to insist that the earth is only 6,000 years old.
Here Collins gets a chance to offer creationists a little credit in the scientific arena. Instead Collins shoots down the Genesis account because "is inconsistent, frankly, with our knowledge of the universe's age or of how living organisms are related to each other". In this sentence Collins conceded that he believes the earth is billions of years and that he believes evolution to be true. To make it worse he cites St. Augustine's contentions that Genesis is difficult to understand if it is taken literally. The only problem with that suggestion is that science has advanced plenty far enough to explain what science in Augustine's day could not. Seeing the agreement and weakness in Collins scientific and religious stance Dawkins gets into friendly banter about the disagreement between old earth intelligent design advocates and young earth creationists. Dawkins goes as far as suggesting that creationists be dismissed altogether.
TIME: Dr. Collins, the Resurrection is an essential argument of Christian faith, but doesn't it, along with the virgin birth and lesser miracles, fatally undermine the scientific method, which depends on the constancy of natural laws?
TIME: Doesn't the very notion of miracles throw off science?
Collins appropriately applies that God is not bound by nature so he could defy natural laws when he chooses. Collins goes further to explain his belief in science and faith can intertwine, especially in the investigation of miracles. Dawkins, knowing the possibility of miracles is the very embodiment of everything he is against, proclaims that to refer anything to a miracle is a cop-out and undermines as well as invalidates any possibility of scientific credibility. To quote him "Once you buy into the position of faith, then suddenly you find yourself losing all of your natural skepticism and your scientific--really scientific--credibility." According to Dawkins anyone who prescribes the possibility of anything beyond nature, they have lost all scientific credibility. Despite any appearance of respectfulness he had or even apparent friendliness he had towards Collins, his most blunt statement confirms that he has no scientific respect and Collins has no credibility as a scientist. A fine example of the Atheist’s tactics, discredit possible competition before they are allowed to come to the table to talk.
TIME: Dr. Collins, you have described humanity's moral sense not only as a gift from God but as a signpost that he exists.
Sensing that TIME does not share similar conclusions about moral behavior, Collins refers to sociobiology or evolutionary psychology as current social studies seeking to explain good behavior amidst evolutionary origins. Collins successfully points out that since behavior applies to individuals, to be moral, selfless or altruistic, it is often not beneficial to behave in such a way thus, the concept of good must have come from something more which ought to be attributed to God. Dawkins attempts to explain the value people have for good behavior to be remnants of prehistoric life. Since the early civilizations lived in close proximity to extended families and it is natural to want to preserve genetics, "do-gooding" is based in the drive to help ourselves by helping those that share our genes around us. Dawkins uses this as an acceptable reason to explain human behavior by evolutionary benefit. What he didn't mention is that he also believes behavior such as rape, murder, theft, and other forms of immorality must have had some social benefit because the behavior continues to exist today. This is a prime example of being stuck between a rock and a hard place for Dawkins. On one hand, there is pain in world, aspects people will classify as evil. If evolution is the only cause available, because a person is nothing more than interacting chemicals reacting with one another, then for even the most disgusting behavior there must be an evolutionary benefit in order for it to still exist. Furthermore, according to Dawkins there is no such thing as good or evil, he admits there are good things that happen and evil things that happen but he does not attempt to define what is good or evil. Instead, he denies any existence of absolute good or evil.
TIME: Dr. Collins, I know you favor the opening of new stem-cell lines for experimentation. But doesn't the fact that faith has caused some people to rule this out risk creating a perception that religion is preventing science from saving lives?
TIME: But to the extent that a person argues on the basis of faith or Scripture rather than reason, how can scientists respond?
The final topic of the debate, stem cell research (STR) one of the hotter topic issues that is receiving most of the objections from the religious community. Collins explains that he understands why people are against STR and will value people's opinions. Dawkins compares a killing a human embryo to killing a cow. He also refers to why religious people object to STR, "the issue is, Are they human? If you are an absolutist moralist, you say, "These cells are human, and therefore they deserve some kind of special moral treatment." What both people failed to do was explain what kind of stem cell research. There is embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) and cord blood stem cell research (CBCR). For ESCR an embryo must created (fertilize the human egg with human sperm), then killed to harvest stem cells. For CBSCR blood from the umbilical cord is saved and stem cells are harvested from there. I object to ESCR for the same reasons I object to abortion, that is exactly what it is. I have no objections to CBSCR. The funny thing is, the most recent studies, CBSCR has had far better success than ESCR. The "scientific" community wants to pursue science in a manner that requires the killing of embryos, sounds more like the abortionist community to me...
Wow, this turned out to be really long. I decided against summarizing the conclusions, each person said their peace. Congratulations if you actually read this. As always your $.02 is always appreciated
Nov 8, 2006
A Modest Proposal
I don't know what honestly prompted this, but I was thinking about our laws, the way things have been worded, and the recurring issues with certain moral laws. I think I have a solution, at least something California can especially benefit from. One of the things I do appreciate about the state government is the initiative system, in which, given enough support, determination, or money anyone can get anything on the ballots to vote. Granted there are certain criteria which must be met but I think with this idea put forward attaining the signatures and such should not be difficult.
Perhaps if this works out, other states may follow suit and the entire national issue might be solved. Enough of dragging you along now, here is the idea: Replace the words "Till death do us part" to "or whenever we feel like quitting" in the standard vows of legal marriage. By this change society will finally embrace in vows the practice that has been undertaken for decades. How many millions of couples have been fooling themselves in lust and giggles while they exclaim "till death do us part" only to divide their separate ways? The statistics reflect this attitude; it has been a steady climb from 50% of couples will divorce when I was a child to now it is in the 60% range. The majority has clearly expressed their desire to not follow through with their vows, and we don't want to be a nation of liars so why not tell the truth?
We can even use Carmen Electra and Dave Navarro as promoters for this! Anyone remember their reality mini-series about their wedding preparations on MTV? The show was called Till Death Do Us Part, and what happened after the show? I think it was less than 2 years and they divorced. Not a good example? What about Newlyweds? Nick Lache and Jessica Simpson, they lasted what 4 years? I even remember a couple years ago they hosted a Christmas special on how to have a successful marriage. This is so the perfect time for such a change. Enough Americans idolizes and imitates celebrities in what they wear, how they act, and how they have their relationships. Oh I can see the posters for this already; it will be a grand experiment.
Furthermore, the only thing variable which has reduced the divorce rate has been people ceasing to marry altogether. Why don't they get married? They have this haunting feeling of commitment and lifelong decision hanging over their head. It is really too stressful to want to handle it for much of today's young adults. Oh, and it wouldn't have to stop there either. Since such a caveat would exist, alimony, and settlements, would be so much easier to deal with. In fact, people need not even change their names upon union just add a hyphen or parentheses so they can use their married name when convenient. We can split things right down the middle like they never attempted to sacrifice a thing going in. This may sound horrific to some, but be honest with ourselves, what has this country, our society made marriage into from what it was. Might as well make it official now. I think the great state of California is ready for such an update.
This is not the end either, I mean, if we can change the goal/depth that the marriage will last we can revamp the entire institution altogether. Marriage is far too infringing on our desire for a more comfortable lifestyles. Think of the joy people would experience, they could change any aspect they want and it will still legally be called marriage. This is truly a revolutionary problem solver. Conservatives ought to be satisfied in the institution being honest. Liberals ought to be joyous they could customize its practice without regret.
Where better to start such a revolutionary idea? I noticed Democrats have more or less swept the House elections, last I saw 11/13 seats up for grab went to Democrats. This country has spoken it is in the mood for change, and this fits right into the ideology of such social liberation. Think of the relief so many couples would have from this change. They wouldn't feel the burden to last through terrible years with the same person for their entire life... People will start their final step into the most cherished relationship with a clearer idea as to how much they ought to give into it, as much as they want, and if they don't want to give more of themselves they don't have to!
For those of you that still don't see where I am going with I am merely suggesting the institution modernize with the current society. Maybe I should propose this idea on some Danish forums to see how they go with it first? They seem to be willing to try anything but the traditional. Remember, we live in a society that exclaims “there is no right or wrong!” We should not judge what someone does, people might become offended. This is the 21st century people; it is about time that we finally started to go with the flow. What better way than to modernize the backbone of society? I can just imagine the millions of people feeling all warm and fuzzy with this revolutionized marriage, can you see it too?
Although, for some of people, a rather small majority that tends to think marriage is something special, they might put up a bit of a fuss. Not a big enough one to make a difference once this gets started. The "religious right" will likely try to take a stance against it, but come on, when was the last time Christians made an imprint on changing the moral direction of this country? What happened when they tried to declare an Amendment to define marriage in its traditional sense? It failed miserably! The political clout of the religious right during the days of Pres. Regan are only memories. The only reason they were successful in those battles was because of the propaganda of communism knocking on our front door was apparent...If this gets big enough, perhaps this is what the Constitution could use to define marriage! Define it on feelings, just the way millions have based it on. Let's get with the times people. Marriage means close to nothing in so many hearts, lets make in mean close to nothing in law as well.
Perhaps if this works out, other states may follow suit and the entire national issue might be solved. Enough of dragging you along now, here is the idea: Replace the words "Till death do us part" to "or whenever we feel like quitting" in the standard vows of legal marriage. By this change society will finally embrace in vows the practice that has been undertaken for decades. How many millions of couples have been fooling themselves in lust and giggles while they exclaim "till death do us part" only to divide their separate ways? The statistics reflect this attitude; it has been a steady climb from 50% of couples will divorce when I was a child to now it is in the 60% range. The majority has clearly expressed their desire to not follow through with their vows, and we don't want to be a nation of liars so why not tell the truth?
We can even use Carmen Electra and Dave Navarro as promoters for this! Anyone remember their reality mini-series about their wedding preparations on MTV? The show was called Till Death Do Us Part, and what happened after the show? I think it was less than 2 years and they divorced. Not a good example? What about Newlyweds? Nick Lache and Jessica Simpson, they lasted what 4 years? I even remember a couple years ago they hosted a Christmas special on how to have a successful marriage. This is so the perfect time for such a change. Enough Americans idolizes and imitates celebrities in what they wear, how they act, and how they have their relationships. Oh I can see the posters for this already; it will be a grand experiment.
Furthermore, the only thing variable which has reduced the divorce rate has been people ceasing to marry altogether. Why don't they get married? They have this haunting feeling of commitment and lifelong decision hanging over their head. It is really too stressful to want to handle it for much of today's young adults. Oh, and it wouldn't have to stop there either. Since such a caveat would exist, alimony, and settlements, would be so much easier to deal with. In fact, people need not even change their names upon union just add a hyphen or parentheses so they can use their married name when convenient. We can split things right down the middle like they never attempted to sacrifice a thing going in. This may sound horrific to some, but be honest with ourselves, what has this country, our society made marriage into from what it was. Might as well make it official now. I think the great state of California is ready for such an update.
This is not the end either, I mean, if we can change the goal/depth that the marriage will last we can revamp the entire institution altogether. Marriage is far too infringing on our desire for a more comfortable lifestyles. Think of the joy people would experience, they could change any aspect they want and it will still legally be called marriage. This is truly a revolutionary problem solver. Conservatives ought to be satisfied in the institution being honest. Liberals ought to be joyous they could customize its practice without regret.
Where better to start such a revolutionary idea? I noticed Democrats have more or less swept the House elections, last I saw 11/13 seats up for grab went to Democrats. This country has spoken it is in the mood for change, and this fits right into the ideology of such social liberation. Think of the relief so many couples would have from this change. They wouldn't feel the burden to last through terrible years with the same person for their entire life... People will start their final step into the most cherished relationship with a clearer idea as to how much they ought to give into it, as much as they want, and if they don't want to give more of themselves they don't have to!
For those of you that still don't see where I am going with I am merely suggesting the institution modernize with the current society. Maybe I should propose this idea on some Danish forums to see how they go with it first? They seem to be willing to try anything but the traditional. Remember, we live in a society that exclaims “there is no right or wrong!” We should not judge what someone does, people might become offended. This is the 21st century people; it is about time that we finally started to go with the flow. What better way than to modernize the backbone of society? I can just imagine the millions of people feeling all warm and fuzzy with this revolutionized marriage, can you see it too?
Although, for some of people, a rather small majority that tends to think marriage is something special, they might put up a bit of a fuss. Not a big enough one to make a difference once this gets started. The "religious right" will likely try to take a stance against it, but come on, when was the last time Christians made an imprint on changing the moral direction of this country? What happened when they tried to declare an Amendment to define marriage in its traditional sense? It failed miserably! The political clout of the religious right during the days of Pres. Regan are only memories. The only reason they were successful in those battles was because of the propaganda of communism knocking on our front door was apparent...If this gets big enough, perhaps this is what the Constitution could use to define marriage! Define it on feelings, just the way millions have based it on. Let's get with the times people. Marriage means close to nothing in so many hearts, lets make in mean close to nothing in law as well.
Nov 4, 2006
War Has Been Declared!
While browsing magazines during lunch I came across a fresh issue of Wired. Granted I had never actually heard of Wired before watching the Italian Job (Lyle wanted to be on the cover of it). It is a technical magazine I think somewhere along the lines of Popular Science. Anyways, there was a rather catchy and unexpected cover page entitled "The New Atheism: No Heaven. No Hell. Just Science"(The linked version now has a less controversial title). Well knowing me I could not pass up something like that. I was reminded upon reading the article of Ephesians 6:10-13.
After the initial skim it was clear Richard Dawkins was the most prominent figure interviewed. I was in luck because I was rather familiar with some of his writing. In the article, he was portrayed as the foremost Atheist in in the “New Atheism”. I knew about his feelings toward religion in general but to have it published in a wide circulating magazine, I found to be a bold move. Especially considering the more harsh logical approach he had with his philosophy. The article starts with, "The New Atheists will not let us off the hook simply because we are not doctrinaire believers. They condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God. Religion is not only wrong; it's evil. Now that the battle has been joined, there's no excuse for shirking." In addition to Dawkins, it also featured Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris; the author phrased his research that "I wanted to find out what it would mean to enlist in the war against faith." As a whole I was rather pleased with the article's content, I thought it contained less bias than what I expected. I also was impressed how open the interviewees were about the implications of their anti-faith.
There were several interesting factors from the beginning. First, I noticed they never claimed atheism as a religion; instead it was phrased as an antithesis to religion when in fact it is a form of religion by a fair definition. It was a bit of irony to have a religion devoted on the anti-religion. Their goal was to alienate all faiths. New Atheism is not just targeting Judeo-Christian faiths. Such examples Dawkins gave about his respect for religion was to parallel them with belief in garden fairies, unicorns and the sort. Dawkins went so far as to proclaim his personal condemnation on parents who teach faith to their children. He equated such acts as though they willfully were spreading a dangerous virus. Dawkins termed the lingering idea of faith as a "meme" some kind of immaterial (ironic for such a strict materialist/naturalist) thing that influences thought and spreads by mental proximity. I tend to call it the Holy Spirit. Harris compared the existence of religion as a plague in society on the similar level as rape, "religion may be a vestige of primitive nature". Harris pronounced that religion and its tolerance rivaled the social acceptance slavery once had in society. He looks forward to the day when simply believing in God will be too embarrassing to handle. Thanks for putting the most precious area of my beliefs on a pedestal of respect gentlemen.
Dennett seemed to be the most moderate of the bunch; he encouraged public schools to scientifically examine religion. I wonder if he also intended his atheism to be put under the same scrutiny of old science? Dennett is also very much aware of the implications of his beliefs, he could not pinpoint a point when human life began nor justify an inherent value for human life. I wonder if he has considered the deeper implications of such admission? If people do not have an inherent value then how much are we worth? I do wonder what his personal belief of self worth was? I am glad to know I am worth one Jesus to God.
The article certainly attempted to address an age old question, "Is science compatible with faith?" From the group interviewed, it is not. The question in general was not anything new or difficult to answer with a little searching and reading but even that much effort seems to be too much of a hassle for most people. After all, there are so many more important issues at hand, like “who I am going to field for Fantasy Football?” A rabbit trail, I am rather irked by the general population who claims to have passionate beliefs but leave those beliefs as talk and ideas often with insufficient evidence of their faith. I highly encourage you to go and read it yourself. I have long battled having a decent consistency in my ever changing schedule of some kind of quiet time, but over the last year and a half, my desire and pursuit of knowledge has held my attention longer than any other study I have done before. This was more broadly addressed in Why Don't I?
I found the militant approach to religion and faith as an evil to be comforting in a strange way. They were honest with their position. The lines were drawn. We know where they stand. In my mind, identifying such definite positions is one of the hardest parts to ascertain when talking to people. It takes a long time, if it happens at all, to be able to find out what people believe, or at least claim. Lifestyle is the clearest way people speak their beliefs. In addition to the aggressive approach, the utter arrogance was astonishing. By claiming they only believed in science/reason it implied those who have faith in religion could not also do science or be reasonable! They held themselves so mentally superior to those around them, they could not respect different beliefs. That type of religion just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside! Dawkins talked about how he got his kicks by "pissing people off", through his pride in his atheism.
The New Atheists are not the only ones to take such an arrogant stance. Brights, a new description of people which originated in Sacramento. They formed this new noun to designate naturalistic worldviews to categorize the idea of God in the same way as superstition and magic. The author did visit a youth group in the midst of his research while attending an Atheist get together the following morning. He had an interesting summation, a meeting of Atheists United on a Sunday morning spoke it message "We're lagging among the lower 95%" versus an offer from Pastor Matt at the youth rally "You are kings anointed by God".
I mentioned I was previously very familiar with Richard Dawkins. In Darwin's Black Box; he was the primary object to answer who argued for evolution in the Blind Watchmaker. Furthermore, I have yet to come across an in-depth intelligent-design book which has not mentioned Richard Dawkins as a primary critic. The article provided a candid simplification of this issue. Dawkins stated, "My answer is that the big war is not between evolution and creationism, but between naturalism and supernaturalism." That reminded me of When You Believe in Miracles. Something not mentioned by any of the interviewees were their motivations for Atheism. They simply asserted an a priori belief that their view was nothing more than what our physical senses could detect. They then carried on with attacking anyone who would oppose them.
Is the direction of society’s "tolerance"? How many of their free thinking compatriots would respond to their absolute intolerance to different beliefs? I suppose in their mind, I am of the greatest evil because I attempt to spread the love of God. Then again, since I don't try to spread religion I try to spread Christ does that make it okay? There were some interesting bits I noted, such as the Atheist’s prayer, "that our reason will subjugate our superstition, that our intelligence will check our illusions, that we will be able to hold at bay the evil temptation of faith." Romans 1:21-22 Anyone? “For though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise they became fools.”
Although I was familiar with the content of the article, I found it very important considering the type of magazine and the target audience this article sought to reach. When I first saw the cover sheet I thought "Why on Earth would a tech magazine have this cover story?" That was when it dawned on me, that was precisely who the article intended to speak to. The well educated science proclaiming tech folk. This article likely would not have flown in something like Home & Garden, or Good Housekeeping. The target audience was single educated men, the potential leaders of society. This will likely serve as much more than an exposé on a new up and coming belief system. Instead, it will likely spur a growth of many other self-righteous accomplished "freethinkers" to further become intolerant to the faithful. Is anyone else curious when the ACLU will come to our rescue when we receive persecution from this new religion?
The other important factor is to be current with what is happening in American popular culture. I want to say every 6 months or so Newsweek will run a cover story of religious nature. I think it is important to read these articles to get a gauge of where the country is going or which newest belief is becoming popular. Probably the most face time in the media Christianity has received would either be a news update about Fred Phelps or perhaps the apprehension of Warren Jeffs.
I found this at a rather appropriate time in my personal development. After reading Hard Questions, Real Answers, I was presented with the idea of being a Christian scholar. Although the main message of the book was not incredibly new or challenging, the introduction rocked me. The author challenged the present condition of Christian faith that has been based in feelings and not much in doctrine. I firmly believe we must have a foundation of knowledge to accompany our faith and even strengthen it. What hit me the hardest, there was a list of 10 subjects listed that the author asked us to answer for ourselves how familiar we were with the subjects. I think I scored 7/10 for having an answer and 5/10 for having a good answer. Knowing how much reading I do I was rather disenchanted with my lack of actual church history and writings. My response, the next trip to Amazon I am going to check out some of the writings of the early church fathers like: Origen, Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, Martin Luther and the sort.
The topic of current Christian scholasticism was also addressed in the article. "Even today, the charismatic movement is somewhat careless of doctrine. There is room for theistic evolutionists, non literalists who hold that each of God's days in Genesis was the equivalent of a geological epoch, even for the notion that a check made out properly to the Lord can influence divine whim... such deviations are generously tolerated in practice." It is one thing to be called out by one of our own in the loving manner that was presented in the book; when those who do not share our beliefs see the dissimilarity and lack of concern for our own beliefs that is embarrassingly sad. It was the inadvertent slap in the face. Many of the base principles of what it is be a Christian is in the doctrine, doctrine the majority of self proclaiming Christians have little or no interest in. That is not so much to address people that have been living the Christian life as much as those who adhere to the civic religion.
What is the purpose of me writing all this? Hopefully the urgency of reason, logic, validity, and importance of apologetics has been made known in our current culture. If we hope to be able to reach people who have not been broken and are desperate for love, or who are at a place but reservations of their reason prevents them from accepting Christ, the importance of knowing how to present Christianity in thought is immeasurable. Not to add enough of the to-do list, we can't under emphasize the personal relationship with Christ. To have the certainty of salvation in the heart and mind unleashes so many reservations about living boldly for Christ. To make the conclusion official here's some good words:
“Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? But even if you should suffer for the righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. - 1 Peter 3:13-16
Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. - Jude 1:3
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)