Sawing Off The Limb That Holds You

Sawing

The problem of evil and suffering is a real problem. We struggle with it from a rational/philosophical standpoint and also from an emotional perspective. Christians often struggle more with the emotional dimension than just wrestling with the logic behind the question because we believe that God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil and suffering that is in the world.

But atheists can bring this up in debate as a trump card. And it often “works” because of it’s strong emotional appeal.  Ravi Zacharias does a good job treating this in this in his book “Jesus Among Other Gods.”  He says that often this issue is raised with a list of the worst atrocities in history. This is fine,  and is actually part of my point here. The way those atrocities are discussed suggests that the person really believes they are wrong.  The world should be different than it is. The argument is a kind of protest.  And sometimes it is a protest against a god they believe should have prevented this. This outrage is used to show that an all loving and all powerful God couldn’t exist.  The conclusion: There is no god.

What they don’t realize is that the problem of evil is not just a problem for Christians. It is a problem for every philosophy and worldview.

What they don’t realize is that the problem of evil is not just a problem for Christians. It is a problem for every philosophy and worldview.  And unwittingly by removing idea of God, the atheist has removed any absolute standard of right and wrong. Now the very list of atrocities no longer wear the label “wrong” or “evil.”  The atheist may dislike them, but it is no more than personal or societal preference. These things are not examples of either justice or injustice because those things do not exist except in our minds.  The world just IS.  That is just the way things are.  And yet the very protest is making a plea that the world should be different than it is.  At the very lease, the atheist believes it is wrong for christians to believe what they do. It could be phrased in some other way,  but there is an “ought” in the protest that could only be true if there were some greater moral imperative.  In the end, the protest defeats itself.

Zacharias quotes GK Chesterton, who has made the point with a flourish:

“All denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind and the modern skeptic doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then writes another book, a novel in which he insults it himself. As a politician he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then as a philosopher that all of life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie.

“The man of this school goes first to a political meeting where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts. Then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is forever engaged in undermining his own mines. in his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt becomes practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.”

The atheist wants to use the problem of evil to disprove the existence of god. But in the process he ends up disproving the existence of evil.  And this is not just a rational problem, it is an existential problem without compare.

G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1959), 41

Photo cropped and used by Permission Jo Jakeman. Some rights reserved 

Death-Row Dining – A Discussion of Last Suppers

 

Death-Row Dining – The New Yorker.

This is an interesting peak into the idea of the final meal.  What do condemned prisoners request on the night before they are executed? And what does that say about them? About food? And what does our interest in such curiosities say about us as humans?

The article was worth reading for me, if only for the bizarre subject. Not the standard faire of internet journalists pumping out click-bait.

I am always on the lookout to see cultural principles (and contradictions) at work. Many of us profess to be relativists.  We do not believe in the existence of good and evil in any absolute sense.  There are only personal opinions about good and evil.  But here is a stubborn fact: No one can actually live out relativism consistently.  I frequently have conversations with people that want to tell me that my concern over moral issues is ungrounded because there is no such thing as absolute morality.  And that means I am guilty of trying to impose my morality on others. These folks then go on to pound the table on various moral issues. This suggests to me that they don’t take their relativism very seriously.

Anyways…  It is fascinating to me to see what provokes outrage among a generation of relativists.  What drives the morally apathetic to impassioned protest?  In my experience, anything that smells like retributive justice is sure to do it.   Someone tried to open up a restaurant in London called the Death Row Diner- “Eat like it’s your last meal on earth.”  The menu featured a number of famous (or infamous) last meals.  But the restaurant never got off the ground because folks were offended.

“The public response was swift and marked by moral outrage. Some wondered if the project was a joke, or some kind of performance piece….

“The offense caused is easy enough to understand: there’s something undeniably stomach-turning about the gimmick of presumably well-off city dwellers forking over eighty dollars to eat fancified versions of the prison- issued food that the mostly poor and otherwise marginalized—criminal or not —denizens of death row pathetically requested before being executed. It commodifies the loss of human life—justifiable or not—and makes light of a grave and controversial issue, marrying the parlor game and its real-life counterpart without acknowledging that one is for fun and the other is an ugly truth. From another angle, the project glamorizes and memorializes people who have committed horrific crimes.”

Intellectual Cowardice – An Unexpected Discussion of Virtue

 The_Wizard_of_Oz_Bert_Lahr_1939

Intellectual cowardice | Features | Times Higher Education.

Chris Walsh has written a book on cowardice.  He admits that he had to face his own fears to finish the book.  This brief article about the book and journey was a fun read. It was also full of irony. He was driven to finish the book out of fear of being a coward

“What a bitter note to find in my obituary – couldn’t finish his book on cowardice! The thought had a way of concentrating the mind and fortifying the will.”

He talks about the fact that there hasn’t been a scholarly academic work on the topic, which caused him some fear. “Am I wasting my time?”

Something helpful (and searching!) for me was the idea that cowardice and fear can manifest itself in many ways:

  • Failing to stand up and take a side or express an opinion when we should.
  • Failing to finish a book or project out of concern about what others will think.
  • Being driven by fear to a neutral life that does neither good nor evil.
  • Fear of being found out that you are a fraud. This is especially true in higher education. So many wannabe academics are impressed by academic accomplishments and the intellect of their heroes.  They  pretend that they are brilliant,  but writing a book tells the truth.  Nothing will humble you like putting your mind on paper for all to read! Our hearts may whisper words of fear to us, “If I write a book then everyone will know who I am! I won’t be able to keep up the rouse!”
  • Too much revising before you ship or print. This can be fear-driven.
  • Too much qualifying of your claims and acknowledging the opinions of others.

“At a certain point, then, proper understanding of cowardice became not only the goal of the book but also its motive force. Cowardice and cowards have something to teach us, I kept telling myself. Let us speak of them!”

Perhaps most useful to me was his discussion of the place of cowardice in the realm of the writer/thinker.

 “Timidity may be especially characteristic of the scholar. As Peter Elbow notes in his essay “Being a writer vs. being an academic: a conflict in goals”, the writer comes to the reader exclaiming, “Listen to me, I have something to tell you!”, while the academic asks meekly, “Is this okay?”. The bespectacled professor citing great thinkers, hedging with “perhapses” and “I would suggests”, and lining the bottom of the page with footnotes to pad against a hard fall: he makes a fine figure of a coward.”

The Owl or the Egg

‘You remember the old puzzle as to whether the owl came from the egg or the egg from the owl. The modern acquiescence in universal evolutionism is a kind of optical illusion, produced by attending exclusively to the owl’s emergence from the egg. We are taught from childhood to notice how the perfect oak grows from the acorn and to forget that the acorn itself was dropped by a perfect oak. We are reminded constantly that the adult human being was an embryo, never that the life of the embryo came from two adult human beings. We love to notice that the express engine of today is the descendant of the “Rocket”; we do not equally remember that the “Rocket” springs not from some even more rudimentary engine, but from something much more perfect and complicated than itself—namely, a man of genius. The obviousness or naturalness which most people seem to find in the idea of emergent evolution thus seems to be a pure hallucination.’

CS Lewis—from “Is Theology Poetry?” (The Weight of Glory)

 

The Teacher or the Teaching? Why Jesus is Different

This passage is from Ravi Zacharias Book, “Jesus among Other Gods:”

“He who comes to Me will never go hungry, and he who believes in Me will never be thirsty.” Notice the power implicit in the claim.

“At the heart of every major religion is a leading exponent. As the exposition is studied, something very significant emerges. There comes a bifurcation, or a distinction, between the person and the teaching. Mohammed, to the Koran. Buddha, to the Noble Path. Krishna, to his philosophizing. Zoroaster, to his ethics.

“Whatever we may make of their claims, one reality is inescapable. They are teachers who point to their teaching or show some particular way. In all of these, there emerges an instruction, a way of living. It is not Zoroaster to whom you turn. It is Zoroaster to whom you listen. It is not Buddha who delivers you; it is his Noble Truths that instruct you. It is not Mohammed who transforms you; it is the beauty of the Koran that woos you.

“By contrast, Jesus did not only teach or expound His message. He was identical with His message. “In Him,” say the Scriptures, “dwelt the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” He did not just proclaim the truth. He said, “I am the truth.” He did not just show a way. He said, “I am the Way.” He did not just open up vistas. He said, “I am the door.” “I am the Good Shepherd.” “I am the resurrection and the life.” “I am the I AM.”

“In Him is not just an offer of life’s bread. He is the bread. That is why being a Christian is not just a way of feeding and living. Following Christ begins with a way of relating and being.”

Zacharias, Ravi K. Jesus among Other Gods: The Absolute Claims of the Christian Message. Nashville, TN: Word Pub., 2000. Print. (p. 89)

Religion Is Not to Blame for All the Bloodiest Wars | The New Republic

3205545010_28e80765c7_z

Religion Is Not to Blame for All the Bloodiest Wars | The New Republic.

At the New Republic John Gray reviews “Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence” by Karen Armstrong

In this write up there is not so much a defense of religion per se but an attempt to challenge a common notion. It has been spoken as incontrovertible fact that “religion is responsible for more wars than anything else.”  To question this “truth” you must be a moron. And the current violence brought about by radical Islam adds to our suspicions. This sometimes leads secular atheists to lump all religions together.  Some have even compared Christians to radical jihadists.  The answer? If we could just use reason and get rid of religious superstition, the world would finally be a safe place.

Gray takes this notion to task. The whole article is worth reading. But here are a few paragraphs worth quoting.

Some have offered that humanistic rationalists are the champions of equality, while religious folks are the source of imperialist oppression. Gray writes:

“The Renaissance is just one of several secular icons that Armstrong demolishes. Nothing is more commonplace than to read that Renaissance thinkers introduced a novel understanding of universal humanity. But Renaissance humanists were actually less sympathetic to the plight of indigenous peoples such as the Mesoamericans who had been violently subjugated than churchmen such as the Dominicans, who condemned the predatory behavior of the conquistadores. “The philosophy of human rights,” Armstrong notes, “did not apply to all human beings.” In some ways, modern conceptions of rights were more inhuman than medieval religion. One of the founders of liberalism, John Locke, found it intolerable that the “wild woods and uncultivated waste of America be left to nature, without any improvement, tillage and husbandry.” Involved in his own right in the colonization of the Carolinas, Locke “argued that the native ‘kings’ of America had no legal jurisdiction or right of ownership of their land.”

People often highlight several points in the history of the Christian church as events which reveal its true colors.  The Salem witch trials, the Inquisition, bombed-out abortion clinics, etc.  While I agree these things are horrible, and really no defense can be made to try to justify or dismiss them, two things can be said about these kinds of events. First,  It is not accurate to say that these represent either the mainstream of the Christian faith, or an accurate representation of the teaching of the New Testament.

But Gray (quoting Armstrong) brings up another point.  If we are just doing a body count, we should be far more worried about secularism than we are about religion when it comes to violence and oppression.  He says:

“The Spanish Inquisition is a notorious example of the violence of religion. There can be no doubt that it entailed hideous cruelty, not least to Jews who had converted to Christianity, often in order to save their lives, but who were suspected of secretly practising their faith and consequently, in some cases, burnt. Yet in strictly quantitative terms, the Inquisition pales in comparison to later frenzies of secular violence. Recent estimates of the numbers who were executed during the first 20 years of the Inquisition—“the most violent period in its long history,” according to Armstrong—range from 1,500 to 2,000 people. By contrast, about a quarter of a million people were killed in the Vendée (out of a population of roughly 800,000) when a peasant rebellion against the French Revolution was put down by republican armies in 1794. And some 17,000 men, women, and children were guillotined in the purge that ended in July that year, including the man who had designed the new revolutionary calendar. It is indisputable that this mass slaughter had a religious dimension. In 1793 a Goddess of Reason was enthroned on the high altar at Notre Dame Cathedral; revolutionary leaders made great use of terms such as “credo,” “sacrament,” and “sermon” in their speeches. As Armstrong puts it, “No sooner had the revolutionaries rid themselves of one religion than they invented another.”

Read the whole thing here.

Of course, this doesn’t even begin to touch on the 262 million people killed by their own governments- which were mostly acting on their politicized atheist beliefs. Read more on “democide” from the university of Hawaii site here.

Photo used by permission Andrew Kitzmiller.  Some rights reserved

 

Priests On The Night Shift

Night sky

“Come, bless the LORD, all you servants of the LORD, who stand by night in the house of the LORD! Lift up your hands to the holy place and bless the LORD! May the LORD bless you from Zion, he who made heaven and earth!

(Psalm 134 ESV)

Photo used by permission Daita Saru. Some rights reserved.

Life as a Nonviolent Psychopath – The Atlantic

Life as a Nonviolent Psychopath – The Atlantic.

Wow, this is one of the most interesting and thought provoking articles I have read in a long time.  If you say the story out loud to yourself it sounds made believe,  like a crime novel.  A neuroscientist is researching the brains of psychopaths and discovers that he has the brain of a psychopath. Indeed he is a psychopath.  He is completely indifferent to the feelings of others, and his life history supports this. Oh, and then there are his brain scan and DNA too.  But he is learning to deal with it.  Also, he is not violent. Why? Researchers suspect that even people with these kinds of structural and genetic dispositions, when they are raised through childhood and puberty in a loving and supportive environment they may still be weird or difficult but they won’t become violent.

His own experience also caused him to reevaluate the idea that genetics and biology are absolutely determinative of future behavior. In his own case there is data to show that environment works together with biology. And this has lead him to reevaluate the data.

His conclusion about the age of soldiers sent to war is also worth pondering:

“It means, for example, that if you have to go to war, and sometimes you probably have to go to war… you do not send 18-year-olds into it, because their brains aren’t set. They don’t know how to adjudicate what’s happening emotionally and hormonally with the intellectualization of it. When you’re 20, 25, it’s a different matter because things gel a little more. Our emotions don’t get away from us as much in terms of what is happening. Other factors, sociological ones like what soldiers return to, are also important, but we’re not going to get rid of war any time soon, so we might as well engage in a way that does the least amount of damage.”

An Important Observation on the Search for Meaning

The box is empty: On iPhones, religion and disconnection - Macleans.ca

“Now, nine months later, I am not a different person. I am not more zen. I am not any nicer. I am not happier. I’ve saved a lot of money, and that is about it. The truth is I have not found new meaning in my slightly more ascetic life. But neither did I find it in that iPhone box. I don’t think anyone lined up on those sidewalks has either.”

Scott Gilmore was getting fed up with the hamster wheel of always buying new things, especially technology. This is the natural consumer response to planned obsolescence and the social pressure to have the newest device.  We don’t intend to do it, but after a while find ourselves carried out by the tide.  And before we know it we are a long way from shore. He decided to take a consumer “fast” and not buy anything he didn’t really need.  It sounds like the experience was helpful and he saved some money. But what he found was interesting.  He didn’t find meaning and fulfillment in all the stuff and technology. He also didn’t find it in the absence of all the technology and stuff.  If we want to satisfy the deepest hungers of the soul, neither trinkets nor self discipline will do the trick. We need the Bread of life.

via The box is empty: On iPhones, religion and disconnection – Macleans.ca.

The Deeper Longing

“There is an old adage that says you can give a hungry man a fish, or better still, you can teach him how to fish. Jesus would add that you can teach a person how to fish, but the most successful fisherman has hungers fish will not satisfy.”

Zacharias, Ravi K. Jesus among Other Gods: The Absolute Claims of the Christian Message. Nashville, TN: Word Pub., 2000. Print. (p. 89)