“Kid on Bus: What are you gonna do today, Napoleon? Napoleon Dynamite: Whatever I feel like I wanna do. Gosh!”
- Napolean Dynamite

“Though it is an exciting thrill in one way to realize that we get to make up the unique rules by which we will live, it can also be a bit of a terrifying responsibility. As a therapist, I frequently interview clients who come in to my office almost demanding that I tell them what they ‘should’ do. One woman sat in great dismay one day loudly lamenting that she just didn’t know what she was supposed to do. When I suggested that she should do whatever it was that she wanted to do, she looked at me like I was crazy. As if everyone could just go around doing what they want to do!”
- Carol H. Lankton, M.A., LMFT

I want to speculate a little on the idea of “self-talk” and the value of affirming things we already believe, and it relates to the issue of whether we can “will” to strengthen, but not determine, our beliefs. I think this topic has application in areas of psychology and also religion. In psychology, we tell ourselves things, sometimes consciously, sometimes unconsciously, and these things seem to have an impact on our self-image. In practical theological terms, we sing things and repeat things about God, and these things we repeat, even though we may already know them, somehow affect, or are supposed to affect, our spiritual life.

But, in order to address this subject, it’s important to briefly lay out my view of belief. I think a belief is not the kind of thing that you can choose. Upon reflection you’ll realize the problem of simply choosing to believe those things which you have no good reason to believe and at worst those things you have good reasons to believe are false. You can say you believe, but you can’t simply choose to believe whatever you wish. This is because beliefs depend upon evdience/reasons. beliefs are supported by reasons. I can’t choose to believe in insivible turtles or Santa Claus by will power alone.

It helps to see that Jesus understood the concept as well, that belief needs a basis, and that basis turns true belief into knowledge:

In light of this, how do we come to understand the power that self-talk has and that affirmations seem to have in the areas of psychology and theology? It seems like when we repeatedly tell ourselves certain things, we begin to believe these things, not because we have good reason, at least initially, to believe them, but because our mind searches for evidence to justify them. This is where rationalization comes in. Instead of pursuing the real reasons for believing X, we pursue any reason for believing X. So, someone who tells him or herself that they are worthless may look for reasons to confirm their hypothesis, and eventually they will find and continue to find the evidence they are looking for. So, if we apply the point that beliefs cannot be chosen, could it still be the case that we may be able to strengthen our beliefs in this way, rather than determine them?

Let’s turn to theology for a moment to see if this might be so. Could it be that one of the reasons God gave us propositional revelation is so that we can be transformed by external affirmations of truth; truth that will be gradually appropriated and internalized by its readers? Paul wrote, “Do not be conformed to this world (or “age”), but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God—what is good and acceptable and perfect.” (Rom. 12:2) Also, “Then Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” (John 8:31-32) It seems to me the key idea here is “if you continue”. I don’t want “read into” the passage a modern psychological theory, but there definitely seems to be a connection between “if you continue… [then] you will know the truth.”

Although we can justify our belief in these truths by appeal to authority, could there be more value to Scripture memorization than simply as a reminder and affirmation of those things we already know? Sometimes, when we recite memorized passages or tell ourselves certain things we are essentially solidifying already held beliefs by bringing them vividly to our conscious attention. On the other hand, the repeated recollection of certain truths can guide the mind and thus the whole person into a deeper appreciation of these truths. If it is true that our beliefs need reasons to latch onto for their very existence, then it may be the case that the more we dwell on certain propositions, the more our mind seeks to rationalize these, turning them into full-fledged beliefs. To state this in a more positive way, we can foster genuine belief by putting ourselves in environments in which we have available to us good, honest reasons for the things we affirm, but also by bringing those affirmations to mind repeatedly, we are creating the environment in which such unconscious search for reasons take place. This may be why Jesus told his disciples to remain in his Word.

So when we pray, perhaps it is valuable to vividly bring before our conscious awareness truths of scripture and self-affirm those truths to ourselves, e.g. “God is concerned about me”, etc. This isn’t to say that thinking rationally about our beliefs should ever be substituted with a rationalizing of our beliefs. Whatever we truly belief, we must have good reasons for believing. But the degree of justification we have can be strengthened, thus increasing our certainty in X and therefore our confidence in X; so by doing so we are also strengthening the connection between our emotional life and our thought life.

Although the first few thoughts are imperative in nature, perhaps this is why the Lord’s prayer starts with “Father, who is in heaven, hallowed is your name, your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven…”, only after this is a request made “give us this day…”. We are to start by affirming, and bringing to mind, truths we already are aware of, (e.g. “Father, who is in heaven…”), and after this, seeking and requesting of God.

I could be wrong about this, or my Scriptural examples may be out of context, but these are just some of my current thoughts on the matter.

WPF

“Apathy: a state of not caring; not wanting to know; complacency; indifference; to ignore; disinterested in contemplation; anesthetized by popular culture; a postmodern intellectual narcosis; compassion fatigue; too lazy; too busy; self-indulgence; limited choices in work and leisure-time; non-reflection, non-deliberation and subconscious blocking of distressing information.” (www.biol.tsukuba.ac.jp/~macer/biodict.htm)

“True friendship can afford true knowledge. It does not depend on darkness and ignorance.”
(Henry David Thoreau)

“Three passions have governed my life:
The longings for love, the search for knowledge…
I have wished to understand the hearts of [people].
I have wished to know why the stars shine.
Love and knowledge led upwards to the heavens,
But always pity brought me back to earth…”
(Betrand Russell, adapted)

I’ve been thinking lately about the role of knowledge in everyday life. What I mean is that I’ve been seeking along the most practical lines possible an explanation of why knowledge is important and worth pursuing. We all come across individuals from time to time (and you may be one of them) who sort of scoffs at learning and education. Perhaps you left school at an early age, struggled with learning because of a disability, you never came to realize the value of knowledge, or relse you feel hopeless because, as some of my philosophy students can attest, there are so many views out there; how can we know which one is right? Most of us don’t have the time, patience, and/or ability to pursue an academic life. I want to make several points, which will later be briefly pursued in argument form. First, we all value knowledge of those things we value the most. Second, we can reconize that our knowledge of what we value the most brings us in touch with that which we value most, and therefore, “knowledge of what is valuable to us” is inherently valuable. Third, since our knowledge of what we value is inherently valuable, whatever we want to come into contact with more intimately we must acquire knowledge in order to do so. Finally, we must learn how to bring our values into line with those things that are inherently valuable. If you don’t follow this or the argument that follows, be patient as I will try to illustrate it in simpler terms.

I don’t want to elaborate on this in great detail, but simply present an argument with some explanation.

1. We value knowledge of those things we value.
2. We value such knowledge because such knowledge is inherently valuable.
3. Whatever we choose to become knowledgable of will constitute knowledge that becomes inherently valuable to us in bringing us face to face with that which we choose to become knowledgable of.
4. There are things which our knowledge of them is more valuable than other things.

Let me re-phrase this for those who have trouble following:

1. I value my knowledge of saxophones because it helps me to play saxophone.
2. I value my knowledge of saxophones because I realize that without knowledge of saxophones I wouldn’t be able to play saxophone, and so my knowledge brings me into “relationship” with a saxophone.
3. If I chose to value piano, then my knowledge of piano would bring me into a closer “relationship” with this instrument as well. It would allow me to interact with it more fully.
4. I find it more valuable to have knowledge of saxohphones than pianos since I own a saxophone and I do not own a piano.

Let me re-phrase yet again, this time in theological terms.

1. I value my knowledge of God because it helps bring me into contact with God.
2. I value my knowledge of God because without it I would not know who or what God is, what he expects, if he is real, etc.

(I should point out that I’m consciously equivocating on the meaning of value here, but not to the detriment of the argument. I think elaboration of objective vs. subjective value would not aid at this point.)

You get the picture. The point is simply this: knowledge is to the mind what eyes are to the external world. By gaining knowledge, we are bringing ourselves in tune with the real world; the world of ideas, the world of emotions, the world of relationships, the world of physical objects and laws, the realm of truth. Knowledge is not some esoertic, other-wordly way of achieving fame or success or recognition. Knowledge is not simply trivia. Genuine knowledge (that is, a belief in something which is justified and true) brings us into contact with that very thing. In essence by knowing about a thing, we carve up our mind according to the way the objects of our knowledge carve up the world.

So, knowledge by itself, is inherently valuable in that it brings us into contact with the object being known. To be even more precise, I think knowledge provides the foundation for a “relationship” between me and the object being known. It provides the basis for one to interact with, understand, see, and grasp that which we value as an object of our attention.
As a final point, are there some things that are inherently more valuable than others in coming into contact with, that is, in coming into relationship with? It seems to me that trivia is often a case of valuing knowledge for its own sake. But, is truth something we want to come into contact with? Is the meaning of life? How about ourselves and other human beings? If they are, then it only makes sense that we ought to learn to do what it takes in order to ‘come to value’ our knowledge of those things that are most valuable. But for those who think there aren’t inherently valuable things out there worth pursing a knowledge of, consider this: if my argument above succeeds, then it shows that our knowledge of any particular area of interest and the ability knowledge has to bring us into a relationship with that thing or area demonstrates that there is at least one inherent value worth pursing: ‘knowledge of those things we value the most’. If there’s at least one, why couldn’t there be others as well? In other words, I think modern apathy against knowledge may come down to something as simple as this: “I only want to know about those things I want to know about.” Here’s a suggestion for escaping apathy: learn to want to know not only about the things you want to know about, but also the things about which you ought to know about. How we ‘come to value’ what we ought to value is another matter, and the subject of another blog.

WPF

“Certum est quia impossibile est (It is certain because impossible)” (Tertullian)

“Now if… [Christ] has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But… [then] not even Christ has been raised; and… your faith also is vain. Moreover we are… false witnesses of God for if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; [but then]… your faith is worthless… [and] you are still in your sins… [and]… those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished [and]… we are of all men most to be pitied.” (1 Cor. 15:12-19)

Every game has rules. Rules help structure the game and define the game. They tell us what is part of the game, and what is not part of the game. Without rules there is no structure, and with no structure there are, in a sense, no walls to hold the roof up. In this sense, life is a game. Not only does life have rules for how we ought to behave, but life and reality itself is built around, into its very foundation, rules to structure and delimit existence from non-existence.

I recently had a conversation with a friend of mine on the subject of Calvinism. Calvinism, in brief, is the view that the pre-destining of individuals for salvation is based not on anything in the individual, since we are radically depraved, but solely upon God’s mercy and mysterious will. Forgoing a wade through deep theological waters, consider the dilemma that we find when we read the Scriptures in a straightforward manner:

John 3:16 (and similar passages): “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”

Rom. 8:30 (and similar passages): “…and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.”

Do you begin to see the apparent contradiction? Some Biblical passages seem to lay at least part of the burden and responsibility upon us to believe while other passages seem to affirm that it is God who chooses (predestines) individuals to believe, thus refuting our individual choice and responsibility to do the believing in the first place.

The faithful Calvinist must affirm a ‘both-and’ position. It is true that BOTH:

1: We do the choosing.
AND
2: God does the choosing.

It’s certainly a provocative position, and it certainly seems to do justice to our plainsense interpretation of the text, but can it really be both, and does it really do justice to the text? First, it cannot be both without changing the rules of the game. You can’t simply violate the rules of a game in order to get what you want. At least if you did, you would no longer really be playing the game, would you? And, second, if you cannot simply change the rules of the game to get what you want, then it cannot be doing justice to the text. Just as one cannot violate the law of gravity to fly, or ultimately avoid the consequences of our evil actions, so we cannot violate the fundamental rules of reality in order to get what we want. Consider this basic but monumental truth:

“Everything is what it is and not what it isn’t.”
This is why the kind of Calvinism that wants to affirm both A & ~A is never going to be able to have what it wants.

“Reality cannot both be what it is and isn’t at the same time in the same respect.“
This is what makes reality real. This is what makes truth true. For lack of a better way of saying it: this simply is what existence is about. No amount of ingenuinty, omnipotence, reflection, or revelation can ever make it not the case the reality is what it is and not what it is not, at the same time and in the same respect. To state a view is not to estabablish it. To claim a position is not to vindicate it. To claim the Bible is the Word of God while at the same time violating the rules under which the Bible operates automatically disqualifies oneself from the game of interpretation.

How do we resolve dilemmas like this in everyday life? Remove one horn of the dilemma, or else change the meaning of the terms. Removing horns would be to remove revealed truth. Changing the meaning of terms involves truth in context. Truth in context, in this case, either undermines belief or else undermines determinism of our beliefs. Which is more plausible? If the very fabric of human existence, moral responsibility, individual accountability, the divine image, the fall of man, the common-sense experience of life, and the very concept of mercy and love themselves are not enough to vindicate our basic intuitions that we are free agents, then we have to honestly ask ourselves if we are pursuing truth or fantasy. Reason and experience dictate that this shadowy notion of God’s pre-determined will should fall by the wayside. If the Calvinist truly wants to affirm mystery (that which is unknown or at worst unknowable), then why not leave the issue of divine determinism the greatest mystery of all? The problem is, I don’t think that the Calvinist knows how to affirm this. It usually comes out something like this: “we are free and God controls everything, but just how this can be is a mystery”. But this affirmation fails to do justice to one’s own faith, simply because it is, in principle, impossible to establish. To affirm it is to affirm a contradiction. So, how does one affirm God’s truth in light of this mystery? It looks something like this:
“I can’t explain this mystery, but I can tell you what it cannot be.”

“God is in control. I don’t know how, but I know this much: it cannot be in such a way that it undermines our individual choice.”

This position opens up several options for reconciliation and revises our understanding of the word ‘mystery’, putting it more in line with what the Bible actually teaches about the musterion of God. I think the honest Calvinist is one that is agnostic about the issue, but in being agnostic, one can no longer mantain Calvinism itself. One can only say ‘we are free, but beyond this I just don’t know’.

“Our faith in a good God is not based on what we do not understand about life, much less in our ability to make logical sense of it all. Our faith is based on grace moments that do indeed reveal God’s character…” (Ben Witherington, Not in the Wind)

WPF

Spending most of this week in beautiful Estes Park in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado, here are a few philosophical reflections. The first one concerns the concept of “weirdness”, the second with what is “natural”, though both have to do with the fundamental problem of setting standards on the assumption, or belief, that “the cosmos is all that was, is, and ever will be.” (Carl Sagan) In other words, how do we make sense of what “ought” to be and what “ought not” to be if everything simply is what it is, i.e. if we hold to the philosophical view known as philosophical naturalism?

First, what do we do when we encounter people of different beliefs, customs, behaviors, and appearances? This question arose in my mind after spending some time in the eclectic community of Boulder, not unlike my experiences in Madison, Wisconsin. Often times if our exposure to persons of diverse character has been limited, it is easy, and “natural” to view such people as “weird”. They are different from us. Their behaviors are hard to understand. We just can’t relate. But, did you notice that I used the word “natural” here to describe our tendency to label such people as weird? To say that it is “natural”, in this context, is not to describe the way things are and that can never not be the case. I am using “natural” to refer to a common, knee-jerk reaction that we have both psychologically and emotionally in these situations. So, to say that one “naturally” feels a certain way is to say more about the subject than the object. It says more about how we feel than how things really are.
The second observation I made this week was after hearing a nature talk called ‘the Ballad of the Big Horned Sheep’. The park ranger, a retired science teacher of 30 years, rationalized the permission of wild coyote’s to hunt and eat young lamb. According to him, “for a coyote to eat a lamb is natural, but for a human being to stop by the roadside and disturb these same animals is unnatural.’ What a remarkable statement. For a wild coyote to kill and eat a sheep is natural, but for a human being to invade these animals’ territory is somehow unnatural. Here, if we use “natural” as referring to the obejct, rather than the subject (as talking about the way things are rather than the way we feel), we may begin to wonder. If the cosmos is all that was, is, and ever will be’ and if we are a product of the cosmos, i.e. we are a part of it, how can it ever be un-natural for a human being to disturb, or even take the life of, wild animals, in any context, and for any reason? After all, all of us are part of the grand scheme of nature. This is no other nature than the one in which we find ourselves.

Now, we can look at how these 2 senses of nature clash with each other. First, if whatever is, is, and there is not way it must be, then to label something as “weird” because it feels natural to do so is to fall victim to an illusion. But, we all share this sense of “weirdness” about the way things are. Our intuitions pick up things all along the path of life that philosophical naturalism cannot explain: although our perceptions of what is weird vary, we all have intuitions of the difference between natural and un-natural. Second, by categorizing the behavior of animals as natural and that of human beings as un-natural we are not only intuiting, but asserting and applying this concept of “feeling natural” to the natural world. But, we have no non-arbitrary basis for doing so unless we have a transcendent standard with which to judge human beings as less natural than the rest of nature. So, the naturalist , and especially the environmentalist, finds him/herself in a quandry: it is more clear than anything else that what is wild (or natural) needs protection from what is domestic (non-natural), but all the reasons and all the feelings one can muster will never be able to substitute for the objective, transcendent standard for such a view that only God’s existence and objective moral standards can substantiate.

WPF

A friend of mine sent me this recently. I reformatted it for your viewing pleasure. I have found few prayers as inspirational as this one. For meditation, try contemplating to Loreena McKennit’s song ‘Dante’s Prayer‘…


WPF

USC philosophy professor Dallas Willard makes the comment in one of his popular talks entitled ‘How to be a Morally Responsible Skeptic‘: “you should not only believe your doubts and doubt your beliefs, but you should believe your beliefs and doubt your doubts.”  A skeptic is someone who doubts any number of things.  A religious skeptic is one who doubts particular religious claims, or else any and every religious claim.  A complete skeptic, of any variety, is one who doubts everything.  But, it’s an often overlooked fact that in some peoples’ disposition to be skeptical of everything, they lose the right to be skeptical of anything.  Two points about this statement:

1) I say ‘disposition’ because I think radical skepticism reflects more about a person’s psychology than it does about one’s epistemology.  In other words, a person who doubts everything lacks the moral courage and the psychological ability to admit to the reality that is there.  As Willard also points out, “truth is what we run into when our beliefs are false.”

2) The reason a skeptic cannot doubt everything is precisely because the skeptic’s own skepticism would fall under one such belief.  But, the one thing the complete skeptic cannot let go of is their firm grasp on the belief in the truth of their own skepticism.

When it comes to religious skepticism, I’m not interested in the one who doubts one or more particular claims of one or more particular religious systems.  We all doubt and we ought to be skeptical of many religious claims that are made.  What I do find interesting is the more general skeptical attitude toward God’s nature and existence.  My point is quite simple and it is one that other’s have made before me: to say that nothing can be known of God’s nature or existence is to claim one dogmatic truth about God and his nature, namely, that he is, and he is such that nothing can be known about him.  This kind of skepticism undermines itself.  It cannot be rationally maintained.

WPF

House: Does anybody believe anything you say? You’re not accepting. You’re running away. Just like you always do. You ran away from the monastery, you get laid, you ran away from the real world when getting laid didn’t work out so good. Now things aren’t working out again, so off you go.
Augustine: Why is it so difficult for you to believe in God?
House: What I have difficulty with is the whole concept of belief. Faith isn’t based on logic and experience.
Augustine: I experience God on a daily basis, and the miracle of life all around. The miracle of birth, the miracle of love. He is always with me.
House: Where is the miracle in delivering a crack-addicted baby? Hmmm? And watching her mother abandon her because she needs another score. The miracle of love. You’re twice as likely to be killed by the person you love than by a stranger.
Augustine: Are you trying to talk me out of my faith?
House: You can have all the faith you want in spirits and the afterlife, and heaven and hell, but when it comes to this world, don’t be an idiot. ‘Cause you can tell me you put your faith in God to put you through the day, but when it comes time to cross the road, I know you look both ways.
Augustine: I don’t believe He is inside me and is going to save me. I believe He is inside me whether I live or die.
House: Then you might as well live. You’ve got a better shot betting on me than on Him.
Augustine: When I was 15, I was on every kind of birth control known to man, and I still got pregnant. I blamed God. I hated Him for ruining my life, but then I realized something. You can’t be angry with God and not believe in him at the same time. No one can. Not even you, Dr. House.

WPF

“Insofar as I may be heard by anything, which may or may not care what I say, I ask, if it matters, that you be forgiven for anything you may have done or failed to do which requires forgiveness. Conversely, if not forgiveness but something else may be required to insure any possible benefit for which you may be eligible after the destruction of your body, I ask that this, whatever it may be, be granted or withheld, as the case may be, in such a manner as to insure your receiving said benefit. I ask this in my capacity as your elected intermediary between yourself and that which may not be yourself, but which may have an interest in the matter of your receiving as much as it is possible for you to receive of this thing, and which may in some way be influenced by this ceremony. Amen.”
(‘The Agnostic’s Prayer’, Roger Zelazny,
Creatures of Light and Darkness, 1969)

In the book What We Can’t Not Know, J. Budziszewski writes:

“An agnostic claims ignorance about God. If he concedes that it is possible to know something about God but that he does not know it, then he condemns himself, for he is too lazy to learn the most important thing. To justify himself he would have to maintain that knowledge of God is not the most important thing, but that would be merely to claim that something else is God — and that he already knows all about it. If he says it is impossible to know anything about God, he contradicts himself, for to know God’s unknowability would be to know something about God. Indeed it would be to know a great deal about him. First one would have to assume that He were infinitely distant, because otherwise one could not be so sure that knowledge about Him were impossible. Second one would have to assume that He were unconcerned, because otherwise one would expect Him to have provided the means for one to know Him. Finally one would have to assume that He were completely unlike the Biblical portrayal, because in that account he does care about us and has already provided the means for us to know Him. So in the end the so-called agnostic must claim to know a quite a number of things about God. The problem is he cannot justify any of them.” (p.65)

“You should never, ever, doubt what nobody is sure about.” (Willy Wonka)

WPF

“Boredom: the desire for desires.” (Leo Tolstoy)

““And beware not to lift up your eyes to heaven and see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, and be drawn away and worship them and serve them, those which the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven.” (Deut. 4:19)

We do a lot of things in life that we, as Christians, consider a part of ministry or worship to God. We work hard, give money, and help others, but we don’t actually think that the act of painting a house, handing a donation check to a charity, or lending a hand to another person is itself a religious and sacred act. At least we shouldn’t. These are merely means to an end. It’s subtle, but there is a temptation, especially in response to contemporary Christian music, for Christians to treat the music not as a means to an end, but as an end in itself. Any music can be of intrinsic value when it heightens the mood or lifts the spirit. But to worship God is to worship the creator, not the created. In this sense, music, as any other tool of worship, has the following role: to amplify our efforts in bringing worship to God. (Music can also help our souls resonate the deep truths of God that are otherwise inexpressible, and it can set an example for others.) But how often has the worship “experience” become a substitute for the real thing in your own life? Ask yourself the following questions:

John 4:23 says ““But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.” Sometimes the best worship takes place in the the quietness of one’s own heart. What does a proper response to God look like? The Bible is replete with images of people literally falling down on their faces before the object of their worship. Have we missed something?

“And the twenty-four elders, who sit on their thrones before God,
fell on their faces and worshiped God.” (Rev. 11:16)

WPF

- ‘New Winos Drinking Song Number One’, Kathryn Riss

“And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.” – Rom. 12:2, emph. added

The Christian apologist Greg Koukl, in an article about how homosexuality is typically popularized, writes: “The problem we face with 21st century culture in a post-modern era is that people are not influenced by arguments, they are influenced by images and story telling. That’s what matters, so the image-maker is the one who wins, not the guy with the good argument.” He goes on to comment, “People don’t listen. They don’t understand. They don’t even know how arguments work. They wouldn’t know a good argument if they heard one.” I can guess Koukl’s views on the issue from this exerpt, but what I want to focus on is both how we ought to approach the issue of adapting truth (i.e. the Gospel, at least for Christians) to a post-modern mindset, and what we ought to think about it. Koukl hints at a problem with post-modern culture in his Paulish retort to these truths, but I want to show part of the reason why I think he is correct in responding the way he does.

Imagine a culture in which people were mostly illiterate. Imagine too that illteracy is actually harmful in various ways. It isn’t difficult to imagine. From this we would conclude that literacy, rather than illteracy, is actually perferable. In this hypothetical situation, knowing what we know, would we conclude that because the culture is this way, that it ought to be that way, and in turn that it ought to stay that way? Of course not. Not only do we know this to be false because our knowledge of the harmful effects of illiteracy in our hypothetical situation (and in our own society), but to make this kind of blanket statement about the way things should be from the way things are is actually fallacious. It committs something logicians call the naturalistic fallacy, that whatever is the case ought to be the case. The fallacy reveals that just because something is, doesn’t mean it ought to be that way. Go back to the 1940′s. Just because Hitler is in power doesn’t mean he ought to be in power. Back to the present, just because there is sometimes unfair preferential treatment in job hiring doesn’t mean this ought to be the case. And likewise, just because our culture thinks and acts in a post-modern way, doesn’t mean it ought to think and act that way. This is the first point that needs to be made.

Naturally, the next question that arises is: ‘granted that we should think for ourselves on issues rather than just go with the flow, is the post-modern mindset actually harmful?’ I think that it is, and I am going to focus on one reason why, what could be called ‘the argument from human nature’.

Although human beings may approach the world differently than in past generations, this isn’t because our human nature has evolved. People in different cultures still often approach the world in different ways, for better or for worse, but we still all share the same fundamental human nature as our parents and their parents before them. Because we share that same human nature, we have the same internal structure. I’m not talking about our liver and lungs. If we peek under the hood, so to speak, of a human being’s soul, we will see that God designed us as primarily rational beings. I’m not saying that to the extent we lose our rationality, we lose our identity. That is a separate issue. I am also not saying that a rational being is all that we are. A human being has a capacity for emotion, aesthetic judgment, and is willfull, all to one degree or another. But, if we were to ask what drives a human being the answer would be: beliefs. Beliefs, in turn, are fueled by reasons. Reasons and beliefs exist in that rational compartment of our souls called: the intellect. We do not and cannot live our lives in conceptual vacumes. We believe things for reasons. We disbelieve other things for reasons or lack of reasons. We cannot do otherwise. We weren’t designed to. Try for yourself to believe something you have no reason to believe or even something you have reasons not to believe. To use J.P. Moreland’s example, try to believe there is a pink elephant existing in the room with you. You can’t do it. You can say you have acheived it and you can feel like you have, but you won’t wager even $10 that you are right in your belief. Why? Because you don’t really believe it. Now, even if you think this negative point can’t be proven, namely, that we can’t believe things except on the basis of reasons, the positive side of the argument is that we do believe things on the basis of reasons; and it’s easy to show this to be true.

A brother hits his sister while the mother is absent. What does the mother ask the child? She says ‘Johnny, why did you do that?’ In other words, she doesn’t just want to know what caused her daughter to scream, an elbow or a foot, but wants to know ‘what was your reason for doing this?’ If, as many children do, he responds with ‘there wasn’t a reason’, usally in the form of ‘I don’t know’, this just won’t fly. Ask any parent. Likewise, consider a man who goes into court for any crime. What is one of the first issues that needs to be addressed? ‘What was your motive in this crime? What were your reasons behind it?’ If there were no reasons, it was either by accident or some unknown cause. If it wasn’t by accident, we can probably rule out some mysterious uknown cause. This is close to William Dembski’s approach in his book ‘the Design Inference’, though he is arguing for an intelligent designer of the universe.

Think about the scientist who is trying to determine the cause behind the un-explained side-effects of a drug that was previously thought to be safe. Imagine he presents some controversial findings on the issue to a committy and they respond ‘OK, I understand your conclusion, but what reason do we have to believe you are correct?’ and he replies ‘no reason, none at all’. Would anyone respond ‘that’s good enough for me!’? Even if we would say this COULD we really believe him if we wanted to? The human mind was created to reason and it runs on beliefs fueled by reasons. To be even more philosophical here, this is probably because the universe as a whole is a rational one. Things in the world happen for reasons. But back to the issue at hand, if a person has no good reason to believe something, she shouldn’t believe it. And if a person thinks she believes something without any reason, she doesn’t really believe it. As just mentioned, I am using ‘reason’ here in two different ways with reference to the way the world is and the way the human mind is, but surely these are reasonable statements on all accounts. To say the world is structured otherwise or that we function otherwise would be, again, to say that there is some unknown cause (e.g. blind willpower? or fate?) or that events in the world including our beliefs are the product of pure accident.

So, going back to the question of whether we ought to adapt, as Christians, to the post-modern culture, it shouldn’t be as hard as it seems. If it is true that the post-modern mindset is harmful to human beings, then it is true by-in-large because “images and storytelling” don’t impact us where it counts. Don’t get me wrong. Images and storytelling can be powerful. But, they are often more powerful emotionally than they are intellectually. And because beliefs are intellectual and not emotional creatures, our image-making and story-telling just can’t equip us theologically for all the challenges a Christian faces in the world today. Likewise, it will never lead us through the kind of growth that a solid dose of well-reasoned Biblical theology is capable of. That is why God gave us the Bible, not just to tell us stories of things that already happened, but primarily to impart information that is good: good news. This after all is what the word ‘gospel’ means. Biblical theology, made palatable, impacts us directly. Images and storytelling impact us indirectly. This is why the Bible says the Truth of God (i.e. God’s Word), not prayer, not Bible study, nor Christian community is:

“… living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. ” (Heb 4:12)

This is also why Paul says that transformation is primarily through information (not trivia, but integrated beliefs), a renewing of the mind (Rom. 12:2), not a change in behavior nor a life full of a variety of experiences, nor even through loving community. (Jesus told stories to engage, but the reason for this is different: to allow others to draw their own conclusions and to hide the truth from the insincere). This is primarily why the post-modern mindset is unhealthy. For those Christians that don’t like this theology and are fearful of equating the Christian life with a life of learning, dare we forget that we live in the shadow of a God who is not only all-powerful and all-good, but who is all-knowing (omni-scient) and all-wise (omni-sapient). Should we be surprised? He modelled us in his own image! As Dallas Willard has commented: Jesus Christ was actually a pretty intelligent guy to say the least. Jesus Christ ought to be our model in all areas of life, not the shifting sands of culture.

We always have to adapt to our audience and be sensitive in our approach. Jesus did so. Paul did so. We should always season our approach with salt (Col. 4:6). But, we never want to leave people where they are. The Christian and the Christian apologist (one and the same?) should always strive to leave people better off than they were, not the same, and never worse.

WPF