"I'm Still Young"... And Other Bad Justifications

They are used often, both by the perpetrator and the defender.  I hear them said in a lot of different ways.  They seem to be something to even desire.  These statements are the way people hide behind their youth.  Some wear them as a badge of honor, while others just use them to excuse their behavior.

"Boys will be boys;" "I want to experience life while I can;" "They're just kids;"  "I will always have time to learn about that later, but I want to have fun now;" "I want to live it up while I can!"  These, and others like them, are the "I'm Still Young" class of justifications.  It is a common idea to believe we will always be able to change later.  This is often why youth act like they don't care, they think they will always be able to fix it later.

However, contrary to this idea, there are many problems with this type of justification.   The first problem is easy to see.  Being young does not change the morality of an issue.  Lying, Murder, Hate, etc. are all wrong no matter your age.  This idea is undertaken in Ecclesiastes 11:7-10.  The author does say to live well while still young, enjoy your youth, but remember we will be held accountable.  Clearly, to be young is not to absolve from responsibility.  And I think most people realize this very quickly.

I am not sure we are as ready and eager to recognize the second (and I think deeper) problem behind the "I want to experience life while I can" set of justifications.  I think there is something fundamentally wrong with what we think experiencing life is in reality.

Far too often I will hear, and even think myself, that life is better while you are young.  This seems to be an underlying assumption in our culture today.  "Those were (are) the best days of your life" or other like statements adequately describe our attitude toward life.  We as a culture honestly think life is at its best in High School and College.  This is something that has been documented by Diana West in her book The Death of The Grown Up.  Also, for a couple shorter treatments of this idea, check out these articles by John Stonestreet.

For some reason we have bought the idea that life is all downhill after 30.  This scares me as I turned 30 this year.  But it also scares me, because it means that, if this theory is true, I am now heading into the boring part of life!  Is life really best in the 20s???

I would venture that it shouldn't be true.  And it is a very, very sad thing for people who find it to be true for them.  It is painful to be around people who are in the middle of life, still wishing to be in high school.  Don't believe me??? To show you life should get better with age, like fine wine or cheese, I submit Uncle Rico.

Do you know Uncle Rico?  In the movie Napoleon Dynamite, a set of loser characters combine to make a memorable movie (though maybe memorable for all the wrong reasons.)  In this movie of loser characters, I think we all know the worst one is Uncle Rico.

Rico is a 30s relative of the main character Napoleon. He is often referring to his high school football days, "I bet I could still throw a football over those mountains."  He wishes he could relive his glory days!  Unfortunately, those are his glory days.  He now lives in a van, and tries to come up with get-rich-quick schemes.  It is hard not to understand the pathetic nature of a grown man wishing to be in high school again.

Even so, we, as a culture, try to hold on to our teen years for as long as possible.  This is true enough that it is not actually hard to find an "Uncle Rico" in real life.  We can all probably think of someone like this, or we will find one soon.

I think this goes against the idea Christ had in mind when he spoke of having the full life in John 10:7-10.  It seems to be counter-intuitive to urge people to reach for a "full" life, but it doesn't keep getting better as people grow.  A full life should only get better.  In this case, getting older would be welcome.

Most cultures have understood the value of growing old.  They recognized, that while losing some physical ability, growing old brings an experience and wisdom that is surpassing in its meaning and beauty.  This is one reason why many cultures have a more healthy respect for their elders.

As a culture, we need to recognize the full life begins in Christ, and only gets better as we grow in him.  This will help our students to mature earlier, because they will not be afraid of the life still to come.

It is reasonable to believe in God. Pt 6

I have been arguing belief in God is reasonable by putting forth a short, cumulative case for the existence of God.  In my last post, I argued the existence of universal morals is best explained by the existence of an ultimate creator.  Today, I want to focus on some lesser known arguments for the existence of God.

Quick Extras (Maybe One Not So Quick)
There are many, many arguments for the existence of God.  Some have been researched more than others.  In this space, I will treat some of my favorites in a very short way.

The Argument From Desire
One of my favorite arguments for the existence of God is called the argument from desire.  Many people have used this argument.  It appeals to the desire in all of us for meaning, love, glory, and other desires.  Some have put the argument this way: "There is a God-shaped hole in each of us."  C.S. Lewis was very good at using this argument.

The way I put this argument is:  For most of the things I want, I find there is a suitable, even perfect, satisfier for this desire.  When I am hungry (the desire for food) I can find food.  When I am thirsty (the desire for drink) I can have water.  I cannot think of one physical desire for which there is not a perfect satisfying element in this universe.  You could suggest the world was made in such a way as to be able to work towards satisfying needs/wants of its inhabitants. (By the way this is another form of the argument from Teleology.)

It is almost as perfect with my non-physical (spiritual) desires.  My desire to have loving companionship is fulfilled by my wife.  The desire I have to care for, and nurture the creation is fulfilled by my care for my home and dogs.  I desire to leave a legacy for new generations, and hopefully someday I will have children of my own to do this with.  But unlike my physical desires, these "spiritual" desires are not perfectly fulfilled all the time.

However, I can see glimpses of how these might be fulfilled perfectly.  It leads me to believe, that if all of my physical desires can be met perfectly, might there be a place where my spiritual desires can be perfectly met?  After observing how many desires are satisfied, CS Lewis put it this way: "If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."


I find this most compelling for the Christian God when one considers our desire to be a part of something bigger than ourselves, and yet we do not want to lose ourselves.  In other words, we all want to live a meaningful life, but be able to be who we are.  All other worldviews do not answer this adequately.  Atheism tells us to only care for ourselves, while Pantheism tells us to lose ourselves in the cosmic goo.  


Only Christianity gives an adequate explanation for this desire.  The Christian God is the perfect example of this in the Triune nature.  God is a unified being in three persons.  All members of the Trinity are fully God (unity), but are fully distinct persons (individuals).  No other worldview answers this question in a satisfactory manner.


The Argument From Beauty
I think I like the way Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli put this.  It goes something like this: There is the music of Johann Sebastian Bach.  Therefore, there is a God.  Seriously, check it out in this book.  


Beauty, like the beauty represented by this picture from space needs an explanation.  The best explanation is it was created by a designer.


I know there is a lot more to explain in this argument, but these are supposed to be quick extras and I already really screwed that up.


The Argument From Consciousness
The fact that there is something unphysical about us points to an unphysical cause.  Our mind needs an adequate explanation for existence.  The existence of mind (not our brains) cannot be explained by physical means.  The best explanation is another mind.


There are a lot more of these arguments.  I find some of them more compelling than others, but in a cumulative case all contribute to the case for the existence of God.


Next: Conclusion

Biblical Interpretation in a Nutshell

Over at Parchment and Pen, Michael Patton has posted a concise summary of correct Biblical Interpretation.  I have been working on several posts about Biblical Interpretation, where I have claimed there are 5 steps to correct Biblical Interpretation.

Patton has suggested there are really only 3 steps to correct interpretation: Exegetical Statement (What It Meant To Them), Theological Statement (What It Means To Everyone) and Homiletical Statement (How This Applies To Me).  These actually are basically the same steps I advocate said in a different way.  However, Patton has been working at this longer than I, and therefore has much insight and experience I cannot give.

It seems to me, that many (not all) of the problems we have when reading the Bible would be solved, if we just read it more carefully.

I highly recommend giving this post a read through.

The Power of a Cumulative Case

As I am building a Cumulative Case argument for God's existence, I find Luke Nix has an article on the power of the cumulative case approach to worldviews.

He does a very good job of explaining the reasons for preferring the cumulative case to other arguments.  Anyone wondering about the pros and cons of the cumulative case approach should read this article.

When Things Take the Place of People, Or How to Suppress the Truth In Unrighteousness pt. 2

A little while ago, I commented on an article by Al Mohler about the gender-neutral leanings of many universities in the United States today.  I suggested this was a clear case of exchanging the truth of God for a lie as we are told happens in Romans 1:18-32.  When people stop recognizing God's created order, even though it is plain to see we can tell they are suppressing the truth in their unrighteousness.

Well, add another example to the list!  Today, Robin Phillips of Signs of the Times, has found another way our society has decided to believe a lie.

The debate about global warming has been pretty heated for quite a while now.  Often I have wondered if proponents of the climate change phenomenon care more about the environment than people.  Well, it seems as though we have confirmation of this.  At least one global warming/enviro friendly person does care about trees and Mother Nature more than he does about his fellow man.

It seems as though Bill Gates has decided we need to decrease the human population, in order to ensure the survival of the planet.  In fact, he is advocating the use of vaccines to help achieve this goal!

I want to be clear, I recycle (sometimes because my wife makes me), I do care about the world we live in.  It seems clear to me we are supposed to be stewards of our environment.  This world is not ours to destroy, it is God's and he has asked us to rule over it (Genesis 1:28).

However, it is also clear humans are the epitome of the created order.  God has given us creation to rule over, which logically means we are greater.  A lesser cannot rule a greater!  It has been said, that one human being is worth more than all the molecules in all the universe.  This being so, we cannot stand by and watch as people suggest we are worth less than what God has said.  He created us in His image, and we must stand for the truth.

A Holocaust Denier-- Now???

A Catholic Bishop has been convicted of denying the Holocaust.  In Germany this is a crime.

From Beliefnet.com:

BERLIN - A German court convicted ultraconservative British Bishop Richard Williamson on Friday for denying the Holocaust in a television interview.

 

A court in the Bavarian city of Regensburg found Williamson guilty of incitement for saying in a 2008 interview with Swedish television that he did not believe Jews were killed in gas chambers during World War II.

The court ordered Williamson to pay a fine of (EURO)10,000 ($13,544).

The Roman Catholic bishop was barred by his order from attending Friday's proceedings or making statements to the media.

His lawyer, Matthias Lossmann, told The Associated Press after the court ruling that Williamson has yet to decide if would appeal it.

Denying the Holocaust is a criminal offense in Germany.

The court last year ordered a fine of (EURO)12,000 for Williamson, without a trial. But the Bishop appealed that ruling, forcing his case to be tried publicly. [Italics Mine]

What really caught my attention about this article was this last line.  What person in their right mind would want to have a trial regarding their denial of the historicity of the Holocaust while people who actually lived through the Holocaust are still alive???  The one time where historical revisionism is virtually impossible is while eyewitnesses are still alive.

This is the exact reason why 1 Cor. 15:3-8 is so important to our belief in the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Scholars have dated this passage very early after the time of the crucifixion and resurrection (within 5 years by many estimates).   So, it would be very hard for historical revisionism to creep into the account by this time.

Moreover, Paul issues a challenge in this passage.  He names a bunch of eyewitnesses!  He is basically saying, "Jesus lives.  If you don't believe me, go ask all the other people who saw Him! They will verify my story."

Eyewitnesses make it extremely difficult to deny a historical event.  Praise the Lord for showing himself to many after the resurrection!

Some Thoughts on the Brown - Ehrman Debate

Yesterday, at Ohio State University, Dr. Michael Brown debated Dr. Bart Ehrman on the premise Does the Bible Provide an Adequate Explanation to the Problem of Suffering.  Overall this was one of the best debates I have seen on this topic.  Both sides were passionate, and came armed with Biblical text to support their position.  Overall, I enjoyed this debate very much, and it is hard to declare either presenter the clear winner.

As I was watching this debate a couple things struck me about all debates on the problem of suffering or evil.

First, one should not use the problem of evil/suffering as a primary reason for or against the belief in a supreme deity.  There are multiple reasons why this is a poor justification for or against the existence of God.  There is a lot of evidence for the existence of God which come from other lines of inquiry, and just because we don't like the theistic answers to the problem of pain, does not negate any of these other lines of evidence.  Just because you might not like the answers to the problem of pain, does not negate the evidence for God from cosmology, philosophy, science, and experience.  In the same way, because you might want there to be a God who will bring justice, does not actually entail other evidence against his existence wrong.  Here is a hypothetical about how this might go:

Atheist: God does not have an adequate answer to the problem of evil.  So he doesn't exist!

Theist: God does exist, so he has an adequate answer to the problem of evil.

Atheist: But there can be no adequate answer for suffering, so there is no God.

Theist: Heaven is an adequate answer for suffering.

Atheist:  No, its not!

Theist: Yes it is!

Very quickly, this digresses into a subjective preference about whether the answers given are adequate or not.  The logical problem of evil has fallen out of favor for this exact reason.  There could be a logical reason why God could allow pain, but whether or not we accept it comes down to whether or not we believe there is a God and if he is good.  There are better lines of evidence for/against God, and we might want to ask about the problem of evil after we have decided about whether or not God actually exists.

The second observation I had from the debate was how often people mistake the ontological/metaphysical for the epistemological.   At one point Dr. Brown made a remark about the meaning of life if God did not exist.  The comment was made to point out, that if God does not exist, then there is no ultimate meaning to suffering or kindness or life in general.  To this point, Dr. Ehrman said Dr. Brown's assertion was "obscene" and offensive.  He commented that he, himself, had much meaning in his life even though he did not believe in God.  Ehrman's answer shows he was confused about Dr. Brown's point.

I am not sure theists have done a good job explaining ontological issues like these yet.  And when we try to use them, we often let the non-theist get away with changing from the ontological to the epistemological in their answer.

Let me explain what I mean.  The ontological is the way reality really is, while the epistemological is our knowledge of things.  When Brown argued there would be no meaning without God, he was making an ontological claim  He was saying ultimate meaning cannot exist if there is no God, because everything will end in the end, and we will cease to exist.  Anything we do in this life will be ultimately worthless, because we do not have a standard of worth to measure by, and in the end, everything will be destroyed.

Ehrman answered with an epistemological claim, specifically saying he knew his life had meaning.  But this does not answer Brown's assertion that there is no meaning without God.  Instead, this is actually an implicit admission as to Ehrman's intuitive knowledge of God, because he knows his actions have true value.

Theists need to learn how to explain this better.  We need to learn to include ourselves in the argument.  We are not saying atheists have no value because they don't believe in God.  We are saying, that neither the atheist, nor the theist, has any ultimate value if there is no transcendent grounds to give us worth.  An atheist or a theist who does work for the poor, ultimately does nothing, without a God in existence in reality, because it will all be for naught when it is all destroyed.  We are not saying your belief in atheism means you do not have worth, we are saying neither you nor I have any worth if we are all products of natural processes.  Mother Nature does not care about you or I, because Mother Nature is really mother nature!!!

But if there is a God, then both the theist and the atheist have value, because of the transcendent nature of the Creator.  Inventors create with a purpose, and the Creator is no different.  He has a purpose for both the atheist and the theist.

Overall, I the debate was enjoyable and thought provoking.  In the end, is there much more you can ask for in a debate?

If you are interested in listening to the debate, apologetics315.blogspot.com has already linked to an MP3 of the event.