Two Kinds of Simplicity

"I wouldn't give a fig for the simplicity on this side of complexity; I would give my right arm for the simplicity on the far side of complexity."
Oliver Wendell Holmes

The Good Life

Great video on what life is and isn't about. Simply and powerfully presented. Enjoy!

Dissertation Topic Musings #1

So there's this thing called a "dissertation" that I'm supposed to write for my PhD. If topics were geographical regions, then you could say that I've located the country in which I wish to write: the ethics of religious belief. So now where am I going? I thought I would simply spit out a few thoughts--things I have strong intuitions about--that might help me pinpoint the city in which I will write. (Warning: I am not a Calvinist, in the ordinary sense of the word. So don't post comments like, "People don't choose to believe, God chooses." I am familiar with this view.) An additional qualifier here is that I would like to write on something that might actually be of use to the church in the area of evangelism.

1. People are, in some sense, responsible for either having or lacking theistic belief. That is, if you believe in God, it is, in some small way, due to something that you did of your own free will. (Or perhaps, we are not responsible for believing that God exists, but we are responsible for the subsequent choice to "come to God." But this is not a choice to believe something, it is a choice to act in a certain way. But then again, maybe this choice depends on a further belief--my belief that I need to come to God. How do I come by that belief?)
2. Believing in the existence of God is necessary for salvation. As the author of Hebrews says, "for he who comes to God must believe that He [exists], and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him." (Heb. 11:6)
3. We do not typically, or perhaps ever, just decide to believe things. Rather, we do other things that indirectly either lead us toward or away from various beleifs.
4. Two people with exactly the same evidence can reasonably come to different conclusions regarding the same proposition, e.g., the proposition that God exists.
5. If someone goes to hell, it is not simply because they failed to be reasonable. There is more to it.
6. I do not understand exactly why it is that some people believe in God and some do not. But even if it is attributable to some virtue, it does not follow that such a believer has "earned" anything before God. Such a believer may then go on to "come to God" and be saved, but the believing and the coming do not earn the saving. A person may believe that God exists, and beg God for salvation, and none of this obligates God in any way, nor does it cause God to do anything. God is free in all His actions. As C.S. Lewis says of Aslan, "He is not a tame lion."
7. If what I've said is close to correct, then when we talk to an unbeliever, there must be something we can say to them by way of how they might come to believe. There must be something they can do to indirectly help them toward belief. Perhaps it is the cultivation of some virtue?

Everyone Makes Exclusive Truth Claims

Tim Keller really has a way of putting things. Yesterday was a prime example.

Have you ever talked to someone about the gospel only to hear them say (something like), "I don't have a problem with you believing in Jesus if it gives you peace and comfort. But you shouldn't go around trying to convert people!" In giving this sort of response, people think that they are being very tolerant and pluralistic. "Everyone can believe what they like, just don't impose your beliefs on others." This perspective sounds good because it seems to convey the idea that everyone's take on spiritual reality is equally good. It avoids committing the worst of sins: making an exclusive truth claim.

But there's a problem with their problem with my evangelism, as Keller said. What they really mean is, "I have a problem with you believing in Jesus the way you do," or "you shouldn't/can't believe the way you do." But this flies in the face of the very sentiment they think they are communicating. They are, in effect, saying, "My take on spiritual reality (in which everyone's beliefs are equally good) is better than yours (in which Jesus is the only way)." They are making an exclusive truth claim. You can't escape making exclusive truth claims, it seems, if you want to say that there is something wrong about evangelism/sharing the gospel.

Does this sound right to you? Do you think someone can stand in criticism of evangelistic efforts without making some sort of exclusive truth claim?

Are Atheists Bad People?

Richard Feldman, in his essay, "Reasonable Religious Disagreement," comments that it is sheer nonsense to think that an atheist could not be a decent person or a good candidate for public office. He cites columnist Cal Thomas as an example of this kind of thinking, though he believes it is widespread throughout our culture.

So if it is nonsense to doubt the moral fiber of a man simply because he does not believe in God, when why do so many people think this way? I certainly wouldn't put it past myself or other Americans to believe nonsense, but why is this particular error so common? I think Feldman may be confusing two claims.

1. Atheists cannot be moral people.
2. Atheists are less moral than religious people.

I think (1) is clearly false. I've never met an amoral atheist, and I've known lots of atheists. Most of them are decent people. But what about (2)? I think this may be true, depending on what 'moral' means. If 'moral' just means kind, generous, and helpful, then (2) is probably false. But if a 'moral' person is one who submits himself to the authority of a traditional moral code, one who believes that he has certain moral duties that are not mere human artifacts, then I think (2) is true. Atheists just don't typically think this way. Religious people typically do. Whether this sense of 'moral' is good or bad is irrelevant. It may be the case that people who are moral in this sense end up being intolerable prudes. But it would still stand to reason that atheists are less likely to fit this description than religious believers.

So, I think it may not be nonsense after all to believe something like (2). If the majority of Americans think a public official ought to be moral in the more duty-oriented sense, then it is not at all unreasonable to prefer a religious person over an atheist.

Ready for Proverbs?

When is a person ready for Proverbs?

According to the authors of Proverbs, you're ready as a young'n. That's the time to start steeping in them, even if you don't know what in the world they're talking about.

But when are you really ready? For me, it's age 39. I'm finally at the point where I have to admit: I don't know what the #@*& I'm doing. That's when you cry out "Lord, I need wisdom!"

So, I experience comfort in the words of James, the brother of Jesus:

"If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives graciously without reproach."

So, repeating that prayer in my heart, I'm reading through Proverbs with the eyes of a beginner. Proverbs is leaping off the table at me like one of those spider-things in 'Alien.' It is amazing. I can't get enough. I suppose it's better to be a late bloomer than a bloomin' onion.

Out of the Backyard and back in front of the TV

Hat Tip to Mike at Morality and the Good Life (http://arunningabout.blogspot.com/)