More Than A System of Belief

I wonder sometimes if the reality of what I am trying to convey translates as more than a system of belief. I do make an incredible claim, or rather, accept an incredible claim. God incarnated Himself and walked the earth 2000 years ago as a man. The man, Jesus, who is both fully man and fully God, being Himself the eternal Son of God, lived amongst men teaching and performing miracles. He was crucified and buried in a tomb. Three days later, He arose from the dead, appearing to the disciples and 500 other witnesses leaving behind an empty tomb. Forty days later, He ascended bodily to heaven, for as He had descended from heaven, He must also ascend. Just as God once dwelt in a Tabernacle in the Ark of the Covenant, He dwelt in bodily form in the man called Jesus, and now He dwells with each of us who invite Him as Lord and Savior.


The nature of what I speak of isn’t just a proposition of a different way to see the world. It’s a proposition that this is really real and knowable. If I were merely advocating a set of doctrines, or dogma, as what everyone ought to believe there would be no way to prove them as better than another view of the world. However, what I am talking about, while a worldview, is more than a worldview, it is something one can experience as true.


The Bible isn’t a book designed to be dogmatically adhered to, but a book designed to point to something far greater than itself. If one reads it as only pointing to its contents as the end all of truth, one misses the point of the whole book. It is a story that points to a Story. It is a book that points to the Author. It is a narrative of the Narrator.


There is a scene in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader where these children are in a bedroom talking about the land of Narnia. As the two children who have been to Narnia explains it to the third child who disbelieves them they notice the painting on the wall has a ship very much like the ships in Narnia. They see the ship moving and the feel the moist ocean breeze. Looking closer they are swept into the world of Narnia and embark on an adventure on the high seas. The picture wasn’t just a picture of a ship as it was pointing to something greater than itself; a real ship, in a real place, with a real adventure.


Some will only see the Bible as a book of information; some will see it as factual information and others as myth while still sharing the commonality of it being simply informative. Others, however, have experienced it coming alive. Something takes hold in their being and they realize there is something more than information there is something greater being revealed. Then they will see there is another world to explore and they can find their place in the story for the story is more real then anything they have experienced. Moreover, this story doesn’t negate the world they were living in for it enhances it. It’s like seeing the world in HD for the first time.

Reflections on the Goal of This Blog

I have a goal for this blog that I have recently come to realize. At first I started blogging simply because I love to write and wanted a space to share what I write with anyone who may be interested. Then a readership, per se, emerged, that are mostly those who come from a very different way of seeing the world with a few who share much of my worldview mixed in.


I have contemplated on numerous occasions exactly what my goal was in writing to this readership. The love for writing remains a strong reason for maintaining this blog, but I feel another purpose is emerging and within that purpose there is no primary goal of converting anyone to Christ. I would be lying if I said I didn’t want to see people come to know Him, that is ever present in my heart, but the goal of this site is not to that end.


The goal at this point is to foster a safe place for the exchange of ideas either between faith groups or between theism and atheism or whatever other worldviews people bring to the table. I may be overly optimistic, but I think that my primary and hopefully attainable goal is to effectuate understanding of each other and that goal is measured by the other person feeling and agreeing they have been understood.


To illustrate, if I am discussing a point and I have misrepresented the belief system I am addressing then I want to be corrected by those of the belief system I inadvertently erred in depicting. I ask a lot of questions and ought to ask more than I do in order to fully understand worldviews that are not my own. I have a long way to go, because I am still told I set up straw man arguments and thus my goal has not been met on my end.


Of course, while I hope that others would also continue to understand my point of view and worldview in the way and fairness I want to understand theirs, the burden of doing this is on me. I cannot impose my goal on anyone else so even if people don’t want to strive to get to the place where I feel I can say you get me then that’s alright with me.


I am not seeking to remove diversity of thought, but to welcome it and understand it. My goal at is not effectuate agreement, but understanding. In that quest there will be as there has been discussion about the plausibility or veracity of truth claims, but that is done not to win an argument, but to gain understanding of not only what that worldview is about, but how it lines up with what I see as real about the world. I measure one against the other to see which seems to have more merit, but that’s just part of my method of understanding and analyzing. I am a very analytical person. I analyze my own presuppositions and worldview all the time, my husband can attest to this.


Anyone who wants to help me in my quest to understand their worldview whatever it may be can feel free to let me know when I am fairly representing their view or when something is in error. Now at times I will repeat questions or assertions because I am still not quiet getting it because through my worldview it’s not adding up and it is not easy to see through another’s eyes. When this happens I just persevere more.


Usually signs of my point of view not being understood is when someone gives rebuttal to something that may be often said or often misrepresented by others in my worldview group, but is not congruent with what I actually was meaning. So I’ll often take another stab at it to a level that may get redundant because I feel an obligation on my part to be as clear as possible to allow for understanding of what I mean. So if I feel I’m not understood I will work harder at this even if the person isn’t interested in understanding me. I think that’s my personal duty to try again to be clear regardless of the others interest. Maybe someone else will come along and benefit from the attempt.


Sorry to ramble so in getting this out, but the goal of my blog has been on my mind a lot lately. To summarize, my goal is to foster understanding between worldviews and that goal is actualized when the other person feels I have understood them, not when I claim to have understanding. My self proclamation of understanding would be meaningless if multiple representatives of that worldview do not agree. Even then I do not seek to ever self-proclaim such a thing.


I appreciate feedback on whether this goal is seen to be too optimistic or if it is seen to be attainable. Also I would like to know if anyone shares this desire to really get into the minds of others who don’t think like ourselves and understand them. Moreover, what practical ways could this be accomplished?

The Ethical Valuation of Truth

A resounding question reverberates off the halls of logic regarding the nature of truth. People often ask how anyone can have the right to declare something true and thereby declare other things false by default. However, this question is fraught with problems brought on by the errant application of ethics to the nature of truth.

When anyone puts forth a proposition of truth that which is contrary to that proposition is logically false. There is no possible way to avoid the reality of the dichotomy of true versus false. Even the person who levies the charge that “it is wrong to present that another’s view as false” is advocating a truth claim, which means, if true, this person is also wrong. It is a self-defeating statement and thus defies rationality.

(to read the rest of the essay please click here to go to Helium.com.

Note (I am not directing this to atheism, but the essay came about from questions I have heard regarding truth outside of this blog).

Risks Required

Knowledge needs a sturdy foundation by which to build upon. If the foundation is not such a structure the whole system of knowledge will collapse for it has no viable support. If all is fluidly situated upon a system of doubt, it is like a knowledge being built on quicksand. Complete incredulity lends itself to more of the same. Something needs to be stable in order to support any tools of knowing including skepticism.


At the same time there is risk in starting at something solid for that something must be presumed in order to test it as solid. For instance, in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Indie is following a list of steps to make it through the booby traps unharmed. He comes upon the last step where he is standing out on the ledge of an enormous precipice and it appears there is no way to cross it. One step more and he would fall many miles to his death. He refers to his guide book and states, “it’s a leap of faith.” He then hears his father’s voice in his minds ear encouraging him to believe. He takes the risk, stepping forward his foot connects with solid ground, a path the same color as the ravine that would support his walk across to the other side. He had to take a risk to test the solidity of his path. Now, some may call this blind faith, but it was not blind. The steps he was following in his book had worked each time aiding him through the treacherous traps. If he had been skeptical of his guide book, he most certainly would not have come through the traps unscathed. Either he wouldn’t have had enough faith to try to navigate the path to the treasure, or he may have failed dreadfully in his attempt. But each time it worked, his faith was growing. The solidity of its value was not established in full until after he exercised faith. Each time, Jones was finding the value of trust, each time creating more trust leading him to the treasure he sought.


Now this does not mean to believe everything you hear or to accept all truth claims as they cannot all be true. But the reason we cannot accept them all, is because of standing in a place of knowing that there can only be one truth. We might not know that one in its totality, but we could know enough to know that that which contradicts it in a manner that would break away the foundation would not be in line with truth. The best way of determining truth, ironically, is being in truth, and working outwards. You have to test it out from inside to fully get a handle of the truth. No one can really know what marriage is about without being married. But at the same time, one need not try out adultery once they found that marriage is a better reality than cheating.


Once you have risked and your risk met with something solid and full of substance then you can start with that foundation to compare it with new ideas that come into view. If, however, you take a risk and bite into something sordid or bland and do not find the solid foundation, you back out and go another way, looking for the real and authentic foundation.


I was watching The Andy Griffith Show last night; the episode was fitting to this discussion. When I tuned in, Opie was standing in the sheriff office recounting a fantastical story to his Pa and to Barney. Opie told of a man who walked in the trees, jingled, could blow smoke out of his ears, and wore a silver hat. He said the man’s name was Mr. McPheby. Andy and Barney eyed him with faint skepticism. Then Opie pulled a coin out of his pocket and declared Mr. McPheby gave it to him. At this, Andy asked if Opie could take him to Mr. McPheby. Opie complied and they jumped in the sheriff car and headed to the trees where Opie claimed to have seen this man. Nobody was there.


Back at home, Andy has a talk with Opie and asks him to confess that this was all make-believe. Opie sullenly starts to comply with his father’s wishes, when he stops and shakes his head and says he can’t do that because it wasn’t make-believe. Opie says, “won’t you believe me, Pa?” Andy looks at him for a moment, and says, “Yes son, I’ll believe you.” He heads down stairs to waiting Barney and Aunt Bee and informs them Opie sticks to his story. Upon finding Andy was not going to punish Opie for lying, Barney asks if Andy believes in Mr. McPheby. Andy responds, “no, but I believe in Opie.” In the next scene Andy is out at the trees and hollers “Mr. McPheby” in resigned frustration. From above, he hears a man respond to his holler as he repels down from the trees jingling all the way with a silver hat upon his head. Andy happily greets the man and tells him he is Opie’s father.


You see, Andy knew that Opie’s story didn’t seem to match up with what would seem to be true, but he realized that his son was trustworthy and while all the pieces had not yet fallen into place he would trust in what he knew to be true, his son’s word. As it turned out, his faith was well placed, for his son was telling the truth all along. Rationality was not abandoned, for it was rational to believe that a boy who was trustworthy was telling the truth even though it didn’t make sense.


Scripture talks about testing things, and discerning matters, but this is done in conjunction with the real. It’s seeing what is dark because you are in the light. The way to see if something is counterfeit is to compare it to the real. You have to know what the real authentic version is in order to see if what you are beholding matches it or falls short of it. Does it have the same standard of authenticity, or is it a fake? Or maybe it’s not a fake, but a mixture of the real and the counterfeit. Or maybe it’s a distorted real. The way to pull out that real that is of substance is to have the eyes that can see the truth for they already behold the true.


When you believe you have that foundation, it is tested time and again by whether it holds against other truth claims as they come. Does it hold firm, or is it weak? Does it ride out the storms, or does it fall apart? It’s always being tested. Faith increases the more it passes the test, and decreases when it falls short. When there is a falling there needs to be reexamination of the foundation. The weakness needs to be found, is it in the foundation, or is it in the person’s own perspective of the foundation. What needs adjusting? Where is the authentic, the real?


If the whole foundation is to be rejected, what is going to be in its place? It needs to be rejected for the greater rock if the rock your knowledge is built upon doesn’t stand up to the test of life. What you believe in your head needs to converge with your heart and with your practical life. Is it philosophically sound? Is it realistic and authentic? Is it livable? This harkens back to one’s worldview. It needs a sure foundation.


Joe Boot says this of those who are ardent skeptics, “They deny Christian theism, claiming that their reason cannot accept it, while implicitly affirming that they have no foundation to do any reasoning at all.” If one’s foundation isn’t the Christian God, something else needs to be posited in His place. Never committing to any foundation of truth, always being the passive negater, does not lend oneself to a position of knowledge, but of continual skepticism. What foundation do you have to stand on that you are testing out by skepticism?


While I see the hearts of many skeptics is to find the real through skepticism, and I admire and encourage that seeking of truth, I think it difficult to find the results in which you seek by that method. Truth is most usually best found by taking risks based on reality, not unfounded leaps in the dark, but aided by reason and by faith into what may appear to be shaky ground at first to find that it is very solid indeed. If, indeed, the faith was misplaced and the ground is soggy or unstable, one merely retraces their steps and follows another path to the real.


Joe Boot also writes and I will conclude with this, “We must be willing to get to the foundations of our experience. If we remain content to decorate the interior of the house of knowledge and pay no attention to the structure and foundation stones of that house, we will find that the dry rot of absurdity and the rising damp of unexamined assumptions are fatal to the structure.”

Starting Point

Layer upon layer

Brick upon brick

Precept upon precept

Worldviews are established

If there is an errant starting place the rest of the structure will be faulty. The house built on the sand collapses in a storm. The house built upon the rock stands firm come what may. Regardless of the foundation the building will be built even if it is not long supported. Jesus used the analogy of a house upon sand and a house upon the rock. In His parable the house built upon the rock was the person whose foundation is Christ. The house built upon the sand was the person whose faith was in something else that was not a firm foundation of truth.

What I am getting at is that our first principals, our foundational beliefs about life, anchor all that follows even if that anchor is not secure. If the Judeo-Christian God is the foundation of all truth then it logically follows that all truth flows from that reference point. This means, science, history, morality, philosophy etc. all flow from the starting point of Him. He is the bedrock in which all else is supported.

If, instead, there is no god, then all there is is the natural world: the only way we can know it is to trust our own subjective reasoning being certain of nothing including science, history, morality, philosophy etc.

Either way everything hinges on the truth of the existence or non-existence of God. If the Judeo-Christian God is real then it is logical for all knowledge to be aligned with His truth. If He is not real and there is no God than all knowledge would need to bend to that reality. Or rather would be an extension of that reality. However, I think some great bending and distorting of reason and logic is taking place to support the philosophical position of the non-existence of God. Moreover, the foundations of reason and logic collapse when God is removed from the equation.

Jacques Derrida the famous postmodern philosopher writes about how all of language is meaningless signs with no signifiers if God doesn’t exist. He says that we cannot even be certain about lingual communication for we have no anchor for language if there is no God. Ironically he authored quite a few books. In one of his books he laments reason to be the one thing he can’t get around. He knows it should not exist in a world with no God, and yet, he can’t even reason that to be the case without employing reason. Just the same logically he sees that reason is not supported any better than language if there is no God. He said it is a conundrum he couldn’t get around.

In contrast C.S. Lewis wrote in Miracles, “It is thus still an open question whether each man’s reason exists absolutely on its own or whether it is the result of some (rational) cause – in fact, of some other Reason. That other Reason might conceivably be found to depend on a third, and so on; it would not matter how far this process was carried provided you found Reason coming from Reason at each stage. It is only when you are asked to believe in Reason coming from non-Reason that you must cry Halt, for, if you don’t all thought is discredited. It is therefore obvious that sooner or later you must admit a Reason which exists absolutely on its own.”

True Freedom

Does a fish in a fish tank have true freedom? It may not know its habitat is not natural. It has water and food. But is it free? In the Pixar movie Finding Nemo, Nemo gets plucked from the ocean and sold to a dentist with a fish tank full of exotic fish. Nemo, having known freedom, is now trapped with these other fish. His situation worsens when he is to be sold to a spoiled child that would cause the demise of Nemo. His fellow captive fish aid him in obtaining his freedom.

Errant worldviews can make one as trapped as a fish in a fish tank. People can think they have freedom and swim all around enjoying life in a tank. Or they can bust out of their unnatural habitat and truly taste freedom. If Christianity is such a tank of entrapment then I am not free, but if Christianity is the river of life and I am in that river I am the most free. The more I become transformed to the proper habitat of life the freer I become.

We all need to test the walls of our worldview to see if it is entrapping us or truly freeing us. Had Nemo not been endanger of being given to the child he may have lived a happy life in the controlled environment of the tank. But he would have missed the exciting freeing life of the ocean where he belonged. He also grieved the loss of his father for he was now separated from him in his tank while his father was free in the ocean. However his father came to save him, risking his own freedom and life for that of his son’s. His father didn’t stop pursuing him even though they were an ocean apart.

The Bible says truth sets us free. Living in truth will always be a greater freedom than living outside truth. No one can fully get outside of truth for we all live in the real world. But we can live in the false habitat like a fish in a fish tank or we can live in the real habitat that we were designed to live in.

Some of us are fish in fish tanks. Others are fish out of water altogether. But let us strive to be the ones that are not content with that sort of life and who want to experience truth to its fullness.

Atheism: A History

“Atheist” was once a term levied against Christians for it was used to mean one who didn’t ascribe to the Roman gods or the religion of the Roman emperor. Thus Christians who held to belief in one God versus the polytheism of the Romans were accused of being atheists. It is ironic in light of how atheists and Christians are on opposite spectrums in worldview thinking today. Atheism as a philosophy of the non-existence of God came about much later in history. Purportedly it began as a worldview foundation assault to weaken the Church in Western civilization during the transition from the Middle Ages to the Modern Era. The world was fighting the Church organization through politics, military attacks, and internally through the Reformation. However, atheism began to take shape in response to the oppressive nature of the Church of that era. Just the same, it was still not a total disregard for belief in God for its proponents only sought to change the nature of the Church’s involvement in society verses eradicating it all together. In time though atheism began to take shape in elite philosophical circles and a worldview began to develop that separated itself entirely from Christianity. Many philosophers, writers, and artist began to depict a world without God, without absolutes, without God based morality. Atheism was birthed.

To be Continued.

Just For Fun

My cousin has tagged me to share six (6) unspectacular quirks of mine. So I'll take a breather from my philosophical musings to share a little lighthearted quirkiness.

1) My fascination with the color purple borders on quirkiness. Not the movie, but the actual color whether it be violet, plum or just plain purple I have loved the color since I was a child. I don't wear it as much these days, but I used to be drawn like a magnet to any rack of clothing that contained a purple article of attire. I often had a purple purse, a purple neckless, purple on my shoes, and purple in my hair with a purple blouse or skirt. There was this house in the neighborhood over from mine growing up that was painted lilac with plum shutters. I was curious as to who lived there and if I would end up with such a house one day. I have expanded my clothing colors in recent years and only those who know me well giggle when someone new ask me my favorite color. For most anyone who knows me knows the answer.

2) Secondly, I'm Trekkie or sorts. I don't dress up and attend Star Trek conventions. But I do enjoy the shows and movies and still have hundreds of Star Trek novels boxed away with collector cards and other collector items. I grew up on watching Kirk and Spock and the original series remains my favorite. I'm admittedly looking forward to the new movie being directed by J.J. Abrams.

3) I've developed a new quirk which I think has rubbed off on me from my husband. I have to have my books match. If a publisher puts out a new book and it doesn't match the previous book of that author, it bothers me. I like to have them all the same. There are books right now that I want that are only available in hard back and that simply will not do. I have two or three paper backs that preceded the newly released hardback in the series and I just cannot bring myself to buy a book that doesn't match the others. Thus, I wait in hope for a matching paperback. Now if I had all hardbacks, it would need to be a matching hardback. The same goes for DVD sets. If I am buying each season of a show and the last season comes out in a a new fangled case that is designed to save money and now doesn't match the rest of the seasons' boxes, it's bothersome.


4) I'm a planner. I seldom like spontaneity. I like things to be planned out way in advance. Once I was given a project in my high school Spanish class with no due date. I asked my teacher repeatedly for a due date. She said she was giving the class ample time and would announce a due date later in the semester. I finished the project immediately. The due date ended up being months later. I just can't wait until near deadline. I have to do my task upon it being given to me. The difficult thing is to resist expecting others to hold themselves to the same quirky habit. Is there a word that is the opposite of procrastination? If there is that would describe me.

5) I'm obsessed with the beach. I love to walk along the boardwalk. I love to lay out on the sand and listen to the waves crash upon the shore and watch the pelican dive into the ocean for their food. I love beach vacations and shells and beach houses. I have always dreamed of riding a horse down the beach along the ocean surf. The odd thing is I seldom get to enjoy this beach pleasure. I think that makes me yearn for the beach all the more.

6) As my blog readers have probably come to know, I like to think about thinking. I'm not sure if this is quirky, but it's probably pretty geeky. I like to look for what is behind a persons way of living and philosophy of life. I like to ponder deep theological and philosophical questions. I enjoy a good question as much as seeking out answers to the questions of life. I love to read, research, and write. I miss essay and research paper assignments from my college days. I want to learn why some ways of thinking work and some ways don't. I like to follow a train of thought out to its logical conclusion and then compare that with reality. I like to think about logic and reason and knowing and being and believing and not believing. I like to think about thinking. I like to think about worldviews instead of just with my worldview. I want to pull apart my worldview and examine it's foundations and inner workings and contrast that with other worldviews and other foundations and ways of thinking. I want to take the allegorical clock apart and see what makes it tick and how it comes to tell time, and question whether it is telling the correct time.

Okay that's my six quirks.

Here are the rules was following. I think I am going to keep the tag open ended and let readers take the ball and run with it if they want to since I don't know a lot of bloggers to tag at this point.

1. Link the person who tagged you.
2. Mention the rules on your blog.
3. Tell about 6 unspectacular quirks of yours.
4. Tag 6 following bloggers by linking them.
5. Leave a comment on each of the tagged blogger’s blogs letting them know they’ve been tagged.

Unity In the Midst of Diversity

A common question regarding Christianity surrounds the issue of unity. If Christianity is true, why are there so many doctrinal differences? If we claim that God exist and that He is knowable and has revealed true information about himself in the Bible, then why do many Christians disagree about many specifics of our worldview?

Jesus prayed in John 17:23 for the unity of all believers and He says that our unity will let the world know that He was sent from God and that God loves the world. So unbelievers and believers alike rightly ask where is this unity? However, they mistake unity to mean uniformity of thinking and doctrine.

At the same time, the same people who claim that for Christianity to be true there must be uniformity do not wish for a moment to ascribe to any belief system that tells them how to think about every little thing. They are the same to hold the mindset that the church ought not to control their thinking. So is it really uniformity they want to see? Or is it what Colossians 3:14 proclaims that over all virtues we must put on love which binds us all together in perfect unity. Unity comes from loving one another not from dictating how one thinks.

Usually if everyone has the exact same response people believe it to be coached and not authentic. We know we are all unique and we think differently about things. One can notice that a car is bright red and the other notices there were three children in the back seat. Both are correct, but different things stood out to them. The problem is when they take that perspective and turn it into an absolute instead of a piece of the pie. For instance, all cars are red, or all cars must have three children in the back seat. Sometimes a truth applies across the board and sometimes it does not. I Corinthians 13 explains that now we know in part and then we shall know fully. On earth our knowledge is partial and not complete knowledge. The more our knowledge lines up with reality of what is the more we know, but even then we still don’t see the whole picture as God does.

Thus, unity is not a matter of uniformity of thinking, but a matter of being bond together by love despite our different manners of thought. And yes, this unity by love is something that is also a process that is being worked out in us and is not fully manifested in our lives. For we are all at different levels of relationship with God--growing into deeper levels all the time and the deeper we go in our walk with God the more love will prevail.

This does not mean that our thinking is not to conform to God’s truth for we can know and agree on many things that are central to Christianity, but that even with those foundational agreements there are specifics that are not nailed down and concrete in uniformity.

However, on the other hand as we mature in Christ we will become united in mind and thought as well, not because a church dictates how to think, but because we have relationship with Him who is Truth. Ephesians 4 says that God has given people gifted as leaders to the church to equip the church until she reaches unity of the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. Then, it says we will no longer be tossed too and fro by every wind and doctrine. Meaning, that as the Church enters maturity, even doctrine will become solid. One day all will culminate to be a glorified Church made ready for Christ. Still that unity that comes into being will be something greater than uniformity.

Again our whole desire for unity shows that there is One who brings unity to diversity. We do not wish to live in a world of rampant diversity without any unity, nor do we wish to live in a world of strict uniformity and no creative diversity. In the Triune God we find both unity and diversity and that is why He is highly qualified to bring about unity without loosing diversity in our lives. The community believers have with each other and with God joins the diverse parts to effectuate a unified whole complete with our own creative gifts and talents.

Moral Framework

A response to http://godlesswoman.blogspot.com

I will now respond to your second objection on the topic of morality. I asserted that there is a moral law at work in humanity and that for there to be such a construct there must be a moral law giver, God.

To set it up as a syllogism it would look like this:

• If there is a moral law, then there is a Moral Law Giver.
• There is a moral law
• Therefore there is a Moral Law Giver

Let’s unpack the idea of the existence of a common moral framework in all of mankind. In use of the term “moral law” I am merely claiming there to be a moral framework at work in mankind.

There is a difference between agreement on specifics of right and wrong and a basic understanding that there is right and wrong. The specifics can be subjective at times; however, the framework is objective. For instance, you give the example of slavery.

Throughout history slavery was not always seen as wrong by all people. Even today, slavery continues in parts of the world such as in Sudan. If morality was subjective to a culture or a person, one could say that the English slave trade or the American slavery was not wrong to those who didn’t believe it to be wrong. However, I think the reality is that it was always wrong even when people justified it to be right. Also, just because a community justifies something to be right, doesn’t mean deep in their souls they know it to be right.

When someone is on trial for murder, they can submit a plea of insanity if they have no understanding between right and wrong. One of the key things the prosecutor must prove is that the Defendant not only committed the act, but that the Defendant was cognizant the act was wrong. For if the defense attorney proves through a physiologist that the Defendant has no moral understanding he is able to present the defense of insanity. So even if someone does something wrong and is convinced that it is not wrong, even in a court of law, it is still wrong and the person is seen as insane.

If morality is subjective then we have no right to judge another culture or community for doing atrocities to people such as the holocaust. However, if it is objective and all people really do know right from wrong somehow then the Nuremburg Trials were warranted. However, if moral truth is merely what a community agrees upon there could never be any justice for the millions of Jews exterminated in the concentration camps. Was this historical event evil? Or was it merely Hitler, to quote Richard Dawkins, “dancing to his DNA.”

[Regarding the Bible condoning slavery, it does not. Jesus didn’t come to force political change; that was not His mission. He knew that the heart change that happens from knowing Him would change the world and force would never produce love which was what was needed to treat people the way He designed them to be treated]

The second part of the syllogism proclaims God must exist because there is a moral framework. How else could a standard of morality exist in humanity if it were not for a conscious designer placing it there? The objective nature of a moral standard that man kind experiences guilt when he breaks it and demands justice when it is broken against him is not explained by evolution. Again that is why I maintain that non-Christians must borrow from the Christian worldview regarding these things to even posit questions about good and evil and how to differentiate between the two. It’s the only worldview that gives a good explanation about how this all works and is the most viable in corresponding to reality.

To Be Continued: Last Response Blog will address the matter of how God sees mankind in light of moral failures

Unpacking Truth Claims

A response to http://godlesswoman.blogspot.com

I realize I have not established that Christianity is the only worldview that corresponds accurately with reality; what is. You will see in my blogs different focuses on various aspects of the Christian claims and a defense, if you will, of those aspects. My blog, “Who is God” is only a part of the whole. By no means is it a complete discourse on the nature of God, truth, et al.

Just the same, your response blog ask great foundational questions that require and deserve a good response.

Let me start where you start with the assertion that my reasoning was flawed by positing a singular foundational worldview of Christianity. You compare this with the fictitious Flying Spaghetti Monster to assert an analogous lack of reasonable evidentiary support for my claims. And you ask on what basis can I make a claim to truth that excludes your or others claims to truth. With this blog, I will focus on this question and I will answer your subsequent questions in subsequent blogs.

What is truth? Can we agree that truth is what corresponds to reality? I’ll proceed on this definition as being accurate. If truth is what corresponds to reality, how can two or more contradicting truth claims co-exist with equally validity? In other words, if I say the world is round and a tribesman in Africa says it’s a square box shaped planet we cannot both be right. The truth would be that the earth is round even though the African tribesman believes it to be otherwise. It would be illogical to argue that both truth claims are factual and equally true for one corresponds to reality and one does not. Truth, by its very nature is exclusive of non-truth. That’s the way logic works.

Likewise when I put forth that Christianity lines up with reality and explains it better than other truth claims, I then have to provide a framework to show the reasonability and probability that it does indeed correspond to reality. I don’t think, just because it’s my belief system it is any truer than anyone else’s belief system. I think it is true because it corresponds with what is real.

As stated above, I am attempting to write on the many reasons why I make this claim in the many blogs I am writing. Each one is designed to fit into the whole framework to create the big picture and provide reasonable and clear arguments to support the claims.

I understand that there are a plethora of different belief systems out there. And I believe that there is truth in every one of them, because we all live in the real world and anything we develop in our worldview in some way will correspond to what is, because we can’t get away from what is. However, that worldview that is developed can be a distortion or counterfeit of the real. I value people and I respect their various worldviews. However, because I value people I want to see people strive to align themselves with what really is versus living in some man made construct of what they think life to be about, that isn’t fully accurate. Thus, I write to encourage people to examine their belief system and really get to the heart of what they believe and why to see if it lines up with reality or not.

I don’t expect anyone to take an unsupported statement from me and blindly agree to accept such a statement. I might throw things out there from time to time that I haven’t yet established a framework for, but know that it is coming. However, if you see anything like that that just doesn’t make sense. I really want to hear from my readers so that I can take another go at it to make it clearer.

To Be Continued

Worldview Building Blocks

The basic building blocks of our way of looking at life make a world of difference in every area of our lives. Everybody has a worldview. Not everyone can define theirs, but we all utilize it everyday.

A worldview in its most foundational level answers the following questions:

• What is really real?
• Who is man?
• What is man’s problem?
• What is the solution?

The Christian answers these as follows.

• God is really real. He is the foundation for all knowledge and truth.
• Man is made in God’s image, yet is finite and created.
• Man chose to do things his way and became separated from God
• God provided His own Son to pay the price for mans sins and to restore man to a rightful relationship with God.
  

Out of a worldview come many subcategories and networks of thinking. Due to a person maintaining the validity of one foundational principal a whole series of mini-principals follow creating a complex worldview. It’s analogous to a pyramid; it starts narrow from the top and broadens as it nears the bottom. For the Christian the foundation starts at the top with God and broadens from that point downward. For the secular humanist one would need a circle for illustration purposes as reality starts and ends with man.

The subcategories affected by the building blocks of a worldview consist of history, politics, education, family, philosophy, morality, life, death, afterlife, and all the intricacies therein.

If our view of reality isn’t true then all areas of our life will be off kilter. We must examine our thinking to ensure that it lines up with reality. It is imperative to have the right blocks in place on which to build every other area of thought. The whole web of belief will blow away if it is not firmly rooted in truth.

Discussion for comments: What is your worldview and how did you arrive at it?

Worldview Thinking

I have been on a journey into the world of presuppositional apologetics. This field of philosophy/theology is about examining our basic foundational assumptions about life. Everyone has them whether they have ever thought about them or not. I have participated in discourse with atheists who claim that their belief system has been proven, and thus they made no assumptions or steps of faith in solidifying their worldview. No one can honestly make this claim. Not even the Christian. Somewhere the buck stops. Somewhere truth has to be self evidencing. Meaning if I am trying to prove a matter I have to prove the matter before that and before that and on into infinity. Somewhere truth, in order to be truth, has to stop at something that just is—something that gains its truthfulness not from another presupposition, but from the thing itself. Therefore, the discipline of presuppositional apologetics is about looking at worldviews from the top down instead of from the bottom up.

We ask questions to get people thinking about how they think. We point out that the very reason we can reason is that God is. We start at the place of God’s existence and illustrate how all else makes sense through that paradigm or worldview. In this way it is shown that other worldviews fail to make sense of the world, and how they all borrow from the Christian worldview to bring a semblance of validity to their belief system. This is usually unintentional, but happens just the same. If Christianity is the worldview that gives the most adequate foundation for life then it follows that any other worldview has some of its truth contained within or else it wouldn’t be plausible enough for anyone to believe it.

Apologist, Joe Boot puts it this way, “We must be willing to get to the foundations of our experience. If we remain content to decorate the interior of the house of knowledge and pay no attention to the structure and foundation stones of that house, we will find that the dry rot of absurdity and the rising damp of unexamined assumptions are fatal to the structure.”

Many people assume worldviews that are not livable. Postmodernist philosopher Jacques Derrida wrote an entire book about how language had no meaning as it could not point to anything beyond itself to gain its meaning. He used language to communicate how language cannot communicate. How absurd is that? The same philosopher says that any reader can interpret what is written according to their own worldview. He goes on to say that one should consider the author dead and not worry about what the author may have meant when writing the book. However, Derrida wrote another whole book explaining his previous book when people misinterpreted his arguments in the prior book. Apparently he expected people to have interpreted his book in the way he meant it and not in the way they chose to interpret it.

C.S. Lewis writes in Mere Christianity that a man can say he disbelieves in morality until someone steals from him and then he is the first to cry that an injustice has occurred, thus appealing to the moral law he previously denied.

Albert Einstein wrote that he was a moral relativist, but could not live like one if he wanted to get along in the world.

There are so many examples of contradictions between worldviews and practical living. These same people would have their practical lives come crashing down if they actually lived out their foundational presuppositions about life. If Derrida truly wanted to maintain his foundational beliefs he would have never been able to share them with anyone because they could never be communicated. In contrast, Renee Descartes, who is famous for his conclusion “I think therefore I am” remained in bed until he had resolved himself to the fact of his existence by acknowledgment of his own thoughts. He understood there was no point in going through the actions of life if he wasn’t yet sure of his existence.

There are certainly some foundational beliefs we are grateful people don’t actually try and live out for this benefits the rest of society. I have read of people who believe that there is no moral law and no difference between stepping on a beetle and killing a person. I would not advocate that they try and live this practically, but that they realize the impossibility of that belief system.

To borrow from Joe Boot, ones worldview must be able to give an adequate explanation for science, logic, morality and language. It must answer questions of origin, purpose, morality, and final destiny.

Apologist Ravi Zacharias rightly advocates that ones worldview must be logical, livable, and transferable. In other words, it must make sense philosophically, work practically, and have the ability to be communicated to another.

We must learn to think about our worldviews and not simply continue plunging blindly into life with no consideration for our basic foundational beliefs. We must not live lives in a place of complacent contradiction. It’s time to examine our foundational principles and confirm them or change them to line up with truth. Socrates always lamented that “the unexamined life was not worth living.” I believe that he realized that how we live is directly related to how we think.

Conversely, when Jesus called for man’s repentance he was speaking not only about a heart change, but a mind change, for the word literally means “to change the way you think.” Our thinking must line up with reality. That reality has been revealed through the person of Jesus for He said of himself that He is the Truth. Truth is personified in the person of Jesus. Hence, it can be personally known and experienced. Truly, when we examine our way of thinking we must do so in light of truth. We must compare our way of thinking to the Truth and alter ours to His when we find a discrepancy in the way we think. The way we live will follow when our thoughts follow His.

Truth Claims

Everyone makes truth claims. Even one who claims there is no truth, makes a truth claim. The one who claims there are a multiplicity of truths, makes a definitive truth claim that truth is pluralistic. Someone who maintains that truth is subjective to the individual or the community also makes a truth claim about truth itself.

Why is it then that the person who posits the existence of ultimate Truth that corresponds accurately with reality is branded intolerant and arrogant?

Some advocate a both/and type of reasoning to avoid exclusivity of truth. Whereas logic dictates an either/or reasoning (the law of non-contradiction). Truth by its very nature is exclusive of all non-truth. If it is true that God exist, then it cannot be equally true that He does not exist. This is impossible. If the Christian God exists, then it cannot be equally true that all world religions are also true for they are contradictory to the former. Just take the three main world theistic beliefs of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and you see major differences. No honest follower of either of these beliefs would posit that the other belief system can co-exist logically (the same person cannot believe all three belief-systems at the same time without living a contradiction).

The both/and advocate says truth must be “both/and” or nothing else. It cannot be either/or. Even the both/and proponent cannot get free from the “either/or” logic.

The problem of knowing truth isn’t one of the truth, but one of what the knower does with the truth. If the knower forces it upon those who don’t know or don’t believe by violence or manipulation then they have created an injustice. Jesus said that if a person says he loves God, but hates his brother, the truth is not in him. Jesus also said that if you know the Truth the truth will set you free, therefore it does not create oppression, but freedom. If one feels burdened by a truth claim it may not be truth, or the spirit in which it was relayed may have been false.

Moreover, in Christianity knowing the one who is the Truth enables one to live a life of truth and love.

We must understand that the existence of one truth is not an outlandish idea. However, what one does with the truth they profess is of enormous importance. Truth is more than a philosophical construct. It is also an experiential reality.

Don’t be fearful of looking for one coherent worldview. Truth is knowable and He wants to be known.

Becoming An Answer Bearer

I’ve been thinking about how I think. Socrates lamented that the unexamined life was not worth living. I think he wanted to get at the heart of being. He wanted to know why things were and how they got to be that way. He asked questions and questioned the questions. I’m not sure he ever found what he was looking for, but he enjoyed the journey of inquiry.

My thinking has changed drastically in recent years. I pretty much thought one way all the way through high-school. In college, my thinking sharpened, but was not really altered. I was more aware of the world around me and how other people thought. I was more aware of how I thought and why I believe what I believe.

I think what changed wasn’t really what I believe, but how I live out what I believe. How I relate to others concerning my beliefs and as an expression of my beliefs. Although, I made the transition of believing in Jesus because my mom taught me to and believing Him for myself at the age of 14 or 15, I had still didn’t see things as clearly and as lovingly as I ought.

I could be pretty legalistic and dogmatic at times. I would argue for my worldview without giving thought to how I was perceived by others. I knew I was right in what I believed, but I didn’t realize that my audience was just as committed to their beliefs that I was carelessly trampling. I put truth first and the person second. It wasn’t as bad as it may sound; I didn’t hit anyone over the head with the Bible literally or figuratively. I consistently took a stand for truth in the college classroom. It bothered me deeply to hear the distorted history, philosophy, and faulty logic being promulgated in every subject on a daily basis. The audacity of professors to make such errors in thinking irked me to the core. I was not afraid to correct professors or fellow students. I hit hard in all of my essay and research paper assignments dismantling any arguments against the Christian worldview. I buried myself in apologetics reading material, constantly seeking to learn how to communicate what I believe more effectively to combat the secularism pervading the university.

I am still just as committed to truth and to effectively communicating the Christian worldview. However, I am more committed to experientially knowing Jesus who is the Truth thereby communicating Christ his way and not mine. The worldview change that came about and is coming about still was a matter of the heart and not really of the mind. What I believe did not change, but how I believe it and how I express it changed with a heart change. God broke my heart for people. He gave me compassion. He has transformed my thinking about people so much so that I desire to be ever so kind in communicating Christ that He would be evident in me. Paul said he did not speak with wise and persuasive word, but with the power of God. I think in part, he was saying that he spoke out of his relationship with God and not by his own words.

I have felt called to use my passion for writing in the discipline of apologetics for about ten years. In the last few years I have learned the difference between being one who argues for Christ and being one who is an answer bearer for Christ. Meaning I carry Him who is the Answer within me and it is out of that place that I can bring answers to those questioning the hope that I have in Christ Jesus. I thank the ministry of Ravi Zacharias for my mental understanding of my heart change for it is through his books he has given words to what it means to be an answer bearer. It is not by my might, nor my by strength, but by the power of Christ that I can claim to have any answers at all. Knowledge comes from God and no one can lay claims to what He reveals. I can only point to Him through my answers for if my answers point to myself I have done you a disservice and I don’t have the truth. I hope that all that I write and all that I say points to Him who is the Truth.

The Gravity of Reality

Truth is what is despite one's belief or acceptance of its validity. To illustrate this point, let us look at the law of gravity. Everything on earth is subject to the law of gravity. If I take a ball and throw it into the air it will fall to the ground (unless something else stops its trajectory). I can disbelieve in the law of gravity all I want to and it won't change a thing. The reality of the law of gravity will continue on unabated by my disbelief. The same is true of anything that is reality. Most would agree on the law of gravity and that it applies to all cultures and all times regardless of ones understanding or acceptance of the fact. However, the same people would disagree that spiritual truth can be the same for all cultures and all times. Somehow we have no issue with relegating spirituality to personal preference, cultures, or opinions. We certainly don't want anyone claiming to have the Truth in a manner that is outside of ones personal opinion or preference. Its taboo to make a spiritual truth claim for all people in all cultures and all times. Notwithstanding, the majority of spiritual worldviews are mutually exclusive. Truth by its very nature is exclusive of all that is not true. Just the same, it grates on the conscience of our culture to accept one worldview as all encompassing. However, like gravity the worldview that is Truth was not created by man anymore than the law of gravity was a man made invention. Gravity was not dreamed up by man and then made a universal law of physics. No, it was always there and at one point was discovered by man and explained by man. What goes up always came down before the discovery of the law of gravity the same as after the discovery. The same is true with reality. The truth of reality is what is no matter who believes it or accepts it as such. It goes on being true irrespective of what man thinks about it because it is true and no amount of disbelief can change that fact.

We must be lovers of truth. We must seek out that truth and discover to know it. A person wouldn't get by in this world very well if they disbelieved in gravity and simply walked off a ledge, cliff, or building at a whim like they were the Roadrunner or Coyote. Likewise, a person cannot get along well in life living in contradiction to reality. Albert Einstein said he didn't believe in universal morality, but he had to live as if he did to get by in life. His beliefs and actions did not add up for reality continued to be real despite what he wanted to believe. We can continue to say that our worldview (beliefs about life) are culturally or personally relative, but if we take an honest look at how we live and how life works we must acknowledge that our beliefs don't line up with reality. We must not live lives in constant conflict of the contradiction between our philosophy and the reality in which we live. We must not invent our belief system. We must discover what is truly is. The Roadrunner might be able to run off a cliff and survive the sudden realization of gravity unscathed, but this suspended reality doesn't work in real life. Ones worldview must be philosophically sound as well as practically livable in a real world.

Heaven's Glasses

How often do we examine how we look at the world? Os Guinness aptly puts it this way, "we think with our worldview, but not about it." We must examine how we look at the world and not just go on looking at it that way without any understanding as to if our most basic assumptions about life are in line with reality.

Often people speak of how different people look at the world through different sets of glasses. Usually such people are trying to argue that every different set of glasses or view point is equally valid or equally biased. While all lenses can contain bias to that way of viewing the world, not all can be equally valid. Moreover, the existence of a bias does not always need to carry a negative connotation. If something is true and a person is biased toward that truth than that is a good position to be in and not a negative one. We must examine the lenses we use, clean them off, or even change prescriptions and get new glasses if our glasses are fogging up our view of the world. Our glasses need to be the clearest way of seeing the world so that we don’t stumble through it and miss all that could be seen by failing to alter our lenses to adequately correspond with reality.

Contrary to popular belief, there is a worldview that is the best prescription lenses anyone can ever see through. C.S. Lewis famously wrote, "I believe in God like I believe in the sun, not because I can see it, but because of it all things are seen." The Christian worldview, as put forth in the Bible, is the way of seeing all things clearly. Granted, while we live on this earth we shall only know in part and see in part, but the only way we can truly see as clearly as possible is through the worldview that is Christ Jesus. Jesus claimed of himself to be the way, the truth, and the life. Therefore, it is by Him that we see all things clearly. By belief and surrender to Christ we can have our minds transformed thus gaining new glasses to see the world as it was meant to be seen.

Many posit that they must see to believe, but in truth believing is seeing. This certainly does not mean that we should be living in blind faith. There is a plethora of evidence for belief in Christ Jesus, but until that belief is solidified in our hearts and minds we cannot fully see as we were created to see. There is a whole new world to discover if only we will gain the worldview of heaven through Christ Jesus. How better to see the world, but through the eyes of He who created it?