Wednesday, April 22, 2009

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).

Thursday, April 16, 2009

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.”

Sunday, April 12, 2009

Easter: Resurrection of Jesus


Paul wrote in Romans that if Jesus did not rise from the dead all is in vain. All of Christianity hinges on the reality of one very important event; the resurrection of Jesus. Jesus lived, died, and rose again in a particular time and place of history. The truth of this isn’t something relegated to spiritual mythology, but is rooted in real history. It can be, and has been extensively investigated. The Church was birthed in the very place where this miraculous event occurred. Should it not have happened, there would be little reason for the rise of the Church in this place and time. It wasn’t popular to be a Christian, and it certainly wasn’t safe. There was no power to gain, no influence to grasp, but it was something worth giving all to attain.(to read more click here)

Friday, April 10, 2009

New Testament Manuscripts

There are more ancient manuscripts of the New Testament than any other ancient text. There are 5,700 handwritten Greek copies of the New Testament with another ten to fifteen thousand manuscripts in other languages including Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, and Georgian. In addition to that there are approximately 10,000 more written in Latin. While some of these manuscripts are certain books or compilation of books from the New Testament there are 60 full Greek New Testament manuscripts.


However, if all of these manuscripts were lost we could still reconstruct an accurate New Testament from the writings of the Church fathers. According to Dr. Daniel Wallace, who is a renowned expert of New Testament criticism the world over, there are more than one million quotations of the New Testament in the early church fathers’ writings dating from the 1st century all the way until the 13th century.


Therefore, there is an overwhelming amount of documentation to sufficiently render a New Testament that accurately reflects the original versions. This is an amazing collection of historical documents which is not found with any other ancient texts. All of which have been well preserved.


Dr. Wallace relayed to Lee Strobel in an interview that, “The quantity and quality of the New Testament manuscripts are unequalled in the ancient Greco-Roman world. The average Greek author has fewer than twenty copies of his works still in existence, and they come from no sooner than five hundred to a thousand years later. If you stacked the copies of his works on top of each other, they would be about four feet tall. Stack up copies of the New Testament and they would reach more than a mile high—and, again, that doesn’t include quotations from the church fathers.”


In comparison, the Illiad and Odyssey together have less than 2,400 copies surviving. These books are the second most abundant to the New Testament while not coming close to the number of manuscripts still in existence. Dr. Wallace commented “At bottom, textual criticism for virtually all other ancient literature relies on creative conjectures, or imaginative guesses, at reconstruction the wording of the original. Not so with the New Testament.”


Furthermore, fragments of papyrus have surfaced dating back to within at least one hundred years of the original manuscripts and match up succinctly with the later handwritten manuscripts. There are at least 117 of such documents and some of the “fragments” are quiet long, as one is nearly the complete Gospel of John.


Thus we have a very good historical record of the events of the life of Jesus that far surpasses any other historical records of antiquity.

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Secular Historian Quotes Regarding Jesus

Ironically as I sit down to compile the requested data regarding secular sources of antiquity of Jesus existence and crucifixion I momentarily flip channels on my television and find four programs discussing the very same topic. Of course, this is rather normal considering this Sunday is Easter Sunday. Still the world is remains enamored with this Jesus. Programs and documentaries about the historical Jesus abound, as this is one topic with scores of research being continually reviewed and discussed. As such I pulled down several books from my shelves to leaf through and compile some data to present. The following comes exclusively from the book The Case For the Resurrection of Jesus by Mike Licona and Gary Habermas. The other books I leafed through contained much the same sources.


For the purpose of this post, I kept only to the secular sources that referred to Jesus and his death by crucifixion. I give one modern quote at the end that I found of interest. I realize that there is some debate out there about these authors of antiquity. While I accept the validity of the Gospels and that they date within the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses as well as the validity of the early creeds that date within five years of Christ’s crucifixion I will wait for another post to present that case.


Josephus – First Century Jewish Historian wrote in Antiquities c 94A.D.:


“When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified. . .”


Tacitus – First Century Historian who was not favorable toward Christians wrote in Annals:


“Nero fastened the guilt [of the burning of Rome] and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of your procurators, Pontius Pilot.”


Mara Bar-Serapion a Syriac writer who is both non-Christian and non-Jew wrote possibly as early as 73A.D. (40 years after the crucifixion) or as late as third century (there seems to be some debate about this) writes:


“What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king?”


The very skeptical scholar of the most liberal Jesus Seminar, John Dominic Crossan writes in his book Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography:



“that he [Jesus] was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”

Friday, April 3, 2009

The Truth About Truth

The quotation ingrained in the minds of many "that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" has a new twist. Today it is commonly asserted that knowledge is power and as such people are concerned that those claiming to have a potentially superior knowledge are also those to be weary of for its association with power that brings corruption. On the other hand, knowledge seems to be a good thing by which we learn how to avoid corruption. Scientific knowledge, historical knowledge, and any kind of academic knowledge have been highly esteemed in civilized culture for centuries. (to read more click here)


Article written for Helium.com.

Monday, March 30, 2009

Book Review: The Shack

I read The Shack by William Young over the weekend. If you haven’t heard of it, it is a very popular book at least in Christian circles, and beyond. I found it to be a very fascinating eloquently written story about an everyday man in the face of a great sorrow and his journey to come to terms with the great sorrow. It is a book that, with creative license, takes a rather fresh approach to many of the questions everyone struggles with concerning God. Some compare it to the classic Pilgrim’s Progress; however, as much as I love reading a good classic, this book surpasses the former at least in today’s culture. I was intrigued to find a lot of the questions we grabble with on this site wrestled with in the book in a way I cannot due justice. There is something to telling of truth in a story that can capture the mind and heart in a way straight up facts fall short. I would say The Shack is a parable of sorts that has a very beautiful message. I recommend it to Christians and non-Christians alike, including the most ardent skeptics. Further, if there is even the smallest of embers flickering in your being of desire of knowing God's love you may find some hope in settling back and reading this book. If nothing else, you will have enjoyed an amazing story eloquently told.

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Feed The Desire To Know Truth

Man hungers after truth in such a way that it is greater than a desire for mere abstract intellectual knowledge yet at the same time we seem to reduce it to such a thing. Our drive for inquisitive curiosity into the questions of purpose and meaning seems tantamount to something more satisfying than the abstract. I propose that our desire for answers is not satisfied by intellectual propositions, but only by tangible relational experience with the embodied Answer.


We have all encountered factual answers to our questions whether we see those presentations of facts as valid or not. We experience it only with our minds. What if it were possible, as C.S. Lewis aptly illustrates, metaphorically, to “taste it like honey and be embraced by it as by a bridegroom?”


In C.S. Lewis’ book The Great Divorce he tells a fanciful supposal story of a journey towards heaven. In one of the scenes a person of intellect is talking to a person who has already experienced heaven. The person of intellect is explaining his journey of inquiry and his desire to always have inquiry for he believed the journey better than the satisfaction. He asks the heavenly person if he would still be free for the pursuit of inquiry to which the person responds, “Free, as a man is free to drink while he is drinking. He is still not free to be dry.” Then he elaborates, “Thirst was made for water; inquiry for truth.” The man who was from heaven was trying to show the man still earthly minded that his hope for answers could find ultimate fulfillment in a greater fashion than only factuality, but the Great Answer Himself. Despite the offer the man of intellect went away satisfied to be pursing without ever finding that which invoked his pursuit.


Are we truly satisfied with factual knowledge? Or is there something deeper, grander, more spectacular that is at the heart of our desire to know? Do we want to know just to know more facts in our minds? Or do we want to touch the Answer? Do we want to taste the satisfaction of something eternal or are we doomed to contentment of abstract systems of intellectual propositions true or otherwise. I think the pursuit for intellectual knowledge is noble and has great merit, but if it stops there I think it is lacking something vitally fundamental. In the depths of our being we yearn for knowledge, understanding, truth, answers, purpose, meaning, unity in diversity, community etc. These left divorced from their eternal nature are unsatisfied and hopeless. There is nothing of substance in these desires unless they are properly married to the eternal One.


People think that they will find satisfaction in wealth and then upon attaining it they find there is no satisfaction to be found there. Some think vows of poverty will bring satisfaction to the soul and yet they don’t find it there either. Some think being academically knowledgeable is the key to fulfillment and yet it leaves them discontent. Others think if only they could be the best at their career, or have the best family, or the be the champion in their field of sports, and yet when the day is over they experience the same yearning for something beyond that they just can’t put their finger on. I propose to you that we are all searching whether we do it with a pursuit of knowledge or a pursuit of wealth we are looking for the eternal satisfaction. If we follow that desire and seek the truth, I do not refer to intellectual facts, but the Truth that satisfies the soul we will find the Truth.


In saying this, I am not diminishing the importance of thinking, of reason, of logic, of intellectual knowledge. Obviously if there is a Truth like that of which I speak it would need to be one in which satisfies on that level as well as on the spiritual eternal level. It wouldn’t make much sense as truth if it violated epistemology so damagingly. Logic, reason, thinking, desire, all of these things are tools to attaining the Truth, thus Truth will not violate them. It may violate the way we currently think these tools work depending on how far off our thinking is to reality, but it won’t violate logic and reason itself. It won’t violate nature; it will affirm the natural world. It will complete the picture, not destroy the picture. We live in the real world so certainly the Truth about the real world will make what we may see in black and white come into full HD color. Follow your desire for Truth and you will find something more magnificent than you thought possible.

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Absolute Truth Disclaimer

I have come to realize rather recently that Christians have been careless with their usage of the term “absolute truth.” It appears that this translates to a claim of infallible absolutism of which is in the very least seen as arrogant and at the most is seen as having the potential for religious terrorism. I will not deny that a very small percentage who use the term may have some issues of self-righteous arrogance and a few of those may have a mindset that may cause militancy. I give to you though that either use of the term would be in stark difference to the person of Jesus and is not indicative of His message.


The only thing that is meant genuinely by most who venture to advocate that absolute truth exist is that there is such a thing as a universal truth that is true for all people in all time. For example, if Jesus is God that is true not only for those who believe it, but for all. Or if love is the most excellent way, that is universally so and not simply so for those who think it is. It means generally that truth is that which lines up with reality. We don’t create truth, we discover it. As such, truth isn’t something to be levied upon another by force or manipulation or any other covert or reprehensible means. The existence of Truth does not give license for the injustices of absolutism.


Most of the world sees claims to truth as grounds to assume power over others. To the followers of Christ, this is a misuse of truth and not the way of truth. In Jesus day, His followers who were still thinking like the common culture thought He would rise up and overthrow the government and establish a physical Kingdom upon the earth. They saw that this is how rulers rule, by power and force. He told them the Kingdom of God was going to be established through the hearts of man and not the swords of man. He told them to put away their swords. He was led like a lamb to the slaughter when He was crucified for He did not resist as He did not seek to build a Kingdom by force. He could have commanded all the angels to come to His rescue. He could have rescued Himself, but His sacrifice for a higher purpose. Jesus was always toppling the paradigms of man and turning them upside down. Where men thought mighty force was the way to establish God’s Kingdom, Jesus points to the children and says the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Jesus said to love one another even ones enemies and be kind to those who are unkind to you.


Furthermore, when Christians speak of absolute truth, we do not mean that we have all knowledge or even a complete picture of reality. We know that one exists, but that we only have a part of it one that is seen as through a glass darkly. We peak through with our fallible minds and senses to the infallible and we see glimpses of the greater reality than that in which we live. We see that glimpse of His Truth and we journey towards Him seeking a closer look. We can’t stare at the sun because it is too bright for us, but by the sun we can see the world around us. We might not be able to see God directly, but through the glimpses we gain of Him we can see our world more clearly. That sight is always in part, and not in full. It is always a journey of truth and not a stationary position of absolute knowledge. When we say we have found truth, it doesn’t mean we’ve attained all truth, but we have seen enough to know that our journey is in the right direction.


Likewise, when I write articles and answer questions with confidence. I don’t mean to communicate that I’m infallible or have the corner on truth. There is much I don’t know even about what I believe I know. I’m learning how to communicate what I have learned on my journey to help others along in their journey. I’m of the conviction that it’s a good thing to help others out and that others who have learned things along the way that I haven’t learned yet or haven’t seen in their perspective can help me out too. Some may have seen more glimpses than I and I’d like to learn from them. Some may have seen different glimpses than I and we can put those puzzle pieces together to see more of the big picture. I am writing from the perspective that there is this grand reality to glimpse and if you haven’t glimpsed it yet, or you are questioning those glimpses as something more natural than supernatural I’m okay with that. I am hoping we all still have a desire for truth even if we aren’t in agreement about where that is found. And I am hoping that we can be an aid to each other even in our disagreements in that journey gaining perspective and gaining understanding of each others worldviews in a manner which values the person over their way of thinking so that there is never any cause for condemnation, arrogance, militancy, manipulation etc.


I hope by now most of you, if not all, have seen my heart in these discussions and know that I see myself as someone along side everyone else searching for knowledge and understanding of this life and our purpose in the grand story of life. Yes, I am forthright that I believe that Christ is both the way to the answer and the answer Himself. But others propose that way of naturalism is the proper journey of truth and freedom of thinking. These are two of the many truth claims in the world. The many doesn’t mean there isn’t a One. Some may walk through many before finding the One. And others may start with the One. And still others may embrace the many roads. We are all on journeys and there is no road that we can travel that God can’t find us and show us the road of Himself. The glimpses of truth show through with amazing creativity no matter where we are in life. There are always signs along the way and I trust that some may see some of the things I write as signs pointing towards truth and others may find other signs. Some may need philosophical answers and others may need tangible experiences, and most I would imagine need both. No matter, my confidence is not in myself, but in Christ. The answers are not in me, but in Him and that is why I use the name answer bearer. Not because I have all answers, but because He who I believe is the Answer lives in me and I bear Him. I seek to glimpse Him and to share what I see as best I know how.

Monday, March 16, 2009

God Heals Today

Saturday I was instant messaging back and forth with my sister-in-law. She asked me to pray for her as she had a pain in her head all day. It was early afternoon when we were exchanging instant messages. I asked her if it was akin to a headache or something different. She said it was different. I asked her to put her hand on where it hurt and to tell the pain to go in Jesus name. I waited for her response on the instant messenger. Then I saw “it worked.” Actually surprised, even though I believe in healing, it never ceases to amaze me, I wrote to confirm and asked her if there was any pain left. She said no. She said she did what I asked her once and almost all, but a small twinge of pain instantly left. Without any instruction from me, she did it a second time and all the pain was gone. She said it hadn’t stopped all morning until just then. We continued to talk for another twenty minutes on the instant messenger at which point she had to go. I asked her once more before she signed off if all the pain was still completely gone. She said yes, it was just fine.