Science and rationality cannot disprove the existence of God, just as they cannot prove the existence of God because God is far larger than anything that exists. Nothing that we have available to us can ever explain something that large. It’s just like the way the created can never be anything but less than the Creator. Science and rationality are so much smaller than the Creator that they cannot ever hope to prove, let alone explain, His existence. Science and rationality are products of a limited universe. There are boundaries, by definition, on what we can see and know. God, on the other hand, the Creator, is by His very nature, by His very definition, infinite and boundless. It’s kind of like trying to fit a miscroscopic point to an infinitely large three-dimensional figure – it simply cannot be done. The finite point can never be made to fit to an infinite figure because by its very nature it is limited, finite. So science and rationality are to God. They are the finite point, and God is the infinite figure. Science and rationality and philosophy and theology all are limited because they must be able to fit inside the finite, and thus limited, minds of finite, and thus limited, men. So they, by their very nature, will only ever be able to describe an infinitely miniscule part of an infinite being. If you find any or all of these woefully lacking in their ability to describe and define an infinite God, it is because they are woefully lacking, as ever will they always be woefully lacking.
Yet, God allows us, His finite created beings, to know and understand some miniscule part of Himself. How wild is that?
Tags: god, philosophy, rationality, Science, theology
Frank the Financially Savvy Atheist (The F.S.A.): Why I don’t spank my kids
Frank the Financially Savvy Atheist (The F.S.A.): Spanking redux
Corporal punishment. A very touchy, sensitive, and controversial topic. Many parents use corporal punishment when disciplining their children. Some use it wisely and effectively; some do not. Several questions surrounding the topic of corporal punishment need to be answered: Does corporal punishment work? Is it allowable in the course of raising one’s children? How does one prevent the use of corporal punishment from escalating into child abuse?
Does corporal punishment work?
The answer to the first question is, “Yes, usually.” Spanking was always very effective with both me and my brother during our growing up years. It usually only took once for me to learn that a particular behavior was wrong and that I should not do it again. The same was generally true for my brother. For many parents, spanking does work very well in administering correction for things done wrong.
Of course, for every rule there are the exceptions. With some children, spanking only serves to make them more belligerent and rebellious. In these cases alternative forms of correction should be found.
Is it allowable in the raising of one’s children?
Some people would say, definitely yes. Others would say, definitely no. And there are a wide variety of reasons for both responses. For the Christian, Proverbs 13:24 comes immediately to mind:
He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him.
Perhaps a more common proverb is, ‘Spare the rod, spoil the child’. And there is wisdom in this ideology. Many a child who has had discipline withheld by the parents has ended up spoiled and very problematic.
I don’t believe that Scripture advocates spanking for all offenses or that it advocates beating your child senseless when you do spank. But I do believe that it communicates the judicious use of the appropriate punishment when teaching your children the difference between right and wrong.
How does one prevent the use of corporal punishment from escalating into child abuse?
Administering corporal punishment requires a parent who has strong self-control. A parent who spanks when he or she is angry risks losing control of their anger and overdoing the spanking, risking severe injury to their child. As such, the parent must make sure that he or she is calm and in control of their emotions. Never spank when you are angry. If the child’s disobedience has made you mad, a cooling off period is probably required. Once you have had a chance to collect yourself and think rationally, then the talk with the child can take place, the spanking administered with care, and your love for the child affirmed. But spanking when you are only seeing red is a dangerous thing to do.
Principles for Corporal Punishment
Perhaps the first part of administering corporal punishment is having a system in place determining wrong behavior. This is something that a child learns as they grow up and are able to understand more, but the parent should take great care to train their child to know and recognize what sort of behavior is right and what sort of behavior is wrong.
Secondly, when the child has disobeyed, determine what punishment is most suitable for the offense. Some specialists advocate spanking, since it is possibly the most severe form of punishment, only in cases of blatant rebellion or when the behavior proves physically dangerous, either for the child or for someone else. Of course, since spanking does not always work with all children, punishment can be creatively tailored to the child. Spanking did work for me, but I also got grounded or had to wash dishes (a chore I absolutely despised).
Thirdly, when you as the parent are calm and rational (see above), sit down with the child before you spank, discuss the offense together and make sure that the child knows and understands why that behavior was wrong and why it merits a spanking. In this way the child recognizes that his or her behavior was wrong, and they will be far more likely to avoid that behavior in the future. Some parents spank their children, either without cause or without ever explaining why the behavior was wrong. These children often, then, become confused because they don’t know which of their actions might inspire their parents’ wrath.
Fourthly, spank with restraint. By this I mean, do not spank so much or so hard that the child is injured. With many parents, three swats is the limit of the spanking. It prevents them from getting carried away, and it prevents the child from sustaining injury. I also suggest that the belt be put away, since some of the most severe injuries from spanking result from the use of a belt. A hand or a paddle are both much safer options.
Fifthly, affirm your love for your child. Remind them that you punish them because you love them and care only about their well-being. Hug them and assure them that you are not angry and do not hate them. Ultimately, this helps the child accept the punishment as just and learn from it.
Do I advocate the use of corporal punishment? In most cases, yes. I have seen it work wonders in many childrens’ lives, and it certainly kept me on the straight and narrow. I do suggest, however, that if you are prone to irrational and uncontrollable anger that perhaps you find other creative (yet safe) methods of punishment. While correcting a child’s misbehavior is a necessary part of child-rearing, it is not worth risking their health or their safety.
When you punish your child, do it with love and compassion and self-control, not with anger or rage.
Tags: philosophy, theology
Oh, here’s a fun one:
Q: Just what exactly does unorganized religion look like, anyway?
A: Unorganized religion is personal beliefs were you do not allow someone else to tell you what you believe or to “interpret” what you should believe.
(edit) A group of people telling someone what to believe is a scam and has led to many great evils in this world.
You hear a lot, even in Christian circles, about the evils of organized religion. Yet, I question even the veracity of the term, for in some sense, isn’t all ‘religion’ organized by its very definition? Granted, there are many individuals who live and practice their religious beliefs individually, apart from any structured group or circle. But their very beliefs are generally part of a far larger religious system already in existence.
Now, what people are really thinking when they talk about unorganized religion is having the freedom to believe whatever you want about God and to live your life however you see fit. The scorn toward organized religion is, I think, two-fold – it’s a rebellion against the idea of having anyone tell you that you are not living your life the way you ought to be, and it’s a reaction against the religious groups that do get it wrong on a very public level. No one likes to be told they are wrong, and no one likes to be associated with fanatics and bigots.
Personally, I take some amount of comfort in organized religion because it means that I am not alone in my faith. It’s usually much easier to live and practice your faith consistently when you have someone else to walk beside you as you go. Sure, there are those who are going to get it wrong and who are going to get it so wrong that it makes the rest of us look bad by association. But it sure doesn’t mean, necessarily, that we should forsake that organization, especially when the fundamentals of that organization are sound and biblical. It just means that we have to work harder to show everyone else the way it ought to be done and demonstrate that, while this fanatic group that has so messed things up rallies under the same banner, they do, in fact, have no part with us.
Organized religion is not, I think, this great evil that it has come to be seen as. But with all things, it is made up of imperfect people and so it will rarely ever look perfect.
Tags: christianity, philosophy, religion
Heresy is a far broader definition than the one which I am about to apply. freethoughtmom asked this question in this discussion:
Who decides which teachings are considered a heresy?
Ultimately, Scripture itself dictates what is heresy and what is not. It is, in fact, extremely specific on what doctrines are most important, those that are fundamental to becoming a Christ-follower, a Christian:
- the fact that all men are born into sin
- that no man can attain Heaven by his own merits because no man can possibly live up to a holy and righteous God
- that God sent His only, perfect Son to pay the price for men’s sins by dying on the cross
- that the Son overcame death by rising from the dead on the third day
- that the Son ascended back into Heaven to prepare it for His people.
I believe that these basic doctrines are the only ones that are vulnerable to heretical teachings, per se, since they are the only ones that are essentially foundational for a person to acquire the salvation of their soul. All other teachings found in Scripture describe what a Christian – already a believer – must do to live a righteous life and what he must do to further the Kingdom of God. These teachings, as such, are not prone to heresy, at least not in this specific definition, though they can be counterbiblical, since they are covered under the doctrine of grace. In essence, if a believer fails to live 100% righteously (an inevitability), he does not lose his salvation or earn the wrath of God (except through repeated, unrepentent violations, and then only punishment that will bring the believer back into a right relationship with God) but can, instead, repent and receive forgiveness and continue on his walk.
In short, I think that the term ‘heresy’ can only be, and should only be, applied to teachings and beliefs that are counter to the basics of the Gospel, to those basic beliefs that are absolutely mandatory for an unbeliever to come to a saving relationship with Jesus Christ, beliefs which are very clearly spelled out in Scripture itself.
Tags: christianity, heresy, philosophy, religion, scripture, theology
He could have created us as peers, with all His knowledge and wisdom, so we could relate to Him perfectly. But even such created beings would still be inferior because they would not be gods. #
How can the created be greater than the Creator? How can the created even stand on the same level as the Creator? In short, he cannot for the created by his very nature is less than the Creator. He will ever and always stand somewhere beneath the Creator because he owes his very existence to the Creator. He has no rights before the Creator but for those that the Creator bestows upon Him. There is a gap between the Creator and created that is seemingly uncrossable, a deep divide that forever separates the Master from His people.
Except that a bridge has been built. The Creator has made a Way for the divide to spanned, for his people to relate to Himself in a personal, active way. The created have not been made equal to the Creator. They still cannot fully understand Him or know Him in any comprehensive manner. But they can share in the benefits of relationship as though they have been placed on equal footing, being able to approach the Creator at any time with any request and not be turned away.
The created will always be below the Creator, but the Creator is compassionate and sympathetic and wishes to know His creation intimately, and they him. It is a unique and powerful relationship, one that is forever lifechanging.
Tags: creation, philosophy, theology
Why do we tend to focus more on the fact that others often hurt us with their words, however unintentionally, rather than on our own response to those people? How is that we forget that we are not responsible for how others interact with us but rather we hold full responsibility for how we react to them? So often I see people around me snap at others merely because that person said something to them that happened to hurt, even if it was said to be constructive and in good faith that it would be taken well and in the spirit intended, that what was said was intended to encourage and build up and be constructive and not to tear down. It shouldn’t be happening, these negative responses. So what if constructive criticism wasn’t worded perfectly tactfully (this is all said with the understanding that both parties know that the criticism being given is constructive and out of love because good, constructive criticism makes it clear at the beginning that it is meant for the betterment of another)? Can’t we understand and remember that we are imperfect creatures and that perfect tact is rare, perhaps non-existent? Why do we have to look out more for our own creature comforts, why do we focus so much on our pain and miss the big picture as a result, why do we fight so hard to keep our comfort zone, and risk damaging a good friendship to do so? Why do we forget that the one approaching us out of love and for our own good is doing just that, approaching us out of love and for our own good? Why do we get so defensive when we feel even slightly offended or hurt? How come we don’t pay more attention to how we respond, to the part of the conversation that we can actually control (i.e. ourself), indeed the part that we are fully responsible for? Where is the Christianity in snapping at someone, in responding harshly and out of anger? Where is the love of Christ in that? Where is our Christian testimony? What will others see when they see two Christians bickering and fighting like a couple of schoolchildren? Where is the light when it has become so dimmed by anger and bitterness? It’s actually pretty amazing how quickly an argument is defused when one party refuses to argue. It’s too bad that we all don’t do a better job of maintaining discipline over our own actions and reactions. Just because the other person is upset and angry and verbally abusive doesn’t mean that we also must be.
Tags: human-behavior, philosophy, theology
According to modern scientists, our universe began with a gigantic explosion, forcing a “traumatic growth spurt before it was a billionth of a billionth of a second old.” Somewhere in there, a whole lot of matter and debris was scattered, forming our young universe, which is still, even now, rapidly expanding in an outward direction.
So, was there some kind of great big ball of dirt that contained all the elements within itself that now make up the whole of our universe, including those elements that support life on Earth? Were there already tiny microbes there that would one day evolve into the human race, microbes that were in some sort of stasis until some catalyst (the Big Bang) pushed things into a much more manageable, and therefore much less restricted, space to form planets in just the right place around newly formed stars, allowing them to be put into action to start growing and evolving? (Or did some primordial oozish chemicals combine to somehow become the first single-celled organisms?) I guess I wonder a little bit how scientists can form theories like these, when the statistical odds against such an event ever happening are enormous (to the point of being impossible). The other problem with this theory is that it still doesn’t explain where everything comes from (the origins question) because in order for matter to have somehow formed out of an explosion, it had to have already existed in the first place. Exploding gases sure don’t produce matter out of thin air (no pun intended).
Or maybe the goal isn’t to solve the problem of the origins of all matter in the universe. Maybe the goal is simply to solve the question of where Man, and his environment, came from. If that’s the case, then this is a whole different horse-and-pony show because then the questions, and the subsequent sought-after answers, are very different. Still, I can’t see a genuinely curious scientist not being curious about the question of where everything came from. Maybe Mr. Scientist doesn’t really have a hope of answering those questions because he knows science isn’t likely to produce solutions to problems that are billions of years old. Maybe he is simply trying to find out as much as he can before he dies. Maybe he is simply trying to find meaning for his life by figuring out what his infinite reference point is.
Meh, don’t mind me. Just a bit of philosophical rambling that was screaming for attention. (As always, feedback is greatly appreciated.)
Tags: evolution, logic, origins, philosophy, Science
One of my favorite non-fiction authors is the late Christian philosophers Francis Schaeffer. I think the main reason that he sits at the top of my non-fiction reading list is because of the fact that he provides ample ‘proof’ for why Christianity must be both believed and believable. Now, while most Christians attempt to provide such proofs from the pages of the Bible, in itself a problem because the proof being proffered is, to some extent, self-referential under this system, Schaeffer provides his evidence from reasoned, rational logic, referring to Scripture occasionally only when validating that his proofs can, indeed, be found within its pages.
Schaeffer has, perhaps, been one of the greatest influences in my own thinking. He recognizes the problem that many people will not acknowledge the authority of Scripture, and so finds ways to present the Gospel in a way that is simple to them from their own worldview and understanding. He demonstrates time and again how every philosophy and worldview is not, and cannot be, completely consistent and so then how each philosophy must crumble beneath its own weight. He then is able to demonstrate how Christianity is not only completely consistent within its own structure but how every man, woman, and child is able to consistenly live it out.
Schaeffer’s writings are heady material. It invariably takes me a fair amount of time to work my way through each book due to the depth and breadth of the knowledge he presents. My plan over the course of the next few weeks is to reread through his core trilogy and share my thoughts that result from that reading. As such, I have created a new category under Philosophy devoted exclusively to the work of Francis Schaeffer. Consider this your introduction to this noted philosopher.
Tags: christianity, francis-schaeffer, philosophy
A friend of mine wrote this end of last week and emailed it to me, declaring it blogworthy. After reading it, I agree, and she has given me permission to share it here.
What happens to our passion for literature when any “text” qualifies as literature, when theory is elevated above poetry and the critic above the poet, and when literature, interpretation, and theory alike are said to be indeterminate and infinitely malleable? What happens to our respect for philosophy – the “love of wisdom,” as it once was – when we are told that philosophy has nothing to do with either wisdom or virtue, that what passes as metaphysics is really linguistics, that morality is
a form of aesthetics, and the best things we can do is not to take philosophy too seriously? And what happens to our sense of the past when we are told that there is no past save that which the historian creates; or to our perception of the momentousness of history when we are assured that it is we who give meaning to history; or to that most momentous historical event, the Holocaust, when it can be so readily “demystified” and “normalized,” “structuralized” and “deconstructed”? And what happens when we look into the abyss and see no real beasts but only a pale reflection of ourselves – of our particular race, class, and gender; or, worse yet, when we see only the metaphorical, rhetorical, mythical, linguistic, semiotic, figurative, fictive simulations of our imaginations? And when, looking at an abyss so remote from reality, we are moved to say, like Trilling’s students, “How interesting, how exciting.”
When Nietzsche looked into the abyss, he saw not only real beasts but the best in himself. “He who fights with monsters,” he warned his reader, “should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee.” This was all too prophetic, for a few years later the abyss did gaze back at him and drew him down into the depths of insanity. Our professors look into the abyss secure in their tenured positions, risking nothing and seeking nothing save another learned article.
Nietzsche is now a darling of the academy. I have seen T-shirts emblazoned with the slogan “Nietzsche is Peachy.” Nietzsche, who had no high regard for the academy but did have a highly developed sense of irony, would have enjoyed that sight.
Based on notes from On Looking into the Abyss by Gertrude Himmelfarb.
Tags: literature, philosophy, theology
I’ve heard the question asked many times, “Why should I obey God on anything, let alone on the things I don’t understand? Now, I don’t think I have ever heard the question phrased exactly like that, but it does nicely summarize the doubts and assumptions that go into it.
One of the primary assumptions that this questions is based upon is what gives God the right to expect us to obey (unquestioningly?) those commands He gives when we dont’ fully understand all the reasons behind that command. This is especially true when God punishes disobedience when someone disobeys because they don’t understand and don’t see the reaons to follow that particular edict. They doubt the truth of the command, doubt that there is a good reason for it, doubt that God is good in issueing His command, and so they blatantly disregard it. Then, they cry out in despair, cursing God and challenging His justice at punishing one of His children for disobeying a command they do not understand.
I look at it this way. When I was a child, my parents issued certain commands that were to be obeyed in no uncertain terms. You see, they understood the reasons for their commands, even if I didn’t. My own understanding of the world was still too small and too inexperienced to see and recognize the wisdom of the things they demanded I do. I still had a child’s understanding and was unable to grasp the abstract concepts that served as the foundation of their orders. They saw the bigger picture and recognized how their commands were for my own well-being. They loved and cared about me and wanted to protect me, and so they told me that I could or could not do certain things. I was expected to obey, even though at the time I did not understand why. Were they wrong to expect me to obey even though I did not know or understand why? Not at all because they were only trying to protect me.
We, as believers, are God’s children. He has issued commands that we are to follow and obey, even though we may not always understand the reasons why. You see, as the Infinite Father, He see the bigger picture. He understands and recognizes those things that are both good and bad for us, and so He issues commands that are for our benefit and that we are to obey fully and completely, for our own safety, protection, and happiness. We are His children, and we still only have a rudimentary understanding of so many things. Our minds are still unable to grasp some of the most complex, yet moset basic, principles of our lives, of the world around us. Just as our parents did nont explain everything to us when we were children because they knew we would not be able to understand, so does God not explain everything to us because He knows that we cannot yet understand. Yet, just as our parents expected us to obey, for our own protection, so God expects us to obey, for our own protection, even though we do not comprehend all the reasons behind that directive.
And let’s face it. Aren’t we always much happier and much more content when we obey and are on good terms with our Heavenly Father?
Tags: philosophy, theology
