withallyourmind.net

Here dies another day
During which I have had eyes, ears, hands
And the great world round me;
And with tomorrow begins another
Why am I allowed two?

I came across this interesting and somewhat frightening report the other day and reccomend it to you all as worthy of a read. (HT SmartChristian)

Following the 2005 London transport bombings, more than eight surveys were done to attempt to discern the common opinions of the over 2 million Muslims in London, and this article catalogs some of the results. Here are some of the most alarming: among 18 to 24 year olds (those most likely to carry out an attack), 12% endorse suicide attacks on civilians, “about half the Muslims polled believe that Jews in Britain have too much influence over Britain’s foreign policy and are in league with the Freemasons to control its press and politics,” and “more than half of British Muslims want Islamic law and 5% endorse violence to achieve that end.”

A couple of the people on our blog roll have recently reviewed some resources by Anglican bishop N.T. Wright that are worth reading and thinking about.

The Jollyblogger reviewed a few lectures in mp3 format by Wright that can be found here. I think he did a fair review, although he has not (like me, unfortunately) actually read any of Wright’s books. I have listened to the lectures a couple times myself and I think they are worth a listen. Like David (the Jollyblogger), I found myself feeling a little bit lost with some of Wright’s technical terms (like vocation), but overall the lectures are quite understandable and informational and sometimes convicting. At the very least, they made me want to get around to reading some Wright (and only a month left until fall classes start!).

Also, John DePoe at FQI reviewed Wright’s new book Simply Christian, which is marketed my many as a sort of modern day Mere Christianity. In this book, Wright gives a brief defense of monotheism using a sort of four part argument from desire, then discusses basic Christian beliefs followed by a section on Christian practice. I read the first chapter in Borders a few nights ago and found it extremely satisfying. John’s positive review only increases my desire to read the rest.

One thing that is mentioned a lot in the Scriptures is the notion that we should fear God. Nevertheless, for me (and I suspect others) , it’s never been very clear what this entails. What exactly does it mean to fear the Lord, and how does it feel to do so? The standard answer is that the fear of the Lord for the nonbeliever is the fear of the terrible judgement that a holy God must exact for injustice whereas for the believer it is the reverance and awe inspired by such a perfectly good and powerful being. It seems to me that it must be a little of both.

I was thinking about this the other day and trying to find some example to illustrate and make more concrete this mix of fear, awe, and joy and I immediately thought of how I felt standing on the edge of a section of Grandfather Mountain in North Carolina. There was no fence or anything to keep me from falling, and just a few inches from my feet there was a steep and rocky drop of at least a few hundred feet. I think what I felt at that moment must be very like a true fear of God. I was standing dangerously close to something so much more vast and powerful than myself - something that could end my life in the blink of an eye and which owed me nothing. It truly was scary. And yet at the same time I felt so much more alive and complete than I normally do, in awe of the breathtaking beauty. And there was a sense that all that beauty had been made just for me…or perhaps I had been made just for it. Hopefully, most people have experienced something like this and know what I’m talking about. Anyway, I think that the proper fear of God is something similar - I only wish I felt it more.

Alas! and did my Savior bleed
and did my Sovereign die?
Would he devote that sacred head
for such an one as I?

Was it for sins that I had done
he groaned upon the tree?
Amazing pity! grace unknown!
And love beyond degree!

Well might the sun in darkness hide
and shut his glories in,
When Christ, the mighty Maker, died,
For man, the creature’s sin.

Thus might I hide my shamed face
while his dear Cross appears,
dissolve my heart in thankfulness,
and melt mine eyes to tears.

but drops of grief can ne’er repay
the debt of love I owe:
here, Lord, I give myself to thee;
‘Tis all that I can do.

I will be away for a few days. I’m heading off to Biola University for some summer classes. I doubt I will have opportunity to do much blogging. Once again, Jeremy, will have several interesting blogs in my absence.

My last thoughts for a while have to do with philosophy of science. I just came across a description of scientific reasoning and the scientific method I had never thought of. Science purports to give us a true description of the world in which we live. The conclusions are not advertised as probable descriptions of the world, but true descriptions of the world. Of course, inductive reasoning can never give us guaranteed conclusions. Only deductive reasoning can. A simple deductive argument is as follows:

If A, then B. A, therefore B.

To say B, therefore A instead of A, therefore B is a logical fallacy (affirming the consequent). The occurrence of B does not entail the truth of A, although if A is true then B must be true.

Example, If John is dead, he will not be at work tomorrow. If John is truly dead, he will indeed not be at work tomorrow. However, if John is not at work tomorrow, it does not follow that he is dead. There may be other (even far more likely) explanations for his absence…he is fishing, etc.

The hypothetico-deductive model of science follows just such a method. If a particular theory is true, our experiments will produce these results. Theses results are produced, therefore the theory must be true. Of course, the consequent has just been affirmed and it is fallacious to assert that the theory is true. Interesting thoughts to leave you with…

Tom Hundley, of the Chicago Tribune, wrote an article published in today’s edition of The Lakeland Ledger headlined: “Both Islam and Secularism Spread in France; In Europe Christianity appears to be in freefall.” According to Hundley:

In France and in almost every other European country, Christianity appears to be in a free fall. Although up to 88 percent of the French identify themselves as Roman Catholic, only about 5 percent go to church on most Sundays; 60 percent say they “never” or “practically never” go.

But Islam is a thriving force. The 12 million to 15 million Muslims who live in Europe make up less than 5 percent of the total population, but the vitality of their faith has led some experts to predict that Islam will become the continent’s dominant faith.

Princeton University historian Bernard Lewis, the dean of American Middle East scholars, flatly predicts that Europe will be Islamic by the end of this century “at the very latest.”

Hundley touches on a topic that I’ve seen addressed elsewhere, namely, the “feminization of Christianity”. Some propose that this phenomenon contributes to the decline of Christianity in the public sphere, and the corresponding increase of both Islam and secularism in western society:

On Friday afternoons the mosque is jammed, and the overflow of worshippers — all men — spills into the streets.

Little argument exists about the severity of the crisis facing the Catholic Church in France. In contrast with the vigorous (and masculine) face that French Muslims present to the world, a typical Sunday Mass almost anywhere in France will feature an elderly priest preaching to a dwindling congregation of mostly elderly women.

Holly Pivec, in an article in Biola Connections of Biola University references comments made by Nancy Pearcey in Total Truth regarding the feminization of Christianity (an excellent book I just finished reading):

Pearcey said industrialization forced men to seek work away from home, in factories and offices, which created a split between the public and private spheres of life. The public sphere became secularized through the new values of competition and self-interest, and the private sphere came to represent the old values of nurturing and religion, Pearcey said. Thus, religion came to be seen as for women and children and not as relevant to the “real” world of business, politics and academia, she said.

Soon, in churches, women began to outnumber men, Pearcey said. So, male pastors began to adapt churches to their female demographic, she said…

…Another turn-off for men is touchy-feely sermons. Pearcey said the modern church stresses emotions and inner spiritual experiences while neglecting the intellectual side of the faith.

“The more traditionally masculine side of Christianity enjoys crossing swords with hostile secular worldviews. So, as long as Christianity appeals to the emotional, therapeutic, interpersonal, relational areas, it’s not going to appeal to men as much as to women,” Pearcey said.

Churches should engage men’s intellects to help them see the relevance of Christianity to the “real” world of politics, industry and business, Pearcey said.

“We have to recover the notion that Christianity is true on all levels, not just for your emotional life or repairing relationships, as important as those things are,” she said…

…Touchy-feely sermons come from touchy-feely pastors. A feminized church tends to attract more “gentle, sensitive, nurturing” leadership,” according to Pearcey.

“If religion is defined primarily in terms of emotional experience and is therapeutic, then who is it going to attract as ministers?” she said.

Pearcey said to consider a typical youth pastor.

“He’s really into relationships, very motivating, but is he teaching good apologetics? Is he teaching youth to use their minds and to understand deeper theological truths? At least the ones I’ve known haven’t,” she said. “Today, the common trajectory is for youth pastors to become senior pastors,” she added.

Certainly, the church in America would do well to pay heed to what is happening in Europe. Christians need to rise to meet the challenges of secularism in society. Hundley contrasts the views of our country’s leadership with that of France:

While President Bush proudly declares America “a nation of prayer,” French President Jacques Chirac praises the virtues of French secularism.

If the church defaults on its directive to be salt and light by not meeting the secular challenge head-on, we may find ourselves “praising the virtues of American secularism”.

In a previous post I commented on a series of lectures by Dr. James Hall, philosopher at the University of Richmond. In his evaluation of arguments for the existence of God, he found them to be less than satisfactory. The ontological, teleological, and cosmological arguments all fall short of “closure” according to Hall. I think one would be tempted to agree if one listens to his comments closely. However, his lack of satisfaction with these arguments seem to hinge on a definition of God I had never heard used in such an evaluation. God, for Dr. Hall’s purposes was defined as “that which deserves to be worshipped”. To deserve to be worshipped one must be all powerful and all good…morally perfect.

By defining God in this manner, for example, I suppose the cosmological argument is weakened. It is one thing to be convinced that there must be a first cause which itself was uncaused. It is another thing to reason that that first cause must be morally perfect. This was Dr. Hall’s primary rebuttal of the various arguments. I think, however, that this asks too much of the argument. If one accepts that there is an uncaused cause of all that is, then one can investigate the nature of the cause by various other arguments. The cosmological argument may fall short of proving a morally perfect divinity, but I’m not sure it must, unless one claims that a first cause must necessarily be such.

He rejects the teleological argument for the same reason. While one may identify design in the universe and attribute these wondrous findings to God, one must also attribute all the evil and sadness in the world to this God. Such a God, if he created the universe, cannot be the morally perfect divinity that deserves to be worshipped. Again, I think he asks too much of the argument. One can certainly argue that design is evident, therefore there must be a designer without commenting on the moral perfection of the designer. Other arguments may be used to arrive at some conclusion on the morality of the designer.

This all reminds me of recent comments on a post from April 21 which was a part of a series on design arguments. A commenter agreed that design was evident in the universe, but found it arrogant that some might claim to know who that designer is or that the designer is personally interested in us. Once again, this asks too much of the argument from design. From a Christian perspective, that designer has spoken to us and has revealed himself to us so that we might know him. While nature may point us to the existence of a designer, we need more help to know who that designer is.

Many are aware of the group of more than 500 scientists who have signed a statement doubting Darwinism (posted by the Discovery Institute). I belong to a group of physicians called Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity who have signed a similar statement:

As medical doctors we are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the origination and complexity of life and we therefore dissent from Darwinian macroevolution as a viable theory. This does not imply the endorsement of any alternative theory.

PSSI is sponsoring a conference on September 29, 2006, 7:00 pm at the University of South Florida Sun Dome in Tampa. The topic is “Darwin or Design? Resolving the Conflict”. Featured speakers will be Dr. Michael Behe, Dr. Jonathan Wells, Dr. Ralph Seelke, and emceed by Dr. Tom Woodward.

Tom Gilson, at Thinking Christian, links to an interesting survey of physicians regarding their stance on the origins of humankind, broken down by religious affiliation. Fewer than 40% of physicians believe that unguided evolution can account for human life. There are some interesting highlights in the table, but my favorite is the atheist who believes that God is responsible for guiding evolution.

Today, I finished listening to a series of 36 lectures, Philosopy of Religion, by James Hall, professor at University of Richmond. Dr. Hall is an excellent speaker who speaks in a pleasant manner and communicates well his views. He did not pretend to be impartial and often gave his opinion about the particular topic of that lecture. He, admirably, identifies himself early in the course as an “agnostic Episcopalian”. After listening to his lectures, I think that means someone who attends an Episcopalian church, but does not believe the teachings to be true in the objective sense of the word, or at least resigns himself to not ever having knowledge of the veracity of Christian claims.

In his last lecture, he essentially encourages all Christians (actually, all “theists”) to become “Christian agnostics”. He defined a Christian agnostic as one who is committed to his faith, but when it comes to relating to society, culture, and those who do not share our beliefs we should not insist on the truth claims of our faith. Hall’s admonition is that we would be better to understand theistic claims simply as “stories”. It does not matter if these stories are true or not. What matters is that they serve some cultural or human good. He then used the illustration of the story of Santa Clause to clarify his position. When his child approached him concerning the veracity of the Santa story, he did not answer in a straightforward manner. Basically, he said, it doesn’t matter whether you think the story is true or not. What matters is that the story carries great meaning about the virtues of giving. Now, Hall denied that he was equating the claims of Theism with the claims of the Santa story, however, it was not hard to see that that was exactly what he was doing.

That is exactly what we all do, when we give into the “postmodern” notion of subjective truth. If all Christianity consists of are moral stories, it is not to be preferred over any other set of beliefs. One might just as well join the Church of Aesop. It seems to me one cannot be a “Christian Agnostic”. Christianity claims that certain things are objectively true. For example, Christianity makes historical claims about Jesus of Nazareth that are either true or not. If not, Christianity is just a set of moral stories, and it’s central teachings (which are not moral rules) are groundless and worthless.

I do understand Hall’s motivation for his classifying all religions as just stories of which we do not need to worry about whether they are true or not. He is concerned about religious exclusivism. The “I’m right and you’re wrong” mentality. He traces many of the ills of the world to this exlusivist mentality (wars, terrorism, etc). However, one does not have to surrender to subjectivism and give up on the concept of objective truth to be a good citizen. It is perfectly reasonable, and appropriate, for a Christian to hold that his beliefs are true and another is false (especially since they make contradictory claims and both cannot be true). That does not necessitate a militant imposition of one’s beliefs on others. Tolerance does not mean we accept all claims as equally true. It means we do not impose our beliefs on others. We allow others to express their beliefs. Those competing claims are evaluated in rational discourse, through which we all might come closer to embracing what is true.