The following is the daily Calvin and Hobbes comic strip from e-comics. It reminded me of recent posts. By abandoning objectivity and realism, we may lose any hope of an authority to settle differences. I think Calvin and Hobbes is perhaps the greatest comic strip (if one may speak of comics as “great”).
We often encounter surveys and polls attempting to describe the state of religious belief and spirituality in America. I like Phillip Johnson’s approach to the question, “Are you a religious person?” This is too broad a question to which to accurately respond. It could mean almost anything. But most importantly, to the modern mind it means that you possess some subjective feelings. It means you have certain “beliefs” about non-material things. The next time someone questions me about my religious beliefs, I hope to claim that I am a theistic realist.
To claim to be a theistic realist is to communicate that you not only believe in God, but that you believe that he is objectively real. I deny living half of my life in some sort of fantasy world which I lay aside to function in the real world. The real world does contain an objective reality called God. As Johnson says, this is a shocking proposition to many people. It is arrogant to claim that you have some knowledge other than that which comes from naturalism.
Saddeningly, it is not just the secularists which hold to naturalism. Many contemporary “Christians” and clergy do not hold to theistic realism, but instead have capitulated to the naturalistic worldview.
John Searle, in his appeal for a traditional approach to academics, asserted the centrality of realism to successful education. He stated:
Objectivity and truth are possible because there is an independently existing reality to which our true utterances correspond.
This view, known as realism, has been and continues to be assaulted not only in education, but in all aspects of our culture. In the place of realism, we are offered relativism, postmodernism, pragmatism, and other substitutions which are unable to ground rationality. According to Phillip Johnson, in Reason in the Balance, Searle further argued that…
“…metaphysical realism is not a thesis, but rather a precondition for the whole process of public debate.
The remarkable thing is that all of those who deny that there is an objective reality to be known (or at least that can be known) always try to convince others of how things really are. All attempts to do so fall prey to self-refutation. Even Richard Rorty, perhaps the best known contemporary postmodern philosopher, attempting to defend his views against the charge of relativism, claims:
Our moral view is, I firmly believe, much better than any competing view.
Rorty claims to know how things actually are. How can he, on the basis of his own metaphysics? As Johnson points out, if Rorty’s view is better just because it is his that says nothing, however, if it is better on some objective standard, his neopragmatist metaphysics fails.
The result of this abandonment of realism does not produce the tolerant society which is promoted in the name of subjectivism, relativism, and pragmatism. Once realism is abandoned, there is no common ground upon which to build consensus. Rationality itself is cast off with metaphysical realism. Claims become just propaganda in support of one’s cause. Disagreements can only be resolved with shouting matches. He who yells the loudest and the longest wins. There exists no objective reality to resolve conflict. If any statement about the difference in appearances and reality is to be meaningful, metaphysical realism must be true; there must be a “way things really areâ€.
Phillip Johnson sees the primary crisis in modern western culture as a metaphysical crisis. This crisis is manifest in all facets of society including education, science, law, and even in religion. If there is no independent reality out there, or if that reality is unknowable, we have no reason to trust our rationality and have no basis upon which to resolve conflict other than the forceful imposition of our opinions on others.
Is their enough evidence to believe in God? We all have considered that question at one time or another. When the atheist philosopher, Bertrand Russell, was asked what he would say to God if he died and found himself being asked by God, “Why did you not believe in me?”, he replied:
I would say, “Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence!”
Unfortunately, many who would consider themselves agnostics or atheists are not even acquainted with the evidence. What does it mean, “Not enough evidence?” As William Lane Craig stated at a recent lecture in Washington, D.C., if one means that there is not enough evidence to coerce one and pull him out of his complacency, then one is probably right. If a person is not interested enough in finding God to actively seek evidences for his existence, he probably will not find them. Matthew 7:7 states (ESV):
Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
There is certainly enough evidence to make one’s faith rational. The French philosopher and mathematician, Blaise Pascal, said it thusly:
God has given us evidence sufficiently clear to convince those with an open heart and mind. Yet evidence sufficiently vague so as not to compel those whose hearts and minds are closed.
Happy Thanksgiving!
We ought to give thanks for all fortune: if it is “good,”because it is good, if “bad” because it works in us patience, humility and the contempt of this world and the hope of our eternal country.
C. S. Lewis - Letters: Don Giovanni Calabria (10 August 1948), para. 7, pp. 49, 51.
Although at first I had difficulty with C. S. Lewis’ incorporation of an eastern religious concept, the Tao, into a Christian discussion, as I began to understand Lewis, I realized how effective his argument really was. In The Abolition of Man, Lewis does not seem interested in offering a distinctive “Christian†argument, but rather a universal argument against the subjectivism which characterizes our culture. The Tao, or The Way, as offered by Lewis, may be understood as “natural law†or “objective moralityâ€. It is not just Christians who have a sense of objective truth. It is all mankind which possesses this intuition. In the appendix to this book, he offers various illustrations of the Tao from various cultures and periods of history.
Certainly, one may appeal to Christian teaching to establish the objectivity of truth and morality, but this is not necessary. Paul, in Romans 2:14-16 speaks to this very issue:
For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
One of Lewis’ most biting arguments against those who deny the Tao is found when he asserts that those who would attack it have undercut any foundation upon which their attack stands (p 41):
All the values which he uses in attacking the Tao, and even claims to be substituting for it, are themselves derived from the Tao… If the Tao falls, all his own conceptions of value fall with it. Not one of them can claim any authority other than that of the Tao. Only by such shreds of the Tao as he has inherited is he enabled even to attack it.
Lewis also points out, in this discussion, that their must be something which is self-evident (the Tao), or else nothing can be proven. If any objective ground for morality is rejected, then one can find no ground for any value judgments at all. Society is reduced to a Nietzschean ethic in which the Tao is dead, and there is no hope of finding any way to even speak of morality. Any hope of doing so was surrendered along with the Tao.
This is the eighth and final post in a series on a comparison of Christian and Islamic Worldviews.
The Islamic view of salvation is radically opposed to the Christian view of salvation, namely, salvation by grace through faith in the crucified and risen Christ. Why is this so? First of all, this does not cohere with the Muslim understanding of the nature of man. Islam teaches that man is not inherently sinful, and therefore, has no need for salvation as such. Islam also rejects the Christian claim that Jesus was the Son of God who, through his death, reconciled God and man. Most Muslims do not believe Christ died on the cross. They do believe in Christ’s second coming, but its purpose is simply to tell Christians to follow Mohammad. The message of Mohammad is to believe the right things and to perform the correct acts. Islam teaches that man is fundamentally good and that God loves those who obey his will. One must believe that God is absolutely one and that Mohammad is the prophet of God. One must believe that Mohammad is the last prophet. Traditionally, Muslims must also believe in the prophets and their virtues, the angels, the sacred books, the day of resurrection and Qadar, that God decrees everything that happens in the world. This constitutes iman, or faith within Islam.
In conclusion, I have offered a brief overview of the differences in the way Muslims and Christians see the world. Although they both purport to worship the God of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, their conceptions of this God are quite disparate. It should be stated that there is much in Islam that the Christian can affirm, including its belief in one God, its recognition of Jesus as the virgin born, sinless prophet and messiah of God, and its expectation of a future resurrection and judgment.
However, there is much to distinguish the two worldviews. First, the Muslim perception of God is by no means the same as that revealed in the Bible. Islam portrays God as ultimately unknowable. Allah reveals only His will, but He never reveals Himself. He is never portrayed as a God of love or as a Father to His people. All we can know of Allah is his will. Contrasted with this is the Christian view of God as a personal, rational, knowable being who has created man in his own image. The Christian is able to enter into relationship with God.
Second, though Jesus is presented as a miracle working prophet and messiah, and even without sin, Islam denies that He is the Son of God or Savior of the world. Indeed, it is sometimes denied that Jesus ever died at all, least of all for the sins of the world. There was no need for a sacrificial, substitutionary death since, though mankind is depicted as weak and prone to error, Islam denies that man is a sinner by nature and in need of a Savior, as the Bible so clearly teaches. Humans are capable of submitting to God’s laws and meriting his ultimate approval. In Islam, man needs, not so much a savior, but guidance. Acceptance by God is something we must earn by our works, and therefore one cannot possibly feel secure in salvation from this world. In Islam, salvation is completely “other-worldly†and is to be experienced in the life to come. Contrasted with this view is the Christian’s total dependence on Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice for salvation. One can possess the assurance that salvation depends on Christ’s righteousness and not one’s own. While there is a future aspect of Christian salvation, there is also a present aspect as well. Christian belief teaches that a man is radically transformed in this life by the power of the indwelling Spirit of God.
It is important to note that both Islam and Christianity cannot both be true. These worldviews make contradictory claims about creation, the fall, and redemption. They answer the important questions with irreconcilable claims: Who is God and what is he like? Who is man and what are we like? What is wrong with the world and why is there so much suffering? What is the answer to man’s suffering and to what is wrong with the world? Either God is knowable or is not. Either God has certain characteristics which make up his essence or he does not. Either man is inherently sinful or he is not. Either Jesus Christ was the son of God, was crucified and died on our behalf, and was resurrected on the third day or he was not. Either we are saved by grace through faith, or we are not.
Both Islam and Christianity make historical claims which are beyond the scope of this discussion. The claims of each are open to investigation. The truthfulness of Christianity depends ultimately upon one monumental historical event – that of the resurrection of Christ. The evidence for this event is overwhelming to the unbiased observer. Christianity not only fits the facts of history, but our fundamental intuitions about morality and ethics, good and evil.
This is part 7 of a continuing series comparing Christian and Islamic worldviews.
In addition to the ethical problems discussed in my last post, another problem with the Islamic view of God and his relation to man is the extreme determinism which Islamic teachings support. God relates to human beings as the supreme sovereign and human beings are seen as obedient slaves. Geisler and Saleeb explain:
Despite protests to the contrary, orthodox Islam teaches the absolute predestination of both good and evil, that all our thoughts, words, and deeds, whether good or evil, were foreseen, foreordained, determined, and decreed from all eternity, and that everything that happens takes place according to what has been written for it. This is because God ‘is the Irresistible’.
This extreme determinism leads to the logical problem of God performing contradictory actions. He guides, yet at the same time, leads astray. Additionally, it is quite difficult to maintain any semblance of human responsibility while holding to this teaching. The Qur’an, itself, admits that God could have saved all, but chose not to do so.
Islam also makes God the author of evil. God wills unbelief and irreligion. Unbelief exists only because God willed it to be so. All one does, he does by God’s will. A metaphysical problem which results from this extreme determinism is that there is really only one agent in the universe. There are no other acting beings, only God. One Muslim scholar writes:
Not only can He (God) do anything, He actually is the only One Who does anything. When a man writes, it is Allah who has created in his mind the will to write. Allah at the same time gives power to write, then brings about the motion of the hand and the pen and the appearance upon paper. All other things are passive, Allah alone is active.
Islamic creedal statements echo the same teachings:
God Most High is the Creator of all actions of His creatures whether of unbelief or belief, of obedience or of rebellion: all of them are by the Will of God and His sentence and His conclusion and His decreeing.
God’s one possible quality is His power to create good or evil at any time He wishes, i.e. His decree… Both good things and evil things are the result of God’s decree. It is the duty of every Muslim to believe this… It is He who causes harm and good. Rather the good works of some and the evil of others are signs that God wishes to punish some and to reward others… God creates all things, good and evil.
Muslim determinism seems to lead to a pantheistic conception of the universe, in which God is all there is. In my next, and last, post in this series…a brief look at salvation in Islam.
This is part 6 of a series comparing the worldviews of Islam and Christianity. Today, I briefly discuss Islamic ethics.
Islamic ethics is grounded in different principles than is Christian ethics, although there are similarities. They both embrace transcendent, universal, morality. Dr. R. Scott Smith, of Biola University, states:
Islamic ethics definitely upholds that ethics transcend us and are based in Allah’s will. They are objectively true in that they are not human products, and they apply universally. And, we can have moral knowledge, which is found in revelation and the traditions of Mohammed.
Instead of God’s commands flowing from his moral goodness and his essential nature, which is the Christian view, Islam teaches that whatever God commands is what is right and moral. Smith references the statement of an Islamic traditionalist, Ghazali:
Ghazali draws the consistent conclusion from ethical voluntarism that Allah could ‘make children and insane people suffer and not compensate them’ for He is not under any necessity to do so; necessity as defined does not apply to Him.
Smith then summarizes the Islamic view of ethics thusly:
By basing what is right solely on what Allah wills, Islamic ethics become an ethic of action (doing the will of Allah). Virtue is not so critical, although acts of obedience should be done by Allah’s power. Virtues are not ends in themselves; rather, the end of Islamic ethics is obedience. The beginning is submission, and then Allah’s servants may be empowered to obey.
Great emphasis is placed on the sovereignty of God. Right and wrong are understood only by the command of God (revelation). According to Islam, we cannot understand morality and ethics by human reason. This has important implications for understanding and dealing with Islamic terrorists. Attempts at reason may be futile. Reason does not guide moral action. What God commands is morally right! If God commands the killing of innocent people, it is right. The will of Allah is not open to negotiation.
This is Part 5 is a series of posts comparing the Christian and Islamic worldviews. I have now discussed how both worldviews answer the questions of creation, the fall, and redemption. Now, I would like to spend a few posts fleshing out and evaluating the answers which Islam provides. To begin, I will look at the God of Islam.
Allah is absolute unity, absolute sovereignty, absolute justice, absolute mercy, absolute will, and absolutely unknowable. This statement might seem somewhat contradictory since it claims that God is unknowable, yet several characteristics of God have been provided as if we know these things about Him. The key to reconciling these concepts is to understand that everything is based on God’s will. The descriptions or names of Allah simply describe his effects and do not reveal his essence. For example, God is good only in the sense that he causes goodness, but he is not good in his essence.
This leads to a view of God which might be described as radical voluntarism (God is “willâ€) and nominalism (abstract concepts such as universals do not exist independently, but only as names). There is no basic essence or nature of God according to which he must act. If God is simply “willâ€, without a real essence, then right and wrong are arbitrary. There is no right or wrong as such, instead, right is whatever God wills to do. The acceptance that God has no real essence seems to lead to a form of agnosticism. Geisler and Saleeb state:
Indeed, the heart of Islam is not to know God but to obey him. It is not to meditate on his essence but to submit to his will.
Orthodox Islam embraces a god who is essentially unknowable. God’s names only tell us how he has chosen to act, but nothing of his essence or character. To be consistent, a Muslim should also be prepared to call God evil, since he causes evil. If he is unwilling to do so, it would seem he must give up on his view of God as being without essence and unknowable.
Next, a brief look at ethics according to the Islamic worldview.