A True and Rational Gospel

When Paul was communication the gospel to Agrippa and Festus, he was accused of being out of his mind. Paul responded, “I am speaking true and rational words” (Acts 26:25). As I have been studying philosophy and critical thinking in my politics and religion class, I have concluded that if the Gospel is true, then it would be the conclusion of an honest, logical consideration of the evidence. I do not mean by this that one would or could believe based only on intellectual considerations. Belief is a matter of the heart and will. Nor do I mean that all the claims of Scripture are verifiable by physical evidence. But the gospel and the Christian worldview will not contradict evidence and logic. The Bible does not teach that the God’s truth is a mysterious, irrational reality or that the physical world is an illusion or inherently evil. Instead, the words of the gospel are true and rational. It is easy for people to claim that Christianity is illogical or contradicts scientific and historical evidence. These claims must be pressed and critiqued for it may reveal to the accuser that their resistance to the gospel is not at all rational, but a resistance to the truth itself.

After making the above observations, I read an article by Chuck Colson, "When Atheists Believe: The Confounding Attraction of the Christian Worldview" (Christianity Today, Oct 2009). Here are some snippets:

"People who insist we are 'simply anthropoid apes' cannot account for things as basic as language, love, and music. . . . I have longed believed that Christianity is the most rational explanation of reality. And that fact, winsomely explained, can powerfully influence thinking people to consider Christ's claims. A strong empirical case can be made to show that Christianity is the only rational explanation of life. . . . The Bible speaks most accurately to the human condition--the very definition of a rational choice."

Friction Makes Us Sharp

“Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another.” Prov 27:17

Sharpening implies friction. To sharpen something, one must scrape the edge. Sliding the flat sides of pieces of iron together do not sharpen them. Talking with someone who always agrees with you does not sharpen you. But engaging with others about things we do not know, or about issues upon which we disagree, is challenging and forces us to grow and change. When we wrestle with others in this way, we become sharper, and therefore more effective. So it is important to resist the human tendency to avoid such friction because of pride and laziness.

"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality.   It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day."--Albert Einstein

Discussing Morality in a Pluralistic Culture

How can Christians engage in fruitful discussions within our culture about issues of morality? One may also ask how anyone may do so in our current pluralistic context. There seems to be a great deal of confusion about what ethics are and how one may establish or argue for a particular ethical framework. We have some in our culture who think they are ethical relativists. However, this belief mysteriously disappears when it comes to establishing civil law or protecting their own personal rights. Others may have a sense of “right” and “wrong” but don’t really know where they got their moral standards. There are also Christians, who even share the same authority for ethics, but still cannot agree on what the Bible says. Many times engaging in a discussion of morality provides an opportunity for people to identify the basis for their ethics or to think clearly and consistently about them. Beyond this it is important to think clearly about the relationship between law, ethics (morality), and religion. For example, where do appeals to religion fit into a discussion concerning public policy in a system that requires freedom of religion? I hope to explore these dynamics in future posts.

For now, it may be helpful to identify how a Christian basis for morality fits into the overall study of ethical theory. There are relativistic theories, command theories, utilitarian theories, deontological theories, and virtue theories (see Ruble, Critical Thinking, 144-151). A common version of command theory is “the divine command theory, according to which only God has the real power to create morality. What God has commanded is moral, and only because God has commanded it” (Ruble, Critical Thinking, 146). The basis for Christian morality is whatever God has said is moral. This is unique from the other theories because it inherently includes religion as a part of the discussion.

As a proponent of this view, I would make one important modification. Righteousness is not established only because God said that it is righteous; righteousness is established because God is righteous. Right and wrong are not established by his whimsical set of rules, as if he could have just as well established a different set. Righteousness flows from his character and it will not change. Other command theories end up being another type of relativity theory since the standard is relative to whoever is in command (Ruble, Critical Thinking, 147). The Christian divine command theory, however, is unique in its claim that the character of God is the basis for righteousness for all humans.

You Know What Assuming Does . . .

"One of the major failings of our educational system is the inattention paid to the role assumptions play in thinking. This means that as the products of the system, students are unlikely to have given this key topic any thought whatsoever. Instead, students blithely go through life in happy ignorance of the assumptions that form the foundation of their knowledge of themselves and the world around them." "Assumptions are presuppositions that make possible the thoughts and activities we construct based upon their presumed truth."

- Raymond S. Ruble, The Theory and Practice of Critical Thinking

Intro to Worldview

We discussed worldview in my Politics and Religion class today. Here are a few points we covered:

Worldview: (from German weltanschauung) a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world especially from a specific standpoint (from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary).

  • Everyone has a worldview, whether we are aware of it or not.

“Often, worldviews operate at an unconscious level, so that we are not even aware that other ways of seeing the world are either possible or legitimate. Like the air we breathe, worldviews are a vital part of who we are but nota part we usually think much about” (B. J. Hall, Among Cultures, 29.)"

  • A worldview is comprehensive, usually touching on views about theology, philosophy, ethics, biology, psychology, sociology, politics, law, economics, and history. These disciplines of thought are integrated in a worldview, building upon and affecting each other.
  • Our worldview affects our behavior.
  • We initially gain our worldview from the cultures and teachings of our families, communities, and religions.
  • Worldviews include the beliefs that are most deeply held and felt. Therefore, it is often difficult to discuss issues related to worldview.

“We are now getting to the point at which different beliefs about the universe lead to different behavior. Religion involves a series of statements about facts, which must be either true or false. If they are true, one set of conclusions will follow about the right sailing of the human fleet, if they are false, quite another set.” - C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity