Pointless Belief

From the EthicalAtheist.com web page "Questions for God" [1]:

Why don't you show yourself? You supposedly made us and want us to believe in you, right? Why the big mystery? You're also omnipresent, right? Why don't you show yourself to all of us at once and have a personal discussion with us? You can pick the date and time, we'll all stop what we are doing, I'm sure.

Why doesn't God dance when you want him to, and to the tune of your choosing? Why doesn't God put on some righteous cosmic magic show to convince you that he exists? Allow me to submit what I think is a far more pertinent question: "What would be the point?"

Imagine for a moment that God does your bidding. Whatever it would take to convince you that he exists, let's assume for the sake of argument that he produced it. Presto, you affirm that indeed God exists.

Now what?

So you now believe he exists. Well that's fantastic but, if I may be so bold, "So what?" What does this profit you? Are you so ignorant and out of touch that you think God will love you and accept you just because you assent intellectually to his existence? Are you so presumptuous as to dismiss with a wave of the hand your tremendous debt of moral culpability and (even worse) God's righteousness and sovereignty? Is God supposed to be so overwhelmed with gratitude for your cognitive approbation that he will just ignore the holy demands of justice? It's great that you now believe he exists. But so what? Will you now obey his commands? Do you throw away your ethics and other philosophical commitments and subject yourself fully to the will of God and what he demands?

No.

Why doesn't he show himself? Why doesn't he put on a cosmic magic show to convince atheists he exists? Because it would be pointless. It profits him nothing. It profits the atheist nothing. The atheist's intellectual assent is barren and impotent. For Satan himself believes that God exists, and he will believe that all the way to hell. The problem is not in the atheist's head but in his heart. When it comes to a relationship with God, the atheist's problem is not an intellectual one, but a moral one—on several different fronts.

As Rabbi Harold Kushner so eloquently put the matter:

Paul, whose conversation with me ultimately flowered into this book [2], assured me that while he did not believe in religion, he believed in God. I asked him what he meant by that, and he told me that when he contemplates the beauty and intricacy of the world, he has to believe that God exists. That’s very nice, I told him, and I’m sure God appreciates your vote of confidence. But for the religious mind and soul, the issue has never been the existence of God but the importance of God, the difference that God makes in the way we live. To believe that God exists the way that you believe the South Pole exists, though you have never seen either one, to believe in the reality of God the way you believe in the Pythagorean theorem as an accurate abstract statement that does not really affect your daily life, is not a religious stance. A God who exists but does not matter, who does not make a difference in the way you live, might as well not exist.

Neale Donald Walsh and his New Revelations

The following excerpts are from The New Revelations by Neale Donald Walsch (published in the UK by Hodder Mobius), author of Conversations With God. The thesis behind these five statements, Walsh proposes, is that "there are five things you can choose now, if changing your world and the self-destructive direction in which it is moving is what you wish to achieve."

1. You can choose to acknowledge that some of your old beliefs about God and about Life are no longer working.

First of all, the issue should be less about what "works" and more about what is "true"—with a focus on the former being shaped by the latter. Concern for what "works" is more emotional and subjective, and good luck achieving a functioning consensus on that. Concern for what is "true" is more rational and objective, and has very little to do with our emotional proclivities. Secondly, the 'age' of a belief has no relevance; a belief is not better just because it is 'new'. We should critically examine our beliefs and convictions about mankind and the world, and observe whether those beliefs correspond to the world in which we live; e.g. someone might believe that mankind is generally 'good' and will have reasons for this belief, but when we examine the real world, is that really what we find? If our beliefs do not correspond with the real world (what's true), they will be of little use (what works).

2. You can choose to acknowledge that there is something you do not understand about God and about Life, the understanding of which will change everything.

This is a call for an end to bigotry. If only this were achievable! But alas, you merely need to propose a worldview which invokes the name of God to observe prevalent bigotry from those committed to atheistic views, for example. I fear there is no end to bigotry. (But my worldview continues to produce beliefs which consistently correspond to the world in which we live.)

3. You can choose to be willing for a new understanding of God and Life to now be brought forth, an understanding that could produce a new way of life on your planet.

Same as above. Such an end to bigotry is a pipe dream; sad, but true. It is an unrealistic hope because it inherently fails to account for the real obstacle against its ultimate realization. That is, the realization of this hope is a road upon which sits a massive brick wall, and as long as we ram into that brick wall, ignoring its existence, we'll never travel that road. We can propose to travel it and desire to, but until our view acknowledges and accounts for that brick wall, it will never be anything more than a desired proposal. We need a worldview that will predict the building of such a brick wall, who builds it and why, and how to dismantle it. Unfortunately, mankind is not that bright.

(The source Walsh is channelling is not very careful with its language, providing us apophatic conclusions about its identity, i.e. inadvertently informs us who it's not, by referring to "your planet"—something God would not say.)

4. You can choose to be courageous enough to explore and examine this new understanding, and, if it aligns with your inner truth and knowing, to enlarge your belief system to include it.

Again, my "inner truth" is of no use to anyone, not even me, if it is not actually true. I want real solutions that account for the real world we live in. I don't need another channelled spirit blowing sunshine up my ass. Unless it is proposing a commitment to truth, it's just offering more impractical noise; I want something that corresponds to the world we live in, not something that appeals to my precious sensitivities.

(The source Walsh is channelling contradicts itself here, basically saying, "If the 'new' understanding fits your 'old' understanding, incorporate it." But if bigotry was the problem, then expanding and propagating that bigotry is not much of a solution. Why call for a 'new' understanding, if fitness with the 'old' understanding is the test it must pass? If our 'old' way of understanding is not working, why retain it and ensure 'new' ways of understanding are consistent with it? Walsh should try channelling intelligent spirits.)

5. You can choose to live your lives as demonstrations of your highest and grandest beliefs, rather than as denials of them.

Ah, but he avoids the salient point, which is: What's the criteria for "highest and grandest"?

Bauchman on Postmodern Theodicy

I transcribed the following from a brief video clip featuring the voice of Voddie Bauchman Jr, a sampler of his thoughts on the "Supremacy of Christ and Truth in a Postmodern World" (possibly from his Ever Loving Truth Bible studies) posted at the DesiringGod.org Facebook group Don't Waste Your Life. I don't know where the original video is located, and I got nowhere with YouTube.com, so I can't include the video here.

Student: I just wanted to ask you that, um, if you believe in a God that is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then how do you reconcile the issue of theodicy?

Bauchman: Took a semester of philosophy, right?

Student: Well, yes. How did you know?

Bauchman: 'Cause if you hadn't, you would've just said, "Listen, God's so powerful and so good: how come bad stuff happens?" But I'm not going to answer the question until you ask it correctly.

Student: Worked on that all week. What do you mean, "ask it correctly"?

Bauchman: You're not asking the question properly.

Student: What do you mean, ask the question properly? It's my question! You can't tell me how to ask my question!

Bauchman: I will answer your question when you ask it properly.

Student: How do I ask it properly?

Bauchman: Here's how you ask that question properly: You look me in my eyes and you ask me this, "How on earth can a holy and righteous God know what I did and thought and said on yesterday and not kill me in my sleep last night?" You ask it that way and we can talk. But until you ask the question that way, you don't understand the issue. Until you ask the question that way, you believe the problem is 'out there'. Until you ask the question that way, you believe that there are somehow some individuals who, in and of themselves, deserve something other than the wrath of almighty God! Until you ask me the question that way, until you flip the script and ask the question this way and say, "Why is it that we are here today? Why has he not consumed and devoured each and every one of us? Why? Why, oh God, does your judgment and your wrath tarry?" When you ask it that way, you understand the issue. When you ask it the other way, you believe in the supremacy of man; how dare God not employ his power on behalf of almighty man. You flip the question around, you believe in the supremacy of Christ; how dare I steal his air."

Unbelievers and God's Mercy

In a forum discussion elsewhere, a fellow we shall call 'Brad' made the remark that "so many of the comedians these days do not find a God of mercy in the Old or New Testaments," that through irreverent satire they deride the God of Scripture as "vengeful and mean" and that it seemed to reflect a rather common attitude. "It saddens me that this trendy new religion of God-bashing has become a form of revenue and entertainment," he said. "The jokes are not challenged, which I fear might leave a perceptible force."

Despite his reference to "comedians" (George Carlin being a rather clear example), the various participants in that thread aptly demonstrated that it is a prevailing attitude of ALL unbelievers, an attitude which articulates a segment of their justification for unbelief. But my question is this: "Why should one be at all surprised?" Scripture predicts this condition.

Those participants who proceeded to exhibit a similar attitude as the one Brad was lamenting, a careful review of all their posts clearly demonstrates one consistent element: they have all presupposed a subjective system of morality that is in defiance of God, which they then hold God subject to. Why do they not find a God of mercy within the pages of Scripture? Because God's mercy is at odds with their system of morality! The mercy of God is defined by the gifts he bestows upon those who do not deserve it; but those comedians and these participants reject this idea of "do not deserve," insofar as they reject the biblical concept of sin and its inherent nature. They feel that there ARE things which all people deserve irrespective of their beliefs, race, commitments, geological location, etc. Since they view "sin" in strictly humanistic terms, there are numerous examples of God acting contrary to what they believe man deserves (and is therefore not merciful but, rather, inhumane and tyrannical). I do not think we would accomplish much by complaining about the derisions that unbelievers hurl at God (although it rightly upsets us). What we ought to do is call these people to the carpet for their completely unintelligible use of the term 'moral' and its relevant dimensions.

Why do I defend God? Because I love him. Why do they castigate God? Because they hate him (notwithstanding their varied qualifications about his existence).

Cramer & The Cause of Sin - Pt. 3(a)

My friend and faithful brother David Cramer has continued his discussion on John Frame's argument but he has done so in two independent posts (here and here). My analysis will distinguish the content of his objection into four individual categories—(1) Objective Evil, (2) The Sovereignty of God, (3) The Cause of Sin, and (4) Cause vs. Authorship—and I will publish on each category over the next four days, beginning with (1).

1. OBJECTIVE EVIL

According to Cramer's position, the Bible teaches us that "there are some things that are objectively morally evil" which, he goes on to argue, God surely hates. I wish for the readers to understand that I agree with Cramer on this point, but with some notable reservations.

First of all—and this is hopefully a minor point—I submit that "morally evil" is a redundant expression because "evil" is itself a normative moral term. Consequently, as the astute mind will detect, I reject the term "natural evil" (e.g. earthquakes) because that imports a humanistic definition of "evil" into what should be our stalwart commitment to Scriptures. You see, I hold that moral order is grounded in the very being of God. Ergo, for an earthquake to be considered a natural 'evil' it would have to occur against God's will; if a phenomenon in nature occurs according to God's will, surely it is not evil. So I prefer to reserve "evil" for moral contemplation while we should call things such as earthquakes "natural disasters," as we normally do. (As the reader might surmise, I also submit that "evil" and "sin" are synonymous, interchangeable terms; i.e. they both refer to the same thing. Furthermore, such an argument as I affirm here quite readily hands Euthyphro his hat and shows him to the door.)

Secondly (and I hope Cramer would concur), I affirm that if anything is evil, it is so objectively. In other words, biblically speaking there is actually no such thing as subjective evil. Why? Because moral order is not a human invention; moral order is grounded in the very being of God and expressed prescriptively in his commands. Consequently, if 'objective' means "independent of either a particular human mind or human minds altogether," then we may assert that all evil is so objectively.

Cramer states that "objective moral evils are those actions [which are] wrong for any being, at any time, anywhere, to do them." While this might work on the surface, a difficulty arises when we examine it more closely; i.e. literally "any being"? I hear Euthyphro knocking at the door again. I reject such a notion because there is no moral order to which God himself is subject. He is the sole Lawgiver, whose commands are forever consistent with his immutably holy nature and which express all moral parameters. In other words, "any being" cannot be literal; it must restricted to only those beings created by God which he ordained to hold culpable at his judgment (angels and humans). God, as a being, is not included in the moral culpability to which 'objective evil' refers; neither are horses, nor plankton, nor a host of other beings. Also, this is why the taking of human life is not evil per se (in itself); it is evil only where God has proscribed against it. Sometimes God has commanded the taking of human life (1 Sam. 15:3) and the refusal to do so is evil (v. 24; cf. v. 20). It is possible that all of this truly is what Cramer meant; such precision was my own desire.

Tomorrow I shall post my comments on (2) The Sovereignty of God.

Cramer & The Cause of Sin - Pt. 2

Although there is, at this point in the discussion, no significant material to respond to on Cramer's blog (he is undoubtedly still buried in class work), there are some items worth noting.

First of all, Cramer is now aware of my blog, which is why this can now be referred to as a 'discussion'. Although he mistakenly thinks I followed him here, the reality is that I have been with Blogger for over five years; this particular incarnation (Itinerarium Mentis) is somewhat new, but my former blog (Apologia) was around for a while and, at one point, had even garnered the attention of Jared Wilson and the boys at The Thinklings, and also Austin R. Cline, a Regional Director for the Council for Secular Humanism. I have been around for a while.

Secondly, I wish to make something clear to Cramer personally: Please do not feel obligated to respond to my blog posts. I certainly appreciate your thoughtful responses and the challenges they present, and I do admire your commitment to growth in the knowledge of Christ and your passion for the purity of the gospel, but I know you have a good deal on your plate as a student so I do not want you feeling as though you have yet one more thing to deal with. My blog is a place where I like to share my thoughts and experiences as I likewise grow and mature in my Christian walk; some of those encounters occur on IRC, some of them on message boards, and some through reading other people's blogs and critically examining their content. Your views on Frame's argument grabbed my attention. I look forward to engaging you in a discussion, I just do not wish for you to feel burdened.

And thirdly, back to the readers now, Cramer makes a couple of statements I wish to briefly respond to. He maintains, first of all, his rather unfavourable characterization of John Frame's argument—quite expectedly, I should think—here calling it "theologically abominable." What I wish the readers to note is this: It is not yet clear that he is properly understanding Frame's thesis in the first place, and it will not be clear until Cramer has some time available to write more fully on the matter. So for the time being, the reader is really encouraged to take Cramer's comments with a proportionately sized grain of salt. I am familiar with Frame's argument on this point and I know there is nothing "theologically abominable" about it, as surely does Frame himself.

Also, it certainly is not enough to call a spade a spade, but that has nothing to do with today's pluralistic society. It has to do with sound reason, critical thinking, and our moral duty toward our brothers in Christ; to "simply call a spade a spade" is only so much ipse dixit (i.e. "any unsupported rhetorical assertion that lacks a logical argument") and will not compel anyone. If he is going to assert that Frame has strayed from the truth of the gospel, then he should expect that his readers will want to know how and why this is so. (And so would Frame himself, should he have ever happened upon the post. An unlikely event, but a good principle to consider.) Cramer is entitled to call Frame a "spade" but his academic discipline should inform him that doing so shoulders the burden of exposing the argument that produces such a conclusion. If he did not have the time to provide even an outline thereof—and he admits to not having the time—perhaps he could have expressed his reaction with less censure for the time being. Or saved it as a draft until it did include the outline. My only point is that if one is going to make such a terrible accusation against someone who has established himself as a God-fearing apologist and critically acclaimed Christian philosopher, it should include one's reasoning. My passion is fueled by the conviction that we, as Christians, are bound by a higher moral rectitude toward the members of God's family.

Cramer also states he is not claiming that Frame has "rejected the gospel" or "does not affirm the gospel message." True, but he is claiming that Frame here strays from the truth of the gospel. That is a very, very serious charge, is it not?

For now Cramer rightly has his academic responsibilities to attend to. Both myself and his readers, I am sure, can wait with due patience until he has the requisite time to elaborate.

Cramer & The Cause of Sin - Pt. 1

David Cramer, a Facebook friend of mine from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, wrote an interesting (albeit brief) piece on his blog this earlier afternoon. Cramer, it would seem, is quite shocked about something theologian John Frame had argued in his scholarly work The Doctrine of God; specifically, that Frame would dare to argue in favour of the idea that God is the cause of sin. Cramer said that this excerpt from Frame's book is "quite chilling" and that it shows "how far from the truths of the gospel we can stray while still maintaining strict adherence to biblical authority." That is a very serious charge for Cramer to level against Frame, so how does he support such a statement?

He doesn't.

Despite the deep respect for Cramer I have—or perhaps as a result of it—I am obligated to call him on such irresponsible negligence. He admits candidly enough that his current homework load does not permit him to write very extensively, but here is the crucial point: if he had the time to level such a critical charge against Frame then surely he had enough time to provide a brief outline showing why he thinks Frame has strayed from the truth of the gospel. Frame himself, in the excerpt Cramer linked to, made a reference to the book of Job (1:20-22); at a minimum there is a starting point Cramer could have commented on. But he did not. He provided his readers with his emotional reaction but nothing more.

What Frame discussed, and Cramer neglected to comment on, is the distinction between cause and authorship, insofar as God is the ultimate 'first cause' behind the existence of sin, "referring to God’s agency in bringing evil about," Frame notes. But God is never guilty of sin, he does not commit sin. Humans are responsible for sinning, but God is responsible for creating beings capable of sinning; Frame recognizes the difference between "God as the 'remote cause' and human agency as the 'proximate cause'." Does Cramer offer a scholarly response to any of these things? Does he tell his readers why things like this compel him to "reject the Calvinist framework as a whole"? No, he does not. It is very disappointing and irresponsible.

I titled this post "Pt. 1" because if Cramer should subsequently write more on this, perhaps shouldering his burden of proof and making his case, I will critically examine his arguments here.

Sin and Freedom

David: God is absolutely responsible for the behavior we choose to do. Why? Because he can stop it, and in select cases he has done so. That makes him responsible; when he can stop it—and has at times—but let's it continue. And he does not stop sin because he has a glorious purpose in it. It's why he created the world in this way in the first place.

Richard: So I can go ahead and sin, because if I can do it, it's God's fault anyway? Can't be sure I agree.

David: Just because God is causally responsible for the world he created, that does not absolve us of our responsibilities. You can sin, sure—and you will be held accountable when you do.

Richard: Okay.

David: The difference is this: We are responsible for sinning; God is responsible for sin.

Richard: Oh.

Garrett: I think you need to re-word that.

David: I doubt it, although I may need to clarify it.

Garrett: For God to give you freedom, He had to allow for the potential of sin.

David: Freedom? From what?

Garrett: Light and darkness.

David: We are free from light and darkness? What does that mean?

Garrett: Good and evil as potentials.

David: What is it we are free from?

Garrett: To choose. If you cannot sin, then you are not free.

David: So in heaven we will not be free? Or we can sin there?

Garrett: Discussion over. Enjoy.

David: Heheh. I bet it is, yeah.