Just Why Would You Believe That?

In the sidebar, you'll see I shared a post from the STR blog called Facts vs. Beliefs, which refers to this article from National Review. The NRO article very succinctly summarizes a problem I often run into while attempting to debate people about matters of faith. In short, the skeptic will often resort to blatantly disregarding my arguments from science, logic, or inference, and dogmatically asserting that my Christian beliefs are taken on blind-faith, while his Naturalistic beliefs are based on solid facts of science.

For a good example of this, please refer to the last response to me from Tom Clark in his Naturalism vs. Nihilism thread. I decided not to continue the conversation because he seemed unable to address any of my arguments, but just kept playing the Science vs. Faith card. In fact, he was almost malicious the way he twisted my words in order to make it look like I base my Christian faith on science rather than using science to show that Christian faith is not blind.

I'm learning how to handle this sort of belligerence in a face-to-face conversation (look for a post in the future re: Tactics in Defending the Faith), but online, it's much more difficult due to the nature of the medium. You just can't put someone on the spot and demand that they address your arguments based on their merits, rather than the pre-supposed lack-of-validity of the thing you're arguing for.

It would be refreshing to have a conversation with a skeptic in which he actually considered the validity of my arguments based on their merit of lack thereof.

Naturalism vs. Nihilism, part 3

I happened to notice that Tom Clark posted a response to my comment on his blog. It led to a second comment from me addressing some critical mistakes in his response. Rather than repost my entire comment here, please check his comment thread if you're interested in reading the whole exchange. Here's a snippet from my reply:

Your assertion that faith is "belief without evidence" is preposterous. Perhaps what you meant is "blind faith", but it is disingenuous to equate faith and blind faith. Faith is belief, and must be based upon evidence. To believe something for which you have no evidence, or in spite of the evidence, is folly. Furthermore, I would submit that the cited dinosaur hemoglobin example does, in fact, amount to a leap of blind faith on the part of the scientists in question.

It turns out, you are setting up a false dichotomy when you pit faith against empirical science. They are not comparable. Essentially, what you’re asserting is that science is the only way we can know truth. This is a patently false notion. We can determine truth through logical reasoning, examination of history, or first-hand testimony, to name but a few examples. What’s more, science can in no way address questions of a metaphysical nature, as they are outside the realm of physical science.

A good quote is like a finely cut diamond, incredibly compact yet endlessly fascinating.

Dr. Mardy Grothe has done it again. He has recently released a new book called I Never Metahpor I Didn't Like. As with his other three books, Dr. Mardy explores a specific niche of wordplay - in this case, analogies, metaphors, and similes - through poignant and pithy quotations taken from some of the world's greatest wordsmiths.

I first heard of Dr. Mardy around ten years ago when he released his first book, Never Let A Fool Kiss You, or a Kiss Fool You. I immediately fell in love with chiasmus as a rhetorical device and jumped into Dr. Mardy's competition with both feet. In our correspondence, I found Dr. Mardy to be warm, friendly, and receptive then, and I'm delighted to say he was just the same when I recently emailed him.

Though I haven't yet, I look forward to reading I Never Metaphor I Didn't Like. However, based on his past writings, I will commend it to adults with a love of language and wordplay. Adults, please consider carefully before allowing your children read it, however. As a secular writer, Dr. Mardy does not exclude quotes of a sensual and/or sexual nature; expect them to be mostly confined to the sex section (Chapter 10) with a few sprinkled throughout other categories.

Dr. Mardy, via A.Word.A.Day

Naturalism and Nihilism, revisited

Tom Clark left a response to my quick post yesterday regarding the logical link between Naturalism and Nihilism, point me to his blog post with the same title from back in March. His is an attempt to rebuff the notion that Nihilism is the natural offspring of Atheism/Naturalism. He has a case, but the fact is that those who hold to Naturalism are being inconsistent in applying their faith (philosophy, if you prefer) by living their lives in a moral manner. I suppose a similar case could also be made that we Christians are inconsistent in applying our Christian morals when we sin. The noteworthy difference, of course, is that the Christian's attempt to consistently live in a moral manner is evidence of his faith.

I posted the following as a response to his article, but thought it would be useful to re-post here for posterity.

Tom, thanks for the link. I'm not going to attempt to address all of your assertions in the article, but I'll say that your summary idea that human morality can be easily explained as an evolved survival instinct suffers in the light of others' claims that humanity's war-like nature can be easily explained as an evolved survival instinct. So which is it, are humans moral because it promotes survival of the fittest, or is that why they're war-like? You can't have it both ways. The "hard-core atheists" were much more consistent in the application of their faith by acknowledging that it leads to nihilism.

In regards to whether or not athiesm/naturalism qualifies as a faith, let's look at the surprising discovery of red blood cells and still-flexible blood vessels in dinosaur fossils a few years ago. Why was this surprising? Because the hemoglobin in the red blood cells should have broken down within thousands of years, but it was found in bones claimeded to be millions of years old. But what was the scientists reaction to this discovery? Did they question the evolutionary dogma that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago? No, by a leap of blind faith, they assumed there must be some way to preserve hemoglobin for millions of years. These scientists demonstrated an amazing knack for ignoring the evidence against millions of years due to their creedal assertion that evolution requires those millions of years. And gives the lie to your claim that "Naturalists’ commitment to science in this regard isn’t a matter of faith, it’s based on experience – the widely shared experience that beliefs about the world based in science are generally more reliable than those that aren’t."

For more on the dinosaur red blood cells story, read this follow-up article that refutes claims that what was found was not actual hemoglobin and red blood cells.

Finding the Will of God

My wonderful wife brought Jeannie Fulbright's excellent series of articles about creative vs academic writing to my attention this week. After reading them, I rolled back to her article from 7/14 on the topic of letting God direct our footsteps through the leading of the Holy Spirit. Now, it just happens that Donna and I are attending a Sunday school class based on the book Decision Making and the Will of God by Garry Friesen, and becoming more and more convinced of his arguments each week.

It prompted me to post the following comment in response to Jeannie. I realize I have not intensively researched the "traditional view" (as Friesen calls it) about waiting for a prompting or peace from God to lead to or confirm a decision, so my request for scriptural support for this standpoint is genuine.

So without further commentary, here's what I asked Jeannie:

Hi Jeannie, I wonder if you can help me out with something. In this article, you said, "It's hard to find true peace and joy when we are not following the narrow path marked out for our family. That narrow path may include putting your children in school - but it may not. The key is to find out - not by human reason, but through the leadership of the Holy Spirit (Who leads with confidence and peace)," and, "God has a perfect course for your family, and He longs to direct your steps."

Can you please provide some scriptural support for this notion that God has one particular, "perfect" path for an individual or family? And that He will make that perfect will known to believers through a feeling of peace? I don't see it in the scriptures, myself. I have done a brief word study on peace and find several references to a spiritual peace given by God to those who through faith rely upon Him for their needs and safety (Ps 25:13 says "His soul shall dwell at ease", Ps 4:8 says "I will both lay me down in peace, and sleep: for thou, LORD, only makest me dwell in safety", and Phil 4:6&7 says Christians should not worry about their needs because "the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus" ), but I find nothing supporting this common christian notion that God leads us through life or major life decisions by way of nudgings or even "confidence and peace," as you put it.

Even the scripture you cited, 2Tim 1:7 "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind," actually seems to oppose your assertion that "the key is find out - not by human reason, but through the leadership of the Holy Spirit." Isn't a sound mind the basis for proper reasoning (based on God's revealed will within His word)? In fact, I believe Jam 1:5, "If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him," indicates that we are to pray for God to give us wisdom, not peace or leading, does it not?

Please understand that I am not arguing that you gave the homeschooling lady the wrong advice (to persevere). I am just having difficulty with the reasons you gave her. If you know of scriptures that support this standpoint, I would genuinely appreciate hearing them.

Update:
Jeannie responded (actually very quickly) with a fairly lengthy and encouraging post including many scripture references. Now I need to make time to examine them all in context. On first blush, however, I noted that several references were either taken out of context or quite loosely interpreted. Others, however, did seem to support her viewpoint so the jury is still out on this.