Archive for category Christians

Where Does This Ocean Go?

There is a reason I haven’t written in the past few months and its not the normal excuse of “I was busy.” The reason I didn’t write anything since February is because I have been spending that time thinking. You may, or may not, remember an article I linked to on here about a show I watched entitled “The Twelve Kingdoms.” Having just read the Code of the Samurai, a book that contained the code by which the warrior class of Japan lived for nearly four centuries, the show invigorated a sense of obligation in me to find out what life was really all about. I had my wanting to understand our purpose in the universe, if any, see what made us us, and what we could do to change it, if at all.

As such, I would like to think I began a small excursion towards “enlightenment” (or really it was more me deciding to stop acting like a jackass and find something more meaningful in my life). Part of this excursion was what has turned out to be a possible end to the logical progression that started several years ago.

As I have explained before, I think that logic is the best way to find truth in anything. You start with something monumental like “Jesus is lord” and break it down into its constituent parts. For this case you would start asking “What is lord?” and “Was Jesus a real person?”. Continuing the example, the latter branch breaks down further into “Was Jesus who he claimed?”, “How do we know?”, “Where the gospels accurate?”, “Why should we believe them?” and so on.

This logical journey started probably eight or so years ago when an event in my life shattered a fairly picturesque view of God and life in general. The details are not important, but what is important is that I lost my faith once almost entirely except for a tiny piece in me that wanted to hold on to a belief in a God. Subjective and insubstantial now that I look back on it, but really, thats all that there was. Since then I have been picking apart not only Christianity, but also the fundamental building blocks of most major religions: spirituality, morality, societal mores, an afterlife, etc.

The purpose ultimately was two-fold. One, I wanted to prove to myself that I was not just blindly following the supposed words of a prophet from two millennia ago whose existence may not even be real. And Two, I wanted to discover the true joy in finding God and maybe share it with others. The first part of this, to me anyway, was essential to the second. Proving God’s existence through logical argument should be possible if God exists as described within the Bible. To quote Galileo, “I do not believe that a God that gave use logic and reason would mean for us to forego their use.” What was essential to me was a picture built, not of stories and lose fitting feel-good messages, but a solid picture of something I could touch and explain.

The second part stems from the first. Over my few years of being on earth, I have discovered one thing: non-Christians who become christians tend to have a fuller and deeper faith then those who had grown up in the church. C.S. Lewis, Saint Augustine, Francis Schaffer, among others, all came from disbelieving backgrounds, sought out to disprove God and ended up finding him instead. Their journey netted them understanding, peace, and what I consider to be a more “real” relationship with God. As such, their writings spell out for the non-believer what our faith means and by extension can help those who would initially reject God outright gain a foothold in the path towards understanding. This is my main goal: to reach an understanding as best I can and then help share my spiritual journey with those who have spent their lives with the same scientific and philosophic backgrounds as myself and who categorically deny God. Maybe I can plant a seed of self-reflection.

But I digress. The end result seems to have netted some logical arguments that are at the root of the God question and other problems as well. I will cover these more in depth in future articles but I will share them with you here as well. If you would like to contribute your thoughts on these I seriously welcome any argument for or against. I currently believe these are indivisible, root arguments but I would like to be proven wrong ( I would hate to have the arrogance of saying “I found it!” when I’m only 23).

1) Q: Given that belief in God requires a certain leap in faith, how large of a leap must there be from total atheism to the start of a journey to God? (i.e.. To start becoming a christian, would you have to accept all of Jesus all at once, or is there something smaller that can be built upon?)

A: The smallest leap of faith required between atheism and the beginning of the belief in God is the belief that humans posses a soul, or something within them that is not material that without the body continues to be human.

2) Q: What is the fundamental difference between atheism and theism?

A: How a person from either persuasion views the concept of death and how they adjust their lives accordingly.

3) Q: Historical trends of relativism can, in part, explain a loosening of societal norms over the last half century and can be argued that they are contributing to a decay of social stability, but can something more concrete be at the root of these trends?

A: While it itself is a consequence of these trends, a fear or unwillingness to commit to anything philosophically solid (meaning it would force us to conform to something outside of ourselves) can be found at the root of nearly all growing social “ills”. (e.g.. divorce, sexual promiscuity, crime, etc)

These are the three big ones. I am sure there are others. I will probably be writing an article on each of these three and I would very much appreciate any and all feedback on them. If you have any insight you can comment here or send me an email at kami at

No Comments


There comes a point in everyone’s life when he or she just snaps and they stop caring about causes that before hand they had staked their life on. Take for example my conservativeness. Up until recently I fervently argued the points and the topics of the day with liberals. I used reason and facts to support my statements and usually at least got the other person to concede a little ground if not just call it a fair draw. But this process took hours, headaches, and above all, constant bombardment of arguing from the other-side. I then realized that no matter what, the irrationality and the ill founded arguments would never stop. I might win one person, but there would be no shortage of his friends to take his place. And so at some point in the last few months I just gave up trying.

I tell you this example for the simple reason that I feel the same kind of snap coming on when it comes to christianity. Everyday, from all sides, I am bombarded with criticism, direct and indirect, about my choice in religion. It doesn’t matter how much research and soul searching I have done in my life because, since I’m christian, I am an ignorant, brainless drone who is one of those people who is a stick in the mud. And from the other side as well I receive constant criticism for not being christian enough because i don’t attend church regularly or condemn all manners of immorality in a vocal and confrontational way. it doesn’t matter to which side i turn, I am just plan wrong.

When it comes to talking to atheists, agnostics, pagans, whatever, about religion, I try to do the one thing that i think 99% of christians out there would positively rather die than do: i talk to them about it. I try to do so in the most understanding way possible because I know that if I am to even dream of planting the tiniest seed of light in their mind the first thing i must show is an openness to listen to their arguments and their concerns. I have to come to them with an open book of not only my religion and its history and teachings, but also my personal life open so they can see that I am not being hypocritical when I try to explain behavior to them. In this state, I leave myself very vulnerable to attack. All I have to defend me is the logic of the arguments I am presenting. If thats not pressure in a conversation I don’t know what is. Yet what does it net me in the end?

Perhaps I have planted that seed in some people, but a vast majority of non-christians I talk to want nothing of the sort. They see any pro-religious rhetoric as propaganda spread by liars and the stupid to further their grasp on how people think. They see christians, and by extension, myself, as pushing their unwanted dogma down their throat. And so, even though I may have a few people who I can say I got to start thinking seriously about religion in general, and maybe one or two thinking about christianity, all the others have attacked me, dogmatically and personally. They may not mean to do it, but I still have to bear the brunt of the attack. I am chided as stupid, ignorant of the “facts” of history, brainwashed, one of “them”, etc. It has gotten to the point where I am reluctant to even pronounce my faith in any public forum before anyone knows me well enough to know that if i do pronounce it, I’m not just a “jesus freak.” Otherwise, any argument I put forward will instantly be shot down under the premise of other stupid christian.

On the other-side of the fence, when I try and goto christians to ask for help/guidance on the issue and maybe even try and persuade them to be not as insane towards the non-faith, I am equally abused. For instance, should i goto a fellow christian and say “I’m tried of being called a jesus freak. i have to wait in debates to declare my faith” I am met with “is jesus not good enough for you? you want to hide him!?”. If I goto church, “thats the guy who hangs out with those immoral types.” if i try to debate with them, “why cant you just believe the bible literally?” it doesn’t do me any good. Perhaps there is some truth in the belief among the non-faith that christians are insane little zealots. Unfortunately, everyday I am met with more and more evidence that that presumption is true. Its gotten to the point where I feel ostracized by my own people; partly because they don’t want me there, and partly because i feel ashamed of being a part of them.

How can I effectively tell an avowed atheist that I believe christ loves everyone when we have christians who want nothing to do with not just non-christians but christians from some other denomination? How can I say “Christianity is born of logic, reason, and learning” when a huge majority of the christian community rejects blatant evidence that the earth is older than 6000 years? How can I tell someone God cares about them when there are hundreds of christians waiting in line to cast the stone at one another?
and to be fair:
How can I tell christians not to hate atheists when all they spit is venom and hatred at the mention of jesus? How can I tell the faithful to take in a sinner who thinks that they are all nothing but mindless drones speaking rubbish about love and invisible friends in the sky? How can I take the atheist’s claim of “open mindedness” seriously when I mention religion and he shuts his ears automatically?

The answer to all of these questions is: I cant. I try very hard, have tried very hard and I am met from all sides with a distain the like of which would all go away if I simply wasn’t christian anymore. If I was a weak minded drone, I would have given it up completely by now. If I wanted to fit in, I would have fully joined one or the other side and just given up my independent thought and gone along with the flow. If i didn’t firmly believe that Christianity (true, first century, christianity) then I would have rejected it by this point. Yet here I am, sick of debating and arguing, but not past helping someone who actually wants to talk, from either side.

Do i think that I am better than both sides? I would by lying if i said i didn’t. I think I’ve reached a point where I can communicate effectively, perhaps not positively, with both sides. But I have only done so at the cost of my own reputation as a christian leader or an effective speaker among non-believers. I have also probably not been the best of christian role models or practitioners. Nor have I had the fun that comes with rejecting moral codes all together. So instead, Here i am writing a ranting article about my position in life.

Perhaps this article was more be venting that anything. Maybe it was a fishing scheme to see if someone out there empathizes with my position. Maybe i want someone to see me was some kind of martyr. I don’t know. What I do know is that regardless of why i wrote this and made it public, its what I believe and feel about my life and the two huge forces I am stuck between. If i could have it my way, it would all just vanish, but I am not that lucky.

No Comments

The Great Divide

The war isn’t going to end anytime soon. I think thats become apparent in the last series of articles that I’ve posted over the last few months. Science and religion seem to be at odds with one another despite however much I wish they weren’t. So far in this series, I have been focusing on the evangelical Christians and the fundamentalist Christians and their steps that have kept the virtual divide not only open, but widening in their wake. I have not said much about the other side of the fence though. That is, I haven’t made any strides to talk about how science as a community is helping to keep this divide between itself and religion open and widening. So in this last article focusing on science for a while, Id like to present something more personal as I find myself more and more on the science side of the chasm that separates us.

divide1.jpgI am often asked by people of both camps what my true beliefs are. I can firmly say that I have no idea. It is true I was raised a Christian but not as an evangelical one. That is, I wasn’t brought up with God and spirituality permeating every facet of my life. To me, God was simply there, just like air is there, just like the sun is there. It was one of those facts that just seemed to be without forcing itself into matters that had nothing to to with church. And so, without the constraint of religion interjecting itself into anything other than my spiritual life, I was free to study science as much as I wanted without finding myself at odds with my creator.

In fact, as the more I learned about creation and the universe as a whole, as well as how it all worked, I began to appreciate more and more how God had crafted such a universe that would give rise to us. I began to understand something fundamental that separates my form of Christianity from the evangelical fundamentalists. That fact I found out is probably the definition that divides Christians into two major camps, which I will get to in a bit. I realized that God did not create the universe because he loved us. He created the universe and then he loved us. In other words, he did not create the universe for our meager little species on some backwater planet, rather, the universe was created and we came alone, whether by natural phenomena or not, and God decided to show us love. Our species on a no name planet out back of nowhere received love from the creator of the universe.

divide2.jpgThis fact forces me at least to view Christianity’s creation standpoint from one of two camps. Those who think we are special, and those who think we aren’t special. To those who think we are, it frames their whole worldview, from their politics to their social life. To those who think humanity is special see their religion as the specialists of the special. In other words, they see Christianity (or islam or whatever) as the people who are chosen from the special people and therefore are above everyone else. This does not mean they are egotistical; though some undoubtedly are, but rather that they have some obligation to show everyone else how humanity is special and that we should all just know that we are the chosen of creation. The other side of this are those of us who see humanity as nothing special in terms of nature, but rather we are special only because God love us out of all of creation. I believe, as I think others do, that creation came first and that we came about in some manner God ordained but were not necessarily thought of before it all started. Therefore, we may have just been an after thought and God decided that maybe we could truly love him. I don’t know if thats a fact or not, but it would make us more humble if it were. Humility is the fact that governs these camps. One has humility because they are told to, the other just has it.

So how does this tie in with science? To me, the connection seems simple, science, by and large, is much like the second group I mentioned. They believe that humanity is nothing special, but not because of anything theological, simply because they can see how everything works and empirically deduce that if it happened here, why not somewhere else? That is to say, why should earth be the only planet out of countless trillions of planets with life on it? It is this empirical method that sets them apart from the first group I mentioned: the evangelicals. Evangelicals seem to like everything told to them, where as scientists want to find everything out. This difference is the second source of the divide, only between not just Christians.

divide3.jpgGive a true scientist a bucket of water and they will want to know what its made of, why does the water spin differently than the bucket if you spin the two, why does water behave that way, why why why? Scientists are fixed to a scheme of solving problems through observation. And on their side of the fence this is their source of the divide, though to be truthful, it’s of no fault of their own. Scientists want to measure and test. You by definition cannot measure or test god. Therefore God is not part of science. This does not mean scientists to not believe in god, some do, but it does mean God does not factor into experiments or theories. Why should he? If humans announced they could test God or measure him, how arrogant would we be? We would be admitting level with omnipotence. Scientists will admit their true goal in life is simply to describe how the world around us works. They do not postulate on why the universe is here or what our purpose in life is. They leave that to philosophy.

As one of a scientific mindset, I have no problem separating God from science because God does not factor into gravity, or air, or temperature. God is not a natural being, if he was, he wouldn’t be god. So I can see the scientist’s argument where “leave to Caesar what is Caesar’s” or “leave to God what is God’s.” God only factors into why were are here and where we are going. To say otherwise just doesn’t make sense. But I can see the point the evangelicals make too. They say science is atheistic and hostile to religion. To some extent, they are right. Science is at its basest level, skepticism. God is untestable so he’s also unverifiable. It’s hard to convince a skeptic to believe in something inherently unprovable. Despite what the bible says, you still must have faith in God to believe the bible. Faith in the unknowable disturbs scientists.

divide4.jpgBut scientists could use some yelling at from those of us in the middle. Just as I yell at the young earth creationists all the time, I should really spend more time yelling at the scientists and those of the scientific mind set like myself. But the major difference between the yellings at is the fact that to move creationists to the center you only need to get them to think analytically and not accept everything at face value. On the other hand to move a scientist to the middle require to get them to give up just a shred of analytical thought, something even I have a lot of problems doing. As analytical people we tend to miss the forest for the trees. Science gets bogged down in the details and sometimes misses the overall picture, especially when its not related specifically to science. It’s like looking at the old cliche of the pocket watch in the desert. The scientist would take the watch apart, see how it worked, note how the pieces were made and what from, try to find out when the watch was made, etc etc. He becomes so engrossed with finding these things out; I think he misses the bigger picture. He doesn’t once stop to think, who made it and why is it out in the desert? And if he does, the could use the old cop out, “well thats for the philosophers to debate.” That’s true, but for the person of the scientist I don’t think its good enough. Not to sound like an evangelist, but as a person, are you letting your lab coat dictate your personal beliefs in the spiritual? Just because they are untestable does not mean they do not hold merit. Some scientists have tried to evade the issue altogether by suggestion religion and spirituality are somehow biological. Maybe, but spirituality is not a natural phenomenon, at least in my mind, and should at least be given some credit. Because of our spirituality and our ability to envision something so much bigger than ourselves such as god, we identify ourselves are separate from the animals. I know there are other reasons scientists would say we see ourselves separate, but you have to admit, spirituality is something we can definitely point to as “human.”

Scientists may see things the way those of us in the middle ground see things, as far as how humanity is nothing special. However they either cant, or wont ask the important questions that are personally applicable to them. Its all well and good you know how the first cells might have formed from folding proteins, but will that help your personal life? Its great you know the universe is expanding, but will that help you in death? So many scientific friends I know are afraid of death because they believe in no god. But not because they are afraid of hell, they are afraid of mortality being the finality of existence. They are scared of not existing and all that entails: a missed opportunity to make a mark on civilization. In some ways this view of spirituality not pertaining to them or not being intelligent thought is the key to why they help split society.

divide5.jpgTheir side of the divide is to look down on those who use faith too much. Granted some of us use faith where faith is necessary, but we don’t use it to facilitate every aspect of our lives simply because we are told something by a preacher. Unfortunately, a vast majority of Christians are like the evangelicals. As a result they fuel the stereotype of Christians being anti-intelligent bible thumpers. Science looks down on them because they don’t use any thought at all for their worldview. Science on the other hand perpetuates its own stereotype of being ivory tower people who refuse to look at anything other then facts and trying to discredit religion (even though they don’t directly) by scoffing at those who are in religion. And in-between there are those of us who look at both sides and shake our heads. Science discriminates against religion because they don’t like faith-based assumptions. Religion discriminates science by making claims that go beyond the scope of what religion teaches (i.e.. creation science). As a result, both camps refuse to talk to each other and have taken to throwing mud. So many souls and so many minds could be saved here if they just got along.

In the end, there’s not a whole lot I, nor probably any one person, can do about it. Science people will continue to hate Christians because of the lot that tries to wedge the two apart. Christians will continue to hate scientists because science wants to be skeptical of everything, including god. In the end, I don’t think either side is “right” but if I had to pick one thats more right than the other, id pick the scientists simply because I’m sure there is a way to prove God through logic at least, not necessarily experimentation. The evangelicals only offer canned arguments and irrationality. But I think, really, that if the two sides at least agreed to disagree on a few little issues than both would benefit monumentally from each other. That’s just my opinion though.


An Aspirin for Every Headache

I think fortitude is something that we christians seriously lack. And i don’t say that to merely be provocative and belligerent either. I really think that when it comes right down to the facts of life we are in no better position, possibly even in a worse position than our “ungodly” counterparts on the other side of the fence.

The reason i say this is because of the problem with pain. Countless books, lectures, sermons, inspirational posters, and Bible verses are all dedicated the issue of pain. They remind us constantly that pain exists, that the world is filled with it, and that god can protect us from it. And yet it seems that when pain rears its ugly head in our faces we seem to reel back in fear and hide in the shadows behind our picture of what God is to us.

Case in point. I have a friend who recently heard from a friend she had back in high-school. This old friend and my friend had had a falling out some years back over religious issues. Basically the other friend was going to be the perfect little girl for god. No dating, no kissing, no alcohol, church on sunday and Wednesday, everything she was going to do in her life was going to glorify god. And to her credit, from what i know of her, she kept this up for a long time. My friend said she was insane, probably from the fact that she had to constantly listen to her bemoan the fact that she could never get a boyfriend. Well when you never let physical attraction even once dictate your choice in mates and then when you do happen to land a partner you tell them you won’t kiss or hug them until you’re at the alter, what do you expect? But i digress. It seemed that the issue didn’t even phase the friend that her choice to be loyal only to god was hindering her own wishes, but she was pretty much content otherwise. She did drive my friend nuts by preaching to her every time she got the opportunity about how she wasn’t living according to god’s purpose and she would never be happy if she didn’t, inadvertently pushing my friend further and further away from wanting to be associated with people like that (e.g. every christian she knew).

And then suddenly, the friend’s mom died. I don’t know how or why, but she just upped and died one day. naturally the friend’s life was shattered. And she dropped of the map for several months after. So then the other day she calls my friend up and catches up some. Turns out now she’s living with her dad and her step-mom (he parents were divorced long before any of this by the way) and has turned to a life of drinking, cursing, and generally being a heathen (well… relatively speaking). She was even considering to go and lose her virginity for no real reason other than to do it. I laughed at first because of the hypocrisy she was displaying. I find irony like that funny no matter how tragic it is (I’m evil like that). But then as it sank in i realized something that brings me to this article now.

The girl snapped. Why? Because her mom died? Well yes, but more fundamental than that. Pain. She snapped because of the pain. granted, it was a horrible pain having your only real family just die like that, but its the same kind of pain people feel everyday all over the world. And yet she fell so far. Why? The problem with pain is that she expected it to never happen to her. and thats where we christians generally fail at life.

We normally sit on our high horses talking about the great life we have with god and how he will protect us from earthly pain. And should some pain arise in someone else’s life other than our own its simply brushed off with “well god has a plan for you.” But then it happens to us and all the rules change. Suddenly that godly way of life we were living seems to have netted us nothing. all that supposed sacrifice for god and we are left trampled under the wheels of life in the mud for all to see. Then the taunting begins. “where is your god now?” “Why did god let that happen to you?” “if there was a god he obviously hates you.” And these are just from yourself!

When we have the problem of pain, our world shatters around us. pieces falling down like glass and we stand in our broken cathedral looking up at the dark sky above and just ask “why me? why me god?” We thought up to that point we were exempt from having these blows dealt to us because we were living for god. Bad things only happen in retribution for sin, right? wrong. There was never a guarantee for safe passage through life. yes we are told god CAN protect us from pain, but that doesn’t mean he WILL. And nor should we expect him to.

We do have a guarantee from jesus himself. He guaranteed the opposite. He told us if we join him in christianity we enter a life filled with more pain than normal people. “take up your cross and follow me” isn’t just a nice thought about how we will walk with him and let him carry it for us. The cross doesn’t just symbolize the sins we have to carry, but the pain in carrying them and of life in general. We marginalize pain until it happens to us. We tell ourselves before the earthquake how exactly we will react. And when the quake hits, we panic. And this is the main difference between christians and non-christians. The non-christians have been doing drills, but we tend to stand there confidently that the building you’re in will never, never crack or crumble. And when it does our notions about the world and life and torn asunder and the world looks at us as fools.

And thats what we are if we continue to think that a life with god is a life free from pain: Fools. Its for this reason I always harp on teens and kids who want to get baptized as soon as possible because their friends are doing it and the ministers who encourage it. They don’t sit back and think about what they are doing. They are told from the get go that this is a kind of trade. “you join us and life is smooth sailing.” Its not a bargain, its you initiating yourself into a world darker than you can imagine with god there as a flashlight. You are not completely alone, but you are still on your own. people who think that the dark world isn’t really there are blind. People who think that god will shine like the sun onto that world are disillusioned. people who walk without the flashlight stumble, but at least they cant see the terrors. And people who walk with the light see everything, including the darkness.

Thats why i think that fortitude is something we generally lack. If we don’t have any fortitude and instead delude ourselves into thinking life will be peachy if we live by the rules we will end up like the friend who snapped. I know, I’ve been there myself. but having come out of it, it would have been easier, and it still would be easier, just to throw the flashlight away and hide in the shadows than to confront the beast of pain in all its gruesome glory. We need to teach others to hold to the flashlight and open their eyes and not rely on god to protect them from life, lest we lose them to the darkness as well.


It’s Not Logical Captain

As I was sitting down after finally having a chance to write this week in semi-peace, I thought about something I had heard a few days ago and it made no sense to me at all. And although it doesn’t take much to flummox my meager little mind, this was something that no one else I asked seemed to have the answer to either; not even the people who said it to being with.

The matter in question is that of what has been described to me as “earthly logic.” Now obviously we are on the earth. And we do use logic. Therefore, all logic on earth is earthly logic. Even that was logical. But the term is only used when I am in the presence of Christian types who apparently get their kicks from giving me a terminal migraine. You would know them as those crazy fundamentalists. The term “earthly logic” is used by them to be juxtaposed against its obvious counterpart: “heavenly logic.” So logically, these two are mirror images of each-other and using one means not using the other.

Now apparently, this “heavenly logic” is somewhat different from “earthly logic.” The way I understand it, it means, well… no logic. In other words, a statement completely void of any rationality and would in any other setting (and it is) be discounted and rubbish and thrown into the garbage can after a good laugh and pat on the back. But lets have an example shall we? First let us consider a simple statement using “earthly logic” and then after that use “heavenly logic” to prove something in the same manner.

So, “earthly logic.” Given: When a computer is on, its power light glows. The power light is glowing. Therefore, the computer is on.

And, “heavenly logic.” Given: Whatever the Bible says is true. The Bible says the Bible is true. Therefore, the Bible is true.

Now obviously the first syllogism has a problem, the given statement before the logic could be false. The light might be out and the computer could be on anyway. But by and large the first “earthly logic” statement would be considered logical. However, the second example, the “heavenly logic” is a paradox. It is self-fulfilling and thus also self-contradictory. Plus, the given statement is something of an opinion and is not provable using the current logical information provided.

The example I have shown you is a common theme in Christianity today. Whenever a Christian doesn’t like an argument, they usually pull out the old “well thats earthly logic” routine to downplay any point the opposition has put forward. I have heard this statement personally from ministers on down through the memberships and even into the teens. They all seem to think, or at least propose for the sake of winning their argument by default, that there exists a separate logic with which to play by: that of heavenly logic.

Now far be it from me to use this article to try and say that Christianity is illogical. Far from it! I believe whole-heartedly that all of Christianity… well at least rational Christianity is well… rational, and subject to testing via all logical arguments. What I AM saying in this article is that there are no differences between “heavenly” and “earthly” logic. All logic is logic. ((Wikipedia – Logic))

Perhaps the best way to illustrate this is by turning the “heavenly logic” around on itself. Lets supposed I make the following observation: the bible could be a simple collection of stories. Stories are not always true. Therefore, some of the bible may not be true. Now I don’t believe this, but I’m using it as an illustration. A “heavenly logic proponent would say, “You are using earthly logic, what you are saying isn’t true.” Lets look at their argument based on their own observation: “earthly logic” may not always be true. What I just said was “earthly logic.” Therefore, it may not (or as always in these cases, IS not) true. Sound familiar? It’s the same argument but wrapped up in something that looks like “heavenly logic.”

“Heavenly logic” can then be described in two ways. One way is to say there is no difference so they are using the same logic we are. And this is reasonable to say. In fact God himself uses logic all the time, “earthly logic” I might add. The second way, and normally the way it should be interpreted is, no logic or an anti-logic. A way of reasoning that suspends all rational thought and instead substitutes personal wishes or quotes of authority.

This second way sheds light on the people who say it: anti-intellectuals. ((Wikipedia – Anti-Intellectuals)) These are people who would rather not try and reason their way through a paper bag in case they find something, like in my bible logic syllogism, that could tear their whole life apart. The reason this can happen is that they have set themselves up for this to happen. Like in the “the bible is true because it says so” case, most of their reasoning, if you can call it that, is self sustaining and will crumble if challenged. Thus, these people decry all intellectual pursuits as counter to their own cause. They say that science and schools are out to get them because something science has found has disproved one of their non-changing and irrational beliefs that holds up an entire chain of other facts. ((Their Own Version of a Big Bang by Stephanie Simon – LA Times)) If the one link fails then they all fail.

The most common of these is the Creation (again). Fundamentalists and anti-intellectuals will say: What the bible says is true because God wrote it. If the bible says it happened in 6 days, it happened in six days. All other notions are wrong. Now should something come along and say, “but this notion seems to be right,” bad things happen to the argument. If one other notion is right, then the Creation may not have happened in 6 days, therefore the bible is wrong, therefore God is wrong, and therefore God does not exist. It is for this reason that most evolutionary science is denounced as a purely atheistic propaganda vehicle with no other purpose than to disprove God.

Now it is true there is some logic behind this thinking, its very very bad logic, but it is logic. The problem is that logic is an interlinking thing, especially when it comes to something as complex as the Christian religion. Just because one previously held theory (yes THEORY) of how to interpret the bible has failed in light of some external factor, does not mean that another one will come in to take its place. When the six-day theory failed, the day-age theory stepped in. If it fails, another will take its place. Logic chains this complex can adjust to new information to make the web more and more complete and sturdy.

Logic is tool that is to be used as a vehicle for proofs and for deduction. Proving that the computer may be on despite the power light not being on does not mean that there is no computer. Just as proving the six-day theory wrong doesn’t mean God exist. It means you need to back up and change the logic and see if it fits with the new information. Are there other ways to see if the computer is on? Yes, many. Then there are also many logical arguments that will always lead back to God and all are based on “earthly logic.” It’s only logical.

1 Comment