I got an email from a reader arguing that rational thought could be an evolutionary development, which came about because it enabled species to survive more successfully. While I've always had difficulty imaging the short-term survival advantage of sentience, I thought I'd consider the idea of evolution giving rise to rational thought in more detail. I developed this in response to his email, but I thought it might be useful as its own post.
I'm not sure I can accept the proposition that a non-rational universe gives rise to rational creatures. I'm not sure I understand how that could be possible.
Naturalism proceeds from the assumption that natural processes are all that exist, essentially that everything that happens proceeds according to cause and effect. I can accept this with respect to animals. When a dog learns a lesson, such as "don't go on the couch," he does so because some sort of negative reinforcement indicates that something bad will happen if he goes on the couch. He doesn't understand the reasoning behind this rule, only the cause and effect. He may avoid couches altogether, because he is unable to make a logical connection, only a cause and effect relation between being on the couch and pain.
When we consider things rationally, we assume that we are operating outside the bounds of cause and effect. We must be, because we make claims about what is true, not simply about what we're thinking -- the theory of naturalism itself makes claims about truth. If we were not operating outside the bounds of cause and effect, our thoughts could still be useful, but they could make no claim to being true, being non-rational effects of physical processes. The dog's association of couch and pain is useful, but it is not true that couches cause pain or that pain will always follow being on the couch. We are able to make the logical leap that the dog cannot. The "understanding" we see in creatures that are not sentient is useful, but not rational. It is an "understanding" born of trial and error and has utility, but it has no real relationship to truth.
On the other hand, humans use reason to draw a conclusion that must be true, regardless of observation; we can draw a conclusion about truth that we have not yet observed, or in some cases may not be able to observe. For example, we can use physics equations to anticipate what we will see when we carry out an experiment. This sort of thought, rational thought following logical implication, is of a different kind than the way animals are able to think.
I can't accept that rational thought is a byproduct of a non-rational universe. It's like a painting giving birth to a real person: the painting simply does not contain anything which could give rise to such a byproduct. A universe of cause and effect cannot give rise to rational thought because rational thought operates outside of cause and effect, and must do so to be what it is. If our minds operated exclusively inside the universe, if thought was exclusively the output of non-rational physical inputs, then it would be enslaved by the non-rational inputs that generated it. Thought cannot rise above what feeds it, any more than a stream can rise above its source. Non-rational inputs can generate random outputs in some cases, so the output need not be exactly the same every time, but non-rational inputs cannot generate an output which can act freely to defy what generated it. In any configuration I can imagine, thought would still be the effect of a non-rational cause, and must therefore be non-rational itself.
As far as I can conceive, in order for thought to be unconstrained by the cause and effect relationship which we observe everywhere else in nature (a requirement for it to be capable of discerning truth), the rational mind must contain a component which does not exist within the physical universe. Each consciousness must have an element which is not a part of the physical universe, but rather utilizes the physical component of the human brain to manifest in the physical world. C.S. Lewis describes this relationship as a voice coming through a speaker: if the speaker is damaged, the quality of the transmission will be reduced; but there must be a person speaking on the other end, or else the voice would not come through at all. It is this element, unconstrained by cause and effect because it does not exist in the physical world, which allows us to use reason and act outside the otherwise universal reach of cause and effect. If there were not a component which was exempted from the laws of cause and effect, we would be cursed to think only what we must due to the physical state of the atoms which compose our brains.
That, at any rate, is what I think on the subject. I should note that all of this draws heavily from the C.S. Lewis book Miracles, in which a much smarter man than I makes the case in a more logically sound way, though I hope my version is a bit easier to understand. I highly recommend that book if this topic is of interest to you.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Naturalism: Only Natural?
Atheism has been both more widespread and more vocal in our society recently. I'd like to take some time to consider one of the primary versions of atheism, known as naturalism. The assertion of naturalism is that the elements which are within nature compose the whole of reality -- that there is nothing outside of nature, defined as the observable universe.
As an engineer, my immediate reaction to such a theory is to see if it works all the way out. If we assume this theory is correct, can it explain everything we know about the universe? Does it fit with our observation of the world?
Naturalism would seem to explain most everything within the universe. As far as we can tell, everything in nature operates according to the laws that apply to it. There's no obvious and irrefutable evidence of intrusion from outside, and what circumstantial evidence we have to that effect we can explain away. We can explain most things which suggest an influence from outside our universe as random occurrence, and what's left after that we can ignore because the quantity of such events is relatively small.
The primary problem we run into when we try to accept naturalism is ourselves. I can explain a rock in terms of the materials which compose it -- but human beings contain something more than our atomic materials, a spark which seems to set us apart both from inanimate matter and from the animals.
We may consider life in terms of biological processes and evolution; for the sake of argument, let's accept that as a full explanation for how life came about and operates. What remains as a stumbling block to naturalism is our own ability to think, our own ability to consider theory at all. In the end this inflicts a fatal wound on the theory of naturalism, as I will seek to explain.
Consider the structure of an argument. In order to be persuasive, an argument must consist of a chain of linked statements which connect to some foundational proposition which is accepted by all. Here's an example:
Argument: The minimum wage should be raised.
1. The minimum wage should be raised, because
2. A higher minimum wage will raise the incomes of workers who currently make minimum wage, and therefore
3. Lower-paid workers will make more money total, therefore
4. These workers, with more money, will have a higher quality of life.
All can agree that workers having a higher quality of life is a positive thing. Therefore this argument is constructed in a logical chain, starting at that foundational proposition. The argument may not be persuasive for other reasons (and in this case I believe it is not persuasive), but in order to have logical coherence, the argument must link logically from a foundational proposition. Consider the following:
1. The minimum wage should be raised, because
2. Someone on the street just told me that the minimum wage should be raised.
This argument cannot be persuasive. It does not rest on a chain of logic, but rather on top of an event. The fact that someone on the street made a certain statement has no bearing on whether it makes sense or not. In this case my argument is based on an event, rather than logic.
The difference here is in the kind of connection between the supporting information and the argument. In the first case, the relation is logical implication: everyone agrees that A is true, A implies B, B implies C, therefore C is true. The second case is merely cause and effect: someone said A, therefore A is true.
Everyone would recognize cause and effect as an invalid method to reach a logical conclusion. Causes are inherently non-rational, that is they occur not due to some specific rational reason, but simply because they happen. They are based on the laws of nature occurring, not on any sort of logic. Any conclusion which is merely the effect of a cause is similarly non-rational.
However, we consider logical implication to be of a different class than cause and effect. Logical arguments can be constructed from logical implication because it is a different kind of relationship than cause and effect, and it is rational. It is here where naturalism runs into problems.
Naturalism states that the human mind is nothing but the atoms of which it is composed. According to naturalism, logic and reason must be an illusion, because everything that happens in the universe merely represents the laws of nature being applied to the matter and energy in the universe. I'm thinking of this topic only because the atoms in my brain are in a particular state, and if the atoms are in that particular state, I couldn't be thinking of anything else.
This is the problem: if thought is only the product of the atoms in my brain being in a particular state, then all thought is the effect of a physical cause. The physical cause is non-rational, therefore my thought is also non-rational, being only the effect of a non-rational cause. However, I used rational thought to come up with the idea of naturalism! Thus, I cannot rationally conclude that naturalism is true, as it has undercut the very possibility that I can come to a rational conclusion.
We end up in a "stopped clock" scenario. If naturalism were true, there would be no way to know it, because we would lack the capacity to rationally draw that conclusion. We might be right to believe in it, but only in the sense that a stopped clock is sometimes right -- not because the correct answer was chosen, but because the arbitrarily chosen answer happened to be correct.
In the end, we can see that it is meaningless to believe in naturalism. Even if naturalism were true, it claims that its adherents lack any rational way to come to the correct conclusion, meaning that believing in it is essentially irrational.
Often, naturalism is presented as "obvious" and "rational," as opposed to religious belief. However, looking deeper we can see that the theory of naturalism can't even explain the rational thought required to believe in it, and indeed denies its existence. Whatever this theory may be, it is neither "obvious" nor "rational." It is useful to keep in mind that these theories are far less effective at explaining our world than religion, and require just as much faith to believe in.
As an engineer, my immediate reaction to such a theory is to see if it works all the way out. If we assume this theory is correct, can it explain everything we know about the universe? Does it fit with our observation of the world?
Naturalism would seem to explain most everything within the universe. As far as we can tell, everything in nature operates according to the laws that apply to it. There's no obvious and irrefutable evidence of intrusion from outside, and what circumstantial evidence we have to that effect we can explain away. We can explain most things which suggest an influence from outside our universe as random occurrence, and what's left after that we can ignore because the quantity of such events is relatively small.
The primary problem we run into when we try to accept naturalism is ourselves. I can explain a rock in terms of the materials which compose it -- but human beings contain something more than our atomic materials, a spark which seems to set us apart both from inanimate matter and from the animals.
We may consider life in terms of biological processes and evolution; for the sake of argument, let's accept that as a full explanation for how life came about and operates. What remains as a stumbling block to naturalism is our own ability to think, our own ability to consider theory at all. In the end this inflicts a fatal wound on the theory of naturalism, as I will seek to explain.
Consider the structure of an argument. In order to be persuasive, an argument must consist of a chain of linked statements which connect to some foundational proposition which is accepted by all. Here's an example:
Argument: The minimum wage should be raised.
1. The minimum wage should be raised, because
2. A higher minimum wage will raise the incomes of workers who currently make minimum wage, and therefore
3. Lower-paid workers will make more money total, therefore
4. These workers, with more money, will have a higher quality of life.
All can agree that workers having a higher quality of life is a positive thing. Therefore this argument is constructed in a logical chain, starting at that foundational proposition. The argument may not be persuasive for other reasons (and in this case I believe it is not persuasive), but in order to have logical coherence, the argument must link logically from a foundational proposition. Consider the following:
1. The minimum wage should be raised, because
2. Someone on the street just told me that the minimum wage should be raised.
This argument cannot be persuasive. It does not rest on a chain of logic, but rather on top of an event. The fact that someone on the street made a certain statement has no bearing on whether it makes sense or not. In this case my argument is based on an event, rather than logic.
The difference here is in the kind of connection between the supporting information and the argument. In the first case, the relation is logical implication: everyone agrees that A is true, A implies B, B implies C, therefore C is true. The second case is merely cause and effect: someone said A, therefore A is true.
Everyone would recognize cause and effect as an invalid method to reach a logical conclusion. Causes are inherently non-rational, that is they occur not due to some specific rational reason, but simply because they happen. They are based on the laws of nature occurring, not on any sort of logic. Any conclusion which is merely the effect of a cause is similarly non-rational.
However, we consider logical implication to be of a different class than cause and effect. Logical arguments can be constructed from logical implication because it is a different kind of relationship than cause and effect, and it is rational. It is here where naturalism runs into problems.
Naturalism states that the human mind is nothing but the atoms of which it is composed. According to naturalism, logic and reason must be an illusion, because everything that happens in the universe merely represents the laws of nature being applied to the matter and energy in the universe. I'm thinking of this topic only because the atoms in my brain are in a particular state, and if the atoms are in that particular state, I couldn't be thinking of anything else.
This is the problem: if thought is only the product of the atoms in my brain being in a particular state, then all thought is the effect of a physical cause. The physical cause is non-rational, therefore my thought is also non-rational, being only the effect of a non-rational cause. However, I used rational thought to come up with the idea of naturalism! Thus, I cannot rationally conclude that naturalism is true, as it has undercut the very possibility that I can come to a rational conclusion.
We end up in a "stopped clock" scenario. If naturalism were true, there would be no way to know it, because we would lack the capacity to rationally draw that conclusion. We might be right to believe in it, but only in the sense that a stopped clock is sometimes right -- not because the correct answer was chosen, but because the arbitrarily chosen answer happened to be correct.
In the end, we can see that it is meaningless to believe in naturalism. Even if naturalism were true, it claims that its adherents lack any rational way to come to the correct conclusion, meaning that believing in it is essentially irrational.
Often, naturalism is presented as "obvious" and "rational," as opposed to religious belief. However, looking deeper we can see that the theory of naturalism can't even explain the rational thought required to believe in it, and indeed denies its existence. Whatever this theory may be, it is neither "obvious" nor "rational." It is useful to keep in mind that these theories are far less effective at explaining our world than religion, and require just as much faith to believe in.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Global Warming: not settled science; possibly science fiction.
The BBC has posted an article on this subject here. This is the first time I can recall citing a BBC article, but the fact that one of the most liberal news media outlets on the planet is questioning the merits of global warming - well that is news.
My thoughts: whatever your politics, it seems undeniable that we are in a period of "global cooling." What that means, is up for debate. To me, I find it to be clear evidence in support of my theory: God's plan dictates global climate trends. Mans' actions may have some impact, but so rarely can man overcome the forces of nature. We may want to believe we caused a period of global warming, but I don't really believe we were a major contributing factor for the same reason I refuse to believe mankind can stop a tornado: mother nature is far more powerful than we mere mortals give her credit. God built the earth, and his enginnering skills are above par. To suggest we can change the climate is like suggesting man can stop tsunamis: both sound like science fiction to me.
My thoughts: whatever your politics, it seems undeniable that we are in a period of "global cooling." What that means, is up for debate. To me, I find it to be clear evidence in support of my theory: God's plan dictates global climate trends. Mans' actions may have some impact, but so rarely can man overcome the forces of nature. We may want to believe we caused a period of global warming, but I don't really believe we were a major contributing factor for the same reason I refuse to believe mankind can stop a tornado: mother nature is far more powerful than we mere mortals give her credit. God built the earth, and his enginnering skills are above par. To suggest we can change the climate is like suggesting man can stop tsunamis: both sound like science fiction to me.
Friday, October 9, 2009
And the award ... means nothing? The death of the Nobel Prize.
Apparently the Nobel prize is no longer a noble prize. Even the Associated Press is questioning the committee's motives. Check out this article they published on Yahoo! news.
Now, I am not going to bash our president, regardless of my political views. That is not the point I am after here. My aim is to ask, like the author of that article, what has Obama done (not promised) to earn such a prestigious award?
We have all heard the promises of a new world with free healthcare, no poverty, and no war, but has the President actually accomplished, past tense, any of this? Whatever your political views, believers, none of us can claim he has delivered on those promises at this time. Will he deliver? That remains to be seen. However, as it stands, he has accomplished nothing that would place him ahead of other contenders. Even Bono (U2 lead singer) has done more, to date, to end hunger and poverty than President Obama. Comparing their efforts, Bono probably comes out ahead of most presidents to date.
I say the prize has lost its nobility, because it is being awarded for political goals - not for rewarding actual accomplishments in achieving a better world for all. What was once a prestigious award now is junk, at least in my eyes. If they gave me the award (which they shouldn't - I don't deserve it no matter what I promise), it would adorn the bottom of my waste basket rather than the top of my mantle. An award given purely for a political agenda is only truly an award to someone sharing that agenda. Otherwise, it is just junk taking up space.
But that's just me. Who knows - maybe they will resurrect it in the future by giving it out to someone based on his/her merits and achievements rather than political promises.
Be blessed.
Now, I am not going to bash our president, regardless of my political views. That is not the point I am after here. My aim is to ask, like the author of that article, what has Obama done (not promised) to earn such a prestigious award?
We have all heard the promises of a new world with free healthcare, no poverty, and no war, but has the President actually accomplished, past tense, any of this? Whatever your political views, believers, none of us can claim he has delivered on those promises at this time. Will he deliver? That remains to be seen. However, as it stands, he has accomplished nothing that would place him ahead of other contenders. Even Bono (U2 lead singer) has done more, to date, to end hunger and poverty than President Obama. Comparing their efforts, Bono probably comes out ahead of most presidents to date.
I say the prize has lost its nobility, because it is being awarded for political goals - not for rewarding actual accomplishments in achieving a better world for all. What was once a prestigious award now is junk, at least in my eyes. If they gave me the award (which they shouldn't - I don't deserve it no matter what I promise), it would adorn the bottom of my waste basket rather than the top of my mantle. An award given purely for a political agenda is only truly an award to someone sharing that agenda. Otherwise, it is just junk taking up space.
But that's just me. Who knows - maybe they will resurrect it in the future by giving it out to someone based on his/her merits and achievements rather than political promises.
Be blessed.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
God really does help those who help themselves...
I have often heard the expression, "God helps those who help themselves," and recently I heard another believer say this is not Biblical. I beg to differ.
Granted, the foregoing expression is not a Bible quote, but, depending on how you interpret that old saying, it is largely true. Just read this passage from Galatians 6 (ESV), which I am so fond of quoting:
"1Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. 2Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. 3For if anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. 4But let each one test his own work, and then his reason to boast will be in himself alone and not in his neighbor. 5For each will have to bear his own load.
"6One who is taught the word must share all good things with the one who teaches. 7Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. 8For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. 9And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up. 10So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith."
It is true that Christ called us to share each others' burdens (verse 2), but that does not undo personal responsibility, and, ultimately, we must all be responsible to bear our own burdens (verse5). God not only will not be mocked, this passage teaches us that He cannot be mocked.
What does that mean? It means that, if we make no effort at all to carry our own load and to fulfill our own obligations (sowing good things), then God will not cause us to reap something entirely different than what we have sown (verse 7). However, if we keep doing (sowing) good, and if we do not grow weary (enduring in faith), then we reap our harvest in "due season" (God's time - not ours) (verse 9).
I read today about a set of parents who were part of the "faith healing" crowd and who, accompanied by their pastor, allegedly prayed over their sick infant for 30 hours without seeking medical attention. Click here to read the article. Now, I do believe that healing comes by faith in the Lord, and I do believe the Lord performs miracles. However, I do not believe that means the Lord wants us to ignore the wordly treatment options available to us (remember, Luke was a doctor).
Instead, I believe the Lord wants us to sow our efforts into doing all we reasonably can to resolve our own problems, trusting Him to bless our efforts. In my own life, when I have had a problem or been confronted to the obstacle, I prayed hard for God to take care of it. Sometimes, with no more sowing than a prayer, the Lord took care of the issue, but most of the time he required me to put some effort in. I call this reaping/sowing principal "no deposit; no return."
God doesn't need our pitiful efforts - He is the all-powerful creator of the universe. However, he does require our efforts, no matter how insignificant they may seem to us. God designed the universe to work a particular way, and we are mocking both that creation and the nature of our God when we expect to reap something without sowing something (but our efforts to mock will fail when we inevitably reap what we sow). That doesn't mean God cannot perform miracles, which is His right. However, we do not get to dictate to Almighty God how he performs miracles, including the miracle of healing.
I once had a large, non-malignant mass/tumor on my spine show up in x-rays. My family and friends, in a tremendous show of faith, love, and support, prayed corporately for me. By the time my MRI results came back, the mass was gone. It didn't shrink: it was gone. Some have said the x-rays were wrong - whatever. I say, and I always will, that God had other plans for my spine. Praise Him! He healed me, and I believe the faith of my family and friends made a huge difference.
But I went to the doctor...
That's right: I didn't sow nothing. I prayed (a LOT), and I went to see a doctor. I didn't sit around with excruciating, unnatural back pain for months on end begging God to heal me without taking any actions myself to pursue treatment. I prayed, I went to the doctor, and God blessed those efforts with a harvest of healing, in His time, not in mine.
"Faith healing," is something I whole-heartedly believe in, but I don't see that as an excuse to avoid sowing our efforts toward the healing for which we are petitioning the Lord. Going to the doctor is not a sign of lacking faith - it is a practical measure that the Lord can bless. We go to the doctor, and we pray to the Lord, who will decide how to heal us - through an overt display of divine power, or through the doctors hands, or via whatever other mechanism He deems wise, in His time.
If you are sick - seek medical attention, but don't stop praying. Also, don't pray that the doctors heal you. That is a sign of lacking faith. I suggest this prayer:
"Lord, I am not feeling well, and I know something is wrong. Normally I would be afraid, but I am stepping out in faith and trusting you with my future. I pray that you heal my broken body according to your Will. In the name of Jesus I pray this, amen."
Say it. Pursue it. Believe it. Receive it. Just don't skip the pursuing - it is an essential element.
Granted, the foregoing expression is not a Bible quote, but, depending on how you interpret that old saying, it is largely true. Just read this passage from Galatians 6 (ESV), which I am so fond of quoting:
"1Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. 2Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. 3For if anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. 4But let each one test his own work, and then his reason to boast will be in himself alone and not in his neighbor. 5For each will have to bear his own load.
"6One who is taught the word must share all good things with the one who teaches. 7Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. 8For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. 9And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up. 10So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith."
It is true that Christ called us to share each others' burdens (verse 2), but that does not undo personal responsibility, and, ultimately, we must all be responsible to bear our own burdens (verse5). God not only will not be mocked, this passage teaches us that He cannot be mocked.
What does that mean? It means that, if we make no effort at all to carry our own load and to fulfill our own obligations (sowing good things), then God will not cause us to reap something entirely different than what we have sown (verse 7). However, if we keep doing (sowing) good, and if we do not grow weary (enduring in faith), then we reap our harvest in "due season" (God's time - not ours) (verse 9).
I read today about a set of parents who were part of the "faith healing" crowd and who, accompanied by their pastor, allegedly prayed over their sick infant for 30 hours without seeking medical attention. Click here to read the article. Now, I do believe that healing comes by faith in the Lord, and I do believe the Lord performs miracles. However, I do not believe that means the Lord wants us to ignore the wordly treatment options available to us (remember, Luke was a doctor).
Instead, I believe the Lord wants us to sow our efforts into doing all we reasonably can to resolve our own problems, trusting Him to bless our efforts. In my own life, when I have had a problem or been confronted to the obstacle, I prayed hard for God to take care of it. Sometimes, with no more sowing than a prayer, the Lord took care of the issue, but most of the time he required me to put some effort in. I call this reaping/sowing principal "no deposit; no return."
God doesn't need our pitiful efforts - He is the all-powerful creator of the universe. However, he does require our efforts, no matter how insignificant they may seem to us. God designed the universe to work a particular way, and we are mocking both that creation and the nature of our God when we expect to reap something without sowing something (but our efforts to mock will fail when we inevitably reap what we sow). That doesn't mean God cannot perform miracles, which is His right. However, we do not get to dictate to Almighty God how he performs miracles, including the miracle of healing.
I once had a large, non-malignant mass/tumor on my spine show up in x-rays. My family and friends, in a tremendous show of faith, love, and support, prayed corporately for me. By the time my MRI results came back, the mass was gone. It didn't shrink: it was gone. Some have said the x-rays were wrong - whatever. I say, and I always will, that God had other plans for my spine. Praise Him! He healed me, and I believe the faith of my family and friends made a huge difference.
But I went to the doctor...
That's right: I didn't sow nothing. I prayed (a LOT), and I went to see a doctor. I didn't sit around with excruciating, unnatural back pain for months on end begging God to heal me without taking any actions myself to pursue treatment. I prayed, I went to the doctor, and God blessed those efforts with a harvest of healing, in His time, not in mine.
"Faith healing," is something I whole-heartedly believe in, but I don't see that as an excuse to avoid sowing our efforts toward the healing for which we are petitioning the Lord. Going to the doctor is not a sign of lacking faith - it is a practical measure that the Lord can bless. We go to the doctor, and we pray to the Lord, who will decide how to heal us - through an overt display of divine power, or through the doctors hands, or via whatever other mechanism He deems wise, in His time.
If you are sick - seek medical attention, but don't stop praying. Also, don't pray that the doctors heal you. That is a sign of lacking faith. I suggest this prayer:
"Lord, I am not feeling well, and I know something is wrong. Normally I would be afraid, but I am stepping out in faith and trusting you with my future. I pray that you heal my broken body according to your Will. In the name of Jesus I pray this, amen."
Say it. Pursue it. Believe it. Receive it. Just don't skip the pursuing - it is an essential element.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
A wise man seeks wise counsel (no.3).
"Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed."
-Proverbs 15:22, NIV.
This verse came to me in my email devotional, and I find it to be one of the best verses in the Bible when it comes to decision-making and dealing with confusion. Frankly, in my own life, I have often been convicted with the reality that I cannot do everything myself.
As an example, I broke my foot last week playing tennis. Try as I might, I couldn't take care of myself, and I needed someone to nurse-maid me until I was back on my feet again. I am pleased to report that I am recovering quickly, and I am even able to walk normally for brief periods with the crutches (as opposed to using only my good foot). In a short time, I will be right as rain. In the beginning, however, my wife was a God-send. Were it not for her, I'd have had to hire a nurse or stay in the hospital until I was able to function again.
Similarly, we should not make important decisions all alone without seeking some wise counsel first. I will not waste time rehashing previous posts dealing with the question of when to seek help and from whom (you may find the first two posts in this series here and here; you may also find the post "No Man an Island" to be relevant, which you can find here). Instead, I just want to focus on the wisdom of the verse quoted at the top of this post.
My wife and I have a wonderful, happy marriage. However, we do occasionally differ, and sometimes the decision of when to seek advice is an area in which we differ. My wife is a very private person, and she would often prefer that we make important decisions alone (after consulting the Lord, of course). I, on the other hand, feel like the best decision is made only after consulting others whom I consider wise and knowledgeable. Is my wife wrong to want to keep matters private? Not at all, and some decisions really do require discretion, especially in a marriage.
All the same, the desire for privacy is often related more to one's pride than to a desire for discretion. My advice to you, believers, is to strike a good balance. Seek not only wise counselors, but discreet counselors. In my view, an advisor is not a very wise person to begin with if that person does not appreciate the value of discretion. Certainly, we know that discretion and wisdom go hand in hand (see Prov 3:21, 5:2, and 11:22).
Remember: the Bible teaches us that our plans fail for lack of counsel (lack of wise advice), but our plans often succeed if we have many advisors. Of course, we shouldn't be too quick to get or take the advice of a drunkard or fool, but when a knowledgeable person offers you advice, I suggest that you consider it as a gift rather than a burden.
How often do we hear advice from parents or other elders and disregard it as outdated or as another "lecture?" Don't be a fool: if you have wise parents or elders, then listen to their advice. It is worth more than gold. As an example, if you are experiencing marital difficulties, don't shrug off the advice of a happily married couple and tell them it is none of their business. Perhaps you are right that it is not their concern, but if that couple is genuinely trying to help you, then making your business their concern is a sign of friendship, not intrusion. The secrets to happiness in their own marriage may very well be the secret to happiness in your own. That is just an example.
Businessmen, for another example, I advise you not to hastily shirk the advice of your more successful colleagues. Successful business models are often reproduceable, and for a successful businessman to share his insight with you, well that is invaluable. Seize the opportunity! Don't let pride be your downfall.
And remember, ultimately every decision that confronts you is your right and responsibility to make, but, knowing the every decision has consequences, would you not prefer your decisions to be informed decisions? Having many advisors means understanding the facets of the situation with insights beyond/in addition to your own. Listening to advisors is no excuse to refuse the ultimate responsibility for the decision. You cannot sacrifice your judgment without making a choice to do just that. Wisdom is about listening and discerning. There is middle ground between ignoring good advice and jjust taking whatever advice comes your way. I advise you (wisely I hope) to find that balance.
Be blessed.
-Proverbs 15:22, NIV.
This verse came to me in my email devotional, and I find it to be one of the best verses in the Bible when it comes to decision-making and dealing with confusion. Frankly, in my own life, I have often been convicted with the reality that I cannot do everything myself.
As an example, I broke my foot last week playing tennis. Try as I might, I couldn't take care of myself, and I needed someone to nurse-maid me until I was back on my feet again. I am pleased to report that I am recovering quickly, and I am even able to walk normally for brief periods with the crutches (as opposed to using only my good foot). In a short time, I will be right as rain. In the beginning, however, my wife was a God-send. Were it not for her, I'd have had to hire a nurse or stay in the hospital until I was able to function again.
Similarly, we should not make important decisions all alone without seeking some wise counsel first. I will not waste time rehashing previous posts dealing with the question of when to seek help and from whom (you may find the first two posts in this series here and here; you may also find the post "No Man an Island" to be relevant, which you can find here). Instead, I just want to focus on the wisdom of the verse quoted at the top of this post.
My wife and I have a wonderful, happy marriage. However, we do occasionally differ, and sometimes the decision of when to seek advice is an area in which we differ. My wife is a very private person, and she would often prefer that we make important decisions alone (after consulting the Lord, of course). I, on the other hand, feel like the best decision is made only after consulting others whom I consider wise and knowledgeable. Is my wife wrong to want to keep matters private? Not at all, and some decisions really do require discretion, especially in a marriage.
All the same, the desire for privacy is often related more to one's pride than to a desire for discretion. My advice to you, believers, is to strike a good balance. Seek not only wise counselors, but discreet counselors. In my view, an advisor is not a very wise person to begin with if that person does not appreciate the value of discretion. Certainly, we know that discretion and wisdom go hand in hand (see Prov 3:21, 5:2, and 11:22).
Remember: the Bible teaches us that our plans fail for lack of counsel (lack of wise advice), but our plans often succeed if we have many advisors. Of course, we shouldn't be too quick to get or take the advice of a drunkard or fool, but when a knowledgeable person offers you advice, I suggest that you consider it as a gift rather than a burden.
How often do we hear advice from parents or other elders and disregard it as outdated or as another "lecture?" Don't be a fool: if you have wise parents or elders, then listen to their advice. It is worth more than gold. As an example, if you are experiencing marital difficulties, don't shrug off the advice of a happily married couple and tell them it is none of their business. Perhaps you are right that it is not their concern, but if that couple is genuinely trying to help you, then making your business their concern is a sign of friendship, not intrusion. The secrets to happiness in their own marriage may very well be the secret to happiness in your own. That is just an example.
Businessmen, for another example, I advise you not to hastily shirk the advice of your more successful colleagues. Successful business models are often reproduceable, and for a successful businessman to share his insight with you, well that is invaluable. Seize the opportunity! Don't let pride be your downfall.
And remember, ultimately every decision that confronts you is your right and responsibility to make, but, knowing the every decision has consequences, would you not prefer your decisions to be informed decisions? Having many advisors means understanding the facets of the situation with insights beyond/in addition to your own. Listening to advisors is no excuse to refuse the ultimate responsibility for the decision. You cannot sacrifice your judgment without making a choice to do just that. Wisdom is about listening and discerning. There is middle ground between ignoring good advice and jjust taking whatever advice comes your way. I advise you (wisely I hope) to find that balance.
Be blessed.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Dating: Experience and Regret
Many people oppose the concept of dating because of the likelihood of heartache and pain it can cause. Often, people think that they will regret all their dating experiences later in life, after and perhaps even before they actually get married.
In my life, I've certainly had cause to regret things that happened while I was dating. However, when I really take a look at what I regret, it's not the fact that I dated a particular person (except when she was not a Christian). What I regret are my own actions -- actions that were sinful, regardless of the context. Dating certainly provides special opportunities to "fall short of the glory of God," but so do most other activities in our lives.
More recently, as I've made more effort to submit this area of my life to the Lord, I've had experiences that I can look back on fondly. I've had the opportunity to enjoy time spent with women, and even after parting company I can see that it was the right thing and I don't feel regretful over that time.
It's difficult to shake the mindset that every time we break up or stop seeing someone, we have somehow failed. But the Lord has much to teach us, and sometimes He brings us together with someone to learn from them, either about others or ourselves. With this in mind, the most important thing is to date in a lighthearted spirit, enjoying the opportunity to get to know another creature precious to God. Perhaps He will guide you to share your lives, perhaps not; but in all, He is in control. Make sure that everything you do while with that person is pleasing to Him, and there will be no need for regret.
In my life, I've certainly had cause to regret things that happened while I was dating. However, when I really take a look at what I regret, it's not the fact that I dated a particular person (except when she was not a Christian). What I regret are my own actions -- actions that were sinful, regardless of the context. Dating certainly provides special opportunities to "fall short of the glory of God," but so do most other activities in our lives.
More recently, as I've made more effort to submit this area of my life to the Lord, I've had experiences that I can look back on fondly. I've had the opportunity to enjoy time spent with women, and even after parting company I can see that it was the right thing and I don't feel regretful over that time.
It's difficult to shake the mindset that every time we break up or stop seeing someone, we have somehow failed. But the Lord has much to teach us, and sometimes He brings us together with someone to learn from them, either about others or ourselves. With this in mind, the most important thing is to date in a lighthearted spirit, enjoying the opportunity to get to know another creature precious to God. Perhaps He will guide you to share your lives, perhaps not; but in all, He is in control. Make sure that everything you do while with that person is pleasing to Him, and there will be no need for regret.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Antagonistic Axioms
In my previous post, I talked about situations where we let rules which do not come from God's law govern our thoughts and actions. I wanted to expand on that point here.
In mathematics, there are statements known as "axioms" which represent statements of truth. These axioms are typically propositions which could not be arrived at in any way other than assuming they are true. For example, in solving some equations and axiom might be provided stating that "x = 7".
Once this has been established, it can be treated as always true, and can be used in other statements. Often in abstract math assignments an axiom of this nature is simply provided. No explanation for why the variable x is equal to 7 is provided, nor is it typically asked for. Once this statement has been accepted, many consequences will follow, but the time for considering whether x is truly equal to 7 is over.
Axioms have great effect on everything that relies on them. They can be the key to deciphering a complicated equation. Our lives don't rely on equations, but they are guided by axioms of another kind -- moral axioms. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is not a rule which can necessarily be derived, it must be given. However, once it is accepted as truth, it has a profound effect on all that follows it.
Since axioms are so powerful, we must guard ourselves against accepting the wrong things as axiomatic. Our culture is constantly trying to establish new axioms in the minds of the people, some of which are good but many of which are profoundly wrong.
When we approach a situation, our minds tend to look for an axiomatic solution first, relying on logic and reason only if one cannot be found. For example, consider whether it would be acceptable for a private company to refuse to hire non-Caucasians. When I consider this issue, my mind does not contemplate the possible merits of such an arrangement, it immediately reaches the conclusion that this is an unacceptable thing to do. This conclusion is reached before I have weighed any arguments, because non-discrimination is axiomatic in my mind.
The trouble here is that if we accept the wrong axiomatic propositions, then we will make wrong moral choices consistently, even if we know the Scripture which disproves the axiom. Cultural, worldly propositions have a tendency to get into our thought processes before Scriptural ones.
Consider this situation. A candidate comes up for consideration to be an elder at your church. He is a strong Christian, a good leader, a good man, and a good husband. However, his high school-aged children are unruly and rebellious, rejecting God and living according to the world's standards. Would we reject such a man for consideration? How about if he already was an elder, and his children only then became rebellious?
Not only would most of us suggest that the man above should be made an elder, we probably cannot conceive of a church which would remove him from his position due to the actions of his high school- or middle school-aged children. I can hardly imagine any other answer. Yet in 1 Timothy 3:4-5, we read this about an elder in the church: "He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?"
My point is not necessarily that we should be removing more elders from their positions, but that I can hardly bring myself to recommend that it should ever be done. Propositions I have accepted from society as a whole make it nearly impossible for me to submit to the authority of Scripture in this area.
The world has been working very hard to push new axiomatic statements onto the population, and having pushed them, it then attempts to make them "common sense" or "conventional wisdom" to make those who disagree with these statements seem like outsiders or outliers. Some examples are: "Homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality"; "Marriage is just a societal acknowledgment of two or more people who love each other, has no sacred element, and can be redefined as we see fit"; "Women are the same as men"; "Religion is a primitive relic of the past"; "Science disproves faith"; "Religious faith is irrational"; "Christians are judgmental and hateful"; etc.
As Christians, our full set of axioms should come from Scripture. God has provided all the foundational propositions we need to live righteous lives in His service. It's important that we not allow worldly propositions into our minds, because of the power that axioms have to distort our thinking. When I consider the elder mentioned above, I did not use God's standards to decide how I should act with respect to that situation, I used the world's standards. I didn't consider God's standard, because I had already found an axiom which covered the situation. It wasn't necessary to consider the situation against Scripture, even though I knew the relevant passage, because I already had an answer before I got that far in my thought process.
As Proverbs states and John discussed below, "Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life." (Proverbs 4:23) We must fill our hearts with God's righteousness, then guard them against infiltration by ideas such as the ones above which will lead us astray.
Thankfully for all of us, we don't have to listen to any worldly wisdom, because God has given us everything we truly need in the form of His holy Word.
In mathematics, there are statements known as "axioms" which represent statements of truth. These axioms are typically propositions which could not be arrived at in any way other than assuming they are true. For example, in solving some equations and axiom might be provided stating that "x = 7".
Once this has been established, it can be treated as always true, and can be used in other statements. Often in abstract math assignments an axiom of this nature is simply provided. No explanation for why the variable x is equal to 7 is provided, nor is it typically asked for. Once this statement has been accepted, many consequences will follow, but the time for considering whether x is truly equal to 7 is over.
Axioms have great effect on everything that relies on them. They can be the key to deciphering a complicated equation. Our lives don't rely on equations, but they are guided by axioms of another kind -- moral axioms. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is not a rule which can necessarily be derived, it must be given. However, once it is accepted as truth, it has a profound effect on all that follows it.
Since axioms are so powerful, we must guard ourselves against accepting the wrong things as axiomatic. Our culture is constantly trying to establish new axioms in the minds of the people, some of which are good but many of which are profoundly wrong.
When we approach a situation, our minds tend to look for an axiomatic solution first, relying on logic and reason only if one cannot be found. For example, consider whether it would be acceptable for a private company to refuse to hire non-Caucasians. When I consider this issue, my mind does not contemplate the possible merits of such an arrangement, it immediately reaches the conclusion that this is an unacceptable thing to do. This conclusion is reached before I have weighed any arguments, because non-discrimination is axiomatic in my mind.
The trouble here is that if we accept the wrong axiomatic propositions, then we will make wrong moral choices consistently, even if we know the Scripture which disproves the axiom. Cultural, worldly propositions have a tendency to get into our thought processes before Scriptural ones.
Consider this situation. A candidate comes up for consideration to be an elder at your church. He is a strong Christian, a good leader, a good man, and a good husband. However, his high school-aged children are unruly and rebellious, rejecting God and living according to the world's standards. Would we reject such a man for consideration? How about if he already was an elder, and his children only then became rebellious?
Not only would most of us suggest that the man above should be made an elder, we probably cannot conceive of a church which would remove him from his position due to the actions of his high school- or middle school-aged children. I can hardly imagine any other answer. Yet in 1 Timothy 3:4-5, we read this about an elder in the church: "He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?"
My point is not necessarily that we should be removing more elders from their positions, but that I can hardly bring myself to recommend that it should ever be done. Propositions I have accepted from society as a whole make it nearly impossible for me to submit to the authority of Scripture in this area.
The world has been working very hard to push new axiomatic statements onto the population, and having pushed them, it then attempts to make them "common sense" or "conventional wisdom" to make those who disagree with these statements seem like outsiders or outliers. Some examples are: "Homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality"; "Marriage is just a societal acknowledgment of two or more people who love each other, has no sacred element, and can be redefined as we see fit"; "Women are the same as men"; "Religion is a primitive relic of the past"; "Science disproves faith"; "Religious faith is irrational"; "Christians are judgmental and hateful"; etc.
As Christians, our full set of axioms should come from Scripture. God has provided all the foundational propositions we need to live righteous lives in His service. It's important that we not allow worldly propositions into our minds, because of the power that axioms have to distort our thinking. When I consider the elder mentioned above, I did not use God's standards to decide how I should act with respect to that situation, I used the world's standards. I didn't consider God's standard, because I had already found an axiom which covered the situation. It wasn't necessary to consider the situation against Scripture, even though I knew the relevant passage, because I already had an answer before I got that far in my thought process.
As Proverbs states and John discussed below, "Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life." (Proverbs 4:23) We must fill our hearts with God's righteousness, then guard them against infiltration by ideas such as the ones above which will lead us astray.
Thankfully for all of us, we don't have to listen to any worldly wisdom, because God has given us everything we truly need in the form of His holy Word.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
