Monday, June 20, 2011

On Secularism - Part 3

If secularism charges Christianity with dogmatism it's guilty of the same thing. The difference is what it's dogmatic about. What's ironic is that the rise of secularism owes many of its foundations to what Christianity helped to establish.

I'm not going to do an apologetic for the way in which Christianity helped give rise to the modern sciences. Even the most skeptical historians cannot help but notice its direct influence. But what the sciences offered turned it into an absolute rule, which helped shape the secularism of today. Ancient Greek rationality consisted only of pure speculative logic, but the rise of the sciences sought instead to probe the world. Essentially this shifted thinking towards observation and empiricism.

Gravity is gravity. 10 times out of 10, if you let go of a piece of chalk, it will fall to the ground. Basically this shows an obvious logical pattern. You can then study it and show that there's a certain rate at which it falls (Newton's law of gravity). The more you discover that the world works in an orderly fashion, like a well tuned mechanism, the more you begin to realize that what looked mysterious before can now be explained. So then this begs the question, can all things be explained entirely naturalistically?

And this becomes the crux of Secularist thinking. It believes that even if we can't explain things yet, it must have a perfectly plausible scientific explanation. There are no abnormalities as a result of some sort of spiritual, metaphysical other reality outside of the material. To be fair there's nothing irrational about this. If something strange happens it's always the logical thing to do to look for a plausible explanation other than, well, the boogeyman or something.

Part of it boils down to what makes good science. Generally speaking good science is about testable or falsify-able theories. Using gravity, as an example, you first have the law of gravity. Physical laws are derived from empirical observation which is precisely how Newton had established the law of gravity. (It's useful for practical purposes, but with the development of Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum mechanics it was rendered "moot".) But this is different from the "theory of gravity" which attempts to explain the "how" instead of the "what." If a model is put forth to theorize how gravity works it's good science if the theory can be falsified by further study.

But the miraculous, by definition, is not testable (i.e. falsifiable) and therefore does not represent good science. This isn't a problem normally, but if you insist on a "scientific worldview" which secularism already assumes, then there is no place for miracles. They are denied outright. This isn't the same as skepticism, but a dogmatic refusal to give it a chance even if the evidence clearly supports it. And this is just one place where the secularist worldview falls short.

A miracle is an event recorded in history and cannot be bound to the rigours of scientific study. It's simply impossible. It represents an entirely different discipline. You can use science to help understand historical events, but there's a certain point where the best evidence is the accounts of the witnesses. Science can help us understand the technology of World War II, but it can not explain the rise and fall of the Nazis. The same is true of the records of the Gospels. They can be cross-examined, studied, and at the end of the day, if the records show to the best explanation that Jesus did, in fact, rise from the dead, then that is what we are left with.

And this isn't to say that the sciences represent the discipline that, by nature, is antithetical to the Christian faith. Christianity uses history and science to bolster its case. You can even consider the testimonies of those Christian historians, philosophers, and scientists that have all deepened in their faith as a result of their study. In fact, some had even become Christians through their respective disciplines. Secularists will accuse Christians for being irrational for their faith, as though faith gives us blinders to logic. But this is simply not true. In fact, I would argue it's the exact opposite. Secularism's blatant refusal to see where the evidence leads and instead deny absolutely that some things cannot be explained in terms of pure materialist naturalism shows it has its own blinders. Secularism attempts to use science to discredit Christianity and explain it away, when it does precisely the opposite. Indeed, Secularism is not the real arbiter of truth that it wants to be.

Sunday, June 19, 2011

On Secularism - Part 2




I Serve A Risen Saviour / He Lives
Verse 1 - 
I serve a risen Saviour, He's in the world today;
I know that He is living, Whatever men may say;
I see His hand of mercy, I hear His voice of cheer,
And just the time I need Him He's always near.
Chorus -
He Lives! He lives! Christ Jesus lives today!
He walks with me and talks with along life's narrow way.
He lives! He lives! Salvation to impart!
You ask me how I know he lives:
He lives within my heart.
Perhaps you've heard or sung this song in Church. It's seems to be one of the more popular songs of the old hymns, but I can't say I like it very much. It’s not because I don't like old hymns. On the contrary, I'm actually a bit partial to them. They have a beauty and depth that's underscored by having stood the test of time. But this is one song to which I must take exception.
The fellowship of believers may sing this song with kindred spirits, but when it comes to the line in the chorus that says, "you ask me how I know he lives" it gives what is possibly the worst answer to an absolutely crucial question for Christians. Granted, you can make the theological case that Jesus does, in fact, inhabit the heart. Strictly speaking God has given us a new nature and indeed the Spirit now resides within us and empowers us toward sanctification. But the reasons we give for the truth of the resurrection and new life of Jesus are not found in ourselves, through our subjective experiences, or what we feel in our hearts to be true. Like all truth, if it is true it is true outside of ourselves, completely independent of our own existence.
The truth of Christianity is bound to the historical realities of Jesus' death and resurrection, not the feelings of our hearts. And this is an important point not just in defending the truth of Christianity, but it separates itself in this way from all other religions. 
You see, where religion tells you how to live, Christianity teaches about what has happened. In other words, religions teach good advice but Christianity teaches good news. This effectively separates the point of reference between Christianity and other religions. Take Islam, for example. The teachings are not bound to the prophet Muhammed himself. For the sake of argument, it could have been an entirely different person, in an entirely different place, at an entirely different time. Muhammed only passed on what he believed to be the revelations of God. At the end of the day Islam is not bound to the historicity of Muhammed himself, so his existence isn't their primary concern. So too is the teaching of Confucius, or Buddha. It’s not Confucius or Buddha that make Confucianism or Buddhism but their teachings. Even Mormonism isn’t terribly concerned with it’s own history as it is with the “burning of the bosom.” 
All religions teach certain tenants and all promise something in the end if they’re properly adhered to. Many of them will be existentially satisfying, but that doesn’t make them true. It’s a bit like the placebo effect. A sugar pill will often be enough to convince somebody they’re getting better from an illness because they start to feel better. Sometimes they get better by themselves, and sometimes they weren’t really sick in the first place. Either way, the sugar pill had nothing to do with. But it becomes crucially important when you’re genuinely sick and you’re convinced the sugar pill is working. You can still succumb to the illness even if you believe “in your heart” the placebo is working. 
Jesus, on the other hand, is the revelation himself, as a real bona-fide physical reality, regardless of how we feel about it. So, if we were to find out beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus did not, in fact, resurrect from the dead, then everything we believe is all in vain (1 Corinthians 15:12-19). 
And this leaves us with an important distinction. Either Christ has been raised, and we must all believe and be saved, or he has not, and we can eat, drink, and be merry. If I may, we have here Christianity or Secularism. In the same way Christianity stands or falls (that is, through genuine, verify-able, observable data), secularism also stands or falls. 
It should be noted that secularism doesn’t rise out of a denial of Jesus’ death and resurrection but a dogmatic worldview that says science can explain everything naturalistically. In other words, miracles don’t happen. If there is a so-called miracle, then there is a perfectly plausible scientific explanation for it. This means, of course, that even if Jesus existed he couldn’t do any miracles, and certainly couldn’t rise from the dead. And God, for that matter, well even that is just a figment of our imagination.
The point is that both Christianity and Secularism don’t point to the inward feelings of its worldview as a testament to its truthfulness but to observable datum outside the individual. If secularism can demonstrate that miracles can’t happen, that resurrection is impossible, that the world came about naturalistically, and that our idea of God is nothing more than a mind trick, then it arises as the victor. If, however, it can be demonstrated that miracles have happened, that Jesus’ resurrection did occur, that God had to have created the world, and that God truly reveals himself to us, then it is shown to be true, and Secularism to be based on a false premise.
It’s no wonder that debates between Christians and atheists far outnumber debates between Christianity and other religions. There’s just so much more riding on it. 

Thursday, June 09, 2011

It Works Small

New Feature! You can read my blog on your i-thingy now thanks to mobile support. That is all.

Monday, June 06, 2011

On Secularism - Part 1

"Secularism" is one of those words in Christian circles that has many different connotations to different people. For some it's like a dark crusading force against everything to do with Christianity. For others it's something that can basically work side-by-side with with it. Still others see it as a self-authenticated and merited worldview. Regardless of how you see it, many of its varying assumptions simply do not square with Christianity, and it's often difficult for Christians to know how to interact with it wisely.
Part of the issue isn't just "secularism" itself, but more generally the culture at large. Secularism is a bit of a nebulous term that represents only a single facet of the greater culture (or cultures) we find ourselves in. In other words, it's not a monolithic movement, so in some ways it's a bit like nailing Jello to a wall. Nevertheless, secularism is increasingly the dominant worldview even if it is competing with others. But what secularism does represent in its most simplest form is to be free from religious belief or influence. With such a wide variety of religious belief, secularism props itself up as the arbiter of truth, bringing enlightenment and progress to all society, with the tools of the sciences at its aid.
Secularism typically isn't explicitly anti-religious, but sees religion as a separate entity that's merely personal and private. So in a secularist government, for example, politicians need to leave any of their religious beliefs at the door and engage in policy making under secularist assumptions. One can easily see why people adopt this approach. In a liberal society desiring to maintain religious freedoms, you wouldn't want your own religious beliefs to encroach upon the beliefs of others through policy making. Therefore, if everyone keeps their religion to themselves you wouldn't have to worry about that.
But being asked to play by rules of secularism doesn't demonstrate its truthfulness or fairness but it's dominance. Studies in the sciences and humanities have taught us enormous amounts of information about ourselves and the world we live in, but the sum of their findings don't add up to secularism. In fact it's quite the opposite. If secularism attempts to be objective by not having faith-based religious assumptions, then it fails by its own standards. That's because rather than removing so-called "faith based" assumptions from its worldview, it's unwittingly replaced them with its own new set of presumptions. It's a bit like saying secularism become its own religion.
Secularism's greatest failing, then, is its own ignorance toward what it deems as mythical and supernatural nonsense. But that doesn't mean that a Christian doing science, by contrast, is going to come upon a mystery and just say "God did it." That "God-of-the-gaps" idea is pathetically unscientific and unfaithful to exploration. The Christian scientist, as much as any other scientist, is genuinely interested in how things work and function in the world. In other words, he is just as interested in truth as the next scientist. That's because the sciences and humanities are not the just tools of secularism, but the genuinely good gifts that God has bestowed upon us.
But besides enabling us to engage in scientific study what does God have to with science anyway? In science your dealing with the material, so what you find is what you find, whether you believe God or not. You certainly don't have to be a Christian to do science well, so it may seem like it makes little difference. As it is, in the sciences and humanities there is a great wealth of information to be gleaned that is not only helpful but truthful as well regardless of who's done it. John Calvin concedes the same thing. Consider this passage from his Institutes (Book 2, Chapter 2, Section 15).
Whenever we come upon these matters in secular writers, let that admirable light of truth shining in them teach us that the mind of man, though fallen and perverted from its wholeness, is nevertheless clothed and ornamented with God's excellent gifts. If we regard the Spirit of God as the sole foundation of truth, we shall neither reject the truth itself, nor despise it wherever it shall appear, unless we wish to dishonour the Spirit of God. For by holding the gifts of the Spirit in slight esteem, we condemn and reproach the Spirit himself. What then? Shall we deny that the truth shone upon the ancient jurists who established civic order and discipline with such great equity? Shall we say that the philosophers were blind in their fine observation and artful description of nature? Shall we say that those men were devoid of understanding who conceived the art of disputation and taught us to speak reasonably? Shall we say that they are insane who developed medicine, devoting their labour to our benefit? What shall we say of all the mathematical sciences? Shall we consider them the ravings of madmen? No, we cannot read the writings of the ancients on these subjects without great admiration. We marvel at them because we are compelled to recognize how preeminant they are. But shall we count anything praiseworthy or noble without recognizing at the same time that it comes from God? Let us be ashamed of such ingratitude, into which no even the pagan poets fell, for they confessed that the gods had invented philosophy, laws, and all useful arts. Those men whom Scripture calls "natural men" [1 Corinthians 2:14] were, indeed, sharp and penetrating in their investigation of inferior things. Let us, accordingly, learn by their example how many gifts the Lord left to human nature even after it was despoiled of its true good.
When Calvin speaks here he makes a distinction between secular callings and those specific to the church. Obviously when it comes to heavenly things, non-Christians will be devoid of understanding, but secular callings are sacred and legitimate for Christians as well. That's because these secular callings were there from the beginning of creation but we have just become corrupted by the curse of the fall like everything else. Therefore you don't have to Christianize your business, your music, or the way you conduct your scientific surveys. As Martin Luther would put it, if you are a shoemake, then make a good shoe and sell it at a fair price.
What secularism does to the sciences is interpret the findings on the assumption that there is only the material. Again, this might seem to make little difference since you’re only dealing with material things anyway. The notoriously atheistic Richard Dawkins of Oxford University may display is ignorance when he writes books like “The God Delusion” but his work on biology can be a great asset to us all. But how does his atheism inform his work where a Christian, or a theist might differ? 
Most simply because all of this work points to something far greater than itself. There’s beauty and order in it. Romans 1:20 says, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” Francis Collins, the man who led the team that cracked Human Genome Project isn’t without reason when he states that human DNA has the “fingerprints” of the creator God. Even if these reflections seem somewhat subjective, it does no use to simply assume it all happened by itself based on infinitesimally impossible random chance. That only creates bigger problems for itself, and the burden of proof is on the secularist to show why its more reasonable to assume God’s not part of the picture.
For the studies in the humanities, on the other hand, since secularism has no time for acknowledging the existence of God, that we do indeed have a relationship with him (albeit broken), and that the world is fallen and corrupted by our own doings it completely removes an important part of the puzzle, which only the Bible has made clear to us. And this is important because the Bible teaches us not only "theological" things such as sin and redemption but it teaches ethics, morality, equality, justice. Secularism takes these things as well, but by denying the existence of a creator and ruler God, it removes any basis for them. 
This is particularly dangerous in the area of human rights. If human rights are not grounded in the God-ordained dignity of human beings, they are only grounded in the whims of the dominant culture. Human rights become nothing more than the will to power, but secularism sees this as progress. 
Take the work of Steven Pinker, for example. Steven Pinker, an avowed atheist, is the Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology at Harvard University and a best-selling author. If you've never heard of him, in 2004 Time Magazine named him one of 100 most influential scientists and thinkers in the world. He posits that as human beings progress in science and technology that our morality also progresses as well. He cites that we no longer have slavery, we have more human rights such as women’s suffrage and equality, and so on. Rather ironic when you consider we've just witnessed the bloodiest century of all human history. And while Steven Pinker really is a smart guy, it's not difficult to see why he would come up with an idea like this.
Consider some of the things your grandparents believed. Today, many of those things are considered outdated and silly. It’s easy to think from our vantage point that we live in a more advanced society, not only in terms of technology, but in ethics and morality too. But don’t forget that in another two generations your grandchildren will consider many of your own beliefs silly too. The secularist might assume that in two generations they’ll have advanced even further than we have, but to what end? And on what basis are we to believe that the morals of today are better than yesterday or tomorrow? None! Without God morals are subject to the tides of the culture, or to the evolutionary process and we have no ability to discern good or evil except that which is useful for survival. Frederich Nietzche who was one of the few atheists to acknowledge this.
And this is the whole point: Secularism attempts to do something which it can only fail to achieve. It has no grounds for believing its foundation other than its own leap of faith. It not only fails by its own standards, but the grounds on which it's based mean that its own assumptions can't be trusted. Everything becomes a whim, an experiment, and it's all utterly, utterly meaningless.