Marriage Myths, Part 1 - Honest Context

Through much prayer and consideration, the Spirit moved me to re-prioritize my blog. Instead of continuing the series on philosophical proof for God, it was clear to me that the marriage graphic below deserves special attention. It has made its way onto my Facebook news feed more than once, and is likely swinging public opinion further in support of gay marriage (or at least against Biblical ideals). That, or it is at least representative of how majority said opinion already is.

Yes, I have little doubt that this graphic deceives people into thinking the debate for gay marriage is only further settled, as far as religious opposition is concerned. It truly undermines the sacredness of marriage, even making light of the Bible's standards for marriage of man and woman. It does all this at a time when opposition to gay marriage is starting to be considered hate speech. If that were not enough, however, I discovered through my research that there is almost nothing online that refutes this nonsense for more serious seekers. Whereas other topics I’ve planned for this blog are old - there is enough information for people to do their own homework - there is not enough to show people how deceptive this graphic really is. (the exception is a series of videos JP Holding has done on the topic, which will get links in future posts)

Without further a due, allow me to present the graphic:

Biblical Marriage, or Biblical Hocus Pocus?

Somewhere on the internet, you’ve probably seen this. If not, I apologize – take a quick look and study it before reading ahead.  It may have come to you through Facebook, as it did me. Or perhaps you caught it a cleverly planted atheist site. Or maybe you found it at someone’s self-righteous blog through a Google search. Either way, it was likely used in such a context to suggest that Biblical ideals for marriage are not just “1 man + 1 woman”, as the Christian right is so fond of saying. The further implication is that we have no Biblical basis for opposing gay marriage, or that Christian standards of marriage are outdated (by evaluating the graphic's assessment on what a marriage between man+woman is)  If these types of marriages were “condoned” by the Bible, after all, then what could be wrong with gay marriage?

For this series, I will first look at general arguments for gay marriage (not homosexuality), at least with a focus on the Bible’s concern for the topic. I have little intent to comment on political or social arguments, as they were not the target of this graphic (and often do not strictly appeal to the Bible). After that, I hope to shed light on ancient perspectives towards marriage and see how that informs a Biblical view of the topic. Finally, for each post that follows this one, I will evaluate the types of marriage portrayed and look at contexts related to each. Have those of us who oppose gay marriage been so narrow minded in our understanding of the Bible? Are we “cherry-picking” verses to uphold our interpretation and maintaining an oppressive tradition? Can proponents of gay marriage even make a strong argument using the criteria of this graphic? Follow me as we seek to “take every thought captive” on this issue.

First, the implication that this graphic means gay marriage should be condoned (by Christians) is guilty of the genetic fallacy. In other words, it implies by association that gay marriage, if no worse than other marriages portrayed, cannot be un-Biblical. Without proving the specific case at hand (gay marriage), however, this is merely an appeal to emotion. It is not an argument - just because other types of marriages are condoned in the Bible (or not condemned) does not mean gay marriage deserves the same treatment. We have to see what the Bible actually specifically says on the issue, when and if it does speak of such matters. So what are some arguments over the Biblical text?

Actually, many proponents of gay marriage rightly point out that the Bible itself does not speak directly about gay marriage. It does speak of the sexual aspect of homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13) And where it does, it clearly speaks of such an act using strong language like abomination (detestable). But this says nothing of 2 loving individuals committing to a lifetime of caring for each other. It is even remarked that Jesus failed to preach or speak against gay marriage, as did the apostles or prophets. If any of them would have been concerned about the issue, surely they would have said something! After all, they were responsible for calling people out on their sins!

This is an argument from silence, however - it does not address what evidence is available. If we look at the issue from a cultural perspective, the audience of the Bible was 1st century Mediterranean, not 21^st century USA. Why is that important? This was a very high context society [1] and not very literate.  Writing was a rarity and a very expensive hobby. People did not (could not afford to) give more information than necessary when writing. They safely assumed their audience (rarely anyone outside their social circle) knew the pertinent background and history of what was being communicated. [2] 

In other words, the writers of the Bible would not spend much time condemning gay marriage, since nobody reading or hearing the text considered it acceptable! For this same reason, Jesus would not have had to say anything about the issue. The God-fearing Jews listening to Him already knew and agreed it was wrong! Lee Jefferson’s claims that “The Bible is not specific, literate, or even concerned with what we call same-sex orientation or gay marriage” [3] are, at best, partially ignorant. Ancient culture may not have seen sexual orientation the way we do (but clearly would not see homosexuality as anything more than a sexual act). But the Bible would not be expected to overly concern itself with the issue directly.

Also, the idea that marriage itself has anything to do with “2 loving individuals committing to a lifetime of caring for each other” reflects modern romantic ideals. This as a standard for marriage is part of the failure in our country to produce a strong culture of marriage (in my humble opinion, although it's not the solo cause). Marriage, typically considered more of a formal contract, had a much more mundane purpose by modern standards. That was to produce children and extend family reputations. The goal was for greater unity, structure and safety of society, not the private benefit of individuals involved.

Jefferson of course gives some further objections to the Biblical text in his scathing critique. Many pertain solely to homosexuality, but in reference to marriage he calls Genesis 3 “a gender creation story, not a creation of marriage story. Adam and Eve do not exchange rings, say "I do" and have a jazz band reception in Paradise.” [4] Certainly, gender creation is involved in the story, but there is much more being communicated. Eve was created as a “helpmeet”, or companion for Adam (Genesis 2:18). This means the gender creation itself served a purpose. Eve was not just a woman, but a companion designed to carry the attributes of God that Adam lacked. She was to be the opposite of Adam so God’s full image could be completed in humanity. What we view as marriage may not be stated, but what we value as marriage’s purpose is implied (man and woman complimenting each other in a unique relationship). One shouldn’t expect a wedding ceremony from this narrative, either - why hold what would be valued as a public ceremony when the only public is God himself?

A separate myth used in favor of gay marriage is that marriage itself is a civil entity, regardless of religious ceremony or components. Because the definition of marriage has varied between different eras and cultures, it is said that religion was never the “necessary component” [5]. Instead, it is argued, the contract itself – a “business arrangement for the benefit of the families involved” [6] - is the primary component. Done amongst the members of the larger community, such a marriage was for the benefit and acknowledgement of that community. Religious aspects of marriage are therefore seen as less relevant or having played little role in marriage.

There is much truth to these points. What I object to, however, is the idea that marriage was somehow separate from religious affiliation. The reality is religion permeated every aspect of ancient life. It was never “separate” from anything. Instead, it was woven into the entire fabric of society. Public rites and ceremonies were done because of religion - what it was believed God (or gods) had instructed humanity to do. People strived to live and work within the boundaries they felt had been given to them by god – the first law systems. Marriage, then, was always as much religious as it was civil.

This is the nail in the coffin for those convinced that “public” aspects of marriage were more important than the religious. It was merely taken for granted that religion was already a common-ground between members of society. People of different backgrounds did not mix together in ancient culture. Boundary lines between countries were boundary lines between customs and beliefs - if you were accepted or taken into another culture, you adopted their beliefs and customs (think of Daniel’s story and challenges he faced). In short, religion did not need to be trumpeted as a reason for marriage - it was already assumed to be!

Even if it could be shown that religion was irrelevant for certain nations or civilizations, it is clearly not an accurate portrayal of how ancient Israel viewed the practice. This makes it nowhere near an ideal that Christians should hold to.  Secular views of marriage are, at best, merely products of post-enlightenment ideals, when people began considering how to build a “free” society. Much of this sounds tough for people opposed to having religion as part of their life, or having a particular religious view dictated to them (as we have much freedom in the US).  But that reflects the fact that there are 2 ways to see religious belief - either it dictates what you do or it doesn’t. For those who choose to have it dictate our lives, should we be subject to beliefs of those who do not? (Note the subtle difference between believing in religion, as most people still do, and believing that it dictates your life) 

It is always misguided, then, to argue that Christians should support gay marriage from a Biblical standpoint. Most appeals made to the Bible are products of misinformation. They are part of an epidemic failure to contextualize the Bible in America. Sure, a good percentage of Christians support gay marriage (as does the majority of the population [7]). But they do so not wholly based in Biblical exegesis or conviction. Instead, such support is also based partly on emotional appeal and secular notions of marriage that reign supreme in the political arena.

But what about these other types of marriage? Do they still make an argument against the Christian right? Do they represent untold Biblical ideas of marriage, hidden from countless congregations by fearful, controlling pastors? Should we still reconsider our opposition to unusual forms of marriage, when they were so clearly practiced by people in the Bible? We will find out next time with our first look at unconventional marriages. Stay tuned, as posts should get shorter from here out.

[1] Malina, Bruce J., and Richard L. Rohrbaugh. Social-science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. 11. Kindle.

[2] ibid

[3] Jefferson, Lee. "What Does The Bible Actually Say About Gay Marriage?" The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 29 Aug. 2011. Web. 20 Feb. 2012. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-jefferson/bible-gay-marriage_b_886102.html>.

[4] ibid

[5] Cline, Austin. "Marriage: Religious Rite or Civil Right?" About.com Agnosticism / Atheism. About.com. Web. 20 Feb. 2012. <http://atheism.about.com/od/gaymarriage/a/MarriageCivil.htm>.

[6] Jefferson, Lee. ibid

[7] "Civil Rights." PollingReport.com. Web. 20 Feb. 2012. <http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm>.

Faith, Part 4 - Now what?

For the last 3 posts in this series, I talked mostly about what faith is, or is not. I tried to show how popular concepts of faith address some dimensions of the idea, but a full understanding incorporates something often ignored -that evidence may be involved. In other words, faith is not "blind" - and is not intend to be. I also hinted that when all these elements are put together, we can better understand faith to be synonymous with loyalty. The psychological, mental assent to truth we associate with faith is the byproduct of this loyalty, often given when one is convinced of the truth.

Believe it or not, this is also the conclusion of social science experts ("social anthropologists") who have studied Biblical culture extensively. [1]  These people have interviewed individuals from many cultures that still operate on values and structures similar to those of the 1st century (not every culture has adopted "western" values). Although I did not explicitly reference their work while writing these posts, you should understand this kind of material helped shape my thinking on the topic. It is a relatively new area of study, and much of the information is just now trickling down to more pastors, Bible teachers and laity. So keep an eye out for the insight it can reveal (you can get books from Bruce Malina to get more exposure). Also just be aware I will use this kind of material often at my blog. It is a sorely absent part of most attempts to put the Bible in proper "context".

Not only is this the conclusion of social science experts, but is apparently a truism within Jewish belief as well. With that said, it may be hard for you to picture how any of this discussion has practical application for your life. "Faith" is still a very prominent word in Christianese, and you'll find as other people discuss it, they too will be unaware of the concepts of loyalty and evidence as it relates to the word. Typically, anytime people use the word faith, you can discover these concepts more hidden in what they're saying. But what can you really do with this information? What practical things can you take home out of this discussion? After all, I would hate for you to have an "ah-hah" moment without making use of it.

To answer those questions and finish this series, I am going to use a bullet-list to jot down some things that came to mind while writing the series.

• If faith were more about belief, then "even the demons believe" (James 2:19). Do they have faith?
• If our faith is not belief in spite of reason (shallow), but belief with reason, then it is more tangible and able to be evaluated or examined (deep). 
• If faith is not just an abstract feeling or state of mind, then it involves a measurable effort on our part to produce it
  
• If faith is built on belief or emotion, we can try to produce more but will inevitably fail. If faith is built on evidence, it is easier to build than believed. 
• If we are "struggling in our faith", we are probably missing a proper perspective on our situation. No amount of "emotion", "belief" or perceived satisfaction will fix the problem.
• If faith is loyalty, we are responsible for producing it. If we are responsible for producing it, it is a failure on OUR part (not God's) if we seem to have "little faith". This sounds obvious, but often when people fail to muster up enough belief to validate their "faith", they distance themselves from God. They perceive he has not done as they desired, and may become removed from God or close themselves off to Him.

An example of this last one can be related to a couple I knew at my church. My wife and I had the opportunity to dine with them, and other couples, as part of a fellowship started during a special lent program. As the night moved into discussion one night, the wife revealed struggles with her "faith" because of difficulty she was experiencing in her marriage. She had endured abuse and neglect from her husband for several years, and began having doubts about their marriage (and God). On hearing the story, I remember thinking how much faith (loyalty) she must have really had to remain with her husband for so many years, in spite of the problems. It was not something I had a chance to communicate to her, and I regret it, but she still failed to see that faith was not her problem. She was merely worn out and was stronger than she gave herself credit for. Unfortunately, in the long run she did leave the husband - failing her commitment to him. And why? Because she failed to acknowledge the evidence around her - first, that she had endured much hardship, and second, that her husband was actually proving himself able to change (not just speaking it). I don't know where this person stands with God now, but to this day it troubles me that this happened because faith was seen as something that must be felt.

Moving on, there are some more last-minute thoughts lingering in my brain that are worth sharing....

• Unfortunately for Michael Tait in the Newsboys song "God's Not Dead" (which I like!), if faith is not about our feelings, it is not something that can be "dead" unless we let it die. It also not on us to ask God to "resurrect" it. We are responsible for how lively it is and how the fire is stoked - for how we respond to the evidence God gives us. Whether it's hard evidence like the Bible's record of history, or more personal evidence of experience - we must see it, embrace it and build our trust on it.
• If we are saved by grace through "faith" (Ephesians 2:8-9), then salvation may not depend on works but it does depend on our commitment to God. If faith were just belief in God, one could believe in God (that they are saved) but not obey or do anything to show it (good works) and still remain saved. Does it not make more practical sense that someone who is committed (faithful) to a cause (Jesus) will do things (good works) to help advance that cause? And that such commitment may not be expected from someone who just merely believes it is a good cause? (side note: in ancient Judaism, talking about God but failing to live as if he were present was akin to atheism)
• "Without faith it is impossible to please God" (Hebrews 11:6) makes more sense. If faith is loyalty, then doing what God asks and choosing to "take up your cross daily" (Luke 9:23) - things that show loyalty - clearly please Him. Belief put into action - building the kingdom of God - show we are faithful and that we do more than just blindly accept the truth of the Bible (which many people do without putting into action). The often ignored 2nd part of this verse even says "...anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."  Note the and - how can you believe He rewards people? (hint: he rewarded many people who sought him in the gospels - evidence!)
• "Faith without works is dead" (James 2:17) literally becomes a tautology, not just a statement to motivate good deeds. In other words, true faith only shows itself through works (loyalty). Good works (that please God) are not something you do after you believe, but can be a sign that you may already believe.
• "We walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Corinthians 5:7) is the very end of a discussion starting at around 4:13, which concerns a debate on whether or not there will be a resurrection body for Christians. Paul's initial case from 4:13 is that God rose Jesus from the dead (something witnessed by people!)  so we know he will do so for us. As we come to 5:7, we repeatedly see verses that use the word "confidence". Essentially, because Jesus was raised from the dead (eyewitnesses!) we can be confident God (unseen) will do the same for us. This is opposed to sight, which would be trusting in earthly (seen) authorities (like Pharisees/Saducees, who couldn't make up their minds on the issue) for an understanding of the matter.

This is all I've come up with so far, and should serve as more than enough to give you some practical ways to consider your personal loyalty to God, and how you might strengthen it and shape it to be a more committed follower of Christ. If you still struggle with any of the concepts I've discussed, or still have questions, I'm always willing to go into more detail. Just drop me a line or comment on this post. The same applies for scriptures - pistis is not always the word that was translated faith, and in some contexts "loyalty" does not apply as the correct meaning. But I have tried hard to show how a combination of contexts supports my idea, and I believe most of the time this is what is in view. Faith does not have to be blind - it is not even intended to be!

In conclusion, I have a beatitude of my own. "Blessed are you who believe without evidence - but how much deeper could you go with it?"




Regarding future posts, there are many directions I am contemplating at the moment. I will most likely return to my philosophical proofs for God, so I can complete the thoughts I was communicating through that series. However, I've already got outlines for a half dozen different topics, and have given lots of thought to covering this graphic on Biblical marriage. At some point, I also intend to start fleshing out ideas for the book I am planning. So be sure to stay tuned, and prepare for more insights into the challenges of exercising discernment in our Christian lives!



[1] Pilch, John J., and Bruce J. Malina. Handbook of Biblical Social Values. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998. 72. Print.

Faith, Part 3 - Redefining a Foundation

As we've looked at the word faith, we've seen how some understandings of it are misleading or incomplete. I also tried to formalize how I think most people understand the word. In the process, I suggested that perhaps one thing often overlooked is that faith is related to evidence. For this final post, I want to take a closer look at this concept, clarify what I mean and see how it better fits some scriptural contexts.

As I alluded to in Part 2 of this series, faith is predicated on proof (evidence). What would surprise most people is this is not only rooted in philosophical aspects I raised, but in the origins of the word itself. The word most often used in the NT that translated to faith was the Greek pistis. This word would most commonly be used in the 1st century to refer to what we call forensic proof. It was used of evidence that was convincing – for instance, to make a case in court.

When considered carefully, it should not surprise us faith carries this weight. If someone is convinced in reasons for their belief, are they more or less likely to commit themselves to a cause? Would they trust God with more or less? Consider looking at this another way - faith is the root of another word we use often in our culture – “faithful”. This word literally means “to be full of faith”. But what are ways in which we can be faithful to someone or something? Do they involve blind belief? Am I faithful (not just in a “non-cheating way” but in a sense of commitment) to my spouse because I must be, or because I have seen she is worthy of my trust? Are dogs faithful to owners because they must be, or because they’ve been taken care of by their owners? (Hint: dogs are not very faithful to owners that abuse them - they get agressive).

Therefore, it seems to me the mental or emotional aspects of belief associated with "faith" are more a byproduct of the real thing. One cannot blindly follow belief without facing eventual disappointment. (“I had faith God would heal my wife and He didn’t!”) What happens when such “faith” fails you? Where do our minds end up? We blame God. Does that sound like something an honest believer that respects God would do?

Another thing to consider about “belief” is what happens when it is wrong? Kids have “faith” (belief) in Santa Clause’s existence –does it make him as believable as God? When kids start to question the evidence, don’t they tend to stop that belief in Santa? Or consider unorthodox Christian groups. Some are told, above any proof they are given, all they need is a personal (subjective) witness – blind faith. Without a look at evidence, who can say they are right or wrong? Just as people are suspicious of these groups, we should be suspicious of our beliefs. After all, do we follow through on beliefs if we are not convinced by them?

For those that may still have trouble with this idea, has God not provided evidence? Is there not enough around us, as I’ve discussed in my series on God’sexistence?

If you don’t think evidence is important, I guarantee there is at least 1 piece of evidence you accepted before following God. It is at the core of your faith - the reality of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. It was the same for the apostles. In the first century, they preached solely about their eyewitness of a resurrected Christ. They were so convinced of its reality and were willing to die for its message. Would you be willing to die for your “belief” without evidence? True, not everyone may accept the evidence. They find reasons to reject it and explain it away. They are not seeking to submit to a higher power or acknowledge a life of submission is best for them. But that is not for lack of it being there, written down in history. Many skeptics have told me they WANTED to believe at some point, but weren’t convinced the belief was reasonable. And in most cases they were right - the beliefs they had about the Bible were founded in poor interpretation. But they were convinced they were right. What is to say they are wrong, if not evidence?

With these points made, it is time to put a new definition to the word "faith". In simple terms, faith might be better translated as "loyalty". No other word I can think of communicates this concept of obedience through trust and evidence. And if faith is understood to be loyalty, what does this tell us about lack of faith? Simply put, lack of faith, or "disbelief", is disobedience. It is lacking the loyalty owed to someone who has done enough to earn it. In Christ’s case, He took on your penalty for sin by suffering the most humiliating human experience in all of history. We owe him more than just our “belief” – we owe him a life of dedication.

Allow me now to turn to some scriptures on "faith" and address them in light of this understanding. There are more examples than I have time to cover here, but once you see the pattern you should be able to apply it to your studies.

When he entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him asking for help: “Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, in terrible anguish.” Jesus said to him, “I will come and heal him.” But the centurion replied, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof. Instead, just say the word and my servant will be healed. For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I say to this one, ‘Go’ and he goes, and to another ‘Come’ and he comes, and to my slave ‘Do this’ and he does it.” When  Jesus heard this he was amazed and said to those who followed him, “I tell you the truth, I have not found such faith in anyone in Israel!"   Matthew 8:5-10, NET

First, the centurion shares his story with Jesus - why? To see how Jesus will react? To beg for help? No - a man of position like this would be implying to Jesus his wish to have the servant healed. Jesus even reads it that way and immediately agrees to the healing. The centurion came to the conversation trusting Jesus could deliver. For him to approach Jesus in those days, he better have a reason. He risked serious embarrassment if Jesus could not deliver. So what happens next? The centurion shares insight as to how "loyal" (obedient) his soldiers are to him – another hint of how honorable this man is. And Jesus responds how? By saying he has not found such “faith” from anyone in Israel. What kind of faith? The obedience just described! Can this really refer to anything else? Jesus will struggle his entire ministry for this kind of obedience, and he was cluing the crowds into that.

Similar instances of people coming to Jesus for healing are much the same, when viewed in full context (the woman with the issue of blood, for instance - for which only Mark provides enough information to get context). In many cases, you will find people sought Jesus just based on what they heard of him. While that doesn't sound like evidence to us, in the 1st century it was. Reputation was everything - it had to be earned and acknowledged by other people. News of events spread fast, but did not spread at all if not rooted in eyewitness testimony confirmed by peers.

Then Jesus rebuked the demon and it came out of him, and the boy was healed from that moment. Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, “Why couldn’t we cast it out?” He told them, “It was because of your little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; nothing will be impossible for you.”   Matthew 17:18-20, NET

 

This passage appears at first glance to scream that faith is quantifiable; if you have enough of it you can do anything! But immediately following in verse 21 (the authenticity of which is questionable), Jesus says prayer/fasting is what was needed to drive the demon out. The implication is that the disciple’s “little faith” was a failure to pray and fast. In essence, they failed to act as if God would do something on their behalf. It was not a failure of their belief, but a failure of their understanding (evidence) and action (loyalty)! Jesus is almost insulting the disciples - insinuating that even just a little obedience would have been sufficient to cast out the demon.

Finally, I will look at Hebrews 11 - the most prominent passage on "faith" as quoted by skeptics and believers alike.

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for, being convinced of what we do not see.  Hebrews 11:1, NET

This is usually understood as a clear proof that faith has to do with what we can't see. If we can't see it, our belief is just blind, the thinking goes. This seems damaging to my case so far. But is it? First of all, note the first part of this verse - "being sure of what we hope for". Not only does it imply we should have some certainty (evidence) for our belief, it also helps clarify the examples given later in the chapter. As you read the rest of Hebrews 11, the "heroes of faith" are displayed to make Paul's case. But are they all examples of people who were going on no evidence?

Abraham left his homeland to go somewhere new. Was he just waiting to get up and go? Hardly! He heard God's voice audibly. Have you? And sacrificing Isaac on an altar? Having a child at age 100 should give him some reason to believe God could come through, even if he struggled with it. As a matter of fact, the thing "we do not see", as Paul’s scribe refers to, is fulfillment of God's promise. This is explicitly mentioned in verse 13 (Hebrews 11:13), but it is also implied as a theme underlying each example. Moses may not have seen the Promised Land (God’s promise to him), but do you think he had doubts Israel would get there? If so, count how many miracles God performed for Moses! Abraham never saw his descendants "number as much as the stars" (God’s promise to him), but did he doubt it would happen? Did got not give him some amazing experiences to build his “faith”?

With this insight, Hebrews 11 might better read this way: “Faith is being assured of what we hope for (God's promises to us) because we are convinced of their fulfillment.” And how are we convinced? By things God does in our lives! It is hard to see how "mental belief" applies to these examples, or even others given later in the passage. For example, Joseph's burial (Hebrews 11:22), Moses' parents (Hebrews 11:23), Moses leaving Egypt (Hebrews 11:27) - which the passage states he did so as if he could actually see God (evidence was there) - or Rahab protecting the spies (Hebrews 11:31). These things were done in “clear and present danger”. To have done them "blindly" would make little sense! The Bible may not give us the specific evidences each time (as with Moses’ parents), but we can safely believe they were very convinced of what God would do first.

In conclusion, I hope you have been challenged to see faith as something more than just blind belief, no matter how humble or well-intentioned. I hope you begin to see faith as an important part of obedience and trust. Why? Because we have a God who does help us through hard times, not because we have no other choice! Hope without reason is just a starting point for faith. This is why James says faith without works is dead (James 2:17). "Just believing" is nowhere near the same as acting on that belief, and that is difficult to do without trusting it is well placed. So start looking for reasons to trust God in your life, based on what he has done for you!  Stop living on just "hope" alone!

In the final part of this series, I will give some afterthoughts and address what implications this definition of faith might have for our daily lives. I will show how some fundamentals of our lives might be affected by this new understanding of faith, and give some more practical applications - if you haven't discovered some already!

Faith, Part 2 - Use the Faith, Luke

For the next post in this series, I said we would look at some ways faith is traditionally understood. Before we define them, however, I want to share some thoughts from popular culture that I believe will help make my point.

I assume anyone reading this blog is at least familiar with concepts from the Star Wars films. They are so large an influence in our culture that even my wife, who had not seen them when I married her, was aware of references to the films. Few films have had a large impact on the social fabric of the US. The movies were so popular, President Reagan named a defense initiative after them. They boosted interest in Science Fiction to record heights in the 80's, and the appeal of the movies to so many different types of people caused a shift in Hollywood to put more effort into big budget entertainment films than gripping stories that move and teach.

One of the more well-known concepts that is part of the worldview in Star Wars is the idea of "the force". It is an all-pervasive, encompassing spiritual entity that binds everything in the universe together. If one can train themselves enough to recognize it, they can "use" this force to perform supernatural acts. For example, Luke Sywalker destroys the Death Star with a practically "impossible" laser shot while being tailed by imperial forces. Part of His training involved sensing and responding to attacks without sight. It was "the force" that let him know what to do. Later, on various occasions Jedi are shown to plant thoughts in the minds of their opponents using the force. Some people are even more naturally in touch with this "force", such as Anakin Skywalker (who had an usually high count of midi-chlorians, or sub-cellular organisms that detect "the force").

However, the primary means in the movies by which one recognizes "the force" is, quite simply, acknowledging it's existence and learning to grasp the full philosophy implied. If one can "use the force" well enough, they are able to achieve things beyond what seems possible. They can even eventually "become part of the force", as did characters like Yoda and Qui-Gonn when they passed .

In case this sounds strange to you, it should. It is a worldview heavily influenced by Eastern thought, as both film scholars and George Lucas himself acknowledge. It is totally foreign to western thought. Achieving control over nature through mental training is a byproduct of belief in a system where humans are connected to a central source of life (often nature) - which is also God. In essence, God is part of the makeup of everything and everyone, so supernatural ability is merely dormant in all of us who would recognize it and embrace it.

As Christians, of course, we know that God is not in everything, but rather he created everything. He only offers to impart his spirit to believers, and the natural world is not God; it is only controlled and designed by Him. Everything remains subject to God's power and authority, humans included. Supernatural abilities have only been granted to those who needed it in order to validate God's message (Jesus, the apostles, etc.)

By now you're asking yourself - what does this have to do with faith? The answer is simple - an almost identical philosophy seems to influence some people's understanding of the word 'faith'. The more I have seen people try to explain faith, it is not uncommon to hear things that make it sounds like some invisible force that just needs to be embraced to succeed in being a Christian. For instance, have you ever heard phrases like this?

• If you have enough "faith", things will work out for you and you will be healed
• If you just believe God can do it (have "faith"), He will.
• If you don't understand the Bible, or have doubts, you can still have "faith" that it is true.
• I am struggling with my "faith" in God because he doesn't seem close to me

At the root of each of these phrases is an understanding that "faith" is a "force" that we must tap into enough with our minds in order to succeed. If we have enough of this "faith", we will be strong Christians that can, in the minds of some, literally perform miracles such as Jesus and the apostles did. We will succeed against the enemy's attacks and achieve all God has intended for us to do - merely by mentally acknowledging and affirming our belief in God. This, regardless of what that belief is founded in or what substance it has.

In short, this is a "blind" faith, in a force that seems to be the root of all spiritual activity in the universe. As  you may have guessed, my position is that this popular understanding of "faith" is misguided. It is insufficient to explain true faith, and results partially from a failure to put scriptural references to "faith" in their proper context. I don't know when "faith" took on this kind of meaning for many (UPDATE: the etymology of the word belief appears to point to a middle-ages time frame), but we must find a way to purge ourselves of this thinking. Not only does it make our beliefs seem analogous to "the force" in Star Wars, it disregards any concept of our faith having a real and reasonable substance. It also seems to ignore a proper application of the word "faith" in all it's contexts.

Allow me to first comment on the aforementioned phrases, to show how they might be problematic.

• If you have enough "faith", things will work out for you and you will be healed
• So, people who are not healed simply didn't want it bad enough? How do you gauge that? Do you want to tell them that?
• If you just believe God can do it (have "faith"), He will
• What about when God doesn't do what is asked - for instance, heal a loved one. Has he failed? Did the person need to spend more effort thinking and praying? Do we really think this applies to everything we want God to do?
• If you don't understand the Bible, or have doubts, you can still have "faith" that it is true.
• What do you do about those doubts? Suppress them? Did God not create us to use our brains? Is there something wrong with doubt itself? Or is unanswered doubt more dangerous?
• I am struggling with my "faith" because God doesn't seem close to me
• Where are we promised that God is to be "close" to us? Or that this has anything to do with "faith"? Was Jesus lacking faith when he quotes Psalm 22 on the cross (Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34)?

As you consider these, think more about any common threads with these ideas of faith. Can you think of what people might be doing wrong? As you thinking about that, I will share what my experience has been as I push people to clarify their understanding of the word faith. Most conversations on the topic conclude with this basic understanding:

1. I am experiencing something in life for which the outcome is unseen (I do not know what this outcome will be)
2. God knows what the outcome will be.
3. I believe that God will lead me to an appropriate outcome
4. Faith is the evidence of things unseen (Hebrews 11:1), so my "faith" helps me as I discover the outcome or resolution

In this sense, the "what" of faith has been recognized correctly. It is not as much a magical force in the universe you need enough of. It comes from ourselves, and we need lots of it to see things through in life. But the "why" of faith does not seem to have been taken into account at all. For instance, if I do not know what the outcome of something will be, "why" should I accept #3? Why should I believe God will lead me to an appropriate outcome? Do I need any reason? Could there be any reasons? Would it be wrong to have reasons; would it show I have less faith?

Many people, I think, would quickly say they don't need any reason. Acknowledging God's sovereignty is enough in life to accept that God will do what is right in the situation, if he acts at all. I applaud that kind of faith, but is that all there really is to it? Before we answer that, let's consider how such a person might answer my other questions.

Is there something wrong with wanting a reason to believe in God? The typical responses would imply "yes", if not stating it outright. After all, Thomas wanted a reason to believe in Jesus' resurrection. (John 20:25)  And how did Jesus respond? After giving him the evidence (John 20:27), he makes a statement blessing those who "have not seen and yet have believed" (John 20:29). So clearly, it appears NOT having a reason is better than requesting one.

But the Greek makairos, translated "blessed", implies that honor (reputation) is what is in view here [1].  Jesus is not saying there is an advantage to believing without evidence, but that it is better for your reputation. In other words, it is sufficient for you to be satisfied with evidence you already have, as opposed to demanding excessive evidence. Thomas had the word of 11 other disciples and 3 1/2 years of following Jesus, witnessing his miraculous power. His doubt was completely unwarranted - he had enough evidence that Jesus could be back "in the flesh". After all, he would have witnessed Lazarus return to life earlier in Christ's ministry. In addition to this, consider that what Thomas had seen, in order to believe, was the wounds of the resurrected savior. So those "who have not seen" is not a reference to someone who doesn't have evidence, but someone who doesn't have that specific physical evidence - as many future believers would not. Jesus' reputation and ministry should have sufficed, especially in a culture that valued reputation - it had to be earned carefully, and Jesus had experienced something that would ultimately earn him highest honors - coming back to life without a human intercessor.

So, someone with the typical view of faith may accept God's sovereignty as sufficient. But my question for them is this - how did they come to that point in life? Did they flip a "Trust God" switch on in their brain? Or did they have trials and experiences in life that God saw them through, which slowly built their faith? (did God give them evidence to help eliminate their doubt?) Can they honestly say they never needed a reason to trust God? When you can answer that, it should be clear what my answer is for the final question. Is something wrong with having a reason for faith? Absolutely not! It does not show weakness - it is instead a crucial element of faith to begin with!

In conclusion, there is obviously more to someone's faith than just belief in God. The belief comes from somewhere. Often the evidences are things we take for granted (the Bible's accounts of history, the resurrection of Jesus, testimony of trustworthy individuals) But it is still evidence - and anyone without "faith" is essentially rejecting the evidence. Keep these thoughts in mind for now. In the next post, I will look at how we can use these revelations to more accurately define faith. I'll also use that definition to take a fresh look at the scriptures. Is this "evidence" aspect of faith an invention of mine? Or has it been there all along, under the surface, waiting to be discovered?



[1] Malina, Bruce J., and Richard L. Rohrbaugh. Social-science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. 47. Print.

Faith, Part 1 - Is There A Problem?

At this point, I am approximately halfway through the posts I have planned arguing for God's existence. Although the hardest posts are probably behind me, it is no surprise I might be feeling a short break is in order. But I am not taking a break from blogging completely. There have been numerous topics on my mind recently, which I made note of but "subdued" as I tried to stay focused on my philosophical work. But it is not worth delaying them any longer. A few recent discussions at church have ignited the flames for me, and the reluctance of people to consider deeper insight only stokes the embers. So it is time I weigh in on these issues with more meaty discourse.

Therefore, today begins the first posts in a new mini-series on what I see as one of the most important topics in Christian life. What is that? It is, as the title implies, that magical cure-all word in Christianity - "faith". The use of this word has become so common-place in Christian discussions that it may as well serve as one of the "Top 5 Universal Answers to Sunday School Questions" (God, Jesus, Prayer, Bible and Faith)  In my mind, that cheapens its meaning and usefulness, but more importantly it makes me wonder - are people sure they know what it means? Have they really thought through what they're saying or teaching? Can 1 word really convey such a broad use of meanings, as implied by the average church-goer?

Of course, I would answer in the negative, and for the next part of this series we will look at some ways faith is understood and think about their logical implications. In the meantime, let me clarify that faith is important to me - this is not a debate over how prominent this quality should be in our Christian lives. But looking closer at what it means in certain contexts, I believe, gives it more power for the witness of the church as it goes to win souls in the world. Think about it this way - we often tell people how important faith is, but does it make sense to them? Does it seem real? Does it give them anything other than warm fuzzies? Is there more to it than just "hope" and wishful thinking? Is it serving as a springboard to a deeper and more meaningful Christian life, or just a less stressful one?

In grappling with this subject, and thinking about how the word "faith" is used, I've tried - very hard - to listen to people explain their understanding of the word. That includes the use of the word from pastors and sermons. (sometimes in Christianity, bad teaching comes from pastors; other times, it's just because people aren't getting anything outside their 1 hour across from the pulpit)  This can, for me, be like listening to nails on a chalkboard - not because anyone's voice is that terrible, but I hear the same things repeated ad nauseum. But I believe I finally have adequately grasped what people intend to say - I assume people mean the best! So I hope you find that to be true as I share with you.

In the end, I've come to one conclusion - people genuinely have a grasp of faith that is partially correct. But too often, it is poorly explained and even more poorly lived out or applied. The very things that should strengthen and form our faith get ignored. Or, our faith can be tested and people fight just to pass. Instead, we should be waving a banner of victory with confidence and assurance.  (Romans 8:31) This can't be done, I think, until we fully embrace a comprehensive understanding of what faith is and what it is not. And because it's such a central attribute to a strong Christian walk (Hebrews 11:6), I hope you would agree with me. So stay tuned, and you'll see how I came to these conclusions, and just how the word "faith" can be so controversial.

God's Existence, Part 6 - Fine-Tuned

Today's topic touches on something brought up in Part 4 - the concept that the universe is controlled by such precise constants, it must be a product of design. This is what is known as the anthropic argument, which is the next argument we will evaluate concerning the universe's origins. It is one of the more recent philosophical arguments for God's existence, making it very popular with people who are not even concerned with classic philosophy.

Anthropic means 'having to do with human beings' (intelligent life) - so the anthropic argument is speculating about the universe's setup for human life. First introduced to the scientific community by Brandon Carter in 1973 [1], the anthropic argument was intended to clarify the work of Copernicus (who believed mankind was not in a "privileged" position in the universe). Carter believed that although mankind may not be in the center of the universe, it was impossible for us to be in the universe if we were unable to witness it. In essence, the universe could not be "observed" if not made to include observers. If it was created in any way that deviates from what we observe, not only would human life be unable to exist, but there would be no life to observe the universe.Worded formally, this is known as the "weak" anthropic argument, distinguishing it from the "strong" argument (also later developed by Carter). The latter is "strong" in that asserts a much bolder (but simplified) position - the Universe had to bring humanity into being.

To better understand the gist of these arguments (for interests of time I will not delve into the minute differences of weak and strong principles), think about other planets in our solar system. Beyond speculations of Kepler exoplanets, the planets were know of are completely uninhabitable. Temperatures are too extreme for anything to survive - the planets are vast wastelands. If any of these planets represented the entire universe instead, the universe would essentially be a wasteland as well. No human or animal would be around to acknowledge this. The universe itself, then, may as well be non-existent. The fact that we are here to know all this says something about WHY.

The strong argument is so bold as to be controversial by any look, and thus it will not be addressed here. Our focus will be on the weak anthropic principle. This will prove difficult, as the argument was derived by someone with no intention of evaluating the universe's origins. As we saw with the teleological argument, however, a universe as ordered and structured as ours must have some similarly ordered (purposeful) cause. In our case, this would be God. As with other arguments we've evaluated, random chance is the only alternative, as it merely appears to have order, but in fact is chaotic and senseless.

With that said, a traditional objection to acknowledging an intelligent designer behind the earth's fine-tuning would look like this:

Only a universe containing intelligent life will have observers, so there is nothing special about our universe. It is necessary for it to be finely tuned. If enough universes exist without intelligent life, it is only by chance ours is the only one we are aware of and able to observe.

In short, if a large enough number of universes could exist, it is no surprise one would, by chance, be produced with all the right constants for life. This objection eludes to the so-called "multiverse" (existence of multiple universes) needed for it to be a valid argument. This "multiverse" - a virtual hypothetical in physics - exists only by convention. It is the only way to explain how the improbable odds of "random chance" creating the order we see, could be possible. If there are enough universes, the odds are better.

This is why scientists sometimes embrace the anthropic principle - to them it confirms why our universe is observable, but other possible universes (which increase the "chance" of our universe's occurence) are not. In response, however, this clearly is rooted in more physical evidence than it would be said I have for God's existence. I also offer this - could God not have created a multiverse? (not that I necessarily believe this)?   Also, supposing it exists, why should the multiverse even allow the creation of intelligent life? [2]  We assume intelligent life is needed for observation, but why should it exist amongst the supposed array of chaotic, random, lifeless universes?

If intelligent life is not really needed in a multiverse, then we can say the existence of intelligent life perhaps begs for a "purposeful" cause - God. Inn some ways, the abstract concept of the "multiverse" is little different from arguing "God did it". It makes sense of things without itself being a visible, physical reality. But let's be clear - both cases avoid evidence, yet only in 1 explanation makes sense of why life should even be expected to exist. In a time when Christians (and any believer in God) are said to ignore science or evidence, or hold belief without evidence (a topic I will explore following this series) - this is worth pointing out. The odds are stacked against "random chance", no matter how many universes might exist or might make the explanation more likely.

On the other end of hypotheticals for the anthropic principle, there are numerous proofs in the way of logic, probability and Bayesian formulas. These are hotly debated, and not in my area of expertise so I will skip this aspect of the debate. I trust what I cover here is sufficient to help one make up their mind. Much like the cosmological argument, though, how one defines their terms will always be a subject of debate. Criticism in this area only helps us refine and clarify our position. Offering it as an "end all" proof is questionable.

Moving away from the hypothetical, let's get more into reality. I want to look at just a handful of evidences, or "constants" in our universe's operation, that indicate it may be "finely-tuned" for intelligent life.[3] These are, after all, the amazing observations that triggered awe for the scientists developing the anthropic argument.

1. If surface gravity was stronger, the planet’s atmosphere would retain huge amounts of ammonia and methane. If it were any weaker, the atmosphere would lose too much water 
2. The 23-degree axis tilt, if it were altered slightly, would cause temperatures on Earth to be too extreme
3. If there were more less seismic activity (earthquakes), nutrients on the ocean floors and in river runoff would not be cycled back to the continents through tectonic uplift.
4. If we were too far from our parent star (the sun), we would be too cool for a stable water cycle. If we were too close, it would be too warm.
5. If the "weak nuclear force" were slightly stronger, the universe would consist completely of hydrogen. If it was any weaker, the universe would be 100% helium.
6. If Jupiter was not in its current orbit, we would be bombarded with space material. Jupiter’s
   gravitational field acts as a cosmic vacuum cleaner, attracting asteroids and comets that would
   otherwise strike earth.
    

 A quick glance at this, or longer lists (there are supposedly 122 such constants), should elicit an "ah-hah" moment for the reader, much as it did for Barrow and Tipler. This alone seems to beg for how marvelously designed the cosmos are that we are privileged to live in. But, if we are to be honest and skeptical, these emotional rushes are not confirmation alone. Do these even prove the universe was designed for us? Or do they show that the universe can only produce lifeforms compatible with these conditions? If the universe developed differently, would it simply contain different types of life? Is it safe assuming that things being the way they are means they were made that way - for our benefit?

To look at this another way, scientists use this analogy: suppose you are tied to a post and facing a firing squad. Everyone in the squad aims their gun and fires. To your surprise, after hearing the gunshots go off and seeing smoke rise, you find you are still alive. You have survived. The reasoning above - that we are here simply because the universe developed the way it did - is the same as saying "Of course I survived the shooting. Everyone else missed their shot!" True as this is, it does nothing to answer the more obvious question - why did everyone miss? If even 1 person had hit, things would have ended very different for you - you would not have survived. Speculation about what kind of person could have survived the gunshot is much less relevant.
 
Let's take a closer look at this thinking. First, given that all forms of life we know are carbon-based, I would question why we should expect life to exist in another form. Going back to the Big Bang, proponents of the anthropic principle point out if anything happened differently during this crucial event, the universe may have been too unstable for anything to exist. So why speculate about other types of lifeforms that may have developed differently? We may be lucky to be here (or privileged, if you believe God has put us here) - but someone needs to prove it is reasonable to expect other life to exist AT ALL. And, even if that were shown, that fails to rule out God as a creator. It merely means he would have had to create us with a very different composition. Whether or not the universe is efficient without His involvement is of little consequence to whether or not it was put in place by Him to start with. This expresses the importance of differentiating between efficient causes and final causes. Showing that the universe is efficient, regardless of how it is done, does not address whether or not it had a final, purposed cause.

The last objection I've seen to the anthropic principle is a more recent one in the news. It is often said if the universe is so "fine-tuned for life, then Einstein's cosmological constant (which is a determination of how fast or slow the universe is expanding) would be expected to have a value that maximizes the creation of life. But as recent research from Canada reveals, the actual value in our universe is slightly positive. According to Don Page, this means it "dilutes matter and prevents a lot of gravitational collapse making our universe less likely for life than if the constant were not positive" [4].

Unfortunately, like assuming God does not create chaos, this argument assumes God must create a universe with the absolute best possible cosmological constant for life. To do otherwise, I suppose the thinking goes, would make him less benevolent or "pro-life". This means that God must fit the scientist's tightly constrained box in order to be plausible whatsoever. But that merely begs questions. First, is God really less "good" because our universe is not as efficient as it should be? What if being "good" or "perfect" involves balancing chaos with purpose, rather than eliminating it all together? (this is intimately related to the infamous "problem of evil"). Second, as creationists might point out, we assume the constant has, in fact, remained constant. But what if our universe is not efficient now because a change was introduced at some point in the (unobservable) past? For instance, God's curse on creation after Adam/Eve's disobedience?


Ultimately, the anthropic argument is one that will always be interpreted based on what you assume to be true about the universe's origins. It can not point someone specifically to God, as it is more a compliment to the teleological argument and subject to similar limitations. But it can remind those of us who believe in God that this world is not one of many random universes or worlds. And it can remind those who do not believe in God that we have many reasons to be thankful for our lives everyday. Whether or not you believe the universe is cooling, expanding, heating up, dying out or being renewed - it is a masterful work of art that functions efficiently. One particular anthropic constant may be co-incidence, but dozens of them being just right for anything in this universe to remain stable - that begs for acknowledging something greater than ourselves. If you think that random chance really makes more sense than intelligent design and purpose, I would hate to see how unpredictable your outlook on life must be.




[1] What Is the Anthropic Principle?" WiseGEEK: Clear Answers for Common Questions. Web. 17 Jan. 2012. <http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-anthropic-principle.htm>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

[2] Castellano, Daniel J. "A Critique of the Anthropic Principle." Repository of Arcane Knowledge - Home. 2006. Web. 25 Jan. 2012. <http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/science/anthropic.htm>.

[3] Barrow, John D., and Frank J. Tipler. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford [Oxfordshire: Oxford UP, 1986. Print.

[4] Page, Don. "Evidence Against The Universe Being Fine Tuned For Life." The Eternal Universe. Web. 27 Jan. 2012. <http://www.theeternaluniverse.com/2011/01/evidence-against-universe-being-fine.html>.

God's Existence, Part 5 - Greatest Good

This time we will be looking at what is known as the ontological argument for God. Ontology is a study of the nature of existence. Therefore, the ontological argument would be something like this: if I can conceive of a being whose nature is greater than anything else in the universe, then it must exist. Behind this logic is a chain of reason that goes like this: since humans can still understand things we do not see, there is still reason to believe they exist.

The origin of this argument only dates back to the 11th century, when St. Anselm of Canterbury first proposed the most popular form of it. [1]  However, it was not then used as proof of God's existence. Anselm instead was sharing it as part of his mental reflections on God (much like I do here). He already assumed God's existence. It would be the popular mathematician, Rene Descartes (inventor of the "cartesian" x/y coordinate system for graphing mathematical equations) who would first use the argument in favor of God's existence. [2]  He put God's existence on par with other mental abstracts such as numbers and shapes. Just as geometry can be inferred from the existence of shapes, or math from the existence of numbers, God can be deduced from the fact that we can conceive of Him. Furthermore, he clarified that if "existence" is perfect or desirable as an attribute, and God is the complete perfection of all attributes, then God must have the "attribute" of existence.


Somewhat later, German philosopher Leibniz, agreeing with Descartes, saw the need to further clarify that in order for God to be conceivable (naturally "understood"), his attributes must be coherent (understandable). [3]  In other words, God must have omniscience (all-knowledge), omnipresence (present everywhere) and omnipotence (complete power), or else he can not naturally be a "most supreme" being. This opened a new area of evaluation for the argument, which more modern philosophers like Kurt Godel and Alvin Plantinga would included as part of their more formal, logical versions of the ontological argument. [4]  With this clarification, the argument is at it's strongest and most logical.

It also at this point that criticism becomes most important to address. If it can be shown that God can not possibly hold all 3 of these attributes - if He does not have complete power, or does not know everything - it could be disputed that such a "most supreme" being exists. And, in general, skeptics believe this is where traditional views of God fail. For example, are omniscience and omnipotence compatible? If God is powerful enough to create beings with free will (who can make their own decisions), then how can he know everything they will decide? Or, can God be both perfectly just (giving everyone what they deserve) and perfectly merciful (giving people less than they deserve)? Kenneth Himma sees these objections as the death blow to the ontological argument. [5]

This is why I've stressed so many  times we need to be careful how we define the "God" (or "designer", or "first cause") that we propose belief in, and how we understand the words we use. In doing so, we can knock down the traditional walls that stand in the way of belief. Some people I have spoken with very much would agree with the skeptics above, that God as traditionally explained does not seem very logical. And I must concede, they are right. But if we can define God to unbelievers in a way that is logical, we might be able to help knock down more walls in the battle for minds.

So how do we respond to these arguments?

Regarding mercy and justice, the problem is that mercy, as defined (someone receiving less than they deserve), has only more recently taken on this meaning, and only then in certain societies (those oriented towards individualism).  The origins of the word mercy - the Latin merces - literally mean "price paid", and referred to a reward owed someone for good behavior. [6]  So in the world of most philosophers, and most people who have lived, to have mercy meant you paid a personal (not monetary) debt (price) to someone who earned it! [7]  Applied to God, this means he does favors for people who deserve them - he rewards them as they are due. (a very simple example would be answering prayers) In this sense, mercy actually compliments justice (giving people what they deserve), and the 2 concepts are not in any contradiction!

Moving on to the objections about free will and omniscience (without getting into the details of the argument), Himma is misguided. If God knows we will do something, are we really not "free" to do it? This can only be said to be true if God has determined what will happen as a result. But why must this be so? What if free will simply means we can make decisions without being forced into them? Can't we determine our outcomes independent of God's knowledge of them? If this is not a comfortable thought, perhaps the alternative offered by CS Lewis is. If we perceive God as being outside time-space, He does not need to know what will happen before it happens. Instead, he can see all events taking place at once - past, present and future.[8]  This way he remains omniscient regardless of what choices are made about the future. Only humans are restricted to time-space, acting randomly within their own perception of time but not outside God's. The only way free will interferes with omniscience is when we narrowly define "free will".

As opposed to the teleological argument, which I said was post priori (after-the-fact), you can see the ontological argument so far has nothing to do with facts whatsoever. It completely relies on evaluating if/then scenarios. This makes it a classic example of what is an a priori argument (before-the-fact). It is an exercise of logic that does not speculate about the nature of the universe. It focuses instead on the plausibility of the belief. This, of course, is also what proves to be the source of most criticism of the argument. How can something be proven to exist if no observation is available?

The first was Hume's primary objection, as you should come to expect from anything he evalutes. It is also the same type of objection Immanuel Kant, an 18th century German philosopher, would raise. [9]  He saw the argument as more of a "truth" than reality because it relies on if/then logic. If shapes exist, it is true they must conform to certain properties. If God exists, then it is true he must have the "perfect attributes" ascribed to him. In each case I must accept the premises to for the argument to hold. To know, in reality, whether or not God exists is a separate matter that requires concrete or testable "experience".

As I mentioned in previous posts, this thinking at best rejects abstract realms of perception from the outset. For instance, what about the existence of a spiritual realm? "It must not be there since we can not observe it", Hume would say. But isn't that presumptuous? If it is an abstract concept, shouldn't abstract proofs be enough? Why should only physical evidence be valid criteria? After all, the whole realm of mathematics is a beautiful mix of abstract concepts and concrete rules working together to explain the universe. Hume-an rational like this only begs questions and shows a narrow approach to the realms of information and knowledge.

Whether or not the argument represents reality, in a true sense it is one that comes almost completely from imagination. The fact that it centers around what we can "conceive" has proven to be a source of criticism even from other believers! Gaunilo, a Benedictine monk from Anselm's time, pointed out that this type reasoning could be used to prove that just about anything must exist. For instance, if I can conceive of the "perfect island", I can use the same logic to show that it too must exist. Thomas Aquinas rejected the idea that God can even be fully knowable, so he cannot be "conceived" of in the way Anselm suggests. [10]

However, since God's "attributes" were shown earlier to be coherent, we are not proving "anything" we can imagine, as Gaunilo objected. We are proving a specific definition of God and his qualities - all-powerful, all-knowing and ever-present. Regarding Aquinas' objection, this would be the rallying cry of much of the emergent church movement. But it is merely a challenge to whether or not God would want to be knowable, perceiving Him as less infinite or majestic if he is. He is still taken to be an existent being, whether or not you agree being "knowable" is an attribute he would have.


 In the end, as I have said before, it is tough to agree that offering criticisms for an argument make the argument useless. The criticisms offered for each of the arguments we've looked at so far merely inform us of the argument's limits and help us redefine it. To reject ontology on grounds related to concrete evidence, when it still supports God as an abstract concept, is misguided.  Taken with other arguments (cosmology, teleology) that offer concrete evidence, the ontological argument gives us part of the bigger picture of God. It shows God's existence through His perfection - standing in opposition to some natural force or "Big Bang". The existence of such things, if proven, are ultimately more convenient than "perfect".




[1] "Ontological Argument." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 17 Jan. 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument>.

[2] ibid
[3] ibid
[4] ibid

[5] "Ontological Argument for the Existence of God [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web. 17 Jan. 2012. <http://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/>.


[6] "Definition of Mercy - Merriam-Webster's Student Dictionary." Merriam-Webster's Word Central. Web. 17 Jan. 2012. <http://www.wordcentral.com/cgi-bin/student?mercy>.

[7] Pilch, John J., and Bruce J. Malina. Handbook of Biblical Social Values. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998. 93. Print.
[8] C. S. Lewis Mere Christianity Touchstone:New York, 1980 p.149

[9] "Ontological Argument." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 17 Jan. 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument>.

[10] ibid