Philosophy

If we were to ask a Christian how he knows all mankind is fallen, he would probably return with the answer, “Because the Bible says so.”  This is true, but it is not the only way we can know that mankind is fallen.  The essence of the entirety of science is the act of observing different facets of the world and formulating opinions based on these observations.  Looking at the facts, it is obvious through humanity’s actions that we are not perfect.  Crime is rampant within modern societies.  Cruelty comes naturally to all people, the divorce rate is growing greater every year, and the continued corruption and failure within governments around the world all demonstrate clearly that humans are flawed.  And if humans are flawed, then our reasoning is naturally also flawed.  This means that, as a human, you are unable to rely on your knowledge.   Operating under your personal beliefs and thought processes will ultimately lead to your ruin.  The word science often brings to mind images of sterile environments, hard facts, and the inevitable correctness of any determinations made.  This is not the case.  Scientists are still humans.  Their knowledge and skill does not somehow raise them above the sometimes intelligent, more often unintelligent people that make up the common rabble.  Many would agree with this fact and yet argue that science is based purely on fact.  This is not the case.  It is true that it comes from a foundation of pure information, but much interpretation goes into the processing of data before a conclusion is made.  There is quite a bit of reasoning involved in the scientific process, and the imperfect minds of man often muddy the waters.  Just because someone has graduated from a class does not mean that he cannot still make mistakes.

This may be true, but most people are willing to look past this fact because of their belief that science is not biased.  This is patently false.  All people tend to assume the fact that someone does not believe in a god naturally makes him fair.  Unfortunately, nonbelief in a god is actually belief in the nonexistence of any god.  Saying you do not think something is true is the same as saying you think something is not true.  There is no such thing as an unbiased view, because every neutrality on an issue is a rejection of some stance on that issue, and every rejection of a belief is actually an acceptance of a belief opposed to that belief.  Christianity has been largely silenced in academia and science because of the claim that Christian scientists have a specific agenda that would affect their research.  Christians do not have an agenda, unless you classify a desire for truth as an agenda.  No, Christians are opposed because of their worldview.  A worldview is a set of beliefs, in the form of conscious or unconscious truth claims, that shapes the way a person interprets his experiences.  Worldviews are formed by upbringing, culture, peer group, religion, and many other factors: these factors each and every human being, and so every person has a worldview.  Humanity includes the scientists; there is not some sort of special other species that has perfect impartiality and clear judgement.  Scientists have worldviews—by and large extremely similar worldviews—and so Christianity has been opposed by scientists because its worldview conflicts with theirs.  Think what this means: an entire people group is largely prohibited from an entire field of work because they do not agree with another people group.  So much for equal opportunity.  This proves that secular science is actually much more biased than it claims Christianity is.  It does have an agenda: promoting certain views and maintaining them so that the masses will believe whatever they say.  By silencing Christians in the area of science, secularists have gained the ability to propagate any ideas they wish.  In their studies, they do not take into account any evidence that does not support their claims, and so it is obvious that they are biased.  Taking this into account, can we really say that scientists do not have a religion?  They do have a religion, and although they would not use these words, their reasoning sets up science as God and scientists as Its infallible prophets.  These are the so-called fair ideas that shape modern society through science.

Seeing that science is a religion, we must address the issue of faith.  Many would argue that, while Christianity requires a great deal of faith, science does not require any faith (or at least not an amount worth mentioning).  Again, this argument is faulty.  What is faith?  There are several definitions of this words on Dictionary.com, but two stand out in this instance.  The first is its definition as “a system of religious belief.”  If faith is a system applied to any religious belief, and religion is “something one believes in and follows devotedly,” then faith is a system applied to the science that scientists believe in and follow devotedly.  The second and more pertinent definition of faith is a “belief that is not based on proof.”  The fundamental disagreement between Christianity and science is one largely concerning the origin of the universe—whether a God created it (as Christians believe) or it just came into being (as some scientists believe). Now, the interesting fact about this argument is that the origin of the universe happened long ago, several millennia if not longer.  There are no records from that time that give an exact description of the origin of the universe.  Neither side has any proof to back up their beliefs, meaning that their beliefs are not based on proof.  Funnily enough, that sounds like the definition of faith.  So on the one side is science, which has faith that there is no God and the universe came into being via an impersonal cause; on the other side is Christianity, which has faith that there is a God Who was the personal cause of the universe.  Philosophy is not, then, a competition between a Christian’s faith and a scientist’s reason.  Instead, it is a competition between a Christian’s faith and a scientist’s faith.  Science is not the only side to use evidence, fact, and logic in its arguments: Christianity does so as well.  In other words, philosophy is also a competition between a Christian’s reason and a scientist’s reason.  Both use the same proof; the only difference is that science is convinced of the infallibility of human thought as manifested in science, whereas Christianity is convinced of the fallibility of human thought.  Thus, Christianity is not incompatible with philosophy, as so many would have us believe.  Christianity is perfectly compatible with philosophy because it takes faith and reason, and it merges them in order to investigate the facts of the universe.

These are those facts.  God created all things.  There is not a single object in existence that was not called into being by God.  This can be seen in the order that is present in all the world—the way that certain animals are perfectly adapted for the adverse conditions in which they live, the incredible adaptability of the human species, the fact that a flower’s seeds are arranged on the corolla in the way that uses space most efficiently, the fact that this arrangement can be predicted mathematically through the Fibonacci sequence—all this points to the divine creation of an intelligent God.  It is this author’s belief that God made man in His image, and as such man has a spiritual nature.  We are not only flesh and blood, matter that will decompose as soon as it is dead.  Nor are we purely mind and soul, existing separately from this world.  We are an amalgam of body and soul, mind and matter.  This means that our life has ultimate meaning.  Since we will live on after death, we can know that we do in our life will continue to matter even after we are dead.  There is great hope in this.

Theology

Looking around at the world, everyone asks three basic questions.  The first is, “Was the universe always here, or did it have some sort of beginning?”  According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, all processes that take place in a closed system will always devolve into a state of stasis.  If the universe is the sum of all things, it is by definition a closed system, making impossible any chance of it having always existed; if it had, it would by now be quite devoid of all energy.  With that established, the second question is, “Was the beginning of the universe caused or uncaused?”  Louis Pasteur proved through experimentation that the spontaneous generation of life is impossible.  If that is the case, something must have caused the beginning of the universe, or life would not exist.  The fact that you are reading this paper proves that life does exist.  Taking into account that conclusion, we can ask the third question, “Was this cause personal, or was it impersonal?”  This question has been the main point of contention between theists and atheists since time immemorial, and one in which both sides have several good points.  But the author of this paper, through observing the intricate details in the world and the way its many components manage to fall into the precise necessary model, which happens to follow the mathematical laws man has discovered, cannot help but come to the conclusion that this cause was a personal one.  The universe was created.

If the universe was created, then it must have some sort of Creator.  The most logical being to fill this role is the classical concept of the deity—in other words, God.  If God is the Creator of the world, then He must be intelligent.  If He were not, then He could not be a Creator—this would the equivalent of chance, of placing a pile of blocks in front of a dog and expecting it to form a letter with them.  In order for a skyscraper to be designed, the engineer who designed it must be intelligent; otherwise, it would be impossible for him to grasp the mathematical concepts necessary to construct a viable building.  If God is an intelligent Creator, then He must have some sort of goal.  Every creation in the world has a purpose, even the primitive pilings of a child in a sandbox.  Perhaps the purpose is to make something purely for its destruction, or maybe to tell an imaginary story; regardless, the purpose is there.  If the child has a purpose for his creations, how much more an intelligent adult?  And if the adult has a purpose for his creations, how much more an intelligent Creator God?  If God has a goal for His creation, then He will naturally direct its existence.  Once a house has been built, it is not left to fend for itself against the forces of nature and of time.  Instead, it is consistently maintained by builders so that it might better complete its purpose.  A storyteller does not simply start a story and then leave his audience to guess the rest of it.  Instead, he takes the myriad strands of the story and actively weaves a tapestry so that what he wants to say might be properly conveyed.

If God is the Creator of the universe, then He has the right to do anything with it.  The owner has the right to treat his possessions in whatever way he will.  A farmer has the right to decide whether he will milk his cow or kill it.  The owner of a tree has the right to leave it standing or to cut it down.  An orchard’s owner has the right to eat his fruit or to sell it.  He even has the right to let the fruit fall and rot, if that is his wish.  An author has the right to do whatever he will with the characters in his story.  He may kill them, nurture them, or assign them to any other destiny he pleases.  In the same way, the justice of the Creator is the ultimate justice for the creation.  Creation has no right to tell God He is wrong.  The only standard of what is right is the Creator’s standard: what He says is right, is right, and nothing He says is right, is wrong.

Unfortunately, creation doesn’t function in the way it was designed to.  The existence of a standard for behavior does not guarantee compliance with it.  Any teacher at a school knows that students are apt to disobey its policies.  Every parent can attest to the natural knack his children have for violating every rule he lays down.  The fact that something was designed with a certain purpose in mind does not guarantee the fulfillment of that purpose.  Fire was meant to warm, but instead it burns.  Water was meant to nourish, but instead it destroys.  A slightly more lighthearted example is that of the folding chair: it was meant for sitting, but instead it hits people across the head.  In the same way, people do not properly honor God.  All sins—murder, theft, adultery—are violations of man’s purpose.  The fact that false religions exist demonstrates that humanity has lost sight of the original reason it was created.

God must punish humanity for its violation of its purpose.  According to the Bible, God is a perfect and holy being.  In addition to that, He cannot abide disobedience from a purely pragmatic standpoint.  The standard is only as good as the enforcement.  To maintain justice, one must actually judge the violators.  The Bible states that man was made in the image of god.  Since God is eternal, mankind, too, must be eternal.  If that is true, then the judgement must also be eternal.  Since God is holy, He cannot abide the violation that is the sin of humanity, and so all sinners must be separated from His presence.  That is the nature of hell, which is the judgement reserved for the Creator’s deviant creation: pure separation from God.  The truth, however, is that, since God is the Creator, He is also the source and sustainer of life.  Being separated from God is more than just an eternal timeout.  Separation from life causes death, and so the judgement that awaits those who violate their purpose is eternal death.

But God desires reconciliation.  Of course the Creator wants to see His creation fulfill its purpose.  What author is not angered when his words are twisted to a new meaning?  What artist does not wish he could restore the twisted interpretation of his work?  God wants to be reconciled to humanity, but the only way that can be accomplished is through payment for the violations of man.  God cannot abide disobedience.  No good judge would look at a man he knows to be guilty of murder and forgive him his crime.  A just judge knows that the murderer must be held responsible for his actions.  In the same way, someone must be punished for humanity’s deviation from its purpose.  Someone must die the eternal death of hell.  This person, however, cannot be just anyone.  He must be eternal in order to fulfill the eternal sentence, and he must be perfectly innocent, so that he will not have to pay for his own transgression.  All of humanity has violated its goal, and yet humanity is the only eternal being besides God.  And so the only one able to fulfill the Creator’s standard is the Creator Himself.

Thus, Jesus Christ died that we might live.  To believe this, it is essential to grasp the confusing Trinitarian nature of god.  He is one single God, but He exists in three distinct persons.  That is to say, He has three different faces with three different purposes, three different modus operandi.  One of these three persons is Jesus Christ, and He fulfilled His purpose in His sacrificial death.  He lived the perfect life that it is impossible for humans to live, and then He died willingly, that He might suffer the eternal death His creation deserved.

This is not a God Who sits in the sky, waiting for someone to trip up so that He might pummel him.  Nor is this a God Who set the universe into motion and then sat back to watch the show.  This is a God Who created the universe in intricate detail, Who gave every creation a unique purpose.  This is a God Who saw a problem and actively stepped into His creation in order to take care of the problem, even when that meant His own death.  Through the person of Jesus Christ, man is now able to be spared the judgement of eternal death and instead given the reward of eternal life, because his crime was already paid for in full.

Introduction

All humans have something in common.  It does not matter whether we are rich or poor, black or white, Asian or Hispanic, Muslim or Buddhist, Catholic or Protestant, atheist or pantheist, liberal or conservative, we all possess the same thing.  I am not referring to DNA or a human body.  This universal possession is a worldview.

What is a worldview?  As can be gathered from the word itself, a worldview is a lens through which an individual views the world.  Worldviews are inescapable: while a man can change his worldview, discarding and adopting aspects as he sees fit, he cannot reject worldviews as a whole.  Just as we all have pupils through which we must look if we are to see, so we all possess a worldview through which we must look if we are to live.

Every person’s worldview is different.  Just as fingerprints, voices, or gaits are different, no two worldviews are exactly alike.  Some may be very similar to each other, but none will exactly mirror one another.  It is impossible to change another’s worldview: that can only be done by that person himself; in the same way a password can only be changed by someone who knows the password, the worldview can only be changed by the one whose it is.

What is a manifesto, then?  A manifesto is a statement of beliefs.  In effect, it is a handbook for understanding a worldview.  No one person can write a manifesto for another: just as your worldview is unique to you, your manifesto is unique to your worldview.

Why write a manifesto?  First, it helps others to understand your beliefs.  It is a way of laying out an honest opinion and allowing others to know that, when it comes to your belief system, what you see is what you get.  In addition, and more importantly, it helps you to understand your own beliefs.  It is not until you make yourself write down a statement of your beliefs that you are forced to honestly face those beliefs.  Writing down a manifesto is a way of forcing yourself to “man up,” in a sense, and face who you are.  In crafting a manifesto, you anchor your life in what you believe to be true, not in order to never have a debate, but in order to not be able to debate and be confident enough in your beliefs that you will not be swayed simply because you have not decided yet what you believe.

This, then, is my statement of beliefs.  It is inadequate, of course, for entire volumes could be and have been written on each of these topics.  However, it is enough to have an understanding of my belief system.  In it, I look at ten separate disciplines that I believe make up a comprehensive worldview.  Each of these disciplines builds upon each of the others, and they are all essential to holding a complete perspective on reality.

I do not write this to persuade you of anything.  Rather, I write it as an invitation to inspect your own beliefs and honestly ask yourself if you really believe that what you believe is true.  And if you do not, ask yourself why you still hold to those beliefs.

Heads Underwater

I like to think it isn't shame that has been keeping me from writing these past few months, but sometimes I'm uncertain enough about my own motives as to be able to swear to anything.  Since I cannot be sure it was my immense school workload (calculus and worldview, anyone?) that has prevented me from making time to write, I suppose I will just avoid making excuses and proceed with life.

One of the greatest lessons I think I've learned over the past semester is that I really can't take the ability to breathe for granted.  I will be going through my day, rushing and rushing until suddenly I realize that it is once again time to wake up and start rushing again.  Two or three weeks of this and my lungs have atrophied, my brain has forgotten there is such a thing as a respiratory system, and I myself repeat the Dowager Countess's rather humourous question: "What is a weekend?"  Perhaps I don't mean it in the same way that she does, but perhaps that is also beside the point.  I look around at the lives of those around me and I see the same inability to take a breath.  Which leads me to wonder: if we stopped and let our poor frozen fingers unclench from the steering wheel, would we suddenly find ourselves capable of umpteen times more than we have been?  How severely have we handicapped our own minds through refusing them the shalom they so obviously deserve?  There is a problem with our world, dear friends, when one to whom I look as the unattainable pinnacle of mental prowess has himself succumbed to the grasping fingers of desperate industry.

My last blog post admitted a failure to keep up with the many hopes on my plate.  Is it not ironic that this, my first post in over four months, is a reprise of the same sorry refrain?  How much have I really learned if I am still in the hamster wheel?  I can't help but laugh at myself as I write this.  I'm only seventeen years old.  Only a few ounces of the world's weight have yet touched my shoulders, and I am already speaking of stress.  Where are we headed?

Allow me then to issue to you a challenge.  We really don't even know each other, but maybe that is as it should be, since this challenge involves less and not more.  Summer is around the bend.  For we who are still students, this is an opportunity to reassess.  This is an opportunity to recognize the habits we are forming and the awful way in which those habits will become entrenched over time.  Picture the scene in the Prince Caspian film, where the Pevensies have returned to Narnia, only to find their absence has lasted centuries.  Where there was once a ford--a point in a river shallow enough for wading--there is now a deep, impassable ravine, formed by the constant running of the river's waters through the years.  Our habits are like that river, and our lives are like the banks of the river.  In five years we will look around and find ourselves in a canyon; we will ask, how did we get here?  All of us will say it: there is no avoiding this fate.  Let us not be found saying it with regret.

Here is the challenge: pick something, today, to eliminate from your life.  Not something bad, as it is obvious we should be ridding our lives of such things.  Instead, choose a commitment, something you would really have liked to do, and say no.  I've already begun: the camp where I worked last summer will not be a part of this summer; the piano lessons I have taken for thirteen years are no longer in my life; I no longer frequent a youth group I loved.  And yes, it is often painful.  I understand that there will be sorrow involved, in a sense.  But you just may find it is worth it.  When you suddenly realize you have time to pause and breathe and smile, tell me it is not worth it and I will lovingly call you a liar.  When you lift your face out of the water and take your first breath, remind yourself that there is always a price to be paid for life's sweetness.

Joy is always bought, never free.  My prayer as this school year comes to a close is that my Father make me intensely aware of what He has given me.  I don't ever want to wake up one day to find I have lost something I never even knew I had.

Breathing is a gift.  Take a moment and appreciate it.  Smile at yourself in the mirror.  Look up the definition of "peace" in a dictionary.  Drink a glass of water.  Now go live your life, not for what you need to do, but for what you want to do.  Call me irresponsible, but life is far too short to spend in drudgery.  God did not create out of need, but out of desire.  Do not let yourself be driven by a requirement.  Please try it, friends.  Then, when you have, post a comment giving your account.  Together, let's reject this norm that calls our generation the most stressed of all time.

Yours in the odd fight,
'ding2