Conversation - part 9

How can we build understanding with those who profoundly disagree with us?

Be sure to read the previous posts on this topic from January 2022 to get the full story...

So, here we are at the end of the conversation. I hope it has challenged you to think at least half as much as it challenged me. I believe that it was valuable for Derek on several levels as well and, although he did not respond to me again, it seems that we reached some degree of understanding and relationship. The point of conversations is certainly to point to truth but this is difficult to do without also making a priority of building relationship and communicating the value of the other person in the process. We don't have to agree with their perspectives but we do have to demonstrate humility and compassion. I must realize that I don't have all the answers but I must be relentless in my search for truth and faithful confidence in God and His Word as the ultimate source of truth. 

My response was posted near the end of March 2020, at the beginning of a global pandemic, and is mainly focussed on the concepts of human value and purpose. Looking back, it seems it was an appropriate topic and was important for my own processing of events in my life! Do you think that I may have been a bit hard on Derek at certain points in this post? How could I have been more compassionate and humble while still communicating truth? Could I have more clearly pointed him to the love of Jesus and the purpose He calls us to?

My final response:

Hi Derek. Obviously it has taken me a while to respond this time for many reasons. Our world situation is quite volatile and my personal situation has not helped either: processing the death of my dad, moving back temporarily to the US, continuing work and helping my boys with online school, etc. But some response in our discussion is better than none, so I’ll add a few ideas here. Thanks for your patience and I really hope you are doing well physically and emotionally (and even spiritually!) during these challenging days!

I would begin from the other end of the spectrum with “once you begin to study and understand the ‘spiritual’, you realize that there is really something there.” But this must be qualified because we need to understand our terms, as you so wisely point out. I will not address the ‘paranormal’ here as that is a separate discussion and a tiny sub-point of the concept of ‘spiritual’.

You made some good points about purpose: Why should we be so selfish to think we have importance on a cosmic scale? What exactly is a spirit? Morality is part of our humanity/history and does not ‘require’ religion. You even agree that your personal morality recognizes the value of treating others with respect and empathy (even if it makes no difference in the bigger picture of life).

Yes. Fine. I can personally be satisfied with these answers if I was only concerned about myself and our friendly conversation. The problem is that I’m always driven to look at the bigger picture to think of the consequences of these ideas.

Here are a couple concepts that connect respect, hope and meaning to the bigger ideas of human value (and possibly help to define ‘spirit’).

How do we determine human value? It must be calculated by something. If it is physical, racial, ancestral, skills or knowledge (capacity or usefulness), power, wealth, relational value or something else, then that is one thing - but it gives everyone a different value. Those who are more valuable then have the right to discard or discredit those who are less valuable. If human value is a moral or a spiritual reality, that is entirely a different matter and gives meaning to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) which is founded in the biblical concept of “imago dei”.

If we look at fairly recent history, American slavery is a prime example of the horrific misinterpretation of spiritual value of the individual as well as an affirmation of biblical truth on this topic. It’s interesting that many slaves accepted and embraced Christianity for the hope and assurance of a God who loved them and demanded justice in spite of the abuses and outright lies of supposedly “Christian” slave owners. The work of Harriet Beacher Stowe, William Wilberforce, Harriet Tubman and many others show the power of biblical truth in the fight for justice and human rights simply because human value does NOT depend on utilitarian concepts or physical properties but spiritual value. How am I caring for those around me that are not valued by their community or society?

Nietzsche says that “compassion is weakness and nothing is more unhealthy than Christian compassion.” This is revolting. I have heard secular educational leaders in Romania note that the true definition of tolerance is Christian love. Christianity, specifically followers of Jesus, must engage in the work of serving the outcast and the powerless.

Comment: We don't serve the outcast because they are more valuable or morally superior, but because it is simply obedience to God, exercising care and stewardship in love to those who need it. This is called "charity".

We just watched the movie Harriet in early March. Maybe you saw something different, but we were amazed by the radical contrast between the value her “owner “ gave to her and her real value both as a person and as a recipient of love and grace that she could pass on to others. Even in the face of devastating loss, when she finds her husband is lost to her, her value does not change.

Is there anything else in the universe that determines its own meaning or its own value? Does a chair determine its meaning or value? Does an idea or a dog or a potato or a business or a currency determine its own value? So how can I determine my own meaning or value? What differences would make me able to do that?

So when you note that it is selfish to assume humans have importance on a cosmic level, you are absolutely right! This is why it is so important to see that many humans who have done this have committed unspeakable atrocities, sometimes in their own name and sometimes, tragically, in the name of their god. But the Bible clearly communicates that humans are fallen and yet valued by God who gave His Son Jesus to redeem them.

What does that say about how God values me and every other person on earth? I have to conclude that I have value because the one who made me also loves me so much that He is willing to die to demonstrate my value to Him and bring me back into a relationship with Him. The Bible tells us “But God demonstrates His love to us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5) The value that God places on us is real (demonstrated in Christ) and it is permanent (because He maintains that value, not me, not my circumstances, not my relationships). The amazing thing is that my value remains unchanged whether or not I accept it, ignore it or even spit on it. True value can only be assigned by the Creator and not by the creation. Anything else is worthless.

Purpose with this perspective is a massive and unmoving mountain before us “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your mind and all your strength”. This joins what we know about God with a heart of thankfulness and joy and hands that serve those around us with courage, compassion and sacrifice.

Final questions:

Am I willing to love God above everything else, even my own safety, comfort, reputation, security or future? Is this purpose the central expression of both the Old and the New Testament? Is it a true reflection of God's desires for us and command to us? How do we know that for sure? How do my daily activities and conversations reflect this grand purpose? Is this even possible without a deep shift in my character and the desires of my heart as well as how I filter and process ideas? How can I learn to love God more completely, hate what He hates and love what He loves?

Conversation - part 8

 How can we build understanding with those who profoundly disagree with us?

Be sure to read the previous posts on this topic from January 2022 to get the full story...

This was Derek's 7th and last post in the conversation. I will provide my response later because this is such a long entry and I should add a few notes at the end here. His opening was really nice and I appreciated his friendly tone and recognition of our growing understanding. He never answered my last post and this brings to mind many questions for me. Did he feel that no more could be accomplished by continuing the discussion? Were there events in his life that changed his outlook dramatically or even made him unable to respond? Why did he later delete all his posts? I may never know. 

Derek's last post:

Hey Paul, I have been busy studying for midterms so I have taken a while to get back to you, but I have finally finished my response. I hope that you carefully read through it, and I apologize for the length (I think it's over 1000 words, sorry), but it shouldn’t be too difficult to digest.

Being a father doesn’t teach one very much about the biology and physics behind the creation of life, as you seem to suggest it does, but I do appreciate the distinction you are making with respect to what you meant when you wrote of logic not giving you life.

I have come to the conclusion that we create our own meaning in life -- this statement may sound silly or trivial, and in a way I would agree, but I don’t believe there is any evidence for some convoluted “great cosmic purpose” for humans existing, and I think that this viewpoint is honestly selfish and it presupposes that humans are incredibly important at a cosmic scale, which I think is ridiculous if you even consider something like the scale of the universe, most of which humans will never actually interact with or observe at all. I think this idea of cosmic purpose, as I am calling it, is what you are mostly getting at in the beginning of your response, but again I find it ridiculous to give humans such abstract importance for no reason.

I will say, lacking an understanding of biological evolution, it would be almost impossible to deny that humans were, in terms of importance, leagues above all other creatures, since humans can do so many seemingly magical things which no other animal, no matter how diverse or strange it is, can do. However, from the perspective of evolution, humans are simply animals and our tools really aren’t as impressive as we might think they are, especially at a cosmic scale.

‘Problems in the world’ are caused by complex interplay of many different subtle factors, saying that there is a primary cause for problems in general is ridiculous.

I see there are other questions about my “purpose in life”, and how I’m “valuable as a person”, which are arbitrary and subjective measures, and I have already explained partially why I don’t believe in cosmic importance of humanity’s existence.

I think I could more concisely summarize my previous statements about logical reasoning by stating that logical reasoning as a whole cannot be ‘caused’ by anything, since cause/effect is intrinsically logical, by definition. This may seem trivial, but it ALL has to do with our definitions, which is what logic is all about. In fact, I could argue that the entire reason I’m an atheist is because I am careful with my words. This is why I believe claiming that logic is ‘caused by something’ is utterly contradictory.

Look, I don’t even have to make a historical argument for morality being separate from religion. Just know that you can google the subject and find pretty convincing historical arguments, such as with the history of burying the dead.

Rather, let me make a case from my perspective: I have moral values, and I can tell you, at least partially, where they come from:

1. My understanding that treating others kindly results in other treating others kindly, which in turn results in a better world.
2. My empathy towards other animals/people, which is admittedly not a logical thought process, but rather a product of both my upbringing and my emotional response centers. However, I would make the argument that the importance of empathy is logically obvious from my above point.
3. My desire to help the world have a better future, despite my belief that I am going to disappear forever after I die, which, similarly, comes from my upbringing and from my understanding of empathy.

It isn’t rocket science, and there really isn’t a great mystery. Morals come from life experiences, from what your parents teach you, and from your brain chemistry. It’s a combination of these, and possibly more, factors. Also, I could make an evolutionary argument about the importance of morality in human (conscious) society, being that the evolution of empathetic feelings and sentiments cause people to stick together and form communities, to communicate, form language, work out issues with non-violence, etc… all of which act to prolong survival, and increase odds of reproductive success. My main point is that morality can indeed be understood as a logical mechanism, rather than a greatly mysterious entity (the same is true with consciousness, I would argue).

Now, we get into my beef with the terms “spiritual”, etc… , which I contest are inherently rhetorical. The concepts of spirituality, the paranormal, etc… exist because of man’s inability to fully understand the world around us. Think about it, what EXACTLY is a spirit? It is described by many as , say, “ the part of you that survives after you die, which includes your personality”, right? Well, doesn’t this sound ridiculous when you try to actually contemplate it? How can this be possible? What substance is a spirit made of? Is it your personality from the moment you died, or your personality from another age? What mechanism is responsible for this? Can we mathematically model this phenomena? Why should I even believe this is true? Does anybody have any actual evidence of this happening, or even a sound argument for why such a thing should exist? What about conjoined twins - do they have one or two spirits? The brain is responsible for one’s personality, which is something that is a relatively new discovery for mankind. How does the brain connect to the spirit? What about the fact that your brain is literally comprised of two personalities? So many seemingly fundamental questions go completely unanswered every time I bring this up with someone who endorses these ideas of spirituality, etc… and it seems to me that the spirit is just the precursor to understanding the functions of the brain (which we still don't fully comprehend).

Think about “the paranormal” as well. People describe an event as being paranormal only in the case that they cannot explain the event, or do not understand it. In this way, 'paranormal' is just a superfluous term which communicates “ I don’t understand that”. However, people who endorse the paranormal typically claim “the event cannot be explained” and then do not provide evidence for why this should be believed. They might rightfully dismiss some logical explanations, but then they make the astonishing leap to dismissing all possible logical explanations.

If you remember me talking about how problematic it is to state that logic is caused by some external “thing”, it is similarly problematic to state that something can be caused without logic being involved, since we arrive at an instance of saying “A causes B” but we are not actually using the correct definition of “cause” (since we are saying the causation is illogical - which doesn’t make sense - the whole point I’m trying to make). To summarize, ‘explaining’ something as “paranormal” is actually just evading explanation using rhetoric.

Once you start trying to explain the paranormal, it just becomes scientific theory so that the qualification “paranormal” becomes completely superfluous.

Similarly, once you start trying to study and understand the "spiritual", you realize that there is nothing there.

A few notes and some questions:

So, in some ways we are back to where we began but with a very different tone and hopefully a deeper appreciation for the other person in the conversation. I believe that this is almost all we can expect but certainly we can pray for more, knowing that the Spirit of God is at work in our hearts and is really the only one who can change us. I pray that I was sensitive to His leading in this conversation and that I was truly attentive to the hopes and the fears behind what Derek so graciously shared with me.

As you can see, there are still a few difficult points to deal with from his post. Now he is trying to define the term "spiritual" but it seems to be mixed up with the idea of "paranormal". I address this briefly in my response. The bigger issue, however, is the meaning of life and the value of human life in particular. Thankfully he did spend quite a bit of time on the questions I had provided. His answers are fairly good, considering the perspective he is working from. This is where I spent most of my time in my final response. Meanwhile, how would you respond to his post? How can you provide a real and useful definition of "spiritual", if that is even possible? What can you say about the meaning of life or the value of human life? How can you know that your answers to anything here have real value or meaning?

Conversation - part 7

How can we build understanding with those who profoundly disagree with us?

Be sure to read the previous posts on this topic from January 2022 to get the full story...

A few comments:

Now we are nearing the end of our conversation. This post from Derek reveals a continued shift in his attitude and openness. It was really encouraging to see this from him, though there is still some miscommunication at times. He also seems to be reading my posts more carefully, directly responding to my questions, clarifying ideas and noting the occasional shared perspectives. These are good signs! Again, it is not my primary intention to convince him of anything by proving him wrong. Rather the point of the conversation is to share our own perspectives, grow in our understanding and appreciation of each other and lay a basis for a real friendship. This now seems to be the direction in his post as well. These are both a bit long...

Derek wrote:

Hello Paul, thanks for keeping up the discussion. I really enjoy getting to share my views, and learn about how you see the world. Also, this gives me great practice articulating my thoughts clearly, which I have trouble doing with such complex topics.

I am not an atheist because I haven't seen or heard god. In fact, if I did see or hear god, as many people claim they have, then I would have to rule out the possibility of my experience being some type of delusion before I could begin to claim that my experience is evidence for god's existence.

Rather, I am an atheist because I haven’t yet discovered any objective evidence in support of any god’s existence or been exposed to any sort of logical argument with acceptable assumptions which proves that any sort of god must exist.

You say “even logic can’t give me life” but I’m confused as to what you mean by this. The entire process of childbirth is a logical process, down to the biochemical level. What leads you to believe god has anything to do with the process of childbirth? I mean, it just doesn’t make sense to me. There isn’t a great mystery, like there was when the bible was written, with respect to where children “come from”. Science has bridged the gap completely.

You also claim that science doesn’t explain consciousness, but this is another example of where I believe you would be right using “hasn’t yet” rather than “doesn’t”, since the latter is a rather bold affirmative statement about the limitations of science and reason.

You say “logic is not natural” but this confuses me, since the very definition of natural is existing in nature, uncaused by man. If you accept that logical cause-and-effect still holds true outside of your own experiences, which I hope you do, then logical reasoning exists independent of man - which makes it natural, by definition of the word “natural”.

You say “logic is completely dependent upon the existence of order and design” which is interesting to me, and it got me thinking pretty hard for a while until I thought of something. How can logic depend on anything, in any meaningful sense? This is philosophically problematic to me, since the claim that logical reasoning as a whole depends on “A” effectively presupposes a logical dependence of the entire system of logic upon “A”… which is self defeating, since then the entire system of logic is caused by itself, rather than having a completely removed cause. Sorry if this hurts your head to think about, this avenue of ontological discussion is incredibly rich and complex.

I have read of Nietzsche’s worries about the spread of atheism, specifically to his worries about declining morality, etc… and I have to say I believe it is demonstrated that morality historically predates religion, and I can argue that I have morals as an atheist, which don’t derive from the bible or from religion at all. So for me, these worries are based on a mistaken chain of causality, and historical ignorance.

With respect to Newton, he was absolutely an unbelievable genius. He was a pioneer in mathematics (although the common claim that he single handedly “discovered” calculus gives him WAY too much credit) and he essentially pioneered the field of physics, but this doesn’t mean that his views should be automatically considered brilliant just for his namesake. He was a major proponent of alchemy, which of course was nothing more than pseudoscience to begin with. In fact, it is conjectured by some historians that Isaac Newton spent more time trying to find “patterns” in the bible, or trying to transmute metals into gold, than he did doing work in mathematics or physics, and I have always wondered how much more he would have accomplished if he would have rejected religion and alchemy, and dedicated those thousands of hours to seeking real truth.

If you are interested in Newton's biblical studies, I believe at least some of it is archived online.

I am always searching very hard for truth, so if god is real and he wants to reveal himself to me I’m completely open to that. However, I won’t take anything less than what I can be sure is the truth.

Commentary: 

There are a few confusing ideas in his post and I am not completely sure how to address them. The comment about "nature as uncaused by man" is fine but doesn't address my real meaning or use of the word from my previous post. His comment that "logic must not presuppose a logical dependence on something else" is also adequate when we assume that logic is "natural" and uncaused by man. The problem with this is that we actually live in an ordered and logical universe that we can know and study. But why is this the case? Is this the guaranteed result of a random evolutionary process? Has this result ever happened at any level with any simplified environment without the intervention of intelligent design? If not, then how can logic be truly uncaused? Note that there are plenty of random and illogical tendencies all around us... Things get disorganized. I lose my car keys. The faucet begins to leak. The tornado wipes out a town. We get sick and die. Everything is given to decay and nothing ever "puts itself back together" without someone there to do the planning and get the job done. The "natural world" is moving from order to chaos, not the other way around. There is quite a bit of deep philosophy here and I'm nearing the limit of my cognitive abilities!! 

Once again, my response was an attempt to clarify a few things but also to move toward a deeper understanding of who Derek is. The questions I use here are ones I've developed over the last few years to investigate my own beliefs and the beliefs of others. They address some of the basic issues of the heart such as conviction of sin, forgiveness, faith, hope, identity, trust, surrender and purpose.

My response:

Yes, I’m really grateful for this discussion as well, Derek. It is not my primary intention to convince you of anything because I believe that the discussion has value in itself. This really helps us both think through the consistency of our ideas, learn to communicate them more clearly and also to benefit from the friendship that comes through respectful dialogue. It seems that many things I’m reading and listening to these days connect to aspects of this conversation, so I end up thinking about how to continue this discussion at least once a day. Let me respond to your post and then address a couple related issues.

What do I mean by “logic can’t give me life”? I understand very well the biological and mechanical aspects of life because I am both a husband and a father. This is not what I mean. My statement is addressing the quality and the meaning of life. What is the purpose of human life and my life in particular? What value do I have as an individual apart from what I know or can contribute to society? Is there something more to human existence than consuming and producing (the material or natural functions of biological life)? These questions, from a humanistic worldview, define the value of the person as being dependent on what they contribute to society.

So when I refer to “life”, I mean “How does my response to these questions reflect a deep and meaningful understanding of reality while shaping how I live and interact with others?” Here are the questions I would challenge you to address as well (which may take months or years…).

• What do you think is the primary cause of the problems in our world?
• What do you believe to be your greatest need of all time?
• Is there a solution to the problems you currently face? Describe the solution.
• How would you describe yourself and how does that make you valuable as a person?
• If you were to be the judge and jury for everyone, how would that transform our world into a happy, peaceful and productive society?
• How would you describe your purpose in life and how are you currently fulfilling that mission?

As I look back through our discussion, it seems that we have slightly different approaches to how logic is used and how it enables us to come to conclusions. I do appreciate your comments on the “origin of logic”, although I confess this is a bit beyond me and I don’t see how this argument is self defeating. But it seems that you want to force deductive logic into situations that really call for inductive logic with a ‘coefficient of accuracy’. Please correct me if I’m wrong. When I come to a conclusion in the area of philosophy or theology, I don’t believe that these can usually be addressed by deductive logic (I’m thinking out loud here). It seems that I depend more on inductive logic which allows me to draw probable conclusions from observations, history and personal experience while evaluating how accurately these conclusions describe reality. Does this make sense to you?

Thank you also for your very insightful comments on Nietzsche and Newton. But I’m not sure I understand how morality predates religion. For me, both morality and religion are completely integral to the human experience. Morality certainly predates Judaism and Christianity, but essentially religion can be defined as recognition of a spiritual reality (real or perceived) and the human response to that reality. Morality may be a sense of right and wrong and our responsibility to act, think and speak in alignment with what is right. For those who do not recognize a spiritual reality (absolute or eternal standards of right and wrong) those standards either come from within ourselves (heart/mind/spirit?) or as cultural and social expectations - either way, it ends up to be a type of religion either of “me as god” or “culture as god”. Maybe you have a better way of expressing this?

Questions for you:

What is the point of discussions like these in your experience? Have you been able to work beyond the tendency toward conflict and differing perspectives? How did you do that? What was the result? Do you think it is more important to focus on the relational aspect and potential in such conversations? Why or why not?

Conversation - part 6

How can we build understanding with those who profoundly disagree with us?

Be sure to read the previous posts on this topic from January 2022 to get the full story...

Commentary:

This post shows a real shift in Derek's attitude and willingness to open up. I was very grateful for that. He even tells some of his story about growing up in a Christian home, although there is no information on how his parents lived out their faith or helped him to grow spiritually or intellectually. My impression is that there were strong secular forces at work in his life, either through friendships, teachers or other adults which influenced his ideas about God and faith. 

Derek's post:

I could be convinced that science/logical reasoning had an inherent limitation in its ability to explain phenomena if you could provide me a logically sound argument along with acceptable premises in support of this. It's that simple, and it is 100% objective. That's the beauty of logic.

You act like it is completely subjective what I consider to be evidence, but it is simply what I have stated above - a logically sound argument with acceptable premises. This is also the type of evidence that I would require in order to believe a god exists (or physical evidence of some sort, of course).

The 'logically sound' aspect means that the argument doesn't violate itself or contain a logical contradiction, and the 'acceptable premises' part means that the argument begins with axioms which anybody would consider to be obviously true.

To recap, the two claims:
"science hasn't yet explained A"
"science is not able to explain A"
are completely different, and you need a logically sound argument supporting whichever one you are claiming to be true. The first claim is trivial to support, but the second one requires, as I keep repeating, a logically sound argument with acceptable premises.

I will repeat this again: if you can actually logically prove the second claim, you will indeed be awarded the nobel prize since it would be a major finding relating to science and mathematics, and our ability to understand the universe.

There isn't really much of a story as to why I am an atheist, other than the fact that I have taken a very close look at all religious arguments I have been able to find, from as many different religions as I could manage. In this seven or so year examination, I have found that the arguments are all very well dressed, and that they appear to be reasonable until you break the intuition-logic barrier and realize that they don't actually make sense.

I mean, I used to be a christian until I was a teenager, and then I slowly realized that I hadn't ever seen god, or spoken to god. This bothered me greatly, and it kept me awake for some nights, and I would get to sleep by reading some argument online that would affirm me god existed. However, I would wake up and go through one, two, maybe a few days before I had time to think again, and I would realize that there was some sort of hole in the argument that didn't quite add up. This kept happening, and I started to think Jesus and the Christian God might not actually be real. I really was unsettled by my inability to confirm my beliefs. I looked at arguments in support of other gods from other religions, and realized they were all the same in their flaws. Every argument was either "the universe is too complex, ..." or "god's existence is so obvious that it is undeniable" or "atheists aren't real", or it was a well dressed pseudo-logical argument that would quench my thirst for a while, but then I would realize it was flawed too.

Fast forward, and I have come to the conclusion that the average person's inability to distinguish logical reasoning from flawed argumentation is hurting society greatly, and that it is one of the biggest threats to humanity for a number of reasons. This extends beyond religions too, and goes into many aspects of society.

Commentary:

I was still wondering what type of evidence Derek needed. It is as if I had not provided any arguments yet at all! His comments about not seeing or hearing God are not based on logical or rational evidences, but rather experiential evidence, which is tied to how most of us interpret evidence anyway. I probably had already answered his questions clearly and concisely with references to history, philosophy and the Bible. If we demand that others present the same kind of ‘evidence’ that they demand of us, we usually don't end up any closer to agreeing than when we started. I'll include a modified infographic to demonstrate the types of evidences that are commonly accepted in most fields outside of direct scientific experimentation. 

He spent quite a bit of time explaining logic to me, but I'm not convinced that he knew how to recognize it or use it. So my response had to go in a different direction. I also needed to validate his desire to understand the world and to communicate with me about these topics.

My response:

Yes, logical reasoning is really important and I am also interested in this. So, thanks for your extended explanation and a bit of your story. It does make me very sad to hear that having not seen or spoken to God, you must conclude that He doesn't exist. You are not alone in this, as I have not seen or heard an audible voice. But, logically speaking, that doesn't mean that he is not speaking to us, only that we don't hear him or are expecting something different.

I have also heard arguments like "the universe is too complex", etc. but those certainly are not the ones that convince me either. My faith in Jesus is not from having seen him or heard him speak to me, but because I can't live without Him. I know that I have no good in myself, no value, no purpose unless it is given to me by the one who gives me life. Even logic can't give me life or purpose because logic does not explain why we have "something" instead of "nothing", or "life" instead of "non-life", or "consciousness" instead of just a brain, or beauty or love or even logic itself. Don't get me wrong, I love logic as well. But I must conclude logically that logic and order in the universe are not natural and are certainly not a result of a random sequence of events. Logic is completely dependent on the existence of order and design, not to mention the very strange idea that words actually have meaning - a correlation to the real world - and that we can "know" the real meaning of words.

Here are 2 interesting quotes for you (from people much smarter than me). Friedrich Nietzsche said, "Two things will happen: the 20th Century will become the bloodiest century in history because the 19th Century killed God and universal madness will break out." Isaac Newton said, "He who is presumptuous enough to think that he can find the true principles of physics and the laws of natural things by the force alone of his own mind, and the internal light of his reason, must either suppose the world exists by necessity, and by the same necessity follows the law proposed; or if the order of Nature was established by the will of God, the [man] himself, a miserable reptile, can tell what was fittest to be done." They lived very different lives and had very different beliefs but they both realized the logical result of a world without God, a world that we are living in now.

My dear friend, please keep searching and I pray that God will show himself to you in a new and very real way - not for any religious reason, but so that you will know Jesus who offers us real life.

Questions for you:

What evidence would you demand to know for sure that God exists and that He loves you? Would it be reasonable and fair to demand that same quality of evidence to prove that God does not exist and/or does not love you? Why or why not? Why are we always asking for evidence anyway? Do we really change our minds because of evidence, or is it something else that changes our hearts before our minds are able to change?

Conversation - part 5

How can we build understanding with those who profoundly disagree with us?

Be sure to read the previous posts on this topic from January 2022 to get the full story...

It seems that Derek wrote this in a hurry and maybe did not even intend to post. I received a notification about the post and copied the text, but later was not able to find it in the comments feed.  Some of his ideas here are confusing to me and seem to be contradictory. It is also clear that he did not view the video debate on "Can science explain everything?" as he makes no reference to its content. This my be why he does not understand my argument about science not being able to explain the "why", which leads him to spend a lot of time going in circles. The questions "how" and "why" are very different questions and real science has never pretended nor intended to answer the question "why". Derek is equating logical reasoning with science, which is another problem. Science is a subset of logical reasoning and depends completely on the use of logic whereas logical reasoning is a much broader concept and foundational to the existence of modern science.

He concludes by saying that I have provided no evidence or reasoning for him to change his views, which is his issue, not mine. My intention was never to provide conclusive evidence, but to engage in a conversation which challenged both of us to think more deeply and fully about these ideas. Our entire conversation is about clarifying terminology and identifying the strengths and weaknesses of certain perspectives. What is this if it is not the process of reasoning?

Derek wrote:

Let me just respond to a few points. I disagree with whatever you think "materialism" is. Materialism, at least from my perspective, is the direct consequence of the realization that religious rhetoric (soul, spirit, transcendence, etc...) is meaningless (without definition), and that arguments in support of religious claims are, in my experiences, all flawed. To use the term "material" in "materialism" is honestly silly, since it is a philosophical rabbit hole in and of itself attempting to pinpoint a concrete definition for what it means to be material. Just know my materialism is best described as my observation that all attempts to explain to me why "logic/science can't explain everything" have been deeply flawed, and illogical in nature. I fail to see to what extremity this belief can be taken. "A materialistic worldview also denies the value of love, grace, hope, forgiveness, joy, and such, as meaningful or essential to human nature." - I disagree, I would argue that psychology and biology can quite competently explain why things such as love, hope, forgiveness, etc... can be viewed as important to society and to the individual. The only real difference is that you claim these things' value with respect to humanity cannot be explained by logical reasoning, which I haven't seen anybody demonstrate. You claim that science can't ever answer the "why" of things... which is really the crux of our disagreement. I think what you really mean to say is that science hasn't yet explained everything. That's not how you word it, but that really is what you mean. You can, as you are doing, always focus on details which science hasn't yet uncovered, and then claim this to be evidence that science DOESN'T explain the "why", when in reality science HASN'T YET explained the "why". This is a crucial difference that I think you still are missing. Let me word things a bit differently now. The claim "science never really addresses the "why" of things" is an affirmative claim that science and consequently logical reasoning have inherent limitations in their ability to explain observable phenomena. I need some sort of demonstration of this being true, or some example of something science CAN'T explain, rather than examples of things science HASN'T YET explained. Any demonstration of why science/logic can't explain a particular phenomena would work as well. I'm really not a complicated person to convince, I just need some sort of demonstration that you are right, that's all. I'm not asking for anything unreasonable, am I? If you were to actually present me with some piece of evidence that science has inherent limitation, I would be completely open to studying it in depth, and honestly it would fascinate me. However, without any sort of evidence or reasoning in your favor that I can perceive, I must say I'm still unconvinced of many of your claims.

Commentary:

As we see, Derek and I continue to struggle with basic definitions of words. First is the issue of materialism. A better term for this is naturalism because materialism can also mean a tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values. Materialism as a philosophy is a position which denies the existence of anything that is outside the natural world or scientific explanation. There is a logical fallacy in this which is obvious to anyone looking at it from the outside but which seems to escape those committed to this position. There are many other challenges to a materialistic view of the universe, some of which are addressed here. Of course, I also need to be aware of my own blind spots and be humble enough to accept the critique of others as I try to align my beliefs about the world with the evidence available to me. One amazing aspect of the Bible is that it accurately describes the human condition with both the worst and the best examples, aligning spiritual realities with the real experiences of real people. You can read a lot more about these ideas in my post Comparing the scope of faith and science

In my response I began to shift my interaction with Derek to find out who he is and what aspects of his personal history have shaped his current beliefs. I felt that this change would help me understand him better and also would be more productive than to continue a debate about definitions that we can't seem to agree on.

My response:

I've seen another response from you but it is not showing up in this thread... You have captured the essence of our discussion, however, and this is exactly where I most need to continue questioning my own assumptions.

You say that you "disagree with whatever I think 'materialism' is". Here is a definition of materialism (or we could use the term “naturalism”) - the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted. -- I’m not sure how this is confusing or silly because this is a very common definition and certainly did not come from me. Definitions don’t come from our experiences but from an understanding of how the word is used and a limitation on what the word does not refer to.

You also mention that you are easy to convince if I could provide you with some evidence. This sounds great but we are still having trouble with agreeing on what evidence is or which type of evidence is acceptable. Thankfully, it is not really my responsibility to convince you, but rather your responsibility to evaluate what you believe and why you believe it. I might say that "this is one thing that science is not able to explain" but you might say “not yet” and we are back where we started. I do want to tell you that I am constantly evaluating what I believe and why I believe it. Admittedly, my starting point may be quite different from yours and this certainly shapes how I filter and process information. Beginning with Genesis 1:1 gives both a purpose for the universe as well as a key to interpret everything from the perspective of how and why God interacts with his creation throughout history. As C.S. Lewis says “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen - not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” If I refuse to accept the resurrection of Jesus, an historical fact that the Jewish religious leaders and the Romans knew to be true but could not accept while the disciples and multitudes of Christians have died (and continue to be killed for) believing, then I deny what is as plain as the sun in the sky.

Thankfully we are both able to discuss this respectfully and I really appreciate your good questions. I wish we could sit and talk because I’m sure there is a good story behind your life and why you have come to the conclusions you have.

Questions for you:

What types of evidence do you consider acceptable regarding explanations about the universe or about God? How can you be sure these are valid? Are there experiences in your life that have modified your "list of acceptable evidences"? Why is that? What circumstances might force you to adjust your most basic beliefs about the world?

Conversation - part 4

How can we build understanding with those who profoundly disagree with us?

Be sure to read the previous posts on this topic from January 2022 to get the full story...

Commentary:

His second post in response to me was interesting and demonstrated that he was still trying to clarify several things. There seemed to be many misunderstandings related to my ideas. I felt that either I did not express myself well enough or that there was just a real difficulty in finding common definitions for terminology. For example, his comment about justice seems to miss my point entirely. I was not trying to express a desire or wish concerning justice but rather a larger understanding of the term in order to prove a point about the quality and scope of what we know true justice to be. Without this fuller understanding of the term, we would never need to improve our application of justice. An incomplete understanding of justice results in very poor applications of it in everyday life. Words are tricky things!

Derek wrote:

You seem to still be dodging my entire issue with the existence of hell. I understand that to raise a child, or to have a pet, etc... you have to correct them and help them learn to do the right things. However, the part I fail to understand is why eternal torture needs to be a part of this process. How does eternal damnation help a human being to grow as a person, exactly? And the only correlation that I fail to understand is that between eternal damnation and love, which is something you still haven't actually explained. Would you ever sentence your students or your children to eternal damnation for a mistake that they made? Would doing this help them grow?

I am confused about your paragraph relating to "Justice". Just because you want something to be true doesn't mean it has to be true. Moreover, what's just for you might be unjust for me, so this is very subjective.

One thing I've found is that Christianity, and other such theistic religions, make it incredibly easy for con-artists with anti-science agendas to work their way in, and use their money to support the religion, infiltrate it, and teach people to deny and misunderstand science. Religion doesn't have any need for logical coherence, so this makes it a perfect platform for the people who profit from science denial. In this case it is a direct consequence of the inability to distinguish between logical and rhetorical arguments, which is again immediately derived from religions such as Christianity, and the teaching thereof. This is why I believe christianity itself is a major part of the problem, rather than just a good set of beliefs in the wrong place and wrong time. If there were no christianity, then there would be no major channels for bad information to find its way into misguided minds, let alone no misguided minds to begin with (save those from other similar religions).

Explain to me how believing in something such as materialism is dangerous, because I think I've made my case quite clear.

I haven't made the claim that we understand all about the universe because obviously we don't. I just want one of the millions of people who claim "Science can't explain the entire universe" to actually back it up, that's all. Give me an example, or explain to me why it is you have come to believe logical reasoning has limitation to what it can explain. That's all I ask, yet I never receive a coherent answer.

The bible defines faith many times, and it defines it differently than you do. In the bible it is apparent, and I can fetch verses if you want me to, that "faith" means something closer to how I chose to define it. The bible speaks of "faith" as being belief in god's existence, despite evidence not being available to confirm it.

Commentary:

This opened up a few more topics but first I had to take more time to further clarify definitions for him. I had no reason to attack any of his ideas, only to address his questions and try to provide a bit more perspective for him. There is a primary question here: Is God good or not? This seems to be the heart of our different viewpoints. If Derek is not convinced of God's goodness, then there might be no reason to accept the historical or logical evidence of His existence. Thankfully we have so much evidence in the person of Jesus and we also have evidence in the lives of those who demonstrate His love to others in the way they live.

My response:

Thanks so much for taking the time to write again. I really appreciate your thoughtful and polite engagement on these topics - quite refreshing! Unfortunately, there's too much to cover...

We're still not connecting on the purpose (or even a definition) of hell even though I am doing my best to be clear. I see that your primary concern is the "why" of hell, which shows that you believe purpose to be essential to the understanding of an idea - I'll return to this later...

But you are right, hell is not for growing! I certainly don't want to go there and I don't want anyone else to go either. That is one reason I'm having this conversation with you (and because I enjoy discussing big ideas). I do want to engage in these types of conversations every day through opportunities to serve others and to build relationships, hopefully demonstrating God's love for every person. God gives each of us the light we need to come to Him but He doesn't force anyone. You have another choice even now - what a gift!

Dangerous - you may have misunderstood my meaning. Materialism may not be dangerous for you now but, when taken to an extreme, as in the case of Dialectical Materialism, it demands violent opposition and aggression toward anyone or anything which suggests that it may be wrong. A materialistic worldview also denies the value of love, grace, hope, forgiveness, joy, and such, as meaningful or essential to human nature. Most people (to leave room for special cases) are not able to function emotionally or socially outside of a deeper meaning and purpose to life and, if you take the time to talk to those who have lived under Communism, they are not able to do so either. This brings us back to your concern with "purpose" and the question of "why" in our exchange on hell. The "why" is central to understanding anything. Materialism all but ignores this, at least from my understanding of it.

We might get some help from a debate I found this week at youtube.com/watch?v=fSYwCaFkYno -

I'm sure you can follow the arguments of both Peter and John. Even the first 20 minutes are helpful to clarify the Christian perspective on why science can't explain everything. My reduction of John's argument here is that science can and does beautifully answer "what, when and how" but is never able to really address "why" - the issue of intention. (NOTE: I don't appreciate the condescending and unkind comments toward Peter below the video. Peter is simply acting on his beliefs.)

I agree that illogical conclusions and even misguided and dangerous consequences seem to be the norm when dealing with humans like us, even with those who claim to be "free of religious beliefs". But this doesn't disqualify truth from being true. We must be careful to sort truth from error in every worldview, all of which have some elements of truth. Are you suggesting that Muslim extremists are not misguided nor dangerous? Islam is a theistic religion but with a very different worldview and understanding of god! So, there are plenty of "major channels for bad information to find its way into misguided minds"!! I'm not defending those who use Christianity as a cover or a tool to deceive and hurt others, but I'm just trying to provide you with some perspective.

You say "Religion doesn't have any need for logical coherence", but in order for something to be true, we both agree that a belief system (including yours) would have EVERY need for logical coherence. Science (meaning the natural, applied and pure sciences) must supply corroborating evidence for any theological or philosophical perspective in those areas where they have something to say. But philosophy, psychology, history, art, theology and other areas of the humanities (social sciences) make truth claims that are outside the purview of those sciences but not in opposition to them.

Logical reasoning is certainly limited to our current understanding of the world. But I sense that you still have an incomplete definition of faith. We can look at Hebrews 11 as a prime example (which you might also choose to quote in support of "belief without evidence"). Faith is not simply a set of beliefs, but rather actions that result from evidence that those beliefs can be trusted. More specifically, acting on the knowledge of a person (or idea), which we have reason to trust completely. Take a look at the examples in Hebrews 11 and you will see that each person depended on evidence, but not the type of evidence that you can test in a laboratory - rather evidence based on a relationship and knowledge that extends to realities beyond the material world. Look at the examples in John 4 and you will see I define faith correctly. We are back to the question "Is God good?" If he is, then we have every reason to trust Him and act on that trust. If not, then we should not trust him. I am convinced (in faith supported by evidence) that He is good and there is no possibility for me to become truly good outside of a growing relationship with Him which sets a pattern and purpose for all I do.

Please let me know if something is not clear or I missed an important point from your last post. In the meantime I'll try to clarify my thoughts on justice for you. Thank you Derek! It is a real pleasure to talk with you. Again, I don't have all the answers, but your questions demand a thoughtful response. There are real answers found in the person of Jesus. I would encourage you to look more closely at his life, real evidence of God's goodness and love for you.

Questions for you:

What evidence do you have of God's goodness? How do you employ both faith and reason in your understanding of God's character and activity? How should God's goodness transform your life and your interactions with others?

Conversation - part 3

How can we build understanding with those who profoundly disagree with us?

Be sure to read the previous posts on this topic from January 2022 to get the full story...

   

Commentary:

After my last response to Derek, I realized that maybe I did not really address the issue of Reformed theology, which he seems to have a particular issue with. (See his comments on predestination in part 2.) This is tricky because, as C.S. Lewis writes in The Abolition of Man, you need to be “inside” the faith in order to be able to critique it authentically. We know this is a primary cause of many theological disagreements: a foundational misunderstanding of the source of truth and universal morality. Morality is not something that is imposed on us, but rather something that we impose on others or on ourselves. However, we always do this either in a vacuum (where there is no concept or recognition of who God is and His character of Goodness) or with some level of understanding that God is good and that any goodness we have originates with and from Him but must be refined and encouraged in us as humans. Anyway, I tried to address these ideas briefly for Derek before he was able to respond to my previous post. 

My post:

Sorry about the essay! I may have gotten carried away but I still didn’t address everything you brought up in your well written post. Here are a couple more comments:

1. Reformed doctrine demands some attention. I don’t come from this perspective but I completely understand your difficulty with it! Some of our friends of that persuasion claim that because God is sovereign, we have no opportunity to seek God of our own volition. Their primary question then is “Is God sovereign?” I don’t think this is a wise approach - if he is God, he must be [soverign]. But we don’t know what that means in terms of who knows what and how that impacts my decisions today. A better approach is to first ask “Is God good?” Then we can come to an understanding of His character and intentions toward us. This is certainly a key point for most of the debate in public forums such as this and is much more central to an understanding of the Bible.

2. I don’t agree with Prager on everything, primarily because he has no solution for the problem of evil. This may be why so many of his videos leave me disappointed. I see that if God wants us to be good, He must be good Himself. The problem is that we are not good - at least I know I’m not! If we think we are good, then we have no need to be forgiven. But if we are not good, it’s not “good enough” to just start being good now because there is too much hurt already in my past that I can’t ever fix. The only solution is that I pay for what I’ve done wrong (or if someone else pays - but that’s unthinkable, isn’t it?) If God is really good, then he would have to provide a way to both forgive sin and pay for it at the same time! That would be a good God!

So, I’ve gone on long enough and don’t have time to continue. Why don’t you stop by and see me here in Budapest and we can have a real discussion? I’ll even make you dinner and you can meet the family ;)

Questions for you:

Why is the issue of goodness so important to us in modern society? Do you think that people are primarily good or evil? Where does that leave you in regard to your expectations of yourself and others? If we view others and ourselves as primarily good, then why in the world does the Bible teach that we need a Savior?

Conversation - part 2

How can we build understanding with those who profoundly disagree with us?

Although Derek answered right away to my post, his tone was still quite accusatory and so he didn’t provide any real sense of gratefulness for the chance to discuss these ideas. As I read his post, I tried to consider why he communicates in this manner and what his previous experiences might have been to lead to this attitude. Of course, there are also some weak arguments and historical misinterpretations, but that is normal and just shows a lack of maturity and knowledge. 

Another brief comment... Notice that he did not really respond to my point about the resurrection of Christ. He is happy to debate my faith in my wife's love for me but is not willing to concede that historical evidence of the resurrection is actually evidence of something that is scientifically unexplainable. This is probably the heart of the whole debate and the point where each one of us must make a choice either to accept the claims of Christ or to deny them. However, it does not mean that we should stop the conversation. On the contrary, engaging with kindness, asking good questions and graciously pointing out truth is the very least we can do for those who do not agree with us.

This was his 1st post in direct response to me:

The concepts of justice and fairness do not come from Christianity. Any example of "justness" you can give me will almost surely come from a pre-existing culture that wasn't exposed to Christianity. 

Moreover, what evidence do you have of the claim that Christianity itself has anything to do with modern concepts of equality and fairness? What about the fact that Christianity has been, and in many ways continues to be, the direct enemy of scientific progress and social equality? What about the wars that have been fought in the name of christianity?

As for the barbaric concept of 'hell', would you ever personally decide to torture your child eternally if they didn't obey your commands? Because that is what your god is doing, according to the bible. If you believe in predestination it's worse, because then god is knowingly setting people up to go to hell just for fun (god decides to make people disobey him before they are even born, just because it pleases him).

Let me address one of the fundamental issues of Christianity which typically gets ignored. You state, "faith and evidence go hand in hand" which is quite interesting to me. If you consider the definitions of "faith" and "evidence", you will find that if one has evidence, then they cannot have faith. Likewise, if one has faith then by definition they cannot have evidence. So, pick one. The "faith" you describe having in your wife's love is not the same "faith" in god that is described in the bible. The bible goes out of its way to define faith as 'belief without evidence', while the 'faith' you have in your wife's love is better described as belief, given the fact that supporting evidence exists.

You can say you believe in god one way or another, but saying you have 'faith in' and 'evidence for' something is a logical contradiction.

Commentary:

Let's deal with the concept of justice a bit. There are many examples of justice in early cultures but all of them are based on the privileges or rights of certain people over others. Males had privilege over females, owners over slaves, adults over children, and so forth. The uniqueness of biblical justice is incredibly clear in the Mosaic Law. One example is the right to punish children. Before Leviticus, it was always the right of the parent to kill their own child if they disobeyed, if they brought shame to the family or if they did not meet certain physical requirments such as gender. This is even true of later cultures such as the Romans who would leave any unwanted child exposed until they died. Mosaic Law forbid the killing of children by demading that the parents first bring the child before the assembly with their accusation. The assembly would then confirm or deny the parent’s accusation and initiate the killing of the child. Note that there is no record of this ever happening anywhere in the biblical or historical record! The consequence is that accountability exists for both the child and the parent. This stands in sharp contrast to the practice of the Egyptians (who demanded the death of every Israelite male), the Cannanites (who practiced child sacrifice to Molech) and even current practices in traditional Muslim culture and the killing of the pre-born through abortion.

In my written response I tried to bring in a broader perspective from Scripture about what it means to love, to learn and to take responsibility for our decisions before God and before others. I also dug in a bit to try to demand some accountability from Derek in his own process of learning. There was far too much to deal with here and so my response ended up to be quite long.

My response:

Thanks so much for your ideas. I'm not sure how much further we will get with this discussion, but I'm willing to extend it a little out of my concern for you. It makes me sad that people are not able to see the strong correlation between correction, discipline and love. This is at the core of your comments on hell but extends to almost every aspect of learning and relationships. When you truly love someone, you provide a setting in which they will grow and take responsibility for their own life and their own growth. I do this all the time as a father and as a teacher. I do all I can to provide the information that is needed, the setting in which to learn and the guidance and support for growth in a relationship of trust. But it is up to my students and my boys to take ownership of the learning process. A beautiful example of this is found in Isaiah 55 "Ho! Everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat. Yes, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Why do you spend money for what is not bread, and your wages for what does not satisfy? Listen carefully to Me, and eat what is good, and let your soul delight itself in abundance."

God has provided everything we need in Christ. He is the evidence of God's unfathomable love for each of us no matter who we are. He is also the evidence of God's righteous judgement on sin, having received the punishment for sin in my place. Take a look at Romans chapter 5. Again, separation from God is my choice, not God's.

We have to talk about justice as well because, in a closed materialistic view of the universe, no one ever receives the justice they deserve. What can you say to someone who was abused constantly by their father or mother? What can you say to someone who watched all their relatives tortured and killed in concentration camps? What can you say to someone who has no remorse or regret after killing others just because they don't like their skin color or their religion? No one ever gets the punishment or the compensation for the pain and hurt we receive or cause. Justice must be available, but it is an ideal that is not possible outside of an eternal perspective (where the eternal, spiritual reality is an active and integrated aspect of our reality).

But please don't tire me with the obvious fallacy that Christianity is the enemy of scientific progress and social equality. People are the problem and those who oppose science (knowledge of the material world for the purpose of responsible stewardship of that world) and equality (that every person has God-given value and potential) are certainly not "loving God with all their heart and their neighbor as themselves". And wars are usually an issue of pride and selfishness, irregardless of supposed religious claims or Marxist ideology. The one exception to violence is the claim that you are protecting a people group from the violence of their oppressors, but this is almost never done with pure motives.

I'm disappointed that you don't see the correlation between faith and evidence. It is simply not true that they are contradictory or that the Bible defines faith as "belief without evidence". Of course we need to define what evidence means. Do you mean "that which is possible to physically measure or test"? Or do you mean "that which can be shown as logically true"? Dependence on logic is itself an act of faith, especially for those who "believe" that logic is even possible from an evolutionary perspective where matter is "god" and there is no designer or mind behind what exists.

Beyond this, we have the difficulty of our very limited knowledge and understanding of the material universe. Thinking that our understanding is comprehensive or that the material universe is the only explanation or the full explanation of “all that is”, is very dangerous. I’m not confident that I have enough evidence for anything but I still have to function as a husband, a father, a son, a friend, a student, a teacher and in many other contexts in the areas of philosophy, music, health, economics, education, emotions, commitment, self-control, etc. “Faith” in this sense is the living out of my beliefs based on my current understanding of the world - everyone does this, whether or not they admit it, and it is not wrong or contradictory. You certainly have your beliefs and you will act on them, filtering new information that you collect based on how each piece of data fits into your current beliefs. It will take a real transformation or significant event in your life (or mine) to change our belief structure and move us in a completely new direction.

I've enjoyed interacting with you on this and you present some good questions, even if they are quite common to a materialistic perspective of the world. So I encourage you to dig deeper and I will certainly do the same!

Questions for you:

How have we come to our modern concept of justice and why is it so important to us? How would you address the claim that Christianity is the enemy of scientific progress? Do you see a contradiction between faith and evidence? Why or why not?

Conversation - part 1

How can we build understanding with those who profoundly disagree with us?

This post begins a series of posts in order to review an online conversation with Derek that began in January of 2020. As I have reflected on this discussion over many months, my intent was always to invite him to work through this conversation again, contributing his ideas and commentary, which would give a more complete context to the thought process behind the words we actually used. But now, going again to the YouTube entry where this conversation took place, Derek has deleted all of his entries and so there is no way for me to contact him. This makes me very sad. I don’t know what has happened to him, but I pray that he has found answers that satisfy  his deepest needs. Maybe my interaction helped with this and maybe not, God knows.

It began with a random video that was a negative response to a video on the value of the 10 Commandments. The video response itself was nearly worthless, so I don’t recommend it. Neither do I particularly recommend the video on the 10 Commandments posted by Denis Prager, though he does have some very valuable insights on this topic. As I looked through a few of the comments that day, one conversation caught my attention. If you are interested in the thread, you can access it on Youtube here. 

Derek was responding to a comment by Matthew who had tried to highlight the ​​differences between covetousness, jealousy and greed. Derek and Matthew had interacted briefly but Derek was digging deeper with the following questions. Unfortunately, I did not save those earlier posts from Derek.

His original questions were as follows…

1) How can god be moral if he created, actively maintains, and keeps occupied, hell, even when it is the case that it's solely for the thought-crime of unbelief? What about his kill count that is so much larger than that of Satan himself, as stated in the Bible? How is this "loving"?

2) How do the concepts of original sin and inherited sin make any sense? Or, if you would rather answer this more precise question, why EXACTLY do you believe that babies, long before they can retain memories, let alone understand what is meant by "good" "evil" "god" "original sin" "satan", etc..., are destined for eternal damnation from the get-go, just because of some guy making an honest mistake (didn't know evil from good) in the ancient past?

3) As I demonstrated in my previous comment, faith and evidence cannot both be tools of the Christian, by definition of these terms. Which, then, do you choose as your foundation? Honestly, if it is faith, we have no reason to speak, because I would agree that faith is perhaps the most true reason that you believe. If you choose evidence, then you must do two things in turn: explain why the bible emphasizes faith so strongly (in contrast to your evidence-based viewpoint), and show me what demonstrable evidence, physical or logical, you have in favor of your beliefs.

Commentary:

When I wrote this, my intention was to communicate the value of his questions, which seem to be sincere and indicate that he is looking for real answers to real questions. He is concerned about protecting the innocent, defining morality, faith and the ultimate source of knowledge or truth. We can see that each of these questions cannot be adequately addressed by hard data or science and demand a recognition of something outside of our sensory experiences to even be able to ask the questions in the first place! But I tried to take the questions at face value without attacking any misconceptions. I wanted to show him that a discussion of these topics could be done politely and without accusations in order to invite deeper understanding between us and maybe even friendship.

My response:

It looks like Matthew has not responded to you - so in the interest of continuing your reasoned and polite discussion, I'd be happy to share my thoughts.

First: The problem with the whole discussion here is that we all live with a concept of justice and fairness that is built into our western culture. If you look at primitive tribes now or in ancient times, specifically those with little or no exposure to a biblical view of the world, then you see that these assumptions are definitely not universal.

So, if you will allow me to address your 3 questions above, here are a few ideas. You are welcome to respond or disagree because I know that we come from different perspectives on this...

1 - Hell may be a lot of things but it is primarily "separation from God". The imagined torture or punishment of hell as a tool or creation of God is not possible because it is simply where God is not present and therefore does not intervene. An eternal hell is simply a result of my choice to pay for my own sin and not accept the payment available through Jesus' death. Hell is my choice so no one can ever say that God chooses hell for someone. BTW: if you don't believe there is a hell or a God, then this is probably irrelevant information. As for death, everyone faces it. There is no escape from it but we certainly can and do hurry it along for ourselves and for others. There is no evidence that a "kill count" is higher for anyone (except for certain humans in history that you can probably name).

2 - This is directly connected to the first issue - a faulty understanding of what hell is. Babies and anyone else without the mental capacity to choose right from wrong are not destined for hell, thanks to God's grace and mercy. Original sin is simply our inherited disposition to choose our own way and separate ourselves from God (and from everyone else). I see this in my tendency to do what is not good and hide it even from myself.

3 - Faith and evidence always go hand in hand because no one can ever fully know something that is outside the capacity to measure or test. Evidence points to the truth about my wife's love for me and I also believe (have faith) that she loves me and I act on that belief. Historical evidence, eyewitness accounts and the lives of those eyewitness afterward point to the resurrection of Christ from the dead, but it also demands faith because it is outside the workings of the natural world.

I've provided brief answers according to my current understanding of the Bible. Hopefully I will have better answers in the future, but please accept these for now ;)

Questions for you:

What do you see behind his questions? What is his motivation? Which perspective is closer to your beliefs and how would you support it? Could I have provided a better invitation for continued discussion? What do you think his response will be?