Posted on by Abe Austin

Forced to Fit- Part One

Prerequisites for the Divine)

We are a culture that approaches God by first establishing a foundation of worldly ideals that we believe in, and then trying to make Him fit them. We reject God or alter Him because He simply doesn’t match our modern presuppositions about what ultimate good is supposed to be.

Some require a God who isn’t patriarchal. Some require a God who doesn’t wage war on His enemies. Some require a God whose sovereignty doesn’t supersede our own authority. Some require a God who can be validated by scientific methods. Some require a God who is socially progressive.

In these cases, feminism or pacifism or individualism or materialism or progressivism are our first God, and for God to be God He must be in alignment with that first ideal, or He must not exist at all. He is forced to fit, or He is discarded.

This is, of course, an inversion of the proper order. When man recognizes that he has a different life philosophy than God he is supposed to change himself to conform with the Almighty, not change the Almighty to conform with him!

A Modern Lens)

Let us note that differences between God’s ideal and our own is inevitable. Even setting aside personal selfishness and flaws, our modern culture has been far removed from the Judeo-Christian ethic for a while now, and we have been immersed in that climate from before we had any understanding at all. Even if we were raised in a traditional, Christian home, it is certain that we have absorbed presuppositions that we are not even aware of, reasons why we feel that we cannot accept God entirely as He has been described to us.

I have never met the person who did not have some baked-in misunderstanding of the Lord, including myself. I have never met the person who did not struggle with some aspect of who God is declared to be. This is a common challenge that we all grapple with in one way or another. Indeed, we could make a case that most of our path of discipleship is simply us coming to terms with God as He is, surrendering our inclination to try and change Him, and choosing to change ourselves instead.

There is a little more that I wish to say on this subject, but I will save it for a second post tomorrow.

Posted on by Abe Austin

God’s Body: Missing the Mark

In my last post I discussed how the Western philosophy of individualism can create a moral dilemma about God allowing pain in this world. I explained that an Eastern philosophy of collectivism can dispel that dilemma, because when one views himself as part of God, then God is actually experiencing the pain personally, enduring it for the greater good.

Human Shortcomings)

Does this mean that Eastern philosophy and collectivism is superior to Western individualism? Maybe in some regards, but I don’t believe in all.

Every philosophy we have has passed through human hands and is therefore corrupted. Even if the philosophy originated from a pure source, such as the word of God, it all passes through the prism of flawed mortal understanding. The pure light is bent and diffracted and we end up with philosophies that might be generally good, but which now have flaws. In time, those flaws will compound until we have a serious divergence from the truth. This is true for any Western philosophy, and any Eastern philosophy, and any other philosophy at any time or place.

We all miss the mark and create confusion. When we do so consistently across our entire culture, then the people of our nations will have inherent problems with God, based upon those flaws. And since that philosophy becomes ingrained at an extremely young age, most won’t even question the premises behind their complaints. They won’t consider, “maybe God isn’t wrong, maybe my fundamental framing of life itself is off.”

A Glass Darkly)

Paul acknowledges this inherent shortcoming in humanity with his famous words, “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known” (1 Corinthians 13:12). He admits to murky vision, though he does at least carry the hope of future clarity.

I believe at the root of most, if not all, moral quandaries is a fundamental misunderstanding of God, Himself. Because our conception of His person, His attributes, and His relationship to us is misaligned, we become misaligned to ourselves, our neighbors, and the world at large.

Being able to recognize this predisposition for error is the first step in seeing past our flaws. So humbled, we can grope forward, taking the light where we can find it. We can understand that any person we listen to for long enough will surely tell us something wrong, but also, they might tell us a new truth we never before had seen. And then, one day, as Paul attests, we shall see face to face and know in full.

Posted on by Abe Austin

God’s Body: Who is Ultimate?

In my last post I suggested that the struggle to reconcile a loving God with the existence of suffering might only be an artifact of our Western Individualism, and that the problem appears to be a non-issue to people of other cultures. Today I shall attempt to explain how this might be the case.

The Ultimate Individual)

Individualism creates the sense that the individual is supreme. The greatest ideal is the empowerment and the well-being of the individual, and there is no tolerance for the harm or deprivation of the individual. Society may flourish, but not at the expense of the individual.

Thus, even a God who hurts the individual is considered unacceptable. If God hurts me, my individualism cries out that this is an injustice, because the highest ideal: my individual well-being, has been thwarted. Anything that thwarts the highest ideal must be evil.

Part of Something Greater)

There are passages of scripture that suggest this view might be flawed, though. Paul speaks at length about the “Body of Christ,” suggesting that we are all but parts within an even greater whole. This suggests some sense of collectivism, instead of pure individualism.

Eastern philosophy has a strong sense of collectivism, informed no doubt by its ancient religions, such as Hinduism. In that theology, ultimate reality is a single, universal consciousness, and the end state that we strive for is to surrender our sense of individual self, being subsumed back into the universal consciousness that we always were.

From either of these “part of something greater” perspectives, the suffering of this world, while still tragic, no longer appears as a violation of morality. Since we are all part of the universal consciousness or God, any suffering we experience is just that supreme essence inflicting that pain upon itself, and who could say that it doesn’t have the right to do that?

An Analogy)

Imagine if I were to fall off a ladder, and in order to prevent greater harm to myself, I threw out my hand to break my fall, resulting in all of my fingers being broken, but the rest of me remaining unharmed.

My fingers, if they had too pronounced a sense of individualism, might say to me, “Why did you hurt me?! My life was going along fine and then you thrust me out in harm’s way and let me take a blow. Why?! What right do you have to hurt me arbitrarily like that?”

To which I might remind the hand, “I didn’t do it to you, I did it to me! You are me. I haven’t asked you to go through anything that I’m not also going through right this very minute! And you could not see it from your local perspective, but I did it to save the greater body, which ultimately is better off for everyone, including you! And now that that’s done, let me tend to your healing, because all of us will be better when you are.”

Posted on by Abe Austin

God’s Body: The Problem of Pain

Yesterday I spoke briefly about Western philosophy and its emphasis on individualism, and Eastern philosophy and its emphasis on collectivism. I spoke of benefits and drawbacks to each, and today I will present another unique effect of Western Individualism. First, though, let us address a problem that everyone will face whatever philosophy they live by.

Blind Spots)

When a large culture adopts a particular philosophy, it quickly becomes ingrained in their lives and shapes the way that they think. Certain perceptions and reactions will be culled from their range of possible responses. Thus, their view is controlled by their philosophy, but they are blind to the fact that they are being influenced at all. They just think their view is self-evident and are incredulous that anyone could feel otherwise.

As I say, this is common for any culture. All people have assumed premises, regardless of their background. This idea is captured very well in the famous joke of a fish that does not realize it is in water, because the water is so ubiquitous that the fish has ceased to perceive it.

Discomfort at God’s Wrath)

Let us keep that idea of cultural blind spots in mind as we consider what is arguably the most controversial aspect of God in Western culture: Him commanding the destruction of certain civilizations. Throughout the Bible there are some instances where God either wipes out a people by His own hand, or He orders the Israelites to carry out the extermination of another kingdom. I recently devoted an entire study to examining this matter, and how I wrestled to resolve my discomfort with these passages.

But the criticism of God goes even deeper. Just the fact that He allows tragic things to happen, even if not by His own hand, is greatly distressing to many. We often hear the example of childhood cancer as the sort of thing that a loving God simply wouldn’t allow. This complaint is so prevalent that renowned Christian author C. S. Lewis dedicated an entire book to it entitled The Problem of Pain.

And this logic seems to be entirely self-evident to us in the Western world, a matter that every religious person would have to deal with, no matter their conception of the divine. I was surprised, then, to learn that this matter is actually not a great concern to people of other cultures. There seems to be evidence that this moral dilemma is a product of our Western philosophical blind spot as opposed to an obvious universal truth.

A Different View)

But how could anyone actually believe that it is acceptable for God to be good and also allow suffering? Why would our Western Individualism cause us to feel this discomfort, and how could another philosophical view dispel it? I’ll answer these questions in my next post.

Posted on by Abe Austin

God’s Body: Individualism and Collectivism

To begin this series on God’s Body, I want two consider different world philosophies, and how they might affect our understanding of God’s Body and our relation to it. Today will only be the introduction to these philosophies.

Western Philosophy and Individualism)

The first philosophy is the predominant one in our Western culture, which places particular emphasis on the individual. We tend to think of ourselves autonomously and hold individual rights as more sacred than societal needs. And there are undoubtedly some great benefits to this view. Primarily, it leads to the rejection of oppression and injustice. Since the worth of the individual soul is supreme, there is no justification for putting another person in a state of indignity. I do not think it is a coincidence that modern democracy and the abolition of slavery were ushered in by the West.

But this philosophy also has its drawbacks, particularly when we take it too far. It increases the chances of developing a sense of selfishness and narcissism. It can be used to justify sacrificing the greater good for hedonistic pleasure.

Eastern Philosophy and Collectivism)

Now let us consider Eastern philosophy, which often places a greater emphasis on collectivism. Here one considers oneself as a part of a greater whole. Indeed, a part of multiple greater wholes, including a family, a community, and a society. One is expected to serve the whole, and to make personal sacrifices for the greater good. Benefits of this are a greater sense of cooperation and it can foster a strong sense of belonging.

Drawbacks to this philosophy are opposite the benefits of individualism. If one feels subservient to the whole, one is less likely to question injustice, allowing bad leaders a long leash to oppress as they see fit. Thus, for both philosophies we see that each comes with its own benefits and drawbacks. Undesirable side-effects are to be expected in all philosophies, for all are seen through the lens of imperfect mortality.

Views on God)

But how do these two different philosophies affect our views of God? I have already acknowledged some of their benefits and drawbacks in regard to the individual, but tomorrow I will detail one that is a great stumbling block to accepting God in the West.

Because of our individualism, we struggle to truly see ourselves as a part of God’s Body, and that leads to an improper frustration when God allows us to experience pain. Come back tomorrow where I will explain this point further.

Posted on by Abe Austin

What We Are, Fundamentally- Where We Begin

Presupposition)

I have already discussed the physical-materialist view of determinism, and also the contrasting-premise-but-identical-conclusion view of fundamental chaos. I wish to say something more about that fundamental chaos view, which asserts that since the building blocks of reality—and of our own persons—are subject to random quantum mechanics, every system and decision that is built upon those transient parts must also be random and nondeliberate.

For a moment, let us assume that this theory is correct. Let us assume that all of our choices and behaviors are based upon their material composition, and that the root of that material composition is random and unpredictable.

Even then, this view presupposes that we all begin at the material. It assumes that there is nothing that comes before the random fluctuations of the quantum mechanic layer.

Back to the Metaphysical)

But who is to say what might come before the random? If you were to fall asleep in a thousand theaters, and in each one suddenly wake up in the middle of the second act of a play, the first line of dialogue that you heard would always appear to be random. But none of them actually would be random, they would be the continued thrust of all the unseen moments that came before.

From the metaphysical view, where the material world begins is the same as suddenly gaining consciousness in the middle of the play. Who is to say that there is not an imperceptible spirit whose invisible choices travel through the spiritual realm and then continue their thrust into the material world via quantum mechanics? And the quantum mechanics only seem random because we cannot see all the parts of the play that came before.

If we ever are certain that we have found the true root of the material, that still does not mean we have necessarily found the root of being. Indeed, the more our understanding of the material leads us to conclusions that defy our basic perceptions, such as humanity being all preprogrammed or humanity being all chaotic, the more it seems apparent that the material is not telling us the entire story. The more we know of the physical world the more it seems incapable of aligning with reality by itself. It continually and increasingly becomes apparent that there is something immaterial at play as well.

With that, I will end my examination on these matters for now, though I won’t be surprised if I return to them at some later date.

Posted on by Abe Austin

What We Are, Fundamentally- Chaotic Nature

Competing Nihilism)

I have already criticized the logic of the determinist in my previous posts. Today I will continue by introducing an alternative view that emerges from the same physical-materialist foundation, but which comes to an opposite conclusion.

The determinist, as already discussed, concludes that there is no free will or metaphysical reality because they assume that the environment, stimulus, and reaction are all part of a biochemical closed loop. Because every aspect is controlled, all behaviors are entirely predictable, if only one could measure all of the participating factors.

However there is another argument that also concludes that there is no free will, but by arguing that our material nature is nothing put pure, unpredictable chaos. This notion is based on the observation that our most fundamental components—protons, electrons, leptons, and quarks—seem to be subject to random quantum mechanics. If the lowest level of our material trembles between random states of reality, then how can we claim that everything built up from them, including ourselves, could act in a way that is deliberate, conscious, and chosen?

Both these viewpoints go to great lengths to deny the reality of human choice, but by totally opposite means. On the one hand humans are rigid, fixed machines that only act and react according to predictable programming, on the other hand humans are unpredictable, wild, and chaotic, whose behaviors have nothing to do with thought or reason.

Consistent Inconsistency)

As with determinism, this chaotic view once again defies our basic experience. Perhaps the chaotic view seems to provide a solution for why our behaviors are not totally ordered, but it raises an even bigger problem for why our behaviors aren’t totally chaotic either. Sometimes we do keep to plans, we do hold to our word, and we do follow through. And sometimes we maintain that reliability our whole lives long. How do we have these consistent streaks if at our beginnings is nothing but chaotic noise?

Our own experience balks at the idea that we are either totally predetermined or totally chaotic. These arguments sound intelligent because they take a long time to explain, but they are each childish in their lack of nuance. Their complexity does not bring life into sharper understanding, they try to flatten it into an over-simplistic single dimension.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools- Romans 1:22

Posted on by Abe Austin

What We Are, Fundamentally- Deterministic Machines

The Materialist Position)

I have previously criticized the materialist position, which is that only the material exists and is real. In the physical-materialist view there is no metaphysical reality, such as soul or spirit or transcendence. Debates between the material and the immaterial viewpoints are often based on interpretations of the human experience. The materialist must maintain that even the things that are typically not associated with matter have their origins within it. For the materialist view to be correct all thoughts, feelings, convictions, hopes, and anguish must have an explanation in atoms and protons and minerals.

Many critics of materialism have pointed out the horrifying conclusions that follow when we strip morality and emotion of their spiritual origins. I would like to emphasize a few of these points, observations that have only been briefly mentioned elsewhere, but which deserve the special attention that I will bring to them with this series. I will start today by defining one of the core beliefs of materialism, and tomorrow I will make my critique of it.

Deterministic Machines)

The theory that describes how a person can make choices under a physical-materialist worldview is called determinism, which asserts that there actually is no choice at all. In a physical-materialist view, humans possess no free will. They are nothing more than deterministic machines, and all that they “choose” to do is actually predetermined by their chemical construction and environment.

Each one of us is born with certain synapses and pathways already formed in our brains. That is the programming that determines what behavior we will exhibit in response to certain inputs. The inputs come from the environment that we live in. If the temperature is cold, our brain interprets that fact and executes whatever reaction is programmed as a response.

Since the environment is out of our control, and since the initial state of our brains is formed before we are born, we have no control over what inputs and reactions will come into and out of us. It has all been predetermined, and we are simply reactive beings, constrained to behave in a way that is outside of our own control.

Even if we change our programming, we only do so in predetermined ways. So if a child is pre-programmed to touch a hot stove, and is burned, and then remaps his brain to not do that anymore, he does that remapping as a pre-programmed reaction to feeling pain. Thus, even the changing of one’s mind is predictable.

And we predetermined machines are perfectly capable to interacting with one another by hooking up our cognitive inputs and outputs to form a larger machine. What you say to me you are predetermined to say, and how I respond I am predetermined to respond, and the same for you, and then the same for for me, back-and-forth, until one of us terminates the conversation because we are predetermined at that point to do so. And what each of us takes away from that conversation will be exactly what we are predetermined to take away.

Commentary)

This model may sound very strange, very different from how we perceive our day-to-day experiences, but it is the only logical conclusion once one decides that only the material is real. So long as there is nothing but matter, choice and free will can only be an illusion, a perception that is ironically pre-programmed into us, just like everything else.

Tomorrow I will discuss the absolute license this theory gives to all immoral and unethical behavior. In short, if everything we do is predetermined, if we have no choice over our own actions, then we are not responsible for any evil that we might do. There is no blame for even the most horrific of crimes, because the people that did those things only did so because they were predetermined to do so. Come back next time where I will discuss this even further.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Rights and Materialism: Part One

The Origin of Our Rights)

A society and a government often define morals based off of the “rights” of its citizens. If an action violates another person’s rights, then that action is considered immoral and faces legal or social repercussions. If something has no rights, then nothing that you inflict upon it can be immoral. Throwing a rock off a ship into the ocean is not immoral, because the rock had no rights, but throwing a person off the ship into the ocean is immoral, because the person has a right to life and bodily autonomy!

This, of course, raises the question of where do our rights come from, and how do we know what they are? In our western civilization, rights have traditionally been seen as endowed by our Creator. It was understood that God made man, and gave commandments that spelled out the rights that God gave to man. Man has a right to life, because God said “thou shalt not kill.” Man has a right to his property, because God said “thou shalt not steal.” And so on.

Alternative Basis for Rights)

Of course, not everyone believes in God, and not everyone agrees with the rights described in scripture. They therefore have the burden of providing another basis for our rights, and another method for knowing what those rights would be.

A person with a materialist, humanist worldview might argue that we do not need the dictates of God to identify basic human rights. They might observe that certain behaviors and states are necessary for the survival and flourishing of the species. Since we are members of this species, we should consider those behaviors and states to be natural rights, as to do otherwise would be paradoxical to our being.

And I would not disagree with such an observation. There are, indeed, certain biological realities that suggest the proper sort of behaviors between people. Members of the same species killing one another is obviously detrimental to the whole, so that leads us to the same “thou shalt not kill” that was also given on Mount Sinai. Furthermore, the historical record has shown that the greatest advancement and achievement of the human race has been motivated by people who had a claim to their own property and labor, and so we can again arrive at “thou shalt not steal.”

More Than One Basis)

But I, as a Christian, do not see this as an either/or situation. The fact that we can arrive at many of the same core human rights by biological examination and intelligent reasoning does not mean that God and His dictates do not also exist. Indeed, I see these as two parts of one testimony, supporting and reinforcing one another.

And, we do need both. The materialist-humanist may think that since we have the biological basis we do not need another basis in God, but this could not be further from the truth. I will explain why this is the case in tomorrow’s post.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Taken to the Extreme

Two Ways of Life)

Many of my generation and culture have expressed that we were raised with strict—and sometimes severe—consequences for any time that we slipped from the moral standards we were expected to live by. Quite a few of us developed a strong sense of perfectionism as a result, inflicting upon ourselves an impossible standard that has tied more than a few of us into painful knots. Too many of us have had constant feelings of being guilty and unworthy. Suffice it to say that there were some flaws in the way we were given our belief systems.

But on the other hand, I have also seen several of my same generation that were raised under an anything-goes sort of mentality. Moral misdeeds were only winked at, and consequences obscured, resulting in some incredibly reckless, selfish, and narcissistic tendencies. Either morality was relative, or it didn’t even exist, and many avoidable wounds were suffered by that denial of objective truth. From my observation, this philosophy wasn’t really any better than the extreme legalism.

The Inevitable Extreme)

Either way, one can easily come to feel that they were dealt the harder hand. I have seen many of my peers throw the baby out with the bath water, renouncing all moral law because they were hurt under an inappropriate application of it. They lack the nuance to see that there was good in the theory, if not the execution.

And, frankly, these flaws and nuances are inevitable. Whatever principles people choose to live and raise their society by, there will always be those that take the principles to an inappropriate extreme. If you decide to instill a strong sense of moral obedience, sooner or later you will have individuals that enact cruel punishments for any perceived deviance. If you decide to instill a carefree, life-loving mantra, sooner or later you will have individuals that pursue carnal indulgence without any regard for the people harmed along the way. Humanity is made up of all sorts. It has the best of people within it, but also the worst, and it is the worst who will always find a way to pervert the well-meaning conventional wisdom.

Lessons Learned)

Having explained this, let me point out two essential takeaways related to the matter:

  1. In any philosophy that you choose to live by, it is worth considering what potential evil might sprout from it down the line. Life philosophies are not so much a destination as a direction, and it is important for us to follow the logical conclusion of that direction to its furthest extremes. In the wrong minds, what are the worst interpretations that others might take from your teachings? If you identify what those perverse extremes are, then you can call them out ahead of time, setting in place the bounds that will let you and others know when things have been taken too far.
  2. Any principle, even one that is true and good, becomes corrupt when pursued at the expense of all other true principles. Going back to the idea of life philosophy as a direction, we might also consider it as a vector: a line stretching across a graph. It may run from one inappropriate extreme to another, but in between it might run through some very worthy territory as well.
    Additional principles can be thought of as more vectors, other lines that stretch across the graph, and at certain points intersect with our first. Those intersection points help us greatly in that they represent the natural bounds that each principle sets upon the other. For example, if we are mature enough to hold both the principle of moral obedience and grace for sin at the same time, then each will keep us from running too far with the other. Together they plot for us when to forgive and when to call for repentance. They will even show us how to do both at the same time!