Posted on by Abe Austin

A Slight Change of Idea

A slight change of idea can be the difference between prevailing peace or rolling horrors upon the Earth.

Every great ideology, philosophy, pattern of government, and conception of reality began as a mere idea in the mind of a man. They are but small things, and a man can turn his mind from one idea to another with little consequence. He has but simple thought experiments, ideas of how things could be. And in the simulations of his mind, his ideas may all seem correct, innocent, and only geared to the good of mankind.

But as the idea grows, and leaves the mind, and takes hold of the masses, then it becomes argument, then creed, then party, then nation. And as it grows, so do the consequences, and so some ideas become the foundation for flourishing and joy, and some become the foundation for purge and war.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Fundamental Preconceptions

Fundamental preconceptions are sacred to us. They form the basis of everything that we know and believe. They tell us how to be right, and who else is wrong. We immediately know false statements when they contradict our preconceptions and immediately know true statements when they follow from our preconceptions. Our entire perspective of reality and righteousness is based on its alignment with our fundamental preconceptions.

Thus, when you attempt to break the fundamental preconceptions of another, you are attempting to do no less than crush their entire conception of reality. This is no mere disagreement; it is a great cosmic event with the greatest of stakes hanging in the balance. To what extent one is prepared to engage in that conversation varies wildly from person to person.

If you succeed in breaking the fundamental preconceptions of another, and they were not ready for it, you have done nothing less than dropped them into the pits of hell. There is now no sensibility to the world for them, no comforting reason, all that should be is not. If they are ready, and you are speaking the truth, then it can be the beginning of their ascent to heaven.

None of this is to say that people should be left in their deep delusions, but it does deserve proper respect for what we are doing when we try to rouse people out of them.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Problem of Evil- My Confusion

An Old Argument)

The Problem of Evil is a famous argument that the existence of evil causes a logical contradiction with the existence of God. The argument goes all the way back to the Epicurus, the Ancient Greek philosopher, and it goes as follows:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Clearly, this argument is specific to a certain popular conception of God, the “triple-omni” creator who is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient. Critics who use this argument often say that it would therefore be possible to accept a God who is missing one of those characteristics, but not a God who has all three. Maybe He really is good but doesn’t have the power to totally eradicate evil? Maybe He really is all-powerful, but He isn’t totally good?

My Confusion)

I wanted to explore this concept more, because frankly this argument has never had any sway over me. People point to the existence of terrible suffering and evil in the world, and how it tries their faith, and I’ve never been able to sympathize with that conundrum. I simply didn’t see why the existence of one the precluded the existence of the other. To me it always felt like there was a premise missing:

Premise #1: God is all-powerful, all-caring, and all-good.
Premise #2: There is suffering in the world, including of innocent people.
Premise #3: ???
Conclusion: Therefore, premise number 1 and 2 are in contradiction. The existence of premise #2 is plainly observable, so premise #1 must be the falsehood.

Obviously, I can understand that because God is powerful and good people want the evidence of that to be a perfect, peaceful world…but isn’t that what He created? That describes the Garden of Eden exactly. He really did make a perfect world, and it was only when His children performed evil therein did it transform into a fallen world. It didn’t fall because God didn’t have the power to keep it there. It fell because He willingly handed the creation to man to “have dominion” over it, and man caused the fall. This was a choice, not a lack of power.

And now, one might say, since man did take that perfect creation and corrupt it, and now there is suffering, why wouldn’t a powerful and loving God save and redeem it? But once again…isn’t that exactly what He is doing? Isn’t the message of the gospel, that He sent His son to die for the sins of the world, unlocking the capacity to restore paradise from within our hearts, reclaiming us, one soul at a time? And obviously some may prefer that He would redeem it more immediately, not by this slow, gradual process, but I think we see in the story of Noah how that would not be an act of kindness. God did stamp out all evil on a large scale once before, and hardly anyone was able to survive it. Is that really the more immediate method that we would like Him to use on us today? It seems clear that the slow, deliberate method of winning souls is due to God’s mercy towards us, not due to a limitation of His power.

Learning From Others)

However, this Problem of Evil argument still bears real sway over many people in our society, atheists and Christians alike, and I decided I wanted to understand it better. I wanted to see if there was something that I was missing. A piece of the logical formula that I hadn’t appreciated before. So, I created a few posts online, both directed towards believers who struggle with this conundrum, and atheists who subscribe to it. I explained my inability to understand the validity of the argument and asked them to enlighten me.

I evaluated the logic of what they said and pushed back in many cases, because most arguments amounted to little more than an emotional desire for peace today. That is a totally understandable feeling, but hardly a logical contradiction of God.

To my delight, though, I was able to find some commentators who gradually led me to understand what I was missing. It took a bit, because these commentators had presumptions they didn’t even recognize, which were presumptions I didn’t even have. Recognizing what these were, and how if I did have those same presumptions, it would similarly test my faith, I finally felt like I understood the argument. I still didn’t agree with it personally, but I saw the valid points that it raised. In my next post I will explain what these critical presumptions are, and why they don’t apply to me.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Judgmental

I grew up in a generation where accusing Christians of being judgmental reached its peak. It got to the point that even asserting the mere existence of divine truth was seen as exclusionary and hateful, and for a long while now, any mention of commandments and sin has been called judgmental. This mentality prevailed in the culture war and became assumed correct as a general rule, but we have since seen that those so concerned about Christian judgmentalism are themselves more judgmental than anyone else. The difference is that they secularize the religious terminology, but that doesn’t change that it is judgmentalism even so.

They don’t call it “righteous,” they call it “being right.”
They don’t call it “being a sinner,” they call it “being on the wrong side of history.”
They don’t call it “orthodoxy,” they call it “being informed.”
They don’t call it “repentance,” they call it “taking accountability.”
They don’t call it “heresy,” they call it “misinformation.”
They don’t call it “excommunication,” they call it “cancellation.”
They don’t call it “doctrine,” they call it “values.”
They don’t call it “blasphemy,” they call it “hate speech.”
They don’t call it “commandments,” they call it “policies.”
They don’t call it “words of scripture,” they call it “experts say.”
They don’t call it “moral law,” they call it “social contract.”
They don’t call it “confession,” they call it a “public statement.”
They don’t call it “church,” they call it “community.”

Fancy terminology aside, we see a society that believes more than ever that there are commandments and laws, and that those who stand against them are morally wrong, and they absolutely condemn those who don’t fall in line.

Indeed, the severity of that condemnation is the most shocking aspect of all. People are absolutely obsessed with being right, with winning debates, with finding surveys and studies that side with them, with proving other people wrong. People absolutely hate people that don’t share their views, and they are very open about it. They are so anxious to be surrounded with “rightness” they will cut off their own immediate family for daring to have “wrong opinions.” They will tell them to “f–k off” and never speak to them again….

But they will still be scandalized that you hold a faith that is so “judgmental.”

Posted on by Abe Austin

You Do Not Understand Others

If you cannot fathom or see the sensibility in the beliefs of another, then the failure is almost certainly in your understanding, not in their intelligence or reason. More often than not, people have logical and coherent reasons for believing what they believe. More often than not, your difference in view simply comes down to them having underlying presumptions that are different from your own. But if you did share their presumptions, more often than not you might very well come to the same conclusions as them.

It is maturity to seek first what those presumptions are, to see the reason and logic that follows from them, and to appreciate that your brother or sister is an intelligent being trying to do their best with what they have, just like you.

Furthermore, in many cases those presumptions are both unprovable and unfalsifiable. Thus, your brother or sister may indeed be wrong, and the conclusions drawn from them wrong as well, but you’ll never be able to demonstrate it by logical argument.

Most arguments around differences in belief are therefore a complete waste of energy. Most debaters will never extend the grace of acknowledging the reasonability in other’s conclusions given their background, nor address the actual presumptions on which everything depends. Instead, people tend to argue on a surface layer for positions that the other cannot accept, and no meaningful change occurs.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Possibility of an Answer

With difficult spiritual questions we sometimes just need to know that an answer is possible, even if we don’t yet know what it is. Shapes and shadowy forms suggest something concrete beyond the veil, and that is enough for man to believe.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Transcended Life

One of the great quests of this life,
Is to find something that matters more to you than life,
Something for which you would give up your life.
For if you do not,
Then you haven’t transcended life.