Asleep in the Wilderness

"Jesus promised his disciples three things—that they would be completely fearless, absurdly happy,..."

Tue, 07 May 2013 20:59:35 -0400

“Jesus promised his disciples three things—that they would be completely fearless, absurdly happy, and in constant trouble.”

- G. K. Chesterton (via the-last-crusade)

"Christ died once for all to clear the name of God in what looks like a gross miscarriage of justice..."

Fri, 03 May 2013 10:26:05 -0400

“Christ died once for all to clear the name of God in what looks like a gross miscarriage of justice — the acquittal of sinners simply for Jesus’ sake.”

- John Piper

Anyone

Fri, 03 May 2013 09:49:20 -0400

ever wonder if there’s actually a causal connection between their bringing an umbrella and predictions of rain not coming true?

"He who does not highly esteem the sacrament suggests thereby that he has no sin, no flesh, no devil,..."

Thu, 02 May 2013 11:56:58 -0400

“He who does not highly esteem the sacrament suggests thereby that he has no sin, no flesh, no devil, no world, no death, no hell. That is to say, he believes in none of these, although he is deeply immersed in them and is held captive by the devil. On the other hand, he suggests that he needs no grace, no life, no paradise, no heaven, no Christ, no God, nothing good at all.”

- Martin Luther, The Smaller Catechism, 1529

The Blessed Desirer

Tue, 30 Apr 2013 13:31:40 -0400

I am the thirsty-eyed wanderer.

the underfoot crunch of gravel my companion

on this narrow winding trail.

Listlessly I sip from the water in my pack,

And I am still thirsty.

I am the hungry-eyed wanderer.

and the sound of wind is my companion

in these empty places.

Mechanically I munch on food from my pack,

and I am still hungry.

I am the archetype of wanderers

and the sighs of millions are my companions

in the time of existence

Unquenching drink

and unfilling food

do me no more good than glorious views

of hidden mountain valleys.

For I, in my wandering, am still

blessedly thirsty

and blessedly hungry

and blessedly unsatisfied

with passing beauty.

So I walk on with my thirsty eyes

my hungry eyes

and my panting soul,

longing for the Dawn.

Chatting with the attractive girl from my Latin class: Me: Yeah, I’m taking Latin for fun....

Wed, 24 Apr 2013 10:58:01 -0400

Chatting with the attractive girl from my Latin class:

Me: Yeah, I’m taking Latin for fun. I’m a philosophy and history major.

Girl: *quickly ends conversation and walks away*

A Dialogue:

Fri, 19 Apr 2013 19:13:52 -0400

Deconversion Movement responded rather rapidly to my post earlier this week about atheism, in a thoughtful post for which I am very grateful. As I have rather more things than blogging occupying my time, I haven’t been able to show DM the courtesy of as rapid a response as he gave to me, and yet now I shall endeavor to respond to his well-articulated post. Such a response is necessary for a variety of reasons, not all of which will be covered in the following, for to cover all of them would require more time and space than seems requisite for an internet argument. DM displays what appears to be a keen grasp of a variety of topics in his blog, and so I was somewhat surprised to find that he had almost entirely missed the main thrust of my argument, and so spent many words accomplishing little at all. This must certainly have been my own fault, and so I shall devote a portion of my response to clarification as to what, precisely, I meant in my original post. However, first I must spend a small amount of time ironing out a few definitions for two reasons. First, in any philosophical dialogue there must be some definition of what one means when one says a given word, for the same word can have very different meanings in different instances. Secondly, it is clear from DM’s initial response that he is woefully misinformed about the meaning of certain words, and so I shall attempt to clarify what some words mean, explain what I mean by some words, and hopefully improve DM’s understanding of the way things are.

Definition of Terms:

Hope:I have said that under an atheistic worldview, hope is nothing more than a label for a human emotion that ultimately reduces to chemical reactions in the brain. DM conceded this point to me, asking, “Why should hope be anything more?” Since he has been so obliging, I shall now refer to this definition of hope as the “atheist’s hope”. The reason that hope itself should be more than the atheist’s hope is that even the atheist acts as though hope were more than mere chemical reactions. He acts as though hope were a real (i.e., metaphysical) thing, and in so doing is either deceiving himself or giving the lie to his account of reality.

Reduce: To reduce something, in the sense that I am using the word, is to take it down to its simplest components. As such, it is not the case that my reduction of the personal to the impersonal in the context of a naturalistic worldview is a straw-man argument—it is the simple reality, that any thoughtful atheist ought to concede. When DM says that the things that we ordinarily take to be personal “reduce to a lot more than that [to chemical reactions, physical constants, and the like]” he isn’t fully reducing his worldview. The things that he reduces to are intermediate, not complete reductions, and like the schoolchild told to completely reduce the fraction 20/80 who comes up with the answer 10/40, DM will receive a rather poor grade.

DM says, “God provides (allegedly) ontological meaning in life whilst individual will provides teleological or ex post facto meaning in life. Both views are a posteriori, neither is established ontologically or by definition.”

There are a variety of confused and conflated terms in this sentence that continue to be confused and conflated for the duration of DM’s response, so let’s iron them out:

God: I will define God as “The Being who possesses all perfections”, by which I mean all those characteristics ascribed to him in the scriptures, contained in the Old and New Testaments. This is a definition that most Christian theists can agree with (and those who don’t likely aren’t Christian theists anyway). According to this understanding of God, he provides meaning in life both ontologically and by definition, and as such meaning is a priori. Surely, DM will agree with me that, by this definition, the proposition, “God provides meaning” adds no more information than simply saying “God is.” That is to say, God necessarily provides meaning, it is not the case that God could be and could at the same time not provide meaning.

Teleological and ex post facto:It seems that DM has these two terms quite conflated, as he uses them interchangeably throughout his text. Just to clarify, a teleological account of any thing is an account of its final end and its final cause. As such a perspective-corrected teleological account of humans (or anything else, for that matter) in an atheistic universe is that their final cause is blind naturalistic processes, and their final end is interstellar detritus. From this we can derive no existential meaning. Ex Post Facto means, simply, after the fact. Again, the sorts of ex post facto meanings that an atheist can properly assign to things aren’t those that can be called existential or personal. If the atheist is honest with the facts, he must admit after the fact that all that he takes to be personal is really impersonal when reduced, and that as such there really isn’t meaning anyway. Any meaning the atheist creates is contra factis, not ex post facto.

Nihilism: DM says that Nihilism “doesn’t concern itself with meaning”, which seems a bit silly given that a quick google search informs us that at least some people have taken nihilism to be the proposition that everything is, indeed, meaningless. This is the definition I am using of nihilism, and since it seems to be in at least somewhat common usage, I feel confident in staying with it.

Clarification of Original Argument:

DM says,

I don’t like your conclusion; every atheist isn’t a nihilist and it is ridiculous to say that all atheists should be nihilists. The majority of atheists I know are atheistic existentialists; they, like me, believe in a teleological, after the fact meaning that is reducible to some reality (i.e. spouse, children, ambitions, hobbies, money). Whether or not those meanings are acceptable is irrelevant to our discussion.

Leaving aside the fact that it is immaterial whether or not DM particularly likes my conclusion, and the confusion of terms defined above, let’s get to something we can agree on: it is not the case that every atheist is a nihilist. Of course not! That’s silly. Lots of them are, as DM says, atheistic existentialists. What I hold is that atheistic existentialists are so short-sighted as to be intentionally self-deceiving, so much so that if they are indeed correct about the true nature of reality, then they are just as self-deceived as the most obstinate religious believer. The reason for this is that the atheistic existentialist is looking at things with a far too parochial perspective. He sees only the things that please him in the moment—a spouse, children, ambition, hobbies, or money. But the proper perspective (indeed, the reality) of these things is that they reduce entirely to the impersonal. One’s affection for spouse and offspring are merely survival mechanisms, pleasant doses of chemicals in the brain—not genuine affection. One’s hobbies and the pleasure one gets from financial security reduce to similar things. The atheistic existentialist must admit that in the end he is not much better than a lab rat, hitting the switch in a maze that provides cheese, and avoiding the one that administers an electric shock. In the final analysis, both the atheistic existentialist and the lab rat will become similar collections of cosmic detritus. In an atheistic universe, reality is impersonality with pretensions of personality.

So, to conclude this portion, it is of course the case that not all atheists are nihilists. But it seems to me quite defensible to say that all atheistic existentialists are, at heart, absurdists.

Now, this is a problem. What of this desperation to lend meaning, or find meaning, for life? The atheist might call it a survival mechanism, but I question the utility of a survival mechanism the chief end of which seems to be the affliction of all human beings with a deep and abiding sense of angst. It seems to me that my ancient predecessors would have found it difficult to survive if they were constantly occupied with filling up a desire that had no actual object.

The atheist responds, “Well, of course they filled it up—they did so by inventing religions.” This response too seems very unsatisfactory. I concede that the ancients did indeed fulfill this desire by inventing certain religions, but I wonder where this desire came from in the first place if it seems to have no survival utility beyond the arguable assertion that it binds people closer together for survival—while this may be true, it seems certain that religion has divided and slain more people than it can possibly have united and helped to survive.

DM has likely heard this before, but it is worth saying because this is the central message of Christianity, and the end of all my apologetic arguing: Augustine of Hippo called this desire, this desperation to find meaning, the “blessed desire” and explained that we have it, as humans, because while we all “suppress the truth” about the reality of the universe, we continue to act in some ways as though the very thing we deny is true, is true. Therefore we stand condemned before God by our own conscience when we deny God and at the same time, by our blessed desire, acknowledge his existence.

The only proper object of the blessed desire is God himself. For, all desires have their proper object: food for hunger, sex for physical desire, human companionship for loneliness, etc. The proper object of this last and greatest desire, the blessed, is God himself.

The thirsting soul, having heard and believed this, says, “Ah, then, let me lay hold of this God that I might have him and my desire might be fulfilled!” But there is a further problem. That soul though it longs for God is ultimately much like the souls of those who were in Homer’s underworld—gibbering and irrational, it cannot speak unless a blood sacrifice be provided for it. It is utterly opposed to God, and cannot be reconciled except for in the person of Jesus Christ, who made a way through the impurity and enmity of the lost human soul by his own blood, which was an acceptable offering for the twofold reason of his divinity and his perfect humanity. Thus in Christ, the soul that longs for God may indeed get God himself as he looks on the Christ with eyes of faith and is resurrected to newness of life. This soul sees the great beauty of the Christian gospel, which is foolishness to men but is the very power of God for salvation for everyone who believes.

Thought:

Fri, 19 Apr 2013 18:46:06 -0400

In an atheistic universe, reality is impersonality with pretensions of personality. In the theistic universe, impersonality is given meaning by the absolute Personality of God.

A summary of 1 Corinthians 2:1-5

Thu, 18 Apr 2013 10:53:00 -0400

The security of the saint and the ministry of the evangelist do not rest on their ability to frame a skillful argument, but on the power of Almighty God, who holds the saints secure and by the power of his Word makes the good news (namely, the message of Christ and him crucified) take root in stony hearts.

"Whoever defends himself will have himself for his defense, and he will have no other; but let him..."

Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:51:43 -0400

“Whoever defends himself will have himself for his defense, and he will have no other; but let him come defenseless before the Lord and he will have for his defender no less than God Himself.”

- A.W. Tozer, The Pursuit of God

Atheism and the Necessity of Nihilism

Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:55:18 -0400

It is notable that the internet has produced an interesting subculture of atheism, the members of which possess a pride in their vaunted rationality that is paralleled only by their singular lack of willingness to engage in genuine dialogue. Many proud peddlers of tumblr atheism and r/atheism concern themselves primarily with making image macros of their favorite demagogues and posting screen capped mockeries of facebook stati, while the more astute among them claim that the enlightened modern atheist is the only individual who can do good acts eo ipso, and not out of fear of divine retribution.

So I’ve decided to occupy myself with the task, however futile it may be, of pointing out to one or two of these cultured despisers the actual hopelessness of their position.

My word choice here is extremely intentional. I do not seek to show that the atheistic position is false; such an argument may perhaps be made, but that isn’t the present goal. The goal is to show that the atheistic position, as apparently practiced, is fundamentally irrational. The atheistic position is hopeless, as hopeless a position as humanity has ever invented, for the simple reason that within an atheistic framework ,”hope” as such is an empty word. It carries no meaning other than as a label for a human emotion that ultimately reduces to chemical reactions in the brain.

Furthermore, the atheistic position is one that holds that all that we take to be personal—emotions, moral precepts, ideas, identity—all of it reduces entirely to the impersonal; i.e., chemical reactions, evolutionary morality, physical constants, etc.

The thoughtful atheist will likely agree with the above paragraph, but it leaves him in a bit of a bind. If all that we take to be personal reduces ultimately to the impersonal, humans are indeed systems for “converting dust billions of years ago into dust billions of years from now”, as XKCD creator Randall Munroe observed.

The atheist may respond by saying, “Yes, this is true enough—but the beauty of life is taking that knowledge and choosing to live fully in spite of it, to leave the world a better place than you found it, do good, reduce suffering…” etc., etc., ad nauseam.

Herein lies the irrationality. The basic irrationality of modern atheism is the assertion that life is ultimately meaningless coupled with the desperation to somehow give meaning to life. Faced with the knowledge of the nihilistic reality of an atheistic universe, the most rational individual would be the one who seeks death in the most pleasurable way possible, without willfully deceiving himself with the illusion of meaning given by various “good” or “altruistic” acts. Under this framework, the one who does attempt to give meaning to life isn’t heroic; he’s pitiably irrational. He has no reason to seek the good of other human beings except for a groundless “ought” that ultimately amounts to an appeal to an old morality with little scientific grounding.

takemetothemtns: gearing me up for the season. I wanted to...

Sun, 14 Apr 2013 22:52:28 -0400

takemetothemtns:

gearing me up for the season.

I wanted to make fun of these hipsters for having such impractical camping equipment, but they looked like they were having so much fun I just couldn’t.

Just

Sun, 14 Apr 2013 01:56:12 -0400

saw Lawrence of Arabia for the first time. It may have ousted Dr. Zhivago in my estimation for greatest film of all time.

"If Christians need to face up to the charge of moral inconsistency in light of their behavior (just..."

Thu, 11 Apr 2013 16:32:22 -0400

“If Christians need to face up to the charge of moral inconsistency in light of their behavior (just as atheists do, by the way), then atheists also need to face up to the charge of logical inconsistency in light of what they believe.”

- From A Response to Chris Stedman (via sungyak)

"If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel..."

Sat, 06 Apr 2013 23:17:54 -0400

““If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.””

- Augustine (via notyourgramma)

Colorado Springs named Second-worst-dressed city in America

Thu, 04 Apr 2013 18:37:11 -0400

Colorado Springs named Second-worst-dressed city in America:

I suppose it’s about time we weren’t the best at something.

Rejoice! The Lord of Glory Lives!

Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:03:00 -0400

Now if Christ is proclaimed as resurrected from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection from the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

-I Corinthians 15:12-19

The logic here is clear: we proclaim in Christ that he has been raised from the dead, and from this premise all of our hope springs. If we remove this premise, as some cultured despisers continue to suggest, we are indeed the most pitiful of all people.

But Christ was indeed raised, and today we celebrate his resurrection. The crucified Christ of God lives and intercedes for us at the right hand of the Father, and shall return in glory to judge the living and the dead.

"If I, therefore, the master and teacher, have washed your feet, you ought to wash one another’s..."

Thu, 28 Mar 2013 22:21:06 -0400

““If I, therefore, the master and teacher, have washed your feet, you ought to wash one another’s feet.””

- John 13:14 (via broadswordandthebeast)

A message to the Church from a lesbian sister in Christ

Tue, 26 Mar 2013 07:21:16 -0400

A message to the Church from a lesbian sister in Christ

Found

Mon, 25 Mar 2013 11:01:10 -0400

out for sure the other day that I’ll be doing an independent study of Augustine’s City of God next fall with one of my favorite professors as well as one of my best philosopher-friends. It’s hard to describe how excited I am. Also taking a seminar on Plato. Gosh I love my major.