Weaknesses of the Protestant Approach to Debate (Part 1)

(I'm sorry, but this article will be a bit longer than my standard ones – just so much to say on it.)

One of my main passions is pursuing truth.  I read, I study, I research, and I discuss theological ideas with some profound thinkers living today.  Most of the people I have these discussions with are Catholics because most Protestants I know are opposed to looking for answers and asking questions.  Personally, after years of research, I fall into a protesting Protestant non-Catholic category.  Protestantism is a “protest” against Catholicism.  I see no point in protesting the historical church, so right now I protest Protestantism.  As a former Bible study leader, missionary, and Bible school teacher I have come to realize that Protestantism suffers many flaws which leave the foundation faulty at best and probably more appropriately described as completely lacking.  However, I think that this mostly comes from Protestants embracing all sorts of weak positions, the rule of secularism within the Protestant church, and a lack of authority within the church, leaving the whole of Protestantism a giant gathering of relativism. 

This leaves me in a position where I can hardly stomach listening to Protestants debate, whether the debate is within a denomination, between denominations, or against the Catholic Church.  But the Protestant can reform their position and start to at least sound less ignorant when they approach debates.  Now, some might be offended by calling Protestants ignorant, but it truly is one of the things Protestants value.  Most Protestant churches will shun people that seek to be able to believe intelligently. Churches try to denigrate them by calling them “head thinkers.”  So rather than ignorance as insult, the Protestant embraces it openly (if not quite hypocritically, but that's a rant for another time).

After debating several times with Protestants, I've learned that there are several weaknesses with which they approach each debate with yet never address.  These weaknesses are so hindering that it makes most arguments with a protestant irrelevant.  In order to strengthen their argument a person would have to deviate from critical protestant thinking that is deeply embedded in the roots of Protestantism.  To help out those Protestants, not only will I explain the weaknesses, but I will offer solutions to strengthen not only the arguments but also the foundation for Protestantism. 

The first weakness is the most often encountered and debated topic: sola scriptura.  For those who don’t know what that is, go here for an explanation.  Essentially, the protestant has approached the argument from a weaker position because they claim that the Bible is authoritative objectively on its own.  Now the problem with this position is that the protestant at the same time claims interpretation is subjective (whether they do so explicitly or implicitly).  If the Bible talked then it could offer up and interpretation that was objective, it however does not talk so people must read it -and reading demands interpretation.  Because of this need to interpret, there is often differentiating opinions among Protestants on the meaning of different passages in the Bible.  So while a liberal Christian (who I must say is also a complete idiot) can argue that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexual sex, a conservative Christian can say it does and they both are reading the same Bible.  Both parties will offer verses in support of their view, interpretation of those verses, and counter interpretations of the verses offered by their opponent.  What this means?  The Bible is only authoritative when accompanied by an authoritative interpretation. 

Why this is a weakness?

Scripture references become irrelevant because nobody agrees on the interpretation.  Therefore, using any Bible verse to support your view is meaningless because somebody else can interpret it differently.  Protestants disagree on grace, sin, salvation, baptism, communion, faith, works, Hell, Heaven, the nature of God, and just about everything else.  This leaves a real burden of proof on the protestant to demonstrate that somehow the Bible can be authoritative objectively without interpretation and yet have no uniform agreement across Protestantism on any important matter to the Christian faith.

Further definition of the weaknesses of sola scriptura:

The first major flaw, which James White as well as numerous other Protestants has tried so hard with no real success to overcome, is that there is no universal agreement among Protestants.  Despite there being a plethora of Greek scholars, Biblical New Testament scholars, archaeologists, scientists, theologians, historians, and many other great minds studying the Bible, there is not agreement on the meaning of most of the passages.  In fact, the number of divisions within Protestantism has grown exponentially from the time of Martin Luther.  Some people have said that it is God that interprets His Word and therefore those that listen to the Holy Spirit are the ones receiving the true interpretation.  Besides the obvious door to relativism that this opens up, this still stinks of error.  The problem is it opens the door to judging who is really hearing the Spirit of God and who isn’t based on who has an interpretation that lines up with your belief. 

So the idea is circular: I believe this because it’s what the Bible says.  This person was a good Christian and they said this is what the Bible says.  Therefore, I believe what I already decided I believed to begin with.

Even without the circular thinking, it STILL is flawed because we don't know who is the judge of whether or not somebody truly heard the Spirit of God.  What this means is that instead of the protestant being able to boldly claim that they “Know where they are going when they die,” the protestant is actually completely unsure because they cannot know whether or not they have the true meaning of scripture.  Who judges whether or not a person truly heard God? 

If God is the judge then none of us can know, leaving the true meaning of scripture ambiguous, making the Jesus’ life and death a waste, because nobody can have access to the truth and we could be led to believe a lie based on a feeling?  A good Christian answers this question with, “My sheep hear my voice.” 

To which I respond, “Well John Wesley, John Calvin, Martin Luther, St. Francis of Assisi also loved God and all drew different conclusions than you.  So why should I assume you are the sheep that is hearing God's voice and not them? “

To which the good Christian responds, “You’re just a head thinker.”

If it isn't God who judges who really was listening to the Spirit, then we either need an individual appointed by God to tell us who really heard God or we need somebody that is an authoritative voice of God on earth to offer a right interpretation of scripture.  Without that, man is left fending for themselves and it makes God look incompetent.  Why waste time leaving the entire eternal future of mankind so unguided?  As man continues to fend for himself, the divisions within Protestantism continue to multiply.  With over 33,000 different Protestant divisions today it seems there is a large burden of proof on the Protestant to demonstrate that sola scriptura is truly accurate and working.  Even if you can explain away 32,500 divisions as completely crazy, you still have to explain how an objective and authoritative source can create 500 different interpretations leading to disagreement – and all different interpretations even on the essentials of the Christian faith.

All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

It seems to me, the above affirmation of sola scriptura is clearly false as demonstrated by the lack of unity on even the fundamentals of salvation.

The second major flaw flows naturally from the first.  The Bible must have an authoritative interpretation to be relevant to a Christian.  Without an interpretation that is infallible, then the individual is left with the chance of their conclusions being wrong.  So the infallible Bible MUST HAVE an infallible interpretation to be viable.

Simple example:

Bob killed Joe.

It's a simple sentence, right?  Reading it is simple enough and the meaning can easily be understood, right? Well sort of. The meaning is based on the context and setting so people really cannot know what it means unless they understand the entire context and setting in which the sentence was expressed.

If the sentence is in terms of a tennis match discussion, then a whole new meaning is interpreted.

If the sentence is about a Halo match, then the meaning is to be understood in a whole different light.  (Sorry if you're too good for video games to understand the reference – you're missing out.)

If the sentence is from a news broadcast then yet another meaning is interpreted.

But the twist is, even with an understanding of the context, the interpretation could be wrong.  Just take the first example to examine.  When we understand the setting of a tennis match most people automatically shift the meaning to describe an event where Bob defeated Joe in a tennis match by a very large margin.  However, it could still be that Bob and Joe were playing tennis, Bob got mad and pulled out a gun and killed Joe.  So unless we know specifically how it is to be interpreted we cannot be sure of the meaning.  This simple example exposes a major flaw of claiming that the Bible is authoritative and can solve all disputes because it demonstrates the need for an absolute interpretation of even a simple sentence in order to understand the real meaning.

The four simple flaws of sola scriptura are: 

•            First, obviously it cannot be objectively authoritative because the divisions in Protestantism continue to grow instead of contract.
• Second, without an absolute interpretation of the scriptures then there is room for each passage to be interpreted differently leading to a completely undefined religion with no boundaries (as demonstrated from the example above). 
•           Third, the Bible doesn't even affirm which books are to be included in the Bible so there must be another authority we look to in order to know which books to include in our “authoritative” book.  This is obviously true as the Bible is a compilation of books over a period of over 1500 years and never lists which books are to be included in the compilation.
•            Fourth, the Bible never claims to be the only authoritative and all inclusive source of all things pertaining to Christianity.  So sola scriptura itself is a tradition derived outside of scripture. 

I didn't really discuss the third or fourth points because they are self-evident. 

How to remedy this flaw?

Protestants need to abandon sola scriptura and embrace the very essence that they imply in each argument: that the individual arguing somehow has encountered the absolute an authoritative truth in which every person that disagrees with them is in error.  When a protestant argues a certain view, they already believe they are right and that you are wrong because you disagree.  So instead of the mock humility trick, “Well, we’re just fallible men” statement, the protestant must insist on the infallibility of their belief.  Nobody believes you’re really humble when you sit there arguing about how another person is wrong because of such and such a verse or because the person “Obviously doesn’t understand” or the person is a “Head thinker.”  Save us from the pretend humility and instead blatantly shout, “I’m right because I’m infallible. All my views are 100% correct and if you disagree then you are wrong.”  This at least establishes something to debate against.  Otherwise all the time is spent trying to defend a position that has no foundation for objective truth.  At least claiming to be infallible is claiming to have access to objective truth – rather than menial fallible “truth” that could possibly wrong, but we're not 100% sure it is, so it could be right as well, even though history doesn't support it and it's irrational, but logic is evil and God hates it so it’s more likely that you're wrong because you're trying to be smart, and we should just agree to disagree.  (Was that a bit too much?)

If you insist on claiming fallibility, then I insist your fallibility is acting in full force right now and that you’re wrong; so quit telling me I'm wrong because you're, “. . .just a fallible man.”  If Protestants insist on sola scriptura they will exhaust all the debate trying to defend an indefensible position.  Yes, even though people like James White have tried really hard to defend sola scriptura, they have failed.  The reason is because the errors are so simple and obvious, that the foundation disintegrates quickly.

In spite of the glaring fractures in the foundation of sola scriptura, it is still the foundational belief of most Protestants.  It is perhaps the biggest weakness they approach arguments with and leads to an exhausting rabbit chase in debates.  Protestants will go off on a thousand bunny trails to try and defend sola scriptura.  My tip is to stop wasting everybody's time.  There is no illusion that you humbly believe that those beliefs opposed to yours could be right, so just step up and claim to be infallible on your interpretation and let the debate progress to the real issues.

A Need to Look Back

Upon the successful capture of the second Boston bombing suspect last week, some interesting questions were raised.  When the government put the whole city on lock-down the people of the United States said next to nothing.  Essentially, martial law was initiated and there wasn't even a complaint from the citizens – well nothing that drew any attention.  So one question arises, what kind of event is necessary or what level of intensity must an event create before the people will allow the government to lock-down a city?  Right now it was a bombing, will later it be a robbery of a gas station?  It's amazing that the freedoms and liberties that are forefathers cherished so much can so easily be tossed a side.  I still do not know whether or not I disagree with the government's actions, but it does press the issue as to when else the government might feel inclined to lock-down a city or neighborhood.

Anybody that followed the news through the week also noticed that there was a mountain of false information with only a little true information being passed through.  News media used to gather facts and then report facts.  Even though the information age has driven society to the point of demanding instant feedback, shouldn't there be a level of accuracy demanded before something is reported?  I know somebody will say that due to the chaos of the events the truth was hard to get at or due to the nature of the situation evolving there wasn't enough time to verify the information.  This however doesn't mean the news should not be held responsible.  Between the use of social media and the continuous river of rumors that were reported people not directly involved in the bombings were impacted – some in a negative way (like the original teenager that was reported as a suspect).  The ravenous people that were devouring all the media threw at them expected there to be some degree of truth in the reporting, when in fact there was very little.  Maybe the people should be held responsible for putting such a high demand on the media or for consuming the information without processing.  It should at least raise the questions, “Who is responsible?” and “What is a reasonable expectation of the media?”  At some level there has to be some sort of accountability to hold people to.  This isn't about a law or passing some new regulation, but about the people putting forth a demand of accountability.

Now that the excitement has settled and the suspect has been caught, it’s time to start looking at the ramifications of the week.  Questions need to be asked about the rights of all Americans, about our information gathering, about the media, about the role of government, and about accountability.  There is a danger that we will walk away from the situation just thankful to have captured the person who committed the crimes and not learn the lessons we need to as a country.  The last time I remember martial law was after hurricane Katrina and it was a mess.  People were not happy about it (I was doing work down there 3 days after the hurricane), but they made due because of the devastation that had just occurred.  Now we moved from natural disasters that incurred damage on a grand scale, to a bombing that was relatively small (it doesn't make it less tragic or the losses suffered any less important – those families still need support and prayer).  In the pursuit of justice it is possible to become unjust.  Sometimes the line becomes blurry the further down the path somebody goes and we as a nation have to be diligent to protect ourselves from a government blazing ahead in a quest for “justice.”  The greatest chance for a government to go astray is when people stand watching and cheering and it is our responsibility to make sure we hold them accountable. 

Again, I must emphasize that I'm not explicitly saying that the way the situation was handled was wrong.  My desire is to make sure people realize that we can't celebrate the capture and not analyze the rest of the events.  People need to be aware that sometimes by simply not asking questions it is looked at as a sign of approval.  I don't want the media to think they can continually feed me rumors and false information and I don't want the government to think that the next time something bad happens they can lock-down the city.   What seems to be lacking from people, or maybe it just hasn't been fierce enough to garner a response, is the outright questioning and analysis of the events from last week without attention to the bomber.  The best magicians use distraction to achieve their illusions.  While the eyes and ears are focused on one thing, something subtle is taking place somewhere else.  If we are not careful, we stand to suffer a greater loss than being tricked by a magician because the media and government will not be afraid to try the same things again in a different setting.   It's not about conspiracy, but about responsibility.  Complacency cannot be allowed to take over in the aftermath of events like the bombing last week.

In the Face of Tragedy, Unity

It has been a tough week for America.  Earlier in the week we had the Boston bombings and then we had the explosion of the fertilizer plant in Texas.  What amazes me about America is that it always seems to come together after tragedies.  Right now we have one of the most polarized divisions in the history of the United States and there doesn't seem to be an end to it in sight.  However, after the bombings there was a moment where you could see what makes this country so amazing.  It was in this moment where the people seemed to stand up and say, “We will not be defeated!”  And that is the mentality that seems to only come in the face of grave tragedies.

Now, I’m not going to take the liberal stance and say things should always be that way and that we should just hold hug and move on.  There is real division and it comes over a passion to drive this country toward continued greatness.  A true conservative doesn’t admire Europe and doesn’t look to the government to make the country better – a true conservative looks to the people living here.  Conservatives fight against liberal ideals with such aggression because they refuse to become something other than what this country is.  This country was not build on a defeatist attitude, but rather through drive and passion to never lie down until the battle was won.  When tragedies, like the ones from this week, happen, it seems there is a moment where the entire country remembers that drive and passion and unites – but it is only for a moment.

I wonder though how long this response will keep up.  When will the defeatist attitude of liberalism win out and leave our country surrendering after a tragedy rather than fighting?  The pursuit of liberalism weakens this nation.  President Obama is the weakest president to lead this country in years.  He is ignorant and dangerous because he is willing to surrender the United States.  Now, I don’t mean in the literal sense, but rather that with each bill, each tax, each agenda he fights for, the president demonstrates that he is willing to give away the rights and freedoms of the people to secure government power.  He holds to no values and instead is willing to compromise to make happy but with no ultimate goal in mind. I do have my doubts that he would be willing to fight on in the face of defeat, but that’s only speculation.  The point is, if we as people are willing to give up our money, our guns, our rights, and our freedoms, I wonder if we will still stand as a country in the face of tragedy and shout, “WE WILL NOT BE DEFEATED!”  Is the country at risk for becoming a country of surrender?

The divisions in this country and the strong beliefs need to keep empowering people to fight the battle.  It should drive people to fight on because they care so deeply about the future of the nation.  I fear that as we decide to make sacrifices in order to be united, this country will learn to give up rather than to fight on.  Passion, beliefs, and values need to continue to motivate people to be active and engaged in the shaping of this country.  In spite of the obvious corruption throughout government; in spite of the weakness of our president; in spite of the overwhelming feeling that this country is lost, people must fight on.  When we give up the fight for what we believe in, then we as a nation failed.  This current polarization being experienced is because there is still such a passion for this country and a desire to make it remain great.  However, because the vision for the future of this country comes from such a weak leader, there is a great schism that is created and the desire for a great country becomes something to divide on rather than to unite around.  Strong leaders unite people around a vision and weak leaders create rifts among the people, only drawing people that share their same values.  Unfortunately, it seems that the only time this country will unite under our current leader is under circumstances of tragedy because our president is a weak leader. 

The good news is I think these tragedies show that this country still can unite.  However, we face a crossroads now that will determine the future: do we continue down the path of surrender or do we stand together in the path of conquering.  This country is in desperate need of a good leader with a strong vision.  I do not see one coming any time soon though, from the liberals or the conservatives.  So now it is up to the people of this country to make sure we stay strong.  It is up to the people to fight on. 

Remember the fallen in these tragedies and pray for their families.

Liberal Hypocrisy: The Lies That Build the Pillars of Liberal Thought

After reading several different news stories this week that focused on the repercussions suffered by people who made some kind of comment about gay marriage, homosexuals in general, or the “transgender”, I decided it was time to discuss the hypocrisy of liberalism.  Two things liberals tend to express pride in are open-mindedness and tolerance.  Apparently, in the mind of a liberal, tolerance and open-minded thinking are the paths to a better society. 

The firth thing to note is that both of these so called virtues are LIES.  A liberal is not open-minded.  Rather, liberals only accept ideas that coincide with their views.  If a person has a view that takes an objective and authoritative stance against the liberal’s view, then the liberal will reject that view without so much as listening to an argument.  It is impossible to reason with a liberal because they are closed off to the every view opposed to theirs.  No rational argument can be made to defend abortion, yet it is common place now and the liberal will never listen to the logical and rational arguments that completely decimate any defense of abortion (check out this blog for some articles on abortion: Shameless Popery).  However, rather than go into all the political areas where the liberals fail to have a valid defense, the point of this is to say that the liberal rejects certain views whole heartedly without argument or justification.  This means, that the trumpeted open-mindedness is actually a farce.  Liberals are actually opposed to views against their own and hence they are close-minded in reality, because they are not really willing to listen or even process arguments.  If they were, liberalism would have faded away long ago because it has the most irrational and illogical defenses possible (As I discussed in another article, Bad Argument, Good Strategy: The Success of Liberalism in America).

Tolerance, the other pillar of liberalism, is just as much a lie as the open-minded claim of the liberal.  Have you seen how liberals treat people that are opposed to their views?  Look at Dana White from the UFC suspending a fighter indefinitely for his comments about a transgender fighter (Read here).  Liberal mayors fought against allowing Chick-Fill-A restaurants in their towns because the CEO of the chain is opposed to same-sex marriage (Read here).  When boxer Manny Pacquiao spoke out against homosexuality, a Hollywood mall banned him over his comments (Read here).  The liberal DOES NOT tolerate views that they deem as intolerant.  Instead, the liberal works hard to silence every other view in order to have only their views remain.  It is the liberal ideal to have all in agreement with liberal views, not to have all live in harmony with opposing views.  Speaking out against same-sex relationships is enough to get a person fired, banned, and prevented from opening a private business in their cities.  This is complete intolerance of others rather than tolerance.

Despite the obvious errors of their positions, liberals will still run around trumpeting the ideals of open-mindedness and tolerance so don't be fooled by it.  The only thing the liberal tolerates is people who hold the same beliefs as them. 

---

Side note:

A quick side analysis of open-minded and close-minded.

First, technically speaking there is no difference between open-minded and close-minded. By claiming to be open-minded you are suggesting that you are more open to ideas than not. Close-minded is simply being open to far less ideas. Both are being open to some and closed to others. Now the real problem is that mathematically speaking they're both equal (which is why I say, technically speaking there is no difference).

If we say:

The open-minded are open to 95% of the views and ideas. Meaning they are willing to at least consider them and process them.

The close-minded are open to 5% of the views and ideas. Meaning they will not consider or process the other 95% of ideas.

Because there is an infinite number of ideas, opinions, positions, and propositions we could say that open-minded people are open to 95% of infinity and closed-minded people are open to 5% of infinity. Because they are both ratios in terms of infinity they are both undefined and are therefore equal.  Ratios of infinity are complete irrational and incomparable mathematically.

So the open-minded tag to define the liberal thinking is irrelevant.  Only in terms of a finite list of ideas, opinions, positions, and propositions can there be a distinction. This makes the whole claim of open-minded and close-minded seem rather pointless - just a thought.

Irrational Christianity: Condemnation of Logic (Part 2)

In part 1 of Irrational Christianity, I gave a very brief and light explanation of why Christians tend to condemn rational thought.  Though it was quite concise, I didn’t want to spend any more time discussing the foundational Christian animosity toward logic.  Instead, I want to move on to the next part which is to explain why this thinking is wrong. 

The first reason it is wrong is because the unintelligent Christian will often accuse logic and reason as being relative to the individual.   It is said that it is simply, “Your logic” as if to imply that logic is somehow subjective.  This is a huge misconception of the uninformed.  Logic, by nature is objective.  If math in Asia was different than math in the United States we would have a problem.  However, due to the nature of logic, it is not.  I think the primary reason this misconception happens is because somehow people try to separate logic from math or science.  Maybe they try to make it a substitute for common sense or the like.  Whatever the reason, this misconception is indeed false.

Logic is not man made.  Much like the laws of science or mathematical principles, logic is a definition of something that exists or holds true regardless of definition.  So when in philosophy we have the fallacy of composition, nobody is inventing something, instead philosophers have defined that which is true of statements regardless of location.  The fallacy of composition simply states that the properties of the parts of a whole do not necessarily apply to the whole.  This is true whether or not it is defined as a fallacy or not.  For example, hydrogen is lighter than air and oxygen is breathable by humans, however when the whole is made of two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule, the whole does not share either of the properties of the parts (water is not lighter than air and is not breathable by humans).  Hence, the fallacy of composition isn’t a man-made idea it is simply a truth based on analysis of what exists.  Terminology helps communicate the truth of the principle that is already taking place, but it does not make it true.  So when people attempt to put logic in a separate category than say math, they have a bad conception of logic – really math is the algorithmic definitions of logic related to quantifiers.  Meaning there is correct math and incorrect math, but there is not an individual’s own math that is only specifically true for them. 

There is something called logical inference which is a bit different than the rules of logic.  Logical inference is the idea of using the rules of logic to infer a conclusion.  The conclusion might end up being false, but if the steps taken followed basic rules of logic and the facts given did not contradict the conclusion made then we can say the conclusion was sound. It is still possible to have a sound conclusion end up being false.  So let’s say I know a ninja is following me, I also know that that particular ninja was hired to kill me.  It would be a logical inference to say that this ninja was going to attempt to kill me.  Now, being that the ninja is human and could have a sudden change of heart it is possible that the ninja never actually attempts to kill me (or more likely successfully kills me).  Therefore the conclusion could be proven to be false, but the logical inference was still sound given the facts available.  Sometimes people think that since the conclusion of a logical inference can be wrong, then logic is untrustworthy, but that is wrong thinking.  Hopefully this simple example showed the distinction between the rules of logic (and their application) and the conclusions drawn from a logical inference and helps show why the conclusion can be sound yet sometimes nevertheless be false.

Another aspect that shows this dilemma between faith and reason is false comes through theological understanding.  When Christians talk about God creating the universe, there is an underlying presupposition that is hardly discussed: Christians are actually claiming that God made a rational universe.  Meaning, it was God’s design to have patterns, methods, and understandable functions within the very design of the universe.  This is a presupposition in science as a whole, that the universe is rational and therefore can be understood.  If this was not the case, then the advancements we have made in civilization would not have taken place.  In order for there to be advancements there must be understanding; in order for there to be understanding there must be rational thought.  An irrational universe renders science useless. 

A second part of theological understanding comes from the Book of Genesis chapter 1 verse 27. This verse describes God as creating man being made in the “image of God.”   One aspect of this “image of God” is being made with a mind that is logical and therefore a mind that can reason.  This assumption is in place from the very start of creation, because without reasoning Eve could not be convinced to take the forbidden fruit.  However, because she could reason, the devil reasoned with her and she made a poor choice.  With reason there comes accountability and responsibility.  So the Bible assumes from the very beginning that God made a rational universe and that he gave man rational minds that could reason by process of logical thought.  In fact, given these two premises is why the church actually sponsored science and encouraged scientific exploration; because God created the universe to be understood and gave humans the mind to understand it.

Some people might be chomping at the bit to shout out, “But the fall corrupted man’s mind!”  My answer to that is simple, yes in some areas, but it did not destroy our ability to use logic and reason.  Maybe our thoughts can be evil; maybe we are prone toward sin; maybe we can’t think on the things we need too (without even touching the other theological ideas like the effect of baptism); however, we are still able to process logically and use reason to make good inferences otherwise we could not be accountable.

Logic is demonstrated every day to be universal.  As an example, for East Sunday I was at a gathering and there were a couple different families there and quite a few children.  I told a seven year old girl there, Victoria, that in order to live a good life she should just not do anything I do.  She responded, “So I can’t eat anymore, or bathe, or walk, or use the bathroom?”  Simple logic expressed through the mind of a seven year old girl, yet we have adult Christians who run behind faith and condemn logic, acting as if faith and reason cannot coexist.  If a seven year old can be reasonable, why can’t a mature Christian?

Irrational Christianity: Condemnation of Logic (Part 1)

A friend of mine was discussing some recent debates we’ve engaged in and we came upon an intriguing topic.  We were discussing the trend of Christians to write off logic as a weakness and sign of an immature Christian.  There is a continuous pattern of debates where at some point the opponent accuses of me of being too intellectual and caring too much about logic – often the opponent will label me a “head-thinker” and not a “heart-thinker.”  So after numerous repeated offenses of this behavior I have decided to call out those Christians who have a fascination with degrading intellect, and I will breakdown the cause of these outbursts and the expose the fallacy of the thought processes behind it.

The first thing to realize is that this is not a new phenomenon.  In fact, it is because of this rejection of intellectual arguments that the church has fallen to the state it is in now.  A long history of embracing emotional experience and rejecting logical thought has brought about the subjective thinking and embracing of relativism.  It could be traced back to Martin Luther, but it is probable more appropriately assigned to the growth of the Pentecostal movement.  From the very origins of the movement, to its growth in the later 20^th century, the movement emphasized the personal experience with the Holy Spirit in a baptism of the spirit that was a confirmation of the believer’s faith.  Christianity moved to an emphasis of the believer’s experience and further away from the apologetics and theological disciplines that were present in the 19^th and early 20^th centuries.  The great minds of C.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis were replaced by the individual’s interpretation of their inward experience. 

There was a second event that really shifted the focus of Christianity, perhaps it even had a greater impact than the internal focus of Pentecostalism, and that was the release of Darwin’s The Origin of Species.  Science had long been a part of the church, but when science began to produce results that seemingly were against Christian belief the church retreated at great speeds.  Rather than stand and investigate the evidence as to whether core understandings should be scrutinized, the church ran far from it.  It established a dichotomy, where some items were simply of science and some were things of faith.  The ability to even use reason to study the world that the church believes God had created was not even considered by most.  Science became an enemy and the church retreated from the world of academia.  This move left the academic world to those of the non-Christians – a move that would hinder the church almost irrelevant in the educated world.

Now to be fair, there are even more factors that have contributed to this view than what I listed.  Much of the rebellious nature of Martin Luther and division of thought into personal views began with the Reformation; my point was to draw attention to some of the most damaging movements that specifically shaped the landscape of Christianity today.  There are still Christian scientists and philosophers today and there are some Christian schools and universities.  Some of this is in response to the absolute deterioration of the church and so is an attempt to fix some of the wrongs. Nevertheless, my point is that I made some admitted generalizations above and didn’t breakdown all the exceptions nor all the other parts that led to the state of the church today.  I only want there to be an understanding of the founding principles behind many Christians today.

This brings us to a situation today, where there is a belief that has been built up over centuries that have taught Christians that intelligence is for the land of the unfaithful.  After all, science was an academic approach of reason and logic, seeking to find explanations about the world around us.  Religion was the realm of the faithful that could protect people from being distracted by following methodical approaches to understanding, because those discoveries could lead us from religion.  Also, remember the Pentecostal movement’s speed of growth left many people embracing many of the ideas behind it without necessarily becoming Pentecostal.  Churches now emphasize this personal experience as a return to New Testament Christianity and act as if something pure had been contaminated throughout the centuries as the Church defined boundaries of thought, created detailed theology, and participated and sponsored intellectual pursuits like science and philosophy.  If science is evil and internal experience is all the matters, then centuries of rigor from the Church had lost the heart of New Testament Christianity.

So when a Christian today throws out an insult on logic they truly believe it is true on some level.  Though simple analysis says, if they are so against logic and reason, why do they attempt to argue using logic and reason?  The real answer is that there are so many background and foundational beliefs to Christianity today that they believe, through matter of inheritance, that seeking knowledge and understanding is dangerous.  Many pastors today still become all upset and disgruntled when a person begins asking them the hard questions.  Instead of being honest about the questions, they go into Church retreat mode and offer consolation answers, such as “All you have to know is Jesus.” And “You think too much.  You’ve just gotta have faith.”  It is really unsatisfactory for the curious mind, but then again having a curious mind is thought to be a path to the land of the non-faithful according to Christianity today.

Now in debates that take place, the person is always willing to debate and offer logic and reason for a while.  It isn’t until the person is put into a place where their belief is exposed as being logically unsound and standing on faulty premises that the person will retreat to the realm of religion.  One can rationalize and debate only until the person’s fallacies are undressed and the true nature of their weakness can be seen by all.  Certain topics can fast track this process and lead to the opponent running to the “faithful.”  For example, explain how Darwin does not defeat Christianity and that evolution and even the Big Bang (an event that Darwin didn’t hypothesize about) can actually both be true and STILL have God as the creator and designer of the world today and watch the Christian call you names and run away.  Even though the defense supports Christianity, it delves into the realm of science and that is where Christians should never want to find themselves.  Discuss church authority and the very foundations of the Church and see them run away because, “You only care about doctrine and being right.  All a person needs to know is Jesus.” And then, the proverbial nail in the coffin, well at least they always think it is, is thrown out, “Remember, ‘For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight’.” And with the quoting of 1 Corinthians 3:19, the matter is supposedly closed.

This provides a very simple analysis of how the average Christian comes about to embrace irrational faith rather than rational faith.

World Views: A barrier to reason

I’ve debated many times and often find people asking me what the point of it all was.  The reason they ask this question? No matter how well you debate and how logical an argument is, nothing seems to make a dent in the other person's thinking.  So why is it that people hold to irrational views in the face of rational alternatives?

Personally, my oldest brother debated me for over three hours this last Christmas (an argument about church authority – my brother is a protestant).  After chasing down every fire set by him and eradicating every argument, his only form of defense was to say that maybe the disciples got it wrong (he was talking about the structure of the church) from the beginning.  This line of thinking nullifies any reasonable belief in the Bible in the first place, but he was willing to offer that explanation in spite of the ramifications of such a belief.  Why? Because I had attacked his world view.

The simple part of the answer is that it is due to the world view of the person, but there are many layers to it.  World views begin when a person is a child and then is engrained through the years of life.  Life experiences, teachings, cultures, family, friends, and so many other little aspects solidify a view of the world in which all data is interpreted.  Somebody once said, “There is no neutral data.”  The reason is, because as soon as we can even say, “It’s data”, we’ve already interpreted it on some level to even come to that conclusion.  Whether or not you accept the premise, there is a good deal of truth to the idea.  People naturally interpret their encounters and interactions based on their world view.

Simple example, look at this silhouette and see what you think it is. Now, ask yourself, “Would an Indian tribe in the Amazon rain forest interpret this image in the same way?”

Now with that very simple explanation in place, consider what happens when you try to challenge that perspective.  Not only are you insulting everything that person believes and holds dear, you’re challenging the entire system in which they used to come to the conclusion they have.  It is perceived as an insult to their culture, experience, family, education and everything else from their life.  This is the barrier which logic cannot penetrate.  All of their life experiences are interpreted through this world view and the positions they hold dear are further strengthened with each new experience they interpret that supports their position.  So even though their interpretation of events or ideas might not be necessarily able to add veracity to their view, due to their world view they will not see it that way.  This is why people often talk about experiences they have had and how they support the conclusion they have drawn – their world view interprets those experiences in way to fortify their position, continually growing more and more support for what they believe and hold dear.

A world view also has a second part to it though.  It also determines automatically which ideas to reject.  Whether due to culture or teaching, people learn to dismiss certain views automatically without question.  People learned certain arguments against some ideas or were taught certain philosophies growing up and therefore they have no room for listening.  This can perhaps be the most frustrating aspect of world views to deal with because if you come from a position which is automatically rejected by the person’s world view, it becomes next to impossible to reason with the person.  Why? Because they will never actually LISTEN to your points.  All they see is something that is false or even dangerous and should be thrown out; they see something that not only is opposed to their world view, but something that is flat wrong inherently.  Many arguments never even reach the ears of people because of this aspect of a world view.

This isn’t to say every view is valid and should be considered.  But at the same time, if somebody can offer a reason for a stupid view, I have more respect for them than the person who can offer no defense for what they believe – even if I agree with it!  A person’s world view is the most difficult thing to break through.  No amount of good arguments will dent the barrier.  Until a person is willing to put some of the pillars in their world view at risk they will not be convinced by reason.  So I debate hoping that somebody else will be impacted by the reasoning – somebody searching for truth. I also debate hoping, that maybe by chance, this person will risk a pillar of their world view and be willing to listen.  Lastly, I debate in the pursuit of truth, always remembering that I too have my own world views.