Three Problems of a Naturalistic Explanation of Biology

 Evolution is the basis for the Secular Humanist's stance on biology. No God, no creator, and no recognition of design- describes the important tenets of evolution. Without the theory of evolution, Secular Humanists would be left without an explanation of the origin of the world, especially without a God. Evolution backs atheism; neither belief could exist without the other. However, evolution is filled with questions and problems that scientists are unable to comprehend; let alone answer. Three problems with evolutionary principles are the ideas of mutations and spontaneous generation, along with the evidence of fossils. 

The biggest problem pertaining to mutations is the idea that mutations are not considered beneficial. Genetic mutations manifest themselves in disease, not in the creation of a physically superior being. Yes, humans adapt in order to survive in their environment, but not in such vast degrees as evolutionists claim. Darwin himself admits that he "did not formerly consider sufficiently the existence of structures which, as far as we can... judge, are neither beneficial nor injurious" (Noebel 183). Evolutionists are left with the problem of explaining mutations that are useless or as I stated before, harmful. Mutation provides the explanation needed for adaptation and thus survival of the fittest, but we cannot find genetic mutations that actually aide the human race. Finally, if a organism was to mutate, how would it procreate? It is difficult to find a mate when you are a outsider, a freak. Micro- Evolution does occur- humans adapt in colder weather or their skin does not burn as easily- but this does not accurately provide a hypothesis for monkey into man. 

             Another problem of naturalistic evolution is the explanation for the creation of the world; no scientist can accurately state where the universe originated. They say particles imploded, but where do these particles come from? Evolutionists attempt to back their argument with the idea of spontaneous generation. Spontaneous Generation is "the theory that non-living matter gave rise to living organisms" (Noebel 181). Not only is this idea illogical, it has been scientifically disproven by Pasteur in the mid 1800s. Yet, evolutionists cling to ideas regarding the Big Bang and the origin of the universe. Time is also used as evidence, but no amount of time can produce the impossible. Secular Humanists, although claiming their belief is founded in science, remain hopeful that new evidence will appear. Darwin himself did not consider spontaneous generation as adequate for explaining the origin of the world, but Humanists must believe in an explosion of matter or their worldview is inconsistent. 

                          Finally, the third argument against evolution is the problem of evidence. No fossil records have been found to support the idea of a monkey evolving into a man. But, Secular Humanists "claim that the fossil record provides an accurate historical account of the process of transmutation of the species, or macroevolution" (Noebel 183). The only evidence of evolution would be found in fossil records that remain invisible. For instance, early fossil records show complex life forms providing no example for the need of evolution. Scientists cannot find any fossil records of the 'pre-evolved' life forms or evidence of the Cambrian Explosion. The Cambrian Explosion is the "sudden geological appearance of most major groups of animals" (Noebel 170). But, no fossil record supports this claim. Also, no transitional forms have been found, which absolves the entire theory that man existed in different forms. The nonexistent fossil record is a severe problem for evolution as it devalues the concepts of transitional forms and the Cambrian Explosion, ideas that form the core of evolution. 

Moral Standards?

Can we live in a world without absolute moral standards? I would argue that we cannot; in the same way that order cannot be kept without laws. For instance, murder and rape are considered crimes and garner heavy jail time. Is that not a absolute moral standard? Would anyone argue that a rapist should go unpunished? No, because his actions were disgusting and corrupted and deserving of punishment. Our society continues to elevate the ethical perspective that states that by possessing no moral absolutes we rid the world of intolerance. First of all, this statement is ignorant because absolute moral standard cannot be simply ignored. Also, how does no moral absolutes increase tolerance? As Christians our basis for ethics is the character of God, and therefore we uphold absolute moral standards as pleasing to God. Because Christians understand that situational ethics unleashes faulty and idiotic ideas upon the world, the secular world fails to recognize the depravity of mankind. Situational ethics provides humans the ability to create their own rules and thus insure their own righteousness. It is "nothing but an excuse to do as we please under the banner of morality" (Noebel 129). They base their entire ethical system on what they consider right and wrong, but have no ability to verify that their ideas are correct. Without standards, the world would erupt in chaos. People could not be held accountable for their actions, because they could claim they did what they thought was right. Indeed, Francis Schaeffer states 'We are merely left with conflicting opinions" (Noebel 129). These conflicting opinions cannot be the basis on which you live your life- they do not agree. Christians cannot uphold the lack of moral absolutes because it defies the will of God. To state that no moral absolutes exist is flawed, as that statement describes an absolute. Situational ethics is filled with holes and contradictions and unworthy of trust. 

Karma

I like the pretty scenes of the ocean and the boat. But, these images do not subtract from the illogical conclusions and misleading information Brian Pedd showed through his video. Several of his statements have no actual significance when discussing life and karma. For instance, by stating that everything has an action and a reaction Brian failed to explain how this relates to difficult issues. Is rape a reaction to a past action? Child molestation? Murder? You cannot answer the problem of suffering and pain with karma- it is cruel and unsatisfactory. Also, Brian said that you needed to listen to your heart when making decisions, but emotions are fickle. How can you base your life on transitory emotions? Karma describes these wonderful ideals but fails to explain how to arrive at them. Words have no meaning, when Brian Pedd states that we should seek fulfillment through our actions, what is fulfillment? Karma is the ethical perspective of Cosmic Humanist and is dependent upon moral relativism and therefore cannot be the universal standard of right and wrong. 

Moral relativism stems from ignoring absolute truths and "rational restrictions"; it is an ethical system based upon the preferences of individuals. Furthermore, morality is ruined as people replace their system of values with what they like. No one can judge the actions of another, or claim their beliefs are more correct- moral relativism denies a universal standard of morality. Noebel states that within Cosmic Humanism "Tolerance is the key: cosmic Humanists must tolerate all other views regarding morality because ethics is relative to the truth within us" (153). They even go so far as to state that Eve was condemned because she began judging when she ate from the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Without a basis for any belief, nothing is regulated or questioned, so what will happen to justice and mercy? Society will fall into chaos without some kind of law and Cosmic Humanist deny universal right and wrong. 

Upon the flimsy basis of moral relativism is karma based on- karma is "the total effect of a person's actions and conduct during each phrase of existence, determining the person's destiny" (Noebel 153). Cosmic Humanists assume that everyone was acting in order to reach a "higher consciousness" and thus are justified in their actions. Hitler's actions were morally acceptable because he was seeking his own path. What a load of garbage! A man that slaughtered millions of people is ok, really? "Good and evil are hopelessly blurred"within the ethical system of karma. (Noebel 153) Evil could become good in another universe and therefore Cosmic Humanism ignore the weight and issue of evil. Cosmic Humanists state that every action will come back to you, but this fails to explain the existence of evil and suffering in innocent people's lives. Noebel states "Unfortunately, because there is no standard by which to judge what may be 'an act of indifference', or 'a misuse of life', we cannot know if there is any difference between cruelty and non-cruelty. This is an alarming conclusion, but one Cosmic Humanists accept" (153).  Basically, actions cannot be judged, evil cannot be punished, and Cosmic Humanists are ok with it. This is why karma is not a universal standard of good and evil and why Nathan should run in the other direction.  When people begin saying, that Christ and Lucifer are the same person, might be a red flag. 

Antigone's Brilliance

"We have only a little time to please the living, but all eternity to love the dead. There I shall lie for ever. Live, if you will; Live, and defy the holiest laws of heaven" (Antigone 128). 

          Antigone's eloquence and wisdom characterize her actions and this particular accusation of Ismene's cowardice. Struggling to free her brother from an eternity of wandering, Antigone considers the afterlife more important than the present. This quote explains the conflict between Antigone and Creon; Antigone strives to please the gods, but Creon, his subjects. Profound and a tad morbid, Antigone understands that life is fleeting, and this recognition demands that Antigone act. Antigone is characterized by strength, action, and courage- this quote is our first glance at the power of Antigone. By dwelling on the afterlife, she becomes a heroine in this life. Antigone respects the dominance of the gods and the "holiest laws of heaven"; she considers the world governed by the will of the gods. The theme prevalent in Antigone is the juxtaposition of the laws of the gods and the laws of man. Antigone represents the will of the gods and reflects their ultimate supremacy as Creon succumbs to disaster. The development of Antigone's character resides in Antigone first speech to Ismene; Antigone reveals her love for her brother and strength in overcoming her grief. On the other hand, Antigone's reproach of Ismene reveals her harshness and her quickness to judge. Her tone is filled with criticism for Ismene's refusal to defy Creon's edict and even disgust for her sister. The flaw of Antigone is also present within this quote- instead of speaking with Creon, Antigone immediately chooses to quietly undermine his authority. Her stubborn and somewhat haughty speech add to overall character of Antigone. In spite of this, Antigone's ability to view life with perspective is admirable and praiseworthy. 

I love this quote. Maybe not the last sentence, but the first sentence holds so much biblical wisdom. Antigone's appreciation for the eternality of death should be the same for Christians; the time we spend on earth is immeasurable compared to our life in heaven. As Christians, we serve a greater power than the laws of man- just as Antigone recognized the will of the gods as superior, so must Christians. Often times, I become caught up in the problems of this world, failing to see their insignificance and thus ignore the "holiest laws of heaven." I have to force upon myself perspective, just as Antigone saw the eternal more important than the temporary, I need to see beyond the struggles of my daily life. I so admire Antigone's ability to clearly and courageously follow the will of the gods, and she had so little evidence for them. Antigone saw the eternal life of her brother more important than her own her, a belief that Christians should possess regarding non Christians, and acted upon it. So many times, I find myself crumbling under my indecision, unwilling to reach out, but Christians must evangelize. Because our evangelization is going to impact eternity, the same way Antigone saved her brother from wandering. Antigone serves as a representation of the Christian life; each day we must be willing to sacrifice ourselves for others. Remembering that the present hardship is temporary, but our glorious future is forever. 

Non-Naturalism: What is real?

Weird Video. I think they should get a different person to speak because he was just creepy. But, basically Cosmic Humanism is pantheistic. Everything is god. This is, of course, going to influence and define their philosophy. Their philosophy is non-naturalism, which Noebel defines as "The belief that everything is a part of God and in essence, spiritual. The things that we can see and feel are only the manifestation of spirit, and all matter will melt away when universal consciousness is achieved" (114). Obviously non-naturalism is the opposite of naturalism and it has swung to the extreme opposite of it. This individual idea makes me question the authority of either philosophy; how can you deny integral parts of the universe. Thus, their explanation of knowledge, truth, and reality are flawed. 

For instance, the basic idea of knowledge for Cosmic Humanists is to find it in your feelings. But how can your feelings and emotions be consistently trustworthy? Their theory of epistemology promotes the idea of getting in touch with your higher self. Really? You think you have all the answers? This is not only absurd but completely conceited. Cosmic Humanists state that "when we get in touch with the God-fore within, we can intuitively know truth without limits" (115). They consider themselves already in possession of all the knowledge they need. But, again, non-naturalism denies the existence of knowledge in the physical universe. Knowledge "exists in the God-force within us" but what is the God-force and how does it know anything? (115) To reduce knowledge to the simpleness already existing in our minds is to deny history, science, and even math. 

Truth and knowledge are intertwined. The poorly conceived reasoning of knowledge translates into an incorrect view of what truth is. In the New Age movement (Cosmic Humanism) truth is equated with your emotions. "New Age truth is emotive rather than descriptive" (115). A somewhat postmodern idea of truth in that truth is "if it feels like truth to you" (115). Non-naturalism's idea of truth is like a emotion driven post modernism. Cosmic Humanists explain truth as a specific experience or feeling, but how can truth be found in a one time feeling? Truth is created from person to person and thus the idea of truth is destroyed. Anything can be truth, and therefore nothing is. 

The Cosmic Humanist's ontology (study of reality) is filled with the fulfillment and truth of self. All reality is spiritual, and the material world is meaningless. The same kind of thinking as Secular Humanists, only switching the importance of material and spiritual. Both beliefs fail to recognize the clarity of a mixture. Non-naturalism believes that humanity comes from God and that He is the "essence of our humanity" (115). They consider everyone a god and strive to treat everyone as such. Reality is therefore skewed and flawed because how can everyone treat everyone like gods? It is impossible. Cosmic Humanists do not see the problem that no one can identify what this god is made of, instead they find comfort in the idea that "since each of us arrives at our own truth and our interpretations will differ" (115). Everyone has a different idea about reality, and their complacency in accepting this reveals their inability to see the physical world as worthy of truth. 

The explanations of knowledge, truth, and reality fail to explain the evidence within the universe and especially within the human mind. Their ideas stem from hopefulness and remain trapped in foolishness. 

Difference Between Naturalism and Dialectical Materialism

Naturalism and Dialectical Materialism are atheistic worldviews, thus their philosophies stem from the same ideas. For instance, both philosophies agree that reality is composed only of matter- that is nothing outside of science can be knowledge. Dialectical Materialism emphasizes the necessity of testing belief in order to insure their validity; whereas naturalism supports the absolutes of science . Both philosophies deny the existence of the supernatural, of God, and the afterlife. However, the application of their atheistic worldviews provide a different approach to life. 

For instance, in the area of metaphysics, their ideas differ. Naturalism promotes that science is all that exists and this determines every aspect of life. Ultimate truth is found in science and science has even become a kind of religion to naturalists. Furthermore, "Secular Humanist naturalism requires that we apply science to every aspect of life, including the social and the moral."(104) On the other hand, Dialectical Materialism denies the existence of metaphysics and instead Marxists state "that dialectics is a method directly opposed to metaphysics, which they claim is an outdated mode of viewing the world." (110) First, let us define dialectical materialism- Noebel states that "the dialectic says that in everything there is a thesis (the way things are) and an antithesis (an opposition to the way things are), which must inevitably clash. The result of the struggle and merging that comes from the clash is the synthesis, which becomes the new thesis. This new thesis will eventually attract another antithesis, and produce a new synthesis."(109) Instead of basing the entirety of their belief on science, dialectics prefer to state that everything is in the process of evolutionary change. Therefore, they claim that there is no metaphysics because it "views reality in disjointed parts, while dialectics views reality as an interconnected whole."(110) However, objectively dialectic's metaphysics is one simply that matter is everything and causes everything. 

Another area of differences is the mind/body problem- that is how does the mind work in relation to the body. Naturalism states that the mind is simply a manifestation of the brain and that it is a "physical phenomenon." (104) It is a belief called monism which uses evolutionary processes to explain the complexity of the mind. However, dialectical materialism states that the mind is a reflection of the material world. Weird, huh? Marxists state that "consciousness is just a subjective reflection of objective reality."(111) Dialectics believe that the mind is simply matter. Both philosophies have a distinct twist on the same idea- how do you explain the human mind when you have denounced a intelligent creator?

              Finally, the main distinction between naturalism and dialectical materialism is dialectic's belief in the constant change of the universe. Naturalism ignores the purpose of mankind, where dialectics believe that new syntheses are happening continually. 

Problems of Naturalism

         Naturalism is the philosophy of Secular Humanists. It claims that all of reality is composed of matter and that everything can be explained by science. Denying all supernaturalism, absolutes, and religion Naturalism places all faith in science. Science has become their religion. Many critics argue that it takes as much faith to rely on science as a religion. How do you explain reality, truth, and knowledge when your philosophy undermines all of these vital facts of life? Instead of adding to the understanding of man, naturalism has merely clouded the lines between everything. A truth is no longer a absolute truth. Here a complication is found, by claiming that Secular Humanism is based upon science but then stating no absolutes exist is ridiculous. Naturalism provides an inaccurate view of reality, truth, and knowledge.

      First of all, naturalism has a limited view of reality. It denies all existence of the supernatural and therefore throws away all possibilities of a Creator or design. By ignoring supernatural and using science as the explanation, naturalism provides an inaccurate description of man. Naturalism states that man's "mind is strictly a physical phenomenon." (Noebel 104). If man's mind is purely physical then how can personality, emotions, and morality be explained? If man is merely evolving, how can you predict the mutations that will develop? How can mutations explain the complex nature of man? Without the existence of the supernatural, God is "sheer folly" according to Humanists. (Noebel 102). Thus, naturalism proclaims that the cosmos randomly produced life, but then they contradict themselves and state "She [cosmos] cannot create but eternally transforms." (Noebel 103). The flaws are obvious. They is still no logical, scientific explanation for the creation of the world. By ignoring all signs of the supernatural, naturalism fails to explain the basics of reality.

          Truth is therefore skewed. Naturalists say truth is only found through observations. Things that can be measured and witnessed. Truth only exists in the physical realm. Naturalism requires that science be the basis for all actions and thoughts. But how does science explain logic or justice? These ideas cannot be measured or proven scientifically, but very few would deny their existence. Science fails to provide reasoning for the evil within the world, the good, and the complex. The physical is not the only thing that exists and therefore cannot be the reference for all things. To be able to state that science is the source of all truth requires more faith than to explain the existence of the supernatural with a Creator. If no moral truth exists, than what happens to the justice department, education, the armed forces? Morality exists, and naturalism foolishly refuses to acknowledge it. If it becomes subjective and scientific, how will truth remain valuable? 

          All of these ideas build off one another. Like the idea of dominos, if one falls down everyone tumbles. Knowledge is based off truth, but if truth fails to accurately describe reality, how can knowledge by true? Noebel explains this problem through epistemology, the theory of knowledge and how it answers the question How do we obtain knowledge? (104) If knowledge is only obtained through science, how do we find information about the nature and character of man? Naturalism cannot answer this question, and merely responds that science is inseparable from knowledge. Because science is constantly changing, how can knowledge be trusted? New discoveries and advancements will destroy all of the knowledge you once possessed. True knowledge is elusive and untrustworthy. Imagine living that way. 

Finally, naturalism is hopeless. To live life purely for community's sake or do find knowledge, where is the satisfaction or security. When life's troubles come in, how do you find peace? Naturalism destroys the system of morality governing the world and the meaning of joy and hope. Naturalism produces only physical answers, so where will you find answers to everything else?

Is God a human invention?

Today, people are constantly claiming that something is a relative truth. That no absolutes exist. God is dead was Niezche proclamation. How do you handle confrontation between people that deny the existance of God? Where do you even start? First of all, I would point out that God's existance can be found everywhere. From the complexity of the human body, the origin of the world, and the natural world around us- a intelligent creator is a logical conclusion. If they disagree, you could point out the flaws in evolution. Such as, where did the particles that prompted the big bang come from? Deep philosophical questions often will stirr people to question why they believe what they believe. Sarah and Mark are ignoring their own thoughts and bodies by claiming there is no god. Search back into the ancient civilizations and you will find record of a god. Perhaps not he god of Christianity, but at least some reference to a higher being. Without the existance of God and therefore salvation the human life becomes very short. You are born and then you die. It is a scary thought. There is no explanation for the hard times of your life or the good times, you are left in a state of apathy and fear.
        However, I will not disagree that society creates its own gods. Not the true God, but certainly they invent their own personal god. Either they themselves are the god (as with cosmic humanism) or the state/government becomes their god. This, in itself, proves humanity's need for a higher truth and law. Humanity needs some kind of salvation.
        In response to Mark's comment that man should evolve past our need of God, Mark obviously disbelief in God negates man's need for him. However, Mark misunderstands the purpose of God, He is our salvation and we will always need Him. Thus, I would describe the nature of God and His love and grace to Mark, allowing him to receive an objective view of Christ. Obviously, to believe in God requires an amount of faith but importantly God is a logical explanation of our world. It is not blind faith, but faith prompted by historical evidence and personal experience. The world is complex and thus demands a complex God.
       Proving the existance of God to an atheist will require patience and prayer. Although my belief in God is one hundred percent strong, an atheist has no knowledge of who God is or what He does.

The Forever All

Weird video. Very much like propaganda. But, its approach to life, while very weird, is accepted by many. Just look at how many likes it received. I wonder how do you respond to someone who denies the very existence of God in exchange for the All. To deconstruct every thought and idea is daunting to me, I cannot claim to know all the answers. But, certain aspects of the video were purely illogical and superficial. Yes, it would be wonderful if we continued forever and ever- but did the author overlook the fact that we die? He, obviously, is not dead and provides no other factual information for the continuance of life except for recognizing a supernatural all.
       The first point I would like to argue is that if you believe in an All, your belief is based on nothing. They state you cannot define the All, you are the all, the fly is the all. Really? Is that all the information you have? It is very unsatisfactory to have no facts or information to suggest why you believe in an All. Basically, Pantheists believe everything is god, or in this case the All that has entirely existed. This is completely illogical. How can it provide answers to the origin of man, the origin of the universe without answering how the All existed. It hurts my brain to try and answer these questions because Pantheism seems so odd. Did the All create them or is it a purely spiritual essence? In the beginning, I would have said the descriptions of the All sounded like God. God did create triangles and pi, but God is a omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent personal Creator. The All is a force. Questions remain unanswered.
         The video said that we are part of a forever cosmic tree whose branches never end. Sounds pretty much like Hinduism, without any references. The entire problem with "branches never ending" is that we die, our body ceases to exist, and if this All remains what do you become? Part of a All blob? It sounds ridiculous. To say we continue to exist prompts questions like where will you go, what will happen to you? Pantheism provides very little explanation for what the All does after you die. Along with this idea that we are indestructible, we are obviously indestructible! Pantheists look over the concept of human sickness, wickedness, and death as separate from the All.
           Finally the flagrantly contradictory statement that you remain unique, but you are all the same. These statements are not in agreement. You cannot all be the All and yet be different. It does agree with society, if we are all a part of the All then how come we cannot agree about religion, politics, or economics? If we are created from the All, and remain steadfastly apart of the All you would like we would share similar beliefs. Yet, the world is consumed in arguments. Pantheists cannot just say we are all one, but uniquely different without clarifying, and they do not.
        Pantheism is a hopeful belief, but naive. It fails to explain the nature of people and the state the world is in. It chooses to ignorantly state there is no God, but uses his creation as evidence for a supernatural All. The appreciation of others and nature is beautiful, but these ideas also have to stem from something more then a force.

Sharing Your Faith

As Christians the way we act either leads people to Christ or away from Him. In today's society, people are hostile to belief systems that condemn them of their actions. Therefore, our message is offensive and as ambassadors to Christ we must learn how to lead others to Christ in a manner reflecting Christ. Three main areas that will aide us in our evangelizing.                                                                                                      
            First of all, we need to gain knowledge; as Christians we must know what we believe in order to share it. For example, Colossians 2:8 states "Do not be taken captive by philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, and not according to Christ."God calls us to understand other worldviews and to see the flaws in them. In the spiritual warfare that consumes Christians, we must be able to defend our beliefs with the truth. Christians need to know the answers and be prepared for the questions people will ask. Also, when answering their questions we must not mock or just spit out bible verses. In order to answer their questions, we must understand their reasoning and how to kindly share the gospel with them. Christians that merely quote bible verses without first forming a relationship are not correctly representing the gospel. To correctly share you faith, I believe you must first have a relationship with that person and thus have your actions speak for your beliefs. Specifically, our lives are a better testimony than bible verses.
            Christians must be wise in the way we communicate with others. If we flounder around and are not clear in our reasoning we have misrepresented the name of Christ. Asking questions about why they believe what they believe can help us prove the legitimacy of the gospel. Avoiding 'verse-bites' about hell and damnation, and instead speaking about the saving love of God is a better approach to ministering. As Christians we often speak to others with a certain 'lingo', referencing ideas and passages that nonbelievers have never heard of. This 'lingo' will only discourage and distance nonbelievers. Proclaiming damnation on street corners is not effective, Christians should change their message in accordance with the specific circumstances they are in.
           One quality that everyone struggles with is how to relate to the people around us, or possessing a righteous character. This righteous comes about mainly through growing in our relationship with God, but is especially evident when witnessing to others. We have to struggle to find the medium between being superficially nice in order to not offend anyone and being indifferent to others and their feelings. I Peter 3:15 expresses that in presenting the gospel we must be 'gentle and reverent'. Also, one of the greatest tools in evangelizing is being real with nonbelievers, not using stereotypical Christian actions and words to minister. Christians must also be ready to say I do not know, it is ok to not know all the answers, just look for them together.
       Most importantly, you are not alone in ministering, God is working in you to share His story of love.

Worldviews Intro #1

Your worldview is never directly mentioned in conservation, but it influences everything you say. Often times, people do not even know the definition of a worldview or what it entails. To quote Norman Geisler and William Watkins, "A worldview is a way of viewing or interpreting all of reality. It is an interpretive framework through which or by which one makes sense of the data of life and the world." A rather complex sentence, but basically a worldview is how you see the world. Think of it as a pair of glasses, you literally see through them, in the same way, you look through your worldview and see the circumstances of the world. Other illustrations are a filter or a tree, the filter is rather explanatory; the tree however uses the fact that trees have unseeable roots. Each person's worldview is like the roots of tree, you cannot see them but you know for certain that they are there. Also, the illustration of roots describes that your worldview is shown through your actions or your fruits. Our textbook defines a worldview as "refer[ing] to any set of ideas, beliefs, convictions, or values that provides a framework or map to help you understand God, the world, and your relationship to God and the world."This is a definition specific to Christianity, but any worldview must answer questions such as- Is there a God? How were we created? Why were we created? Kevin Bywater states that every worldview answers the questions: "What is God? [and] What is Human?" Six predominant worldviews are Christianity, Islam, Secular Humanism, Marxism-Leninism, Cosmic Humanism, and Postmodernism (Found in UTT).  Others exist, but these six define our society and create many questions for the today's Christians. In response to these definitions, we, as Christians, must seek to develop a distinctly Christian worldview so as to reflect Christ in our thoughts and actions. But how do you think in an only-Christian way when society influences are constantly directing us? The solution is not a simple, cut and dry answer, merely a life spent attempting to emulate Christ and accepting grace when we fail. However, certain practices and disciplines can make this easy. For instance, understanding the Bible literally and studying it daily can help a Christian be discerning in a complicated world. Also, we need to be prepared to proclaim our beliefs and be courageous. To do this, we must understand others' worldviews and why Christianity denounces them- thus the reason for taking UTT. We have to be ready to stand up for Christ and answer the "greatest question of our time...[can] man live without God?" Here our a couple steps to create a consistent Christian worldview (taken from Kevin Bywater's video lectures) 1. Don't read your Bibles...Study them 2. Read other worldview materials 3. Put yourself in challenging situations 4. Stretch your intellectual boundaries 5. Engage in cultural analysis 6. Watch your time closely. Most of these practices entail getting to know God and learning how to be a disciple. We must not fear engaging in debates because God can use us in tremendous ways!
 These are not hard and fast steps; they will merely prepare you from confrontations from other views. By knowing God and His word, we will understand how to be witnesses to the world and bring light to them. 

Mere Christianity

C. S. Lewis is thought inspiring. He prompts us to the question what do I believe? After listening to the debates these past couple of weeks, I've realized that I do not fully comprehend God or His intentions. I continue to rest in His promises and assurances, but questions still arise. I could unpack a 'hot' topic, free will versus predestination, abortion, or the death penalty; but I love to talk about the absolute wonder of God, his grace, his love, and his transforming work in my life. Therefore, I chose to discuss the dramatic conclusion to Mere Christianity.  C. S. Lewis states "Give up yourself, and you will find your real self. Lose your life and you will save it. Submit to death, death of your ambitions and favourite wishes every day and death of your whole body in the end: submit with every fibre of your being, and you will find eternal life. Keep back nothing. Nothing that you have not given away will be really yours. Nothing in you that has not died will ever be raised from the dead. Look for yourself, and you will find in the long run only hatred, loneliness, despair, rage, ruin, and decay. But look for Christ and you will find Him, and with Him everything else thrown in" (226-227).

Basically C. S. Lewis is describing the Christian life and the essential components of living the life God planned for you. To clarify, C.S. Lewis is using the "real self" to describe the "self" God desires us to be. Lewis states we must throw away the delusions that a life filled with worldliness and selfishness will satisfy us. It is the classic Christian statement, that life can only be gained through loss, however Lewis twists this statement. He says that you will save it, do not misunderstand and think that Lewis is implying that you can personally earn your salvation. No, Lewis is saying to rid your life of selfishness and thus save yourself from being tempted by the world. Also, Lewis calls us to "submit to death" and not a mortal death, but a death of seeking to satisfy your self- to try and replace God. Lewis also reveals that the things we own are not really ours, and therefore that we should place no value in the materials of the world. The sentence "Nothing in you that has not died will ever be raised from the dead" declares that the selfishness in us will be removed when we die. In light of this fact, we must not be afraid to remove selfishness from our lives. Lewis denounces the pursuit of self and instead reveals that God is the only one who can offer peace and joy. Not purely satisfaction either, but "everything else thrown in"; God will bless us with more than we can fathom. He will define us, and in His definition the world will pale. 

 I know its a long quote, but I couldn't resist removing one phrase from this statement. Not just the message, but his word choice and sentence structure create such an excellent conclusion to the book. The words "give up yourself, and you will find your real self" impact me strongly; that we, as Christians, are defined by God. We fruitlessly search for our identities in the people around us, asking them to fill the void within us. God calls us to "submit to death"; this death sounds excruciating and near impossible. This death is our lifestyle. Sometimes I wonder if its possible to wholly surrender ourselves to God, forgetting that God can do all things- regardless of my inadequacies. I like the line "death of your ambitions", because in a society where the slogan is 'DREAM BIG', this is a wake-up call. God did not want us to live out OUR dreams, he created completely separate dreams that are uniquely HIS. Lewis defines ownership as worthless; and that a life filled with the desires of our heart is like death. Often times I strive for happiness in this world, I hold on to the tiniest flicker of worldly joy and chase it. This chase is futile; I "look for [my]self" and in that struggle for self-grativication and empty joy I flee from God. Sometimes the "hatred, loneliness, despair, rage, ruin, and decay" are all I can see, it is the pit of self, and it is impossible to climb out on our own. When the focus is on school work, grades, or how my hair looks that morning I neglect to see God. Thus comes the line to live by, if you "look for Christ...you will find Him, and with Him everything else thrown in". It is God's promise to his believers, that if we look for Him we will find Him. What a glorious, consuming love our Father has for us, that He is always ready to receive us!!! 

First Assignment

Favorite Poem