“You Can’t Stand the Truth!”

“You Can’t Stand the Truth!”

Who can read those words and not think of Jack Nicolas as Marine Col Jessup in “A Few Good Men?”

Yet, that is a question that divides people, not just in a movie but in the conduct of life.

The question we all need to face is this.  “Can you stand the truth?”  If one can stand the truth, they will go wherever necessary to seek out that truth.   If one can stand the truth, they will push their truth paradigm ever deeper until it is either validated or falters.   

On the other hand if such a person limits that truth to what they  choose to believe then such truth is a product of one’s volition*—that is one’s will.  Such may mean that honest inquiry is lacking.  Why would this be so?  Consider the following.

On one side of the question you have intellectual integrity on the other side intellectual bias.  On one side you have intellectual vulnerability on the other side intellectual resistance.  On one side you have intellectual bravery on the other side you have intellectual cowardice.  On one side you have intellectual daring on the other side intellectual cowering.  On one side you have intellectual freedom on the other side you have intellectual bondage.    

Yet it is the one who lives in a world of intellectual bias, resistance, cowardice, and cowering who proclaims his intellectual freedom all the while disparaging those of differing opinion.   One must ask, “Why not hear what others have to say?” Aristotle observed,

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”

What is most interesting is that those who claim to be willing to follow the path to truth wherever necessary, at least in my experience, close off all but what they can mentally deduce.  Their position is best described as cynical of anything that cannot pass their own rational filtration processes. 

Classically this is called rationalism and in the extreme it rejects all other avenues to truth such as Empiricism and Existentialism.  In lesser degrees it is the filter applied to other avenues to truth.

Three simple observations are to be made at this point.

First, one does well to push truth ever deeper to see if it is durable or destructed.  If one’s truth is not durable then it most certainly will fall in the face of challenge.  It is the brave person who can face that eventuality and re-chart his life and purpose.  The coward resorts to affective responses and personal attack.

Second, there is no new truth only the discovery of the truth that already exists.  For that reason he is prudent who does not become so ensnared in a truth paradigm that it cannot change with the discovery of deeper realities.

Third, truth is a stewardship issue.  When one discovers deeper and deeper truth such vests that person with a responsibility to then live out that truth no matter the cost.

In summary, underpinning the above is a simple principle.  It is this.  Truth is a character issue and today in western culture truth discovered, challenged, and lived out, has been relegated to a place of irrelevance.  Indeed it has been sacrificed on the altar of expedience. 

*thought elucidated at http://www.gospeloutreach.net/bible.html

"Does the God Gene Prove God?"

As If God Needed Someone to Prove His Existence!

There are I suppose two positions one might take when it comes to genuine science.  One can join the weight of history and view science as that which reveals and explains Scripture and faith.  There of course is another option.  It is that one can join the relatively recent (post enlightenment) group and seek to discredit Scripture and faith by using Science.

The discredit crowd will choose their particular issue and claim that the Bible in general and Jesus in particular could have said something about it.  Of course, such would turn the Bible into a science book rather than what it is, the revelation of just who Jesus is and what He has done for mankind.

Then too, it really would prove nothing for the skeptical would find some other lack and make the same claim that the Judeo-Christian Scriptures are invalid because they do not treat ____________ (you fill in the blank)l

That being said the Bible does contain a great deal of indirect reference to matters of nature.  For example Jesus talked about the coming day of the Lord in terms of various activities in the Jewish household.  Since the coming day of the Lord is a point in time event and since being in bed, grinding, and being in the field would point to that which we call time zones or different parts of the day occurring at the same time.

Another is found in the Book of Ecclesiastes where Solomon writes of wind currents and the water cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7).

Then too consider that much early science was accomplished by people of faith.  Now there were differences in doctrine but the following men were committed Christians.

Copernicus, the first astronomer of the scientific revolution

Galileo discovered the laws of dynamics and is known for his achievements in astronomy. 

Kepler, the German astronomer, a contemporary of Galileo

 Newton on the Scriptures

Newton's mathematics influences optics, mechanics, and celestial dynamics*

These are but a few of the men who are joined by women who made a difference not because they devalued Scripture by their science but because they valued both Science and Scripture.  In fact, if you read the article cited below you will find that Newton wrote over a million words in his discussions of Scripture.  

Well, then what happened?  Why the change?

 

"Shifts in Thinking"

Perhaps the greatest influence was as the result of the Great Enlightenment and the coming of rationalism.  The point of agreement between Judeo-Christian (European thinking) and Rationalism is that there at least is genuine reality.  They did not agree on what constituted truth but they at least could agree that there was such a thing as truth.  Such difference was largely based upon the difference between revelation and rationalism (Modernism).

Again, there were different beginning points the outcomes were many times divergent but at leas there was an agreement that there was some kind of genuine reality.  However, a third movement would enter the picture--a movement that begin with yet another starting point.  The movement is Post-Modernism and further distanced itself from Scripture and matters of faith. 

Beginning some 150 years ago, the shift became more pronounced with a further move away from the Divine and toward secularism.  Secular Science came to the fore with the result that it was not even willing to exist along the side of Faith and Scripture.  In many cases it sought to discredit the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. 

Hitchens

 

"Extensions of Science"

As many will know, if you follow mathematics, physics, etc. out far enough they begin to merge into a philosophy as opposed to what we think of as algebra or geometry.  When that happens others enter the discussion, philosophers.  So it is that the likes of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens not only enter the discussion but as their thinking gains traction, they begin to influence what happens back up the process and in the arena of research.

Now the outcome of research is that it is not so much science but philosophy and so instead of provable science you now have speculative or theoretical science with it emphasis on probabilities etc.  Of course the more speculative and probability you add to the discussion the more one's biases and presuppositions can enter into the discussion and such is not without influence in the outcomes.  Empiricism is now lost.

 

"The God Gene"

Now add the "God gene" into the discussion.  Of course such spawns a plethora of discussions and debates.  What secular science cannot answer is the reason it is there for it serves no evolutionary purpose.

For those who accept the notions of there being a Divine designer and Creator, the idea of a God gene is not problematic.  Such being a genetic reality (if it is true) is consistent with something that Christians have been saying for years.  God created man with a need for the Divine.  The Bible tells it this way, "...that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them." (Romans 1:19).  Once again, the Bible is not a science book but peaking through its pages is science.

On the other side of the discussion the secular evolutionist would say that such is simply a mutation, a quirk of the evolutionary process.  Further they would argue that this is a genetic dead end and that one day it too will mutate away and man will become completely free of the need for religion.

 

"Secular Spirituality"

Of course, this presents another problem.  What is one to do to meet the need fostered by the God gene when it is activated?  The answer is a fairly recent division of spirituality and religion.  That is to say that one can have a spiritual dimension in life without the inconvenience of Scripture, doctrine, creed, and denomination, etc.   

At a recent lecture on the subject, it was presented that things that speak to the deepest parts of man, speak to this spiritual dimension.  Such things as poetry, music, other of the arts, and a whole host of physical experiences will plunge the individual to a revelation, a consciousness of this arena of the individual.  Even Richard Dawkins give some credence to the notion of spirituality calling it "sexed up atheism." 

+ + + + + +

In closing, it seems to me that this notion of there being a spiritual dimension to man even though conflicted still in all takes us back to the beginning point of this post.  It seems to me that it takes us back to the Judeo-Christian notion of revealed reality.  However, since God is not involved this time it is getting in contact with the inner self.

That being said, would it not be easier just to give in to the God that is, rather than seeking the god that is within.  Remember the God that is, is infinite while the god within is finite and temporary.finite and as fragile as our mental capacity to understand and choose our way.


An interesting treatment of the "God gene" may be found at http://www.bethelcollege.edu/users/berkebj/Marian/God%20in%20Our%20Genes%20TEXT%20ONLY.pdf 

___________
* see article at http://www.christianity.co.nz/science4.htm