Sovereign Show-Down

You know what really rumbles my thunder? People who challenge God's purpose in the universe. In no way am I referring to the innocent "why" questions of those who humbly seek for answers. I by all means refer to those who attempt to pridefully justify themselves... almost like an atheistic Job.

Everything that happens, happens because God is over all. Regardless of how you view God, He is sovereign. I can accept this. I am willing to accept this. I can't seem to comprehend how all things work together for the good of those who love Him, but I certainly would not want to take responsibility for such a task. I can hardly please several people at once! He is infinite, I am finite. He is sovereign, I am not; and I am okay with this.

Now, when people challenge God's purpose in certain events in humanity (i.e. 9/11, Haiti earthquakes, etc.) as well as in individual lives (i.e. personal troubles, health issues, etc.), a problem turns up. You see, the moment we object to God and His plan is the moment we try to out-holify God. The moment we object to God and His plan is the moment we hold up a standard to God. Where does this standard come from? How does it persist? If it exists, it must exist apart from God; but that is an absurdity, for there is no other standard that is independent of God. We basically assert ourselves as persons who know more, who know better than God.

The problem with that is that we attempt to assert our finite self over a sovereign, infinite Deity. Do you really think that's a good position to be in?

Draw!

Apologizing with Miracles

Lately I have been evaluating the debate between Evidentialism and Presuppositionalism. Evidentialism lays claim to God's miracles as in its arsenal of proofs to be used by the evidential apologist. It attacks Presuppositionalism for not using miracles as proofs in that particular apologetic system.

I would like to know what the other madmen/women around here think of this: I think Evidentialism is off base here because, in my mind, it shouldn't consider miracles as evidence. The creation is constantly before us and can be appealed to as a proof that the existence of a creator is necessary (much more could of course be discussed on this issue.) Miracles, however, cannot be duplicated and referred to as evidence. Moreover, and this is my thrust, miracles are a part of the testimony of Scripture and the appeal Scripture is that to which Presuppositionalism is based on in the first place. Presuppositionalism appeals to the testimony of Scripture out of a belief that only it can conquer the suppressed knowledge of God in the fallen man's mind - miracles fall in the category of the testimony of Scripture, not of empirical evidence.

Therefore, Evidentialism is wrong to even consider miracles as proofs in apologetics and certainly wrong for attacking Presuppositionalism for failing to use them.

What say you? Do miracles belong in the category of a) the testimony of Scripture, b) empirical evidence for today's use, or c) both?

Go Play Outside

It is expected of the younger generation of the masculine gender to play (at least on occasion) some form of electronic game. And why not? These games make supreme conversation starters, set an agenda for meetings with new friends, and are—after all—eminently diverting.

Whenever I consider this matter, I recall what I wrote in my journal on March 3, 2007. I was not wholly easy on the pastime:

The actual time playing blew by even faster than the day—how worthless video games are! The time was wonderful, yet horrible. I was sickened by […] the waste of time in which we were all engaged. And yet it was so terribly fun. They have all been poisoned by it, none less willing than the last. I am tainted, but not taken. These golden years will be spent, but not in that. I will die before I let something so trivial ruin my life. Every time I concede to the open arms of that unclean thing, I shall remember—“not in whole.” The game is Free? No! I have not the time. All who are taken in are fools—and yet I am the greatest fool of all, who knows the evil, yet still returns to the beautiful fiend all to often. Why must it all be so? He who has not tasted of it desires it all the more—to know, to see. He who has tasted is not satisfied. He hungers more, and just when he thinks he has mastered it—it returns. We are all fools! What can be done? I can pray, and He will answer. How, I cannot tell, but the Lord is Holy and Just: every minute wasted in this life shall be held to him [who wasted it]. None shall escape. Dear, that felt good.

Though I’ve never held fully to the sentiments in this tempestuous narrative, I must admit that I had a point.

How easy it is to find oneself among the strongest advocates for scheduling the next LAN Party — but those have one redeeming factor. That of course is the social aspect, without which they would be the pinnacle of imprudence. (Another benefit is being able to listen to opera, but I’m afraid I am among the few who fully take advantage of this.)

What can you show for a single hour spent before the computer playing [game title] with friends? How much less from playing alone! Certainly we have all realized this at one point — generally when some other obligation has conflicted with our gaming habits so that we are forced to make a decision between the two. We initially act upon our disapprobation thus:

Death to the invader!
Strike a deadly blow,
As an old Crusader
Struck his Paynim foe!

Let our martial thunder
Fill his soul with wonder,
Tear his ranks asunder,
Lay the tyrant low!

And often continue thus:

Thus our courage, all untarnish’d,
We’re instructed to display;
But to tell the truth unvarnish’d,
We are more inclined to say,
“Please you, do not hurt us.”

“Do not hurt us, if it please you!”
“Please you let us be.”
“Let us be, let us be!”

Sometimes, I get the sense that we almost fear what life would be without them—is our happiness contingent on them? Are there not thousands of things supremely better? Sitting on the couch thinking is a better occupation than sitting before a computer gaming.

Of course, you should talk, you say. I don’t pretend to be unaffected by this phenomenon. Once I figured out how to run in single player mode a particular game left over from a LAN party, I proceeded to waste more time than I care to recall on it. I finally took out a righteous rage on it and deleted it completely.

If other things seem less enjoyable, perhaps it is on account of the dulling of our senses rather than their realization of something better. Banging your head on a mattress won’t seem quite as painful once you bang your head on a door a few times, though perhaps baning your head on the mattress was far better. (Lame illustration, but that’s what came off the top of my head.)

But even if gaming doesn’t conflict with school, family, church, or anything else—if we have an hour of the day which need not be spent in any particular pursuit—even then, is it not a waste? Squandering precious hours on what is less than nothingness.

Waste:
to consume, spend, or employ uselessly or without adequate return; use to no avail or profit; squander: to waste money; to waste words.

Wuld my argumentes sond moore connyncynge in Middel Englyssh? Ywis, Ich finde the thoght yeveneth me gret plesire. Yf shreuehede ist too seveere, these games shoud lest-wis be consydered unadvisede.

Ich opene y-floore to expoundynge!

Naturalism vs. Values

You know what really crumbles my cookie? Naturalists who hold to any value – whatsoever. Values are completely antithetical to pure Naturalism. (I just may break some sort of record for question marks in this post.)

We have all considered the ultimate problem for the naturalist: the origin of morals. What is right and what is wrong? Some hold that the society or community is the authority on what is right and wrong. The problem is then, how does the community decide what is right and what is wrong? Some hold that right behaviors are those which aid in the continuation of the propagation of the human species. Okay. We have arrived at another problem the naturalist cannot sufficiently answer.

Why is the propagation of the human species a good thing?

For a naturalist to say that the human species should even continue is odd. It is odd because they are ascribing value to a merely physical process. They are saying that the physical process of a human being begetting another human being is a good thing. If the universe is merely physical, if everything is just chemical, then who cares if a human organism lives or dies? Who cares if the all the planets in the universe contain life or not? I would challenge a pure Naturalist to give a reason why anyone should live or die.

People generally love their children. Why? Is emotion merely a chemical reaction? Do I love my daughter because she shares a certain chemical I do and those similar chemicals are attracted to each other and the chemicals in our bodies express themselves as what we interpret as love? Why do I love my wife? Do we have similar chemicals? We are not blood-relatives, after all. Would the Naturalist say that since we share a common ancestor way back, that is why we may share a similar chemical? Why then would I hate one member of the human species and love another? Why do some people hate their children or their parents? What about preference? Why does someone like the color red and another like the color blue?

A true naturalist says that everything in the universe is merely physical. Should I care if a rock is moved from place to another? Should I care if water evaporates? I may care about that because I enjoy moisture returning to the sky so it can rain again, water some crops, and ultimately allow food to be put on my table. But why should I care if I eat? What does it truly matter if a person lives or dies, if everything is merely natural? I cannot for a second care whatsoever that Jupiter is constantly blasted by violent storms; it doesn’t affect me. If something affects a human toward a positive benefit, then the human must be valuable. How can anything be valuable in pure Naturalism?

To avoid the argument, a naturalist may quickly say, “It doesn’t really matter.” But deep down, they don’t really believe this. They don’t really believe a random person should be murdered and they wouldn’t be bereft of grief if their mother died. Naturalists are incredibly contradictory to their worldview and they don’t even know it; this is my lament.

Just like the creationist’s argument that there has to be an unmoved mover somewhere upstream, there has to be an author of morality somewhere upstream. We cannot create our own values if Naturalism is correct. In fact, the mere concept of values should be considered ridiculous. Just as spontaneous generation of organic life is impossible, so is spontaneous generation of morality. There really are very few pure Naturalists because those who consider themselves as Naturalists do not understand what that worldview necessitates – a complete lack of values of any kind.

So to reword my assertion – values cannot exist in pure Naturalism. In fact, the existence of values held by humanity is a proof against Naturalism.

Excursus

Keep in mind that most evolutionists seem to assume they are Naturalists.

A member of PETA might go so far as saying that humans should just up and die so the animals can have reign of the earth. But if it would be good for humanity to die, it would also be good for the animal kingdom to die. After all, animals kill far more animals than humans do. I know they would say we are less worthy of life because we are the only species who kills for sport. But this does not get around the problem of pure Naturalism because killing for sport would not be bad at all if everything is merely physical. This same member of PETA would be distraught if a human loved-one of theirs dies. This would be inconsistent with a Naturalist worldview.

A staunch environmentalist might say that the human race should be severely decreased so the earth can be saved from “global warming.” But yet again, what does it matter which climate the earth is saddled with if everything is merely physical?

I ask so many questions in this post because I challenge the pure Naturalist to answer them without being contrary to their own worldview.

Housekeeping

To all authors: please capitalize the first letter of all post labels. Thanks!

A Musical Soapbox

This is truly a rant. Your indulgence is humbly craved.

If you know me much, you know the soundtrack of my life consists of symphonies, operas, oratorios, string quartets and other delicious things. But for the life of me I can’t quite see why that isn’t the case for everyone else — and that’s what I’m going to rant about.

Before I plunge in, I had best describe my own musical background. If you are skimming, this is a good section to skip.

How I Discovered Classical Music

I grew up hearing scraps of the Beatles, a few soundtrack-like hits (things like Hawaii Five-O and Dueling Banjos), and whatever oldies were played back in the 90s. I had occasional exposure to a 5 CD set of random classical works, but I rarely listened beyond Rimsky-Korsakov’s Flight of the bumble bee.

At about the age of 12, I decided that I loved James Horner’s soundtrack to Universal’s animated film Balto. My mom graciously purchased a reasonably priced copy on eBay, which quickly became my mainstay of background music for playing with Legos. (I still have the same stereo I did then, come to think of it.) Mom, perhaps annoyed with the repetition of what I considered 43 minutes of heaven, trucked in the 5 CD boxed set of classical music into my room, suggesting I listen to some other music too. I dutifully accepted her offering. Memories returned of wanting to like the Dance of the Reed Pipes from The Nutcracker, but shunning the impulse — liking ballet could hardly be masculine, my childish mind reasoned. At one of my sister’s ballet recitals, I fell in love a short dance from Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake. A complete recording shortly made its way into a BMG Music order. From there, it was not very difficult for me to see what I liked was something special.

My appreciation of a couple other forms of music (rock, jazz, rap, pop, etc.) seemed to vary inversely to my love of older compositions. Today my recollections of my friend and I thinking the Backstreet Boys emotionally affecting fill me with blushing shame. What was going on there??? Now I can barely listen to Phantom of the Opera with my stomach churning. I assume this is a personal problem. At least, that seems the easiest answer.

Perceptions of Something I Just Don’t Like

In my journal entry for January 19th, 2010, I reflected,

Which is worse, listening to rock CCM or watching football? The former, naturally, as the latter, rather than making you want to commit a mild act of violence, prompts the desire to do something that in some way stimulates the brain. This last desire is a good one, better [however] without such inducement.

It doesn’t take a psychologist to divine that I do not take a sanguine view of rock music. Dear me, I still have problems appreciating Stravinsky, let alone the far less sophisticated writings of various rock (and jazz) artists, as they are so quaintly termed. Gladly would I endure 15 minutes of a football broadcast if it meant forgoing 15 minutes of hoarse women, incorrigible drum players, and screaming “Are those men?”-quartets. (Those of you who have magnanimously deferred to my obstinate predilections have my heartfelt thanks — I do notice.)

The funny thing is that people decide of their own accord to hear this sort of thing. What I sometimes accidentally see on Amazon’s main music page leads me to believe that people actually buy recordings of some of this stuff. How could you want to hear that — again? I just don’t get it. Perhaps Richard Bonynge, conductor-husband of one of my favorite opera singers, understands better:

Richard Bonynge: If [audiences] want something modern, they’ll go to Broadway, but even the Broadway pieces that have success are as old-fashioned as they can possibly be. The idiom is almost 19th century with a bit of beat behind it, that’s all.

Interviewer: Is “rock” music?

Joan Sutherland: Don’t ask me that.

RB: I don’t think we’re in much of a position to say because we don’t know much about it. It doesn’t appeal to us very much, but it certainly appeals to a great many people, so there must be something about it. It’s primitive and very easy to listen to.

JS: Not for me it’s not! It’s taxing, sort of bang, bang, bang, bang...

My feelings align more with Joan Sutherland than Richard Bonynge, but the latter does have a point. He must, or else 90 percent of radio stations would be playing classical music (which, by the way, in its widest sense makes up the vast majority of music in existence).

What am I missing? Rock music makes me feel like I should be getting a headache. (It rarely gives me one, as I am generally impervious to the normal headache stimuli.) Is it enjoyed simply because it’s fashionable? Because people like their sappy dollar-store “Jesus Music” (sorry) because they just don’t know any better? Are they afraid of being elitist? Is it because I’m elitist? What is it?

But what really puts the icing on the cake for me is that they are rejecting one of the most delightful things God has allowed man to create.

What They Give Up

What great pleasures people forfeit! There is such greater, more glorious music written to God’s honor than that which airs these days. John Stainer’s Crucifixion, Sullivan’s Prodigal Son (set verbatim from various bits of scripture), anything by Bach, Handel’s Solomon (and a myriad of other Biblical oratorios), Mendelssohn’s Elijah, Tchaikovsky’s Moscow Cantata, Berlioz’ lovely setting of a religious poem by Thomas More — and this doesn’t even begin to cover secular music!

I’ve heard many of the excuses. “Classical isn’t my thing,” however, doesn’t cut the mustard. This is the musical equivalent of saying, “Oh, I’m not fond of cooked foods.” There is such a vast variety of music tritely labeled as “classical,” that an all-encompassing statement of preference shows either insanely narrow tastes or limited musical experience.

The latter seems more likely: Our culture does hardly anything to encourage the love of great music, as much as it uses it subliminally. Sure, instances of positively portrayed opera singers are on the rise, but it is still an uphill battle. Think of how many people will consciously name a bel canto aria as a favorite song, much less know what bel canto even is. Nevertheless, I believe that if people realized how much classical music they inadvertently heard—and even enjoyed—they would take a more favorable view on this subject. Indeed, some of the most pleasant classical music of the last 80 years has escaped much biased criticism by innocently advertising itself as a part of the soundtrack genre.

The Biblical Approach

What frustrates me perhaps the most is that I cannot come up with a solid Biblical response — in my favor or in theirs. (I attribute some of this to my yet insufficient knowledge of the Scriptures.) Well, there is I Corinthians 14:40:

But all things should be done decently and in order. (ESV)

However, as unpleasant as rock music is, it cannot be denied that it has some sort of order. There’s the guilt by association argument, which I think holds some water. Though we often forget it (unlike some rock artists — eek), a fair number of classical composers were less than saints, which opens up a whole new can of worms (which I won't open here).

Some people say the beats in rock, et al. are inherently bad. That could be, but there was a time that opera was considered an unrighteous form of entertainment to be shunned by anyone with a conscience. Still, whether they were wrong does not affect whether people today are wrong about the beats, though it certainly calls for closer inspection.

Paul tells us not to be caught under the influence of anything that isn’t God. Some describe the potentially darkly sensual effects of rock, et al. and tie it to Paul’s admonition. I know too little to offer an opinion.

Tapering Off

I have fumed enough on this matter, but it wouldn’t hurt if to focus some of the above:

• I’ve come to love classical music without being prodded
• I don’t understand rock, pop, jazz, rap, country (did I mention how little I can stand country music?)
• I don’t understand why people don’t like other kinds of music
• I’m frustrated that I can’t formulate a satisfactory Biblical answer in either direction (or another direction I have not considered)

Help me understand!

In truth I could pursue this painful theme much further, but behold, I have said enough.

Self-Evident Truths Vs. Self-Defeating Lies

You know what really churns my butter? People who challenge truths we hold to be self-evident. One of these recent challenges (which really isn't so recent, so much as it is prevalent today) is against knowledge. We can't really know anything for sure. Truth is what we make it to be.

Okay. But if that's the case, how can we know that we can't know anything for sure for sure? (i.e. how can we know for sure that we can't know anything for sure?) How can we know if that is true? Is the statement "truth is what we make it" true or false? It seems it matters no longer, because it has become something that it isn't.

That is, these challenges have become lies we hold to be self-defeating.