Fruit Juice

There are a lot of "first of alls" i'm gonna have to say in this post.

So, 1st of all, i had to search for what jeremiad and diatribe meant. My English sucks. Next, how come the only comments are by the other cell! next, i agree with what jen and kuok tim said; and i also have the feeling roy is looking for something more substantial, perhaps not so much as a response, but just the opportunity for a discussion and real wrestling with issues rather than trite answers, skirting around them or half pretending they don't exist. So people, i think the challenge is not so much to provide a foolproof answer - no one is expecting that and in no way do i claim to provide it - but to engage in real discussion! =p
Lastly, I apologize for the length of the article. It just kept growing.

1. Issues of Authority: It is not a new issue by any means; many of the greatest thinkers stumble at this point. The president of the Buddhist society in Warwick (last year) once indicated that for him and Christianity, it always boiled down to the issue of which authority is highest? And as for prominent thinkers, from such as CS Lewis has been borrowed many of the points indicated below. (and i do apologize if what i write is very abstract)

1.1 But let's think about it: What is the Highest Authority? for the Christian and for the non-Christian. The former claims its God, the Christian God of the Bible no less and no more. Well, what does the latter claim as his higher authority? The thinking man would throw the question that he throws to the Christian back at himself.


1.1.1 For reason -> given highest authority thanks to the Enlightenment. But this leads to circular reasoning. Why do you believe there is no way to understand God? Cos your reason tells you so. Why do you believe your reason?... Do you see it? Which Authority does the reasoning man put his faith in? (is a reasoning man then godless?)


1.1.2 For emotions -> Certainly a high priority for many. If it feels good it must be right. and so must the sexual revolution, television, and who in the world is Deepak Chopra.


1.1.3 For standards of our own observation -> closer to the Middle Eastern / Chinese / even Jewish mindset - the relationship that the objects around us have with us. A very materialist (not materialistic) point of view and as we shall later see, extremely valid. Now, can the man who puts this as his highest authority not suspect anything about God? His idea is that all that exists around him is sufficient unto itself. God is unnecessary, and what is unnecessary to his observation is unnecessary as an authority.

{And thus the said man loves all our heart, and all our souls, and all our minds, and our strength!!!}


1.1.4 For Momma -> Anyone watched waterboy? Adam Sandler's greatest authority in the film was: my Momma says. He is ridiculed, insulted and put down as naively trusting everything his momma says. In its place, his own standards of observation, his own emotions and his own reason is exalted above. Now I need to root for Momma: there is such a pathetic mistrust of all including parental authority today anyway. But this is just one part of the next section...


1.1.5 For peers/society -> yep. its really all about this today isn't it? What TV, books, friends, (maybe even relatives); people we look up to and trust. Those are who we believe. They are the authority figures in our lives without a visible hierarchy. And without realizing it, we often give them highest place in our lives. Even the scientists (but let's not go into that here)


1.1.6 For God -> Of all the options here, 2 are said to lay claim to objectivity from ourselves. Other people (peers & society) and God. Now that in itself is the goal of science. To give complete objectivity in any observation. But science itself admits, as an extension of the Heisenberg uncertainty, that any human observation will ultimately affect the result; or our ability to gain a whole picture of information. The question to us is; does this apply to the concept of revelation? That when God, as an assumed (for the sake of this post) entity who is independent of all that is around us (though the latter is not independent of God); when that God intervenes in the world to reveal, does the observation still affect the body of information? i.e. the philosophical question of whether if an electron were to reveal its properties to us rather than us making the effort to discover it, would it make any difference when we observe the properties of the electron? That is a question left to the exercise of the reader, and the answer is not so obvious i think. Now, Christians are and always have been a people of revelation i.e. God takes the step to reveal, we observe. Setting aside discussions about the implications on election and predestination for the time being, we arrive at the same conclusion. For the Christian, God is the highest authority because God has been observed. We can debate till the cows come home about all the apologetics and polemics in the world but in the end, the final authority is that God has revealed, and witnessed.

1.2 So everyone has a highest authority; and so what do we do? Why, they ought to do their best to confirm it. Is this blasphemy for the Christian? How can we confirm God? Well, we do it all the time - whilst we see through a glass darkly and aren't on the other side, we do confirm everything else, so why not here, where it is most crucial? Is this "blasphemy" for the non-Christian? let's explore.


1.2.1 How do we confirm reason? (for starters we can't, because any method of reasoning we use to prove that we can confirm reasoning simply begs the question) But we admit that reason exists and then we use our own standards of observation to confirm that reasoning is, well, (reasonably) reasonable. =p For example, we observe that there is a consistent A followed by a consistent B but B does not follow from C. Hence we hypothesize (or reason) that B is reasonable from A. If nothing else, you can see why the enlightenment exalts reason as the highest authority. But if reason were the ultimate authority, then it is reasonable to expect everything to be reasonable (haha i'm making this reasonably hard to follow). Simply said: there should be nothing we can't eventually explain. Having done this though, we find that as the years progress, and we explain more and more, we begin to ignore the single most unexplainable question. Is there a reason for our existence? A purpose? And the atheist for whom reasoning is the pedestal, says no - and reason falls as its own ultimate authority.


1.2.2 How do we confirm emotions/personal standards of observation: I think this flows wonderfully from the relativistic fallacy that if each person is equally valid, then each person is equally true. reason says otherwise. but more importantly, our own emotions expose a greater problem, that we place value judgments on emotions and things. Feeling sad or a desire unsatisfied is feeling bad and feeling happy or satisfied desire is feeling good. But if we can feel unsatisfied, there must be a satisfaction for the desire. The problem is most of us feel unsatisfied with this life in some way - and we search for the satisfaction - but never find it. We want to, in the words of the cannibalistic man recently arrested, feel invincible, immortal. But for this desire there is no fulfillment. Even in our feelings we appeal to something above our feelings and above what we personally observe to be true!


1.2.3 Society: This obviously cannot be the highest authority. Yet by default we take it as such. It is as if what individuals cannot say validly, a collection of those individuals will definitely be able to do. For as a society may be stronger than the sum of its parts, but to appeal to it as highest authority is just as great a fallacy as to appeal to a single human's reason, emotion etc. However high it reaches, society has a limit. {added note: the very fact that after several 1000 years of human civilisation, human society does not really seem to have improved in its relations to one another - we still war etc...}

(why do the nations rage and the rulers plot in vain; the Lord sits high above the circle of the earth.)


1.2.4 But what then is a valid ultimate authority? How can we claim revelation from God as the ultimate authority? answered in the following...

1.3 This is a bit of an off-tangent side note. Is the answer actually faith whether its faith in reason etc or faith in God? Faith in its definition is blind, but it isn't blind faith... (confused?) well, faith is knowing what we can't see, but it doesn't mean that what we do see can't point to the object of faith. the tree moving helps us have faith in the wind. So the one who has faith in reason will see things that point to reason, as well the one with faith in God. Hence all this reasoning is not for nothing. Also, its about faithfulness. Is the object of faith reliable? Has reason proved infallible, or emotion? have we tested them? have we "tested" God? {this is another thing - its always God on trial like in Isaiah, where He calls heaven and earth to be His witnesses - but i suspect that when God is put on trial by people who refuse to believe - He just stays silent - cf Jesus}

1.4 Still, that doesn't take away the idea that the argument appears to be flawed: the argument for God is still circular; and we can remove all other authorities as imperfect, but what causes us to accept God?

1.5 Is there any answer? How about to judge it by standards that they choose? note that all these standards are set in the Bible as well, authority is given to the Christian to use these so-called "lesser authorities" to direct / point to - though not necessarily prove the higher authority. And so i will indicate more Biblical references. At this a point ought to be made. The Bible should never and can never be used to prove something to a non-Christian. But it is essential to show them the Bible. Why? Because the Bible makes a diagnosis that is far better than any other investigation can reveal. And this truth that is revealed has the potential to open eyes... {as Spurgeon puts it, "defend the Bible, i would rather defend a lion!" the Bible does indeed defend itself in the reading to many who have spent time investigating it...}

But to continue - you see, the failures of the other standards in general point to the success of God.


1.5.1 Miraculous signs/personal experience -> One of the most commonly chosen standards is this! If God were true, why doesn't He come down in a cloud of fire?? The Christian claims, seek, seek with all your heart, you will surely find. (and we can't seem to prove this can we? a seeming example is that of a girl i met in France who prayed for her brother on his deathbed to be healed but he didn't get healed - which sparks questions of why?) but then again, this doesn't come under "revelation" this comes under the realm of human observation; of man trying to understand things around them....hmm i can't answer this actually - any takers?


1.5.2 Reason -> Well, we've nearly argued this out and only have to reach the ending: reason dictates that the effect must have a cause. This world can't be the ultimate cause; hence it must be an effect. Since every cause has an effect, then we need something higher than reason, of which God is just about the only thing that reasonably fits the bill.


1.5.3 Historical Criticism -> We don't quote the Bible and just say that the Bible is true cos the Bible says so. Historical criticism indicates the historical accuracy of the Bible. The evidence here is overwhelming and other historical discoveries and figures attest to the accuracy of the facts. But here we realise that the Bible makes the claim that Jesus is God and also that Jesus rose from the dead. But its not just the Bible, Pliny around 100AD declares that the Christians worshipped Christ as God. Josephus and Tacitus(?) admit to Christ performing what appears to be sorcery... Then we study the Bible itself - we realise that the Bible is not a typical book trying to portray all its characters in the best light possible. In fact, the writers are portrayed as the worst figures! From the patriarchs to Israel to the disciples, every mistake is painstakingly chronicled, as if they took pleasure in it. They were incredibly honest about themselves! And we find the Bible talking about the downcast, denying and doubting disciples leading up to and after the crucifixion, but incredible faith after the resurrection. Now, here we apply reason to the Bible (not the Bible to itself) and we find that if such things were indeed true, then we have a major problem on our hands: that it is the choice between the most implausibly unlikely options (read Case for Christ for more details) and the miraculous resurrection. Which would we choose?


1.5.4 Conscience (Problem of Sin) -> it is my sincere belief that this is the biggest factor in getting a person to seek after religion. (i'm getting tired, i'll make this simple.) Look at self, have conscience, have knowledge and value judgment of good and evil. where does this come from? we are out of our natural situation; fish out of water. (Fish in water don't feel wet, but we are disturbed by sin and its results e.g. suffering, guilt etc). There is an effect, and there must be a cause.


1.5.5 Science (Creation) -> dealt with in next post as well; but briefly, as you already know, all the stuff around us points not just to force or invisible hands, but to a specific, purposeful designer. There is an appreciation for beauty taken into consideration, and indicates a personality rather than a robot designer. There is the concept of choice, indicating the existence of volition in the designer. So we have a designer with moral, volitional capabilities, and a personality. So the question is, who is this designer?

1.6 Christ

All of this actually leads us back to the concept of Christians being a people of revelation (by grace). Who is the one who is revealed except Christ. And so with the preliminaries done away with, in a future post I may engage the topic of Christ Himself.

1.7 You see, the burden has been placed on the Christian to prove God, and so we should point to God to the best of our abilities; but it seems to me unfair to say that we need to provide 100% proof. cos no one can provide that. But what we can do is return the question and ask if they can provide even the benefit of the doubt for their authorities. And frankly, the Christian answer is far more plausible than any other in the world.