This evening Rev. Franklin Graham was briefly interviewed on the Laura Ingraham show by guest host, Raymond Arroyo (December 23, 2021). It pertained to a display in the Illinois State House where a statue of a satanic goat-like figure “just a few steps away” from a nativity scene which included the baby Jesus (https://nypost.com/2021/12/23/satanic-display-inside-illinois-statehouse-days-before-christmas-draws-protesters/). When asked by Arroyo to comment, Graham said that from the time Herod the Great sought to kill the actual baby Jesus, Satan has been seeking to destroy Jesus Christ ever since, but that all of his attempts have failed. I deemed that to be a subtle, yet sufficient retort. However, Arroyo asked a second (final) question, the answer of which left me disappointed and dismayed. Arroyo highlighted the growing reality of the decline of Christian belief in our time and then asked Graham for his suggestion as to how Christians might turn that trend around. I judge that what Graham affirmed was absolutely correct by highlighting the urgency of evangelism to the end that people come into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. On the other hand Graham utterly neglected what is absolutely vital in our calling to see people come to Christ, which is the employment of apologetic arguments with the goal of persuading people of the truth of the Gospel of Christ. I am, on the one hand, fully aware that many Christians think that task is unnecessary since it is the Holy Spirit who persuades people to repent. Yet what detractors fail to grasp is that the Bible is steeped in this strategy from beginning to end.[1] Furthermore, many of the same fail to appreciate that scientific and historical evidence together with trends in philosophy these days very strongly affirm that the existence of God, who reveals Himself in the Bible as both the creator of the universe and the redeemer of sinners through Jesus Christ, is far superior to competing world-views.[2] Christians cannot afford to be apathetic about this amazing reality since, by our silence in the face of an uninformed yet mocking world, surely implies that we Christians have nothing to challenge its skepticism.[3] To Christians, I say, inform yourselves firstly about the weight that the Bible places on seeking truth wherever it is manifested in the world, and secondly, about the utter strength of the evidence supporting the God of the Bible, which is so strong that one need not fear it being toppled by skeptics. To these ends, I urge you to read not only my papers that are listed below; but also that you investigate further by branching out to the large array of other writers, who affirm the same truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in their unique and inspiring ways.
Thursday, December 23, 2021
Tuesday, December 14, 2021
A Non-Sarcastic Way to Detect Lies and Deceptions
“Answer a fool not according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.” (Proverbs 26:4)
This paper doesn’t need to incite a
posture of suspicion toward one’s opponent (whether real or merely assumed). It is distrust which impels accusations such as,
“You can spot a liar every time you see his lips moving.” But I advocate instead a spirit of openness in
the expectation that good-will is possible whenever there is a mutual goal of
arriving at either truth itself, or mutually agreeable strategies for reaching resolution
(“Come, let us reason together, says the LORD” (Isaiah 1:18). Neither does this essay demand, in itself,
that one assemble all of the facts of a given matter for the purpose of destroying
one’s adversary. My point here is
not to denigrate the desire to become informed about matters under consi-deration. To the contrary! Yet indeed my highest purpose in this essay is
to identify the most fruitful way to discern the degree of sincerity or the
validity of any assertion about matters of consequence.
So what
I propose is a body of criteria so simple and straightforward that a young person[1]
or even an adult, can, not only grasp, but also employ and even apply in full
confidence. What I urge all people to do
is take notice of public persons-of-consequence (high elected office holders, influential
bureaucrats, and journalists) with the
following over-arching, multifaceted, body of questions in mind:
(A) Does the person submit
him/herself to relevant scrutiny by exposing themselves to ques-tions from
critics that hold differing points of view?
Do they indeed consider these views?
(B) Does the person fully answer
questions the public is actually asking as opposed to just fur-thering their
agenda which, as a matter of public record, is opposed by a majority of citizens?
(C) Should the official be an
elected person, does he/she express a sense of responsibility to those who
voted them into office in accordance with the Constitution?
(D) Does the person appreciate that
non-specialists are often sufficiently qualified to challenge the logic of certain
public policies since rationality is an aspect that is common to humanity?
(E)
Does the person’s appeal to “follow the science” honor scientific
methodology in actuality, by promoting rigorous public scientific debate
that employs high-level academically-degreed specialists who bring differing
points of view to the table?
(F) Does the person decry the undeniable
tyranny of censoring opposing undesirable points of view (in contradiction to
the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights)?
(G) Does the person propose
solutions that are constructive and actually superior to the status quo in such
a way that society is improved, or merely dismiss or decry the views of others?
(H) Is the person fully, and
without guile, committed to our official Constitutional documents?
In summary, do the persons in question boldly submit
themselves to scrutiny, or do they cower in fear that facing their challenge will
publicly expose an utter absence of good will in their designs? Now to lay my cards on the table, I say it is
the current Administration which, hands-down, fails these questions with a
glaring “NO!” to all. I defend my view with
hard evidence as I honor scrutiny by any opponent. In turn I earnestly challenger dissenters to,
with your evidence, demonstrate where you think me wrong.
[1] See Han Christian Anderson. The Emperor’s New
Clothes. https://andersen.sdu.dk/vaerk/hersholt/TheEmperorsNewClothes_e.html
Monday, December 13, 2021
Why and When the Bible Gives Science the Last Word
“Ever since the creation of the kosmos,[1] God’s…eternal power and deity has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.” (Romans 1:20)
The Bible rightfully claims the last word and final authority in matters of eternity: with respect to our existential[3] needs and pertaining to the array of philosophical concerns and moral demands. Indeed, this must be the case for reason of the absurdity of expecting mere humans to create ultimate answers to our deepest needs; and fallen sinners such as we are (James 4:1f) to both be righteous and instill justice for all, excluding none. Yet Jesus declared both, “I came that you may have abundant life” (John 10:10) and “I AM the first and the last …the living one, I died and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades” (Rev. 1:17-18). Even so, however, the Bible, with both its declaration[4] and also its practices, points us not only to itself; but also submits itself to the scrutiny of truth.
Whenever
the question arises whether a given assertion concerning factual matters is
true, there are two disparate strategies for seeking assent. The assertor might on the one hand baldly apply
the de jure
ploy[5]
by stating, “My assertion is true because I say so!” In this case no reasons are offered for
justifying the claim; it is instead made solely on his/her own personal so-called
authority. On the other hand the assertor
might employ the de facto
method by which rational reasons are offered that can be publicly-known and
which correspond with the claims asserted.
Now I ask you which of these methods qualifies as establishing
the truth of the claim being made. Only
the latter means. By this claim I am NOT
hinting that God errs or deceives! Nevertheless,
even granting (as I do) that God has perfect knowledge about absolutely
everything; the de jure
mode can never qualify as substantiation for the simple reason that it entails
a tautology, which means it is true only by definition. In other words, it does not bolster the claim
with independent verifiable grounds. The
only way to advance from assertion to substantiation is by giving
independent grounds (or reasons) which ensure it to be true. Of course Christians are entitled to hold,
by faith and intuition, that biblical claims are true. I too do this, conditionally.[6] Yet these terms differ categorically from factual
knowledge and so cannot legitimately be the basis for demonstrating the
facticity of the claim under consideration.
[1] In the Greek text, it can refer either to the world, the
entire universe, or the whole created order.
[2] Romans 1:20, boldface mine.
[3] That is, both urgent and a matter of life and death
with ramifications extending into eternity.
[4] Romans 1:18-21.
[5] I will argue in this paper that even God doesn’t
employ that tactic. For example, even
the frequent Old Testament declaration, “Thus says the Lord,” doesn’t
directly serve to demand confidence in its truth so much as it does to clarify,
in the midst of confusion, that source of the words of the speaker is no less
than Yahweh, the maker of the heavens and the earth and also its redeemer. Obviously,
it logically follows that His words are utterly trustworthy and consequently
must be heeded!
[6] If the notion of the resurrection of Jesus was
overthrown, my faith in Christ would be shattered.
Sunday, November 21, 2021
Why Materialism is Utterly Irrational, Part 2
The core contradiction which turned C.S. Lewis from atheism to belief in God
Yet
materialism is at odds not only with the laws and documentable patterns of
cosmological evolution.[1] It furthermore also contradicts the laws of
rationality. Materialism rejects not
only the existence of God, but spirits of any kind in any context. Now if that doesn’t seem so important to “non-religious”
readers, I urge you to think again! By
adding the suffix “ism” to the word “material,” the term materialism”
means nothing exists at all except matter.
The logical fallout from materialism threatens to be the metaphorical “death
” of every single human with respect to their personhood. According to materialism, what we call our
thoughts and also our sense of consciousness and self, are merely illusory. Atheist, Dr. Daniel Dennett, in a lecture on YouTube
promoting his materialistic interpretation of “con-sciousness,” said that what
human beings imagine to be consciousness consists purely of impressions
produced by the complex operations of mechanistic computers in the brain
(17:50). He further added, “There is
no little man in the brain (11:35) … What lies in ‘the middle’ is a
virtual self (15:43)…an abstrac-tion (16:05) … Inside the ghost [of
a machine?] is a robot” (17:50).[2] In summary, the events occurring in our
brains are not intellectual ponderings and insights, but rather merely electro-chemical
firings across the chasms between our brain’s billions of synapses. Yet when these phenomena, which are document-table,
are arbitrarily severed from connectivity to spirits (souls), they utterly
contradict what humans have always assumed occurs during internal reflection. On the one hand, electro-chemical events,
with-out exception, necessarily align with the invariable and repetitious laws
of nature, while information on the other hand, in terms of thoughts,
reflections and perceptions, are guided by the specific data and perceptions
that are derived from the almost infinite variety of their sources. In addition, our rational choices of any kind
assume that our perceptions accurately convey phenomenal reality. Yet ascribing such perceptions to merely
physical interactions within the confines of our skeleton overthrows any
plausibility that such desired connections are valid.[3] So notice finally how these processes cannot
be reconciled as if they’re the same process (or similar) since they are
conceptually incompatible.
Now I wish to bring to the table those
contradictions which directly muddle and confound the assertions of the very proponents
of materialism. If materialism (MTLSM)
was an accurate assessment of human experience, it would consequently be
impossible for anyone to know it to be the case since the MTLSM assertions that
are employed for the purpose of dehumanizing humanity as a whole, applies also
to the very ones who advance them. For
by what principle can they exempt themselves from the disparaging anthropological
swipe they brush over humanity as a whole?
“What is good for the goose is good for the gander!” Further, according to MTLM, their
propagandistic agenda to persuade others is rendered utterly pointless since the
notion of a “person” with a free intellect (which is prima facie re-quired in order for any
audience to have the capacity to rethink any views at all) simply does not
exist.
For these reasons, it isn’t humans
who are hastening the loss of personhood, but anti-humane materialism, which has
here been as discredited on both scientific and logical grounds. Firstly, although, up until the early mid-20th
century, the cosmos was deemed (or assumed) to be self-existent for reasons of
being without beginning or end; the advancement of scientific knowledge since
then has brought that dogmatic view to an end with the dawning reality that the
universe had a beginning at the BB.
Although questions that have no bearing on the fact of the BB
continue, that model is not about to be overthrown since the details which secure
its facticity consist of a pattern of observable evidence.[4] Secondly, anthropological materialism demands
of its proponents that they buy into an array of logical fallacies summed up as
a recurrence of one reductio
absurdum-after-another. It
was this body of absurdities which led Lewis
to repudiate materialism while consequently accepting the existence of God.
[1] As distinguished from Darwinian biological evolution.
[2] Daniel Dennett.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP1nmExfgpg. He states, “There is no inner
show and there is no single inner witness [in the brain]” (11:20). Dennett
initially stated that the dualistic view of the body/soul distinction is a “hopeless
theory” (3:35). ** See also
my paper, “The Case for the Soul” at my website, Op.cit. (3).
[3] Charles Darwin too was skeptical over the capacity of
an evolved brain to yield trustworthy insights.
(www://nature.com/articles/4611173b).
[4] Consider that the two concepts, “pattern” and
“observable,” are organically intertwined. Op.cit. (7).
Monday, November 15, 2021
Why Philosophical Materialism is Utterly Irrational, part 1
The core contradiction which turned C.S. Lewis from atheism to belief in God
The recent movie about C.S. Lewis, The Most Reluctant Convert,
narrates Lewis’ conversion from his denial of the existence of God to
conceding that the innate orderliness of the cosmos demands that there be a Creator.
That two-stage intellectual journey – since
indeed it was a process – firstly led him in 1929 to unhappily concede that
nothing short of a supernatural force[1]
could account for the existence of the universe.[2] The second stage occurred in 1931 when he accepted
that Jesus is God by having been persuaded from rational historical analysis that
the Gospels are reliable testimonies to His identity. For the purpose of this paper however, it is important
to note that documented interactions with other scholars indicate the arguments
driving his turnabout did not focus on scientific facts, but philosophical
reasons. The scientific data at
that time, for example, which suggested that the universe had a begin-ning out
of nothing from what came later to be called the “Big Bang” (BB), was
mostly speculative. The clear reason is
that, though the initial evidence supporting the BB came to light 10-15
years prior to Lewis’ conversion, the result of that research (by Georges Lemaitre,
Albert Einstein, and Edwin Hubble)[3]
was at that time only a live possibility which competed with two other more
popular theories (“steady-state” and “oscillating universe”).[4] It was only decades later, in 1970, that
further evidence came to light which was sufficiently strong to defeat the
other hypotheses, that the BB was elevated to the scientific[5]
status that it holds today.[6] Ironically it is this very category of evidence
(scientific),[7]
which nevertheless shifted the causal implications of cosmology away
from science to the religious proposition that Spirit (as in a transcendent
God) is more fundamental to reality than is physicality. For example, not only does the BB posit that
the cosmos came into being out of absolutely nothing material (consistent with
Genesis 1:1), it also suggests that prior to that beginning, neither matter/energy
nor space/time existed out of/from which scientific processes could even conceivably
have occurred. In short, the
cosmological history of the universe indicates that, apart from God, no matter
would exist at all. Significantly, in
1943, even C.S. Lewis foresaw both this reality and its implications as he
states:
“If anything emerges clearly from modern physics, it is that nature is not everlasting. The universe had a beginning and will have an end. But the great materialistic systems of the past all believed in the eternity, and thence in the self-existence of matter…This fundamental ground for materialism has now been withdrawn.”[8]
To be continued...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis
[2] Even by this time serious questions were raised as to
whether certain “nebula” visible through Edwin Hubble’s Mount Wilson telescope,
might lie outside our Milky Way Galaxy, thereby hinting the existence of other
galaxies.
[3] See my paper, “Was the Big Bang the Big Beginning?” at
my website: www.christianityontheoffense.com ** also,
Fred Heeren. “The Big Bang Theory.” Show Me God: What the Message from Space
Shows Us about God, revised ed. (Day Star, 2004), ch. six.
[4] Since the latter two more easily evaded the potential
intervention by a deity.
[5] Although prominent voices are seeking to undermine confidence
that a BB happened by appealing to their own advance-degree, their driving
impetus relies NOT on scientific data, but instead theoretical speculations
which cannot be tested by the hard scientific data. See my paper on the BB
beginning, Ibid.
[6] With the advancement of scientific knowledge over the
course of Lewis’ lifetime, his allegiance to the relevance of that body of
insight becomes obvious and plain. See his essay from barely a decade and a
half later, “God and the Universe,” in his collected essays, God in the Dock
(March 19, 1943) at https://stertin.word.press.com/2016/09/27/dogma-and-the-universe-by-c-s-lewis-from-god-in-the-dock/
[7] See my paper, “God’s Prints are Everywhere,” p. 2 at
my website. Op.cit. (3).
[8] Op.cit. (6). Boldface mine.
Monday, August 23, 2021
The Inept Band of those who are “Wise” in their Own Eyes
“And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and improper conduct” – Romans 1:28
Every human being is by definition
finite (as opposed to limitless) and consequently has NOT the capacity
to infallibly know the answers to complex clusters of concerns that
actually exist (as opposed to being abstractions). Consequently, every governmental leader who
orders citizens to take actions based on the leader’s private certitude, is, on
its face, an intellectual fool. While
tyrants may claim “scientific consensus” for their views, they fail understand one
primary purpose behind the scientific method is to insist both on assembling
every relevant body of evidence and deliberating on all relevant hypotheses.
Anyone who rejects the concept of morality
as an obligatory code which both specifies right and wrong and has as its
source a transcendent personal being (God), undermines on rational grounds their
self-acclaimed “moral” authority to forbid viewpoints and courses of action that
disagree with them. By rejecting morality,
“leaders” have only their gut from which to rule. For this reason they have no right to impose
their imperatives onto others. Chinese Communist
Party Chairman, Mao Zedong stated what logically follows from his views, that,
“Political power grows from out of the barrel of a gun.”
Thursday, August 12, 2021
Exposing the Intellectual Fraud of Marxist Dogma
The largest stars that scientists observe are so much bigger
than our Sun that if one of them, say, Stephenson
2-18 (S-2-18), replaced our Sun, Saturn’s orbit would track
inside it (8:52, 9:43).[1] In comparison, our Sun is as small as “a
grain of dust.” (9:22). So the enormity
of S-2-18 could
easily wow us! Yet only our much smaller star can provide the conditions
we earthlings need in order to exist and even thrive.[2] By contrast, supergiant star S-2-18 is on its “death-bed.” Having burned up most all of its gas, it lacks
the gravity needed to keep holding its’ huge yet nearly empty shell together. It is about to collapse into an explosion that
will dissipate its’ remains out into space.
Size isn’t necessarily superiority!
Similarly,
Marxist Socialism (MS) today in America is posturing itself as an
ominous force for cultural overthrow that is accelerating with apparently
unstoppable momentum. Despite the 20th
Century’s track record of failure across Asia and Eastern Europe (a fact “academics”
today suppress),[3]
socialism is capturing the hearts of 40% of Americans aged 20 to 40. Nevertheless, the alleged gravitas behind such
boasting is illusory. MS dogma is
as unstable as a house of cards because it is NOT premised on a body of facts, but
only on assumptions of flawed “dead white men” (Rousseau, Hegel, Marx…)[4]
that were based on now-discredited science. To give three examples: its flaws include
firstly its dogmatic commitment to philosophical materialism. This faith position insists that
reality is limited to only physical entities. That is, there is no God or gods; no angels,
demons, or even souls.[5] Yet this worldview is refuted in part by the scientific
discovery that the cosmos came into being out of nothingness at the Big Bang (BB).[6] Only a God who exists outside of nature can bring
this about! Secondly, MS names Darwinian
evolution (DE) as the very means by which nature moves toward
completion. Yet, among other matters,
two transitional chasms in the path of biological development unknown to
Darwin (from rocks to organisms and the existence of information in the cell),
are so vast as to be conceptually impossible to cross in the absence an overseeing
intelligent Creator (God).[7] Thirdly, MS assumes that humans too
will ultimately be perfected whenever utopia is reached. Yet historical evidence from the last hundred
years utterly discredits these naïve beliefs that humans are progressing toward
perfection.[8]
Such clashes between MS and demonstrable
facts, indicate concrete errors in the MS dogma. And it even further discredits itself by its determination
to hide its designs from the masses. In
order to further its own purposes as opposed to the peoples, MS demands imposition
of these governing ploys:
·
Control media and news content
·
Censor both “unacceptable” points of view
and events that damage its cause
·
Insulate State leaders from scrutiny
·
Refuse dialogue over opposing views
·
The State is the only moral authority
·
Pack schools with socialist “teachers”
·
Force propagandistic ideas and rhetoric
·
Resist scrutiny of government schemes
·
Severely punish dissidents
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mnSDifDSxQ
[2] Hugh Ross. The Creator and the Cosmos. (RTB,
2018), pp. 207-8.
[3] Mark Levin. American Marxism. (Threshold
Editions, 2021), pp. 10, 260.
[4] Mark K. Levin cites these three, Ibid., pp., 18f.
[5] See my paper, “The Case for the Soul,” at my website, www.christianityontheoffense.com/articles.
[6] See my papers, “Was the Big Bang the Big Beginning?,”
“What Atheism Cannot Explain,” and “God’s Prints are Everywhere,” Ibid.
[7] Stephen Meyer. “The Origin of Life and the DNA
Enigma.” Return of the God Hypothesis. (Harper One, 2021), ch. 9.
[8] See my paper, “The Inescapable Connection Between
Socialism and the Murder of One Hundred Million captives.” Op.cit. (4).
Wednesday, July 14, 2021
The Inescapable Connection of Socialism to the Murder of 100 Million citizens
Why naïve utopian socialist fantasies will lead us AND our descendants into anguish
Socialism, by definition, stands in
bold contrast to the tenets of Capitalist economics as presumed by the United
States Constitution. Stated plainly,
Socialism is a top-downward admi-nistration, while U.S. society, by
stark contrast, entails a “We the people…” formulation of a bottom’s-up
approach to governance. Discussing these
contrasting programs in solely abstract (as opposed to realized)
terms can easily diminish the magnitude of the damning consequences of a vision
which portends instead to create fair and equal societies, i.e., “Utopia.”
In addition to expressing a top-downward
relationship between the “governing” and the “governed,”
Socialism also imposes strictures on the latter which deprive them of rewards
for their labors. The slogan, “From
each according to his ability to each according to their needs,”[1]
may, on the one hand please those who seek to avoid work, but on the other hand
deprive determined workers of financial benefits of their labor, and
also both innovators of their organic successes, and additionally visionaries
from seeing their insights unfold into reality.
Less that 100 miles south of the Florida Keys lies a “living” example of
such a “failed [socialist] State”[2]
that began in prosperity (albeit amid moral degeneration) yet quickly plunged into enslaved
poverty.[3]
This set of deprivations obstructs
fairness both at individual and societal levels. Clearly members of the human race are NOT
uniformly motivated in similar directions.
Viewed then solely under rational (as opposed to religious)
terms, Socialism, as reflected upon with care, brings a death-knell to free
self-determination for a vast percentage of any population. Not only is it statistically[4]
clear that socialistic economies do not work, but they cannot
possibly work except by means of punishment by the enforcers. Such indeed are the grounds for the murders
of intellectually-driven and financially successful people by Socialist
regimes.[5]
The most objective and so, decisive,
indicator of the obvious destructive consequence of Socialism is the testimony
that in the 20th Century alone, over one-hundred million people were
murdered by their own despotic governments by either 1) torture,
2) planned wide-scale imposition of starvation, 3) traumatization, 4) shootings,
5) gassings, 6)
imprisonments, 6) and forced
dissolutions of /or severance of individuals from their families
or 7) in combination.[6]
For a longer edition of this paper, you may find it at my website, christianityontheoffense.com
[1] https://artsandculture.google.com/entity/from-each-according-to-his-ability-to-each-according-to-his-needs/m0cxcxc?hl=en
[4]
E.g. https://www.wsj.com/articles/venezuelas-economic-collapse-explained-in-nine-charts- 11553511601
[5] E.g.
https://www.history.com.topics/cold-war/pol-pot
[6] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/11/07/lessons-from-a-century-of-communism/