Annoying Letter to a Neighbor

Dear Neighbor,

Last night, someone placed an anonymous letter on my door explaining that loud noises had kept them awake…so loud, in fact, that the individual couldn’t sleep even with earplugs! The letter indicated that these noises were coming from my apartment, and suggested that I use discretion in the future when carrying out noisy activities at odd hours.

Now, I’m certainly sorry that one of my neighbors has had to go through this ordeal. However, during the times indicated in the letter, I was sound asleep. I didn’t have the TV on, nor did I have music playing. I fell asleep around 10:30 PM and woke up the next morning around 7:00. Additionally, I don’t have any habits or routines that would normally produce loud noises during the early hours of the morning, (even on weekends.)

After racking my brain, and trying to figure out if I were (in some way) at fault for my neighbor’s discomfort, I finally gave up, and decided that I have been mistakenly identified as the culprit. (Unfortunately, the letter didn’t explain the types of noises, and so I can’t do much by way of investigation to see what could have been causing them.)

I don’t know who the author of the letter was, but I’m placing this response on the doors of people in close proximity to my apartment. Perhaps the concerned letter-writer is not the only one having trouble sleeping through the loud noises? I personally do not hear any noises that keep me awake, nor have I ever heard any…nor have I heard anyone complain about any.

Nevertheless, there remains a noise problem and maybe this letter will help solve it?

If you are (by chance) the author of the anonymous letter…then please, don’t hesitate to knock on my door for a friendly chat.

Hopefully, we can keep this complex a pleasant place to live for everyone.

Thanks,

-

Scott

Chuck Norris Can Understand Van Til!

Chuck Norris used to define cool. In retrospect, it seems his greatness was embarrassingly overplayed. We shake our heads at how over-the-top his characters were.

This phenomenon has sparked a popular line of Chuck Norris jokes. The man can (and has) done everything! In fact, the more outlandish and impossible a feat claimed for Mr. Norris…the funnier the joke. For instance:

Chuck Norris can kick slam a revolving door!

or:

If Chuck Norris falls into the water, he doesn’t get wet…the water gets Chuck Norris!

One of my favorites (and a great introduction to a theological point) is:

Chuck Norris counted to infinity…TWICE!

This is obviously impossible for the average man! We can’t even count to infinity once! Everyone understands this, that’s why the joke is funny. No human will ever be able to count to infinity due to our finitude. No human will ever be able to intimately describe what “infinity” is like when reached. At best we can describe what it might be like by way of analogy. “Infinity is kind of like this…or kind of like that…” or: “Infinity would be like this…or be like that…” etc.

However the concept is described it will never be described in a familiar way. We’ll never know infinity in exhaustive terms. At best we can only know certain things about it that have been revealed to us.

This same concept, when applied to God, is known as the Doctrine of God’s Incomprehensibility. To understand Van Til’s apologetic methodology, it is vital to grasp this. Logic, math, science, and rational thought of all kind is LIKE God’s thought, but it isn’t univocal with it. We’ll never know what true logic, true math, true science, or true rational thought really is like, since we can never know it exhaustively.

This isn’t to say we can’t know these things in truth. We know all sorts of true things about infinity…but we’ll never be able to count to it…

Unless we’re Chuck Norris!

3 Reasons NOT to Believe in Natural Selection

Reason 1:

Various people have pointed out an epistemological problem with natural selection (I.E.: C.S. Lewis, and Alvin Plantinga). Supposing God uses natural selection to bring about states of affairs, then man’s thoughts are brought about by natural forces in accordance with survivability, and not in accordance with truth. It could always be arbitrarily asserted that God uses natural forces to bring about true beliefs, but this cannot be known with any certainty given the truth of the Natural Selection model. This is a problem for the secularist as well…especially since he cannot allude to God to try and escape the dilemma. Everything we know could simply be false beliefs that have helped select us for survival.

Reason 2:

Natural selection is completely trivial. Dr. Bahnsen points this out in his critique of Darwinism (during his lectures on the history of western philosophy). If all X’s are Y’s by definition, then we are forced to make the facts fit into the pattern. Dr. Bahnsen uses this illustration: If all cooks are also basketball players…then there can be no such thing as a cook who is NOT a basketball player. So, if one day, someone drags some guy up to us and says, “here is a great cook,” then we automatically have to assume he is a basketball player as well! But, this is trivial…and ultimately worthless bias: All animals that survive have been naturally selected. All X’s are Y’s by definition! This is nothing more than trivial bias…and the fact that it convinces people en mass is sad. It certainly can’t be called “Science.” (No one can empirically verify that all animals that survive are naturally selected…it’s an arbitrary belief.)

Reason 3:

In short: If God uses natural selection to bring about states of affairs, then mankind is no longer the responsible causal agent in nature…natural forces are. God would no longer be able to consistently punish man! Here is an illustration: no one drags bullets to court and tries them for murder, even though in reality, the bullets are ultimately responsible for the victim’s death. We could take it a step further and say that the bullets aren’t responsible either, but rather, the sudden appearance of holes and fissures within the victim’s vital organs, caused them to shut down. But, the organs are never blamed. Nor are the bullets…nor (usually) is the gun. Given natural selection…the man shouldn’t be to blame either…but rather the natural forces that brought the man to use the gun to fire the bullet that pierced the organs!

There is a hierarchy in nature such that man is sovereign over nature (not the other way around) making us the responsible causal agents within nature. That’s why Christ died for us! Natural selection destroys Christianity by making the death of Christ absurd.

Cooking With Paula

I work at a news organization. 

Famous chef, Paula Deen, visited our studio one Thanksgiving hoping to share some recipes with deployed servicemen. 

Some of the producers didn’t find Ms. Dean’s down-home, southern demeanor all that appealing, and decided to ridicule her over an intercom system.  Between the producer’s questions to Paula, she would make snide remarks that only her and a few others could hear. 

I’ve noticed that people in the TV and news industry, as well as many people in government bureaucracies, have a terrible bias, almost hate, for positive representations of Southern culture. 

Perhaps it was no coincidence that this same producer is an avid animal lover, and a member of PETA.

A fellow co-worker and I both found the comments about Dixie and Ms. Dean highly offensive.  It’s unwise to voice such opinions in my workplace though, so I decided to act in a more indirect fashion.

The result is the above poster.  My coworker and I enjoyed it very much…although, I’m sorry to say that the animal-loving (Dixie hating) producer, found it quite offensive.

Enjoy!

Creation T-shirt

Movie Review: Sherlock Holmes

Here is a guest review from none other than Shotgun’s intelligent and charming twin sister.  I give the movie a 3 out of 5 possible stars on the Shotgun movie scale.  Enjoy the review:

In Sherlock Holmes, director Guy Richie offers a thoroughly entertaining, action-packed film that I believe Conan Doyle himself would approve. Over all, I feel that the true natures of the characters were not compromised, though there were additions that seem necessary to make the film work.

Robert Downey Junior presents us with a somewhat playful, enigmatic, and calculating Sherlock, not unlike Doyle’s. Both characters are flawed in that both are a nuisance to the land lady, keep an untidy apartment, and are prone to various forms of inebriation (an unhealthy habit used by Holmes to fight the boredom he experiences between cases).

The characters slightly differ, however, on the point of Irene Adler. Doyle’s Holmes is impressed by her wit, and, ever after, if he speaks of her, she is known as “the woman.” He is never portrayed as “in love,” or even infatuation; he is an eccentric, alone and aloof, and even somewhat calloused to the feelings of others. His brilliant mind dwells on facts, clues, and problem solving rather than on relationships. Though RDJ’s character reflects the fabled detective’s when he opts to arrest Adler rather than make out with her, I do not believe that the cunning Professor Moriarty of Doyle’s work would ever try using “the woman” to manipulate Holmes. I don’t think Doyle’s detective would be made vulnerable in this way.

Though Sherlock is mostly scientific and calculating, he does maintain a long-term relationship seen in both the stories and the film. Jude Law gives us our Watson in the movie: dependable, and long suffering as the Watson presented by Doyle, with a few additions. Doyle’s Watson is a sounding board for Holmes and is also used for the purpose of documenting the heroics of the detective. While he occasionally takes part in the solving of cases, for the most part, it is Holmes who is primarily in the way of danger. Law, however, shows us a more aggressive, ambitious Watson who is not so much a passive observer or submissive sounding board, but is very much a heroic sidekick, or even partner to Holmes.

The development of his (Watson’s) relationship with Mary in the film gives him a more rounded character; and his involvement with Homes in nearly all of the fight scenes, adventures, and explosions lends a heroic quality that nearly equals that of the detective! As stated earlier, however, I believe these additions to his character are necessary for the film, and I do not think that Doyle’s character Watson is in any way detracted from.

One point of interest regarding Mary: why was Watson introducing her to Holmes in the film? Doyle’s duo met her at the same time in “The Sign of Four,” and I think the plot of the movie would not have been affected had it remained true to the details of Doyle. I suppose the interaction with both her and Adler lends a feminine presence to the screen, which we all know increases sales profits!

Finally, I would have liked to have seen more of the intellect of Holmes in RDJ’s character. I feel the genius of the detective glimmers at the end, but does not shine as in the fabled legends. At least for this viewer, there was no sense of awe at the brilliance of Holmes’ mind. There is, though, the exciting victory of intellect over greed for power.

As a whole, I feel RDJ triumphantly relates the overall uniqueness of Holmes’ character to a 21st century audience with a hunger for adventure and romance, and I eagerly await another S. H. film!

A Christmas Call to Arms!

There is a form of Ivory-tower Christianity that is near and dear to the hearts of contemporary Christians. It’s a soul-quenching faith that refers to brothers as “cognates” and straps mothers, sisters, fathers, and Christ Himself onto the table of logical syllogisms.

I despise this dry and withered system.

Like it or not…no defender of the Regulative Principle consults the Bible before putting one foot in front of the other. Nor do Christian children refer to the psalms before going outside to play. The rules of Freeze-tag are missing from the Proverbs! (This would be a terrible oversite on Solomon’s part should he have intended the Proverbs for the purposes of our Regulative brethren!)

I’m a Hedonist within Christian bounds…and along with the Westminster Shorter Catechism, I believe that part of my chief end is to enjoy God forever. There is no better enjoyment than the organic expressions of our regenerated hearts.

To deny the child his finger paints, or to deny the old lady her knitting…simply because the scriptures are silent on those matters…is a heinous mistake.

To deny the contemporary Christian the traditional celebration of Christmas…is a heinous mistake. Yes! It can be celebrated better! Yes! Christendom needs to refocus herself! Yes! Regeneration is needed!

But gentlemen…I submit to you, that the day we allow Christmas to die…that is the day that Christendom loses her last great expression. The pagan hoards will sweep over us…and I would consider our slaughter a righteous judgment, and pray for the day that God brings people back to His Earth who love and appreciate the beauty inherent in the joys of their parents.

At least then the snow would have someone to appreciate it…and reindeer could once more dream of glorious heights!

Everyone of you strict regulative brethren should go home and burn the closet doors that contain the yearly height marks of your children. They’re unbiblical, and therefore of no use to the Christian. Nor should we take pictures, or have inside jokes among family members.

I plead with you to let the north pole remain north…and battle the heathens to put Santa back into his rightful place…reestablish God’s glory in the celebration…allow the drummer boy to drum, the lambs to bleat, and the angels to sing!

If you want it to die…well, by God, you’ve got a fight on your hands.

Letter to an Atheist Friend…

Since it looks like we’re not going to mass-debate together, I thought a parting gift was in order. What sort of Christian would I be if I didn’t try to leave some bit of wisdom, or at the very least, condemn you to Hell a few times before parting? In lieu of a volley of Bible strikes I figured I’d give you this book by Cornelius Van Til.

Kant deconstructed the Ontological argument (sorry Plantinga)…David Hume demolished any form of the Cosmological argument (William Lane Craig be damned), and Darwin sufficiently neutered the Teleological argument, (Hugh Ross needs a tissue!) With all the traditional Christian arguments dealt with, how can an intellectual case for God be constructed? What would one even look like?

An unfortunate truth about the history of Christian thought is our propensity towards allowing secular philosophy to shape fundamental elements of our position. It is this weakness that causes the above listed arguments to fail. St. Augustine wasn’t immune to this either, though he did attempt to differentiate between the philosophy of Jerusalem, and that of Athens. What emerged was a truly Christian attitude often summarized in a famous statement:

I believe in order to know!

Unlike Thomas Aquinas, (who “knew in order to believe”!) St. Augustine saw faith itself as the foundation for all of our knowledge. This set the stage for later Reformed theologians, especially the Dutch reformers like Bavinck, Kuyper, Dooyeweerd and Vollenhoven to construct their reformed theology based on a transcendental principal. From Christ, to Paul, to Augustine to Calvin, to the Dutch reformers, a strong view of faith has been developed…finding the most clarity and coherence in the statement given by Cornelius Van Til, (the late professor of apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary.)

Within this reformed theological context, the traditional arguments can be reformulated in such a way that the classic deconstructions of them are no longer valid. Many naïve Christians refuse to believe that the classic arguments are weak. Atheists become used to responding to the futile attempts of these Christians to hang on to the validity of the classic arguments. However, when an atheist is confronted with transcendental reasoning, and the solid (coherent) theology of reformed orthodoxy…they are often caught off guard.

I hope that doesn’t happen to you, and so…I’m giving you Van Til’s most popular work “Defense of the Faith.” He demonstrates why a correct understanding of the Christian concept of God should be a vital element in defending the Christian faith. Unlike Aquinas, who started his defense by assuming the mind of man as the ultimate interpreter of reality (and then worked up from empirical data to God), the Transcendental argument says that the empirical data of our experience cannot make sense unless the Christian God were true to begin with.

Anyway…if nothing else, at least you’ll have a new book to add to the shelf.

Been fun!

-

Scott Terry

A Formally Valid Argument for God!

Shotgun:

Perhaps when a truly fleshed-out Christian apologetic is presented to you, you’ll see your critiques, however relevant they may be towards some apologists, aren’t applicable to Van Til’s presentation?

SimpleLife:

Ok, I am open to learn, though I have yet to see a Van Til argument that works.
I only ask that you boil the argument down to a logical flow, and skip all the rhetoric. A good position doesn’t need to hide behind long paragraphs of obfuscation. Lets examine the logic.

Shotgun:

Mr. Simple,

It may be popular to treat Christ as if He is a syllogism, or Christianity as if it’s an argument, but that is unfortunate. I worship a real God that came to Earth as a real man, who really died, and was really resurrected! Since the Reformed system is the most coherent and consistent expression of life in terms of God’s existence, then apologetics becomes the consistent expression of Reformed theology.

I want to make a bumper sticker, or a T-shirt that says: “TAG: It’s not an argument, it’s an attitude!” with a picture of Van Til.  (That should go over well here in D.C.!)

How, then, can I condense the entirety of Reformed thought down into a syllogism for you? For a formally valid argument, we could try this:

If the Christian God of Reformed Orthodoxy is real, then existence (and everything that entails) is possible! (With God being the only sufficient condition of existence.) Since we exist and have rational and coherent experiences, then the God of Reformed Orthodoxy is real. Or:

If God**, then Existence. Existence, therefore: God.

Existence IMPLIES the Christian God! We don’t present arguments FOR Him…rather, we show why all argument is impossible WITHOUT Him! This is common sense to the Sunday School child…but the philosophers scratch their heads and wonder if the premises can be proven. “There MUST be some way to account for our experiences other than by appeal to the Christian God!” they cry! “There HAS to be!” Indeed, the unregenerate seek to replace the God of the above argument with lies! Lies like existentialism, monism, atomism, rationalism, Buddhism, Islam, Mormonism, and more.

In the end…all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are found tied up with this mysterious and controversial figure whose exploits are contained in some dust covered book on nightstands across the country.

**With God being the only sufficient condition of Existence, this becomes a formally valid argument. If this attribute of God were not noted, the argument would be guilty of affirming the consequent.

Autonomous Man Can’t Prove the Bible Exists!

Sometimes referred to as Aseity, or Infinity, God’s immutability is one of His most important incommunicable attributes.

However, it is clear that some people compromise this doctrine in serious ways, even if they explicitly affirm it.

My goal in this post will be to quickly argue that a consistent theory of knowledge is impossible for them as long as they compromise on the doctrine of God’s immutability, making it impossible to prove ANYTHING, let alone the existence of the Bible.

As Bavinck highlights: the doctrine of immutability means that God is! He exists in and of Himself. EVERYTHING else that exists…exists by virtue of His will. There is NOTHING out there that owes its continued existence to its own nature. Think of it this way: suppose you were to cut an apple in half; then halve it again, and again, and again. You eventually get down to the molecular level…then halve it again. At what point will you reduce the apple down to its most irreducible state? That grain of matter that exists completely on its own, without being composed of anything else? Not even this speck exists in and of itself. It is in a process of “being.” The word “exists” for this speck necessarily involves concepts of time, and change through time. This is not so for God. God is not in a process of “being.” He just IS.

In light of this, the only consistent conclusion is that everything ELSE must exist as solely contingent on God the creator. God didn’t reach into some natural realm, and create the apple only to leave it floating around out there on its own. God’s immutability wouldn’t allow for such a thing, else God wouldn’t be infinite. Any theology that says man’s thoughts, will, and constitution are original creations of man is a theology that denies the doctrine of God’s immutability.

Van Til has highlighted why a strong doctrine of God’s immutability is necessary for a consistently Christian epistemology. (See John Frame’s article on Aseity: http://reformedperspectives.org/newfile … getics.pdf ) In Short (!) only a God whose nature is at once one, and at once many…with the two being equally ultimate aspects…could create a world of facts that are similarly shaped with universal concepts (the one) being equally ultimate with random changing particulars (the many.) He has created man with the ability to think His thoughts after Him, and encounter the random factuality in the world in terms of unified abstract concepts.

If man’s will stood on it’s own…and was not contingent (ultimately) on the overarching metaphysical structure presented by Protestant orthodoxy…then it would be impossible for him to prove anything.