“If we are forced to choose between being rationally correct but emotionally uncomfortable, and irrationally incorrect but emotionally comfortable, we frequently choose to be irrational.”

- Raymond Ruble, Critical Thinking, 48.

“Today Christianity is the most successful single phenomenon, statistically considered, in all of history.”

- Paul L. Maier,  “Introduction” in Eusebius; The Church History, 9.

“If you see in a province the oppression of the poor and the violation of justice and righteousness, do not be amazed at the matter, for the high official is watched by a higher, and there are yet higher ones over them” (Eccl 5:8).

Solomon connects the oppression of the poor and the violation of justice and righteousness with multi-layered bureaucracy that places power further and further from the people. It has been observed throughout history that power has the tendency to corrupt those who have it. Lord Acton wrote, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” His conclusion is that the extent of the power is proportionate to the corruption.

How do we construct a government that reduces the probability of this tendency playing out? By allowing as much power as possible to be held by as many as possible as close to the people as possible. All I’m really talking about here is an emphasis on local government. This gives ownership, responsibility, and accountability to the people and those who lead them. It means that leaders are leading in their own communities so they have a vested interest. The well being of their lives, and that of their family and friends is directly affected by their leadership. And they are directly accountable to the people they are leading.

I would not argue, thought, that there is no need for centralized government and I acknowledge that there are certain matters that are best dealt with at that level. Some believe that an emphasis on local government with more leaders than less is inefficient. I have two responses to this argument. First, I believe local government is much more effective in preventing the oppression of the poor and the violation of justice and righteousness, which is more important than whatever efficiency may be in mind. Second, I would argue that the efficiency of a centralized government is an illusion. The further government gets from the people that it is supposed to be serving, the more resources are required to maintain it.

“If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

- Sherlock Holmes

About a week later I watched the new Star Trek movie. It was a very cool moment when, in a moment of mystery and confusion, Spock (the logical Vulcan) said, “If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

I can’t help but wondering if this argument might be of some use in philosophical discussions about God and reality. To be sure, we are constantly blinded by our preconceived ideas and prejudices about what we want reality to be. It is therefore easy for us to rule out what seems improbable to us because it is not what we hope for. I am therefore using the term ‘improbable’ to refer to what seems so to finite human perception.

I would argue that it is not possible to establish with reason and evidence that the existence of God is impossible. If it is true that questions about God are difficult to establish with absolute certainty due to his invisible nature and our limited knowledge, I believe that one can make a powerful and irrefutable argument that God is the most probable explanation of this world. I believe that if we exercised pure reason and observable evidence, we would find that Jesus Christ is indeed “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14;6).

“What Darwinism has never been able to account for is human kindness or altruism. . . . The evolutionary explanation for altruism is really just selfishness in disguise. . . . But that, of course, isn’t altruism at all. . . . In contrast, Christians understand that while all of us are born with the capactiy for selfishness and curetly, we are also capable of caring for others. . . . Recent advances in neurobiology show that the impulse toward altruism may even be hardwired. . . . Our opponents are always quick to point to the problem of evil in the world. But as we can see, an equally important problem exists for the secularist: the problem of goodness.”

- Chuck Colson, “The Problem of Goodness,” Christianity Today (Dec 09)

“Apologetics is a very powerful too, but it’s ultimately janitorial. . . . You are doing no more than clearing away debris that blocks the door to faith, and ultimatley it is God’s love that has to work its way into a heart.”

- Dinesh D’Souza

Deductive reasoning argues for a claim based primarily on the logical relationships of certain premises. First, the students must establish a major premise. This is an assumed principle that both sides should agree upon. Next is the minor premise. This is where the one logically connects the major premise to his or her claim. A simplified version of a deductive argument (a syllogism) for both sides of the abortion issue may look like this:

Pro-Choice

Major Premise:            Women have a right to control their bodies and # of children.
Minor Premise:            Abortion is an exercise of that right.
Claim:                         Protect abortion rights

Pro-Life
Major Premise:             Taking the life of another human is wrong.
Minor Premise:            Abortion is taking the life of a human.
Claim:                         Stop abortion

There are other ways to argue both sides, but this is a start upon which both sides generally agree. Anyone have any suggestions on how to improve this beginning point for discussion? Next time I will explain how both sides usually criticize the logic of the other.

“The struggle for religious liberty across the centuries has been long and arduous, but it is not a novel idea or recent development. The nature of religious liberty is grounded in the character of God Himself, the God who is most fully known in the life and work of Jesus Christ. Determined to follow Jesus faithfully in life and death, the early Christians appealed to the manner in which the Incarnation had taken place: “Did God send Christ, as some suppose, as a tyrant brandishing fear and terror? Not so, but in gentleness and meekness…, for compulsion is no attribute of God” (Epistle to Diognetus 7.3-4). Thus the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the example of Christ Himself and in the very dignity of the human person created in the image of God—a dignity, as our founders proclaimed, inherent in every human, and knowable by all in the exercise of right reason.

“Christians confess that God alone is Lord of the conscience. Immunity from religious coercion is the cornerstone of an unconstrained conscience. No one should be compelled to embrace any religion against his will, nor should persons of faith be forbidden to worship God according to the dictates of conscience or to express freely and publicly their deeply held religious convictions. What is true for individuals applies to religious communities as well.”

- Manhattan Declaration

“Well, I am certainly wiser than this man. It is only too likely that neither of us has any knowledge to boast of; but he thinks that he knows something which he does not know, whereas I am quite conscious of my ignorance. At any rate it seems that I am wiser than he is to this small extent, that I do not think that I know what I do not know.”

- Plato, Apology

“Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?” 1 Cor 15:29

Here is a notoriously difficult verse. There are two reasons for its difficulty: 1) “There is no historical or biblical precedent for such baptism,” and (more importantly) 2) Paul mentions a clearly unbiblical practice “without apparent disapproval.”[1] Gordon Fee states that “at least forty different solutions have been suggested.” However, most of these propose interpretations that do not match the straightforward meaning: some are being baptized vicariously for those who have already died. Whatever they were actually doing (which Fee says cannot be known), “what is certain is how the text functions in the argument . . . those actions are a contradiction to the position that there is no resurrection of the dead (v. 12).”[2]

The very same week I began to study this passage, I also started reading Plato’s The Last Days of Socrates. The introduction includes a discussion of the persuasive strategies of Socrates. One strategy is called elenchus. “It is a tool for the exposure of problems with beliefs and inconsistencies in sets of beliefs rather than for demonstrating what is true and what is false.”[3] Based on observations of Paul’s argumentation and rhetoric, it is reasonable to assume that Paul would use such a strategy. For the sake of this argument, Paul ignores the fact that being baptized for the dead is a bad idea and demonstrates that those who claim there is no resurrection have an inconsistent set of beliefs. This possibility is supported by Paul’s unusual use of third person (usually 2^nd person in such a context, cf. v. 12) and its clear contrast to the first person in the next verse. He certainly keeps his distance from this practice. He goes on to demonstrate that his own actions only make sense if the dead are raised, and therefore are consistent with his claim about the resurrection (vv. 30-32).

Paul assumes that one’s worldview should be internally consistent. I’m sure than none of us want to contradict ourselves. Although we may have theological consistency, it is possible we have not thought through the implications of our faith for other parts of a worldview – economics, philosophy, politics, sociology, etc. It is not uncommon to find people with a biblical theology and an unbiblical political position. More to Paul’s point in this passage is the consistency of our faith and practice. Are our daily actions and lifestyle habits consistent with our professed faith? If not, it is appropriate to ask whether we believe it at all (James 2:18-26).

[2] Fee, 1 Corinthians, 763.

[3] Introduction to The Last Days of Socrates, xv.