On Marriage

It was my privilege and pleasure to partake in the wedding service of our eldest daughter recently. I just thought I would share some thoughts on a Christian perspective on marriage and I acknowledge Dietrich Bonhoeffer and his thoughts from a wedding sermon from the book "Letters and Papers from Prison"

It is good to welcome and celebrate the wedding day with a unique sense of triumph. When all the difficulties, obstacles, hindrances and doubts and misgivings have been honestly faced and overcome- and it is good not to take everything for granted- the happy couple have achieved the most important triumph of their lives. With the “Yes” that they have said to each other, they have by their free choice given a new direction to their lives.


They have cheerfully and confidently defied all the uncertainties and hesitations with which, as they know, a lifelong partnership between two people is faced; and by their own action they have conquered a new land to live in. Every wedding must be an occasion of joy that human beings can do such great things, that they have been given such immense freedom and power to take the helm in their life’s journey.
Today however much they rejoice that they have reached their goal, they will be just as thankful that God’s will and God’s way have brought them here; and however confidently responsibility for their action today is accepted, they may and will put it today with equal confidence into God’s hands.
As God today adds his “Yes” to their “Yes”, as he confirms their will with his will, and as he allows them, and approves of, their triumphing and rejoicing and pride, he makes them at the same time instruments of his will and purpose both for themselves and for others. In his unfathomable way God adds his yes to theirs; but by doing so, he creates out of their love something quite new- the holy estate of matrimony.
God is guiding their marriage. They only see each other but in marriage they are a link in the chain of the generations in which he perpetuates the human race till the end of time. Their love is between those two, but marriage is more than something personal- it is a status, an office. Someone may desire to rule a country but it is not merely the desire to rule that makes him king, it is the crown that gives him the office of king. In the same way it is not merely their love for each other, but marriage that joins them together in the sight of God and Man. As they first gave the ring to one another and have now received it a second time from the hand of the pastor, so love comes from you, but marriage from above, from God. As high as God is above man, so high are the sanctity, the rights, and the promise of marriage above the sanctity the rights and the promise of love. It is not their love that sustains the marriage, but from now on, the marriage that sustains their love. God has joined two together in marriage; it is his act and not theirs. What God has joined together let no man put asunder. God is the guarantor that marriage is indissoluble, enduring. It is a blessed thing to know that no power on earth, no temptation, no human frailty can dissolve what God holds together; indeed any one who knows that may say confidently; What God has joined together , CAN no man put asunder. They can now confidently say to each other “We can never lose each other now; by the will of God we belong to each other till death.”

Marriage is God’s idea so he has made a way for it to be workable; he establishes a rule of life by which two can live together in wedlock. Something of the divine splendour is represented in marriage. Marriage is a symbol of Christ’s love for the church and how the church is to love Christ. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, just as the Church acknowledges the leadership of Christ- Husbands, love your wives, as he sacrificially gave his life for the church so too should a man love his wife.

In this way God gives to husband and wife the honour that is due to each. Just as she becomes his helper he too will “leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife. Your relationship to each other becomes the most important one on earth; its not that you now neglect your parents but the priority has shifted. Above all your relationship with Christ is paramount.

God gives Christ as a foundation for marriage. “Welcome one another, therefore, as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God.” In a word live together in the forgiveness of your sins, for without it no human fellowship; least of all a marriage can survive. Don’t insist on your rights, don’t blame each other, but accept each other as you are, and forgive each other every day from the bottom of your hearts.

Thank him for your marriage, for leading you this far, ask him to establish your marriage, to confirm it, sanctify it, and preserve it. And so your marriage will be “for the praise of his glory”. Amen.

Whose truth? Whose interpretation of reality?

I was appalled to hear in an interview with the co-ordinator of Living Wisdom in Christchurch his answer to the question “How does the Christian answer people who are asking ‘Where is God in all of this devastation?’ The answer given was that it is a fallen world and as a consequence of that, natural evil occurs and God has no control over it or any part in it. And then a highly emotive analogy was drawn between the evil of a young girl suffering at the hands of a paedophile and whether that could possibly be considered the will of God.




Evil in any form whether a natural disaster or paedophilia poses difficulties for any thinking person and his/her philosophy- theism included. Even before we decide how to answer this question that has plagued philosophers from the time of Epicurus who famously put the question: “If God is all powerful and all good- Whence evil?” the question must be asked- “Whose interpretation of reality will I subscribe to?”


The answer you give to that question will determine your response to all the rest. As David Riddell used to quip in his courses, “psychology comes before theology”, or “what you believe is determined by why you believe it”. Or as some have said "Intent is prior to content".




There are only two basic answers to the question “Whose interpretation of reality do you subscribe to?” and that’s because there are only two options. Either the God who created the universe is qualified to tell us what is true or we interpret reality for ourselves on our own terms. After all isn’t that what Eve did? Isn’t that the whole problem of the fall?




People are constituted in such a way that when disaster happens we seek an answer. We need to know- Why? We seek consolation and purpose in our suffering. And there are only two sources to draw on for those answers. We either draw from human wisdom or the wisdom that comes from above.




Paul the Apostle enunciated clearly what the Christian response should be: (1 Corinthians 2:13, 14,16) … we do not use words that come from human wisdom. … we speak words given to us by the Spirit, using the Spirit’s words to explain spiritual truths. But people who aren’t spiritual can’t receive these truths … It all sounds foolish to them and they can’t understand it, for only those who are spiritual can understand what the Spirit means. Those who are spiritual can evaluate all things…we understand these things, for we have the mind of Christ




We must give an answer with words that are given by the Spirit. Where do we find those words? Nowhere but in Scripture and scripture alone.




Before we turn to the scriptures let’s just return to the analogy of the girl abused by a paedophile. There is no question of the injustice of her suffering, no question of the scarring that takes place, the evil that occurs. We picture in our minds a sweet innocent and pure girl that has been cruelly violated and all of this is true but it must be put in perspective. How do we do this? There is only one place we can turn for the right perspective on evil. And that is the cross. Only at the cross can we find the right and true perspective on suffering, and even there we must acknowledge only God has the right to teach us how to understand it, and only those to whom God has given the privilege of his grace are able to comprehend it. Even here God is sovereign.




Who in all of history was more innocent than Christ? Who in all of history had more to contribute (and did so) to the world but Christ? Who in all of creation deserved to live, and not just live but live above and beyond suffering? Yes, Christ. Whose life had an intrinsic value beyond compare? Christ. If God did not spare his own perfect Son should we put God in the dock because of the sufferings of others? Should we judge and criticize his word when it says regarding Job: They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the LORD had brought upon him…and object “but you can’t mean this!” When we appear to let God off the hook by minimizing his influence in a situation are we really being faithful to God? Job answers us again: Would you discredit my justice? Would you condemn me to justify yourself? Who are we really protecting when we annul a sense of judgement that might have had a good purpose and subsequent effect on the people? Was Jonah more generous than God when he refused to give his message of coming judgement if the people of Nineveh did not repent?






At whose hands did Christ suffer? At the Romans hands? Yes, at the hands of Gentiles. At the hand of Jews? Yes. At the hands of religious authorities? Yes. Because of the crowd? Yes. Because of you and I? Yes. But while all of this is right and true it must never ever be forgotten that Christ suffered at the bequest of his father- God. … it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer… Isaiah 53:10. Now if Christ suffered- the just for the unjust- at the hand of God are we to deny his sovereignty in the affairs of ordinary mankind? Even in the tragedy of a little girls innocence rapaciously torn from her life?-The sovereignty of God is not silent.




But what fools paradise is it to teach that that little girls suffering had no meaning whatsoever? What consolation is it to teach her that her misery had nothing redemptive about it for her or anybody else? What comfort is it to her to teach her there is a loving God in heaven who could only wring his hands in despair at her suffering but couldn’t do anything about it? We then have to say: All things do not work together for good for those who are the called, for those who love Him- unless those things are under His control and clearly- according to this interpretation- earthquakes and child abuse are not! Who will willingly and rationally put their trust in a God of no consequence, an impotent God? On the contrary people do and have for centuries put their trust in one who they recognize is in control, despite having no immediate answer for their personal suffering and circumstances. It is precisely because of our confidence in the wisdom and knowledge and power and beneficence of our “chief of surgeons” that we willingly put our lives on the table for him to do with us what he will. Even as I say this I wonder what it may mean for me, yet say it I must.




I spoke recently with a man I have known for around twenty years. His daughter is severely handicapped. The care of her is a life sentence. And it gets worse not better. She is mentally an infant in the body of an adult. Strangely (if I’m not mistaken) it is the sovereignty of God in her situation from which her parents draw comfort and solace. Her dependence, their suffering is not alien to God, it is in their understanding that He knows what is best- that they trust, not in their own sense of justice. Put another way if it was up to us and our sense of justice to decide the future of mankind- Christ the Just would never have died for the unjust. As the Lord said to Peter at any suggestion that this was not the will of God- “Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. Wisdom from above or below?




Christ did not die because of God’s sense of justice, but because of mercy and grace which triumphed in his death. This raises a question, in fact several: Wouldn’t mercy be a meaningless word in a so-called perfect world, a world without evil? Would the word justice have any anchor or reference point to hang meaning upon, in a world without offence? What of the word sacrifice? Would that make any sense in an amoral universe? As C.S. Lewis puts it a fish cannot know what “wet” means unless subjected to a contrasted reality. A perfect creator must have (according to his perfect nature) created a world most capable of representing his perfections and that is the world we have, one in which evil must come, but woe to him by whom it comes!




Once again in this question of suffering we are thrust squarely back to the suffering servant. But the suffering of Christ was not our idea, not the way we would do it. There is a wisdom that comes from above and a wisdom that comes from beneath.




Elie Wiesel is a Jewish writer, professor, political activist, Nobel Laureate and Holocaust survivor. In his most well known piece called “Night” he describes in gruesome graphic detail the prolonged death by hanging of a young boy at the hands of the Nazis. The older men had died within seconds because of their greater bodyweight. The young boy suffered for half an hour.




'… An onlooker was heard to mutter under his breath with increasing desperation, “Where is God? Where is He?” From out of nowhere , Wiesel says, a voice within him spoke to his own heart, saying, “ Right there on the gallows; Where else?” Is there a more concrete illustration than the death of Christ to substantiate God’s presence, right in the midst of pain? He bore the brunt of the pain inflicted by the wickedness of His persecutors- and showed us the heart of God. …In fact one of the most forgotten realities emerges from the scriptures …as Jesus struggled with the burden of having to be separated from His Father… as He bore the brunt of evil. He cried out, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?” The incredible truth was that at the very moment His Father seemed farthest from Him, He was in the centre of His Father’s will. God conquers not in spite of the dark mystery of evil, but through it.' (Ravi Zacharias- “Jesus Among Other Gods”)




When we read: …according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:… do we rationalize it and say with a big question mark “ALL things?  Once we decide to add some sort of caveat to those words, and I believe many do, the impact of that verse is destroyed, as one would have it, it dies the death of a thousand qualifications.




When we see the Adversary taunting God with an attempt to destroy Job’s faith do we not also hear what is written at the end? They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the LORD had brought upon him…And so should we be prepared to comfort and console the people of Christchurch- and to some we should also speak a message of judgement and repentance; of mercy and judgement.




(Lamentations 3:37)Who can speak and have it happen if the Lord has not decreed it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?


(Psalms 18:7) Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations also of the hills moved and were shaken, because he was wroth.


(Isaiah 45:7)I am the LORD, and there is no other. I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster;


I, the LORD, do all these things.


(Deuteronomy 32:39)“See now that I myself am He! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand.


When it comes to understanding evil, as in natural catastrophes, that which is comitted by others or evil within ourselves- we make our choices. Do we interpret these things through the eyes of a Karl Barth and Neo-orthodoxy, or John Calvin and reformed theology, or perhaps Hegel and Schleiermacher and liberal theology? At the very least we ought to know and recognize that the views expressed by people that we take as “authoritive” are following a tradition that has philosophical influences that are not necessarily according to the truth.


The people of Christchurch are undoubtably suffering, and just as surely some will be asking why? The answers the church should give will take wisdom and discernment. Not all of Christchurch are of Christs’ Church. Will you give the same answer to an unbeliever as the believer? We are assured that even carnally minded Christians are not going to appreciate the wisdom from above. One thing I know is that nearly all people will appreciate someone rolling up their sleeves and getting beside their neighbour whatever his or her persuasion and get their hands dirty to clean up the mess.

Implications from Free Will on God's Immutable Counsel: The God Who Won't Be Refused- If he has a mind not to

A friend came the other day, an old friend. I mean old in both senses, his years are many and so is our friendship. “So”, he declared, “what revelation has God given you lately?” I am a little wary of this man, him and I have laboured with long and sometimes animated discussions over differences in our theology. I was thrown somewhat off-guard with his question and because of other things on my mind did not respond to the gauntlet he had thrown down. It was, at the time much easier to let him unload his mind and so he told us a story that another friend had shared with him.



Long after he left his question remained- like a splinter in the finger that is right where you use it most. “So what revelation has God given you lately?” echoed in my mind.



Casting about in the muddied waters of my head I searched in vain for what I could answer that cheeky question with. This only bugged me more. In desperation I reiterated something that had been on my mind some weeks ago. At a loss for anything fresh I got at it again, gnawing on it like an old dog with his favourite bone.



(John 17:1,2,3) These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.



God, who- by definition is all-powerful- has given Jesus, according to his own testimony, power over all flesh. So the power of Jesus is an unqualified power over all flesh. To what purpose did God give Jesus this power over mankind? …that he should give eternal life…



According to the verses above, Jesus claims that he has the power to give eternal life to as many as God has given him.



So far this was all going over old ground to me, but thinking about it again something fresh did come. I was chewing over the word “give”. Whatever is given is … well a gift. Wow great revelation I thought!  Now I know my Arminian friends think of this in these terms: God has given a mandate to Jesus to offer eternal life to as many as God says. But it is always in the persons own control whether or not to accept that offer. That person always has the last, the final, the ultimate say whether to accept or reject that gift.

But when you think about it, that rather nullifies the statement that God has given him power over all flesh doesn’t it? I mean if a person can refuse what is offered then how can it be said truthfully that Jesus has power over all flesh? What would be the point of saying that Jesus had power over all? Power to do what? Power to give the choice of eternal life? Is that the sense of it?  But if all had power to refuse eternal life how then could it be given? But how can we relate these terms without doing violence to the meaning of any of them? Eternal life is a gift, a gracious gift, undeserved. It would also be wrong to think of Christ not accomplishing the directive God had made Jesus responsible for, that is giving eternal life.

If Jesus merely offered eternal life he could not be said to have fulfilled his commission to give eternal life. Neither does it make any sense to talk of "power over all flesh"- what power is needed over anyone to offer them something? And just as surely it would be wrong to think that Christ’s power to give entailed forcing someone to accept what they did not want- against their will. It all hinges on the word "give". Whenever this subject is discussed (at least in the Arminian camp) the word “give” is always used in the way we think of any gift. It can be received or rejected, welcomed or left behind at will. No-one- I will be bold enough to say- ever thinks of it in terms of how a strong man would give a weaker one a black eye! If the stronger has in fact “power over” the other then all the refusing in the world will not stop him getting his black eye!



Well that would do justice to the idea of “giving” by someone more powerful, someone who truly had “power over”, but that would only give rise to another problem. Are people known to go kicking and screaming into heaven? Are people forced to have eternal life against their will? Is that what scripture means? Are we mere automatons?  No, not by any means. How then does God -through Christ-give eternal life? He makes them willing. He necessitates their willingness. By the secret work of the Holy Ghost in their stony heart he gets to work and gives them a heart of flesh. So when they come to Christ they quite naturally feel that it is purely their own decision, their own choice, voluntarily, wilfully believing in the Son whom God had given. But the scripture is careful not to leave us under the illusion that this was primarily our doing alone. Is this not why Jesus said: Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you… (John 15:16) Is’nt this also why it is written: (Ephesians 2:8) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: (Ephesians 2:9) Not of works, lest any man should boast. Is this not also why the scripture says: (Hebrews 12:2) … Jesus the author and finisher of our faith…



How does the scripture define this gift “eternal life”? That comes in the very next verse: (John 17:3) And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Knowing God and Christ is eternal life. This knowledge is the inestimable gift of God through Christ. This is further attested to in the verse: (John 6:29) Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.




So the work of God is not only the revelation of the knowledge of Christ in the Bible, or in history- but it is the personal revelation of the knowledge of Christ in your heart- your faith in him is the result of God at work in your heart to believe. As also it is written here: (Philippians 2:13) For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. God in Christ has worked a willingness in you to believe and so do his good pleasure. Of course it felt like your own choice, of course it did not feel forced or coerced because the work went on inside you, not externally like some great bouncer forcing you out of the kingdom of darkness and into the light.



Well all this I have covered before elsewhere, what’s new? Well there is never anything new according to Malcolm Muggeridge it’s just old news given to new people! But this distinction came quite strongly to me. That is, the distinction between giving and offering. See here now the difference between Abraham offering and God giving. What I mean is- they both had an only son. And they both were given to be a sacrifice, or were they? Look carefully at the verses and note the distinction.







(Genesis 22:2) And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.



Abraham offered up his son on the altar of sacrifice and that is precisely what God had required of him. In the final analysis his life was offered not given. Despite him being an only child of his beloved, the only one promised, just as Christ was the fulfilment of promise so too was Isaac and Abraham dutifully offered him up. But not so with Christ-



(John 3:16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.



Christ was not only offered he was given. Eternal life was not offered it was given. Christ- we are specifically told, and in the same context- had power over all flesh to give (not merely offer) eternal life to as many as God had given him.



(2 Corinthians 4:6) For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.



When you shut your eyes you can effectively shut out the light, you can deny the knowledge of it, you can remain ignorant of whatever the light would make manifest- but what of it when the light shines in your heart where there is no hiding place left? It cannot be denied, Christ will not be denied. When the light comes on inside of you, shutting your eyes has no darkening effect.

When someone is said to know something it is understood that what is known is true, ie,  knowledge is that which corresponds to reality. To make this clearer, one cannot know what is not true. For instance one cannot know that the Earth is flat. One can think they know that it is, believe that it is, one can assume that it is, imagine that it is, even hope that it is, but one cannot know this, because it is untrue. In this way we get a truer- indeed a Biblical- understanding of what it means to know something.

When one keeps this in mind it is easier to see the Biblical understanding when we read: (John 17:3) And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. (Emphasis mine) To know God truly is the gift of God through Jesus Christ and this knowledge is actually expressed here as eternal life. In the verses we have been discussing (John 17:2,3) we see that having the lights turned on inside of us with regard to who Jesus really is, and the true nature of God is not our work at all in one sense, but we, in essence, become His workmanship. So in one sense it is our work since it's going on inside us, we are thinking and knowing, and in another, more ultimate sense it is the work of grace, alone, through scripture alone, through Christ alone.

The word of God bears cogent witness to the truth of this understanding when in (Romans 9:23) it says:

And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,(Emphasis mine)

To "make known", in this sense is to bring a person infallibly to acknowledging and understanding of the truth. To make human choice ultimate here is to misunderstand the import of these verses and amounts to saying one can thwart God's plan, and purpose. To "make known" in this way is to ensure the object (the one hearing it) becomes subject to that knowledge. Of that knowledge- one cannot pretend, or claim ignorance or disown that knowledge, and neither can knowledge in this sense fail to conquer and subdue its object. but more than that, with this gift of knowledge ones heart is also warmed by it, no even more- Life comes with it- Eternal life. All humans can do as his disciples, is to merely proclaim that word, and to the best of our exegetical skills explain that word- but sovereign God alone by his Spirit keeps for himself the ability to "make known" the riches of his Glory.

This understanding is also attested to here in John 1:17,18 and the New International Version is clear in this regard:

For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.(Emphasis mine)

This is not merely the sense of say, a King charging a town crier with the job of making known the edicts of said King as he rings his bell and stands in the city square, scroll at arms length. No, this is knowledge imparted to those dead in trespasses in sins, who at the hearing of faith come forth as Lazarus did from the tomb! As someone wisely said: Christ did not come to make bad men good, but to make dead men live!


We see here the difficulty and inadequacy of language to express an idea that does not fall into extremes of one sort or another. The word "made" is all too strong a word when we fall into the trap of understanding it as compulsion or force- outside of our will or against our will. And yet again it becomes all too weak a word when we understand it as knowledge that God has made known to us without the effect of conforming our will to that knowledge, as if it were merely a matter of our own will whether to come to faith- or not.




The great reformer Martin Luther also struggled with language (in this case the German language) to adequately express the meaning conveyed in these verses, to adequately express this truth. Remember, also that Luther was no stranger to the German language, having been credited by many to have unified the German language for the first time, through his translation of the Bible into his native tongue. Here is an excerpt from a good translation of his magnum opus, "The Bondage of the Will" (Henry Cole, c1923)

I could wish, indeed, that we were furnished with some better term for this discussion, that this commonly used term, necessity, (by this word he means force or compulsion) which cannot rightly be used, either with reference to the human will, or the divine. It is of a signification too harsh and ill-suited for this subject, forcing upon the mind an idea of compulsion, and that which is altogether contrary to will; whereas, the subject which we are discussing, does not require such an idea: for Will whether divine or human, does what it does, be good or evil, not by any compulsion, but by mere willingness or desire, as it were, totally free. The will of God, nevertheless, which rules over our mutable will, is immutable and infallible; as Boetius sings, "Immovable thyself, thou movement giv's (movement) to all." And our own will, especially our corrupt will, cannot of itself do good ; thererfore, where the term fails to express the idea required, the understanding of the reader must make up the deficiency knowing what is wished to be expressed- the immutable will if God, and the impotency of our depraved will ; or, as some have expressed it, the necessity of immutability, though neither is that sufficiently grammatical, or sufficiently theological.

I think the difficulty in accepting the understanding of this teaching lies chiefly in our human limitations. Let me put this in much more contemporary terms. Imagine this scenario: James senior (the father) walks past the open door of James junior's room. J.J. is seen totally absorbed in front of his x-box. Strewn around him is a mess. The remains of a previous dinner on the dresser is starting to look distinctly furry around the edges, school clothes lie in various states of disarray throughout the room, toys are strewn about in various stages of abandonment, a waft of stale air emanates from the scene. I think you get the picture.
"James get off that x-box and tidy your room right now...please" J.J. nods impatiently without averting eyes from screen, yanks vigorously on his console while screwing it to the right, his fingers chattering on the buttons. Several seconds pass. Dad, ramping up the volume repeats his request. Time passes like an eternity, nothing changes... (Up to this point there is nothing here that the average person could not understand.)
Suddenly with a knowing look Dad reaches into his pocket and pulls out... a remote! He points it towards the recalcitrant J.J and pushes the prominent red button. Actually he is aiming it at the closet in a direct line beyond J.J. Immediately the closet door is smashed to pieces from the inside and a massive robot stomps in J.J.'s direction. The floor shakes with each footfall as he advances menacingly towards J.J.  Now if you have seen the movie Avatar you will immediately recognize the type of robot I am speaking of. It is the AMP suit of Colonel Miles Quaritch. But with a difference...

James Senior clicks another button- (if we had actually been there and had been closely watching we might have read the label on this button as "REVERSE MORPHE") and the AMP suit immediately transforms into something akin to a housefly and about the same size. Now, instead of being an extension of the human body it morphs into- something you could call an unknown will- which utilized the human mind as an extension of itself. It flys, sorry, flies straight to the back of  J.J.'s startled head and starts implanting electrodes on his scalp. J.J.'s  Dad repeats his imperative: "James get off that x-box and tidy your room right now...please"



"Yeah, sure Dad, whatever you want, funny I was just thinking what a waste of time it is sitting on this x-box when I could be doing something really interesting and useful like tidying my room, I don't know what got into me". Dad grins and carries on past the room pocketing with a flourish his "piece de resistance". In no time at all J.J.'s room is a picture of order,  except for the shattered door on the floor which J.J. seems incapable of comprehending, ignoring it completely. The "fly" retreats to his wardrobe and if you or I were actually present we might observe that just as it re-entered the closet it transformed again into something akin to a dove. Miraculously the shattered door reassembles itself just as if someone was rewinding the video and presto it's back in its frame. J.J takes one long satisfied look at his work and reluctantly consigns himself to finishing his game on the x-box.

Now I hope everyone has continued to follow and understand the import of this little parable. And there are a couple of things that I wish to bring to your attention. Firstly- notice the satisfaction on the face of J.J. after he completed the work, this occurred after the fly returned to its place. It's real and it's his own. While he was busy working on his room J.J. was completely conscious that what he was doing was completely voluntary, not forced, although deep in the recesses of his own mind he was sort of puzzled as he realized that he had had a complete change of heart towards the state of his room, not to mention a change in attitude towards his fathers invitation to take responsibility for his life. Also notice, that having completed this particular work he carried on with his game. Although conversion is a complete instantaneous work in one sense, it takes a lifetime of change to work itself out in our salvation. Now I to turn to those who wish to impose on us the idea of absolute human autonomy. Did you have a choice on who were your parents? No. Did you have a choice on where you were born? No. Did you choose the point of history when you were born? The color of your hair, (originally). Etc. etc. In the experience of humanity, that is in terms of imperical verifiability, there are only two options open to an earthly father. Firstly we use a moral imperative, we inherently understand our moral nature and if we want another to do something we simply- and respectful of their human sovereignty- we simply ask. This pays us the inestimable complement of assuring us that the person asking is aware that we are not an animal, or perhaps even less than an animal, that we are moral agents and capable of listening to reason. For humanity the only other alternative to impose their will is to force someone against their will using physical, emotional, or any other coercive means, but in such away that even though the request is granted the one on the receiving end is acutely aware of their will being violated. Knowing that only these two alternatives are open to humanity, it is a paradigm shift of major proportions to realize that God is not restricted by our humanity. Neither has he made us mere automatons.

For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, has shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ....It is not by force nor by power but by his spirit...that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us. 

I love C.S Lewis's turn of phrase where in recounting his own conversion to Christianity he says: "The hardness of God is kinder than the softness of men, and His compulsion is our liberation.”

In the great controversy thrashed out at the Synod of Dordt in 1619 the Church authorities overwhelmingly rejected the Arminian views of the Remonstrants out of which came the five doctrines affirmed by the reformed (protestant) Churches. These are popularly known by the acronym TULIP – The “I” standing for irresistible grace. When God has chosen to save someone, He will.

In 1643 the English Parliament called upon "learned, godly and judicious Divines", to meet at Westminster Abbey in order to provide advice on issues of worship, doctrine, government and discipline of the Church of England. Their meetings, over a period of five years, produced the Confession of Faith, as well as a Larger Catechism and a Shorter Catechism. For more than three centuries, various churches around the world have adopted the Confession and the Catechisms as their standards of doctrine, subordinate to the Bible.(Quote from wikipedia.org)

In the following quote from the Westminster Confession (Ch, III, sec.I) one can see in the language the care that has been taken to preserve the immutable, infallible, will of God but also to convey the true condition, responsibility and limited sovereignty of the creature.

God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsover comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.  

In the light of this discussion I hope and pray that it is abundantly clear that the will of God is the prime mover, indeed the author and finisher of our faith, our willingness to follow Christ, but also that it is equally clear but not equally necessary that the human will is involved in our choice of Christ. As God has ordained human will as contingent second cause in salvation.


(Isaiah 46:10,11) Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure… yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.


For further discussion of this subject: "As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him."

 

Compelling Reason by C.S. Lewis

My interest in this piece aside from the fact that C.S. Lewis always writes interesting and extremely insightful work is the fact that I am gathering information from various sources in order to validate the work of Cornelius Van Til. Van Til is recognized as formulating a Christian Apologetic. 

The Transcendental argument for God, otherwise known as Presuppositional Apologetics recognizes that people come to various truth claims with a readymade worldview through which all truth claims are interpreted. Therefore a persons epistemological background is seen to play a crucial part in what is recognized as true or not true (or whether "truth" is even a valid category!). It is therefore the presuppositions a person holds that determine how those claims are judged. The high claim of Presuppositional Apologetics is that unless one presupposes the existence of God, no other presupposition can logically account for anything. To put it in a metaphor that Van Til himself observed: 

Van Til developed his own transcendental argument. He maintained that Christian theism is the presupposition of all meaning, all rational significance, all intelligible discourse. Even when someone argues against Christian theism, Van Til said, he presupposes it, for he presupposes that rational argument is possible and that truth can be conveyed through language. The non-Christian, then, in Van Til’s famous illustration, is like a child sitting on her father’s lap, slapping his face. She could not slap him unless he supported her. Similarly, the non-Christian cannot carry out his rebellion against God unless God makes that rebellion possible. Contradicting God assumes an intelligible universe and therefore a theistic one. (From "Transcendental Arguments," for IVP Dictionary of Apologetics.)

Consider this also, I find remarkable kinship to the above passage with the thought of another of Christendoms well known thinkers- C.S. Lewis:

"There is a difficulty about disagreeing with God. He is the source from which all your reasoning power comes: you could not be right and He wrong any more than a stream can rise higher than its own source. When you are arguing against Him you are arguing against the very power that makes you able to argue at all: it is like cutting off the branch you are sitting on."- (C.S. Lewis Mere Christianity)

(I believe it is an important distinction to make clear- that a presupposition does not necessarily entail a conscious assumption of some truth, and in all cases as far as atheists are concerned it is necessarily not a conscious assumption otherwise they would give up immediately all hope of argument, or like the child, accept the fact of their immaturity and inconsistency. Therefore it is the job of the apologist to make the op-posers epistemologically self-aware, that is to say- aware of the fact that even in opening their mouth they are making these assumptions.)


This post and others like it is concerned to point out the validity of this extraordinary claim by pointing to other writers who have seen and logically laid claim to a) either show non-theistic accounts to be using faulty logic or b) where an expert in a particular field has come to admit that from their particular world-view (usually metaphysical naturalism) a certain phenomena is inexplicable.


In the February 2011 issue of New Statesman Raymond Tallis writes:

The republic of letters is in thrall to an unprecedented scientism. The word is out that human consciousness - from the most elementary tingle of sensation to the most sophisticated sense of self - is identical with neural activity in the human brain and that this extraordinary metaphysical discovery is underpinned by the latest findings in neuroscience. Given that the brain is an evolved organ, and, as the evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky said, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, the neural explanation of human consciousness demands a Darwinian interpretation of our behaviour. The differences between human life in the library or the operating theatre and animal life in the jungle or the savannah are more apparent than real: at the most, matters of degree rather than kind.

Indeed "thrall" would have to be an entirely appropriate expression. Thrall- according to Wikipedia- is enchantment, the state of being under a magical spell of obedience, and this indeed would have to describe the effect on individuals who are so enamored with the idea that science is the only source of knowledge that when this same "science" discovered that human consciousness, and intentionality is mere illusion it in fact destroys the rational basis of science. As Dr. William Lane Craig said recently in his notable debate with  Dr. Alex Rosenberg. Physical-ism,  the view that everything without exception can be explained completely in terms of matter, is self refuting. What else could characterize a view that- when taken to its limits- actually ends up not only destroying science but all thinking whatsoever?

I cannot help but feel that what C.S Lewis said (now over sixty years ago) still applies. The idea that human consciousness is completely and as Lewis would say: "without remainder" explicated by the view that it is all just so many neurons reacting to various stimulus caused by electro-chemical reactions is self defeating. If it is true to define consciousness as that which we can fairly reduce to Richard Dawkin's "illuminating" phrase of humanity merely "dancing to our DNA"  then that would equate to the same thing as saying that all of the words and symbols occurring on paper as I tap my typewriter keyboard are simply no more than paper and ink. Analogously, Neuroscience can explain things as far as the paper and ink but not the meaning behind them.


In the following article Lewis attacks the idea of naturalism and its inability to logically account for rational thought:

Compelling Reason By C.S Lewis

An excerpt from: Religion Without Dogma (1946)

It would be impossible to accept naturalism itself if we really and consistently believed naturalism. For naturalism is a system of thought. But for naturalism all thoughts are mere events with irrational causes. It is, to me at any rate, impossible to regard the thoughts which make up naturalism in that way and, at the same time, to regard them as real insight into external reality. Bradley distinguished idea-event from idea-making, but naturalism seems to me committed to regarding ideas simply as events. For meaning is a relation of a wholly new kind, as remote, as mysterious, as opaque to empirical study, as soul itself.

Perhaps this may be even more simply put in another way. Every particular thought (whether it is a judgement of fact or a judgement of value) is always and by all men discounted the moment they believe that it can be explained, without remainder, as the result of irrational causes. Whenever you know what the other man is saying is wholly due to his complexes or to a bit of bone pressing on his brain, you cease to attach any importance to it. But if naturalism were true then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes. Therefore, all thoughts would be equally worthless. Therefore, naturalism is worthless. If it is true, then we can know no truths. It cuts its own throat.

“The validity of rational thought… is the necessary presupposition of all other theorizing.”

I remember once being shown a certain kind of knot which was such that if you added one extra complication to make assurance doubly sure you suddenly found that the whole thing had come undone in your hands and you had only a bit of string. It is like that with naturalism. It goes on claiming territory after territory: first the inorganic, then the lower organisms, then man’s body, then his emotions. But when it takes the final step and we attempt a naturalistic account of thought itself, suddenly the whole thing unravels. The last fatal step has invalidated all the preceding ones: for they were all reasoning and reason itself has been discredited. We must, therefore, either give up thinking altogether or else begin over again from the ground floor.

There is no reason, at this point, to bring in either Christianity or spiritualism. We do not need them to refute naturalism. It refutes itself. Whatever else we may come to believe about the universe, at least we cannot believe naturalism. The validity of rational thought, accepted in an utterly non-naturalistic, transcendental (if you will), supernatural sense, is the necessary presupposition of all other theorizing. There is simply no sense in beginning with a view of the universe and trying to fit the claims of thought in at a later stage. By thinking at all we have claimed that our thoughts are more than mere natural events. All other propositions must be fitted in as best they can round that primary claim.

Holding that science has not refuted the miraculous element in religion, much less that naturalism, rigorously taken, can refute anything except itself, I do not, of course, share Professor Price’s anxiety to find a religion which can do without what he calls the mythology.

Richard Dawkins, FRS, FRSL (born 26 March 1941), is a British ethologist, evolutionary biologist and author. He is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford and was the University of Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008. (Wikipedia) Dawkins is an outspoken atheist, or more commonly "new atheist" whose world view could be described as philosophical naturalism.

Philosophical naturalism is characterized by the view that the observable universe is all there is, and that as the result of methodological naturalism the scientific method is the only way to arrive at truth, some however will concede that there are other ways of knowing. They reject the idea of the supernatural altogether and are also atheists.

In the light of the above by C.S. Lewis regarding the validity of rational thought as a basic presupposition for all thinking- consider the following which is a quote from Richard Dawkins' (River Out Of Eden, p.133):

 In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice.

"DNA just is. And we dance to its music."  

 The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.

In John C. Lennox's book, "Gunning for God: Why the New Atheists are missing the target" he quotes Alvin Plantinga, widely recognized as one of Christianity's foremost philosophical authorities. He is an American analytic philosopher and the emeritus John A. O'Brien Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. He is known for his work in philosophy of religion, epistemology, metaphysics, and Christian apologetics.  Plantinga is a Christian and known for applying the methods of analytic philosophy to defend orthodox Christian beliefs (Wikipedia):

Plantinga: If Dawkins is right that we are the product of mindless unguided natural processes, then he has given us strong reason to doubt the reliability of human cognitive faculties and therefore inevitably to doubt the validity of any belief that they produce- including Dawkins' own science and his atheism.

"If Dawkins is right... he has given us strong reason to doubt...the validity of any belief...including [his] own..." 

 His biology and his belief in naturalism would therefore appear to be at war with each other in a conflict that has nothing at all to do with God.

It is evident then that Dawkins' statement above is self defeating. If  "human cognitive faculties" (ie. our ways of knowing, or rationality) are unreliable then he undermines his own theories, we must hold them also- as a natural consequence of his postulations- as not having any bearing or relationship to what is true. All by himself then he has managed to cut off the branch upon which he is sitting. But and just as important to notice is the necessary consequence of- as G.K. Chesterton would say- undermining his own mines, that is to say look at this post for his inconsistency, as Klaus Nurnberger points out in his book- Richard Dawkins' God Delusion: A Repentant Refutation.

John Lennox: That is atheism undermines the very rationality that is needed to construct or understand  or believe in any kind of argument whatsoever- let alone a scientific one. Atheism is ultimately but one great self-contradictory delusion. (Gunning for God p.54)



Michael H. Warren Jr. :“Human irrationalism and evil are the difficult things to explain in the Christian worldview, but the Christian can live with such mysteries because the only alternative is to renounce all meaning, [and] to begin with atheism’s ultimate irrationalism. “Good,” “evil,” “reality,” “illusion,” and every other human word would be meaningless if atheism were true and the world were ultimately meaningless."

"error and imperfection in the world require a perfect, absolute God...mathematics, ethics, logic or science, would be meaningless without a perfect, absolutely rational standard by which to identify occurrences of imperfection"

"The atheist believes that error and imperfection in the world imply the non-existence of a perfect, absolute God. Rather, error and imperfection in the world require a perfect, absolute God, because such concepts as “error” and “imperfection,” whether in the fields of mathematics, ethics, logic or science, would be meaningless without a perfect, absolutely rational standard by which to identify occurrences of imperfection, and without an ultimately rational structure to the world which allows concepts, whether positive or negative, to be applied, whether rightly or wrongly, to the changing realm of human experience. If God did not exist, it is not merely personal, psychological feelings of having a meaningful life that would suffer, but rational meaning would suffer.”

In the following link to another post, the irony of "intellectual progress" rather than setting us free through the truth, has, if we are to follow the likes of Dawkin's, narrowed down what it means to be human through successive layers of determinism. For further thoughts of Lewis and Richard Tarnas go to the post "The Irony of Modern Intellectual Progress"

In the following short video clip we see the result of the assumption that we are no more than our brains, if all that we are, that is- our consciousness- can be fully explained in material terms, then, like all matter, we are determined, but note- it all depends on whether we are indeed just so much matter. The gentleman chewing M&M's certainly assumed we are.

Are we strictly and absolutely material beings? Or, is it as C. S. Lewis said, (well he probably got it from George McDonald): "You are a soul with a body". If he meant anything by this surely he (they) meant that we were more than matter. Note too the assumption of the thing called "chance".

Notice that this video clip is based on two overarching assumptions about reality:

i) That all there is, can be fully explained in material terms, (therefore God, does not exist), this view of reality is called philosophical naturalism.

ii) That we live in a Universe of Chance (despite the glaring fact that he admits all effects are preceded by causes and therefore are determined at least up until the sub-atomic level) This assumption is in direct contrast to a Universe of intelligent design.

How are those assumptions proved? They are not, they are simply assumed.

The Dirty Little Secret of Scientism - The Problem of Induction

How confident are you that science has the overall best handle on reality? Truly today’s technologically advanced world is a testament to the astounding success of the scientific method. Would it surprise you to know that the scientific method cannot logically account for its success? Would it be even more surprising that in all its abilities to formulate the Laws of Nature, faith is involved at every step?

“Proof” is for mathematical theorems and alcoholic beverages, not for science. Michael Mann

The scientist Michael Mann was severely criticized by a disillusioned scientist who was led to believe: 

"When I was going to school to earn my degree in chemistry, we were taught that science was indeed all about absolute truth and proofs at the end of the day.” If they really taught him that then he should ask for his money back, because this is an appalling misrepresentation of science. In fact it’s one of the horrible, but commonplace, misconceptions that real scientists have to work hard to correct. (quoted from Open Mind: Science, Politics, Life, the Universe, and Everything)

In the ongoing ideological battle to win minds the strident new atheists (or perhaps more properly the new anti-theists) continually push the supposed divide between faith and science. Science is reality, faith is the fairy tale, so we are told. Science deals with facts and logic, faith deals with fancy and feeling at best and is irrational at worst or unscientific. People of faith do not justify their beliefs they just blindly believe the script. This is how faith is caricatured. Science is the salvation of our time so we are asked to believe, religion is what holds us back, and religion is a disease. Science is the way to find truth and reality and whatever science doesn’t prove, isn’t real. Faith is a leap in the dark. Religion argues in circles and science takes one logical step at a time to build a watertight case- apparently!


But is that the reality?

The influential atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell went as far as to say: 'what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know.'  But the problem with that is- it is not a scientific statement!  It is in fact a bald statement of faith in favour of science as the only authoritative source of knowledge.

Speaking on this public perception of the cultural divide between faith and science Oxford Professor of Mathematics, John Lennox asks the question:

'What about science? [Does faith have any part in science? ] Well science proceeds on the basis of the belief [faith] that the Universe is rationally intelligible....Paul Davis, a brilliant physicist at ASU says "that the right scientific attitude" now listen to this, Paul Davis is not a theist- "the right scientific attitude is essentially theological, science can only proceed if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith the existence of a law-like order in nature that is, at least in part, comprehensible to us." Einstein, no less, said: "I cannot imagine a scientist without that profound faith" note the word ' Professor John Lennox. For further exploration of this subject watch the video John Lennox at University of California, Berkeley.

What follows is an explanation that moves from a generality (that science involves faith) to a particular instance of it- The famous problem of Induction. In short that science everywhere proceeds on the basis of faith in the uniformity of nature.

In a more recent lecture on the implications of worldview on such questions of God, Medicine, Ebola and Islam, Dr Nabeel Qureshi quotes Samir Okasha lecturer of philosophy at the University of York in England on the issue of induction with regard to the idea of proof in the scientific method:

“The word “proof” should strictly only be used when we’re dealing with deductive inferences, in this strict sense of the word, scientific hypotheses can rarely- if ever- be proven true by the data.’Samir Okasha

We see then that this so-called huge gap between the claims of science and the claims of Christianity are immediately diminished at the realization that essentially the claims that science represents reality in absolute terms whereas the truths of Christianity are subjective leaps in the dark are unfounded at least, and downright deceptive at worst.  This perception is in fact the result of a lot of public relations on behalf of science to keep the scientific community in the pole position, to keep them as the Big Apple in the public eye. This also serves the purpose of the bulk of scientists whose prior commitment is invested in the faith of philosophical naturalism, and have an axe to grind. Namely to keep religion out of the public square and relegated to popular urban mythology rather than a real voice for truth. The reality is that science itself, (or rather scientists, since science makes no such claims) ought not to claim the "proof" word as its exclusive proprietary right. But rather should humbly acknowledge that scientists too are compelled to stand in awe of the verity that all human endeavours to know reality are (by design) limited to statements of faith to some degree. No one has ever claimed to have "proof" of the non existence of God and yet the bulk of scientists believe that the material Universe is all there is. That is a faith based philosophical position.

 Laurence Carlin, Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, USA, writes the following work. He has written a book tracing the history and philosophies of the leading early empiricists, from which our scientific method has derived.

But first: What is epiricism? Why do we need to understand this in relation to the so called science/faith conflict?

Empiricism is the theory that the origin of all knowledge is sense experience. It emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas, and argues that the only knowledge humans can have is a posteriori (i.e. based on experience). www.philosophybasics.com/branch_empiricism.html

Right off- notice that the word theory is used. This means that- to at least some extent- faith is involved. It means that at least to some degree the actual evidence for belief in empiricism has been extrapolated, and interpreted in a certain way. Faith is involved. No matter what the raw factual data gives- it always involves an interpretation- a reading into the data.

It is from the work of the early empiricists philosophers that the modern scientific method has been distilled. But what follows is a summary of the critique that people like atheists Bertrand Russell and David Hume (neither of whom were sympathetic to the religious world view) recognized very early on  which were inherent weaknesses in the empiricists faith.



In this particular place Carlin documents the circular reasoning in the famous “Problem of Induction” that David Hume discovered in the development of a philosophy of science some two hundred or so years ago.

THE EMPIRICISTS: A GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED by Professor Laurence Carlin


DAVID HUME (1711-1776)


When we draw conclusions about the future on the basis of the past, we do so, Hume argued, on the basis of the causal relations we have experienced in the past. We believe that fire will continue to cause heat in the future, and billiard balls in motion will continue to be causally effective in the future, because such causal connections have been found to obtain in the past. That is, we reason using induction, the very sort of reasoning recommended by Bacon (cf. Chapter 2, Section 2.2.2) and adopted by subsequent natural philosophers. Recall that in an inductive argument one draws a conclusion about something unobserved on the basis of things observed in the past. So, according to Hume, when we reason that future causal regularities will be like past causal regularities, we reason thus:


(1) I have found that such an object (e.g. impact of billiard ball in motion; fire) has always been attended with such an effect (e.g. impacted billiard ball in motion; heat).


(2) Hence, similar objects (e.g. future impacts of billiard in motion; future fires) will be attended with similar effects (e.g. impacted billiard ball in motion; heat).


But clearly the argument is not logically valid. That is, the conclusion (2) does not follow from the premise (1); it does not logically follow that just because these things occurred in the past that they will occur in the future. Premise (1) does not provide support for conclusion (2).


To see this, note that the conclusion follows only if we add another premise (1.5):


(1) I have found that such an object (e.g. impact of billiard in motion; fire) has always been attended with such an effect (e.g. impacted billiard ball in motion; heat).


(1.5) The future will be like the past.


(2) Hence similar objects (e.g. future impacts of billiard ball in motion; future fires) will be attended with similar effects.


If we add (1.5) to our argument, then the argument is sound, and we get the conclusion (2). that these things will occur in the future. Indeed, the person who reasons about the future on the basis of the past must be tacitly assuming the future will be like the past. Let us call the proposition that the future will be like the past (expressed in (1.5)) the Principle of the Uniformity of Nature, or PUN.


But the problem is that adding PUN to our reasoning is no solution at all, for the only argument available for PUN is of the same form as the argument above; it too is an inductive argument. In other words, the only argument available for PUN is the following inductive argument:


(1)I have experienced many pairs of events (causes and effect) that have been constantly conjoined in the past.


(2)Each time I found that similar pairs of events (causes and effects) were constantly conjoined in the future.


(3) Therefore, the future will be like the past. (i.e. PUN is true.)


This argument also is an inductive argument, for it too draws a conclusion about the future on the basis of past experience. But any argument that proceeds inductively suffers from the same problem: it tacitly assumes PUN. Indeed, it is unsound unless we add PUN as a premise. In this case, adding PUN as a premise yields the following:


(1)I have experienced many pairs of events (causes and effect) that have been constantly conjoined in the past.


(2) Each time I found that similar pairs of events (cause effect) were constantly conjoined in the future.


(2.5) The future will be like the past.


(3) Therefore, the future will be like the past. (i.e. PUN is true.)


Clearly, this is a viciously circular argument, for the conclusion appears as one of the premises, and it violates logic for the conclusion to be identical to one of the premises. But only if we add the stipulation that the future will be like the past can we ever justify a belief about the future on the basis of past experience. Thus, we are caught in a circle, and Hume was the first to see it:


'We have said, that all arguments concerning existence [i.e. matters of fact] are founded on the relation of cause and effect; that our knowledge of that relation is derived entirely from experience; and that all our experimental conclusions proceed upon the supposition, that the future will be conformable to the past [i.e.PUN]. To endeavour, therefore, the proof of this last supposition… must be evidently going in a circle, and taking that for granted, which is the very point in question.' (Enquiryc §4,part 2)


This is the famous problem of induction.


Two points must be emphasized before moving on. First, one might think that as long as we believe the laws of nature are fixed for the future, we are justified in believing that future causal relations will be like past ones. But this will not work, because we can simply ask the question: what is the justification for believing that the laws of nature will obtain in the future? The only answer is to appeal to past experience. But if we do that, we are again caught up in the problem of induction since we are drawing a conclusion about the future on the basis of past experience. In short, the problem of induction applies to the laws of nature as well.

Hume’s analysis of induction has shown that induction is not rational, that our knowledge and expectations about the future are not based on the use of reason or logical argument.




It is astounding when one considers that the entire legacy of science, including all of its interpretations of the laws of nature upon which it hinges and is built- and upon which it relies trusting implicitly in the relations of cause and effect, the uniformity of nature- has at its basic premise an assumption more wedded to faith than it is divorced from logic and reason.

"Einstein once said, 'The scientist is possessed of a sense of infinite causation.' If there is a religion in science, this statement can be regarded as its principal article of faith." Robert Jastrow, NASA scientist.

Professor Carlin finishes his book with these comments: Hume's empiricism is at once revolutionary and a natural result of what came before him. Newton struggled to give an explanation of gravity... and Berkeley pointed out that our perceptions give us no idea of power or force...While Newton seems to have remained agnostic to the status of force, Berkeley was committed to God being the only causally active agent in the world.


Hume's work naturally follows this development. His commitment to empiricism led him to refrain from all discussion of whether there was an external world of bodies as Newton believed, and it also led him to agree with Berkeley that the contents of our perceptions reveal no impression of power, force, or necessary connection. But Hume was also a religious sceptic, and so was not prepared to posit God as the source of worldly power.


But even though Hume's work is in some ways a natural development of the empiricist movement, it is also revolutionary. His analysis of the notions of causation and necessary connection and their relation to the problem of induction was an unprecedented insight of perennial importance and a testimony to his genius. It had a tremendous impact on subsequent philosophy and discussions of causation and the rational grounds of induction continue to this day. Strict classical empiricism is usually seen as ending with Hume precisely because he took classical empiricism to its logical conclusion, a conclusion that forced subsequent thinkers to reconsider some of their most basic beliefs about the natural world.

In concert with Hume, the renowned atheist Bertrand Russell's work in logic (upon which science prides itself), led to this remark- 

“Past observation cannot lay a rational foundation for future expectation” 
Bertrand Russell on the uniformity of nature.

There is no doubt these thinkers paved the way for modern science, removing the stagnation that was the cumulative result of the stranglehold Aristotelianism had held on the world till then. The positive results are all around us, and yet...The problem of induction has not gone away. On the one hand there is all the success of science, but on the other is its inability to overcome the problem of induction and therefore account for its success in an unbroken chain of logic. It is patently clear that the empirical scientific method- relying as it does on rigorous observation, measurement and record-keeping- cannot come up with an explanation of the laws of logic which are tacitly assumed by it. 

In a recent popular documentary entitled Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, narrator Ben Stein exposes a very unscientific bias against intelligent design proponents. In a lead-up to the post above I have gone to the trouble of bringing another perspective in Part One- Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed where we can listen to Christian philosopher Willard Price challenge students about the danger of an authoritarian grip on academia which refuses to even allow free inquiry and discourages a healthy skepticism of the status quo, for example unguided evolution. Why is this? What are they afraid of?

In the documentary Ben Stein, among many others, interviewed Dr. Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education and asked:

"...what was so bad about intelligent design?"

She issued this challenge:

"If they have a way of understanding nature that's superior to the one that we all are making lots of discoveries using- Great, bring it on."  

We appear then to have world views which are indubitably engaged in circular reasoning, both Christianity (which assumes the existence of God from the Bible which is not only His Word but also is a collection of documents from history)- and Scientism (the view that science alone is the only valid ground for reality) or Philosophical Naturalism ( the view which says nature is all there is) are suffering from a lapse in logical argument. While at first glance this may seem to be a mutual standoff this is not the case. For the naturalist exemplified today in Richard Dawkins there is no way out of this dilemma. No way out, that is, unless he concedes the Christian position.

For a fascinating interview of David Berlinski that I have included in a review of his book- The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions follow this link. The secret is out, this world, under the scrutiny of different disciplines- is more and more looking like it's a setup!


For the Christian theist his world-view answers the circular dilemma because his world-view encompasses and can account for the circular argument of both views in a reasonable way. Science (from the perspective of one who holds the view of philosophical naturalism) does not only fail to provide a rational account for the laws of nature but is unable even to give a cogent reason for its singular success in the material world in its inability to explain logically why the laws of non-contradiction exist. On the contrary the Christian world-view provides cogent answers for both the origin of the material universe and the abstract principles and concepts of natural laws, laws of reason and  mathematics along with ethical precepts.


Hume's theistic scepticism is well known, what is perhaps surprising is that his elucidation of the problem of induction would become something of an ally to the cause of theism!

The following video is a precis of the Induction Problem as outlined by Jerry Johnson of Against the World.

In the following discussion Stephen Meyer speaks with R. C. Sproul about the mistaken notion of Christianity being at odds with science.