To Sleep, Perchance To Dream, Aye There's The Rub...

Watch this clip of Professor Dallas Willard at a Veritas Forum and listen carefully to a question he describes as one of the main worldview questions of critical importance. Then watch the next video clip as Professor Alvin Plantinga seeks a way of answering the question. If you are not convinced of the strength of his argument then look at my analogy and then review Professor Plantinga's interview with Robert Kuhn in the light of that analogy.

Here is Robert L. Kuhn interviewing Professor Plantinga in an episode of Closer to Truth:

WARNING: THE FOLLOWING MAY CAUSE BRAIN FIZZ- THE AUTHOR TAKES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR OVERHEATING, STRESS OR ANY RELATED PROBLEMS FROM OVER EXERTION OF THIS ORGAN- ESPECIALLY IF IT HAS NOT BEEN IN REGULAR USE IN RECENT YEARS

The Analogy: The Principle of Possibility in Relation to Identity

What does a mathematics problem have to do with the immortality of the soul? 

Well- ordinarily probably not much, but the other day I was listening to Robert L. Kuhn of Closer to Truth interview Christian Philosopher Alvin Plantinga on the immortality of the soul, and I heard an argument that, first off- like Steven Kuhn- I didn’t really get, or understand. Then I thought again and… yes I understood it, but then… and screwed my nose up, thinking sheesh, that’s a pretty weak argument!

But I was thinking about it yet again and remembered that Robert L. Kuhn had expressed pretty much my own sentiments on hearing it- and Alvin Plantinga, in his own inimitable way, quietly affirmed that actually it’s a pretty solid argument. So I got to thinking about it once more and decided I wanted to try and do two things with it.

·         First I wanted to make it easier to understand, and
·         Second- with that goal in view,   I was looking for an analogous way of looking at it.  I wanted to find an analogy that would make more apparent its strength or lack of strength.

What surprised me was when I looked at it again, using an analogy, I was indeed happily surprised at just how solid a point Plantinga was making.

My first attempt was to use two identical looking pepper pots and about half an hour of my wife’s time and a great deal more of her patience.  My next attempt involved two forks. After some difficulty, mostly due to my impatience, she got the idea but remained fairly unimpressed.

Back to the drawing board.

Then I thought about an analogy using a math’s problem so here goes:

Imagine if you will, that we are about to solve a math’s problem. Inside someone’s head there exists two numbers and the problem we have to solve is: 

• Are both numbers identical? Are they both the same? We don’t have to find out what the actual numbers are, only if they are the same.

The difficulty is, we just can’t ask directly if they are, so we have to design some questions to ascertain if they’re identical. Well as with any problem, you have to have something to go on, what could we ask about these numbers?

·         The first question: Is it possible to multiply two whole numbers to arrive at one of those numbers? We get the answer: Yes.

An example of this might be 2 x 2=4

·         Second question: Is it possible for the other number to be a product of two whole numbers multiplied together? We get the answer: No

An example of this might be two times what equals five?  (2 x ? =5). There is no whole number that multiplied with another whole number will give the answer 5, or 7 or 11 etc.

So if it's possible for the first number to be arrived at by multiplying two whole numbers, but not possible that the second number be the product of two whole numbers then we deduct the numbers cannot be identical. Note that this follows deductively,  not by inference. For people who have studied the use of logic, deductive reasoning involves certainty, whereas conclusions drawn by inference involve probability.

It isn’t hard to see that the two questions are in fact identical and if you get two different answers to the same question then it’s impossible that the two numbers could be the same. If they were the same then they would have the same possibilities.

Therefore the numbers are not identical. We have solved the problem. The main point to take from our journey into mathematics is the truth about how even a possibility can be used to determine facts, and not merely a postulation, but a hard fact. By determining whether those two numbers had the same possibilities we have determined they are not the same numbers. We have also discovered a principle and it goes like this:

Any two entities which are claimed to be identical, cannot be so, if they do not possess the same potentiality. If they are indeed identical then it follows- of necessity- that they must share identical possibilities.

In other words, if one entity possesses a possibility that the other entity cannot- then it is evident that they cannot be identical to each other. To put it in its historical context the argument in question is called:

Leibniz's law
Logic Philosophy

1. (Philosophy / Logic) the principle that two expressions satisfy exactly the same predicates if and only if they both refer to the same subject
2. (Philosophy / Logic) the weaker principle that if a=b whatever is true of a is true of b
(courtesy The Free Dictionary)

Bearing this in mind we now use this principle to ask the question:

·         Can the mind be explained entirely and completely- without remainder- as a purely physical entity?

We must be quite clear here that this is the claim of people like outspoken atheist, Richard Dawkins, and a host of neuro-scientists and still more who ascribe to metaphysical naturalism. This is the view that all of reality can be comprehended in terms of matter alone. This sense of naturalism attests that spirits, deities, and the supernatural realm are not real and that there is no "purpose" in nature. And along with that is the attendant claim, that in light of the above there cannot exist a soul.

These people claim that the mind is simply and only an extension of the body and is- just as the body is- completely explained in material terms. To these people, the mind is no more than a computer which is a material object, very complicated- but still only a machine that performs amazing functions, but can be fully comprehended as a material object.

We all understand that a book can be completely comprehended as a product involving paper and ink, perhaps leather binding, stitching and glue, and to my mind it seems these people are saying that's all a book is. Well yes, in material terms- but that doesn't explain the book in complete terms at all, does it?And that's not hard to see. Most people agree that if what they claim is true, then consciousness, rationality, free will and many other implications are involved. The materialist view seems to lead inexorably to physical determinism. And this is a nehilistic view of human nature, it is reductionist and ultimately leads to dehumanization.

To sum up briefly then, it is the claim of the materialist that the mind is synonymous with the rest of the body and there is no difference, there are different functions but it is all explained by a materialist view. The mind, in this view is exhaustively explicated as strictly material.

In philosophical materialism the mind is completely explicable by, and has the identical material characteristics to the material characteristics of the rest of the body.

Now let’s apply our principle: Any two entities which are claimed to be identical, cannot be so, if they do not possess the same potentiality.

·         When the body ceases to exist, is there not the possibility that the mind- or some aspect of it- the soul could continue to exist? Yes.
·         Could it be conceded the body has this same potentiality? Does the body have any possibility of continuation once the life has left it. No.

Then according to our principle the mind and the body cannot be explained in equal terms, they are not the same, and the mind therefore is not completely explicable in material terms, and we are free to postulate an immortal soul.

Alvin Plantinga in the interview provides a succinct precise argument for the immortality of the soul but the principle he uses may not seem to be a very robust argument- for those not used to the strict dictates of logic- it does not at first seem such a strong argument. But this same argument when used in mathematics is actally watertight. As it is for maths so it is for the soul.

"By What Authority Are You Doing These Things?" Mark 11:28a

"Do not be scared by the word authority. Believing things on authority only means believing them because you've been told them by someone you think is trustworthy.

Ninety-nine per cent of the things you believe are believed on authority.

 I believe there is such a place as New York. I have not seen it myself. I could not prove by abstract reasoning that there must be such a place. I believe it because reliable people have told me so. The ordinary man believes in the Solar System, atoms, evolution, and the circulation of the blood on authority — because the scientists say so. Every historical statement in the world is believed on authority. None of us has seen the Norman Conquest or the defeat of the Armada. None of us could prove them by pure logic as you prove a thing in mathematics. We believe them simply because people who did see them have left writings that tell us about them: in fact, on authority.

A man who jibbed at authority in other things- as some people do in religion- would have to be content to know nothing all his life." C.S. Lewis- Mere Christianity (emphasis mine)

When we read those words of C.S. Lewis, we must remember that Mere Christianity was the book adapted from a series of talks put out by BBC radio between 1942 and 1944 at the height of the threat to Great Britain during World War 2. The context is important because as a nation Great Britain was under dire circumstances, facing the might of Hitler's Third Reich, it was more important than ever that the whole country pulled together and 'did their bit'. Some may still remember Winston Churchill's inspiring speeches to unite the country against a common foe. Thus C.S. Lewis was doing his bit to ensure that the public at large were cooperating with the authorities to work together for the good of the Commonwealth. Of course I'm not suggesting that was his only reason for his admonishment "Do not be scared by the word authority..." 

Undoubtedly his major concern is to establish that most of  our knowledge, that is most of the truth that we know is not something that we have personally proven by experience or by observation nor by reason, but we know it by authority, and if we are willing to agree that this is so, then what good reason could we have for not accepting Christian truth on authority, especially on the basis that were we to examine its excellent credentials for trustworthiness- we would find them impeccable?

There are times where, indubitably authority should not, and need not be questioned, neither should we be afraid of it. The moment we are faced with a claim to some authority or other we instinctively evaluate that claim, which often means we are evaluating a person. Are they trustworthy? Who has recommended them? What order of priority will I give to this person in my hierarchy of authorities? What weight ought I to give to these things she is saying? Has this person demonstrated faithfulness to truth? Why might I or others consider them trustworthy?

It is for these reasons that we hear the old cliche:

 "It's not what you know, it's who you know"

What does this tell us about ourselves? It seems most of us, most of the time, will not give anyone or anything our attention if someone has not been recommended to us. Perhaps it also tells us that we do not have much confidence in our native ability to discern truth. If we consistently and generally rely heavily on the recommendations of others as to whether we should give our time and our focus to what someone is saying it seems that we can be quite sure that we place a heavy emphasis on our relationships with one another to find our way in life. This can be seen in the life of Jesus. He did not simply drop in on this world unannounced and start immediately telling everyone he is God and that they should listen to him. One wonders what sort of response  that would have evoked in people if that had happened! Perhaps, as C.S. Lewis has said, that if he had done so, people would have deemed him "a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a boiled egg"  

Knowing how we think and behave and our natural skepticism, God had prepared someone to announce his arrival. "Prepare ye the way of the Lord" we hear. In the New Living Translation John the Baptist's recommendation is made particularly clear: "He is a voice shouting in the wilderness, 'Prepare the way for the LORD's coming! Clear the road for him!'" What does it mean to clear the road? Surely this is no more than what a cavalcade of Police on motorcycles do when the President comes to town. It makes an entrance into the lives of people possible- without this prior announcement most of us would not give a second thought. Despite his entrance into the world heralding the most important event of all time, so important that consequently the calendar was divided by his advent; it was, apart from the appearance of angels, a few shepherds and wise men from the East, hardly a world shaking event at the time. Who, apart from those few who had seen some amazing phenomena associated with his birth would have taken a lot of notice? As history and social experiments have shown we are not great at recognizing defining moments, or great, auspicious occasions without an accompanying fanfare of trumpets, illustrious introductions and all the pomp and ceremony we seem to need in order to wake us up to an important, special or even magnificent event. We are just not good at seeing things in themselves- for their own sake- just as they are, we seem to only appreciate the magnificent if there is some sign, some grand entrance to make us sit up and take notice.

 God entering our world, stepping onto the reality of our stage from the ethereal wings of the supernatural as a man tells us a lot about God, and about ourselves.  Jesus did not only rely on his introduction to the world by John the Baptist. He also pointed to the scriptures as authoritatively announcing his arrival ahead of time. We call that prophecy. In a way, the whole of the Old Testament was peppered with clues as to the imminent and immanent arrival of the Messiah. If one had eyes to see, and ears to hear.

So this tells us that we choose our sources for knowledge and truth- to a great degree- relying on relationships, this follows a very clear pattern, not just in the life of Jesus but everywhere. When I started this post I remembered that Lewis said somewhere just how much of our knowledge is taken on authority and not as a result of our own search for knowledge and truth; so I searched the internet and immediately found where I had read it, plus the quote itself. But I also wanted to know the context from which Mere Christianity was written because context is important. Wikipedia gave me the war background from which these talks came but this also came to my attention:

"Lewis was invited to give the talks by Rev. James Welch, the BBC Director of Religious Broadcasting, who had read his 1940 book, The Problem of Pain." (Wikipedia on Mere Christianity)

So here we see the same pattern of relationship with authority at work. Lewis wrote a book, its contents recommended, or announced Lewis to the Rev. James Welch; who no doubt was an advocate on behalf of Lewis to his peers or superiors at the BBC- who then gave the go-ahead to give the talks that were the basis for the book. And I am so glad he did. This book has had a resurgence of interest right around the world and for good reason. But do you see how important relationships were in the spreading of this wisdom, and how strong this pattern is?

 I have specifically emphasized Lewis's words about the sheer volume of knowledge we gain by listening to authority, it's huge.

• What are the reasons underlying why authority has gained the ascendancy over other ways of knowing?
• What other sources of knowledge are there that, according to Lewis, only account for the other one per cent of our knowledge?

Let's look at the second question first. If Lewis is correct then only one per cent of what we know, or count as knowledge is based or comes from sources other than authority.

What are the ways we get to know things?

The study of how we know what we know is called Epistemology. Almost everything that we know originates from four basic sources: 

• Authority- (knowledge from other sources, hopefully experts) It is not hard to see why Lewis attributes most of what we know to Authority. Our first source of authority for most people is our parent(s), then broadly speaking it falls to our educators, workplace, religion, and many diverse and other sources within our culture.
• Senses- the word experience could also be used here, because experience is the sum total of all the knowledge our senses have informed us over time. In the development of what we now know as the scientific method various natural philosophers argued over our main source of knowledge or whether knowledge was at all possible. Empiricism is the view that most of our knowledge comes to us through our senses.
•  Reason- is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, for establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information. It is closely associated with such characteristically human activities as philosophy, science, language, mathematics, and art, and is normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature.The concept of reason is sometimes referred to as rationality...Reason or "reasoning" is associated with thinking, cognition, and intellect.(Wikipedia) Rationalism is the belief that most if not all that we know is worked out through the process of reasoning.
• Intuition- while it is difficult to distinguish what might be subconsciously remembered from a combination of sense experiences, and knowledge gained by reason or authority some feel that intuition is indeed separate from these other sources of knowledge. Another school of thought is that rather than intuition being a separate source of knowledge it would be better to describe certain forms of knowledge as "properly basic". In this model some knowledge is to some degree built in to us. The Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga uses an argument that belief in God may be a "properly basic belief", (Wikipedia) and that has been somewhat supported by others, notably the 16th century reformer John Calvin when he spoke of the "sensus divinitatus". 

Indeed the scriptures inform us: 

"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" Romans 1:19-20 KJV

Only a suppressed and denied knowledge that was inherent could universally render us without excuse.

We turn now to the first question.

What are the reasons underlying why authority has gained the ascendancy over other ways of knowing? 

"For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." 1 Corinthians 13:9-12

The Apostle Paul shows us here a developmental process of knowledge and draws from the universal human experience of childhood to adulthood to illustrate maturity. While childhood innocence and naivete is delightful, no-one in their right mind is content for children to remain childish in their thinking when they have transitioned into adulthood. Parents generally wish to make themselves redundant by a certain age.  The mark of childhood is that virtually all knowledge is passed on by authority, this has to be so because their age has limited their experience, and their stage of brain development has limited their capacity for reasoning- so knowledge by authority is second nature to children.

And it doesn't stop there. Long years will be spent under the authority of parents, and then continuing this tradition that authority will be added to by the authority of their educators, who alongside the parents continue to reinforce this habit of learning by authority. But here now our second and third sources of knowledge begin to come into play. Through problem solving and any number of experiences both at school and home and authoritative teaching the mind has been encouraged to develop to the point where the reasoning process and empirical knowledge, that is knowledge gained through observation begins to play a greater part in this development. But even while these other sources of knowledge become more important, we still rely heavily on authority as our most important source. We stand on the shoulders of those pioneers of various streams of knowledge who have gone before us. Even as we use the resources of reason and empirical discipline, we are still by and large applying those disciplines to knowledge gained by authority.

It is important to understand that knowledge gained by authority saves us a lot of pain, time and trouble. We can be told not to touch the hot stove and simply accept this on authority. Or we can touch it and empirically  feel the pain, observe the blister, and know deep down the reality. Sometimes we get to know the truth by reason, perhaps we observed a sister put her hand on the hot plate and observed the agony, and the distress and figured this is not a good thing. Implicit in all forms of knowledge that we gain by authority are relationship, trust and a sense of humility.

What is the danger of knowledge by authority?

Is it any wonder then that people- even as adults- are so used to accepting authority as their means of acquiring knowledge and truth that it isn't difficult to keep them- at least in some sense- as children? What I am referring to is the weakness and danger of authoritative learning. At the beginning of this post I quoted C.S. Lewis from Mere Christianity: 

"Do not be scared by the word authority. Believing things on authority only means believing them because you've been told them by someone you think is trustworthy." (emphasis mine)

Children implicitly trust their parents and that's a good thing, and generally it's good in education as well, at least at earlier levels. But the inherent weakness shows up when authority is abused, and if the persons under that authority don't have the means to explore this "knowledge by authority" with the tools of reason and empiricism by which to test the truth or otherwise of that knowledge. That then becomes a means by which they can be kept as perpetual children, in a manner of speaking. This trust has resulted in a means by which people lead stunted lives under the control of others, not all of whom have their best interest at heart.

Sometimes this abuse by authority is not intentional but is perpetuated by sincere people adopting something as knowledge that isn't true and teaching it as true knowledge. Or, they pass on true knowledge, but the benefit of this knowledge is undermined when there is a strong temptation to discard it in favour of an easier life. Knowledge that is believed by authority alone can be severely challenged if what is believed to be true has not been under-girded either by experience or reason.  This is why it is so important that both those in authority and those under authority are confident enough to encourage a healthy, questioning dialogue and even encourage a respectful and targeted skepticism of the nature championed by the late Dallas Willard.  In another post I detail this abuse in the instance of some Universities that have come under fire for institutionalizing authoritative learning at the expense of open debate and dialogue, healthy skepticism of the status quo has resulted in censure and discrimination.

After Jesus performed the miracle of the resurrection of Lazarus, the religious authorities became afraid their authoritative hold on the people was being threatened, "What shall we do, because this man does many miracles?"

"If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation." (John 11:48 NASB)

Clearly the focus for these authorities had shifted from the God ordained means of spreading and upholding religious truth and knowledge- to that of manipulation and control for their own ends. This is then is the temptation of all authority- and as some have said, the corruption of the best, is the worst kind of corruption. "None commit evil so cheerfully when they believe it is being done in the name of God"

Again, this sort of abuse has entered the hallowed halls of scientific academia with anyone challenging the accepted paradigm landing in trouble as can be observed in Ben Steins documentary: Expelled. All sorts of abuses have taken place because the people involved did not know that there are tests for truth, that other ways of knowing can be used to corroborate what has been learned by authority. Authoritative knowledge in the postmodern mind is closely associated with a desire to keep people at a disadvantage and a means to have power over people because of a history of abuse by those who insist that only the authoritative way of knowing is trustworthy.

A healthy, confident, and vibrant authority welcomes genuine questions, reasoning and dialogue.

There is a danger of two extremes which by analogy can be shown thus: A person who opens their mouth so wide as to swallow everything is sure to end up choking, and so we have a gullible person. On the other hand someone so extreme in their skepticism has their mouth so firmly shut that they end up starving. Neither result is desirable.

Another pressing reason for authority remaining our chief means of knowing is the necessity of the expert. We do not have either the time, or the inclination, or the financial resources to spend our days examining in any sort of detail all the vast storehouses of knowledge that several millenia of enquiry have produced. So we find that knowledge has become very specialized, and we rely heavily then on the specialty of the expert. This is how someone who is highly qualified, even to PhD level, in one area of knowledge can be quite ignorant in other areas

Because many people are basically in thrall to knowing by authority and have not been taught to think critically for themselves many end up feeling powerless and disadvantaged. Or worse. Some may be so limited in ability to think outside of the box that we remain blissfully unaware of what is holding us captive. Knowledge by authority can be so ingrained into our thinking habits that we remain as dependent children who have not learned to think for themselves.

In several places the Apostle Paul criticizes his listeners for still behaving like children and requiring "the milk of the word" when they should be out there teaching others, or at least getting into "meat". From this we gather that there must be ways in which Christianity is taught and received that tends to keep people as children, rather than strengthening us and maturing us.

 How bad can abuse of authority get? 

At the close of the second world war as the allies liberated the death camps, and the truth became clearer, understandably a huge outcry arose over the atrocities that had taken place. How could ordinary decent people do this sort of thing? The world was agasp. There was no doubt that Hitler was able to surround himself with people who were cruel and unfeeling. After all that was his stated goal:

“I want to raise a generation of young people devoid of a conscience, imperious, relentless and cruel.” - Adolf Hitler

But were these the exception rather than the rule? How could the ordinary person in the street, the masses- not only allow these things to happen- but take an active part in them? The German people were among the most educated, sophisticated people of any in the world. They had a history of good Christian influence. How could it happen?

The Milgram Experiment:

When the Nuremberg War Trials had been completed many questions remained. Were these people guilty of war crimes, or was it just that they were following orders?  At what point did ordinary people say "enough is enough, we will not carry on this barbarity"? When did a sense of morality kick in and the sense of loyalty to authority lose its power over its subjects?

These were the sort of questions being asked when Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram set up a series of psychology experiments designed to measure the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience.

"The experiments began in July 1961, three months after the start of the trial of German Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram devised his psychological study to answer the question: "Was it that Eichmann and his accomplices in the Holocaust had mutual intent, in at least with regard to the goals of the Holocaust?" In other words, "Was there a mutual sense of morality among those involved?" Milgram's testing suggested that it could have been that the millions of accomplices were merely following orders, despite violating their deepest moral beliefs. The experiments have been repeated many times, with consistent results within societies, but different percentages across the globe." (Wikipedia- emphasis mine)

Three individuals were involved: the one running the experiment, the subject of the experiment (a volunteer), and a confederate pretending to be a volunteer. These three persons fill three distinct roles: the Experimenter (an authoritative role), the Teacher (a role intended to obey the orders of the Experimenter), and the Learner (the recipient of stimulus from the Teacher). The subject and the actor both drew slips of paper to determine their roles, but unknown to the subject, both slips said "teacher". The actor would always claim to have drawn the slip that read "learner", thus guaranteeing that the subject would always be the "teacher". At this point, the "teacher" and "learner" were separated into different rooms where they could communicate but not see each other. In one version of the experiment, the confederate was sure to mention to the participant that he had a heart condition.

The "teacher" was given an electric shock from the electro-shock generator as a sample of the shock that the "learner" would supposedly receive during the experiment.

Before conducting the experiment, Milgram polled fourteen Yale University senior-year psychology majors to predict the behavior of 100 hypothetical teachers. All of the poll respondents believed that only a very small fraction of teachers (the range was from zero to 3 out of 100, with an average of 1.2) would be prepared to inflict the maximum voltage. Milgram also informally polled his colleagues and found that they, too, believed very few subjects would progress beyond a very strong shock. Milgram also polled forty psychiatrists from a medical school and they believed that by the tenth shock, when the victim demands to be free, most subjects would stop the experiment. They predicted that by the 300 volt shock, when the victim refuses to answer, only 3.73 percent of the subjects would still continue and they believed that "only a little over one-tenth of one per cent of the subjects would administer the highest shock on the board."

In Milgram's first set of experiments, 65 percent (26 of 40) of experiment participants administered the experiment's final massive 450-volt shock, though many were very uncomfortable doing so; at some point, every participant paused and questioned the experiment; some said they would refund the money they were paid for participating in the experiment. Throughout the experiment, subjects displayed varying degrees of tension and stress. Subjects were sweating, trembling, stuttering, biting their lips, groaning, digging their fingernails into their skin, and some were even having nervous laughing fits or seizures.

Milgram summarized the experiment in his 1974 article, "The Perils of Obedience", writing:

The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' [participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. 

The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.

Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority. 

Is the above experiment demonstrable in real life? We know of the atrocities of  the Nazi era but haven't we moved on? The following link follows the harrowing story of a remote control operator of drones and his battle with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder after the realization that he was the person responsible for the deaths of over 1626 people reported just days ago. Drone Pilot With PTSD

The following are a variety of observations made on the basis of these experiments, or others like them.

Philip Zimbardo: none of the participants who refused to administer the final shocks insisted that the experiment itself be terminated, nor left the room to check the health of the victim without requesting permission to leave, as per Milgram's notes and recollections, when Zimbardo asked him about that point.

Milgram later investigated the effect of the experiment's locale on obedience levels by holding an experiment in an unregistered, backstreet office in a bustling city, as opposed to at Yale, a respectable university. The level of obedience, "although somewhat reduced, was not significantly lower." What made more of a difference was the proximity of the "learner" and the experimenter.

A subject who has neither ability nor expertise to make decisions, especially in a crisis, will leave decision making to the group and its hierarchy. 

Surely this is evidence of the tendency of an authoritative way of learning and knowing to keep us as perpetual children. It accentuates the natural desire to remain as children and not take responsibility for ourselves, our actions.

People have learned that when experts tell them something is all right, it probably is, even if it does not seem so. (In fact, it is worth noting that in this case the experimenter was indeed correct: it was all right to continue giving the 'shocks' — even though most of the subjects did not suspect the reason.)

"The influence is ideological. It's about what they believe science to be, that science is a positive product, it produces beneficial findings and knowledge to society that are helpful for society. So there's that sense of science is providing some kind of system for good." (Wikipedia- emphasis mine)

Here we see the danger of authoritative science, an unquestioning belief or faith that all science is good for us and beneficial to our culture. Under the guise of scientific or rational authority the outspoken atheist Sam Harris was able to say, apparently with impunity: "some propositions", (no doubt he refers to those of a religious nature), "are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them." (Quote from The Guardian )

Many of those who participated in the experiment "later wrote expressing thanks."

Six years later (at the height of the Vietnam War), one of the participants in the experiment sent correspondence to Milgram, explaining why he was glad to have participated despite the stress:

"While I was a subject in 1964, though I believed that I was hurting someone, I was totally unaware of why I was doing so. Few people ever realize when they are acting according to their own beliefs and when they are meekly submitting to authority… To permit myself to be drafted with the understanding that I am submitting to authority's demand to do something very wrong would make me frightened of myself… I am fully prepared to go to jail if I am not granted Conscientious Objector status. Indeed, it is the only course I could take to be faithful to what I believe. My only hope is that members of my board act equally according to their conscience…" (emphasis added)

Following these experiments there was an outcry over the methods used to support his hypothesis, Milgram defended his position by alluding to an unwillingness to face the truth about human nature.

"Milgram argued that the ethical criticism provoked by his experiments was because his findings were disturbing and revealed unwelcome truths about human nature"

All of the quoted material comes from this Article in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment with some of my own emphasis.

Another set of social experiments comes from the book- "The Rules of Influence" by William D. Crano.(St Martin's Press, 2012- p. 94):

"We learned long ago that a gun is not required to induce people to act in ways inconsistent with their true beliefs. All that's called for is a bit of social pressure applied at the right time by the right people- and more often than not, the right people belong to the majority. Group pressure works because it can be extremely uncomfortable to be moving in one direction when everyone else is going the other way.

A study the great Solomon Asch conducted more that sixty years ago showed that the majority doesn't have to do much to affect people's judgements. even though he made no obvious attempt to influence people in his study, Asch found that he could induce many of them to deny even the clear and seemingly incontrovertible evidence of their own senses- under the right circumstances..."

Four psychology students were invited to take part in Dr. Asch's study, which involved easy perceptual judgements. The students were all from the "same small college" and "share a common in-group  identity". This means they knew each other, and were socially and institutionally identifiable as an "in-group"- to my mind all this really means is that they were a clique. In his book Crano puts his readers in the unenviable position of being one of the volunteer students: 

"At the front of the room, a researcher shows all four of you a card that contains a reference line. On another card are three lines labeled A through C, and one of them exactly matches the reference line. The task, he explains, is for each of you to tell him in turn which of the three lines- A,B, or C - matches the reference line. You are to respond in order on each trial, and as luck would have it, you pick the short straw and get to respond last on each judgement trial, after the three others have done so. 

You soon see that the judgments are extremely undemanding. The first set of stimulus lines are shown , the answer is clearly A, and the three subjects who respond before you all say "A". The next set is shown, and C is the obviously correct answer, and all three subjects ahead of  you respond "C" as do you. The simplicity  of these judgments was intentional. In fact, Asch purposely developed his stimulus cards so that almost no one ever made a mistake when they responded alone."

"However, when the third (of twelve) judgment trial comes along, something begins to go haywire. What has started as a walk in the park begins to turn into something very different, because on this trial, all three of your fellow students make the same obvious mistake. (Remember they respond before you do.) Judging the lines presented here, they all said "B" matched the reference line. You look again and it is clear to you that C is the right choice. Isn't it? A small dagger of doubt cuts into your early confidence- but it's a small dagger. The central question of the study is this: What will you say now that it's your turn?

You might wonder how the three students could have been so off base. What you didn't know is they were paid by Dr. Asch to give the wrong answer. unanimously, on cue, on specific judgment trials. All their judgments were scripted. The question that drove the research was whether or not their incorrect answers influenced anyone, even though the correct judgments were painfully obvious. The answer to this question might surprise you.

Fully one third of the time, the naive respondents went along with the clearly incorrect majority, even though the threesome never tried to convince anyone that they were right. In fact, they never said anything except A, B, or C- but their influence was evident. You yourself might have resisted. A quarter of the subjects never went along with the majority; but that means that 75 percent of the participants did, at least once, so despite anticipated protestations, the odds are that you, too, would have complied with the majority and reported a judgment that clearly was at odds with what you thought you saw."

Clearly there is a strong social rule at work here that might be defined as the rule of unanimity, when people of one accord all say the same thing it is socially very uncomfortable not to conform to the majority even in the face of denying what is obviously true. It is this socially driven inertia that also compounds the problems when authority is abused, no-one wants to be that person to blow the whistle while everyone else is prepared to turn a blind eye. Perhaps this could be part of the reason people like to cut down the "tall poppy" as well, because it is a denial or perhaps even seen as some sort of betrayal to the majority view.

Undoubtedly we are all conditioned by life to rely heavily on acquiring knowledge by authority for all that we need to know in order to live well, to lead an honest, productive and God honoring life. All of this leads us to another important question:

Is there evidence to suggest that God would have us move from a more authoritative means of knowing truth and knowledge, to a more reasoned, and rational way of knowing and living?

"Come and follow me" was a simple, authoritative command that Jesus employed several times through the Gospel accounts, and it was remarkably effective. They did. But later on his emphasis shifted. In his commission to Peter, Jesus asked: "Do you love me? Feed my sheep" In these terms Jesus equated Peter's willingness to continue following Jesus not to mere obedience to simple authority, but to an inseparable commitment on his part to care for those whom Christ had called to discipleship, his sheep.

Jesus demonstrated with the washing of feet that his way of leading is not to be a worldly way of "Lording it over the flock" but that he gave the mandate that leaders are to be the servants of all. "Friends" he called them and friends are those who are taken into the utmost confidence of the other. Nothing is held back. Knowledge is not to be used over his people, but for people to serve them.

"No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you." John 15:15

This was also exemplified when he spoke the parable of the sower to the multitudes, but when alone with his disciples they quizzed him.

"And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given."

What was Jesus attitude to people who questioned him? Generally Jesus reasoned with them, but it did depend on the motive for the question. Often his questioners had no higher motive than to trap him or make him look bad. With these he often exposed their motive and left them speechless. Or he refused to answer unless they in kind, answered a question he had for them that was invariably designed to show up their motives, or open up on their own assumptions. But on the whole there was a willingness to participate in open dialogue. A confident reasonableness in every conversation he held.

Many have since come to appreciate just how simply and yet how profoundly he answered or asked questions. Others who have made a study of the history of philosophy have recognized many classical forms of logic, argumentation and reasoning he used in his conversations. How many leaders are there that were ever that approachable?! To think, the one by whom all the worlds were made should be so humble as to ride a donkey and be in ordinary conversation with very ordinary people like us. Nothing reveals more to us about the nature of God than this sense of humility that he demonstrated constantly with people.

"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." (Isaiah 1:18 KJV)

In the Gospel of John an incredible conversation takes place between Jesus and a group who claimed to be God's people. It was about who the people of God really were, and how they could be discerned. After what seemed to be an escalating series of claim and counter claim- Jesus said this:

"And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not." John 8:45

What is astounding is that he predicated their unbelief on the fact that he told them the truth. Truth, which is closely allied to knowledge, if it is not loved, not found in the heart of the hearer, will not penetrate their souls. They believed not, because they were not "of God" or "of the truth".

"To give truth to him who loves it not is to only give him more multiplied reasons for misinterpretation.” - George McDonald.

Introduction to Christian Apologetics.

The following short audio clip introduces the "ASK" series of apologetic videos designed specifically for youth which I currently have available for any youth groups that are interested, my only request is that I be included as facilitator in the package! It is not only eminently suitable for youth but can be a foundational study for any age from youth upward.

After watching this video clip a few times it struck me that the young lady represented as "Anna" is not unlike the  bride of Christ (the church) as a whole. We as the church have been put in a position of ridicule and made to feel embarrassed and awkward and have largely failed in our obligation to take the message of 1 Peter 3:15 to heart:

"but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,"

This is not to bring condemnation upon anyone but as a matter of encouragement. This is not the first generation to be embarrassed or afraid to share the Gospel. Saint Paul in Romans 1:16 has already anticipated this reluctance to share with others, otherwise why would he have made such a point of stating that he was not ashamed?

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." (Romans 1:16)

Even 2000 years ago it was common knowledge that to speak as though a man were to rise from the dead after three days in the grave would sound like foolishness. And yet this is the crux of the Christian message, as the apostle also said:

"And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." ( 1 Corinthians 15:14)

So it pleased God to save people by the foolishness of preaching. This "foolishness" then was designed by God so that our faith would not stand in the wisdom of man. Another way of putting it is: that God so designed the Gospel story to be played out in such a way that no-one (in their right mind) would believe it unless the revelation of God by the Holy Spirit had not first convinced them of its reality and truthfulness. In this way then we can be assured that the reason we believe such an unlikely story is in fact a great sign that God has called us to be in his family.

"Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God." (1 Peter 1:21 Emphasis mine)

 So your ability to believe what others only see as foolishness is in fact inspired by God in Christ through the internal revelation of the Holy Spirit.

"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness;But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men." (1 Corinthians ch 1:18-25 Emphasis mine)

Apologetics is the nuts and bolts practical application and discipline of confession to salvation. 

"for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." (Romans 10:10 )

This follows closely the biblical maxim of faith followed by works. In other words faith without works is dead just as believing in your heart without the confession of your mouth is a faith that falls short.

"But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works." (James 2:18)

So then be both warned and encouraged, the will of God will never take you, where the grace of God cannot keep you.

  This presentation is for those who are interested in evangelism, or defending the faith and have decided to take heed of the command in 1 Peter 3:15 to be prepared to defend the Gospel. The first 30 or 40 minutes of this are the important introductory bits. Michael's sharp wit and sense of humour is reason enough to listen up, but even more important is his message. If you  enjoy it by all means watch to the end.

This is what Christian Apologetics is all about, as Michael Ramsden makes clear it is a message for the whole church. Or as Doug Groothius said "Apologetics is not a peripheral discipline for Christian eggheads. It's right at the center of the kingdom of God.".

That's what apologetics is all about, not winning arguments but winning souls, not answering questions but answering people.

 ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’  

The Gospel Ladder of Truth

I was looking for a picture to help explain a point. I wanted to use it as a metaphor for the work of evangelism. Many of you will recall Led Zeppelin's song "Stairway to Heaven" (Showing my age). Perhaps more familiar is the narrative of Jacobs ladder and all the comings and goings.

The Gospel by which God brings people to faith in Jesus, is in some respects like a ladder. God is at the top and we being "dead in our trespasses and sins" are in an inescapable pit at the bottom.

“Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin."                          (cf John 8:34 E.S.V.)

Without the Grace of God we are in a pit that we cannot get ourselves out of. Sin has blinded us, it has taken us captive and we are dead. There is no way out apart from him who is the mediator between Man and God- Jesus Christ.

 "When we were utterly helpless, Christ came at just the right time and died for us sinners."

  (Romans 5:6 N.L.T.)

Eventually, after Googling for images of ladders I came across the above picture of a sculpture showing a ladder in a concrete pit. I added the hands as a part of the picture to illustrate the point, but I could not refrain from including some of the commentary about the artwork because it seemed to fit the purpose so well:

"Martin Puryear is an artist who started as a painter and later turned to sculpture. His work combines a “traditional sculptural involvement in techniques…that reflect some of the methods of Constructivism and Assemblage” (Society for Contemporary Art). Many of his sculptures are abstract, sometimes simplified to simple ovoid and lines. 

 "The placement of the ladder seems to hang in space. It seems to have a beginning, but it is out of reach. It takes the utilitarianism of a ladder, which is used to get oneself from a starting point to a higher point, to extend our reach, and makes it a nonfunctional object. It forces the viewer to look at it as more than just a ladder and instead as a metaphor of beginnings and endings and the journey to perhaps an unattainable goal." Buman's Art History (emphasis mine).

I have emphasized the part about "the ladder... seems to have a beginning, but it is out of reach" because this is just how, it seems to me, the Gospel is the ladder that has been placed, where for many, it is just too high to reach. But, it is not the fault of the Gospel, and I wish to emphasize this.

How so?

The Gospel is the good news based on historic events as seen by eyewitnesses, evidenced by the corroboration of others and has been handed down to us by a literary collection of testimonies and an unbroken chain of witnesses vouchsafing the veracity of those written records, which we now call the canon of the New Testament up to this day. Therefore it should appear as no strange thing that this should be called the Gospel of Truth.

"Because of the hope which is kept for you in Heaven, that which from the first you had heard in the word of the truth of The Gospel."  (Colossians 1:5 A.B.P.E)

The understanding of the person of Christ is inextricably linked to the idea of truth. Indeed Christ is truth personified. If the ladder of the Gospel of truth is for some reason inaccessible we have to enquire as to what has made it harder for others to grasp hold of that ladder?  And if so what changes need to be made?

This is where I need to be careful, and not be misunderstood- the gospel we offer to people in the pit of slavery to sin must be the same Gospel of old. It is absolutely imperative that we neither add to it, nor remove anything from it.

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!" (Galatians 1:8 NIV)

So the Gospel ladder to God is the good news about Jesus Christ, the Way the Truth and The Life.

Why then, do I appear to be telling a story of an inadequate Gospel- a Gospel that is too high for people to reach? Now, if that is the impression you have gained so far, it is definitely not what I have intended. The Gospel was, is and ever shall- be the power of God to save people.

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." (Romans 1:16 KJV)

Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)

"Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them." (Hebrews 7:25 KJV)

Now here is the key to understanding what I am attempting to say. It is not that the ladder is inadequate:

This ladder is the same ladder extended to God's people that ever it was- but the ground beneath it has shifted. 

One of the first things to notice is that people in Christ's day had no qualms in believing whether God (or gods) existed. Essentially all people believed in the supernatural realm, virtually all people believed in a god or gods, it was simply a given in these early cultures. The question almost never arose:

• Does God exist? 

No, the assumption that God existed was ever-present. The question then, was always :

• What sort of God exists? 

And it's not hard to see why the existence of God was a natural assumption.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Romans 1:18-20 (added emphasis)

We see echoes of this in the first few verses of the Gospel of John:

He [John the Baptist] was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light [Jesus Christ]. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. John 1:8,9 

The celebrated Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga has done much in philosophical circles to defend the notion that Paul here speaks of: that knowledge of God is properly basic, or fundamental to human nature, implanted within us.  (Plantinga’s three-volume magnum opus, Warrant: The Current Debate and Warrant and Proper Function -both Oxford University Press, 1993- and Warranted Christian Belief -Oxford University Press, 2000).

But this raises more questions, if it is so, that- contrary to certain philosophers who maintained we are born with a tabula rasa* (blank slate) at birth but have, in fact, an implanted, nascent knowledge of God- why are there a growing number of atheists? Why is this basic knowledge of God not apparent today? Here also, Paul has anticipated the problem:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. Romans 1:21-25 (added emphasis)

Since the time Paul wrote this we have had two thousand years more or less of a consistent denial and consequent darkening of the human heart. The knowledge of God which is properly basic has been buried and suppressed by certain ways of thinking that have gained ascendancy in Western culture, and not the West only, but is now a growing Global consensus, and that is a philosophy of materialism* inculcated by the scientific community which knows no borders.

And if it wasn't the result of philosophies so called, this descent into darkness came about through the worship of false religions, whether pantheistic or other monotheistic religions or animistic religions. So wherever the worship of the one true God was neglected or denied an inevitable darkening of the heart followed, with the result that today, at least in the West we have descended so far from reality- that even those whose worship of animals or created gods are closer to the truth than those who deny outright the supernatural realm. This is reflected also in the fact that many in the West who have sensed intuitively this fall from what is properly basic to humanity have turned in ever increasing numbers to a mass-marketed spirituality, an easy believism that requires little by way of personal sacrifice or commitment to an objective morality.

That in essence describes one of the truths that now must be restored, the dignity and credibility of the  existence of God is no longer apparent in much of the world and is so far from being able to be believed due to this darkness- that the idea of the existence of God in many circles is openly derided and mocked. The truth then of the Gospel ladder must be extended by restoring that sense of the existence of God that has been lost through the darkening of souls. 

More than 300 years ago the eminent Bible commentarian Matthew Henry said:

"Many have such an opinion of their own capacity as to think that that cannot be proved which they cannot believe; by wisdom they knew not Christ."

<------------>

The last major heading that I wish to bring to notice is the question of truth. I have quoted this elsewhere and probably more than once but here it is again:

"To give truth to him who loves it not is to only give him more multiplied reasons for misinterpretation" -George McDonald

The cultural ground that has shifted- rendering our same glorious Gospel less effective- is a result of various forms of philosophy that have gained traction in Western culture at street level over the last several decades. These forces, these "powers and principalities" that have permeated society have distorted and changed the way we perceive "truth" and this has had disastrous effects not only in terms of "collateral damage" in our culture but in particular, it has not left the truth claims of the gospel unaffected.

The state of affairs that has brought this about is called by philosophers and concerned Christians: "Post-modernism or Post-modernity"

So, the ground has shifted and it is now under the bottom of the ladder by some distance, what does this mean?

Often in Scripture "the ground" is used as a metaphor, a sort of word picture to depict the human heart. In the parable of the sower we are told of the state of various types of ground, representing different states of the human heart on a sort of scale.

"Hearken; Behold, there went out a sower to sow: And it came to pass, as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and the birds of the air came and devoured it up. And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth: But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away. And some fell among thorns, the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit. And other fell on good ground, did yield fruit that sprang up and increased; and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, some an hundred. He said unto them, He that has ears to hear, let him hear."

 — Mark 4:3-9

In the explanation to this parable, which Jesus gave privately to his disciples he portrayed the seed sown, as the word of God- the word of truth.  

"And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?The sower soweth the word. And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts."

Our question must be, therefore : By what means, in our culture, does Satan, otherwise known as the "father of lies"- "taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts."

The answer is by the way these philosophical deceptions have distorted, denied and denigrated the whole realm of truth. The whole idea of "truth" is in trouble. Let me ask this question: If you wanted to make the "path of truth", or the "way of truth" impossible to follow, how would you achieve this goal? I would suggest the way this has taken place is that confusion and misinformation has made the way of truth very difficult to define. If there were innumerable paths, and every path was  touted as the true path, then suddenly there is no way of distinguishing between truth and error.

In her fascinating book "Total Truth- Liberating Christianity from it's cultural captivity" Nancy Pearcey writes of her journey from Christianity to skepticism and back to Christianity again. Her contact with the L'Abri Fellowship and Francis Schaeffer played a pivotal role in her journey:

 "As a university student, I found that by far the toughest challenge to my newfound faith came from a sociology class: The assumption of relativism was so pervasive that it was tough to maintain hope in the sheer possibility of objective truth, let alone the conviction that Christianity was true." (p113)

1. The very category of "truth" is being distorted by a thought process that is called relativism. Instead of the equality of all people academia has promoted the equality of all ideas. From this it follows that if all ideas are equal then none of them are true, because truth by nature is exclusive. There are many ways to demonstrate that relativism is a distortion of the idea of truth.                                                  If someone was flying a plane and they encountered thick cloud, the pilot, according to the rules, has to switch from Visual Flight Rules to Instrument Flight Rules, which, quite simply- means that if you can no longer see- you must fly by trusting in your instruments to tell you about the progress of your journey. Your height, speed and distance traveled, your planes attitude and other aspects like ground control all become essentially instrumental in your safety. Now, what if Air Traffic Control told you over the radio that your landing approach was dangerously fast and you were descending too quickly and in fact your position was not a good approach at all? Would it make sense to reply-                                             
2. "Oh well I know that's how it is for you, but my reality is: I am confident I'm doing everything right. I know the instruments are telling me to slow down, reduce my rate of descent and take a different heading but I've flown this route thousands of times, why should I listen to that version of truth, I have my own?"                                                                                                                                 Clearly this is a recipe for disaster.But relativism blurs that reality, while it is easy to spot the distortion in earthly matters like navigation, what does it do when we are dealing with more abstract scenarios like spiritual realities? Because these are not concrete experiences, relativism finds a ready home in the spiritual realm, and in the realm of philosophy and ideas.                                
3. Two opposing views cannot both be right. "True" truth  means that someone's "truth" is a lie masquerading as the truth. From this it follows that relativism which promotes the idea that different- and even opposing truths can be valued equally, is a denial of the exclusive nature of truth. If you choose to take the bus to Kamo, you cannot deny that it is impossible to get on the bus to Onerahi at the same time. Truth by nature is exclusive. No one, I venture, would be silly enough to laugh you to scorn by saying: "Fancy thinking you could exclude a trip to Onerahi at the same time as going to Kamo just because you were on a Kamo bus!" But, and here is the rub, people do that all the time when Christians are mocked and derided for saying that Jesus is the only way.  
4. The role of relativism in the denigration of truth should now be apparent. If relativism is accepted as true, then we naturally think of ideas as having equal value. But if "true" truth is valued equally along with a lie masquerading as truth, then the confusion that arises as a result will devalue not just "true" truth but anything that is supposed as true. If the pilot accepted his own personal "truth" over and above the objective truth of his instruments, and does not recognize the foolishness of relativism, then- if he survives the inevitable crash- what won't survive is his respect for truth in any form. I can just hear him say "Bhah, humbug- this whole idea of truth is a scam. Just a ploy, a trick to get the better of me." And thus instead of blaming the culprit which is the idea of relativism, all truth is denounced as a means of getting power over people or some other such advantage as might be gained. Thus the reputation of truth as that which "makes us free" has been successfully tarnished. The whole idea of truth in our day is suffering. As they say "the devil is in the details".

But, if we listen carefully to scripture we will not be left wondering if God knows what is going on. There is in the language of the Bible a terribly dramatic scene of "truth" becoming the victim of a street mugging and anyone attempting to restore fair play and a sense of proportion cannot get a hearing, those trying to escape the evil are turned on and treated as if their shunning of evil is actually an evil thing that must be punished. This turning of things upside down was foretold by Isaiah's prophecy some 800 years before the champion of truth entered our world as Jesus: 

And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter. Truth is nowhere to be found, and whoever shuns evil becomes a prey. The LORD looked and was displeased that there was no justice. (Isaiah 59:14 KJV-15 NIV )

Nowhere has evil been proclaimed as good, and good proclaimed as evil so much as in the story of the Crucifixion of Christ. But that sort of thing can always be seen going on all around us if we have eyes to see. Here then we have the answer to at least part of the reason why the Gospel is perhaps beyond the reach of those who would otherwise be able to take hold of it and be saved. The stewardship of the Gospel has been entrusted to his people, for we are his ministers. But we are the ministers not only of the truth of the Gospel, but we should be good stewards of all truth wherever it may be found, and we should be promoters and lovers of truth as an idea to be attained, striven for and protected and maintained in our culture. The very idea of truth has been under a sustained attack by false ideologies. If the very idea of truth as that which reflects reality is lost, then so will we we lose the general credibility for the Gospel of truth. And where a climate of credibility is lost- there will we find truth fallen in the street.

And this is where the role of Christian apologetics, comes into its own. It helps to restore a respect for the notion and nature of truth as a kind of scrub clearing before the truth of the Gospel can be fully appreciated. And so this is where we should begin, to restore truth to its rightful place first in our own hearts and then in those that will hear us.

So the Gospel is still the Old Rugged Cross that will stand the test of time and bad ideas, it is still mighty to save. We should not forget the verse that prefaces this sad chapter in the history of truth:  

"Behold, the LORD'S hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear" Isaiah 59:1KJV

But the ground has shifted, are we ready to meet that challenge?

 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. Mathew 25:29 

So, to those then who did not like to retain even the slightest semblance of respect for the idea of God's existence that was inherent, the little they had was taken from them. And what goes for this knowledge of God- also goes for the idea of truth of which the knowledge of the existence of God is but a part. We need to uphold and maintain a respect and love for truth as good stewards of God's gifts. For it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God!

*Tabula rasa, meaning blank slate in Latin, is the epistemological theory that individuals are born without built-in mental content and that their knowledge comes from experience and perception. (Wikipedia)

*Materialism in this sense does not refer to a heightened love of things- material possessions at the expense of relationships- but rather the idea that the Universe only consists of matter. In this sense materialism means there is no supernatural reality and therefore no God, the whole of existence, it is supposed, can be incorporated in material terms.