Free Will, Round Squares, and a Question of Dubious Morality

Have you ever found yourself in a conversation with somebody who knew just enough of what you're talking about to understand the words and yet still completely miss the point?

I don't want - at all - to sound like there are any questions that one could ask about God that aren't worth asking, or that there are dumb questions, or anything like that. But sometimes there are questions that, if followed out to their logical extensions, highlight some pretty serious problems within the understanding behind the question itself.

For instance, consider the old classic: "Can God create a stone so heavy He can't lift it?"

The idea behind this question is supposedly to point out a paradox within the understanding of the omnipotence of God. God can do anything, right?

Well... Yes... but also no. Can God defy the laws of physics? For sure. Can He defy the laws of possibility? No. Asking about the heavy stone might as well be asking if God can create a round square. God can do anything that can be done, but contradictions of essential nature are outside of even God's power. God cannot create a thing that by actual definitions cannot exist.

(Everything else, of course, is completely fair game.)

I was asked a question somewhat like that a while back, and I'd like to share the experience with you because I feel that it points to a pretty fascinating viewpoint. I've encountered the question before in various settings, but never in actual conversation. Here's the question, and please understand that it positively blew my mind:

"Why would a loving God create me with free will knowing that I would sin and go to hell?"

Let's tackle this one piece at a time...

"Why would a loving God create me with free will..."

This part is easy! God created us with free will so that we would be free to Love Him, free to choose to serve Him, free to choose to Love Others, free to choose to do good, free to choose to do evil, free to choose to be self-centered, free to choose Coke or Pepsi, free to choose cats or dogs, free to choose all the millions of choices that come to us in every moment of our lives, so that we could see that there is Good in the world as well as Evil, and knowing the difference, that we should choose between the two.

Incidentally, the guy who asked me this question (whose name is not Harold, but I'm going to call him that) came from a position of non-belief, in case you hadn't guessed that. His disbelief in God is founded, as I understood it, in his belief in science. As I've mentioned here before, I don't understand what science has to do with the non-existence of God, but I'll allow a dude his beliefs, even if I can't see how they make sense at all.

I don't know how familiar you are with the band Rush, but they've got a song called "Freewill" which is a powerful rejection of religion across the board in favor of (as I'm sure you've guessed) free will.

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice

If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice

You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill

I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose free will!

But what's interesting about the idea of non-theistic free will is that it's kind of an impossibility.

If the universe really is "nothing but a collection of atoms in motion" like my homeboy Dickie Dawkins would have us believe, then what we percieve as "free will" is actually not even a will at all, free or enslaved. If everything in existence is a product of mere chance, that means everything in existence is a product of mere chance. That means that you didn't choose your first kiss; it was mere chance. You didn't choose your favorite song; it was mere chance. You didn't choose to do that thing you did that one time that you really liked; it was mere chance. It was all just the reaction of the chemicals in your body interacting with each other, set in motion by the big bang, a result of the mind-bogglingly large domino chain set off when the first molecules exploded out from each other.

In a universe created without meaning or will, meaning and will can never come into existence. If everything is the result of chance, then nothing is the result of purpose - chance has no purpose. It just is.

So free will only exists because God gave it to us, and without God, free will is impossible. (Chew on THAT, Calvinists!)

But now let's move on to the really fun part of Harold's question...

"...knowing that I would sin and go to hell?"

Can you spot where that breaks down?

I'm with it on the "knowing that I would sin" part.

Where I get lost is the "and go to hell" thing.

ESPECIALLY since that comes after the "free will" bit we just talked about!

I don't even know which part makes less sense to me.

On one side we've got the idea that even though it's already been granted in the discussion that God created us with free will, Harold is still apparently choosing to exercise that will in such a way that the God he doesn't believe in would surely condemn him to a Hell he doesn't believe in, and yet the idea of not doing whatever it is that will get him sent to Hell is absurd and childish, a silly notion from the antiquated religion of Harold's parents, which he abandoned long ago after finding true enlightenment.

But the flip side of the coin is that God is somehow to blame for everything. God's the bad guy for creating Harold in the first place, allowing him the opportunity to choose to do things that he knows are bad.

What. In. The. World.

If you have free will... and you think the things that you're doing would get you sent to hell... why are you doing them?

Isn't the entire point of Hell that bad people go there? Why be a bad person? Why not use your God-given free will to choose to be good?

I don't have any problem holding God accountable for the earthquakes in Japan. I don't have any problem holding God accountable for the horrible droughts and famine throughout the world. I don't even have a problem holding God accountable for (most) health problems that people face in their lives.

But trying to put God on trial for your own actions?

Saying that it's God's fault that you're going to Hell, because YOU chose to use the free will you were given to do the things that send you there?

That's just plain ignorant.

And it seems to be purposeful ignorance at that.

It seems to me that there is a tendency among people who reject God (at least the God of Christianity) to reject Him on grounds that are completely without foundation.

Consider the game of Monopoly. Now let's say that I have a friend who refuses to play Monopoly, and doesn't hesitate to let me know it. After a while, things seem like they've lined up right for me to be able to ask why there's such a vehement opposition to Monopoly, and I finally get my answer: it's because you get to go again every time you roll doubles, which means that one player could possibly just keep rolling doubles and their turn never stop, which is completely unfair.

Now, for those of you who know the game of Monopoly, I am pretty sure you've spotted the flaw in that argument: after you roll doubles for the third time, you go to Jail. This is a part of the rules of the game. Rejecting the game because of a problem that has already been addressed within the rules of the game itself is a pretty dumb reason to reject a game, right?

So why doesn't that logic apply to God?

People raise objections to God that have already been covered by God! If you're going to use the Bible as a rap sheet for God, pulling out stories and ideas that condemn Him to unworthiness of worship, then the rest of the Bible has to be admissible as evidence as well. And what does the rest of the Bible say about that? Oh, yeah... GOD'S IN CHARGE.

I really can't express to you enough just how much I do not understand atheism.

I can understand what it is just fine. I get the concept. I follow the arguments so far as I can understand the words and what they mean in syntax. But I just do not get how it all comes together to be a sustainable worldview.

It just doesn't make sense to me.

I wonder if that's a good thing. I wonder if that means that my faith is so concrete that I can't even fathom a universe without God. I wonder if it just means I'm an idiot.

Refusing Richard: One Christian's Take on the Dawkins Delusion

If you're not familiar with him already, I'd like to introduce you to a man named Richard Dawkins.



Richard Dawkins is a brilliant man, highly educated in his field, internationally recognized by more universities and fellowships than you can shake a stick at.

But he's also a complete jerk.

Now, I've never met Dawkins, so I'll admit that my opinion of him is based on secondary sources - interviews, documentaries, books, etc... - as opposed to an actual one-on-one interaction with the man, but I think it's pretty safe to say he's not a very nice man, especially if the way he treats Christians is any indication of his true character.

"Faith is a deliberate process of non-thinking and there is a profound contradiction between science and religious belief."

- Dawkins, in The God Delusion as well as other places.

"Faith is not allowed to justify itself by argument."

- Dawkins, in "Lecture from the Nullifidian"

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

- Dawkins, from Out of Eden

"The universe is nothing but a collection of atoms in motion, human beings are simply machines for propagating DNA, and the propagation of DNA is a self-sustaining process. It is every living object's sole reason for living."

- Dawkins, "Growing Up in the Universe" lecture series

In his "Viruses of the Mind" essay, Dawkins compares theistic belief (specifically Christianity) to a computer virus which must be eradicated in order to further the advancement of the human race, because as it stands now, we're shackled by a primitive belief in a God on equal footing with the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.

Now, here's the point I'd like to make about Dawkins himself: by reducing faith to an absurdist position that cannot be defended by argument, Dawkins sets himself up as the clear victor in any discussion of theism versus atheism. In fact, the majority of Dawkins' prowess as a debater is based solely on the fact that he quite famously refuses to debate Creationists. Despite any other flaws he may have, Dawkins is no idiot. He sets up ground rules that are designed to automatically put him above any reproach from anyone who disagrees with him.

First, he dismisses any logical credibility of faith, completely dismissing the beliefs of Plato, Descartes, Kierkegaard, and countless other philosophers throughout history who assert (rightly) that logic itself is called into question in a non-theistic worldview. Dawkins himself even states that there is no rhyme or reason in this universe, removing his own foundation from under him.

Second, in his insistence that all life is merely the self-replicating and purposeless dance of DNA, if we follow that to its logical conclusion (which, again, Dawkins has already pointed to), then good and evil are completely arbitrary terms that have no basis in anything but the "blind pitiless indifference" of the universe - meaning that good and evil are merely the products of chance, devoid of any meaning. To insist, then, that a belief in God is evil is to deny my DNA the right to its own dance, and is quite a bit like insisting that any time a die lands with the 6 facing up, we should do everything within our power to make sure that the 6 never comes up again. And that's to say nothing of the DNA dance of Hitler.

Third (and this is where things get REALLY sticky), Dawkins completely oversteps the boundaries of any logic on either side of the discussion by insisting on the non-existence of God. Just because Dawkins' faith is that there is no God, that doesn't mean that it isn't still faith. Atheistic philosopher Kai Nielsen even says the following: "All the proofs of God's existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists." Dawkins ignores this point and takes a leap of faith into the realm of aggressive atheism which he adamantly insists is the only correct view for humanity.

Dawkins in fact is that which he claims to hate the most: a closed-minded intellectual bigot, insisting loudly that everyone recognize that he's right while refusing to entertain the notion that he even COULD be wrong.

And that's why I think I've decided to stop listening at the exact moment people begin to quote Dawkins.

If I were having a discussion with an atheist about the origins of life and only used the Bible as my proof text for Creation, I would - rightly - be laughed out of the room. If all I'm doing is quoting the same book over and over because I already believe what it says and it says what I already believe and I won't ever consider positions to the contrary, then I'm a closed-minded buffoon, a dark spot of ignorance on the countenance of Christianity, an easy target of ridicule from atheists eager to paint Christianity as a religion of ignorance.

But when an atheist dogmatically quotes Dawkins and goes out of the way to avoid conceding the POSSIBILITY that Dawkins might be wrong... that's enlightenment? That's intelligence? That's reasonable?

For all his scientific sound and fury, Dawkins still signifies nothing. Nowhere in his vehement hatred of the God he doesn't believe in has he laid out significant evidence for the non-existence of God. Understanding HOW a DNA strand is made doesn't have a thing in the world to do with WHY it was made.

Blessed are the meek... But does meekness mean I have to roll over and take it when the arguments presented against my faith are inherently absurd?

I don't know where the balance is. I don't know how to be humble in the face of the fact that I'm right. God is real. How do I say that with humility? When it comes to Dawkins, do I even have to worry about that? Is there a difference between arrogance and boldness?

How are we supposed to present the Truth when the world is so eager to believe a lie?

The next few posts are going to be about some of the God questions people have asked me. I know there's a lot of material out there from people way, way, WAY smarter than me, but it's gonna do me some good to write it all out and see the holes in my own thinking. And hopefully you'll join in on the conversation and let me know where I'm completely wrong. I know I've already got a few folks champing at the bit to support Dawkins, but that's to be expected. He's infallible, after all.

I don't know all the answers, but I do know the Truth, and I think that counts for a lot. I love you. Even if you quote Dawkins.

Repeated viewings of "The Big Lebowski" as a model for Christian maturity

I'd like to start this post off with a big ol' DISCLAIMER:

The Big Lebowski is rated R. It's got a ton of language, some sexual content, a few instances of brief nudity, and a scene of mild violence. I am fully aware of the content of the movie, and I want you to be aware of it (if you're not) so that you can decide on your own if you would enjoy the movie. If watching an R rated movie disturbs your conscience, please do not take this post as encouragement for you to see the movie, as that is not at all my intent.

Just so we're all clear here - if you don't approve of this kind of movie, don't watch it. And then go read I Corinthians 10 and 12, plus Romans 14.

Everybody else...

The first time I saw The Big Lebowski, I was a senior in high school. I enjoyed it for the most part. It was funny, but incredibly confusing. The plot is... convoluted, to say the least. I enjoyed the movie, but I wasn't blown away.

Flash forward to my sophomore year at Harding. My roommate Matt and our friend Duane watched Lebowski every weekend without fail. Each time we watched it, we found more and more to laugh at. It wasn't long before we had the whole movie memorized, dropping quotes when appropriate (or inappropriate) in everyday conversation.

But I've never known anybody who saw Lebowski for the first time and immediately loved it. The single universal constant seems to be that it takes at least a second viewing to really get what makes The Big Lebowski such an amazing comedy. It's not at all about the plot - it's about the characters. It's about the endlessly quotable script. It's about the absurdities of the chain of events that fall on the completely inept Dude, the outrageously overzealous Walter, and poor innocent Donnie, always out of his element.

The movie didn't change - I did.

And just in case you haven't put the metaphor together on your own yet, here's where the Christianity part comes in: sometimes there are things that we're just not ready for. Sometimes there are things that we've got to experience a few times before it really clicks. Sometimes we've got to learn a lesson the hard way - by having it pounded into our thick skulls over and over and over again.

By the time you read this, I'll be in Texas*. I've been... anticipating this, anxious for it, eager for it... for a very long time now. Not Texas, but a chance to do what I know to the core of my heart, soul, mind, and every fiber of my being to be the purpose God put me on this earth to fulfill - the furtherance of His Kingdom among the lost of the world.

There's been a lot of pain over the past couple of years. I've experienced serious personal turmoil, some major disappointment, and heartbreak that completely redefined who I am as a person.

And maybe the whole point was to get me to learn something.

As I embark on another major transition in my life - not just geographically, but also personally - I can only hope that I've learned the lessons I needed to learn. I hope I've finally figured out another part of continually letting God take total control of my life, since that's the only thing that ever brings me peace. I hope I've figured out a bit more of how to be humble in sharing the truth with those who need to hear it, because that's the only way they'll ever listen to me. I hope above all that I've learned that the right thing to do - even when it's hard, especially when it's hard - is to Love Others the way God Loves me, because that's the one thing in life that makes any difference at all.

I've learned some lessons through tears and anguish, some through the complete dissolution of friendships once held dear, some through the inevitable barrage of the far-too-real world and the Law of Unintended Consequences.

But what makes it all worth it is the hope and faith that one day I'll actually understand it all. One day I'll have learned the lesson and taken it to heart. One day - hopefully in the not-too-distant future, I will look back on everything that has beaten me down, held me to the hottest core of the flames, beaten me into a shape wholly foreign to where I began, and held me under the water until the bubbles stopped, and see that the beatings, the fire, the reshaping, the plunges into the cold, wet, hopeless darkness... One day I will see that it all served to shape me into a more perfect version of the man that God wants me to be.

And that brings me hope.

* - Or not. Car broke down in Arkadelphia. Waiting on Corwin to get here from Arlington to tow me the rest of the way down.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.8

My To-Do List

So apparently I just dreamed telling people this, and I'm very sorry, but I could have sworn I said something about it...

I'll be in Texas by the time you read the next post.

Got some things I that need taken care of before I leave, so I've been working on my To-Do list.

Here's what I've got so far:

• Laundry
• Packing
• A sincere, honest, piercing look into my own soul to address the weaknesses I find there by bringing them to God in earnest prayer

I need to be better about not condescending to atheists for their beliefs.

I need to read more of the Bible more often instead of just re-reading the parts I feel good about because they don't challenge me as much as they challenge everybody else that I think is getting it wrong. I still mess up, so there are some things I need to be reading more often.

I need to remember that even if my argument is theologically, philosophically, and cosmologically airtight - if it's an argument on Facebook, it probably doesn't matter.

I need to be more consistent in my prayer life.

I need to find the right balance between "genuinely engaging others around me in thoughtful, respectful conversations about faith and metaphysics" and "standing on the corner outside Walgreens with a megaphone, a KJV Bible, and 14 kids dressed like the Amish and holding protest signs." Just crazy enough that I'll get noticed, but not so crazy that I'm immediately written off as a complete nut.

I need to hold on to the confidence of speaking the Truth through the Spirit of God instead of doubting myself as soon as things get hard.

I need to truly accept that some people just won't believe, no matter how persuading a case I present.

I need to continue to love people that just won't believe.

I need to wait for God's plans to come to fruition in His own time instead of insisting that everything happen now if not sooner.

I need to remember that even the Pharisees were trying to please God. Assigning villainy where there is merely ignorance does not lead to loving conversations.

I need to realize that it's OK for other people to not think I'm right so long as I'm right with God, but more importantly, that it's OK for me to not think they're right so long as they're right with God, too.

I need to make sure that the things that I claim to do for God are still being done for God and not doing it just to do it.

I need to focus on now.

I need to Love God.

I need to Love Others.

I need to put another load in.