Don't Know, Can't Know, and Know No: Thoughts on Agnosticism, Skepticism, and Atheism

Agnostic: The idea, or conception, of the Christian God certainly exists. However, one cannot know that this idea describes reality, or is merely a fantasy.

Christian: This assertion is groundless; it is an invention. One has simply to ask "Why?" in reply to such a statement. Perhaps the Agnostic has projected this unknowability rule onto God. It must then be realized that the Agnostic has devised a "rule" about an object (God) which may or may not exist. If it is impossible to be certain about the existence of God, how can one be certain of His unknowability? In other words, how do we know that we cannot know?

The agnostic's statement is arbitrary, and based on a picture of a god painted by an Agnostic. Of course an unknowable god is unknowable! The Christian paints another picture, one based on Scripture; the Christian God is knowable. In summary, who is an Agnostic to define parameters (e.g. "The reality of God's existence is unknowable") of a God who does not even belong to their worldview? Dogmatic Agnosticism cannot hold as a worldview; in the end, it leads either to skepticism (One cannot know anything) or Atheism (God does not exist).

Skepticism is easily dealt with by asking a single question: If nothing can be known, how does one know Skepticism is true?

Atheism has its own myriad problems, such as the origin of its own moral and ethical values. How does an atheist learn right from wrong? From parents? How did they learn? From society? Evolution? Suppose an individual defines his own morals which dictate that murder is morally right? How can one say that this individual is not simply more evolved? Could it be that the Atheist is imposing his own invented moral system on another? Would that not violate that person's rights as a human? Does this not fly in the face of the Atheist's ongoing complaint about Christianity imposing its standards onto others?

Comment, comment, comment!

The Nerf Warriors

I had to write a one-page paper on a subculture on my college campus. So I wrote the following, and got a pass grade, FYI.

One subculture that I have identified on campus is a group of about ten students who regularly participate in what is commonly termed “Nerf Wars.” This group is made up of exclusively male college students who live primarily on the first floor of Steiner Hall, although a few reside on the third floor of Miles Hall, and one in Collamore. Everyone in the group owns one or more bright yellow plastic foam dart launchers, and they periodically assemble to engage in mock tactical military operations and scenarios. Not all of these situations are scheduled, however. The members of the group often stage surprise attacks against each other. It is interesting to observe these would-be soldiers during combat, as they become fiercely competitive while the game is underway. The healthy competition serves to relieve stress and build friendships among the members of the group, who are always willing to lend an extra launcher to a new participant.
Most of the time, the Nerf Warriors are indistinguishable from the rest of the student body, save for a slight tendency to be suspicious of an ambush when receiving a knock on their door. One interesting characteristic of the Nerf Warriors is the fact that when they are in “war mode,” they immediately completely ignore any and all students who are not presently in the game; it is almost as if the other students do not exist. The only exception to this rule is when some of the less scrupulous players will occasionally seize a bystander in order to use him as a human shield. In spite of this, non-players are often amused at the sight of their friends and colleagues acting like military commandos using the hallways of the dorms as their battlefield.

Did you notice I never used the word "gun"? I didn't want anyone to flip out and start an inquiry or anything.

Ordinary Immortals

One of my professors closed the class period the other day with the following quote from C. S. Lewis' Weight of Glory:

"It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. . .  There are no ordinary people.  You have never talked to a mere mortal.  Nations, cultures, arts, civilization - these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat.  But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit - immortal horrors or everlasting splendours."

Something about this quote really gripped me.  We've been studying about the image of God, and what it means to be created by God in His image.  When you realize that everyone around you, believers or not, is created in the image of God, you begin to have a new regard for your fellow humans.  The people you work for, the customers you serve, your classmates, the theologians who speak and write heresy, the radical Muslim terrorists - all are created in the image of God.  How does that affect the way you view your neighbors, especially those in the visible church?

Sorry this post is sort of ambiguous.  Just something I've been pondering.  Please comment; I'd be very interested to know your thoughts on the subject.

Ode to a Friend

Bloody Irishman

Needs to be silent and go

Drink another pint

High Coo

Room is not tidy

Resident Director comes

I get written up

Haiku, No?

Brown metallic mug

Received as a birthday gift

Holds hot elixir

God and Man

(Originally written for my Philosophy of Education class)

    Since the beginning of history, it seems, mankind has been in the business of asking questions. People ask questions for a number of reasons but primarily for the purpose of attempting to gain information. Out of all the questions man has asked throughout the millennia, there are two which stand unrivaled in depth and importance. Who (or what) is God? Who (or what) is man? The answers to these questions are the most fundamental truths necessary for understanding not only human existence, but that of the entire cosmos and beyond. If one is to comprehend the meaning of one’s place in reality, he must look to God’s Word, from which is derived all that can be known to be true. In two essays that explore the nature of God and men, Barry Seagren examines Scripture and is rewarded, along with his readers, with the answers to these seemingly eternal questions.

    Genesis 1:1 states that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (New American Standard Bible). Later, in verse 27 of the same chapter, Scripture reveals that “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” From these two verses alone are derived several key assumptions that must be considered in any discussion of man’s relationship to God. Since the Bible refers to God first, this essay will likewise give Him priority. The first assumption one can make from Scripture is that God exists. The Bible makes no attempt to prove this fact; the existence of God is simply asserted within the first four words of Scripture. Thus any biblical examination of God must first accept the proposition that the existence of God is an objective truth. As Seagren writes, “We are talking about an objective being. . . What we believe or do not believe about Him is entirely secondary” (Who is God? 297).

    The objective nature of the existence of God has been established. However, this is only the beginning of the answer to the question, “Who is God?” The next point Seagren makes is that “the God described in the Bible is personal. . . He has a certain moral nature, a definite character. . . He is a definite, distinct, discrete person” (299-300). Support for these statements is found throughout Scripture. Genesis 1:1 implies that God existed before His creation, making Him distinct from the universe. Seagren clarifies: “When we say that God is infinite, we do not mean that He encompasses all things. Rather, we mean that He is without limit in His specific attributes.” In Romans 2:4, Paul writes concerning God’s “kindness and tolerance and patience.” This is one of many verses which attest to God’s being a person. Only a person can exhibit attributes such as kindness or patience; for any other created thing it is impossible. Since God’s personal nature has thus been determined, the task at hand is to specify what kind of person the objective God of Scripture is.

    Seagren approaches the character of God by emphasizing God’s equally infinite holiness and love (300). In his description of God’s holiness, he breaks down the concept into three parts: majesty, righteousness, and wrath. Majesty speaks of God as being the highest being, infinite in power and wisdom, and existing in utter perfection. Righteousness describes God’s infinite goodness and justice; by what He says and does, He is the very definition of the word good. Wrath, Seagren explains, “refers to the fact that He cannot accept or tolerate evil” (300). God’s justice and holiness alone do not completely convey the breadth of His character, however. While it is essential that one views God as holy, it is equally important that one appreciates that He is also love, in its purest form.

      Seagren asserts that God’s love is not just an emotion. “It is not at all a response to that which is lovely. Rather, love, especially God’s love, is something which takes the initiative. God sets His love upon us, esteems and cares for us, despite the fact that we in our sinfulness are most unlovely.” If one gives too much emphasis on one aspect of God, while ignoring the other, we arrive at an incomplete notion of the Creator. A truly biblical view of God is one that asserts the balance between His holiness and love. This balance is most evident when one looks at Jesus’ atoning work on the cross. Seagren elaborates: “It is important to see that the Bible presents [the cross] as equally a demonstration of His love and His holiness. . . Out of His love God offers up His own Son to satisfy the demands of His holiness. God’s holiness is maintained; God’s love is displayed” (302). Certainly much more can be learned from Scripture about God’s nature; Seagren is merely presenting a brief overview of what constitutes the framework of God’s character. In his second essay, Seagren presents a similarly brief look at the answer to the question, “Who is Man?”

    Genesis 1:27 is the first verse of the Bible to mention man, and in doing so it supplies readers with information regarding the manner in which he was created. In examining this and other verses which refer to man’s creation, Seagren calls attention to the fact that “the key words used in describing the creation of man are the words image and likeness. Image simply means a material representation. . . The word likeness means similarity, pattern, picture, or semblance” (Who is Man? 306). This simple observation has tremendous implications for the way Bible-believing Christians ought to live their lives.

    If “Man is a finite representation of the infinite God,” as Seagren asserts, then believers should live their lives as such (307). Selfish pride must automatically be rejected, for man must always be viewed in his relation to God. Without God, man is an empty shell with no point of reference from which to derive his purpose. The fact that man bears God’s image must be the starting point for any study of man via science, etc. “If these disciplines do not understand who man is, wrong and harmful results will surely follow” (308). Scripture also explicitly states that not only males, but also female humans are created in His image. Thus every member of mankind, regardless of sex, ethnicity, handicap, religious beliefs, etc., must be viewed as a special creation of God, bearing His image. It is also important to note that this means that mankind as a whole should not be reduced to the level of mere animals, as some evolutionists would have others believe. Man is not a result of random chance; he is no mere cosmic accident. On the contrary, being God’s image-bearer, he assumes a level of great importance.

    The second thing to be understood about man is that he is fallen. Genesis chapter 3 gives an account of how Adam’s disobedience in the Garden of Eden introduced sin and corruption into the world. In their new, sinful state, Adam and Eve were no longer considered righteous in God’s eyes. Romans 5:12 states that “therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.” This means that, since Adam was the federal head of his race, his sin was spread to all of his descendants. As a direct result of sin, “There is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God; all have turned aside. . . There is no fear of God before their eyes” (Romans 3:10-12, 18). Thus, although man still bears the image of God, all of mankind have fallen from righteousness and are unable to stand before God in His perfect holiness.

    What hope is there for man, if he now exists in such miserable disgrace? The answer lies in the same place where one sees the balance between God’s infinite holiness and love: the cross. When God sent His Son Jesus into the world to be born of a virgin, it was so He could become the federal head of those who He would call His children. In living a perfect, sinless life, and in taking upon His shoulders the sins of the world, He provided the perfect atoning sacrifice for fallen man. Because of this sacrifice, His righteousness is imputed to those whom He has chosen, allowing restored fellowship with God. “For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:21-22). Jesus is described as a second Adam. This entails not only His federal headship, but also the kind of man He is. Although Christ is fully God, He became also fully man. Not another sinful man, but instead a man who was righteous in the way Adam was originally created. Seagren submits that “As we think of Jesus’ humanity, we must not think of Him as a superman, but rather as. . . the only normal person who has walked this earth since the fall. The rest of us are marred and broken remains of what we were intended to be” (314).

    The concepts explored in Barry Seagren’s articles are essential pieces of knowledge that are necessary for understanding man’s place in existence, especially with regard to his relationship to God. Since the implications of these indispensable truths have such a deep and profound fundamental impact on the foundations of the Christian faith, believers must apply them to every aspect of their daily lives. Once an individual has a proper, biblical view of who he is, and also of who God is, he will be far better prepared to approach Almighty God in a proper attitude of worship.

Works Cited

Communication Institute. What in the World is Real. Champaign: Communication Institute, 1982.

New American Standard Bible. La Habra: Lockman Foundation, 1995.

Seagren, Barry. “Who is God?” Communication Institute 295-302.

Seagren, Barry. “Who is Man?” Communication Institute 305-316.

The Christian Mind

Originally written as a paper for my Philosophy of Education class.

     In this present age, perhaps more than any other, evangelicals are facing a serious, specific danger. Because of negligence and laziness, a vast number of Christians have utterly failed to follow God’s commands in regard to an integral part of human life: the mind. Authors Ranald Macaulay, Jerram Barrs, and Udo Middelmann have each addressed this ever-growing problem individually in three separate articles, each entitled The Christian Mind. Each author presents his view of the present Christian intellectual situation while communicating a strong argument for the reclaiming and rebuilding of the true Christian mind.

     While countless scholars, whether philosophers, theologians, psychologists, or great thinkers from other disciplines, have attempted to produce a precise definition of the human mind, none can agree entirely. Some, such as behaviorists, suppose that the human mind is simply a function of the brain. Others claim that the mind is a component of human structure which is separate from the brain and the rest of the physical body. Still others propose that neither of these views are entirely correct, but that the answer lies in some sort of compromise between them. They maintain that the mind is not merely an illusory projection of human brain cells, yet they recognize the apparent link between physical and mental functions. Despite the many differing views on the construct of the mind, however, there exists a common understanding and agreement that the word ‘mind’ and its derivative, ‘mental,’ refer to an individual or group’s intellect and capacity of will. It is the mind which considers, thinks, reasons, and decides. The task at hand is to define the meaning of the term ‘Christian mind.’

     Ranald Macaulay defines a Christian mind as “nothing more or less than the proper use of the intellectual faculty which God has given to each of us” (112). In other words, a Christian mind is a mind that is used in the correct manner. In Luke 27:10, God’s command is recited by a Jewish lawyer of Jesus’ time: “And he answered, ‘You shall 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 your neighbor as yourself’” (New American Standard Bible). This verse emphatically states that human beings are to use the entirety of their minds to love the Lord. A mind that does not love the Lord, then, is not fulfilling the clear and specific purpose for which it was designed. Such a mind is not Christian.

     Udo Middelmann states that both faith and obedience are the result of the proper use of the mind: “Obedience in the Biblical sense. . . is the recognition of what is true objectively in the Word of God. . . and one’s willingness to be duty-bound to one’s finding by acts of the will. Faith is believing God to tell the truth. . . It is to trust Him on the basis of good and sufficient evidence” (194). Although it is unclear from this last statement what is meant by “good and sufficient evidence,” the context of Middelmann’s essay seems to support the view that God’s Word, along with all other forms of special and general revelation, when viewed correctly, serve as evidence for the truth of Christianity. When the human mind is presented with a proposition, it then proceeds to weigh the statement and pass a judgment on it: the proposition is true, false, etc. Also stemming from the workings of the mind is the human will. When someone willfully purposes to obey the truths of Scripture, for example, that individual is using his mind to do so.

     The Bible contains many passages which speak of the mind and of the proper use of the human intellect. These texts illustrate how important it is for believers to maintain a healthy, Christian mind. Romans 12:2 is one such example: “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.” Another is found in Colossians 3:16: “Let the Word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another. . .” This verse implies more than a superficial reading and understanding of Scripture; it is a call to study and meditate on God’s Word, and to fill one’s mind with its truths. Several times throughout the book of Acts, the apostle Paul is described as reasoning, persuading, and using Scripture to try to convince members of both the Jewish and non-Jewish communities about the truth of Jesus Christ. Paul’s own words in 2 Corinthians 10:4-5, perhaps, serve as Scripture’s most direct call for Christian intellectualism: “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (Holy Bible, New International Version).

     Paul wrote these words, not to a select few intellectual giants who were masters of theology, but to a simple community of believers who had become so caught up in the so-called wisdom of the pagan world which surrounded them that their congregation was on the verge of falling apart. He was describing the proper behavior of all Christians. However, Christians who possess the knowledge of the truths of Scripture necessary to demolish the anti-Christian, anti-God sentiment that runs rife in today’s society are few and far between. The collective Christian mind, as it once was, has been poisoned. Interestingly enough, atheism is not to blame, although its proponents would most likely be glad to claim responsibility for killing twenty-first century Christianity’s knowledge of God’s Word. On the contrary, the fault lies with the passive, cowardly nature of evangelicals who, in testimony to their lack of faith, have thrown up their arms, tucked their proverbial tail between their legs, and made a hasty retreat into anti-intellectualism.

     With the rise of the theory of evolution in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, in addition to society’s embrace of scientific empiricism and rationalism as the basis of all knowledge, Christians are now faced with a near constant onslaught of skepticism. In what was once a Christian nation, founded on biblical principles, the Christian faith has become an object of ridicule. Believers are openly mocked as fools. The doctrine of a literal six-day creation has become a favorite target of atheists, who claim that evolutionary theory has proven the Bible to be false in its account of the origins of life. Indeed, everywhere one turns, the claim is made that Christianity is irrational. In light of the Bible’s clear teaching on the importance of the Christian mind, one might expect a strong counter strike from the evangelical community. If the Bible is truly the Word of God, then the Christian’s faith should not be shaken. Sadly, this has not been the case at all.

     An immeasurable number of today’s Christians have forfeited their claim to the truth. Instead of remaining steadfast in the assurance that Scripture is truth, they have surrendered the arena of intellectual thought to individuals such as are referred to in Proverbs 14:1: “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; there is no one who does good” (New American Standard Bible). Instead of facing the assault of the so-called wisdom of the world, many Christians have attempted to side-step the notion that Christianity is irrational by claiming that it simply is not intended to be rational in the first place. Jerram Barrs, in his essay, explores this problem: “Wherever we look in our culture, there are people who say that. . . you really can’t believe what the Bible says. It’s just a load of fairy tales. And for many Christians, their response to this has been simply: well don’t bother with all those questions, just believe. . . Christianity is an affair of the heart. . . We can just get on, and we can believe, we can pray. . .” (49). When Christians say such things, they deny the objective truth of Scripture. They place human emotionalism and pagan mysticism on a pedestal above the authority of God’s inerrant and holy Word. They allow that Christianity does not make rational sense, and they glory in it. According to such individuals as these, ignorance truly is bliss.

     Thankfully, not all hope is lost for the collective Christian mind. There are still those who would challenge the foolishness of the world with the true wisdom of Scripture, and it is these individuals, who follow in the footsteps of the apostle Paul, that Christians should seek to emulate. The bold statements found in John W. Robbins’ essay entitled The Trinity Manifesto - A Program for our Time, illustrate the proper attitude for Christians regarding the mind and the truths of God’s Word: “We do not regard obscurity as a virtue, nor confusion as a sign of spirituality. Confusion, like all error, is sin, and teaching that confusion is all that Christians can hope for is doubly sin. . . To each error we bring the brilliant light of Scripture, proving all things, and holding fast to that which is true” (160-61). This standpoint should be shared by all who profess to believe the Bible. It is nothing more than a restatement of the essence of Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 10:4-5.

     When one considers the fathers of the Protestant Reformation and the environment in which they lived, one cannot help but be appalled at the lack of attention paid to the nourishment of the Christian mind. Luther’s was a society in which the Bible was only allowed to be read by the religious elite; today, the internet provides instant access to hundreds of translations of Scripture. The evangelicals of the twenty-first century possess thousands of years’ worth of materials with which to feed their mind and grow in their knowledge of God’s Word. This being the case, when emotionalist Christians, who have purposefully rejected the privilege of studying Scripture, are accused of being followers of an irrational faith, and are able to offer no reply other than immediate surrender, they are left with no excuse whatsoever. Indeed, rather than fleeing from intellectual growth, Christians should heed the words of Martin Luther: “To take no pleasure in assertions is not the mark of a Christian heart; indeed, one must delight in assertions to be a Christian at all. Now, lest we be misled by words, let me say here that by ‘assertion’ I mean staunchly holding your ground, stating your position, confessing it, defending it and persevering in it unvanquished” (167).

Works Cited

Barrs, Jerram. “The Christian Mind.” Communication Institute 47-57.

Communication Institute. What in the World is Real. Champaign: Communication Institute, 1982.

Luther, Martin. “The Bondage of the Will.” Martin Luther - Selections from his Writings. Ed. John Dillenberger. New York: Anchor Books, 1962.

Macaulay, Ranald. “The Christian Mind.” Communication Institute 111-24.

Middelmann, Udo. “The Christian Mind.” Communication Institute 193-98.

New American Standard Bible. La Habra: Lockman Foundation, 1995.

NIV Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003

Clark, Gordon H. Afterword. Three Types of Religious Philosophy. By John W. Robbins. Jefferson: Trinity Foundation, 1989. 158-164.