Subjective Experience vs. Materialistic Determinism

What if everything in the universe obeyed strict mathematical laws, and nothing -- not even personal volition, not even subatomic phenomena -- allowed for random chance?

Chance, here defined, is actual uncertainty about an event, such that if you knew the location, velocity, energy level and exact dimensions of every particle in the universe, and modeled reality in a hypothetical supercomputer, that you would not be able to predict the future with accuracy.

Materialistic determinism requires that if you somehow knew everything there was to know about this exact instance in the present, then you could know everything about the future and even the past, simply by mathematical modeling of the pieces that make up the universe. Their obedience to physical laws guarantees that you can know exactly how they will interact, with no randomness, leaving nothing to chance.

Generally, when we say that something is random, or a result of chance, it means that we can't predict it with the models we have and the knowledge of the universe that we possess. This is randomness from a human perspective. But real randomness -- absolute randomness -- does it exist?

Let's suppose it does not, and engage in a thought experiment.

***   **   **   ***        ***   **   **   ***        ***   **   **   ***

Did God Die For Everyone Who Ever Lived, or Just Some?

If some people are in hell, and you believe that Christ died for everyone,
* then Christ died for those in hell. Then His sacrifice was insufficient to save them.
* then God is unjust, committing double jeopardy, because a person's sins are judged once at the cross, and then again in hell.

If no people are in hell,
* then you reject what the Bible clearly teaches, and have asserted the Universalism heresy.

Your only logical choice is to believe that
* Jesus died for all the sins of some people.
* Those not included in the category of "those He died for" are they who populate hell.

Christianity. The thinking faith.

~ Rak Chazak

The Big Education Blame-Game Irony

I’ve recognized this for a long time, and I was gratified to see Ken Ham tackle the issue in almost exactly the same way I’ve “put it” in my own mind when thinking about it. It’s just sheer logic. What is the issue? It is the accusation against Christians, in particular home schoolers and young earth creationists, that these people, by perpetuating their beliefs, are somehow the cause for America’s lackluster showing in educational pursuits, among the general public especially. But the problem with the accusation is that the vast majority of people are not influenced by these teachings—creation, conservative homeschooling, Christian theology. How can minority beliefs be to blame when most people in the country receive 6 hours a day, 5 days a week of government-approved education? Obviously if anything has the most influence, it is this. So if America is poorly represented, wouldn’t the biggest influence in education have the biggest share of the ‘blame’ for whatever the result is? Logic would dictate that to be the case. Anecdotally, the home schooled kids I ran into at college were invariably the best-performing and composed a larger proportion of honors programs and scholarships than anyone else. And then there are fascinating tidbits of information like this: subsequent to the impositionof mandatory public education, literacy rates in Massachusetts dropped and have never recovered. But this is unacceptable to those who want to believe that the government provides for the people, and that Christianity is a net negative force in culture. Why would they want to believe this? It’s simply that having to admit the alternative would suggest the intolerable: that there is a Creator, and if there is a Creator, there is a Lawmaker, who sets the rules of earthly conduct, and if there is a Lawmaker, there is a Judge, who will punish those who break His law, and that means that people have to choose between undesirable punishment and undesirable denial of the things they want to do (sin)—and so the bottom line reason of why anybody refuses to acknowledge that Christian teaching is a good thing, or even that it is not a negative thing, is that they are in rebellion against the Creator. Unsurprising then, that the foundation of the recognition, as I laid out the steps to above, the doctrine of creation, is the most-targeted doctrine of Christianity among academics and pundits who promote government education and secular indoctrination. One such person who recently targeted Creation was dealt with succinctly and wisely by Mr. Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis: through constructive mockery. Here’s the link to the article, followed by an excerpt:

 http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2013/06/07/assistant-manager-at-cincinnati-museum-center-derides-creation-museum/

Ken Ham:

Percy also states, “When we wonder why America is falling behind in science education, it is because places like this are allowed to exist.”

I had to laugh when I read this ridiculous, unfounded outburst. Think about it—the majority of kids in the culture (including 90 percent of kids from church homes) attend the public education system. This system threw out the Bible, prayer, and the teaching of creation years ago. Evolution and millions of years is taught as fact in the public schools. Public school textbooks arbitrarily define science to not allow the supernatural from having anything to do with the universe but insist the universe came about only by natural processes: naturalism is atheism.

The point is, if America is falling behind in science education, how could it be the result of a place like the Creation Museum, the only major such museum of its kind in the world (though there are a few small creationist museums)? The majority of kids are educated by the public education system, and there are numerous secular museums across the country that teach evolution and millions of years as fact. Most science programs and documentaries on secular television (e.g., Discovery Channel, History Channel, PBS, etc.) present evolution as fact over and over again. And Percy thinks biblical Christians are responsible for the nation falling behind in science education? His statement is laughable.

Afterthought:

“Be very sure of this–people never reject the Bible because they cannot understand it. They understand it too well; they understand that it condemns their own behavior; they understand that it witnesses against their own sins, and summons them to judgment. They try to believe it is false and useless, because they don’t like to believe it is true. An evil lifestyle must always raise an objection to this book. Men question the truth of Christianity because they hate the practice of it.” – J. C. Ryle


~ Rak Chazak

AWPATT II: June 5-10 (Thoughts 5-10)

AWPATT Hub

5 On more than one occasion, I’ve attended or been attended by someone as one or the other of us tried on clothes. This ought to be a natural and comfortable thing for us to do (not saying we would both be in the dressing room). And we ought to give deference to each other’s opinions. There’s a sense in which professional attire isn’t necessarily the other’s prerogative to determine, but in terms of modesty and appeal, since we want to look good for each other and not fundamentally for anyone else, our significant other’s opinion on our casual day-to-day wear would logically seem to bear the most importance.

6 I’m not even moderately attracted to someone with a loose lifestyle. Somebody with a history of partying, getting drunk/high is unappealing because of the level of cognitive stupidity required to be that way.

7 I don’t understand what could be appealing to girls about guys who misbehave or speak rudely to them. Those who tolerate it or even act charmed by it, I personally find myself very suspicious of. It’s a turn-off.

8 I certainly have ethnic preferences in beauty, but no one could call someone racist for thinking some people are more attractive – TO THEM – What is racially supremacist is when you say “black/white/asian/etc women are the most beautiful women in the world.” Now you’re not just speaking your opinion about personal preference, you’re insulting everybody by jumping from specific observations to generalities, and by making truth claims when the vast majority of what you’re speaking about is outside of your personal experience.
                It’s neat when I notice attraction to a very different looking person, but chances are cultural differences will prevent me from being able to marry “outside.” It’s not about how you look, it’s about what traditions (a culture of constant boozing every weekend such as where I live is counted as a tradition because it’s culturally transmitted) inform your identity and aspirations. The fact that how people look happens to overlap with how they behave is mere coincidence, and value judgments on the behavior don’t translate to value judgments on people who look more like that person than like you.

                In case you didn’t realize I was getting at this, I’m saying that most white people are uninteresting to me for cultural reasons, because of how much the things they value clashes with what I value. The difference between racism and being thoughtful is whether there’s the element of prejudice. Pre-judging something before having the facts is always stupid. Making an educated judgment about whether you approve of a person’s behavior (and in context, find them attractive as a potential partner) is never wrong. It’s common sense. It’s what people do, in every other arena of life.

9 She ought to keep a Journal. it’s good for several reasons, most importantly to work out/develop your thoughts, to reason through things and know yourself, and to be better able to be known.

10 If she doesn’t appreciate my efforts to be thoughtful and romantic, I don’t know how we’ll work out. If she has a “meh” reaction to my poems posted on this blog, for example, that’s pretty much a red flag. It’s just logic. If you don’t “speak the same romantic language,” you’re not going to connect on a personal level and you won’t be able to demonstrate love to each other in a meaningful way.

~ Rak Chazak

AWPATT 1: June 1-4 (Thoughts 1-4)

What's AWPATT? An acronym for the idea that A Woman Provokes A Thousand Thoughts.

 June 1-4, 2014. AWPATT #1-4

1 Looks aren’t most important. But looks are important. They should never overrule bad character in choosing yes, but can still disqualify if good character is present. In other words, it can’t be a priority in making a decision for initiating a relationship, but can be a limiting factor in a decision against beginning a relationship. You don’t go looking for the ugliest person you can find, as if looks don’t matter at all. There needs to be attraction between the two of you. But you still have to deal with the character and personality when the outer beauty fades away, so it’s wise to make sure that the condition of those are such that you won't find yourself in an intolerable situation down the road.

2 I want someone who has good work sense. Who fits in when things need to be done and takes direction well. Who understands that requests for help are not done out of laziness but actually recognize her ability and importance. Someone who doesn’t cop an attitude about having to put in effort to do something—ever. This was provoked in reflecting on coworkers. Certainly the above is applicable to me, too, but I don’t need to be told. When I know I have a job to do, you’re not going to find me snottily saying “you can say please” or “say excuse me!” Formalities are beyond unimportant when work needs to be done. Do soldiers in a war zone or rescuers during a humanitarian crisis ask politely and say thank you when they need something? No, they shout that they need it and someone tosses it to them. People who demand formalities in a busy work environment are really displaying self-righteousness. If someone does this, it’ll be a huge red flag to me and I will be very strongly turned off. My spouse will have to have work ethic. And they will have to be okay with not being praised, or shown formalities just for existing.

3 I have an idea that her name has to sound right. Jessica, Rebecca and Sarah are my most common go-to “wife names,” if I’m daydreaming. Some names sound more adult-like, and some sound fringy. Ashley sounds young and immature, whereas Shirley sounds old. I wonder how I’ll be surprised. What strange – or entirely not – name will my future love interest turned fiancée possess?

4 I won’t marry a divorced woman lest her husband cheated. A woman who has had a no-fault divorce and her husband remarries, I still would probably avoid. You don’t know what’ll happen in the future. What if the husband divorces that woman and comes back, humbly and repentant, to his first wife to seek forgiveness? You don’t know that they won’t get back together. Don’t interfere in a relationship where two people ‘gave up’ because ‘it got hard.’ It’s not your place, and in strictly Biblical terms, it sure seems like it’s a sin. A once-it’s-done, it’s done sort of sin, but a sin nonetheless. I’m resistant to single moms also.

~ Rak Chazak

Video Post: Discernment & Duck Dynasty

I used to pray for wisdom, in my mid to late teens. I was inspired by the way that God responded to Solomon's request for wisdom. Clearly the better thing to ask the Giver for is not things, but the correct understanding of how to utilize the things you have. I was amazed, years later, to consider that the end result of all the theological, historical and scientific education I'd gotten with regard to Biblical truth online had been an answer to the prayer I had made a habit of praying on night walks by the road. My mind is bursting with valuable, helpful information about an extremely wide and deep assortment of topics concerning the Christian Faith, and my concern now is how to best use this knowledge now that I have it, so that the last word won't be that all of the facts I knew were simply random trivia.

Discernment is the next step of wisdom. Whereas wisdom is the proper application of knowledge, discernment is the accurate and consistent application of wisdom. Let's say you could wisely conclude that a course of action is appropriate. But if you never took the time to reach that conclusion, and never acted, then your wisdom was in vain, because you didn't use it. Suppose that you know that certain song lyrics are not appropriate for your children to hear, but you don't know that your child is listening to a singer who employs such lyrics. You have the knowledge to determine what the lyrics are. You have the wisdom to determine that your child shouldn't be influenced by such music. But you lacked the discernment to identify the bad lyrics under your nose so as to take action against letting your child listen to them. This 'last step' is what I want to improve on, because my great fear is that I won't successfully identify and separate what's good from what's bad, and everything "in between," and reap the consequences of that inability.

My new prayer is for discernment. And to show an example of what I mean by drawing a distinction between "wisdom" and "discernment," please watch the following video. I have the knowledge of what is orthodox soteriology (the doctrine of salvation). I have the wisdom to know that I shouldn't promote people as Christian brothers whose doctrine is heretical on the topic of soteriology. But I am uncertain that I could identify, on my own, that a certain person is espousing a heretical soteriology, if it wasn't directly and obviously stated.

That's where men like Todd Friel come in. I discovered him first when I investigated whether Roman Catholicism was authentic Christianity or not, and someone had uploaded a video of him comparing Catholic and Christian positions. I liked his style and the information delivery in each of his short video uploads I would find, so I've eventually come to consider him an online, impersonal mentor figure in my Christian walk. Every young person ideally should have an older, more mature Christian of the same gender from whom to receive advice and take cues from as they model the Christian walk for you, so that you can grow in the faith, etc etc. I'm still working on finding such a relationship in person, but thanks to the Internet, I've been able to benefit from Todd's podcasts and video clips from his show, Wretched, and continue to polish up on my theology and practice. He has seemed to me on more than one occasion to serve the purpose of a theological watchdog, on the alert for errors, heresy, and other dumb-but-not-damning silliness that ought to be avoided. Following is a video clip of him helpfully analyzing a segment of Phil Robertson talking about salvation. Phil is one of the "Duck Dynasty" characters, which is the most popular reality show of all time, and their family's faith is bound to be a huge influence in America going forward. So just what do they believe? The nuance is very important, and Todd explains it below. Please check it out.

~ Rak Chazak