A Final Analysis (?)

Aside from Ehud’s last analysis, it looks like our discussion with Anon has come to a close…or has it? That’ll just depend on Anon if he continues to read our little corner of the blogsphere. :-) What I write now may give cause for Anon to continue to discuss, but if not, then we can move on to other subjects.


Definitions

In the case of “religious”, Anon poo-poos the dictionary definition because it reflects popular usage versus the actual meaning. But in a worldview that relies on convention and consensus, the populace has determined its meaning. And since his worldview cannot account for universal laws, the definition of “religious” really has no “actual meaning.” The populace has pragmatically changed it to suit its needs.

But Anon will have none of that, even though he is in the minority. His definition is not the popular usage, but he implies that his definition is the actual meaning. On what grounds can he make this assertion? In his worldview, there is no “actual meaning,” so all he can assert is what he likes for it to be.

And don’t we see this also in his definition of “faith”? He says that “faith” is blind and nothing will dissuade him from that definition. There is, of course, such a dictionary definition, but it isn’t the only one. How one uses the word in the context of a discussion would help determine what it means to have “faith”. Where I have used the word “faith” and “faithful”, no where have I implied in the context that such a faith would be blind.

Still, that doesn’t matter to Anon. So long as words as “religious” and “faith” are used in proximity, he will stick to his own definitions and impose them wherever he pleases in order to shut down the opposition. Well, at least his actions are more consistent with evolution where he’s got to look out for A-#1. Forget reason, forget definitions.


History

Anon says that Ehud’s arguments aren’t arguments, but appeals to the opinions of historical figures, as if they really don’t count in the debate. Why? He offers no reason other than sheer assertion. So when faced with insurmountable historical evidence, he chooses to dismiss them, never to address them. Oddly enough, he'll use history wherever it suits him, but aren't those opinions also? It's either his own opinion or opinions of historians from where he gets his historical information from. Perhaps they don't count in the debate as well. Or maybe, juuuuust maybe, both sides are actually giving arguments.


Science, Empiricism and Verifiable Facts

In one fell swoop, Anon slits his own throat in stating that “In science, nothing can be proven.” How this can even come from an empiricist is just mind-boggling. Science is the epitome of empiricism! But then, to make things really mind-Jell-oing, he says, “At best, there are strong theories that haven’t been disproven.” Can science even work under both these definitions? Let’s find out.

I shall theorize that on the Ganymede moon, 600 feet below the surface, there lives a multitude of multicolored winged unicorns. At this time, science cannot disprove my theory, therefore, the theory holds! What ridiculous nonsense! Strong theories are strong because there are scientifically proven things about them. If science can't prove anything, then my weak theory can never be shown to be weak and, at present time, it can not be disproven.

And to cap his contradictions in science, he says, “Both micro- and macro- evolutionary processes have been verified in laboratory settings.” But, “in science, nothing can be proven,” so in actuality, nothing has been verified. Maybe Anon has a different meaning for “proven” and “verified” that we just don’t know. Yeah, perhaps he does since he’ll only believe “verified facts”, as opposed to “unverified facts.” Hmmmm…maybe “facts” also has a different definition. Damn these pesky dictionaries and oxymorons be damned!

Stating that evolution is true is just patently false. There has been no verification/proof that non-intelligence suddenly has intelligence, let alone verification/proof of a mutation that would lead to the diversity of kinds, classes, species, whatever. And to say that science has not been able to disprove them, I refer back to my Unicorn Theory. To Anon’s benefit, here is a little something for him. Leading US magazine exposes evolution’s tall tales!

As for radiocarbon dating, here is my link: What about carbon dating?.


-Ists and -Isms

Anon tries to escape from being labeled a humanist, evolutionist, naturalist or materialist, though I don’t see how. In Christendom, there are variances in non-essential beliefs, but in the essential beliefs, we are united. This is also true within atheism. They are united in their essential beliefs of humanism, evolution, naturalism, and materialism, but they can most certainly differ on non-essentials. Anon, being an atheist, fits in perfectly as a humanist, evolutionist, naturalist and a materialist from what can be gathered from his comments. This is inescapable. (Thanks to Ehud for clarifying this earlier.)


Epistemology

In regards to getting down to the nitty-gritty of Anon’s epistemology, Anon refuses to answer the tough questions. Instead, he picks and chooses phrases to comment against, sometimes taking them out of the context from which they came from. One only needs to read through his comments to see he avoids the hard-hitting questions that would remove the floor from underneath his worldview. He cannot account for ethics, yet he uses ethics. How can he derive ethics from his evolutionist worldview? He answers in a circular manner (feelings, majority happiness, feelings, lather, rinse, repeat). In his worldview, it starts with man and ends with man. To that, I reiterate what Sean said:

Without God and his law, I have no reason to care about you or little Johnny down the street. Please tell me what is my motivation to "work together to make it as comfortable for everyone."


Opposing Worldviews

Anon shows that he has no clue how to evaluate a worldview. He says:

I've come to realize that you will automatically assume that any worldview other than yours in nonsense, no matter what.

When you assume anything, then you will always conclude the same no matter what your reasoning.

I realize that I will never get through to you. You've already made your choice, and you will rationalize away anything that disagrees with it.

All of you will continue to rationalize away anything that contradicts your worldview

But I'm also convinced that it wouldn't matter how well I argue my points. You're certain of your worldview, so anything that contradicts it is automatically false.

To all of the above, I have come to the most well thought-out and rational response I could come up: “Well, duh!”

What Anon doesn’t realize is that every single phrase can be turned around and pointed directly towards him (minus the “rationalize away” part since mostly what he has done throughout the discussion is assert, not rationalize).

It should be obvious that when examining someone else’s worldview through the lens of your own worldview, anything that doesn’t agree with your worldview would automatically be assumed false! If anything, one must critique a worldview based on its own criteria, and that is what we’ve done with Anon’s atheist worldview. Upon its own beliefs and philosophy, atheism is shown to be baseless. It has to borrow from a worldview outside of it’s own in order to sustain its own beliefs. Over and over again, we’ve tried to show that to Anon by leading him to the logical dead-end conclusion of the atheist worldview, but he never answers for it. There is no “verifiable fact” to ground his worldview, yet he’ll stick to it, by golly. Blind faith indeed.


Government

Ah, yes, we’ve finally come to the very subject which started this all. He’ll grant us that we can vote how we choose, so long as we have a “real-world justification” for it and that it doesn’t “take away the rights of others.” What “real-world justification” does he have to take away my right to vote like a Christian? Who determines what is a “real-world justification” and what isn’t? Isn’t “real-world” dependent upon the worldview of the individual? Anon’s bias is blatantly obvious as to what “real-world” we ought to go by. As if “truth” could ever be known in a worldview that has unverified aspects to it. And to think he would want to use government to force that “truth” upon other religions. Sorry, but Anon’s worldview just does not sit in such a privileged seat as to judge whether or not a vote from a worldview different from his can pass muster under what he thinks is the “real-world”.

And what of Anon’s comment:

I simply want to try to convince you that forcing your religious views on me through action of government is wrong. If you want to try to convince me that Christianity is truth (or is best, even if it is not truth), fine. But don't have the government do your dirty work. Jefferson once said that he doesn't care if his neighbor has ten gods or no god, becuase it neither picks his pocket nor breaks his leg. But the government is currently picking my pocket to support Christianty (faith-based charity, vouchers, etc.) and you guys want the government to threaten me physically by making it criminal to not follow your ideology.

The nature of government is force. The real question is who is going to wield that force? Anon wants government to be neutral, but that is impossible. Behind the laws of government are ideologies and philosophies, so government has no way in being neutral. I've continuously argued that the Constitution was founded upon Christian beliefs, yet he wishes to usurp the Constitution and place it under the lens of his worldview. He wants to wield the Christian sword so that Christians can't!

And are we Christians forcing our religious views on Anon through government? In a sense, yes we are. The civil government’s job is to punish evil and reward good. So whose ethic should be highest law? Anon’s ethic, which is unaccounted for and is unaccountable to anyone except man, whose mind could change because his feelings has changed due to love, hate, sleeplessness, drugs, indigestion, or whatever? Or the Christian ethic, where God’s Law stands firm and unchanging, and to which everyone is ultimately accountable to God, regardless of whatever excuses we make for our sins?

Now, I do understand where Anon is coming from when it comes to his taxes being used in a way that he doesn’t want. In fact, I despise that our government would use tax dollars for these faith-based initiatives. Why? Because of the Eighth Commandment. Although, in Anon’s worldview, there is no Eighth Commandment, so his disgust is solely based on gut reaction. But who knows? Maybe a burger and some fries might make his gut happy and he wouldn’t be so disgusted any more. Or better yet, maybe in his view of government, there is a “real-world justification” that would suit him better to take my tax dollars and use it to promote something contrary to my “pure religious beliefs”.

The government, as it is now, is not a Christian government. Anon may think that it is or that the efforts of Christians is trying to make it so. I differ from Anon, and perhaps even with other Christians who are reading this blog. Why? Because if it is true that most Christians are antinomian, then most Christian voters are likely voting for the wrong things in our government (incrementalism my gluteus…it isn’t incremental if you have to give up gains in other areas). Yeah, that is one helluva mess that I don’t even want to get into at this point.


Christianity

Christian theism can account for ethics because they are based on the character of God, who is holy, just and good. Ethics is found in Him and founded by Him and given to us as a means of government: civil, ecclesiastical, employment, familial and, ultimately, self. To stray from His Laws is to put oneself in jeopardy of consequences, whether it is due punishment or the corrupting effects of the sin itself.

But let us make no mistake. Following God’s Law is by no means a way to justify oneself to Him. Governance over oneself is good, but every failure to follow it requires a due penalty. Scripture tells us that the wages of sin is death, but that is more than just the passing of our mortal bodies.

Anon says that we are mortal, but Scripture tells us that we are immortal. Yes, our bodies will surely die, but after that, we face Judgement. Eternal joy and fellowship with Him, or eternal punishment from Him. Anon may think our faith is only there to ease our fear of death, but that is far from the truth. We may fight death, but we do not fear it. It has lost its sting when Christ took upon Himself the wrath and condemnation that I and every other true believer in Christ deserved. Anon may find confidence in his worldview that he doesn’t have to fear death since it is the only life he has, but he is only deceiving himself.


To Anon:

Despite my Ehud-like analysis to your overall discussion (intentionally done to show the foolishness of your arguments), I do, in sincerity, hope that you will re-examine the points that we have been trying to get across to you. Do not dodge them as you have continuously done so. You would only do yourself a disservice. If you are so strongly for evidence, then look at the lack of evidence in the foundations of your atheism.

And then look at the evidence of the Christian worldview and how it solidly describes and fits reality. It is not a subjective view of reality, but an objective one. Reality is not defined by the individual, but that it is God who defines it. Firmly plant your feet on the Word of God and you will find it be solid.

Finally, know this: You have a greater inherent value then what your worldview could ever give you. You are a bearer of God’s image, not a bearer of a monkey’s image or some bacterium in primordial goo. As a bearers of His image, we have been given a great responsibility to be like Him in every good way. Your grip on ethics and your use of logic proves this over and against the logical implication of your worldview. Yet, despite how you and I can hold tight to being logical and ethical, neither of us have the will nor the strength to be perfect as God is perfect. We break His Laws and we use logic to justify our sins. It is our pitiable estate in this world, but all is not lost.

Believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and your Savior, study His Word, trust in His Wisdom, and follow Him diligently all the days of your life. Only He can save you from your sins and it is a beautiful thing. He most certainly saved mine, and I was living a good life before becoming a Christian!

We don’t claim to be perfect because we are Christians, but we do proclaim that His truth has set us free. Free from God’s wrath; free from the downward spiral of our own sinful nature; and free from worldviews and philosophies that ground themselves on nothing.

Just as Pastor Paul and Ehud pray (yes, believe it or not, Ehud does pray, and with deep sincerity and a full (regenerate) heart) for you, I also pray for your life, your soul, and your search for truth. May God grant you eyes to see and ears to hear.

In Christ,

Victor