Author of The Dark Man, available from Marcher Lord Press

Scita>Scienda has posted its response, a very genteel and mannerly response I might add, to the first installment here of Music and Mathematics. Since, chronologically, I am forced to utilize the word response with regard to the S>S post, it’s going to lend a modicum of credence to CD’s insistence that she is simply reacting to the gauntlet cast by the mean ol’ Areopagus. Oh well, I did say that music is not about mathematics. So, before we move on to part II, let’s do some housecleaning…

CD’s come to our hapless engineer’s defense…you remember, the one that said everything could be explained by mathematics. Now, CD’s a clever person, intelligent, and one the very best writers around. No kidding. Despite her valiant effort, however, our hapless engineer is still, well, hapless to explain everything through mathematics. The proffered formula is:

Unfortunately, we haven’t explained anything with this formula. It’s really no different than saying X=X. We’ve designated a symbol, a mathematical symbol no doubt, to represent everything and then simply claimed that it equals itself. If I were to state in English  everything equals everything, you would no doubt agree, but still want to know what everything means or is. You would want an explanation, in other words. I’m still waiting for a demonstration of explanation of everything through mathematics. And I’ll wait forever, because not even God can explain everything through mathematics. To demonstrate this, let’s reduce the request from everything to a subset of everything: love for instance. Or laughter. Or the beauty of a sunset. Or music. Or to really be a philosophic pain, God himself. Any takers?

Secondly, the idea that coolness is a property of music was utilized to make and have fun, not to be a formal part of the argument. It worked, too. You go to Youtube and search for the worst musical memories of the past. It’s great fun. Nevertheless, I’m not certain it’s not an interesting argument. There’s certainly an objective correlation in the real world. Consider the following: the term cool is generally thought to have arisen in the 1930′s in conjunction with the American jazz scene. Though the specifics are arguable, the general historical fact is not. Thus, we have objective evidence of a term and a movement correlated with specific musical forms: jazz, blues, R&B, etc. This would tend to argue against the relativity of coolness, as CD has suggested. She’s within her rights to consider whatever she wants as cool, but to do so she’s relativising the definition of the term, not identifying a relativism inherent within the word itself, which has objective grounding within a historical context. Granted, there are a hundred factors at play within the historical context, so this is probably a book’s worth of study and not a blog argument.

We also have objective evidence of other musical forms that pre-existed jazz, blues, R&B, etc., for centuries. Fact is, classical music simply never engendered coolness as a movement. These guys understand that. But notice the interesting thing the guy on the left says at the 30 second mark: the interesting thing is that Luther has not changed the notes, just the rhythm’s a little different, so it’s exactly the way Bach wrote it, with a little swing to it..isn’t that nice?

The difference is obvious, even down to the foot tapping at the 145 mark, the dixieland blaring of the horns, the movements and body language of the horn players, and the runs at the end. Now, here’s the interesting thing, as mentioned in the video. The notes haven’t changed. If we insist on considering coolness as part of the argument from here on out, this probably represents the best launching pad from which to proceed.

Music is a sound. It’s the vibration of air particles at various frequencies and wavelengths. However, it’s not unordered, random sound, nor is it strictly repetitive sound, so its physics fail to sum it. It is a sound with intelligent design behind it. At the same time, it’s not a transmitter of specific information, such as the phrase, “this is cool.”

So, I’m in general agreement with this statement. I’d like to alter the word information, however. Music does in fact transmit mood; we may argue how specific this mood is, but it seems to me that mood is definitely transmitted by music, or, better stated, mood often occurs in the confluence of music and our perception of it. Consider the following two videos, not chosen for religious relevance, though the clip is one of the best:

Fast Tube by Casper

and…

Fast Tube by Casper

I know there are some extra variables involved and some significant differences between the two clips. But…did you feel the difference? Where does this difference arise from? Is it a property of the music itself? Do we as observers lend something to the music? Does God add something? This question should prove critical as we proceed. In fact, S>S seems to indicate so, in a very genteel and mannerly manner:

The ultimate question is one of that ineffable entity, beauty, and its presence in a world which, in its naturalistic quantifications, does not account for any such thing. However, I intend to demonstrate that to claim certain qualitative properties as essential to music is in fact a naturalistic expression…

With this in mind, let’s try another set. This time try to ignore the pictures. Actually, try closing your eyes…

Fast Tube by Casper

Sort of eerie, huh?

And this one (yes, I know you had to open your eyes for a moment):

Fast Tube by Casper

I’m going to assume we all acknowledge the difference in mood that occurs when we listen to different musics. So, the question is, why? I have three potential candidates that should represent a fair range of possibilities. If there’s another good candidate, let me know:

1. The mood is created by God in our minds according to some sort of occasionalism. I don’t expect to encounter any occasionalists, so let’s move on.

2. We as humans add something to the music itself through our perception of it. In some sense, this most assuredly must be the case, but will be able to account for the correlation of our moods so consistently to different types of music? We could posit cultural and learned influences, but it seems evident to me that people of all tribes and nations in all eras will not be dancing joyfully to the eerie clip above. I can’t prove that, but it seems intuitively the case, much more so than the notion that that clip could inspire frolicking, dancing, and joy. It’s the sort of thing we might attribute to devils.

And in the absence of any good reason to think there might exist a sane, rational, and sober human culture that would dance and frolic to morose, slow dirges and become saddened by upbeat, bright tunes played in major scales, option two does not seem plausible. [EDITOR'S NOTE: lawyers never ask questions they don't know the answer to, and arguers never assert things they don't know or believe strongly to be true. If I know CD, she's got some weird culture socked away that does this very thing. Well, so be it...just some advice in case you're engaged in a non-genteel, non-mannerly argument.] Note the weirdness that ensues when happy music is played behind videos of deranged clowns;–a staple of the horror flick–a sort of vertigo sets in. Why? Because it’s not natural. The music has been altered with conflicted visual cues that contradict what the music indicates by its essence.

3. There is an inherent property of music that is the best explanation for the phenomenon of mood. There is designed into the intervals, chords, scales, and I’d argue the rhythms, a property that affects us in certain ways, not much differently than the manner in which the wavelength of red strikes our perception. The flatted third and sixth (in context with the correct key, mind you) creates the minorish mood because it is minorish. The blue notes are blue notes because they were created that way; here they stand, they can do no other. It was created to be that way, and when we experience it properly, we act in accordance with God’s design for us.

Interestingly, there are mathematical expressions for intervals, chords, scales, and rhythms. The salient point is that the mathematics do not cause mood. Math is a descriptor of a physical reality created by God, much in the same way that red can be represented mathematically as a wavelength.

Now, we escape naturalism easily enough. God created music as it is to affect us as it does. No naturalistic dead-end there.

Another benefit of this view is that it answers the age-old question of which musics are good, and which musics are evil. Accordingly, none of them are evil. Even the eerie piece above seems to have an appropriate place in describing evil, say behind the story of Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness perhaps, or maybe for portions of Revelation. And, well, if there are pieces that are highly sexual, and there are, you can answer for yourself if there are appropriate places for those. What we know for sure is that they’re not proper in the teen-age Sunday meeting hall. It’s lyrics that do the dirty work, through specific information, if I may cite a top-notch blog. And, of course, our sinful application of the wrong musical forms to the wrong situations.

It seems to me, lastly, that option three indeed offers us the best avenue to a non-naturalistic view of music. If we add the mood through our perception, it may perhaps be accounted for by a quirk of our neural firing, or a merely human conception of the physical universe that is not quite adjusted correctly, though we would still face the consistency challenge. But if three is correct, and the property arises from within the intervals, it appears plausible that it be a property that is extra-physical; one that cannot be adequately accounted for by physical means. Non-specific information on the medium, so to speak…

At any rate, option three appears to be the most promising at first blush to me. Next time, let’s look at tone, that most beautiful and inexplicable property of music.

I once had an engineer tell me that everything could be explained by mathematics. I promptly asked him to rephrase his assertion in a mathematical formula. I’m still waiting…

Here, I’m answering a similar question: Can music be explained by mathematics? I think not, and I intend to offer a couple of posts why I’ve come to this conclusion.

Admittedly, while I have great respect for classical music, I’m a “low-church” musician. To that end, consider the Lightning Boy:

 
Fast Tube by Casper

Both portions of the piece were outstanding; however, did you notice how one portion of the piece was cool, and one was not? This guy didn’t:

Fast Tube by Casper

 Let’s review:

Cool:

Fast Tube by Casper

 Not Cool:

Fast Tube by Casper

One more example from an endless store:

Cool:

Fast Tube by Casper

 That’s how you do it, son…uh, not like this:

Fast Tube by Casper

There may exist a handful of cool mathematicians; what’s certain is that their mathematics are incapable of describing to us what is cool and what is not with regard to music. The property of coolness–one that is attached to certain musics but not all–does not reduce to equations. Nor shall it. As we proceed with this discussion, I’ll identify other properties of music that are not reducible to mathematics as well, and I’ll argue that they are just as important to music as the mathematically described properties of rhythm and interval. For now, though:

Fast Tube by Casper

BTW-Pat, I love you, man…that just wasn’t your best moment.

Fast Tube by Casper

3 new Marcher Lord Press novels released today, full of sci fi and fantasy. Get 3 in a discount bundle: http://bit.ly/ayNMwj

We just took a step closer to becoming as smart and caring as our Canadian neighbors to the north! OK, so that was just a plug for my good friends Dave and Cathi-Lyn Dyck. What do I really think about Christianity and health care, you ask? I think the Christian church has already been doing health care for years, actually.

But with regard to the newly passed health care bill, what I think is that Christians should worry with the mission of the church (which includes caring for those in need, may I remind you) and let politics go. Just let it go…it’s easy after a while, and the church has no business there in the first place. Politics will come and go; empires will rise and fall, but the word of God will stand forever:

He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.  Micah 6:8

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. Romans 13:1-7

Weigh in as you like…

I’ve been asked my opinion on a passage in the book of Hebrews: Chapter 5:11 through Chapter 6:14. Here’s a verse by verse sketch of some quick thoughts on this excellent passage.

“11We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn.”

As always, the antecedent of the pronoun this is important. Here, it seems to indicate the teaching of Christ’s priesthood in the order of Melchizedek.

¹²In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food!

Unfortunately, some things never change. The elementary truths of God’s word are constantly being obscured, ignored, and railed against, willfully, and through neglect. We tend to view our age as one of great apostasy, which it is, however, the gospel is never in vogue, and requires the faithful work of the Holy Spirit in every generation to uphold it from man’s sinfulness and the wiles of the devil. Here, the author of Hebrews–dare I say Paul–is addressing Hebrew believers and chastising them for their lack of attention to the word of God. How strikingly relevant this is to our own day when we have filled our churches with most everything (politics, sensationalism and experientialism over doctrine and obedience, the health and wealth gospel, and a hundred other things) over the word of God. NOTE: the phrase by this time seems to indicate that the audience is not composed of recent converts.

¹³Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. ¹⁴But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

There are two legs supporting the Christian walk: doctrine and obedience. Both are clearly delineated above, and both are required for Christian maturity. Any either/or proposition with respect to doctrine and obedience is a false dichotomy. The mature Christian has learned the word of God and applied it to her life.

¹Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, ²instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.

A clear exhortation to master the elementary teaching of the faith and to progress in faith in Christian maturity. Wouldn’t you think it odd to see a fifteen-year old still in the first grade?

³And God permitting, we will do so.

Let us not forget that God is sovereign over all, an all which includes salvation.

⁴It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, ⁵who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, ⁶if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

And so we arrive at the contentious portion of the passage. Most commentaries on this passage are entailed in the following three views:

1. Christians who have actually lost their salvation. 2. Professing Christians whose actions demonstrate they possess a said faith rather than a genuine faith. 3. A hypothetical employed by the author to warn immature Christians that they must move on to maturity or experience divine discipline and judgment.

View number one is refuted by the overwhelming testimony of Scripture. If anyone desires separate treatments of God’s promise, and corresponding ability, to deliver his people to salvation, the perseverance of the saints, and the efficacy of the atonement, let me know. That leaves views two and three. The following two verses appear compatible with both views:

⁷Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. ⁸But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned.

Nevertheless, note the good trees produce good fruit and bad tree produce bad fruit imagery employed elsewhere in the NT. Now, how do we distinguish between the two remaining views? The next verse is the key to the passage:

⁹Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are confident of better things in your case—things that accompany salvation.

Note the unmistakable hypothetical language: Even though we speak like this. In other words, hypothetically, Christians, who the author of Hebrews is addressing, who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, ⁵who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, ⁶if they fall away could be lost. Hypothetically.

Why hypothetically? Read the verse again: It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, ⁵who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, ⁶if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

It is impossible for this to occur. It’s a hypothetical construct offered by P…the author of Hebrews to encourage and edify the immature Hebrew Christians he’s writing to. It truly is impossible for those who have tasted the heavenly gift and shared in the Holy Spirit to fall away. God’s given us that promise indubitably in His word. Thus, this passage is a hypothetical, expressed clearly by the phrase even though we speak like this. Praise be to God, Almighty.

After all, it is God who does the saving, not us, thank God. It is our part to participate in our growth in maturity, but even then, all good things come from our Father above. Why else would the author be confident of better things in your case—things that accompany salvation? View two would make this confidence the hypothetical, a hope on the author’s part and not a confidence. Conversely, view three roots the author’s confidence in the God who saves definitely and assuredly. Hence, we conclude that this passage is in actuality a strong passage supporting the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. It is indeed impossible that the saved will fall away, based on God’s promises, His continued work in their lives, and the efficacy of the atonement.

¹⁰God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them.

Precisely, and He will not only not forget, He will actively work in the sanctification of his people, a deposit and seal ensuring their salvation. Isn’t that exactly what He’s up to in this passage? Of course, it is.

¹¹We want each of you to show this same diligence to the very end, in order to make your hope sure. ¹²We do not want you to become lazy, but to imitate those who through faith and patience inherit what has been promised.

This same diligence to the very end…more evidence that these are saved Christians the author is addressing, not professing Christians only.

¹³When God made his promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for him to swear by, he swore by himself, ¹⁴saying, “I will surely bless you and give you many descendants.” ¹⁵And so after waiting patiently, Abraham received what was promised.

Can God break a promise? Heaven forbid! Yea, let God be true, but every man a liar. His very great and precious promises endure from generation to generation…

I’m a proud attendee of the first Westman Bible Conference, held in November of 2009. Westman, as I came to learn, does not indicate devotees of Adam West, rather it’s an abbreviation of West Manitoba, in Canada. It’s easily accessible from Winnipeg, and if you’re of a mind to conjoin a Winter getaway in one of the world’s happiest places with a day spent listening to unadulterated Christian teaching, the WMBC fits the bill. It comes highly recommended by the Areopagus. More on that later as the time approaches. For now, here’s a glimpse at last year’s inaugural WMBC:

Fast Tube by Casper

Those who define everything that exists as the natural haven’t told us anything of significance. I could just as easily define everything as hablabadaba. It would mean the same thing and deliver the same informational content. Customarily, the word natural is invoked to describe a realm of energy, space, time, and matter, and any other conceivable or unknown physical entity, whether it be a part of this universe, or a detached natural realm outside the spatio-temporal universe we inhabit. Anything outside the natural realm, as commonly thought, would be supernatural, preternatural, extranatural, or the like.

But perhaps those who do this are not offering a definition. Instead, maybe they are making a claim about the way things really are, as in nothing exists outside of the natural. Here, however, we receive a check. The closest one could ever approach the soundness of this claim would be to arrive at it inductively, as far as I’m aware. I’d be delighted if someone could demonstrate me wrong. Until that moment, an inductive argument would proceed along these lines:

N: I have never observed anything non-natural, nor have I encountered a compelling argument for anything non-natural.

N2: I have never observed anything non-natural, nor have I encountered a compelling argument for anything non-natural.

N3: I have never observed anything non-natural, nor have I encountered a compelling argument for anything non-natural.

N4-Nx…

Therefore, everything that exists is natural.

Where does this leave our non-omniscient naturalist? In a state of agnosticism, presumably, though many will call it atheism.  We will hope, nevertheless, that our non-omniscient naturalist is aware that at any moment the non-natural could manifest itself, or that upon death the non-natural could be readily apparent in all its non-naturalness. It also leaves her, obviously, in an epistemologically unwarranted state with regard to what I may know or may have experienced of the supernatural. This is for another time, however, with all the flinging about of warrant around the internet recently, I throw it out there for your consideration.

So what? Well, some dislike the natural/supernatural dichotomy, so let’s offer a construct that may satisfy all participants: The natural realm could be part of a larger realm we might call the world. The world would comprise the natural realm, whether it be ours or another, and all other realms not adequately described by the term natural. Examples of the latter might be a realm of abstract objects and perhaps a spirit realm inhabited by God and other spiritual beings. These would not be explained adequately by what we normally think of as natural, that is, energy, matter, space, time and the like. (writer’s note: the phrase energy, matter, space, and time is directly attributable to cl, as far as my employment of the phrase goes)

Now, most people, certainly skeptics, consider what we apprehend with our senses as the real. I have certainly endured some criticism for The Dark Man in which reviewers and readers have been put off by its supposed lack of realism, its dream sequences, and its blurred perception between the real and surreal, or the superreal, as the case may be. This post, in a very real sense, is a precursor to an author’s note I intend to attach to my new novel, which may actually outdo The Dark Man with regard to coloring outside the lines of the real as it is commonly thought.  

In one sense, I agree with most folks, as I do not consider the natural realm mind-dependent, at least not our minds, with regard to its essence. However, I believe ultimately, that what we consider real is going to turn out to be less real than we think, and more real than we want. Here’s what I mean, and for those of you who read TDM (thank you), I hope this sheds some light beneath and around the physical medium of ink and paper the novel is delivered upon, and the story delivered therein, for what I am about to say is really no different…

This is not a polemic on empiricism. After all, we were created in the image of God with senses intended as gates through which reliable data may be transmitted to our minds inside of a physical world. Nevertheless, it is my contention that a strict empiricism does not convey the world as it really is. Merely apprehending the physical world leaves us thinking the natural realm is more than it really is, or, better put, I think, the natural realm is less real than we think it is.

Forgive me, I’ll need to back up a bit first. To say that God exists is, technically, an impossibility. We all use the phrase conventionally, but it’s truly misleading. Take a quick look at the etymology of the word exist: Latin exsistere to come into being, exist, from ex- + sistere to stand, stop; akin to Latin stare to stand (care of Merriam-Webster). To exist means, literally, to stand out of. God does not stand out of anything. He does not rely upon anything to sustain Him; He does not  rely upon anything for His being. To describe God accurately, we should say, simply, He is. He possesses the power of being. His essence is to be. That is the very reason He is called I am that I am. He does not exist, He is.

So then, whatever is truly real must have the power of being. It must not merely exist, but it must be, of its own power and accord. Everything else that exists, and I genuinely mean everything, would subsist under and be sustained by that that possesses the power of being. We too often look at the natural and assume it is the real, but why would we ascribe the power of being to energy, matter, time, or space? In fact, I believe it is much less real than we think it is. There are very good reasons to think that the universe, the natural, exists, and very good reasons to think that it does not have the power of being. These reasons are ubiquitous, and I’ll leave these as homework for your own thoughts, or for future posts for mine, because the point I wish to emphasize is something must be, and that something will be the real. Aim your skepticism at the natural and ask yourself honestly if the natural possesses the power of being. Vanity of vanities…

The real, then, in my view, will be something more real than we want. I say more than we want with our fallen nature in mind. Certainly many want the real to be a purposeful, meaningful, sustaining power, but at what cost? At the dread of constant surveillance? With the notion that the sustaining of all entities lacking the power of being–all entities that exist, mind you–requires an ordering of all events and the entities composing those events? With the notion that the real to be purposeful and meaningful would require the real by its nature to be the grounding of right and wrong, and to issue forth commands in accordance with that nature?

And here we approach the tension between our existence and that which must be. Is there any doubt on Christianity that fallen man desires the real to be less than it is and more than it is not?

I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world.

If there’s a more captivating line in all of fictional literature outside of Shakespeare, I’ve never heard it. I’ve mentioned it here before, and I’m certain I’ll mention it again. In the aftermath of the horrible Haitian earthquake, and the subsequent calumnious outcry directed at God, this line haunts me; and it should haunt you as well.

Camus’ Meursault is a demarcation. He’s a pivot-point into opposing worldviews. He’s a metaphor for the choice between meaning and meaninglessness that all consistent thinkers encounter. He is a window on the Problem of Evil.

The POE fascinates me. I’ve written on it extensively: a thesis which I believe contains some original work on the origin of evil, as alluded to in CD’s latest comment, The Dark Man (attack helicopters),-those of you who read it (thank you, much appreciated) should recognize the POE content-and my current work-in-progress, which is an all-out fictional study of evil in the world, not to mention my prattling here with regard to the POE.

I’m not obsessed, and I don’t have a basement dungeon where weird things take place. It’s just that evil presents observable evidence for the existence of God, and it is a subject and experience that awakens the heart and conscience of all but the most hardened and sociopathic among us. That’s a powerful and uncommon combination.

What a horrid scene Haiti is, and our hearts go out to all those caught in this tragedy.

With that said and believed, we of all stripes can agree it’s a tragedy, as in a great misfortune or calamitous event. We can all feel deeply for the victims. However, can we genuinely all believe that an evil has taken place? I think not, and Meursault is the demarcation:

Mamam died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know. I got a telegram from the home: “Mother deceased. Funeral tomorrow. Faithfully yours.” That doesn’t mean anything. Maybe it was yesterday.

This is what opening oneself to the gentle indifference of the world is. The world, which necessarily includes all events within it, is indifferent precisely because matter, energy, space, time, and any other physicality if there be such a thing, do not possess properties necessary for non-indifference. The gentle indifference of the world means that whether the universe flames out, dies a heat loss death, or even stretches out into an infinite future, there is nothing to care ultimately about what happens or to effect a difference on this particular piece of conglomerate matter we call earth. Among other names, we call this Naturalism, and all the observable articles of nature cannot alter this indifference.

Do you really believe, in accordance with its own power, that the contingent, particular organization of matter and energy called man can change this or endow tragedy with lasting meaning, despite his fleeting care? Camus was correct: without God we should open ourselves.

Under this view, there’s no such thing as evil. There are events. There are perturbations of matter and energy. There are earthquakes. They are but occurrences, not meaningfully different under Naturalism than the gravity exerted between Jupiter and Saturn.  And this brings us to the great paradox: evil is a proof for God’s existence, rather than an argument for his non-existence.

Have we discussed the axiological argument for God’s existence yet? Here’s one formulation of the argument, presented in deductive form:

If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

Objective moral values and duties do exist.

Therefore, God exists.

It just so happens that the existence of evil requires the existence of objective moral values and duties. Hence:

If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

Evil exists.

Therefore, objective moral values and duties do exist.

Therefore, God exists.

There’s much that could be said in defense of these premises. Let’s just consider evil, though. Is it really evil? The choice appears clear to me, and it resides at Meursault’s demarcation: will you accept evil as truly evil, or open yourself to the gentle indifference of the world?

Ironically, with God we have the necessary element both to make sense of evil, and to see evil for the evil it truly is, both of which cannot obtain under Naturalism. More on this later…

PS-Yes, those who do not believe in God may be good, moral persons (which does not contradict the doctrine of total depravity you Arminians and Calvinists out there), and I name many as my friends. That’s not the point of this post, and if you are a Christian who makes that claim you may find yourself in the next Silly Christian Arguments post. So stop doing that…it’s silly. The salient point is whether there can be Goodness without God.

I had in mind to discuss the silliness of Christian relativism, but Scita > Scienda is off and running with it. So, let’s move on to another silly Christian argument. When pressed with an apparent contradiction, a paradox, or any other uncomfortable conclusion or contention, Christians will often respond by claiming that God can do the impossible.

Quit doing that. It’s silly.

Fast Tube by Casper

I have several abilities God lacks. I’m rather proficient at them, actually. I’m an expert liar. When it comes to stealing, God can’t even begin to compete with me. I can sin all the live long day, and rest assured that I’ve done something God cannot do.

But let’s not leave it at that. I can make a second best decision, or even the poorest decision imaginable. God? He can only make the best decision. I can believe false propositions and fail to believe true ones. God? Nope. I can even commit suicide. God? He cannot destroy himself, nor can He create another God like himself. And, as the puzzle goes, I can build something so heavy I myself cannot lift it.

What are we to conclude, then? That there are things God cannot do?

No, not exactly. The verse Christians generally misinterpret (this is definitely one for our ongoing list, btw) is Matt 19:26: Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” 

Note carefully the construct here: with God all things are possible. Things include those entities, propositions, or events that are rational; that is, they conform to what is analytically and formally possible pursuant to the rules of inference and basic laws of logic. For instance, the basic law of thought and rationality, the law of non-contradiction, states that a thing cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship. Any thing that breaks this law is not a thing; it is no-thing. Irrationality does not produce things.

Likewise, the contrary of a  proposition that is analytically true–true by definition and self-evident–cannot be rational; therefore, it cannot be a thing. It is irrational for a triangle to be anything but three-sided.

Or, conclusions derived contrary to the basic rules of inference, say, modus ponens, are not things. Moreover, claiming an effect without a cause does not produce the rationality required for a thing. And so on.

Now that we’ve briefly considered thingness, let’s affirm that God can do any thing. What He cannot do is no-thing. God can raise the dead; that’s a thing. God cannot lie (A lying Christian God is like a four-sided triangle or a married bachelor), because irrational statements are no-things. Thus, Jesus was correct in asserting that all things are possible with God. Note also, the force of the text. God is very capable of performing things that for us are impossible. Though they are impossible for us, they are not impossible analytically, by the laws of logic, or invalid under the rules of inference.

The upshot of all of this is for Christians to resist the claim that God can perform the impossible, unless it’s clearly stated that what is in view is what is impossible for us, like raising a man from the dead, not the formally impossible. Don’t say God can make 2 x 4=9 or that he can create himself. Even God can’t make the nonsensical into the sensical, or the irrational into the rational.

There’s a related concern I’ll touch on briefly. It’s often claimed by Christians that what is rational from our perspective is not rational in other dimensions, or the supernatural realm where God resides and operates. Great care needs to be taken when approaching this subject. It’s true that other dimensions, or perhaps even the supernatural, might have properties of which we are not aware. Is there a sense in which sovereignty and free will, or other similar paradoxes could be harmonized by dimensions we’re unaware of? Perhaps, but what is absolutely necessary to maintain is that contradictions cannot be harmonized, and that what is formally irrational here must be formally irrational there.

Paradoxes differ from contradictions. Contradictions are formally irrational as discussed above. Paradoxes are not. Contradictions can never be true in any possible world, and even God cannot make sense of them or understand them, because they are no-things. The trinity, for example, is a paradox, not a contradiction. And if God is not rational, how could we ever hope to understand him?

Yes, this is a post aimed at Christians, but you skeptics need to quit claiming that an electron can be at two different places at the same time and in the same relationship, or that matter and energy can arise from nothing on its own power. Just sayin’…:)

Sometimes you just can’t force yourself to answer a silly internet argument, or wherever it’s encountered, for the 111th time.  It becomes so repulsively repetitive and trite that you’ll ignore a blog post or comment altogether. That’s probably the best course of action, actually; however, I believe another option is to create a repository of answers to link to in lieu of composing the 111th response to the same silly ol’ arguments. It’s an elegant solution I’ve seen used effectively elsewhere, and I’d like to begin stocking the repository here, to be added to as time goes on. Feel free to suggest possible new entries based on your own travels.

Right. But, first, let’s be fully aware and frank that atheists and skeptics are not the only offenders! In fact, if we’re honest, Christian theists are masters of the silly argument or blog comment. To that end, I’ll also be contributing to a theist’s repository of silly arguments as well. It’s only fair, so if you’re a skeptical type or an atheist, don’t think you’re being singled out, or that this post suggests that all atheists are silly arguers. Are there any atheist or skeptics constant Areopagus readers lurking out there, btw? Feel free to contribute.

Here’s my first: the highly irritating and non-sensical lightning argument that normally devolves into a bronze Age goat herder charge. It typically proceeds as follows:

Mankind used to believe that God(s) threw lightning bolts from the sky. Now science has explained adequately how lightning works. Therefore, it is foolish to believe God influences the physical realm.

Fast Tube by Casper

Silly, indeed. Quit using this argument to prove anything more than the true proposition that we now know the natural causes that produce lightning. Until, of course, we learn even better how those natural causes work.

There are sophisticated arguments similar to this silly one that argue inductively that our increasing knowledge of the physical world has historically pushed the utility of God or the supernatural as a scientific explanation to the edges of the universe. That is not in view here; however, even such arguments do not demonstrate that God is not related to the physical realm, nor can they. A moment’s thought should confirm this.

Your moment is passed. Now, after the initial silliness has passed, generally the goat herders are not far behind. Here it is claimed that the skeptic is armed with science, while the hapless and deluded theist relies upon the oral traditions of Bronze Age desert nomad goat herders–there are a multitude of variations on the theme–to arrive at truth.

Again, quit the silliness. We’re confident that Bronze Age, and Stone Age for that matter, peoples understood that 1+1=2, or that a triangle has three sides. Which of these statements is no longer true? Develop it countless ways; the truth remains: what was true then necessarily, is true now necessarily. The time and place and Age in which the truth was apprehended is frankly irrelevant.

Not to mention that the New Testament was not written in the Bronze Age, but as I’ve said, that’s wholly irrelevant. Bronze Age arguments are ridiculous, and amount to nothing more than mere bluster and irrational ridicule. What’s true must be determined on other grounds. Roughly, Bronze Age arguments are genetic fallacies.

Can’t you just hear skeptics in the year 4000 ridiculing people for their Space Age or Computer Age beliefs?