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.