Canon of the Bible

Let your prayers be simple..

Quiz: "Are you smarter than an atheist?"

I just scored 97% on the "Are you smarter than an atheist?" quiz at the CSMonitor. Not bad, I guess.

The New Eve

"For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith." - St Irenaeus of Lyon

Historiography and the Early Church

David Withun discusses the Historical Method and it's relevance to the ancient Church.

Response to "Morals without God."

My comments on a recent Opinion piece in the NY Times by Dr. Frans De Waal; Read the piece here.

Dr.De Waal makes the claim throughout his article that man can behave morally, or adhere to moral precepts without a belief in God. But this is quite different from his assertion in the title of the piece: "Morals Without God." It is evident that individuals can lead moral lives without a belief in God. But without God, which is to say, if God doesn't exist, can anyone be truly moral? I believe the answer is unequivocally in the negative. "Right" and "wrong," as objective realities, do not exist without God.

Dr.De Waal makes an excellent case for the genesis of ethical values from the socio-biological framework in which human beings evolved. He points to altruistic behavior commonly observed in various mammals, most notably chimpanzees and other primates. It may indeed be the case that altruistic behavior and moral values arose in an evolutionary context, but how does this assertion do anything to indicate that those moral precepts are actually true? For instance, If one holds the belief that it is wrong to kill innocent people for pleasure, is this belief held merely because it is a by-product of conditioning, or is it held because human beings realize that it's truly wrong to kill for pleasure? On Dr.De Waal's view, the only reason human beings adhere to certain ethical values is not because these values are necessarily true, but because we happened to evolve that way. It is highly possible that given different conditions, our "herd morality" would look quite different. For instance, our closest relative, the Chimpanzee is noted for certain altruistic tendencies that seem to be a result of socio-biological conditioning. Sort of "almost morals." But there is the flip side: Researchers in Uganda have observed repeated instances of cannabilistic infanticide among wild chipmanzees; that is, adult chimps kill and eat infants. They've posited that this behavior has some sort of adaptive advantage. We can't say that chimpanzees are being "immoral" in carrying out this behavior, nor would we hold them accountable. But being highly evolved primates, it is quite possible that given the right conditions, our own behavior could have developed along the same lines. Would this behavior then be considered "moral?"

Thus if we find an an event, say the Holocaust, to be abhorrent, we are disgusted by it simply because we have been biologically and/or socially conditioned to feel that way, not because the event was truly evil, in any sense.

Richard Dawkins sums it up quite well: "There is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object's sole reason for being."

On "tolerance"

A response I made on a blog post regarding Ravi Zacharias. You can read the post here.

Hari,

You have voiced some legitimate concerns here, and I believe you have some valid points, but allow me to outline a few issues that came to mind.

In my mind, the problem arises because the word "tolerance" itself has been perverted to mean something completely different from what it actually means. The word itself implies that there IS a difference or disagreement between two or more individuals. I cannot be "tolerant" of someone with whom I have no difference in worldview. The very concept of pluralism or tolerance is relevant only when it is properly defined and contextualized; that is to say, it is relevant ONLY in a framework in which there co-exist differing worldviews. This is the very purpose of tolerance; to ensure the peaceful co-existence of those who adhere to differing perspectives. This does NOT imply that one should be inclined to agree completely with other worldviews, nor embrace "everything as equally true." Bygone generations knew this, and advocated tolerance as respectful disagreement, with the added notion of love for all human beings.

If Ravi Zacharias defames Mahatma Gandhi, or slanders other religions (I don't think I've heard him doing this), I surely don't condone it, and I believe you may have a valid point if he does. But if by "criticism" you mean that he points out the logical contradictions that he sees in those worldviews, then I believe you're missing the point. No worldview, including Christianity, should be granted immunity from careful examination.

I do not believe that as a Christian, I have a guaranteed one-way ticket to heaven. Neither do I believe that all others are instantly condemned. But I have nothing but pity for those who claim that all religions are "equally true." This stems from a lack of critical thinking. Whatever became of the law of non-contradiction? Why are we killing logic in the streets? Truth by it's very nature is exclusive - it excludes the opposite. My question to the culture of postmodernism is ultimately this: Why can't I firmly believe in the truth of my worldview, and point out why I don't subscribe to other worldviews, as long as I do it respectfully and while expressing a love for all human beings?