Have you ever had steak and kidney pie? I would guess that it's an acquired taste, and, what's more, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it turned out to be the kind of thing where some people can taste certain chemicals retained in the kidneys, while other can't. If so, given the few times I've had kidneys on the plate before me, I would strongly suspect that only the latter group would even be able to acquire the taste, and I haven't.

I have some vague recollection of my mom making kidneys once or twice and my not liking them. Then again, ditto for her making curry once, and I didn't like that either, and we all know that I changed my mind drastically about that. So, quite a few years ago now, on my first visit to London, I imagined that the same thing could be true about kidneys as about curry. Actually, I just had something like a six-hour layover in London on my way to Kenya, so I took advantage of the time, got on the "tube," and got out at Picadilly Circus just because I recognized the name. I understand from reading P.G. Wodehouse that one can make a killing there, late at night into the early morning, selling onion soup, but there were no second sons of noble families attempting to recoup the money they lost in horse racing by that method visible at that time, which was around the noon hour.

Well, I just started to walk on from there, and suddenly there was Big Ben right in front of me, and Westminster Abbey, and the changing of the horse guard, and bobbies, and everything else that the London Chamber of Commerce maintains there for tourists. I don't know how they did it, but they even had the weather at just the right temperature, somewhere in the 60's in early August, with a slight drizzle. At the end of my rather lengthy walk (man was I in shape back then!), I decided that I needed to complete the total London experience by taking luncheon in a pub and seeing what actual British steak-and-kidney pie would be like.

I can only tell you my assessment, and if you enjoy that particular dish, I don't want to write anything that might spoil your culenary preferences. Personally, I would put kidneys as a source of nutrition right there along the blood clots we got served in a Vietnames restaurant in Taiwan recently, but fortunately Ncho immediately took steps to prevent us from having to consume them.  As far as the kidneys went back then, I tried, I really did, but, apart from some really drastic circumstances, I don't think I will ever have kidneys again, if I can help it.

Oh yeah, you might be wondering why my mind is focusing on kidneys at the moment. The answer is very simple that for the last few days I''ve been playing the genial host to at least one kidney stone. Thanks for all the "this, too, shall pass" kinds of comments on Facebook last night. It hasn't revealed itself yet, but the really excruciating pain is over (for now?), so I'm figuring it'll probably come to daylight fairly soon. In the meantime, my life was obviously not filled enough, so we've added that little (they're usually fairly small, but extremely spikey) item. So far, I'm not planning on spending any money on a doctor's visit, let alone the Ermgency Room. I've had them before, and I already know to drink lots of water.

So, what's worse than a kidney stone? Aww, sorry, that was too easy. King Ahab's foreign policy, of course.

KINGS AND KINGDOMS
	Bible Reading: 1 Kings 20:26 -32
v. 34: Then Ben-hadad said to him, "The cities that my father took from your father I restore to you, and you may set up marketplaces for yourself in Damascus, like my father set up in Samaria." [Ahab responded],"On the basis of this treaty, I release you." So he made a treaty with him and released him.(HCSB)

Ahab's lack of interest in God did not leave him off the hook as to his obligation to obey God. ---- You know, this is an interesting point to stop at for a second already. It seems as though a lot of people feel that, if they've made some negative decision concerning God, whether it's rejecting his existence or just plain rebelling against him, then God is bound to abide by their decision. I'm quite sure, however, that God doesn't see it that way. Ahab may have decided to worship Baal rather than God, but God still expected him to listen to Him and abide by His rules. Those directions would have included 1) if God provides a victory for you over an invading enemy force, you accept that victory; and 2) if God provides a victory for you over pagan enemies who intended to take over the land of Israel, you don't make a private self-serving treaty with those pagan enemies.

The Aramean advisors, as we saw, were as poor military strategists as they were bad theologians. That whole "If- Yahweh-is-strong-in-the-mountains-he-can't-also-be-strong- in-the-plains"-theory fell flat, if you'll forgive the clever expression. However, they were good at devising a stratagem based on the always-popular appeal to pity (argumentum ad miseracordium). "The King of Israel is soft. If we pretend to him that we're sorry for what we did, he'll probably let you stay alive, Your Majesty."

So Ben-hadad's possy went to see Ahab, made their case, and Ahab swallowed it hook, shallow line, and without the reality sinking in. In fact, he let Ben-hadad make the terms for his surrender--some minor concessions of economic opportunity--and Ahab agreed to them on the basis of their both being members of the fraternity of kings. Or, to put it without clever synonyms, Ahab just threw away two victories over Ben-hadad, the lives of his soldiers lost in the battle, not to mention the purpose announced by the prophet of Yahweh: for God to demonstrate his reality. Ahab preferred to be acknowledged as brother to the king of Aram (Syria), whose dynastic descent had a whole lot more impressive heritage than that of Ahab-son-of-Omri. When it comes to the choice between recognition by humans and obedience to God, it's a no-brainer for any number of people: approval from other people comes first anytime. That's a constant factor in the world of so-called evangelical theology. Do we prefer biblical standards at the expense of being sneered at by a liberal group, such as the SBL? Can't let that happen. Or, as I just found out with regard to developments in Germany, do Baptists maintain their theology of faith in Christ, repentance and baptism if they are being promised the respectability of being considered partners with the Lutheran state church? Not even close. It's pathetic, of course, but that's how people react; Ahab was not alone in being cavalier about God if it got him to be known as Ben-hadad's "brother."

By the way, it never works out that way. You can give up almost all that you believe, if you still hold on to one small part of evangelicalism, you're still not one of "them." I'm regretfully thinking of a well-known philosophy professor with a long period of service at a Christian college, of almost iconic status in Christian circles, admired by many for his contact with people of apparent standing in the academy, his patronizing attitude to those Christian philosophers who were, in so many words, "wasting philosophy on apologetics," the concessions he was making by reducing the epistemology behind the truth of Christianity to "perspectivalism"--and-- I'm only mentioning this so that others may spare themselves the same delusion--the way non-Christian philosophers were snickering at him and his school behind his back. It's very, very sad (and, of course, incredibly insensitive and rude of me to point it out), but let me assure you I've seen way too many Christian scholars, both philosophers and theologians, send their careers down the theological toilet for absolutely nothing. We don't talk about this much--not that there's a whole lot to say--but there have been several well-known Christian scholars who suffered serious collapses (one of them even committed suicide) because apparently they were not getting the "recognition" to which they felt entitled. --- Oh, by the way, I've said as much as I'm going to in identifying the persons I was thinking of, and, even though I do believe it is necessary to point out such cases from time to time, we don't need to guess at or mention any names in any further comments either. For private e-mails, it'll depend on who's asking. My intent is not to hurt, but to preserve others from hurting themselves and their relationship with God.  

This process is beginning to remind me of a few years ago when I sent out e-mails all the time notifying my students that some PowerPoint or study aid just got posted on Blackboard.

It's already been almost a month since I published the updated video Life of the Buddha to YouTube. So, it seemed high time to follow up that one with another video on an important religious leader. But whom to choose? There are so many options. Well, it finally came down to three possibilities, Jay Leno, David Letterman, or Jesus. Then I realized that Leno had sort of retired, and I remembered that Letterman for a time was a philosophy major at nearby Ball State University in Muncie, and so people who read this might actually know whether I got my facts right. This issue was complicated further by the reality that I know nothing about Letterman's life except the aforementioned academic excursus and even less about Leno. Furthermore, to the best of my admittedly limited knowledge, neither of those two are really religious leaders; it's just that some people (not including myself) just watch them religiously. So that left Jesus.

Seriously, this is another part of that mysterious project that I won't go into right now. I had an incredible amount of fun doing the drawings, which I absolutely would not have been able to do by hand, but which Paint Shop Pro facilitated very nicely (at least I think so, and June concurs). Obviously, I did not compose the music this time, but the arrangements are mine, thanks to Melody Assistant. As long as I'm listing the computer programs I use, I make my actual videos with AVS programs. If you buy one product, you're a member of their family, so to speak, and you can download all the others for free.

THE LIFE OF JESUS

A great day. Take into account as I'm writing this that most of the day was given over to finishing my paper for this afternoon's philosophy colloquium, but also that writing papers that require paragraph by paragraph research, delving into the Sanskrit version of a passage, and unraveling minute distictions among esoteric ideas, is something that I thoroughly enjoy. As expected, I had written twice as much as I could read in the allotted time, but nothing will go to waste since this will also be my ISCA paper. That last point is also the reason why I'm not posting the paper yet on the web.

The word "colloquium" is a "purr word" for June and me because we would always go to the philosophy colloquium at Trinity together back when I was a student there.

I was extremely pleased to see so many students at a philosophy colloquium late on a Friday afternoon. It's been a long time coming, but philosophy at Taylor is definitely blooming.

After the meeting, June and I stopped by Nick and Meghan's to deliver the mail of theirs that still comes to our house, and we stayed for supper. Nick made a yummy chicken curry with rice and nan (Indian bread).

KINGS AND KINGDOMS
	Bible Reading: 1 Kings 20:23 -25
vv. 23-25: 23 Now the king of Aram's servants said to him, "Their gods are gods of the hill country. That's why they were stronger than we. Instead, we should fight with them on the plain; then we will certainly be stronger than they. 24 Also do this: remove each king from his position and appoint captains in their place. 25 Raise another army for yourself like the army you lost—horse for horse, chariot for chariot—and let's fight with them on the plain; and we will certainly be stronger than they." The king listened to them and did so. (HCSB)

You have to hand it to King Ben-hadad's advisors. They knew their theology well. If they had been beaten by the Israelites in the mountains, then the gods of the Israelites must be particularly strong in the mountains, and consequently they couldn't also be strong in the plains. Thus, if they saw to it that the next clash of armies would be on the plains, their own gods would probably be the more powerful and they would come out victoriously. What a nifty idea!

My first reaction to reading this passage again was: what incapable advisors these Arameans were! Didn't they know that Israel had only one God, and that he was stronger than any idol anywhere else? But wait! How would they have known about Yahweh? So, I'm thinking they should have sent out spies to gather accurate information about Israel.

But what could any spy have learned? Remember we're talking about King Ahab who had made Baal worship the state religion and his wife Jezebel, who was utterly devoted to her Phoenician gods. So, if the Arameans had prepared themselves by gathering information on what they observed at King Ahab's court, they would have been reenforced in their opinions by what they saw there, and they still would have had no clue about Yahweh.

In doing my various studies over the last few days, I've become more convinced than ever that people who do not believe in God are prone to their misjudgment because their understanding of God is too miniaturized. Their assessment of the God whom Christians worship is a picture of a God who is trapped by their assumptions. To revert to one of my favorite statements by Meister Eckhart: "Some people love God in the same way that they love a cow," namely for the products they receive from it.To which I add: even more so, many people turn away from God because he does not fulfill their expectations as a cow and they mock Christians because they don't understand that many Christians love God as something other than a cow. 

My presentation today included reference to the South-Asian philosophical schools of Samkhya, which is a school of Hinduism, and of Jainism, a religion in its own right. Both are dualistic in their own way. Both argue vehemently against the possibility of there being a Creator god because they cannot accommodate him to their systems. A better idea than setting up a system that would only allow for a being that is too small to be a Creator, maybe they could have revised their systems since the idea of a Creator appears to be pretty foundational and it takes an act of the will to shove him aside. For the Arameans, the Israelite gods could not possibly be effective both on the plains and in the mountains. Similarly, people today often reject belief in God because they cannot imagine that he could possibly bring good out of the suffering that they are undergoing, that he could possibly still love them in the light of whatever bad things they may have done, or that he could not possibly have the power or judgment to rule the world in light of how badly the world seems to be off-kilter these days. In short, the god whom they reject is a much smaller godlet than the God of the Bible. They refuse to believe in God because the only kind of God they can imagine is one who is so small that, in fact, no right-minded should believe in him.

As far as I'm concerned, belief in God is only worthwhile if one accepts the sovereign, omnipotent, omniscient God, about whom the Bible teaches us. A lot of people want a god a) whom they can hold in their hands and manipulate and b) who will fulfill all of their desires (not just needs) as soon as they ask for them, kind of like a genie out of a bottle. But this doesn't work. God comes with no restrictions. If you accept God, you must accept him as he is, big, with all of the requisite "omnis," and frequently beyond the bounds of our comprehension. This notion of a god was not comprehensible to the Arameans. The Arameans' idea of God was very limited, and it led to their losing a second battle. May each of us understand that it takes a god who fully posseses all of his unlimited attributes to guarantee our salvation, and that a God from whom our minds may have stripped his attriutes would not be a God whom I would recommend worshiping either.

This is going to be a relatively short entry, which I decided to post now because it doesn't really fit in with anything ongoing, other than my continuing work on Buddhism, which has several raisons d'être. Nevertheless, in light of my recent post in which I asserted that Francis Schaeffer was correct with his assessment that lack of belief in theism leads to despair, which in turn leads to an escape into irrationality, I thought I'd share with you this little nugget that I just ran across. The pictures are all various versions of Amitabha Buddha from around the world.

I receive a journal entitled Pacific World, which is now in its third series, viz. that it has been propagated by three different boards and has come in three different versions. I like this third series a lot because it carries highly in- depth articles on various phases of Buddhism, with usually a specific theme for each issue, which means that you get quite a bit of specific information on one relatively limited topic. Well, one of the topics that I'm preparing for right now in my studies is the history and nature of Pure Land Buddhism. In general, people who know anything about Pure Land Buddhism at all, it's the version propagated by the Japanese monk, Shinran, (Jodo-shinshu, also called Shin Buddhism). Shinran (A.D. 1173-1263) taught that anyone who chants the name of Amida Buddha (the Dhyani Buddha Amitabha) just once, purely out of gratitude to him, will be reborn in a paradise ("Pure Land") that Amida has created in the western quadrant of the universe. From there, it is supposed to be an easy step to Nirvana.

But Pure Land Buddhism, although it did not become a separate school until it arrived in Japan in the twelfth century A.D., has had a long and rich history before that in China, where the veneration of Amitabha and the repetition of the mantra dedicated to him, in Japanese "Namu Amida Butsu," often abrided as the Nembutsu, had been a part of various Buddhist schools and practices for several centuries.

To my great delight I realized (or, perhaps rediscovered) the other day that two of the previous issues of Pacific World are dedicated to Pure Land Buddhism. In fact, Number 2, Fall 2000, is entitled Special Issue on T'an- Luan and the Development of Shin Buddhist Thought*, which was followed by Number 3, Fall 2001, Special Issue on Contemporary Shin Buddhist Thought. T'an Luan (A.D. 476-542 or 488-554) was a Chinese Buddhist sage of the Madyamaka school, who, among other things, took a special interest in Amitabha. But he made contributions in a number of areas of Buddhist philosophy. Let me quote a paragraph from the essay, "The Enduring Significance of T'an Luan" by Roger Corless of Duke University (Pacific World , 3rd series, 2 (Fall 2000):4.

Before doing so, maybe I should clarify (or remind you if you've read through my recent series on Taiwan) that in Mahayana Buddhism the Buddha is thought to have three bodies, the most sublime of which is the dharmakāya, the purely spiritual body that eventually entered Nirvana. Professor Corless states, 

I understand that the claim to non-duality is very much intrinsic to Buddhism. All of Zen is built around it, and it comes up in other places, not just in Buddhism, but also in Hinduism and Daoism, to mention just two. Further, as a non -Buddhist outsider I'm in no position to prescribe to Buddhists what they should believe. But, as a non-Buddhist outsider, I also see this phenomenon as a classic illustration of Schaeffer's thesis. Corless believes that the dilemma he brings up applies to all religious systems; I'm not entirely sure of the force of this puzzle for, at least, Christianity, let alone for Judaism. Regardless, how does one solve the problem by declaring that both horns of the dilemma are non-dual? "Non-dual" means that our ordinary concepts of rationality and logic simply do not apply. "Non-dual" is different from "one" because if you say that all is "one," you're still counting, though not very high. "Non-dual" means that there is no counting, no differentiation, no particularization, no synthesis of components because there are no components.

In other words, one makes something that is a rational problem go away by stating that reason simply does not apply. Let me understate my assessment as much as I can. T'an-luan may have dealt with the problem in a way that is acceptable to Buddhists. He may have done so in a powerful, neat, and uplifting way, that could be admirable for its rhetorical qualities. He may have left a legacy so important that I could never even dream of anything like it for myself. But, with all respect for the venerable T'an-luan; he has not solved it. He has simply eliminated it by submerging it in a vessel of irrationality.

Remember that any contradiction, no matter how profoundly expressed, must be false. Keep in mind that the apostle Paul admonished Timothy to avoid the contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge. (1 Timothy 6:20) And don't forget that God has made it very clear that what the world considers wisdom may, in fact, be foolishness (Romans 1). 

The pictures hopefully convey the care and imagination that people have put into their devotion; nevertheless, there's also no getting around the fact that this is worship (veneration, homage, etc.) of the creature, rather than the creator. 

All my updates for the moment would have to be in the future tense. So, let's just look at how Ahab is not learning his lessons.

KINGS AND KINGDOMS
	Bible Reading: 1 Kings 20:1- 19
V. 10: Then Ben-hadad sent [messengers] to him and said, "May the gods punish me and do so severely if Samaria's dust amounts to a handful for each of the people who follow me." (HCSB)

Don't you love it when people invoke curses on themselves? Jezebel had already done so earlier (19:2), when she called on her gods for punishment if she didn't kill Elijah. Now King Ben-hadad of Aram (which is translated as "Syria" in older versions) was saying similar things if he didn't destroy the city of Samaria to such an extent that there would be enough dust left for each of his soldiers to carry a handful.

Allow me a quick reminiscence. On one of my trips to Singapore with students (1994), we tried to shoot some videos in a mosque. Two male students came with me. Even though Muslims have assured me hundreds of times that only in Islam are women truly free and equal to men, I knew that taking a female student would immediately complicate matters significantly. When we showed up, we were immediately greeted by the caretaker. I asked if we might enter the prayer hall. The caretaker continued to play the genial host. "Allah would curse me if I did not let you in." So we entered the prayer hall. It was in the late morning, not one of the regular prayer times, but there was some activity. Then came the risky moment. I took out the video camera, and asked if I could shoot a little footage. The caretaker continued to be enthusiastic. "Allah would curse me if I did not let you take video shots." I had no sooner put the camera up to my eye and was still fiddling with the adjustments when the imam of the mosque came charging up. "You cannot take pictures in here. It is not allowed." Needless to say, I immediately complied. As we walked out, I wondered if the imam had just put himself under Allah's curse. (Three years later, in a different mosque, we actually were invited to take videos, but that's a different story.)

To return to our Bible passage, Ben-hadad had made up his mind to conquer Samaria and--for that matter--the northern kingdom of Israel. Why did Ben-hadad want to do this? I really cannot say. When we had last run across him, he had a treaty with Israel's King Baasha against the southern kingdom of Judah and its King Asa, but Asa bought him off with the treasures out of the temple. So, Aram and Israel no longer had a treaty, but that fact alone does not account for Ben-hadad's vehemence.

Ben-hadad, along with 32 tribal leaders called "kings," marched up to the city, and his messengers informed Ahab that he wanted all of his best property: gold, silver, wives, and children. Shamefully, Ahab agreed. I must say, though, that the idea of Ahab turning Jezebel over to Ben-hadad strikes me as highly unlikely. Apparently it struck Ben-hadad the same way because he sent more messengers with a follow-up: Ben-hadad would send his servants in order to search through the entire palace to make sure Ahab wasn't holding back anything. That was too much, even for Ahab. After a consultation with his advisors, he sent the messengers back with a refusal.

It was now that Ben-hadad invoked that curse on himself, and Ahab replied that it's a whole lot more meaningful for someone to brag after a battle than before. That response really annoyed Ben-hadad, and he reacted by devoting himself to some serious partying.

Meanwhile back at the palace, an unnamed prophet of Yahweh reassured Ahab that Yahweh would give him a victory in order to demonstrate his reality to the king. How many more demonstrations did Ahab need? He had already witnessed the spectacle on Mt. Carmel. But God was giving him another chance. The prophet instructed him to go to war with Ben-hadad and initiate the battle.

Ben-hadad and his men were still partying in their tents when Ahab and his army came charging out of the city. Ben-hadad would not be shaken. "Take them all alive!" For some reason it did not occur to him that the Israelites were not running over to him as volunteers to be his captives. It was a rout.

And God was still giving Ahab more chances. The same prophet came back to him and told him to prepare for the spring, when Ben-hadad would come back.

I was going to give you a short number of personal updates, but as it turned out, I never got past the first item. On Monday, June and I met with a financial advisor, who clarified a number of options for us and who helped us see a little bit more of firm land on the horizon, but right now we're still up in the crow's nest as our sail ship is stuck in the doldrums, with the water and apple barrels running empty--so to speak. In case that metaphor was a little over the top, to state it more prosaically, life continues to be quite difficult, and June and I thank you for your prayers. I sure don't understand why the Lord is seemingly letting everything turn into worst-case scenarios. But you know, one just gets to a point of saying, "Either I've wasted my entire life on nonsense, or I'm going to trust God that, no matter how bad things get, he knows best." I'm quite sure that the nonsense option does not apply, and so that leaves trusting God. Now please, don't think for a minute that trusting him excludes having arguments with him, asking why, complaining to him, etc. Still, I certainly don't expect ever to win any arguments with God; in fact, if I did, that would be a truly scary thought. I know that he knows a whole lot more than I do both quantitatively and qualitatively. And I continue to hold on to the fact that the same God Who created the world and sent His Son to die for my sins is a God Who is trustworthy.

I'm sorry if I'm putting my apparent piety on display. Actually, I don't have much of that; I'm neither pious nor "deeply religious," whatever that means. I just know Who has saved me and Who is in the best position to guide my life.

Considering the alternatives to faith in God sends my mind boggling. Keep in mind that contemporary post-modernism, post-liberalism, and pretty much post-everything-else (people are infatuated with being post-something) are all primarily post-reasoning movements.

Francis Schaeffer got a lot of facts wrong in his books, but his basic outline of contemporary thought (or is that non-thought?), viz. the "escape from reason," has been something akin to a prophecy. He couldn't (or shouldn't) have known in the 60s how much more his analysis (which did at times have a predictive edge to it), would apply fifty years later. In case you've forgotten, Schaeffer kept insisting that "modern man," given his presuppositions would end up in despair. This meaninglessness would begin with philosophy, manifest itself in the arts and various other aspects of culture, and would eventually show up in theology. If you start out with the notion that we are merely products of the random combinations of material stuff, you're not going to get out of that self-incarceration, no matter how hard you try--at least not rationally. Human cultures, virtues, enjoyment, and creativity, are all just matters of how molecules have aligned themselves.

While local village atheists were laughing at Schaeffer, more profound atheists were agreeing with him. No one said it better than Bertrand Russell in the essay "A Free Man's Worship," in which he tacitly admitted that he was not free, but at the mercy of "omnipotent matter," and proclaimed that "worship" or any other activities that presuppose some significance to human life were utter futility. I must add that, regardless of whether you're talking about Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre, Beckett, etc., they all said similar things, but you can't beat Russell's formulation as he displayed unparalleled arrogance while he admitted that his life was intrinsically worthless:

• “That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms . . . all these things . . . are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand.”
• “Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.”
• “Brief and powerless is man’s life; on him and all his race the slow, sure doom falls pitiless and dark. Blind to good and evil, reckless of destruction, omnipotent matter rolls on its relentless way; for man, condemned today to lose his dearest, tomorrow himself to pass through the gate of darkness, it remains only to cherish, ere yet the blow fall, the lofty thoughts that ennoble his little day; . . .
• “. . . disdaining the coward terrors of the slave of Fate, to worship at the shrine that his own hands have built; undismayed by the empire of chance, to preserve a mind free from the wanton tyranny that rules his outward life; proudly defiant of the irresistible forces that tolerate, for a moment, his knowledge and his condemnation, to sustain alone, a weary but unyielding Atlas, the world that his own ideals have fashioned despite the trampling march of unconscious power.”

Bertrand Russell was a fabulous writer. After you have read his two infamous essays, "A Free Man's Worship" and "Why I am not a Christian," which are found all over the web, see if you can treat yourself to "Nice People," which I could not find on the web, but which is included in numerous anthologies. His Problems of Philosophy demonstrates that philosophical writing need not be synonymous with obscurity. You may find his Principia Mathematica a trifle too technical, but if you're into symbolic logic it's almost like a detective story as he zeroes in on the ultimate revelation of why 1 + 1 = 2. But, let me return to Schaeffer's scheme.

Albert Camus started out his first essay in the collection entitled, The Myth of Sysyphus, by stating that

There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy.

Of course, the answer is usually yes, life is worthwhile. And so, despite the logical outcome of one's presuppositions, such as lack of objective values, one simply posits meaning and significance where there shouldn't be any. But one does so at an incredibly high price, the forfeiture of one's reason. Reason says that there is no hope; we'll just stipulate it. Logic applied to my world view shows that nothing of what I'm doing is worthwhile; so much the worse for logic. As I mention on my DVD "God as Cow," the atheist Michael Martin insists that being an atheist and having a foundation for morality are not mutually exclusive; all one has to do, for example, is to realize that moral statements need not be prescriptive. Non-presciptive moral statements? This is an oxymoron.

People often question my contention that, without changing what one usually means by an ethical obligation, atheists do not have a basis for the ethical obligations by which they live. But the reality is far worse; atheists also cannot have a basis for the significance of their lives, their humanity, what sets them apart from animals, or their reason.

"Oh, come on, Win, you're totally exaggerating!"

I wish I were. Please read Michael Martin's Atheism, Morality and Meaning. In his effort to contravene Russell's conclusions, he comes up with the device of postulating a hypothetical, omniscient ideal observer whose feelings determine right and wrong, and so if we stipulate such a being and ask ourselves what this being's feelings would be in any given case, we will have objective knowledge of right and wrong. I'm not sure that Martin's method is coherent, but even if it were, it would be nothing more than an ad hoc and ex post facto invention, not some conclusion to a sound argument.

So, this is Francis Schaeffer's famous diagram: There are two levels of existence for the person without a foundation in the biblical God. On the lower level, he is faced with the logical conclusion of his world view. He starts with no meaning, and he winds up with no meaning. Instead of "meaning," you can also substitute "truth," "justice," or "beauty." But we need those qualities to live if we have reconciled ourselves to Camus's question. And so we leap into the "upper storey," and create meaning apart from reason.

Aldous Huxley, the author of Brave New World was well-known as a skeptic and critic of Christianity. So, where did he wind up? One of his last writings is the booklet The Doors of Perception, in which he describes his experimentation with mescaline and recommends that, in the absence of good reason for religion, one ought to have everyone use this or some other drug to encounter Reality. What, you may ask, was the deep Reality that Huxley found when he was under the influence of mescaline? He discovered that he was one with his trousers.

It may not always be easy to maintain faith in God. But the abdication of my reason and my humanity is far too high a price to pay for giving up on my Lord.