“I don't believe that adultery is wrong!”

Don't ask me how I got into that conversation, I don't remember. I looked the young woman in the eye, and without condemnation (John 8:11) gently said to her 'That's because you want to do it'.  She lifted her hand not quite quick enough to hide her “guilty as charged” smile.

 I heard it said one time that if a man (not the ladies of course) wants to do something he will find a 1,000 reasons to do it. If on the other hand, he does not want to do the very same thing, he will find 1,000 reasons not to do it. Its called rationalization.  

We live in a society that denies that there are absolutes, no real right and wrong, no certainties.  We are told “All truth is relative, there is nothing that is always true at all times and in all places, there are no absolutes.”   Well if there is even one absolute, then the statement is false.  Largo commenting on an earlier post put it this way “There are no absolutes. Are you sure? yes. Are you absolutely sure?”. The point is that if this statement is true, it would be an absolute. So if it were true,  it would be false! So it can't be true ( Reductio ad absurdum).

On top of this, from a practical point of view, we cannot live consistently with this “truth” (all truth is relative). The wife of the man with whom the young woman wanted to commit adultery,  would likely affirm unequivocally that adultery is wrong. If someone breaks into you house and steals your treasure, you will likely not want the judge to let him off because “Stealing is not wrong at all times and in all places”. What about murder or rape or child abuse?  Are these okay sometimes?

I will never be like my dad. Never!

Many who have made vows such as the above,  have later discovered to their horror,  that in spite of the vow, they have become the very thing they determined they would not become. Actually if the truth be known, it is not so much in spite of the vow, but because of it.  What such inner vows do, is to tie our spirit to the very person against who we have made the vow. Its the same with bitterness, bitterness imprisons of us to the memories of what that person has done. In both cases the negative becomes the focus, and is usually destructive. One of the teachings that come out of the principles of Biblical recovery, is that in order to be free, we need to break these ungodly soul ties, things that “knot” us to the other person in unhelpful ways (July 7th's post).

It is the same sort of thing that happens when the rebellious teen leaves home, only to find that though  they left physically, they are still very much (one way or the other) emotionally tied there. “I can't get mum and dad off my mind” -  and its not thoughts of love!

The title of yesterday’s post included the phrase “lovingly untangled”. There is a right way and a wrong way to untangle a knot. The knife should be the absolute last resort. In this throw away society,  it is so often the first. You see when we use the knife, it cuts into both of us, and cuts deeply. In the break up of a marriage it cuts the children too,  and leaves them scarred for life.  In the end not one of us does it completely right. In this respect, some of us fall shorter than others do, but all fall short.  When I think of these things, I thank God for His extravagant forgiveness and restoration.

Two thousand years and more later, modern Psychology is beginning to rediscover,  and to see the need for,  these things. “These things” include  other Biblical principles, such as forgiveness of each other, respect,  gentleness, listening, being willing, as much as is possible within us, to live at peace with all. This stuff is not only right,  it is smart. “If the son shall set you free, you will be free indeed”.

The relationship between the "systems" of the world is “knot” ...... to be lovingly untangled.

The above comment from Largo on an earlier post caught my attention.   We all have this tendency to  think that we  are right (our system is right),  and everyone else his wrong.  In the breakup of a marriage for example, it is common for both sides to lay 100% of the blame the other one.  A counsellor once told me in situations like that,  we both know 10% of the truth, so that 80% of the truth is unknown.

But is it even more complicated than that. The 10% that we do know (if indeed it is that high) is not all truth. Miss-communications, misunderstandings, false conclusions jumped to, lies we tell ourselves in order to survive etc. etc., all form part of this 10%.  I said in an earlier post, none of us has all the truth. Now I am saying that not all that we know (or think we know) is true. In fact it is (often) a (highly tangled) mess.  So “knot” describes it well. How to untangle it? It not easy.  But if we are to draw closer to the truth we will need to learn to listen to each other, and to listen well (its a skill most of us don't have, but need to learn). We will also need to share our feelings (are you listening men?), and be willing to admit that we are wrong. We need to learn to disagree agreeably!

    “Lovingly untangled” says it well for me, treating each other with respect, affording each other dignity,  allowing each other to speak, listening to each other.  And we can and should afford each other dignity because, although in many things we all fail, we are all made in the image of God. This being the case we are all infinitely valuable.  Yes you too. Its not just me saying that (John 3:16). We are not just the by-product of some faceless cosmic accident.  Each one of us is unique and special, and each one of us has a meaningful destiny (Jeremiah 29:11).

"You will search for Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all of your heart".

I said in a previous post that we cannot find God by reason. Well you do not find your significant other by reason, you encountered him or her.  And they become your significant other by allowing you (and you allowing them) to come to know you.  You do it by opening your heart to them and they to you. 

And these relationships work best, when they are exclusive. Its not that you cannot, and should not have other friends, but one man one woman seems to be the way that best satisfies the heart. Shall we say the more significant others you have,  the less significant each one is. In fact, as we are told in the fifth chapter of the book of Ephesians,  the marriage relationship of the Christian is meant to be a picture of our relationship with God.  So then the first commandment is to love God with all your heart and soul and mind and strength, or as the Decalog has it,  the first commandments is to have no other gods.

Western gods are different from the gods of Bible times. I heard a sermon one time which outlined four prison guards that keep us from God (four idols if you like). They are:- People,  Possessions, Power (control)  and Procrastination (putting it off) 

It amazed me how negative some of my friends were to my conversion (going on 40 years ago), materialism is well known to be where we put our hearts, given our  rugged north American individualism control is also a biggie, and then which one of us does not put things off?

My own conversion came only when I became desperate enough to try anything. I was devastated over the separation from my daughter, she in England and I here in Canada.  It came to me over and over 'You don't have to love her'. “Yes I do, she is my daughter and if I don't love her in this God forsaken world (which is how I thought of it), who will?” So over and over I would choose to love her. It was like hitting my head against a brick wall. In the end it took the good right out of  me, and I became desperate enough to try even God.

 We are invited to “Taste and see that the Lord is good”. I was desperate enough to try anything for sure, but if it had not been real it would never have held me. He is real, and He is good, but both before and  after conversion, we can allow things to come in and crowd Him out (or keep him out ). Or as the Bible puts it,  “the cares of this world, the deceitfulness of riches, and the desires for other things entering in choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful”.

He wants us to love Him and to seek Him with all of our heart. We seek Him with our reason too, that is what loving Him with our mind is all about. We may discover things about Him with our mind, but it is in the heart that we find Him. He is not interested in limp (unresponsive) lovers, neither probably are you.

The faith of the atheist

We were sitting in the Faculty club,  discussing his atheism. 'I believe there is no god'.  “What would it take to change your mind?” I asked him. 'Well if the sun went down 10 degrees I would believe', he said.  “Would you” I asked him, “would you really?”.  He thought for a minute and then said 'No, I would find some other explanation for it'.  “You have a lot of faith”, I told him, “and you said it yourself 'I believe there is no God' ”. His faith of course is not the same as mine. His faith, his belief, is in “not God”.  That is after all what the word 'atheist' means. 

Certainly not all atheists are as unyielding as my friend, but this (true) story does illustrate how easily, on both sides of the fence,  we tend to (a) argue from our presuppositions  and (b)  to dig in.  I think we need to be aware of our presuppositions and, if our faith is not to be blind, to be willing to reexamine them.  Admittedly this is hard, again on both sides of the fence.  It would be less confusing if there were just two positions, but there are many voices all claiming to be truth!

Now while I am not saying that my friend is representative of all atheists, I am saying that in the end, all atheists hold to their position by faith.  But it is not just the atheist whose world views are held by faith.  In fact we all have world views, and each and every one of them (including mine) are positions of faith.  A world view of course is a subset of all the things we have come to believe about reality. A helpful list some of the things  I am taking about can be found at

http://www.gregcaughill.com/theology-wiki/christian-apologetics/53-worldviews.html.

 It seems however as  though most people are unaware they possess  a World view, but most arguments have their roots in conflicting worldviews, for example  abortion, the secular verses the religious etc.  To say it again, many are not aware of their presuppositions. The famous Oxford Professor Richard Dawkins for example, is a man of great faith, though I believe that he would adamantly deny it. He is quoted as saying “I believe that eventually we will be able to explain everything in terms of the  natural”. When asked what evidence he had for this belief, he had to admit that he had  none.

Perhaps then, since we all hold our positions by faith we should be a little more tolerant of each other's views.  In fact one more implication of the work of  Kurt Godel (see yesterday's post), is that  there is no system that has all the answers be it Philosophical, Psychological or Theological.  Yes not even, or perhaps for emphasis especially not even Christians, have all the answers. What does the Scripture say? “Let him who thinks that he knows something, acknowledged that he knows nothing yet as he aught to know” (more later on this).

I will not believe in, or accept anything that cannot be verified by one of the five senses!

Since most would affirm that you cannot verify God by any of the fives senses, this of course excludes Him. 

Suppose you were to ask one who sought to live their lives by the above philosophy, on what rational  basis do they do this. You can be sure that any valid reason they may give you,  will not be based on the fives senses.  In other words, it would eventually become clear that they do,  in the end,  accept something other than the five senses. In a similar way those who believe that  “reason is the unique pathway to knowledge” will not, by reason,   be able to give you a valid reason why he or she does this. It would be circular reasoning.

You might ask how can I be so sure. Have I for example heard all possible arguments? Well no,  of course not, but what I do know, is that it would violate a theorem of the Austrian Mathematician Kurt Godel. Without going into this in detail, his theorem implies that no system of any sophistication is closed.  What this means is that you cannot prove the validity of the system from within. In mathematics we have systems based on axioms, such as Euclidean geometry.  You use the axioms as presuppositions and based on the assumption that these things hold true, you prove things. But you cannot prove the axioms. This is not to say that the axioms could not be proved from outside the system.  But to prove them from within the system would be circular reasoning.

On  the other hand  Godel's theorem has implications for just about all the systems we would normally consider. This includes the various philosophical systems, science, the systematic theologies, etc etc.  Godel's theorem tells us, that if we want to know if our system is valid, we need to go outside the system to validate it.  In other words all these systems are based on, often hidden,  presuppositions.  These, if we are to arrive at the truth,  need to be sussed out and discussed.

I hear  many such “disproofs” of God.

Is Reason is the unique pathway to knowledge?

I will say more about this in the coming days, but for now, I want to make a bold statement that modern man (mankind,  womankind) is a multidimensional creature living in a multidimensional environment but more often than not operating out of but a single dimension.   Western man's emphasis on the rational is just one such path. 

There are actually three components to how we know. I give them below, but I want to refer to this as an example of a  trinity, which I need to explain. By trinity (lower case “t”), I mean a (pale) reflection of Trinity (uppercase T, referring to orthodox Christian doctrine of the Godhead - more later). 

The word trinity is useful, if we define it to imply unity in diversity. Thus my “trinities” will have three interconnected components that make the trinity  incomplete (or even nonsense) if we omit even one of the components.   I think a trinity as a three legged stool, if we take away one leg we no longer have a stool.

The three components to how we know are reason, intuition and experience. Western thought,  especially academia is dominated by rationality, as are certain Church groupings. But many are dominated by experience. In terms of the inner healing which is my passion, it is especially negative experiences that dominate. Finally, still others are dominated by intuition. Then there are the pairings, i.e. dominated by experience and intuition, but excluding reason etc. I am claiming that in order to have balance, we need all three.

A neutral (nonthreatening) example of how the three ways of knowing are interrelated is mathematical. I teach (point set) Topology – in many ways an extension (generalization) of calculus.  What I find though, is that the student's experience of calculus, often gets in the way. It is too narrow, and often leads them down the wrong path. I tell them in addition to reason, you need to re-educate your too narrow intuition.

Einstein on the other hand, had amazing intuition. He tells the story of how he discovered the theory of relativity. He tell that he was laying on a grassy bank gazing at a sunbeam through half closed eyes and wondering what it would be like to ride on a beam of light, when the theory of relativity came to him intuitively. He then went to his lavatory and proved it. Notice the relationship here. On the one hand, it was not by a series of logical steps that he arrived at his conclusion, on the other he needed the logical steps to prove his theory. Another example of intuition is the way that mathematicians (my limited experience)  arrive at theorems. We so often have conjectures (intuitive ideas of what is true), which may or may not be true. We use reason and experience (discovering examples that contradict our guesses of what is true) to arrive at what can be known.

To address the title of this post, I want to say that we will not find God by reason alone.  Reason alone is insufficient to find Him. We can use reason to discover things about Him (admittedly from our presuppositions), but in the end to use a dirty word in some Christian circles, if we are to find Him, then we need to experience Him. I say more on the subject of this post in the next one “I will not believe in, or accept anything that cannot be verified by one of the five senses!”

By the way here is a question with theological implications. 'Do we discover or invent mathematics?'