On The Odd Apparent Disconnect Between Religiousness and Intelligence

There are a great many odd and peculiar ideas in our world. Recently, I was pondering one of the most odd of all of them. Even just the other day, someone responded to one my posts with the entirely off-topic comment:

You seem so intelligent, Silas, therefore, your religiosity puzzles me.

My initial thought upon reading such a comment was, "How could I possibly be intelligent and not be religious?" Of course, the simple fact is that I couldn't be both intelligent and non-religious. There are a great many people who can be intelligent and yet non-religious, but I most certainly am not one of them. Yet, there, in precisely that paradox, is the simple truth revealed. Intelligence has very little to do with the veracity of one's beliefs. Intelligence may be correlated with the complexity and depth of one's worldview, but never with the correctness thereof. The intelligent mind takes the apparent facts that it is confronted with, and formulates the best possible explanation of those facts. Yet, the conclusions that are actually reached are inextricably dependent on the apparent facts that are observed and pondered.

In many ways, the human mind is like any other tool. If you give a man a hammer, he will be quite puzzled how to use it, unless he is also equipped with and familiar with nails. A screwdriver is quite a useless and perplexing tool to one who hasn't seen a screw. Similarly, intelligence is only a practically useful tool to those who are properly trained in how to use it. There are proper ways of thinking and improper ways of thinking. There are correct applications of the mind and incorrect applications. If one uses thinking only to justify erroneous conclusions, then one may be using one's mind, but the justifications that are made are in opposition to reason. If one uses thinking only to prevent future thinking, then one is using intelligence merely to destroy intelligence. For this reason, it is imperative that a person of intelligence not only be intelligent, but also have the wisdom necessary to properly use such intelligence.

Additionally, even supposing that one does possess the needed skills to properly use their intelligence, it remains that there must be suitable material to ponder and reasonable premises with which sound conclusions may be formed. Much as a hammer isn't especially helpful when one only possesses bent nails, and a screwdriver is of no help when one only possesses sheared screws, so intelligence is of little benefit when one is only equipped with faulty premises. And this is precisely the modern plight!

After all, in any case of inquiry, it is certain that there is only one right explanation of a thing, while there are a vast array of wrong explanations. If we were to inquire into why apples fall off trees towards the earth, there are a near infinite number of possible explanations that could be given. Perhaps apples like to be nearer to tree trunks than to tree leaves. Perhaps, apples are overly warm from being in the sun and are drawn towards the cool of shadier places. Perhaps, apples are migratory creatures who seldom stay near their birthplace. Yet, despite the fact that there are a near infinite number of possible explanations, there is one only possible explanation that is both plausible and true. Hence, whenever explanations are offered, there are always infinitely more possible fallacious explanations than true ones. In practice, there are always more real faulty explanations than true ones.

Due to the rise of advanced civilization and the connecting of the globe, ideas have spread faster than at any time prior in human history. The past three hundred years, in fact, have given rise and voice to a variety of major ideas and have propagated them broadly among minds, both great and small. Unfortunately, as error is more plentiful than rightness and lies are more plentiful than truth, many of the ideas that have been broadly accepted are fallacious. More than just being fallacious, a good many of them have more than a quantum of insanity about them. The explanations of many things are, as far as they go, logical and consistent enough. However, that which some such theories (like materialism) leave unexplained is broad enough in scope to leave the explanatory power of such theories utterly deificient. Alternately, that which other theories (like macroevolution) explain is far more than can possibly be deduced from the evidence. Most popularly held modern ideologies possess one of those two flaws: either they explain far too little, or they explain far too much.

Logic dictates that when proper syllogisms are used in conjunction with valid premises, the conclusions that follow are similarly valid. However, logic also dictates that even when using proper syllogisms, if the premises are invalid, the conclusions that logically follow are also invalid. The problem with modern thought is that much of our collective body of conclusions rest upon foundational conclusions and premises that are faulty, and provably so. Once a few faulty conclusions were reached and accepted as valid, they then began to be utilized as foundational premises for the derivation of further conclusions. Now, we find ourselves with an entire cathedral of thought, marvelously constructed, with remarkable ornamention. Yet, the cathedral is built upon a foundation of sand. Nearly a century has passed since we passed beyond what Francis Schaeffer termed the Line of Despair, where the abandonment of reason began in earnest, and hopelessness in any quest for truth became prevalent. In F. Scott Fitzgerald's first novel, This Side of Paradise, published in 1920, he brilliantly captures the essence of his generation with this memorable quote:

Here was a new generation, shouting the old cries, learning the old creeds, through a revery of long days and nights; destined finally to go out into that dirty gray turmoil to follow love and pride; a new generation dedicated more than the last to the fear of poverty and the worship of success; grown up to find all Gods dead, all wars fought, all faiths in man shaken...

That philosophical foundation, which we now call modern thought or existentialism, is founded on precisely those tenets. All Gods are dead, all wars have been fought, all faiths in man have been shaken. There is no ultimate answer to anything. Instead, there exist only disconnected fragments to be discovered. So it has come to pass that the intelligent minds of our day have fed and feasted upon such tenets and the ideological developments that have been built upon those tenets. Yet, we have not stopped long enough to consider whether our presuppositions are true. For this reason, the apparent disconnect between religiousness and intelligence now exists. No one can be intelligent, accept the modern premises, and be religious. Simply stated, if the premises accepted by modern society are valid, then it is thoroughly irrational and unintelligent to be religious. The problem, however, is not one of religion or intelligence, but rather of the premises accepted by modern society. G.K. Chesteron aptly describes such a modern tendency towards blind acceptance of highly debatable tenets, in his book, The Everlasting Man:

...but this habit of a rapid hardening of a hypothesis into a theory and of a theory into an assumption has hardly yet gone out of fashion.

Statements are made so plainly and positively that men have hardly the moral courage to pause upon them and find that they are without support.

With each passing year, as those questionable inferences continue to be taken for granted, the pathways of intelligence and religiousness appear to grow even further apart. Yet, the conflict was never between religiousness and intelligence. The wedge that divdes the two is the great body of faulty assumptions that underlie the entire worldview of contemporary Western society. The intelligent but gullible mind of today is logical and rational enough, but since such a mind has a great many misconceptions which are perceived as facts, such a mind is also one that rejects religion prima facie. The intelligent but skeptical mind has either reached the conclusion that religion and mysticism are a necessary part of sane human existence, or yet remains in a state of intellectual limbo. There is no true disconnect between intelligence and religiousness. The apparent division between the two is merely an illusion, widely propagated by misplaced faith in tenets and principles which are highly debatable, at best, or provably false, at worst.

A Time For Everything

The Scripture is full of profound perspective-changing wisdom. This morning, as I was reading through Ecclesiastes, I was struck by how strongly our culture wants to live and view the world in an unrealistically positive light. The realist recognizes and accepts life exactly as it is. He does not rail against the inevitable. He does not deny the need, during different times and in different circumstances, to respond to life in very different ways. As you read this, see if you can grasp what perspective is being offered by Solomon, and what perspective our smiley-face modern culture adopts:

Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

To everything there is a season,
A time for every purpose under heaven:

A time to be born,
And a time to die;

A time to plant,
And a time to pluck what is planted;

A time to kill,
And a time to heal;

A time to break down,
And a time to build up;

A time to weep,
And a time to laugh;

A time to mourn,
And a time to dance;

A time to cast away stones,
And a time to gather stones;

A time to embrace,
And a time to refrain from embracing;

A time to gain,
And a time to lose;

A time to keep,
And a time to throw away;

A time to tear,
And a time to sew;

A time to keep silence,
And a time to speak;

A time to love,
And a time to hate;

A time of war,
And a time of peace.

While the author of these words is seeking to remind his readers that a holistic perspective of life recognizes the necessity and value of each half of the pairings, our culture would prefer to exalt and emphasize only one half of each couplet. We love to dance, but don't take time to mourn. We love to love, but forget that there are appropriate times and places for hate. We love to heal, but harbor an unhealthy aversion to killing. We like to speak, but we aren't very familiar with the discipline of silence. We're big on peace, but are unwilling to fight for what should not be ceded. We like to gain, but not to lose. We love to get paid, but we're not quite as excited about working hard. We build up that which should not be built up and tear down that which should not be torn down. We're quick to hoard and slow to give. In this cruel time, we not only despise death, we also despise birth, hence the modern prevalence of abortion. How unbalanced we have become, in our thinking and views!

Yet, if we wish to live life God's way, in accordance with life as it actually is, we must have our eyes opened to see the value of those things of which our culture bears an irrational aversion towards. Death is not something to be feared, but instead should serve as a reminder that our lives are evanescent and fleeting. We must embrace birth as a joyous occasion to celebrate new life, and we must be grateful that God, in his mercy, allows physical death to serve as a reminder that we are both flawed and eternal beings, and that our existence is not merely physical. We must be brave enough to hate what should be hated, and insightful enough to love what is lovely. We must be courageous enough to kill, when it is called for, as well as to heal, at the right times. War is something that, though terrible, is sometimes necessary, hence we must know when, how and why to fight.

Wisdom recognizes that silence is sometimes the best thing to say, and the best state of the heart. Speaking should come in turn, but we must not always be hasty to speak our minds. We must be industrious in our labors and diligent in our work, so that we may be fully pleased with receiving compensation for our duties. We must learn not just to be consumers, but also to be charitable givers, seeking the good of others. We must recognize that both in our own lives and in the lives of others, there are times for encouragement and times for reproof. We must not be afraid to call others to repentance and offer much-needed correction when appropriate. We must not solely concern ourselves with the pursuit of pleasure, but must also take time to weep and mourn. Those times are necessary and good for the soul.

Where there exists within us a tendency to polarize towards either end of the spectrum, we must seek balance and be in a place where we recognize the value and import of those things that are labeled by our culture as "desirable" as well as those that our culture views as evils to be avoided. Both within ourselves and as members of our society, we must pursue balanced thinking and balanced living. For some, their individual calling may lean towards one side of the spectrum. Yet, such individuals must be cautious they they do not despise or oppose those with an opposite calling. Some people are more skilled at tearing down and some at building up. So long as they both do it in the right way, we must not despise either. Maybe you have a tendency to be strongly vocal about your views. That is a good thing, as long as you properly value the silence of others and take time to be silent, yourself. The pages of Scripture, and the wisdom of the ages teach that there must exist balance. Let us not adopt the unbalanced stances of our present culture.

On Being Dogmatic

For something to be of use, it must have a specific function and specific parameters. This is true of everything in life, whether a pineapple, a music CD, a word, a widget, or a human being. A word is the prime example of the necessity of definition. Imagine, for a moment, a word which has no definition. It can be used as a verb, as a noun, as an adjective, as an adverb, as a conjuntion, as a pronoun or even as a preposition. At first glance, it would appear that such a word would be universally useful. After all, a word that can be used to mean anything can be included in any or even every sentence. However, at second glance the weakness of such a word is revealed--in trying to convey everything, it is suitable to communicate nothing at all. Since this imaginary word has no standard definition, though it can used everywhere, no one can discern what it means. This example reveals that a word is only useful if it conveys a specific thing. The narrower the definition of word, the more clear it communicates the author's intent. The broader the definition of a word, the more room there is for ambiguity and confusion. The definition of a word is what limits its scope and gives it usefulness.

Much in a the same way, human beings have specific parameters. We exist in the physical world with certain bodily dimensions and functions. Likewise, our minds have the capacity to process large quantities of information, both consciously and subconsciously. Using our minds and emotions, we formulate values, beliefs, and personal preferences for and against numerous things. As humans, that which separates us from lower beings is our cognitive capacity. The fact that we can think, ponder, reflect and abstractualize is what makes us human. Those who are most developed as humans, are those who have thought about things and reached definitely conclusions about a broad array of things. While a young and inexperienced person may not especially know what his favorite sort of liquor is, what sort of qualities are desirable in a mate, or what the most reasonable metaphysical stance is, one who is well-developed knows his answer to such questions. In this manner, those who are the most developed in their humanity are those who are the most dogmatic. Those who are not very dogmatic may be human, but they certainly aren't very developed in their humanity.

Any firmly held belief is a dogma. According to the dictionary, a dogma is: something held as an established opinion; especially: a definite authoritative tenet. In this sense, all values, all beliefs about facts, and all established personal preferences are forms of dogma. If I believe that the sun truly exists, that is a piece of dogma. I will unapologetically defend my belief in the existence of the sun to anyone who disagrees. Similarly, if I hold the view that murder is wrong, that is a piece of dogma. If I especially enjoy playing bass and I adamantally dislike asparagus, those are both pieces of dogma that define me as a person.

There are two ways that a person can avoid becoming dogmatic over the course of time. The first way is to adopt a whimsical flippancy to one's stances and to alter them frequently. Such a person loves the color red one week and hates it the next. Such a person flits about, perhaps going from job to job without ever settling on one, perhaps going from lover to lover and never committing to one, or perhaps trying various hobbies but never whole-heartedly choosing one of them. Their preferences and tastes change constantly, and so their soul never becomes more defined. The main thing that defines the flippant person is the constanty of the chaos and disorder in their life.

The second way to avoid becoming dogmatic is to refuse to define oneself, out of timidity. Such a person is afraid to choose a religion, because such a choice necessarily entails a rejection of all other religions. Such a person is afraid to marry one person, because such a choice leaves him no longer free to marry another. Such a person doesn't choose a favorite color, since that would imply the existence of many other, wonderful, non-favorite colors. Since every choice involves a necessary and inseparable rejection of all other available options, the timid person avoids formulating fixed values and beliefs. This person values openmindedness and tolerance above personal development.

While openmindedness and tolerance are almost never practiced by those who pride themselves on such traits, it remains that neither openmindedness, nor tolerance are traits worth pursuing. A person who is truly openminded has quite nearly stripped himself of his humanity. A person who is insufficiently dogmatic demonstrates an utter apathy towards all that exists and towards all that is done. A truly openminded person will say, "I care not whether he commits murder." A truly openminded person will say, "I don't care whether you give me chocolate or vanilla." A truly openminded person will say, "I do not care whether she commits adultery." Thankfully, there are very few people who are truly openminded. Those who typically describe themselves as openminded and tolerant, are neither especially openminded nor are they especially tolerant. They are often quite dogmatic, themselves.

To be dogmatic is simply to believe fully in what one believes, whatever that may be. There is certainly right dogma and wrong dogma, but their is nothing intrinsically harmful about being dogmatic. On the contrary, there is something quite worthy and respectable about being dogmatic. To be dogmatic is simply to be assertive in one's beliefs. If one is opposed to murder, such a stance is of no value unless one is quite dogmatic about it. The only humane stance to adopt is, "I believe that murder is always wrong, and nothing will change my mind on the matter." Similarly, the sufficiently developed man will also be unafraid to say, "That man is a murderer, and therefore is worthy of death, because he has wrongfully killed someone. None shall convince me otherwise." Not only that, but a person's dogma will always lead him to being a judgmental sort of person. His dogma itself approves of certain actions and condenms others. Even those who preach against "closemindedness" and "judgmentalism" are quite closeminded and judgmental. The man who says, "There is nothing wrong with homosexuality," and, "It is wrong and unjust to call homosexuality a sin," is quite as closeminded and judgmental as the man who condemns homosexuality, because he is precisely as dogmatic. One man is dogmatically for homosexuality and the other man is dogmatically against it. One man is intolerant of those who judge homosexuals and the other is intolerant of those who practice homosexuality. Now, it may be that one of the men is right in his dogma and the other isn't, but it certainly can't be said that either is less dogmatic. Anyone who is even remotely human is quite dogmatic about a good number of things.

In order to be more fully human, and more defined as a human, every person must pursue dogmatism. That is, every single person should continually seek to more clearly define precisely what he believes, and seek to hold his beliefs with more and more certainty. Let each man be thoroughly convinced in his own mind, that his position is the right one. Ideally, let his position actually be the right one. Each man should be not easily swayed in his beliefs, since they should rest soundly on a great deal of evidence and experience. Each man should be prepared to give a defense for anything that he firmly stands for, and should live in accordance with his own doctrines. Our beliefs, values and preferences are what defines us, as human beings.

All people are religious beings, including the sort that are religious in an irreligious sort of way. Let our spirituality be something that is clearly defined and our practice of it be practical and definite. All people are philosophizing beings, including the sort that are philosophical in an unphilosophical sort of way. Let out philosophies be well thought-out, mentally rehearsed and firmly believed. All people are moral beings, including the sort that are moral in the most immoral sorts of ways. Let our code of ethics have a sharpness and consistency that is worthy of being respected and followed. All people are aesthetic beings, including the sort that appreciates aesthetics in a very unaesthetic manner. Let our artistic tastes and preference be refined and specific. The dogmatic individual is the most developed one, for he knows who he is, what he believes, what he loves, and what he hates.

To say that one likes all wines is simply to reveal a lack of a developed palette, but to say that one possess a keen fondness for merlot and a sharp distaste for chardonnay displays a preference that is more complete. To say that one loves all types of women is merely to say that one hasn't figured out which sort he likes best. To say that all religions are good and have their place is to reveal a lack of knowledge of religion or an unwillingness to define oneself, whereas the fanatically religious individual knows exactly what he believes. To say that one likes doing everything simply means that one hasn't discovered which things he especially enjoys or dislikes, whereas to state with certainty that one loves playing basketball and driving fast cars is to reveal a more complete personality. As humans, we are defined both by that which we like and that which we dislike, by that which we firmly believe and by that which we highly doubt, by that which we passionately love and that which we fervently hate.

If there is one thing that all people should aim value for, it is a deeper dogmatism. Let us be dogmatic in everything. Let us be right in everything. Let us ensure that whatever beliefs we hold align with reality and yield good fruit. Once that is done, let us hold those beliefs with unshakable certitude. Those who are firmly dogmatic and well-developed in their selection of dogma are capable of enjoying life the most and making the most impact on the world. Just like a word, no human can be very great or effective unless he is sufficiently defined.

A Reflection of Your Soul

For quite a while, I have been fascinated by the concept of self-fulfilling prophecies. A self-fulfilling prophecy is something that comes to pass by virtue of a person believing in the validity of the prophecy. Because of belief in whatever has been prophesied, a person acts in such a way that the prophecy is fully realized. Another interesting psychological phenomenon is the confirmation bias, whereby a person tends to notice information that supports a given theory or hypothesis that they have. When you combine these two concepts, you find there there is a very real and exceedingly powerful psychological and sociological impact to one's beliefs. Whatever a person believes begins to come true because they believe it, and they find their view reinforced by the information that they observe after having begun to adopt a certain perspective.

For quite some time now, I have pondered the implications of such a realization. Is it really true that a person's beliefs about any given area of life profoundly impacts the way they act in response to such beliefs? Is it really true that a person often finds strong evidence in support of their current theory of life? Is it really true that one's actions actually instigate and perpetuate that which is believed to be true? In looking at reality and the way people view their world, I have come to this realization:

A person's experience of life is primarily determined by the way they view life.

I have seen this at play numerous times in my own life and countless times in the lives of others. Very frequently I find that my expectations for the day, when I arise in the morning, become true. When I wake up and think, "Today is going to be very refreshing and enjoyable," by the end of the day, I find myself quite refreshed and content. When I wake up and think, "Today is going to be a very productive day," I find that I am able to accomplish even more than I usually would. Yesterday, I woke up with a headache and thought, "I'm probably going to feel awful all day," and sure enough, my headache persisted throughout the day and even sapped my energy before evening. I felt awful enough that I almost canceled my evening activities.

Similarly, I've seen how much my beliefs have impacted my success in dating, job hunting, and playing music. For a while, after reading too many cynical opinions about modern American girls, I began to believe that there weren't any quality girls worth dating. Because of that mindset, I went on far fewer dates, and even those dates that I did go on didn't turn out as well as I would have liked. However, when a friend pointed out the truth to me that, "There are plenty of great girls to date," I began pursuing girls more assertively and quickly found out that he was right. Work projects are exactly the same. Sometimes, when given a task, I think to myself, "This project is going to take a TON of work." When I hold that mindset, I feel little motivation to put serious effort into accomplishing the task, and my belief that the task is difficult ensures that it takes longer than it otherwise would. But, when I tell myself, "This project should be easy, it will just take a couple hours of effort," I can even complete challenging projects in short amounts of time. Many times, it's even the same project that first seems insurmountable and then is accomplished with minimal effort when I change my mindset.

In this manner, nearly every mindset that one has, so long as there is any degree of truth in it (and even in some cases when there isn't), is self-perpetuating and self-reinforcing. Wisely is it written in the pages of Scripture, "To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled." One's experience of the world is largely determined by one's beliefs about the world. To the cynic, there is an endless supply of things to be cynical about. To the adventurous soul, everything is an adventure. To the bored, everything seem boring. To the comedic, anything can be made into a joke. To the wise, wisdom can be gleaned anywhere. To the foolish, wisdom is of no use. To those who admire beauty, there is beauty all around. To those who believe in determinism, freewill is more elusive than leprechauns. To the religious, God is omnipresent. To the atheist, god is nonexistent. To the philosopher, everything is worth pondering. To the common man, life isn't worth overthinking. And on and on it goes...

But, as mentioned above, one's views on life don't end in one's brain. They actually affect one's life and the world around. As such, there is another principle we can derive from this concept:

Nearly every aspect of a person's life is a reflection of their soul.

Since one's view about life inform their decision making process, and since most beliefs about life tend to be self-fulfilling, we see that almost every single part of a person's life is a direct result of choices they've made, which is directly influenced by how they view the world. The outward trappings of a person's life reflect the condition of that person's soul. Everything says something about you. What do the clothes she wears convey about her body image? What do his 70-hour workweeks say about what he most values? Why is she with a different guy, everytime I see her? Why is he so adamantly opposed to religion? What do her manipulative ways of treating people say about her perception of people? Why does he drive a beat-up old car? Of course, the externals never tell the whole story, but they often reveal more than people realize. Those who are good at reading people know how much a person's body language and eye contact testify to their perception of themself and of their perceived social relation to others. Similarly, you can learn a lot about a person by knowing where they live, who their friends are, what books they read and why they work where they do. There is always an internal reason for every external part of a person's life.

Moving to the more personal level, I find that this it often helps me to ask myself why certain people or things are the way the are in my life. Why do I choose not to have health insurance? Because I'd rather take tough blows when they occur rather than constantly be paying money to big corporations. Why do I spend time with my siblings so often? Because I highly value my familial relationships and genuinely enjoy spending time with my family. Why do I skip breakfast and typically only eat two meals a day? Because I prefer to sleep in and I'd rather save money on food, especially since I'm not very economical about my eating habits. Why don't I change my eating habits to be more economical? Because I prefer to spend my time on artistic endeavors and social activities, and therefore I'm willing to spend more for convenience. Why do I write blogs? Because I love to think about various issues, formulate specific stances on them and share my opinions with others.

Occasionally, I like to ask myself a series of such semi-random questions to see why certain aspects of my life are they way they are. When I realize that everything I eat, everywhere I go, everything I own, everyone I spend time with and even everything I think are all a reflection of my soul, then I can use my external life as a starting point for analyzing my internal beliefs and views. Whenever I find an area of life that isn't quite the way I want it to be, I take action. If I have a belief that is hindering me or limiting my effectiveness in any given area (such as in my dating life, or with my work projects, as mentioned above), I stop to analyze my thinking in order to see how my present beliefs are holding me back. Similarly, when I see issues in other people's external lives, I always know that there are beliefs they hold beneath the surface that are manifesting those issues. Alternately, when there is something in my life that is going really well, it's quite helpful to ask myself, "What belief is causing this aspect of my life to flourish?" Likewise, when I see some trait I admire in another person, I instantly realize that I can develop a similar trait by adopting a similar view.

The double-edged nature of external manifestation means that we always must be very careful to guard our thoughts and to guard our hearts. Certain beliefs and mindsets are extremely destructive to the soul. Certain beliefs and mindsets are life-giving and inspiring. Just as with judging people, it is wise to determine the worth of an idea or belief by its fruits. Wholesome views and beliefs always yield positive results in one's life. Detrimental views harms ourselves and others. We must continually be on our guard against toxic ideologies, and we must continually seek to graft nourishing viewpoints into our hearts. Proverbs 4:23 says, "Keep your heart with all diligence, for out of it spring the issues of life." That the issues of life spring from the heart is not merely a poetic use of metaphor, it is the simple, practical truth. Whatever is in your heart becomes part of your world. Your experience of life is primarily dependent on the condition of your heart. The various aspects of your life are a reflection of your soul.

The Rational Case For Christianity - Morality

Previously, in my introduction to The Rational Case for Christianity, I established the criteria that we will use to determine if Christianity is a true and practically viable worldview. For it to be valid, it must be able to account for any aspect of reality or life and leave no contradictions. In the realm of morality, we are confronted with philosophical questions regarding the existence and nature of good and evil. These questions have been pondered for centuries, and are inescapably critical in considering human existence and human interactions. While morality is a fairly broad subject, it is certainly a narrower field than epistemology or metaphysics. As such, it is not especially hard to look at the basic questions and the various possible answers to each. We will examine the basic questions of morality and ascertain which answers are the most rational, logical and consistent with our experience of reality.

The first question we must ask concerning morality is whether good and evil actually exist. At this point, we will not concern ourselves with what is meant by "good" and "evil," only with whether they, by any definition, exist. There are two possible answers to this question:

1 - Good and evil do not truly exist
2 - Good and evil do truly exist

In considering the first answer, we find that such an answer, while theoretically possible, is not consistent with the human experience of the reality. Every human being, from time immemorium, has always firmly believed that certain things are reasonable courses of action and that there are also evils to be opposed, decryed or resisted. Whether expressed through conventional expressions of morality such as laws and social contracts against murder and thievery, whether expressed as mourning over natural evils, such as disasters which exact their toll on human life, or whether expressed in terms of values, all people in all times have firmly believed that certain things are good and certain things or actions are evil. Even philosophers who border on denying the existence of evil, such as Nietzsche, firmly advocate certain things as desirable and oppose certain things (in Nietzsche's case, conventional morality) as evil and restrictive. So long as it is agreed that certain actions and states of being are desirable and other actions or states of being are undesirable, there is universal human consensus that good and evil, in some form, are not non-existent.

A possible objection to this might arise from those who claim, on the basis of metaphysics, that both good and evil are illusory--they are false constructs. There are several major worldviews which might proffer such as answer. Materialism, denying the existence of all thing non-physical, would suggest that there is only an "is" and no "ought." Since the natural world is silent on matters such as murder, lying, adultery and death, it might be reasoned that good and evil don't truly exist, except as empty terms to express human approval. Pantheistic religions offer the answer that all diversity is ultimately illusory. Their conception of good and evil is well depicted by the symbol of the yin-yang, which represents the truth that ultimately good and evil are just different aspect of the the same thing, and that there is no real difference between the two. For that reason, enlightened ones in such religions seek to equally avoid both good and evil, in order to achieve zero karma. While these might seem to be pertinent objections, it yet remains that from time immemorium, even those who claim that good and evil don't exist live their lives as if they do. They still proclaim certain actions and states as desirable and others as undesirable. Clearly, those who deny the existence of good and evil are in denial of their own thoughts and feelings on the matter. As such, any worldview that denies the existence of good and evil is practically incompatible with human experience. Since these sorts of answers deny a clear and obvious aspect of reality, they are irrational.

The second answer to our question, that good and evil, in some form, do exist, is the only rational, logical answer that is consistent with the human experience of reality. As such, the next moral question we must address is, what form do good and evil take? There are two possible categories of answers to such a question:

1 - Good and evil are subjectively defined
2 - Good and evil are objectively defined

Answer number 1 is the general consensus of our day. Modern humanistic morality espouses the idea that morals are a function of social groups. According to the humanistic myths, morals emerged as groups of people began to form, and agreements were reached concerning what behaviors were socially acceptable and which were not. The social construct theory of morality essentially postulates that whatever actions are viewed as socially unacceptable by a societal majority are labeled as "wrong" or "evil," and whatever actions are socially approved and endorsed are labeled as "right" or "good." While this approach does clearly delineate and define morals, it also serves to trivialize them. If morals are subjectively defined, then they only represent the opinions of those who define them. The social construct theory takes a democratic approach to defining morality. Nietzsche would advocate a meritocratic approach to defining morality, wherein the enlightened philosophers are established as the societal lawgivers who create their own values and then impose such restrictions upon the dependent masses. There are numerous other arrangements for defining morality, but they all share the same intrinsic weakness.

With any form of subjectively morality, right and wrong become trivialized and bear no more significance than culinary preferences. I will explain. When good and evil are defined by any person or group of people, it is their moral motions that become the overriding force. Yet, what exactly is a moral motion? It is nothing more than a personal preference for certain actions, things and states of affairs and against other acctions, things and states of affairs. As such, when it is said that murder is "wrong," nothing more is meant than the person or group defining morality has a distaste for murder. If the declaration that murder is "wrong" means that murder is merely distasteful to a person or group, then it is akin to a person's or group's taste for broccoli or asparagus. If moral motions are merely personal preferences, then the declaration that stealing is evil carries equal weight to the declaration that one strongly dislikes garlic. As human experience quite easily shows, people have widely divergent tastes in food. Some people enjoy foods which others loathe. Some people have no strong feelings about any sort of dish or herb. Some people love garlic, others tolerate it and still others won't come within a mile of it. Now, if some people enjoy garlic, is it at all reasonable for a person or group to deny them such a priviliege? Similarly, if there are a number of people who especially enjoy adultery or stealing, is it at all reasonable for a person or group to deny them such a pleasure? This is the weakness of any form of subjective morality: unless a certain moral motion is universally held, the very definitions of good and evil are unreasonably restrictive and oppressive. Even a cursory glance at humanity will instantly reveal that no moral motion or culinary preference is universally held.

The other major problem with subjective morality is that it is inconsistent with the human existence. Any person who truly subscribes to subjective morality must willfully conform to the prevailing code of morality as established by the defining person or group. As such, it is unreasonable to cast any sort of moral judgment that opposes the socially-established morality or to cast a moral judgment on a group that conforms to a different code of morality. If morality is subjectively defined, then it stands that no action is objectively right or wrong. The rightness or wrongness of any given action is solely subject to the localized code of ethics that governs it. This means that so long as the moral authority of a social group or nation endorses certain actions, they must be considered moral by all people at all times as morally good. If Hitler's Germany declares the Jews to be evil and endorses killing Jews, then so long as morals are subjectively defined, we in modern America have no place to declare that the Holocaust was wrong or evil. If an action is subjectively good within its own moral context, then given that fact that there is no objective moral standards, there is no room for anyone to cast a judgment of their own. To do so is akin to declaring to the garlic-lover, "Because I dislike garlic, your love for garlic is evil and reprehensible!" Such a statement is ridiculous and presumptious!

It is this very sentiment that renders subjective morality inconsistent with human existence. Each person firmly believes that certain actions and states of being are undesirable, not only for himself, but for all others. We truly feel that genocide is something which is evil and unconscionable, regardless of who endorses mass killings. We truly believe that stealing is objectively wrong, even if we claim that morals are subjectively defined. The moral motions of each person are so strong that no person will accept subjective morality, unless they themselves are in the defining group and are free to inflict their will upon others. Subjective morality declares that each person's taste in actions is equally valid (although the moral authority's opinion on the matter is a little more equal than everyone else's), and this contradicts every moral fiber of a person's being. Subjective morality declares that people's actions are of no more import than steamed brussel sprouts, while human beings strongly believe that actions are not trivial and do matter very much. It is quite clear, then, that no person truly believes in subjective morality. This answer is one that, while logical, is utterly unlivable and inconsistent with the day to day living of any human being, living or dead.

Answer number 2, by necessity, is the only answer that establishes any real basis for human morality, and it is the only one that can be consistent with human living. For good and evil to exist and have any real meaning or practical applicability, morality must be objectively defined. Morality must be something that is transcendent and universal, else it lacks any strength or usefulness of any sort. If we say that murder is evil, we must mean that it is objectively wrong for all people, at all times, in all places, else we are saying nothing at all. If we say that adultery is evil, we must mean that it is a objectively reprehensible action, regardless of one's ability to avoid getting caught, one's social status or one's present life circumstances. Morality must be objective to be a meaningful concept. If it is anything less then objective, then morality is just a semantic game, lacking any real authority or practical application. The only logical, rational conclusion that can be reached is that humans have real moral motions and feelings because good and evil exist and are objectively defined.

Given that good and evil exist, by some definition, and that good and evil must be objectively defined to be concepts of any merit or usefulness, this leads us to our third question. By what standard or standards are good and evil objectively defined?

1. Good and evil are defined by the universe itself
2. Good and evil are self-defined
3. Good and evil are defined by a transcendent, infinite, personal being

Answer number 1, while an interesting conjecture, leaves us with a poor and utterly incomplete definition of both good and evil. Some may suggest that morals can be derived from the physical universe and its attributes alone. Many people who subscribe to empirical philosophies believe that through a thorough and proper study of our physical universe and material existence humans can arrive at a solid set of moral precepts which set appropriate limits on human behavior. Contention with this point of view clearly arises in modern philosophy. Immanuel Kant clearly illustrated the problem with deriving morals from nature itself by revealing the simple truth that one can never derive an "ought" from an "is". More simply put, while observations of nature can reveal a good number of things about a given state of affairs, one can find no judgments made by nature concerning such a state. When a mouse is eaten by a quick and cunning cat, nature says no more than that the cat has eaten the mouse and that the mouse is now dead. It says nothing about whether it is good that the mouse has been eaten or whether it is good that the cat has had a satisfying supper. The universe is perfectly silent over whether lying, murder, deception, torture, stealing, fornication, or rape are desirable or undesirable actions. As such, nature is an insufficient basis for objective morality. Nature is completely silent concerning all moral issues.

Answer number 2, if true, would lead to moral standards that are incommunicable. Since communication of any sort necessitates a comminucator, good and evil as mere concepts, cannot be both self-defined and communicable. As such, while there is the hypothetical possibility that trascendent concepts of good and evil exist independently of all else (including any divine beings), such self-defined concepts would also be functionally useless, given that no beings would know the definitions of good and evil. Additionally, there is the epistemic problem of any non-infinite independent concept. For any concept or piece of knowledge to be reliable or intelligible, it is necessary for it to be explained by a infinite reference point. If good and evil exist as independent and self-defined concepts, then they do not exist within the framework of an infinite reference point, and since the concepts of morality are implicitly non-infinite themselves, there is no possible way to understand such concepts, since they are floating conceptions without any means of being explained. In my next essay on epistemology, I will explain this concept in fuller detail. As a small example of this concept, how does one know what is meant when I say "The sky is blue," unless there is a reference point which explains what is meant by the words, "the," "sky," "is," and "blue." Without the higher concept of the English language and common linguistic definitions, there is no way to determine what is meant by a certain array of colored dots on a screen or printed ink blots on a page. In a similar way, without a infinite concept to explain what is meant by good and evil, even if they are self-existent concepts, they bear no more significance or meaning that a cacophony of sounds, a jumble of letters or a smattering of random colors. This answer, while theoretically possible, would means that morality is unintelligible and incommunicable. Since such concepts are incompatible with practical living and human existence, it is clear that such an answer is a wholly unsatisfactory one, even neglecting the fact that there is an utter absence of evidence in support of it.

Answer number 3, then is the only possible answer which leaves us with a foundation upon which morals exist objectively, are intelligible, and bear real moral meaning. It is necessary not merely that good and evil truly exist, but that they have objective meaning in the light of an infinite point of reference and that they are communicable. There are a few religions that postulate the existence of a transcendent, infinite, personal being who sets the moral standards for human behavior--namely those of the Abrahamic religions. There is little need to going into much detail on the various moral differences between Judaism, Islam and Christianity, since our findings in the realms of metaphysics preclude Islam from being a sufficient explanation, even if it provides a satisying moral foundation (which it doesn't), and because Judaic and Christian morality are essentially identical.

Christianity, unlike any other worldview, provides a full and clear disclosure on morality. It testifies that the real God who exists has ordained certain limits on human behavior, which are not merely suggestions, but are real moral laws. It speaks to the nature of humans, who are real, free-willed moral agents, capable of both great good and horrific evils. The Bible very specifically spells out moral laws for humans, including an organizational hierarchy of which moral laws are most important and which are less important. God transparently delineates the consequences for failing to abide by His moral precepts. In the doctrine of Original Sin, a clear picture of the present moral state of mankind is painted for us: though humans were created sinless in the image of God, as a species we have chosen to violate God's real moral laws and therefore bear real moral guilt before the God who exists and who judges all human actions. Because of the fall of man, every human being is born into the world with a sinful nature, which is, a propensity to choose evil and to rejects God's ways and God's truth. Christianity also sets forth a solution to the moral dilemma of man in the propitiary sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. From start to finish, Christianity explains why all people have strong moral sentiments, and testifies that morals are not merely social constructions, personal preferences or sociological averages, but are a reflection of God's divine precepts, written on the hearts of every living person and communication through the Holy Bible.

On such a basis alone is it possible to declare that certain actions are righteous and other actions are evil. Apart from the existence of the objective morality preached by Christianity, it is impossible to decry the murder of innocents, the exploitation of the weak, the evils of corruption, the injustices of tyranny or the wickedness of pride. If man's moral motions are merely random remnants of genetic mutations, then they are meaningless illusions meant to muddle our minds. If morals are relative and differ from individual to individual, then there is no adequate basis for judging human action or legislating codes of ethics. The universal human belief in desirable and undesirable states of being is not simply the product of accidental neural collisions in the synapses of our brains--instead, it is the reflection of the transcendent truth of the existence of real moral standards as created and communicated by God. Only if good and evil truly exist and are objectively defined, universal, knowable concepts does the commandment, "Thou shalt not murder," have any power or authority. If it is merely the preference of a few odd conglomerations of atoms, then it is a relative truth which doesn't actually apply to any atoms at all. But, if "Thou shalt not murder" is the moral precept of an infinite God, then it is powerful and profound.

Summary
As stated in my introductory essay, any worldview that declares to be the truth must perfectly match all the evidence of reality. The existence of the moral motions universally felt by humans is a part of reality that must be explained. The Eastern religions ultimately deny the reality of morality, because the deny the reality of human life. Denial of plain truths is irrational. Similarly, attempts to deny the existence of morals contradict everything that is known about human experience. Alternately, attempts to explain morals as relative concepts fall on their face, since they are impractical, exceptionally weak and unable to be consistently held. Consequently, the only logical, rational explanation for the moral motions universally held by human beings is that there truly exist both good and evil, as defined by an objective standard. The Judeo-Christian tradition is the only worldview that offers an objective and communicable basis for morality, as it is the only worldview that attests to an infinite-personal being that exists, is intrinsically relational, speaks truly, and has established a specific set of moral precepts which are binding and authoritative. All other worldviews either deny the validity of the human conceptions of good and evil or contradict the obvious experience of every living person. As such, the only logical, rational conclusion to reach, concerning morality, is that Christianity has the best explanation for the moral motions of humans, since it fully explains the reason for the existence of morals, the objective moral standards that exist, and man's moral dilemma, while simultaneously contradicting none of the evidence of reality.

Individuality Is Real

Earlier today, I was reading a a piece which asserted that women are all the same. In the second part of the piece, 11minutes explained how he had come to the realization that no person truly is unique. In his own words:

It was then that my idea of being a unique individual crumbled. If there was anything that I would have used to "prove" that I am different form anyone else around me, it would have been the one way in which I (thought) I expressed my youthful individuality: my eclectic collection of music.
And it had failed.

But accepting that you are just one of the many, replaceable as any other individual that lives and has ever lived is just part of the realization. The even bigger, more shocking insight is gained by realizing the lack of uniqueness by those who surround you

While I do partially agree with 11minutes concerning one point that he is making, namely that people often aren't as unique as they think they are, I strongly disagree with his stance that no person is a unique individual. He points to the similarities between him and others as evidence that there is no ultimate difference between his personality and that of other remarkably similar people. I don't deny that there often is broad overlap in the aesthetic tastes of similar people. I don't deny that there are certain types of people in the world. However, even a 99% correlation between individuals wouldn't deny the existence of unique personality, or the possibility of offering a unique contribution to the world. My argument isn't one that is intuitive, so I will use several examples. A surface analysis would suggest that 1% divergence is a very small thing, and not statistically significant. However, I would suggest that even a seemingly small divergence can lead to a monumental practical difference.

While it was originally suggested that chimpanzee DNA and human DNA have a 98.6% correlation, newer findings suggest that there is actually only a 95% correlation. Yet, that 5% difference makes a world of difference! That 5% difference is the difference between surfing the web and splashing around in streams. It's the difference between enjoying hot fudge sundaes and eating bananas. It's the difference between wearing a nice tuxedo and being eternally naked. It's the difference between sleeping in a queen-size bed with soft pillows and colorful comforters and sleeping in a fresh bed of leaves every night. That seemingly small number makes a world of difference! I'm quite glad for the 5% of my DNA that differs from that of a chimpanzee.

Similarly, the moon is about 238,857 miles away from the earth, and has a diameter of 2,159 miles. Both of those numbers are exceedingly important. If there was even a 3% variation in the size of the moon or in the distance of the earth from the moon, life on earth would be unsustainable. If the moon was larger or closer to the earth, tides would be so forceful and wild that constant tsunamis and flood would be the default state of our planet. The violent motion of the oceans would make earth uninhabitable for humans and animals. Alternately, if the moon was smaller or further from the earth, the movement of the ocean would be too weak; all bodies of water on earth would become stagnant and toxic. Even a small variance would have huge results!

In the same way, the existence of a strong correlation between individuals doesn't negate the importance of the differences between individuals. While one might have strikingly similarly tastes in music to another person, no two people produce music that is quite alike. There was only one Beethoven. That he might have eaten eggs for breakfast, had an alcoholic father and played viola might make him superficially similar to any number of viola-players. However, no other viola-player with an alcoholic father who ate eggs for breakfast has left such a powerful musical legacy. His music is quite distinct from that of his contemporaries, his predecessors and even from those who have created music in the time since his life. That he might bathe or enjoy a good book says very little about his uniqueness as an individual, or his uniqueness in contribution to the development of western music. The differences, though perhaps few in number, are not insignificant or unimportant. Small differences often make a difference that isn't small.

Similarly, one might note the vast similarities of C.S. Lewis and J.R. Tolkien. They were both distinguished authors, professors at Oxford University, and well-known Christians. Yet, the modern literary world would not be the same if it were missing either one of them. Neither of them is, as 11minutes describes, "one of the many, replaceable as any other individual that lives and has ever lived." The similarities between the two neither negate their individuality as persons, nor negate the criticality of both of their literary contributions to our world. Fantasy fiction owes a great debt to both the Chronicles of Narnia and the Lord of the Rings series. Both of them have made lasting contributions that extend well beyond the scope of literature. Modern Christian thinking owes a great debt to the profound observations, thoughts and allegories written by C.S. Lewis. Fantasy lovers and gamers of all sorts owe a great debt to the archetypes developed by J. R. Tolkien, as he further refined and expanded the world of mythical creatures and imaginary races. The differences between the two men, though perhaps only superficially small, have a dramatic and pronounced impact on the uniqueness of their respective contributions to the world. Neither of them is replaceable.

If brevity did not forbid, I could provide thousands more examples that clearly depict the importance of small differences. That all women have a lot of similarities does not justify the claim that women are all the same. They aren't. If there exists even a single difference between any two people, they are sufficiently unique enough to make meaningfully different contributions to the world. Therefore, I would declare that what makes us most different as individuals is often the seemingly small things that are easily overlooked. Each of us has potential to impact the world in meaningful and unique ways. Small differences between people really aren't small at all. Individuality is real and it is significant. To the degree that we turn a blind eye to the real differences that set us apart, we limit our own potential and we miss out on glorious aspects of the people around us. Diversity is a beautiful thing worth celebrating precisely because every single person, snowflake and flower is different in some real and meaningful way. Beauty lies in the subtle details that often are overlooked or unnoticed. Let us live our lives with our eyes wide open, and with our hearts ready to celebrate those small and seemingly trivial things that make a world of difference.

Two Prevalent Forms of Reductionism

As humans, we conceptualize our world. Since reality is as vast and complex as it is, we create mental categories and models to explain how our universe works and how we should function within it. Both categories and models are very useful, and both are indispensible for finite creatures capable of abstraction. However, due to the fundamentally limited nature of models, sometimes we overlook or ignore crucial information. The best models in any area of life are the ones that reduce a given interaction to a comprehensible series of components, while still retaining all of the critical elements of the interaction. The falling of an apple, for example, involves a vast number of physical interactions. However, such an interaction can be nearly perfectly explained by the Law of Gravity, which describes the physical attraction between objects. Though wind, friction, chemical reactions and intervening objects may alter the way an apple falls, gravity alone is able to explain the vital component of how and why an apple falls to earth. That is an example of a sound and pragmatic model.

Reductionism, on the other hand, is an attempt at explaining an interaction which ultimately leaves out one or more vital elements. It results in models that lack sufficient explanatory capacity, due to overlooking, ignoring or denying applicable truths. Any reductivistic paradigm, then, is a worldview that overlooks, ignores or denies vital truths. While this might seem like a purely academic topic, the forms of reductionism that I wish to discuss are anything but pedantic. In particular, there are two forms of reductionistic thinking that have major practical implications and impact numerous aspects of life. Of these two forms, women have a tendency to lean towards one sort of reductionism, while men are more inclined to lean towards the other.

Yesterday night, I was spending some time with a new friend that I just met. Alex is currently doing a bit of substitute teaching and is contemplating pursuing a teaching credential. We were chatting about some of his classroom experiences and he noted how superficial many kids are today. Often the seemingly smallest things that he did, said or even wore would profoundly impact his students' perspectives of him. One day he walked into class and several of the kids made remarks about his Converse shoes. They viewed him as a cool person, simply because of the shoes that he wore. In another classroom, upon entering he was immediately barraged with mostly innocuous questions (and a few less-innocuous ones). When one girl asked him if he was married, he held up his hand and asked, "Do you see a ring on my finger?" He didn't answer the question directly, since he felt that it wasn't really any of his students' business. Immediately, a few of the kids lost respect for him and commented about his answer being "all snooty." Alex and I then began discussing the possible reasons for why kids are so superficial these days. Attitudes and perspectives never emerge in a vacuum. They are always learned.

The reason some kids are very superficial is because they have adopted a form of reductionistic thinking that isn't confined to hall of high schools. Our culture, in many ways, has become very superficial. Many people view style and image not merely as important, but as nearly all-encompassing. This is Stylistic Reductionism. It is pervasive. It is a horribly flawed way of seeing the world, that leads to poor ways of interacting. You see this form of reductionism is the very ways people enslave themselves to social status, whether by wearing the latest clothes, driving nice cars, opting for endless cosmetic surgery operations, continually seeking high-status romantic partners, and refusing to associate with lesser-status people or social outcasts. In this sort of worldview, image is king. How one appears is more important than who one actually is. Public perceptions are more important than character. Presentation is far more important than substance. If someone doesn't seem attractive and interesting enough, then they aren't worth talking to or spending time with. It is a world of snap judgements and endless comparison; life is a perpetual masquerade. This is Stylistic Reductionism. In its overglorification of image and appearance it overlooks the necessity of substance.

The other form of reductive thinking, which is embraced by a very different sort of person, is Substantive Reductionism. It is the polar opposite of Stylistic Reductionism. Some people view image, appearance and style as completely unimportant. Instead, what matters is the essence of someone or something. A person's inward character is all that matters. Just have good character, and be yourself. What matters is simply how something functions, and not its aesthetics. You see this form of reductionism in people who are completely unconcerned with appearance, whether by dressing in a sloppy or frumpy manner, walking around in public with poorly groomed hair, having mannerisms that betray an indifference to how their actions are words are perceived, leaving their houses cluttered and messy, speaking articulately but seeming distant and unengaged with their body language, having their desks piled with reams of papers, and lacking an appreciation for art or beauty. In this sort of worldview, image is irrelevent. Because of that, there is little consideration given to social status or even social perception. People with this sort of thinking often have some difficulties in every area of life, whether in job-seeking, in dating, in fitting in with social groups, or anything else involving people. They also often lack an appreciation for aesthetics, and therefore miss out on an entire section of life. This is Substantive Reductionism. Its overemphasis on substance and the genuine essence of a thing or oneself leads to imbalance and completely overlooks the importance of style.

As it nearly always is, truth is a balance. Yes, it is true that image matters. Yes, it is true that substance matter. To focus solely on image is to become superficial and lose connection with oneself and the people in one's life. To focus solely on substance is to ignore the vital importance of grace, beauty and social tact. Those who embrace Stylistic Reductionism focus so much on status and appearance, that they often lose parts of their soul in the process and are unable to connect deeply with others. Such a person becomes a Chameleon, easily adapting to the present social group and conveying precisely the desired image, but never being true to the image conveyed. It is an eternal deception. Those who embrace Substantive Reductionism focus so much on being genuine and true to their ideals, that they often alienate others by expressing controversial opinions or judgmental thoughts without considering whether it is the appropriate place or time to express them. They are often unaware of the messages that their words, actions, posture and tone conveys to other people. The fact is, most people have a tendency to lean towards and value either style or substance more than its counterpart. Yet, the ideal perspective is a balance of the two which rightly recognizes both the importance of subtance and style, realizing that it is crucial for there to be a correlation between how something appears and how it actually is.

In many ways, Game Theory is a recognition of the Stylistic Reductionism of modern women. Women, being more naturally socially aware, have a greater tendency to embrace Stylistic Reductionism. They are very concerned with how they appear to others physically, intellectually and socially. Even their purchases are often heavily influenced by the desire for social approval. They care not only about who a man is, but how he presents himself and how he is perceived. One of the central truths offered by Game Theory is that women are, by nature, hypergamous. Their attraction for a man, whether a complete stranger or their husband of many years, is directly influenced by how he is socially perceived. Women want to be with a man who has status. Women want to be with a man who is respected as a leader of men and who is desired by other women. Hypergamy and valuing social status, image, appearance, style and connection are all good things. Stylistic Reductionism, however, is a perversion of those good things. Women are naturally hypergamous, but they are not naturally Stylistically Reductionistic. That is a new and infectious strain of cultural disease that permeates modern America because of the philosophical relativism of the day, which undermines and even denies substance, and because of the pervasive nature of visual media, which glorifies image through its ceaseless use of photo and video. We are an image-driven society, which apmlifies and distorts the natural propensity of women to be image-centric and status seeking. Such reductionism is one major pitfall that modern women incessantly tumble into. It is good to value status and social approval, but it is very dangerous to overvalue status and overlook the criticality of essence.

Similarly, Game Theory is an antidote to the Substantive Reductionism of modern men. Men, being more naturally logical and analytical, have a greater tendency to embrace Substantive Reductionism. Men are often more concerned with solving problems, overcoming challenges, and figuring things out than they are worried about connection and social perceptions. How it works is always a more pressing question than how it appears. What you are doing with a person is more pertinent than how you feel about whatever you're doing. Because of that, men often don't focus as much on aesthetics or appearance, either in their manner of dress, in their workspaces or even in their homes. Men tend to be either simple and conservative in how they dress, or somewhat sloppy and disheveled. A few of my younger brothers look more like ragged waifs than well-dressed boys, simply because they aren't concerned with how they appear. Likewise, in dating, many men think that just being a nice guy is enough to win a girl's heart. They properly recognize that character and heart are important. However, they also fail to recognize the importance of how they dress, how they present themselves, their body language, how they interact with people, what stories they tell and/or any number of other social behaviors. Game Theory is something that is developed by men to help other men become more socially aware and improve their ways of interacting with other. By studying Game Theory a man can understand the messages that are being conveyed by how he interacts with others, and can learn to read other people better. This is something that many modern men desperately need, especially because of the decline of patriarchy and the lessening involvement of fathers in the lives of their sons. Modern men are not taught to have a holistic worldview that recognizes and values the importance of image, social status, personality and style, in addition to the importance of character and essence. This directly affects men's success in numerous arenas of life.

Given that all of us have a tendency to overvalue either style or substance, it is critical to be aware of our own internal biases, so that we can avoid imbalance and the negative consequences of living a life of imbalance. While Stylistic Reductionism is more commonly a feminine mistake and Substantive Reductionism is more commonly a masculine error, there are certainly some men who overvalue image while neglecting essense and there are some women who overvalue functionality at the expense of beauty. Wisdom dictates that each of us should be aware of our own imbalances and seek to temper them by choosing to embrace a balanced perspective. Both substance and style are vitally importance. What a person or thing is, does matter. How a person or thing appears also matters. We must be sure to keep both in mind at all times. It is not enough for something to be good or to be true, it must also be beautiful. It is not enough for something just to be beautiful, it must also be good and true. Reductionistic thinking is very easy to do. But a proper model of our world acknowledges and appreciates the importance of both appearance and essense. Women are glorious because they do value status, image, appearance, and beauty. Men are glorious because they are practical and value the substance of people and things. Yet, we must be vigilant in order to avoid overlooking, ignoring or denying the truth and value of the other.

Magic Is Everywhere

Magic is something that I ponder a lot. I ponder it and look for it, because I cannot escape the fact that magic is everywhere. Our world may be a reasonable and rational place, but it is not a cold, static, necessary world. It is a wondrous and surprising place which is inescapably full of life, mystery and beauty! Whether you are a hardcore atheist or a devout believer in the biblical creation account, the life, magic and mystery of our universe is unavoidable. When I speak of magic, I'm not just referring to that which is caused by supernatural forces. Instead, I mean that the present state of things is other than it might be, and that in many cases it is a wondrous and awe-inspiring state. I mean that though something may not be irrational or unreasonable, that there is always something fundamental about every person, preference or object which has no finally explicable reason.

It is for this reason, that G.K. Chesteron writes that fairy tales are, in many ways, more rational and reasonable than modern science. In his book which I so dearly love, Orthodoxy, he writes:

It might be stated this way. There are certain sequences or developments (cases of one thing or another), which are, in the true sense of the word, reasonable. They are, in the true sense of the word, necessary. Such are mathematical and merely logical sequences. We in fairyland (who are the most reasonable of all creatures) admit that reason and that necessity. For instance, if the Ugly Sisters are older than Cinderella, it is (in an iron and awful sense) necessary that Cinderella is younger than the Ugly Sisters. There is no getting out of it. Haeckel may talk as much fatalism about that fact as he pleases: it really must be. If Jack is the son of a miller, a miller is the father of Jack. Cold reason decrees it from her awful throne: and we in fairyland submit. If the three brothers all ride horses, there are six animals and eighteen legs involved: that is true rationalism, and fairyland is full of it. But as I put my head over the hedge of the elves and began to take notice of the natural world, I observed an extraordinary thing. I observed that men in spectacles were talking of actual things that happened--dawn and death and so on--as if they were rational and inevitable. They talked as if the fact that trees bear fruit were just as necessary as the fact that two and one trees make three. But it is not. There is an enormous difference by the test of fairyland; which is the test of the imagination. You cannot imagine two and one not making three. But you can easily imagine trees not growing fruit; you can imagine them growing golden candlesticks or tigers hanging on by the tail. These men in spectacles spoke much of a man named Newton, who was hit by an apple, and who discovered a law. But they could not be got to see the distinction between a true law, a law of reason, and the mere fact of apples falling. If the apple hit Newton's nose, Newton's nose hit the apple. That is a true necessity, because we cannot conceive the one occurring without the other. But we can quite well conceive the apple not falling on his nose; we can fancy it flying ardently through the air to hit some other nose, of which it had a more definite dislike. We have always in our fairy tales kept this sharp distinction between the science of mental relations, in which there really are laws, and the science of physical facts, in which there are no laws, but only weird repetitions.

In fairyland we avoid the word "law"; but in the land of science they are singularly fond of it. Thus they will call some interesting conjecture about how forgotten folks pronouced the alphabet, Grimm's Law. But Grimm's Law is far less intellectual than Grimm's Fairy Tales. The tales are, at any rate, certainly tales; while the law is not a law. A law implies that we know the nature of the generalisation and enactment; not merely that we have noticed some of the effects. If there is a law that pick-pockets shall go to prison, it implies there is an imaginable mental connection between the idea of prison and the idea of picking pockets. And we know what the idea is. We can say why we take liberty from a man who takes liberties. But we cannot say why an egg can turn into a chicken any more than we can say why a bear could turn into a fairy prince. As ideas, the egg and the chicken are further off from each other than the bear and the prince; for no egg in itself suggests a chicken, whereas some princes do suggest bears. Granted, then, that certain transformations do happen, it is essential that we regard then in the philosophic manner of fairy tales, not in the unphilosophic manner of science and the "Laws of Nature." When we are asked why eggs turn to birds or fruits fall in autumn, we must answer exactly as the fairy godmother would answer if Cinderella asked her why mice turned to horses or her clothers fell from her at twelve o' clock. We must answer that it is magic. It is not a "law," for we do not understand its general formula. It is not a necessity, for though we can count on it happening practically, we have no right to say that it must always happen. It is no argument for unalterable law (as Huxley fancied) that we count on the ordinary course of things. We do not count on it; we bet on it. We risk the remote possibility of a miracle as we do that of a poisoned pancake or a world-destroying comet. We leave it out of account, not because it is a miracle, and therefore an impossibility, but because it is a miracle, and therefore an exception. All the terms used in the science books, "law," "necessity," "order," "tendency," and so on, are really unintellectual, because they assume an inner synthesis, which we do not possess. The only words that ever satisfied me as describing Nature are the terms used in the fairy books, "charm," "spell," "enchantment." They express the abitrariness of the fact and its mystery. A tree grows fruit because it is a magic tree. Water runs downhill because it is bewitched. The sun shines because it is bewitched.

In this manner, we can clearly see that nearly everything in life is quite magical. We may ask why grass is green, and if we do, we may be able to explain how it comes to appear green, but we can never say why it is green. At the end of every chain of "why" questions, there always is a point at which we must say simply, "It's magic." Why is ours a heliocentric planetary system, rather than a geocentric one? Whether you suggest that it was designed by a creative and intentional God, or by random chance at the hands of impersonal natural forces, it is still is something that has no necessary answer--only a magical one. Why do anteaters have such long tongues? God would say He created it that way because He wanted to. An impersonal universe wouldn't say much at all, but Richard Dawkins would certainly praise the universe for its marvelously rich design.

All the great religions have a place for awe, for ecstatic transport at the wonder and beauty of creation. And it's exactly this feeling of spine-shivering, breath-catching awe — almost worship — this flooding of the chest with ecstatic wonder, that modern science can provide. And it does so beyond the wildest dreams of saints and mystics. The fact that the supernatural has no place in our explanations, in our understanding of so much about the universe and life, doesn't diminish the awe. Quite the contrary. The merest glance through a microscope at the brain of an ant or through a telescope at a long-ago galaxy of a billion worlds is enough to render poky and parochial the very psalms of praise.

Yet, often as we age we lose the wonder that is properly felt at the recognition of the magic so completely encompassing our lives. Why do I even exist? It's magic! Why do I love pomegranate frozen yogurt? It's magic! Why is the sea so beautiful, vast and untamable? It's magic! Why is there such a thing as music? It's magic! Why do I have a nice apartment that I enjoy living in? It's magic! Why do I have as many fun brothers and sisters as I do? It's magic! Why are there two very different genders? It's magic!

While Richard Dawkins' faith may be misplaced, I completely admire his perspective. When he looks at the world around him, he sees the magic that is inescapable, joyous and uplifting! He is rightly filled with an awe of nature! Even lacking a belief in a glorious Creator God, Dawkins revels in God's fantastic creation and declares that it all fills one with ecstatic wonder, beyond the wildest dreams of saints and mystics. Unfortunately, most moderns have lost this sense of childlike delight in the magic of Nature. Whether our imaginations have become dull through the constant pressures of life, whether we've believed the pretty lies that there is nothing extraordinary and nothing special in our world, or whether we simply have lost touch with our world because of distraction, the truth is that magic is all around us, just waiting for us to open our eyes and see it. If only we opened our eyes to see beauty, if only we opened our ears to listen to melody, and if only we opened our hearts to embrace that astounding refrain of nature, we too, would cry out in joy and delight! The saints and mystics saw the magic, and it inspired them to create art. Maltbie Babcock, a 19th-century Presbyterian minister, penned the words to the famous hymn, This Is My Father's World:

This is my Father's world,
and to my listening ears
all nature sings, and round me rings
the music of the spheres.
This is my Father's world:
I rest me in the thought
of rocks and trees, of skies and seas;
his hand the wonders wrought.

This is my Father's world,
the birds their carols raise,
the morning light, the lily white,
declare their maker's praise.
This is my Father's world:
he shines in all that's fair;
in the rustling grass I hear him pass;
he speaks to me everywhere.

This is my Father's world.
O let me ne'er forget
that though the wrong seems oft so strong,
God is the ruler yet.
This is my Father's world:
why should my heart be sad?
The Lord is King; let the heavens ring!
God reigns; let the earth be glad!

Or, stepping back in time a few thousand years, we have the immortal words of King David, the poet and mystic, found in Psalm 19:

The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament shows His handiwork.
Day unto day utters speech,
And night unto night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech nor language
Where their voice is not heard.
Their line has gone out through all the earth,
And their words to the end of the world.

In them He has set a tabernacle for the sun,
Which is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber,
And rejoices like a strong man to run its race.
Its rising is from one end of heaven,
And its circuit to the other end;
And there is nothing hidden from its heat.

The wonder and beauty seen by these men is inescapable. They are men filled with delight and wonder whenever they look at the physical world! But, we've lost that wonder. We've lost that delight. We've lost that childlike jubilee. We no longer see the magic. Yet, it's there. It's waiting to be found. Simply opening up one's mind is all that is needed to begin to glimpse the beautiful magic of our world, of the trees and flowers, of our mothers and father, of our wheeled transports and wireless devices, of our lover's faces and all our favorite places, of freshly-grilled sandwiches and delectable fruit salads, of friends and coffee and wintry weather. Though Chesterton wrote his book one hundred years ago, even today there are still spectacled men walking about, who speak about biology as being something entirely devoid of magic. Yet, it's impossible to say that biology isn't magical when it is an irrefutable and incontrovertible fact that magic is everywhere. His assertion speaks very little about biology or our universe and, instead, speaks a great deal about his limited and imagination-less perspective. He writes that there is nothing special about women, despite the fact that they are the ones who bear babies. To him, nothing is magical, nothing is special. While he is correct that women aren't more special than men, he is quite wrong to say that there is nothing magical about women. Life itself is magical! Women are magical! Men are magical! Babies are magical! Biology is magical! Human biodiversity is magical! For the sake of avoiding one error, he commits a far worse one, causing him to miss the beauty and magic of all of Nature.

Let us always be mindful of the magic that surrounds us everywhere. Let us allow our hearts to be filled with gratitude as we appreciate the little things in life, as we notice the subtle details, and as we observe those things that we would normally miss. There may a leprechaun beneath a leaf, or perhaps something equally magically, like a rock. There may be a fairy hiding just out of sight, or a delightful person that we might fail to see unless we are watchful. Those who don't see magic completely miss all the wonders of life, simply because they aren't looking for it. Those who are watchful and vigilant cannot help but see enchanted creatures, spellbound objects and charming people everywhere. With a childlike perspective, all the magic that is around us can easily be seen. Without it, we miss out on the greatest wonders in life. To be fully alive, we must live life and see the world not only through the lenses of the intellect, but also from the window of the heart. We must experience the beautiful! If only our hearts will return to fairyland, we will see that fairyland is never something we grow out of, it is only something that we lose sight of.

The Rational Case For Christianity - Metaphysics

Previously, in my introduction to The Rational Case for Christianity, I established the criteria that we will use to determine if Christianity is a true and practically viable worldview. For it to be valid, it must be able to account for any aspect of reality or life and leave no contradictions. According to Jean-Paul Sartre, the basic philosophical question is why something exists rather than nothing. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that concerns itself with the existence of our universe and questions of how it came to be. Though a comprehensive study of metaphysics would require more than the scope of a single essay, all possible metaphysical answers can be categorized in just a few classes of answers. To simplify our inquiry, we will simply concern ourselves with human existence, which will allow us to circumvent the question of whether the universe itself has a beginning. We can do this because regardless of whether there universe has a beginning or not, it is universally accepted that human existence had a beginning.

The first metaphysical question we must ask is whether there is a logical, rational, intelligible answer to the question of human existence. There are two possible answers to this:

1 - There does not exist a logical, rational, intelligible reason for human existence
2 - There does exist a logical, rational, intelligible reason for human existence

Of these two answers, the first one is self-defeating for exactly the same reason epistemological nihilism is self-defeating... One cannot know that no reason exists unless he is omniscient, and one cannot know that the answer is not logical, rational or intelligible unless he comprehends it, which would result in a self-refuting claim. Therefore, of these two possibilities, the second one is the most rational answer to our first question considering metaphysical inquiry. Proceeding forward, we will assume that there does exist a logical, rational, intelligible reason for the existence of the universe.

The second metaphysical question we must ask is, by what means did human existence occur? There are three possible answers to such a question.

1 - Human existence sprung forth from absolutely nothing
2 - Human existence was caused by impersonal means
3 - Human existence was caused by personal means

Answer number 1, while technically possible, is not presently held by any sane person. It is quite preposterous that human existence sprung forth from absolute nothing.

Answer number 2, on the other hand, is a quite commonly held position. Belief that time plus chance plus matter eventually led to the process of macroevolution which eventually produced humanity is one such sort of answer. An impersonal universe birthed humans based on random physical processes that happened to interact in exactly the right way. Pantheism is another sort of answer that falls under the category of impersonal human origin. Pantheism suggests that everything ultimately is a unity, and that all diversity and personality will either melt back into oneness someday or all diverse and personality are ultimately illusory. The problem with any impersonal origin of humanity is that it cannot explain personality or what Francis Schaeffer calls the "mannishness" of man. Scientific materialism suggest that personality is nothing more than the impersonal plus complexity, and therefore you end up with theories of biodeterminism and evolutionary psychology which commit the fallacy of reductionism by claiming that what appears to be personality or freewill is just an illusion. Pantheism doesn't even try to use fancy words to hide the truth. Instead, religions such as Hinduism are quite clear on their stance that all diversity is an illusion and that at the deepest level, everything is one, which means that personality, too, is an illusion. While it is theoretically possible that personality is merely an illusion, there is no non-circular evidence for it being so. Therefore, unless personality is conclusively shown to be an illusion, no impersonal cause for human existence properly explains the world that we experience every single day of our lives. As such, it is irrational to believe that human existence is caused by impersonal means.

Answer number 3, therefore, must be correct. Since nothing with true personality can result from impersonal processes, and given the fact that humans have true personality, the only logical, rational answer is that human existence was caused by personal means. A personal being created humans. Some sort of personal God or god must exist.

The third metaphysical question we must ask is, is there one God or multiple gods or Gods? Obviously this simple question has two possible answers:

1 - There are multiple limited, personal gods
2 - There is one infinite-personal God
3 - There are multiple infinite-personal Gods

Answer number 1 is insufficient to explain the universe. As Plato correctly understood, without absolutes, nothing has any meaning. For that reason he recognized that the plethora of Greek gods was insufficient to explain existence, since none of the gods were infinite. None of them were powerful enough to create the universe and mankind. Because of this, in his writings he often referred to the Fates, who sometimes controlled the gods, and sometimes the gods controlled the Fates. This odd paradox was constructed because limited gods are not big enough to create and sustain the universe, nor human existence. No number of limited gods can possibly suffice as a metaphysical foundation for human existence, nor for the existence of the universe.

Answer number 2 is sufficient to explain the universe. From our second question we determined that a personal entity is needed to create a human with ture personality. Given the vast nature of the universe and the metaphysical necessity for absolutes, this personal God must also be an infinite* God, else He is not big enough to fit with the evidence of reality. This God must have the capacity to imagine and bring into existence the physical universe and human beings, as well as serve as the integretion point for everything else. The concept of God's necessity as an infinite integration point will be explained more in depth in the essays on morality and epistemology.

Answer number 3, could also be sufficient to explain the universe. However, presently there are no worldviews that postulate multiple infinite-personal Gods. Pantheism suggests that there are many gods, but that really there are none. The Greeks and Romans suggested multiple limited personal gods, but no infinite ones. There are several major worldviews that postulate the existence of a single infinite-personal God, but none that suggest multiple infinite-personal Gods. Therefore, given that one infinite-personal God is suffcient to explain human existence, and there that is no evidence for the existence of more than one infinite-personal God, it is rational to accept that there is just one infinite-personal God.

The fourth metaphysical question we must ask is, what sort of infinite-personal God can best explain the unity and diversity of human existence and the universe? To this question there are only a few possible answers; namely, the Gods suggested by Islam, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism and the Judeo-Christian God.

While all of those Gods sufficiently explain the unity that we see in the universe, everything from the natural order of molecular structures to the highly organized and complex ecospheres that cover the planet, since any single being is necessarily unified, only one of those answers sufficiently explains the diversity found in the universe. Perhaps it makes sense for there to be one kind of plant, but why are there so many kinds? Perhaps it makes sense for there to be one sort of planet or star, but the universe is full of widely divergent planets and stars. Perhaps the existence of one kind of animal makes sense, but why are there so many, and why are the various species so similar and yet so diverse? A unifed infinite-personal being can explain the unity of creation, but not the diversity of our universe. Only a God who is both intrinsically unified and intrinsically diverse can explain what we unarguably see in our universe. The only answer that sufficiently explains this is the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. That there is just one God, but that He is a triune being who exists in three persons is the only possible monotheistic explanation for the universe's diversity. Returning to even the more limited scope of human existence, given the fact of human biodiversity, only a God who is both unified and diverse can explain the unity and diversity of humanity. You may search through all of philosophy and all of the world's religions to find another satisfactory answer, but you will not find another infinite-personal God who is both unified and diverse no matter how many ancient manuscripts you read, nor how many modern philosophical tomes you digest.

Summary
As I stated in my last essay, any worldview that declares to be the truth must perfectly match all the evidence of reality. The existence of the universe and of humanity, and the unity and diversity we witness in both demands a certain kind of metaphysical answer. For any metaphysical stance to be true and applicable, it must be able to explain why humans exist at all, why true personality exists, why humanity is existentially unified, and why humanity is existentially diverse. Having looked at all the various categories of answers to each of these four fundamental questions, the only metaphysical explanation that makes sense of those four things is the metaphysical answer offered by Christanity. There exists an infinite-personal God who is both the creator of the universe and the creator and sustainer of human existence. One God, eternally existing in three persons, is the only satisfactory answer for explaining the unity and diversity of human existence and of the universe at large. As such, Christianity, since it both offers the only philosophically satisfactory answer for human existence and since it neither contradicts nor denies any aspect of human existence, is the most rational metaphysical worldview. All other worldviews necessarily deny or contradict one or more of those four factors. Therefore, not only is Christianity the best rational metaphysical answer, it is the only rational metaphysical answer. Apart from Christianity, it is impossible to make sense of our universe or of human existence.

* Strictly speaking, it is not metaphysically necessary that God is infinite, in the sense of completely unbounded power or ability. All that is necessary is sufficient capacity to imagine, create and sustain the entire universe and human existence. When I refer to God as being infinite, it is a shorthand way of saying that He is necessarily at least powerful enough to do that. When I refer to limited gods, such as the Greek and Roman gods, I simply mean that no one of them possesses enough power to do so. Each of the Greek and Roman gods had their own domain, over which they possessed a great deal of power, but outside of their individual domains, they were just about as limited as any mortal man. As such, it is no contention with my basic point if you argue that infiniteness is not strictly a metaphysical necessity. I use the term "infinite" in this shorthand manner along with the term "infinite-personal," because Francis Schaeffer uses those term in like manner.