Wayward Beings

One theme that recurs frequently in the pages of Scripture is the idea that human beings are wayward and sinful. From the third chapter of Genesis and the Fall of Man until the Great White Throne of Judgment mentioned in Revelation 20, the entire Bible is about people being wayward. We do what we shouldn't do, and don't do the things we should. We pursue things that lead to destruction and avoid things that lead to restoration and life. We value that which is transitory and illusory while denigrating that which is really of worth. All of us live this way. All of us fairly consistently behave in counterproductive manners.

I was reminded of that potent and inescapable fact as I was conversing with my younger brother. Despite being fairly young, he has more wisdom than many people even twice his age. Recently he has been reading through the books of Job, Psalms and Proverbs. As we were discussing the ways various people perceive things, the things people value and the behaviors people exhibit and reward, we were both struck by the simple realization that people really do live almost precisely contrary to the way the Bible teaches. In almost any area of life, wherever society encourages one mindset or set of behaviors, the Bible advocates precisely the opposite path.

Modern Values
Selfishness
Hedonism
Independence
Self-sufficiency
Quid pro quo
Material wealth
Arrogance
Exclusivity
Striving for gain
Instant gratification

God's Values
Unconditional love
Pursuit of holiness
Interdependence
Reliance on God's provision
Sacrificial giving
Spiritual prosperity
Proper assessment of self
Inclusivity
Contentment
Patience

The dichotomy is quite stark. Today we are relentlessly taught to "look out for number one." We are bombarded with messages that material wealth is the key to success, happiness and social status. We are reminded that "you have to depend on yourself because people will always let you down." We value the pursuit of personal happiness more than we care to enhance the lives of others or live by God's moral code. We are told to "be irrationally confident" and "to err on the side of too much cockiness rather than too little." They say that "there is no such thing as unconditional love" and therefore we should never expect it or give it. We are inundated with messages that religion and spirituality are empty or soul-killing things that prevent abundant living. We are encouraged to have an excess of self-esteem, regardless of the rightness of such an opinion. Cliques and snobbery are encouraged, and those who aren't sufficiently exclusive in their social connections are frowned upon. We are taught to give less than we receive, and never be the first one to give. This dichotomy is powerful, pronounced and deeply ingrained in our mental processes.

Yet, it is all backwards. And, throughout human history, it always has been. The clear division that we see between societal values and God's value is not something peculiar to our era. Rather, this is a social phenomenon that has existed since mankind came into being. It is one which afflicts us all. I am no stranger to valuing the things I shouldn't, pursuing things that are transitory and viewing myself through the distorted lenses of my own perceptions or societies perceptions. The disease of sin is an infectious one which spreads and takes over unless it is resisted. The only cure is spiritual renewal, which comes from submission to God and bathing oneself in the words of God.

"And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God." (Romans 12:2)

This is also why I am firm believer in Christianity. The Christian metanarrative is the only one that properly explains why we are such wayward beings, attests to sinfulness being an abnormal condition, and offers a solution to that dilemma. Some worldviews postulate that though we are broken beings we are as we always have been, and therefore there can be no solution. Some worldviews deny that there is anything wrong with humanity. Thank God that though there is a disease in humanity, there is also grace and room for redemption. It just takes a bit of humility and the hard work of repentence.

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.

On Educational Methods and Christian Schools

Fellow blogger Michael Duenes wrote a great post regarding the importance of training Christian men and properly preparing them for righteous and godly dominion. In his post, he raises an important query:

When it comes to educating boys, whom Douglas Wilson aptly calls, “Future Men,”, we have to follow the same procedure we would for any venture to succeed. We must start with the end in mind. We have to practice “learning by design” here, too. What we are, in fact, doing is training these boys to be “lords of the earth.” That’s what having dominion means. And boys and men have a particular role to play as such lords, but do we know what it is? Do we take our cues from Genesis, chapters one and two? Are we teaching and training them toward that end?

It seems to me that our educational model wants to squeeze young men into the female role, and they rightly resist. If we are interested in training young men to be such lords of the earth, under Christ, then six hours a day in mixed-sex classrooms behind desks and more Bible studies is probably not going to do the trick. Surely being a lord of the earth, for a young man, means a good deal more than passing U.S. History exams and mastering Geometry. Can fathers shoulder this training alone? I’m inclined to think not.

How do Christian schools further their progress? How do we buck the dominant educational paradigm, which clearly isn’t sufficing, and start fulfilling our mandate to help train these boys up, intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually, into such biblical manhood?

While I have many thoughts on this issue, one specific point that isn't much discussed seemed pertinent to point out. In many ways, regarding education, the structure is the message. When Christian private schools pattern themselves after secular schools, they tacitly agree with many of the methods and aims of secular education. Unless we are aware of the messages that are conveyed by a given means of education and by certain methods of education, we stand thoroughly unable to craft an intentional and well-reasoned response to such messages. Most of the Christian private schools that I am familiar with are almost indistinguishable from their secular counterparts with the exceptions of the sociological composition of those involved and the addition of a Bible class. This suggests that there is a tacit acceptance of many modern paradigms of education, including a vast array of ideologies and methods which should be skeptically regarded.

When the primary learning a child receives occurs in the artificial environment of a classroom, many subliminal messages are communicated. The process of learning in the classroom is of a very specific kind, bearing a very specific structure. The teacher, as the certified instructor is, for the children, the source of truth. Children are rewarded for behavioral conformity to the classroom rules and they are rewarded for intellectual conformity to the teacher's and/or the state's ideas. This pattern establishes a dangerous epistemological reliance on institutions and credentialed people. Most classroom teaching also encourages a passive reception and regurgitation of information, rather than stimulating an active and passionate pursuit of truth.

Additionally, what is taught in the classroom is generally decontexualized information, stripped from its real-life context. When a student's education consists primarily of decontextualized information, it is very difficult for the student to take his learning seriously or see the practical value of what he does learn. Since classroom learning is requirement-driven and mandated rather than student-driven and optional, the forced learning of decontextualized information often does more to innoculate a student against true learning (which he hasn't experienced), than it does to prepare a student to face real-life challenges and scenarios. The prevailing paradigms utilized in today's Western education are very stifling and restrictive, in terms of required hours of classroom attendance, targeted-testing, narrow academic standards and limited class selections.

So long as Christian private schools remain largely identical in structure and methodology to their secular counterparts, they should expect to see largely similar results in the outcomes of their students. If Christian schools do wish to further their progress and increase their capacity to effectively prepare young men and women for adult life, then those involved in the leadership of such schools must be willing to step back and challenge modern educational paradigms. If Christian schools wish to offer a truly different scholastic experience, they cannot do it by adding one little class, hiring Christian teachers and marketing to Christian families. Instead, there must be a radically different structure and atmosphere that is specifically designed to raise up young men and women to follow God's precepts, boldly seek truth and courageously confront lies.

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.

Christianity and Moral Authority

The strength of an appeal to moral authority (as with any other appeal to authority) lies in the validity of the claims of the authority. Since a logical argument is as strong it is presuppositions, an appeal to authority is as strong as the authority is.

The moral authority of a person or organization does depend on their foundational morality. In the case of the Church or Christians, their moral authority is not intrinsic and self-derived, but is derived from God’s moral authority.

The Christian presuppositions then are:
1. The God declared by Christianity exists
2. God has communicated to humanity truly

The conclusion is:
3. All humans are morally bound to follow God’s mandates

Concerning any particular moral claim made by an individual or organization, the only real question is: “Is this person or organization correctly declaring what God has spoken?” If such an entity correctly declares God’s truth, then their appeal to moral authority is valid. If such an entity perverts, denies, confuses or misrepresents God’s position, then their appeal to authority is invalid.

Christianity itself does encourage questioning what is taught and going to the source (the Bible) rather than blindly accepting the teachings of pastors, priests and preachers. Acts 17:11 says, “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” The principle expressed is that while whatever God says is definitely true, it is crucial to ensure that no entity is misrepresenting God’s position on a matter.

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.

The Rational Case For Christianity - Intro

Wisely has it been said that man is not a rational being--he is a rationalizing being. A person can convince himself that anything is truth simply through enough rationalizing. Whether he is right or wrong about his rationalizations depends on objective truth. As I have written about previously, all people believe in objective truth both regarding material reality and conceptual reality, regardless of purported belief in relativism. And, even if people didn't believe in objective truth, the objective nature of truth is not dependent on the belief or non-belief of people in it.

The rational case for Christianity, then, is based on objective truth. Christianity is not merely a moral code, or a belief in a certain Jewish revolutionary, though it is no less than those things. Christianity is a comprehensive worldview that explains everything. As such, though the case for Christianity is most certainly rational, it is definitely not simple, for reality itself is not simple. Additionally, let us set the bar extremely high. If Christianity is true, it must validly explain everything, it must be practically applicable, and it must not contradict any piece of evidence in our world. If Christianity contradicts even one piece of evidence in our world, then it cannot be completely true.

Allow me to borrow analogies from a couple of brilliant men to illustrate what I mean. Norman Geisler, Christian apologist and philosopher, likens the quest of philosophy to the assembling of a jigsaw puzzle. Imagine that you have a 1,000 piece jigsaw puzzle, but that you have lost the box the puzzle came in. Anyone who has put together a jigsaw puzzle knows how critical it is to use the box top as a guide to assembling the puzzle. If you come across a piece of the puzzle and do not know where to put it, you simply examine the box top and use that information to help you put it in its correct place. Given that the box top for life has been lost, mankind scrambles around looking for various box tops in hopes of finding the one that provides the solution to the puzzle. Every worldview is a sort of box top. Either it matches the pieces of the puzzle or it doesn't. Some of the wrong box tops might possibly help to put some pieces in the right place, but they always either create odd conflicts or provide very little help at all. Only the right box top will serve to reassemble the jigsaw puzzle. If Christianity is correct, then it is the box top that provides a flawless guide for all the mysterious pieces we have to the puzzle of existence and human life.

Similarly, G.K. Chesterton illustrates the challenge of the quest for a fitting philosophy by pointing out that our world is quite complicated and in many aspects, quite unexpected. The simpler something is, the more likely a mere conincidence can satisfy it. The more complicated a thing is, the more irregular a thing is, the less likely a mere coincidence can match it perfectly. For example, noticing that a human being has two eyes, two ears, two legs, two arms and two hands, which are all arranged in near symmetry might lead one to decide that the human body is symmetrical. When we discover that a person has a heart on the left side of their body, it would be perfectly rational to assume that they would also have a heart on the right side of their body. But, of course, this would also be wrong. The simple explanation doesn't fit the evidence. Likewise, if Christianity is correct, it must be right not in some simple or obvious way, but it must correctly account for the irregularites and complexities of the universe. In Chesteron's own words, "A stick might fit a hole, or a stone a hollow by accident. But a key and a lock are both complex. And if a key fits a lock, you know it is the right key."

And so it is with the case of Christianity. The real question about whether Christianity is rational is not simply whether it works for some people, or if it explains some things. If Christianity is true, then it must be true about everything. The key must fit the lock. The box top must be the correct box top if we are to solve the puzzle. Either every facet of Christianity will be correct and properly explain the universe, or Christianity is wrong. That a key almost fits the lock is no consolation at all, for the door cannot be opened. To be almost right is even worse that being very clearly wrong, for the answer which is almost right seems the most convincing. Either Christianity is true, or it isn't. If it is true, then it must make sense of every single fact of the universe. If even a single piece is actually out of place, then Christianity fails.

Before I continue to point out some compelling facts that only Christianity can explain, I would like to clarify a few things which demand my attention. First of all, I would like to mention the obvious fact that an apparent contradiction and an actual contradiction are two completely different things. If you ask me where I was on Saturday and I tell you that I was at home reading, and I also tell you that I had coffee at Starbucks, you might perceive it as an apparent contradiction. Obviously, I can't be in two places at once. If I was at Starbucks, then I can't have been at home. If I was at home, then I can't have been at Starbucks. These statements are all quite logical and valid; after all, no person can truly be in two places simultaneously. However, the apparent contradiction immediately fades upon the realization that I never claimed to be at home and at Starbucks simultaneously. Once time is accounted for, it is apparent that I was at home during one part of the day, and at Starbucks during another part of the day. I simply use this playful illustration to show that not everything that appears to be a contradiction actually is.

Secondly, I would like to return to the analogy of the jigsaw puzzle to point out that if there are any missing pieces of the puzzle, it is no fault of the box top. Though Christianity may explain everything, our lack of some critical pieces do not invalidate it's truthfulness. For example, though Christianity may explain why the world exists, why man is fundamentally different than beast and why all men have a conception of morals, it is no argument against Christianity to say that it does not explain everything fully. If one is wondering why Christianity provides no clear and conprehensive explanation for why giraffes have long necks, why people enjoy butter on their bread, and why I enjoy grape-flavored lollipops more than orange-flavored ones, that Christianity does not explain these things in comprehensive detail does not invalidate Christianity. We are simply missing a few pieces of the puzzle. However, if Christianity says that no person enjoys butter on his bread, then Christianity does not fit with our universe, for quite clearly there are a large number of people who do enjoy buttered bread.

Lastly, it may be that some people will be confused as to how I define Christianity. The Protestant reformation definitely opened the door for many various groups to present similar yet different versions of Christianity. Therefore, in order to preempt any possible confusion about what I mean when I refer to Christianity, I would like to point both to my previous post on Basic Christian Orthodoxy and to the Apostles' Creed. My case for Christianity is primarily a rational case for that short list of pivotal Christian doctrines. God exists, and is the Creator of all. Man willfully chose and continues to choose to reject God's clear command, and therefore all men are sinners both by nature and by choice. Jesus, who is God incarnate, was born of a virgin, and lived a sinless life. Jesus died on the cross to pay the penalty for sin and to make salvation and redemption available to all who place their faith in Him. His bodily ressurrection, three days after His death, secured his victory over sin and death, and gives new life to all who are spiritually united with Him.

In following essays, I will briefly state the rational case for Christianity by looking at questions of metaphysics, morality, and epistemology, and then offer a short essay on why philosophical materialism, the prevalent philosophy of our day, does not properly fit the facts of our universe.

Basic Christian Orthodoxy - A Discussion

As usual, I was discussing various aspects of Christianity with a bunch of atheists, agnostics and self-professed "ex-Christians." One of the "ex-Christians" I was conversing with responded to one of my arguments by saying,

Rize: Please don't answer this with a bunch of theological mumbo jumbo. I'm an ex-Christian, so I know all the BS reasoning already.

In this particular case, we were dicussing the fact that God is both merciful and just. Surprisingly many people, due to their misunderstanding of both mercy and justice, view the two traits as mutually exclusive. However, the doctrine that God is both merciful and just is one of the central Christian doctrines. Jesus' substitutionary death to make salvation available to sinners makes no sense apart from a clear understanding of God's merciful and just nature. Because of his demonstrated misunderstanding, I wrote,

TheoConfidor: I'm not really sure that you can reasonably consider yourself an ex-Christian. It doesn't seem that you are familiar with even basic orthodox Christian theology. If you don't understand the nature of God, the nature of evil and the significance of the death of Jesus Christ, then you can't possibly have been a Christian to begin with. From our discussions it seems that you don't really know all the "BS reasoning" at all

In response to this, he wrote,

Rize: If it doesn't seem that I'm familiar with basic orthodox Christian theology, then it's only because there are so many competing branches (and my rejection of all of them probably doesn't help) and the instruction manual is ambiguous. Define orthodox Christianity? The few things that 90% of Christians agree on our probably known to every slightly educated person in the western hemisphere. If you want to go into the nuances, who can pin those down? To use your own example, what Christian knows the nature of God and how have they deciphered it? The Bible lists dozens of attributes that are impossible to understand rationally and frequently seem to contradict one another.

Obviously, this raises the question, "What is basic Christian orthodoxy?" Though the full spectrum of orthodoxy can be quite complicated and involved, there are a few central beliefs that more than 95% of Christians believe (this includes Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant Christianity). One simply cannot be a Christian, or reasonably claim to be a Christian, without understanding these basic doctrines. Similarly, despite the fact that there are relatively few basic orthodox Christian beliefs, I doubt that I'd agree with Rize that "the few things that 90% of Christians agree on are probably known to every slightly educated person in the western hemisphere." I doubt this, because more often than not, when talking to seemingly educated people in the Western hemisphere, there seems to be vast amounts of confusion or misunderstanding over even the most basic Christian doctrines.

In this post, I want to establish a list of what I consider to be the most basic and fundamental orthodox Christian positions, and briefly explain the scope and meaning of each doctrine. Given that being a Christian necessarily entails an understanding of the gospel and a saving faith in Jesus Christ, any doctrine that is needed to fully understand the bare essentials of salvation is a basic orthodox Christian doctrine. These doctrines are:

1 - The Existence of God
All of Christianity is based on the fundamental idea that God exists and is the Creator of the universe.

2 - The Nature of God
Being a Christian requires having a basic understanding of the nature of God, namely that God is a personal Being who has communicated truthfully to humans, that He is loving, that He is just, and that He is merciful.

3 - Man's Sinfulness
The Bible clearly teaches that God has established a clear, propositional moral code for people to follow, and that all people have broken God's commands. As such, all people are sinners who bear real moral guilt before God, and deserve the penalty for sin, which is death.

4 - Jesus is God Incarnate
Jesus Christ, born of a virgin, is God in human form. He came to this earth and lived a sinless life, so that He would be capable of serving as a sacrificial substitute for sinful human beings.

5 - Jesus Christ's Death on the Cross
After living a sinless life, Jesus Christ died on the cross, which paid the penalty for the sins of the world so that God's wrath would be appeased for all who believe in Him, and all believers would then become positionally righteous before God.

6 - Christ's Resurrection to Secure New Life
Three days after Jesus Christ died on the cross, He came back to life, just as He promised before his death. His resurrection proves his victory over sin and death and gives new life to all who place their faith in Him.

All six of these doctrines are absolutely essential to Christianity. Consequently, I would say that no person can reasonably claim to be a Christian, be an "ex-Christian" or even be slightly familiar with Christianity unless they have a clear understanding of all six doctrines. Much as it would be silly to criticize vegetarianism unless you knew what vegetarianism actually is, it is quite absurd to criticize Christianity (or defend it) without knowing what Christianity actually is. One can only speak intelligently about a subject that one is familiar with. For that reason, I think it is quite absurd for someone who does not understand even what the Bible teaches about God being merciful and just and man's sinfulness to claim to know "the few things that 90% of Christians actually agree on."

A Practical Rejection of Determinism

One of the longest running debates concerning human nature is whether or not people possess freewill. Though I have previously written concerning whether freewill and foreknowledge are mutually exclusive, until this point I have not written any sort of essay concerning whether people actually possess freewill, which is obviously an important issue. Are peoples' actions determined or predetermined by some external cause, such that people have no true control over their lives, or do people have the capacity to make real choices, and through those choices exert real control over various aspects of their lives and the world around them? That is the central question of this essay. Before we begin our analysis let us define the terms "determinism" and "freewill," let us establish a criteria for what qualifies as an acceptable answer to our inquiry, and let us set boundaries on the scope of the question.

Fundamentally, both freewill and determinism are philosophies that declare the ultimate determinant of human action. In that sense, both freewill and determinism recognize that there may be a large numbers of factors that influence any given human action. However, at some point, any action is taken or decision made (including a conscious or subconscious decision to refrain from acting) based on one final criteria. This is where freewill and determinism diverge. Determinism states that after all the factors have been taken into account, all human actions finally result from something external to a person. Freewill states that considering all factors, all human actions ultimately result from the basis of an internal, freely chosen decision. By "freely chosen," I simply mean that a person has the ability to choose to act or not act in any particular way. For a more in-depth analysis on which definitions of "free" seem to relate to human freewill, please read my sister's blog post on the topic.

Having defined both freewill and determinism, I also want to add a couple of brief clarifying notes. First, due to their definitions, freewill and determinism, in their pure forms, are mutually exclusive. That is, if human actions are internally determined, then they cannot simultaneously be externally determined. Likewise, if human actions are externally determined, then they cannot simultaneously be internally determined. Therefore, if freewill exists, determinism cannot be true. Alternately, if determinism is true, then freewill does not exist. Second, there is a third possible answer to our question. Though pure freewill and pure determinism are mutually exclusive, there is the theoretical possibility that a hybrid exists, such that people have freewill at certain times or regarding certain events, but that some actions are externally determined. A thorough analysis must consider this possibility. Third, there are many different sorts of determinism. Some people postulate divine determinism, where God controls the human soul and chooses peoples' choices for them, leaving them with no final volition. Some postulate biological determinism, where genetic code determines both biological traits and the choices that a person will choose to make. Some postulate forms of sociocultural determinism, where people's values, opinions and choices are determined by the sociocultural influences that shaped them during formative years. I am certain that there are other such forms of determinism. However, because the various types of determinism vary in quality, but not in effect, it is reasonable to place them all in the same overarching category, since all forms of determinism hold firmly to the tenet that human actions are externally determined.

Next, we must establish a clear criteria for what constitutes an acceptable answer to our inquiry. For any philosophy to be true and consistent with the real world, it must meet two criteria. First, it must fit the evidence. Second, it must be practically applicable. That is the criteria that will be used to decide whether people actually possess freewill, whether determinism reigns supreme, or whether there exists some hybrid of the two.

I hesitate to add a section solely to preempt those who will point out the obvious exceptions and extenuating circumstances that would cast my conclusion in a dubious light, but given the prevalence of those who would swiftly contribute irrelevant anecdotes and hypothetical situations rather than debate my thesis on a rational, evidential basis, it seems to be a practical necessity. When contemplating the question of whether humans possess freewill, we will limit the scope of the inquiry to normal, non-altered human capacity. As such, this inquiry is not concerned with whether physically or mentally impaired people are capable of making genuine choices, nor does it take into account those who are in physically, psychologically or spiritually altered states. Instead, for clarity's sake, our fundamental question is, "Do normal humans, operating in normal conditions, internally choose their own actions, or are their actions externally determined?"

The first criteria leads us to weigh the evidence for determinism and freewill. Since, volition is a very personal thing, which cannot be directly observed externally, let us first consider practical human experience. Whenever I take actions, I have the distinct impression that my actions are chosen by me, and are not externally compelled. Right now, I am convinced that I am writing this blog because I chose to. If I were to become bored, hungry or decide that my argument was weak, I am convinced that I could choose to cease typing and do something more entertaining, munch on a snack or take a break to clear my mind. There are no actions that I recall taking which seem to me to have been externally determined in any way. Supposing that this constitutes as evidence, all of my personal experience serves as evidence that freewill does in fact exist and that none of my actions are externally determined.

Now, the use of my personal experience as solid evidence is predicated on the assumption that my impressions and memories are correct and that my brain is functioning properly. It is entirely possible that I am deceived, uninformed or mistaken concerning the choices that I think I have made. If it can be conclusively determined that I am deceived, uninformed or mistaken concerning the choices that I think I have made, then my personal experience cannot be counted as sound evidence, and should be discounted. In fact, it is entirely possible that if determinism is true, I would be the final determinant of none of my actions and yet simultaneously be convinced that I do possess freewill. Supposing this hypothetical case were true, then it would quite impossible for me ever to know which of my actions are internally chosen and which are externally determined. Because of this, supposing this case were true, I would be incapable to find any evidence for it. If I am unable to find any evidence that both my actions are externally determined and that I am deceived into thinking that I maintain internal locus of control, then this hypothetical situation can be reasonably discounted under criteria #1, since there necessarily is a complete absence of evidence for such a case.

Therefore, having considered the alternate case, it is rational to assume that, given the present absence of evidence to the contrary, my personal experience can be counted as acceptable evidence since it stems from a sound mind. Similarly, I would like to submit your personal experience as evidence in favor of freewill, since I am convinced that you are consciously capable of making decisions to take actions, since you are consciously capable of refraining from such actions, and since in the normal course of life you are not aware of having taken any actions which were not also chosen by you. As I did for myself, I will also consider you to be of sound mind, and include your personal experience as acceptable evidence. If, for some reason, you consider your own mental state to be compromised, or your perceptions to be inaccurate, feel free to exclude your experiences from the evidence in favor of freewill.

Having examined the personal experience evidence for determinism and freewill, let us now consider the various sorts of external evidence. When observing the behavior of others, no one can directly ascertain whether actions taken by another person are done of their own volition or because of some external sort of determination. As such, when considering the actions of others, we can only hear their testimony concerning whether or not their actions are freely taken or externally determined. As such, any ordinary observation of the behavior of others will result in evidence of the same sort as the first category. Therefore, there are no new additions to our list of evidence from ordinary observations of the behavior of other people.

Concerning hard scientific evidence for determinism, some scientists have suggested that neuroscience provides clear evidence that a person does not ultimately have control over their own actions, but that instead, the biology of the brain means that the final determinant of human actions is the brain, which is formed by genetics and operates under the laws of biochemistry. There are numerous intellectuals and scientists who postulate that the discoveries made by neuroscience research serves as solid evidence that we live in a world of biological determinism, which would categorically disprove human possession of freewill. Joshua Greene, Jonathan Cohen, Daniel Dennett, Daniel Wegner, and many others hold the stance that freewill is an illusion based on the evidence of biology. However, there are several major problems with such arguments. First, as Lucretius of the Mises Institute points out in his brilliant essay concerning neuroscience and freewill, proponents of biological determinism mistakenly create a false dichotomy by suggesting that a person and a person's brain are separate entities. Second, even concerning what the evidence of neuroscience shows, there is no consensus about what it actually shows. For this reason there are a great many books which have been written in the past few years and many more which are being written. As neuroscience is a fairly new branch of science, it will be quite some time before there is a large enough body of research and enough scientific saturation to reach any sort of scientific consensus. Third, because neuroscience and indeed, all science, is categorically limited to the study of that which is empirical, all arguments in favor of biological determinism necessarily rest upon the premise that their exists no non-physical component of a person. Because of this inherent limitation, no neurological research can possibly establish or disprove the existence of freewill or a state of determinism so long as there may exist such a thing as a human soul or spirit. And, indeed, since there can be no empirical evidence supporting or refuting the existence of a human soul, the validity of any scientific evidence on the matter necessarily rests upon philosophical evidence or non-physical evidence of some sort. As such, there can be no conclusive evidence of biological determinism that is self-supporting. We see then, concerning any form of scientific evidence for or against freewill or determinism, none is self-contained, and therefore no acceptable scientific evidence has yet been discovered nor can ever be discovered concerning the existence of freewill. Because of the logically flawed nature of the present arguments in favor of biodeterminism, the lack of scientific consensus on the matter and the intrinsic limitations of the scope of neuroscience, no valid evidence for our inquiry can be admitted from the hard sciences.

Next, we must consider the evidence from sociology and psychology that pertains to our inquiry. There are some that argue that the choices people make are based on the social and cultural conditioning a person undergoes as part of growing up and functioning in a society. They argue that since one's decisions are, to a large extent, based on the results of past decisions, which often stem from the reaction of other people and the environment to one's choices, then all of one's decisions are not made freely, but are determined by the sociocultural environment that one lives in, which psychologically conditions people to behave and think in certain ways. Whether nature or nurture most dictates a person's potential and realization of such potential, sociological determinism suggests that all of a person's actions are ultimately based on their own prior choices and the response of their physical and social environments in response to such choices, which means that ultimately all of a person's choices are finally a result of operant conditioning, similar to Pavlov's dog. Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx are notable advocates of such theories, believing that people are ultimately slaves to their upbringing or their economic class, respectively. However, these sorts of theories, while interesting and even plausible, lack sufficient evidence to be considered conclusive. Though it is certainly possible that people are inescapably products of their own culture and that all human actions are determined by psychological and sociological forces, it has not been established that this is the case. While testing on animals has shown the power of operant conditioning, humans are very different sorts of creatures and are not as functionally limited, due to their established possession of higher-reasoning capabilities. For that reason, even people who have been psychologically conditioned to act certain ways because of their past, are capable of breaking the cycle and learning new patterns of behavior, either on their own or with the help of cognitive behavioral therapy. Given that there is much documented evidence of the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy, it is clear that while humans may learn certain patterns of behavior, they are also capable of unlearning them. Additionally, given the nature of sociology and psychology, though it is quite clear that social and cultural forces influence behavior, there is no evidence that people's decisions are completely determined by them. The existence of people who are non-conformers in all groups, regarding many aspects of life, even to their own detriment, would provide evidence that people are not solely molded and shaped by cultural and social forces. If it is granted that people's actions are not simply the result of social and psychological forces, then it cannot be clearly established that all people lack freewill, nor that all human decisions are sociologically or psychologically determined. If there is a case for sociological or psychological determinism of some form, it has not been sufficiently established. Additionally, due to the fact that humans are extremely complex beings, whose behavior often does not fit the predictive models of sociology or psychology, while it is reasonable to utilize such models to attempt to predict or explain human behavior, there is clear consensus that no one model in either category is empirically solid enough to make strong claims of any sort. For this reason, both sociology and psychology are considered soft sciences. As we are seeking only to admit solid evidence into our inquiry into freewill and determinism, no evidence from psychology or sociology can be considered acceptable.

Lastly, let us consider philosophical arguments that relate to the question of human freewill. Of these, there are more arguments for and against freewill than can be examined in detail in this paper. Though there are countless books, papers and resources written on the subject of philosophical arguments supporting or opposing determining, here is one by Norman Swartz that summarizes and analyzes a number of the most popular arguments on the subject. Among these are logical arguments in support of determinism, epistemic arguments in support of determinism, and causal arguments in support of determinism (which include the sorts of determinism that we examined in the last two paragraphs). Even in the realm of theology, there are countless proponents and opponents of divine determinism. These arguments rest either on the alleged incompatibility of freewill and foreknowledge (an epistemic argument), or on various unscriptural and illogical doctrines of God's sovereignty. The philosophical debate concerning determinism and freewill has been going on for over two thousand years and probably will not end anytime soon. However, given that suitable rebuttals have been written for every philosophical argument laid forth in favor of determinism, and also given that it is likely that a consensus will never be reached, we may either consider there to be a complete absence of evidence for determinism, or we may consider there to be a complete absence of evidence in support of both freewill and determinism. Since I am not presently aware of any arguments positively establishing the existence of human freewill, only of arguments showing that that there may be freewill, then we will consider there to be no evidence for or against determinism or freewill. As such, no sound philosophical evidence will be admitted pertaining to our inquiry.

Therefore, in conclusion to our examination of the evidence for freewill and determinism, we find that the only admissible evidence is personal experience, which provides support for the case of freewill, and offers no support for determinism. Though this is only one sort of evidence, it still is evidence, nonetheless. Any sound answer to our inquiry must properly explain why people think they have and seem to have freewill regarding their actions. An examination of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that our final answer must be one of the following:

1 - Human beings actually possess freewill and an awareness of their ability to exert control over their own lives
2 - All human actions are externally determined, including a determination that humans will have the illusion of freewill
3 - Human beings sometimes possess freewill and sometimes do not, and when they do not they still think they do

Having examined the evidence, we will next consider the case of freewill and determinism in regards to practical living. As stated above, the second criteria for an acceptable answer to our inquiry is that it must be practically applicable. We will now examine the practical implications of each of the three possible answers.

In the first case, if one believes that human beings possess freewill and an awareness of their ability to exert control over their own lives and the the world around them, then there are a good number of practical implications. First, we may trust our own brains and senses, since the information our brains provide (thinking that we choose our own actions) is trustworthy. This also means that, for the most part, we can trust our brains to provide us with mostly accurate information regarding ourselves and our world. Though our thinking may be wrong in some ways, at least the raw data that we process may be reasonable and acceptable. Second, since each person chooses their own actions, each person is capable of shaping their own life and is responsible for who they are, how they act, where they live, how happy they are and so forth. Additionally, if a person is unhappy with their life, they have the capacity to improve it by taking practical steps to increase their well-being. In psychology, this is referred to as "internal locus of control," and is a sign of mental health. Third, because each person is capable of impacting the world and other people, they also are personally and morally responsible for the impacts of their actions. This means that people can reasonably be held accountable for their actions and rewarded or punished based on what they do, how they impact the world and how they treat people. These are the primary and most important practical implications if people actually do possess freewill.

In the second case, if one believes in determinism and holds to the ideas both that all human actions are externally determined and that people maintain the illusion of freewill, there are also quite a number of practical implications. First, the fact that a person is being deceived by their own brain into thinking that they possesses freewill, when they do not, must lead to the conclusion that one's mind is not reliable and therefore no mental or sensory data can be rationally accepted. In such a case, your brain and all your thoughts are demonstrably untrustworthy, and therefore should be completely discredited. Second, since no person has any control over their own actions, every person is completely incapable of shaping their own life or the world in any way. Each person's actions, personality, living accommodations, and happiness are completely out of their control. If your life sucks, there is absolutely nothing that you can do about it. In psychology, this sort of thinking is referred to as "external locus of control," and is a sign of poor mental health. It is nearly identical to learned helplessness. Third, because each person is incapable of controlling their impact on the world or their treatment of others, there can be no personal or moral responsibility. All crimes that are committed could not have been prevented or avoided in any way, neither by the volition of the criminal nor by the choices of third parties, since no person has any control over their own actions. This means that all morality, laws and heuristics are ultimately powerless, unnecessary and ineffective. Nothing could occur any way other than how it does, and no person is capable of acting differently than they do, nor of volitionally changing in the future. Everything proceeds exactly how it must. Fourth, because of those previous implications, not only is freewill an illusion, but nearly everything about human existence is an illusion. Personality, relationship, thought, discovery, love, adventure and emotion are all ultimately vacuous. There can be no such thing as rationality. In this sense, the deception of determinism is even more profound and pervasive than simply being massively deluded beings, as depicted in The Matrix, for at least in such a case the deception may not be permanent, and even though the brain is deceived, there still exists real people, real choices and the potential for real impact in one's world. In the deterministic case, even the concept of personality is a delusion, for not only is the world illusory, but people do not exist as they seem to. This is the necessary and inescapable practical implication of believing in both determinism and the human possession of the illusion of freewill.

In the third case, if one believes that sometimes people possess freewill and sometimes their actions are externally determined, but that even when actions are externally determined, people still think they possess freewill, one is led to similar conclusions as in the case of pure determinism. So long as there are more externally determined actions than internally determined ones, then one cannot trust one's own brain regarding physical or cognitive information about oneself or the universe. Similarly, since for any given action you are more likely to lack control than have control, a majority of your actions, thoughts, situations and personality are not under your control. This leaves you in a similar psychological position, where most of your life you are helpless to change or alter. Not only will this leave a person with learned helplessness, but also there is the constant doubt and confusion over whether this is one of the times where one has freewill or whether this is one of the times where one's actions are externally determined. The case for moral and personal responsibility is the same as in the previous example, for no-one can be certain whether they or others are acting under their own volition or are externally controlled, which makes it impossible to establish reasonable culpability of any sort. In summary, a belief that more actions are externally determined than not must lead to a practical belief that most of life is an illusion and that when it isn't, the illusion is indistinguishable from truth. Practical living in accordance with this philosophy inevitably leads to a perpetual confusion, and a denial of personal and moral responsibility for one's life and the impact of one's actions.

Summary
Finally, we have concluded the analysis of determinism and freewill in regards to both of the established criteria. The final answer to our inquiry must be one that is both consistent with reality and practically applicable. In the category of evidence, we find that there is no solid evidence for determinism and their is one type of evidence that strongly supports the existence of freewill. The personal experience of each and every normal living person supports the hypothesis that people do possess freewill, since all are convinced that their actions are freely taken. Concerning practical applicability, there is no incompatibility between a belief in unfettered freewill and a real participation in human living, in every aspect of life. There is clear incompatibility between any form of belief in determinism and practical living, for a belief in determinism means that one cannot trust their own brain or sensory experience. Also, a logically consistent belief in pure determinism necessitates a belief that all of life is ultimately an illusion, and that no thoughts, people or choices exist, in any real sense of those words. Alternately, a belief in partial determinism necessarily entails a perpetual state of confusion about oneself, the actions of others and the resulting state of the universe. Partial determinism is, in many ways, even more mentally deadly than pure determinism since it entails a perpetual belief that the universe and the self is being tossed about by invisible entropic forces. Therefore, based on the evidence, the only rational conclusion to reach is that freewill exists. Similarly, concerning practical applicability, no human can logically and consistently live with a belief in any sort of determinism. On this basis, the only rational and consistent stance to take is that humans do possess unfettered freewill, and that they are aware of it. Normal people, under normal circumstances are in control of their lives, since they choose each and every action that they take.

Divine Brutality

Last week, while writing a blog on Christianity's stance on violence, I pondered many of the examples of violence and brutality in the Bible. Quite frankly, the Bible has numerous exciting stories and wondrous tales. Not only are there countless examples of heroic men and valiant fighters, but God Himself is responsible for countless killings. One thing that I personally found fascinating is that God kills people in various assorted ways. He rarely uses the same method more than once or twice. Quentin Tarantino is renowned as a movie director because of his creative scenes of violence. As creative as he is, God's violent creativity far surpasses anything Tarantino has ever done. Here are several brutal tales of divine slaughter:

-Massive global flood, killing nearly all of the world's population (Genesis 6-8)

-Fire and brimstone rain from the skies and annihilate two cities (Genesis 19)

-Angel of death kills all the firstborns in Egypt (Exodus 11)

-Watery deathtrap, as the parted Red Sea drowns an entire army (Exodus 14)

-The earth split apart and swallowed Israelite rebels whole (Numbers 16)

-Raging fire from heaven selectively consumes over 200 men (Numbers 16)

-Wild, venomous serpents kill numerous whiny Israelites (Numbers 21)

-Diseased rats are sent to spread tumors, decimating the Philistines (1 Samuel 5)

-A deadly assassin angel kills 185,000 Assyrian soldiers in one night (2 Kings 18-19)

-King Herod was struck by worms and devoured instantly (Acts 12)

While God loves it when people live righteously and honor Him with their lives, He's perfectly prepared to deliver justice in the most vivid, deadly and powerful ways possible to those who reject God's way of living by embracing rebellion and wickedness. As someone who doesn't especially relish the idea of being buried alive, drowned, bitten by a viper, consumed by fire, eaten by worms, nor slain by an assassin angel, I try to live my life in accordance with God's moral law and honor Him with my words and actions. However, we live in a world where all people have freewill. If you think that you can mock God, deny His existence and remain completely unafraid of God's wrath as you try to sleep at night, then go ahead. Richard Dawkins is trying out that strategy. Personally, my money's on the most creative and brutal instigator of violence in the universe.

Salvation, Love and Justice - A Discussion

A couple of months ago, we were discussing whether anything is knowable. Recently, we have been discussing the nuances of salvation. Though I often disagree with Ulcer, I have great respect for him, simply because he actually cares about the topic and offers occasionally brilliant insights. Our discussions are always scintillating and require me to critically think through various philosophical and theological issues. Here are some excerpts from our most recent discussion on salvation and my responses:

Ulcer: If "God cannot simply ignore or forgive the sinner and require no death, because that would make Him unjust," then it follows that grace and forgiveness are not intrinsically just, and since God is just, then grace and forgiveness are not godly qualities. So it follows from that, that Christ's crucifixion has nothing to do with my sins being forgiven, but rather appeasing the outrage of God as you have so succinctly explained. So if it is justice to condemn and punish, why even bother to send a sacrificial lamb to take the punishment? Why not just throw us all into the incinerator, wash your hands, and be done with it? The reason cannot be because God loves us. If love had anything to do with it, God wouldn't need to punish anyone. Consider what the apostle Paul had to say about love: "Love is not provoked, it keeps no record of wrongs." (1 Corinthians 13:5) So yes, he really could simply forgive the sinner, if the sinner was truly, sincerely, deeply remorseful.

First of all, I must say that your reply is very comprehensive and clearly represents a great deal of thought on the issue of salvation. However, it does appear that you don't fully understand the Christian position.

It seems that you view God's love and justice as mutually exclusive traits. This is not the Christian position. Rather, God is both perfectly loving AND wholly just. Because God is just, He must condemn those who break the moral law and enforce the stated penalties for a given offense. Because God is loving, He desires personal relationship with each person and desires the best for each person. Though love may keep no record of wrongs, the nature of love requires chastening not only for the sake of the relationship, but also for the sake of the chastened individual. Hebrews 12:6 points this out, "For whom the Lord loves, He chastens, and scourges every son whom He receives." Based on that fact, let us revisit your question. Why does God not just throw us all into the incinerator, wash His hands, and be done with it? Because God's relentless love for each person leads Him to desire relational restoration, absolution from moral guilt and righteous living for each individual.

There are a couple of things wrong with the appeasement philosophy of Christianity, besides the love problem. First of all, you deserve credit for the creative answer you gave to explain how the sacrifice of the one can pay for the many. It does make sense that is if you believe in God in the first place. There's still a problem though: Is Jesus in Hell right now? Will he be in Hell for eternity? If the punishment for my transgressions is eternal torture (or separation from God), then it doesn't matter how much Christ suffered on the cross or how pure and holy he was. You cannot outsize eternity. If it is a one-for-one trade, then only way Christ can redeem us for our sins is to be in Hell for eternity.

Now you are changing the punishment. The wages of sin is death, not eternal torture. As I stated before, death includes both the physical component and the spiritual separation. Death is not an eternal state, it is a temporal occurence which may last for a very short time, or an eternity. In the case of the unrepentant sinner, he is dead now (being spiritually separated from God), and he will remain dead eternally, supposing no change of heart. In Christ's case, He experienced a spiritual separation from God the Father while He was on the cross, dying physically. In Jesus' case, the death was a very short occurence, for death had no lasting claim on Him. He was physically dead for 3 days, and spiritually dead for no longer than that. In a like manner, for Christians who believe in Jesus Christ, death is powerless to hold them. Therefore Paul writes, "So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: 'Death is swallowed up in victory. O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?' The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. 15:54-57)

Still another problem is this: Even though I may have been absolved of my sins, I am still a sinner - one who sins - and I have a hard time believing that the God who was about to throw me into a pool of lava for stealing a candy bar won't eventually get irked at my mere presence again. Eternity is a very long time to go without another blood sacrifice. This is similar to the situation that a woman in an abusive marriage would be in. If her husband strikes her in a fit of rage, should she believe that he won't ever do it again? Now if God loved me unconditionally, I don't think I'd have much cause for worry, but we've already established, according to your explanation of Christianity, that my reconciliation with God has nothing to do with love and forgiveness.

Again, you have artificially divided God's loving nature from His just nature. God loves you even when you do sin or steal a candy bar. Even if He, to fulfill justice, throws you into hell, it is never because that is what He most wants to do. God, for some uncomprehensible reason, loves us in spite of the fact that we are sinners. The only reason He sends someone to hell is because of two things. First, justice demands it. Secondly, the sinner has willfully rejected God's love and His sacrifice and insisted on separation from God. Because God is just and because He respects the free choice of each person, God will send a person to hell who meets those two conditions.

You are quite right to say that reconciliation has nothing to do with love and forgiveness. Reconciliation is a legal concept, related to true moral guilt. Love and forgiveness are relational attitudes. However, because of God's love and desire for a joyous, personal relationship with each person, He is not indifferent to a person's choice. Because of His love, God desires that all people would choose absolution and reconciliation.

You have failed to make a good case for salvation through Christ. Now let me try.

When you offend someone (sin), you severe your relationship with them. Think of love as a cord that connects you to someone; it is the dynamic between you and I. Unselfishness, or giving consideration to the opposite end of that dynamic, keeps that connection strong and healthy. Selfish acts, from the subtle (refusing to help you with something) to the overt (physically attacking you), cuts that cord. This is something that you do, yourself. Its not that the other person - the opposing end of the dynamic - has stopped loving you, its that you have stopped loving them.

In most cases, anyone who truly is sorry, and feels the full gravitas of the unlove that they have committed against someone else, will not want to be forgiven! If someone arrives at a thorough understanding for what they've done to someone, and comes to have respect for social connection, they will want what's coming to them! But you don't have to give it to them. Instead of condemning them, you can redeem them through loving them again. You can mend the severed cord, just because. And why not? Which is better: the severed cord or the mended one? (Consider Matthew 8:5-8)

It is not possible to forgive someone who isn't sorry for what they've done (and, by the way, you also deserve credit for correctly stating that the sacrifice of Jesus must be accepted in order to work. Obviously, it doesn't matter how much you love someone; if they don't love you back, you don't have a relationship with them). However, if the offender is truly, deeply remorseful, the loving thing to do is to forgive the offense for the sake of love itself, and nothing else, no matter what. Love is awesome enough by itself to be the only thing ever needed for sins to be forgiven. Love is the meaning of life. Love is the whole reason why we exist. Why do you think God created us? He created us so that there could be a dynamic between Him and us, because it is only by that dynamic that love can exist. No one can love themselves; that's not what love is. Loving is not being obsessed with oneself; it is being obsessed with everything that surrounds you.

Indeed it can be said that Jesus Christ suffered horribly on the cross of crucifixion so that sins can be forgiven, but how, or in what way, does this get sins forgiven? Does blood and death get sins forgiven? Let’s look to John 15:13 – Jesus says “A greater love hath no one than this: that he lay down his life for his friends.” So, God had to prove to himself (as well as us) that he really did love us enough to forgive us for anything by becoming flesh and demonstrating his commitment to that love in the greatest way that love can be expressed: self-sacrifice.
And that, Theoconfidor, is how you make the case for salvation through the sacrifice of Christ; because love - not blood and death - is what gets sins forgiven.

If salvation were merely the restoration of relationship between God and man, your case would be powerful and compelling. However, salvation involves not just one, but two things:

1 - Absolution from real moral guilt stemming from a person's choice to sin
2 - Restoration of the broken relationship between God and a person

Therefore, no case for salvation is complete unless it includes both legal absolution to satify God's justice and relational restoration. Love, blood and death are all necessary for sins to be forgiven. That is the Christian position. It may not be appealing to the modern person, but it is the truth.

Do you know what the irony is this time? I am an atheist. I do not believe in a sentient, personal creator. I believe that morality is relative. I don't believe that there is any ultimate meaning to life (which is OK because life doesn't need meaning) aside from simply enjoying it. I do believe it is very likely that a historical figure named Yeshu existed, but he was no more divine than you or I. You are the devout Christian, here. You are the one who would, presumably, claim to have a personal relationship with God. And yet, even I can make a better case for Christianity than you can. Why do you suppose this is?

If you truly do make a better case for Christianity, then why do you not believe it? I find it hard to consider a case that is unconvincing a very good one.