Search Results

God writes the Gospel not in the Bible alone, but also on trees, and in the flowers and clouds and stars.                                                                       Martin Luther (1486-1546)                                                                                                         March 11, 2025                                                                    It is time to move on from Non-Contradiction.  That news may come as a relief…   As the “Welcome to this Blog” note on the home page notes, the focus of Elijah’s Cave is on Christian Apologetics.  In pursuing that goal, to this point we have been teasing out the meaning – and application – of Romans 1:20:  “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature —have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made…”   Since God’s divine nature is not contradictory, we have explored several examples of now Non-Contradiction is built-in to what has been made, in ways both material and non-material. Admittedly, this has mainly been an intellectual exercise: we have reasoned our way into and through a number of Creation’s features to see the Principle Non-Contradiction applied.    In doing this, we have shown that faith and reason are not opposed to each other, but are, in fact, complimentary and, beyond that, reinforcing .  No Christian need fall into the trap that faith and reason are opposed.  In making human beings in His image , God gave us reason, in part, that it might support our faith in Him and what He made.   This is tied to another statement Paul makes in Romans, this one being found in 12:2:  “Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind . Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is…”  To understand the Principle of Non-Contradiction, and apply it thoroughly, is one way in which the Christian mind is renewed.   However, the “mind” that Paul has in mind – sorry – is different than the mind as it is commonly understood today.  We tend to think of “mind” as meaning intellect or thought, but the Biblical definition is broader.  When Paul speaks of “renewing your mind,” he is referring to our spiritual faculty which is “the seat of human reason, understanding, emotion  and will.”*   For “emotion,” substitute “affections.”  Our affections are those things that we most desire.  So, yes, the Christian mind that is being renewed thinks more logically and more clearly, and  its desires and affections also change. Thus, the transformation about which Paul speaks in 12.2 is much more than change in one’s thinking and understanding, it is a “re-forming” of the whole person, including our loves.   I think that a growing understanding of Non-Contradiction has impacted me in at least three ways:   1.        It has expanded my sense of awe and wonder, both at who God is and at the Universe.  To see that God has disclosed something central to his nature in everything and everywhere in Creation makes me be still and be reverently amazed.  Psalm 46:10 is more meaningful than ever!   2.        It has strengthened my comfort in God’s sovereignty and His presence. Recently, I have been reading Martin Luther’s The Bondage of the Will  (2025 being the 500th anniversary of its publication) and I have been struck by how brilliantly Luther describes the fullness of God’s sovereign rule over Creation.  The quote that begins the article is NOT from the book, but expresses something profound about God’s self-disclosure in what He created.   3.        It has intensified my affection for Holy Scripture, and for its unity and its trustworthiness.  More than ever, the Bible is the solid foundation on which I rest my belief that God’s Word is without error and that His promises are trustworthy.   Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised… (Ps. 48:1a)   Next time: Non-Contradiction and Limits   * From Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Bible Words  (©2005, Hendrickson Publishers) p. 638.

Nonsense is nonsense, even when spoken by famous scientists.                                                                                               John Lennox   February 27, 2025                                                                I realize that “despise” is a strong word, so I am being quite intentional when I say that I despise “celebrity culture” – a curse in our age of mass media where some people are famous for being famous, and others, who achieve great success and fame – as an athlete, or entertainer, and so on – are presumed to have great expertise on matters far from the area in which they achieved success.  Thus, we have the movie star and the pop music star whose views on social and political issues media outlets consider influential.   I won’t mention names…   Celebrity scientists are another part of celebrity culture.  Richard Dawkins is an example of a celebrity scientist.  As for Albert Einstein, if not a celebrity scientist, he was certainly a celebrated scientist, and rightfully so!  (He died before celebrity culture fully blossomed.)  Other celebrity scientists of recent vintage include Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Stephen Hawking.  Professor Hawking is my person of interest for this post.   The “down side” is Celebrity Science is the façade of authority that it gives to anything “scientific” that a celebrity scientists says.  Science has enjoyed a good reputation in our culture for many decades, much of it deserved because science has produced many great discoveries.  However, that good reputation may shield scientists from criticism some of their ideas deserve.    Richard Dawkins is a good example of this: as I showed, his claim that Science and Religion are mutually corrosive is a “straw man;” set in the proper context, there is no conflict, yet, Dawkins’ status as a celebrity scientist has given his opinions a credibility that is not merited by evidence and his arguments.   That said, I realize that Science has increasingly been corrupted and distorted by ideology (i.e. politics) in recent decades and its standing in the culture has declined.  So-called Climate change (hereafter “Climate change”) and pandemic mismanagement during Covid – both of which relied on politicized pseudo-scientific “evidence” and scare tactics to manipulate people – have soured significant segments of the public on Science’s reputation.   Stephen Hawking is an interesting case.  In many ways, he is to be admired: a brilliant scholar, a ground-breaking scientist (physicist) whose research advanced our understanding of the Universe, and an individual who persevered through great personal adversity to have a productive career while living with a disabling disease.   But… he is also the scientist who co-authored this:   “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”                            — Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design, 2010   The quote from John Lennox that begins this post is aimed precisely at the Hawking-Mlodinow excerpt above.  For Professor Lennox’s full critique, go here: https://web.archive.org/web/20200327195214/https://www.rzim.org/read/just-thinking-magazine/stephen-hawking-and-god   Let me offer a few thoughts in line with what I have presented about the Principle of Non-Contradiction and the nature of scientific inquiry:   “Spontaneous creation” is NOT a scientific concept, because it contradicts the Law of Causality: it proposes that an effect (the Universe) caused itself.  This is a) cannot happen, and b) is not testable or falsifiable.  I would call it Mythical – you cannot find spontaneous creation any more than you can find a circle with corners!!    “A law such as gravity” is NOT nothing.  Granted, it is nothing physical or material, but it is something; otherwise there is nothing on which to build an argument.  There is an ancient Latin saying: Ex nihilo nihil fit  (Out of nothing, nothing comes.)  This is self-evidently true! It is also plain, old common sense!   Alternatively, Hawking and Mlodinow play fast-and-loose with the definition of “nothing,” and attach a meaning to “nothing” that is different than the common, garden-variety definition.   A Wikipedia article about The Grand Design  summarizes John Lennox’s critique, but it is also far too respectful of various other views of book and props up the credibility of a ridiculous, unscientific myth, in part because one of the myth’s authors was a celebrity scientist!   This is another reminder of the lengths to which fallen human beings will go to suppress the truth!   Next time: Thus Far, Some Reflections * John Lennox (b. 1943) is a mathematician, bio-ethicist and Christian apologist with a particular interest in the relationship between Science and God. He is also Kristen Getty's uncle.

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.                                                                                    Albert Einstein (1874-1955)   February 24, 2025                                                                Last time we combined a little explanation about what Science is, as a discipline, with a little editorializing  about a scientist, namely Richard Dawkins. I want to repeat that approach in this post.   Recall that Science is the study of cause-and-effect in closed systems  (i.e. systems where what is being studied can be controlled and a proposed explanation can be tested experimentally).  While correct, this definition is not quite complete: to be “scientific,” the proposal being studied must be able to be shown to be incorrect, or false; in other words, the scientific method can only study things which are falsifiable .   In other words, a proper scientific explanation (aka a hypothesis ) must be able to be proved or disproved; thus, if ever the result of an observation contradicts the prediction, the theory or hypothesis must be revised or rejected.   This is Einstein’s point in the quotation above. And this is what separates Science – think Natural Science – from “Social Science” (History, Sociology and so on).  Where Science studies mechanisms in Nature and how they work, Social Science studies human nature  and human behaviour .  One studies various closed systems, while the other studies open systems.    (I realize that some argue that, in the end, there are only closed systems, and that some systems only appear to be open because we do not have enough knowledge – yet – of all the factors that are in play. For the purpose of this post, I will simply note that such an argument is not scientific, it is philosophical and blindly philosophical because it is not supported by actual evidence.)    In studying either system, one gathers evidence  to support a theory which explains what is being studied; however, scientific evidence is better at predicting results in Nature than social scientific evidence is at predicting human behaviour.  Let me share a story involving Dr. Einstein that illustrates this.   Before I finished high school, I was taught the Steady State Theory of the Universe. This theory claimed that the size of the Universe is unchanging: the Universe is, today, the same as it has been in the past and as it will remain forever; in other words the Universe had no beginning and has no end.   Now, since Science studies cause-and-effect, the Universe is an effect , and, by definition , every effect must have a prior – and sufficient – cause.  (Do you see where this is going?) The obvious question arises: “What caused the Universe?”  Of course, the Bible has an answer: Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning, God…”   But note that, to claim that the Universe has no beginning and no end is to propose that: the Universe is an effect without a cause; OR  the Universe caused itself.  Both of these are: 1) impossible; 2) nonsense; and 3) outside the realm of scientific study.   Yet, Albert Einstein once advocated the Steady State Theory!  This “giant” in the field of Science, a man who surely understood logic and the laws of causality, embraced a nonsensical, unscientific theory!  And he did this despite the fact that the mathematics which supported his theories showed an expanding Universe with a beginning!     Why?  I think there were two reasons: one lying in what we know about Einstein-the-man and the other being found in the Bible.   From his own words, we know Einstein disliked the conclusion to which his equations about the Universe’s origins pointed.*  For a time, his all-too-human desires  overwhelmed both mathematics and evidence, and so he buried that which he did not like.  Which gets us to the second reason…   Einstein wanted to avoid the God of Genesis 1:1; the Steady State Theory allowed him to do that; so he suppressed the truth – just as Paul describes in Romans 1:18, “…who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.” Like all fallen human beings, Albert Einstein was unrighteous by nature  and he acted as Paul tells us sinful people act.   Since the 1970’s, the Steady State Theory has faded as a credible explanation for the origins of the Universe; it was sidelined by evidence favouring the Big Bang.  To his credit, Einstein did abandon Steady State nonsense – in 1931 – as did a number of other big-name scientists of that era. Yet this anecdote reminds us that even the greatest scientific minds belong to fallen human beings.        * Here is one online source for more information about this part of Einstein’s record: https://phys.org/news/2014-02-einstein-conversion-static-universe.html   Next time:  Celebrity Science and Error

February 15, 2025                                                                Not only is science corrosive to religion, but religion is corrosive to science. Richard Dawkins   Atheists frequently claim that there is an “existential” conflict between the Bible and Science – that, ultimately, the world/universe/reality can be explained either by “Science” or  by Scripture.  Of course, only Science is "true." This is the outlook that lies behind Richard Dawkins’ quote above (and I will return to him at the end of this post). For the orthodox Christian, this is an easy issue to resolve: there is no conflict , and there can be no conflict , because God created “Science!”  As we have seen, the Creator is without contradiction in Himself, and what He has created reflects his divine nature (through the Principle of Non-Contradiction. (Again, see Romans 1:20.)  End of argument!!   But what does it mean that God “created Science?”  Well, Science, itself, is a thing: a tool for studying material things that God made.  Science has proven to be a powerful tool, providing all kinds of information about how various things in the Universe work, and, through thus opening the door to a better understanding of the physical world. But Science, itself, is a merely method for collecting data…   To be a bit more technical, Science is a way to study cause-and-effect in a   closed  system. (NOTE: A closed system is, by definition, a collection of “parts” where no part of the system can enter or leave on its own.  Think of any machine, as opposed to the machine operator.)   The results of a given chain of cause-and-effect in a closed system can be repeated: with a given set of components (or variables), the result will always be the same. “Good” science, then, provides data that becomes an explanation (i.e. theory).  However, change one or more variables and the result changes.     Open systems ,* on the other hand, are not uniformly predictable.  These systems are “open” to the coming and going of factors which are beyond the observer’s control.  History, for example, studies open systems; human behaviour may follow certain general patterns but it is not rigidly predictable in the way that Science demands – hence the distinction between Natural Sciences (physics, chemistry, astronomy, etc.) and Social “Sciences” (history, psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc.). Remember the old adage, “History does not repeat itself.”   What we might not see in a quick reading of the study of cause-and-effect in closed systems  is that cause-and-effect (aka the Law of Causality) is a restatement of the  Law of Non-Contradiction ! (Yes, you simply cannot escape the Principle of Non-Contradiction!!)   Science puts the Law of Non-Contradiction – i.e. “a truth claim cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same relationship” – in a different form: “a thing cannot be a cause and an effect at the same time and in the same relationship,” or “an effect cannot be its own cause.”**   This being the case, then the conflict between Science and Religion that Richard Dawkins claims is a “straw man.”  If scientific investigation operates on the same principles of Non-Contradiction that are in the Bible and that appear everywhere in Creation, then claims that science and religion are “corrosive” to each other is, at best, misplaced and, at worst, fake news.   It is also fair to say, that, in the quote, Dawkins takes the posture of speaking as a “scientist,” but he is not speaking scientifically , and he glosses over this point.  He claims that Science and Religion are mutually “corrosive,” but he cannot provide any empirical  evidence from scientific experimentation to support that.; he is merely offering an opinion – and it is a philosophical or political opinion – for which his position as a “Evolutionary Biologist” offers him no particular standing.   It is also fair to say that he ignores the underlying issue of causality.  He may do so because he is blind to it or because he does not want to draw attention to it, but he should, based on his education and his “trade” know of it and its importance.    In defending our Biblical faith, we need go no further than this to answer any question about conflict between Science and Biblical Christianity.  I want to reflect further on this topic in the next post…   * The definition of “open system” that I use is what I would call the ordinary or general definition, but I must point out that “open system” also has a technical definition that is used within scientific disciplines. ** There are two other Laws of Causality that parallel the Laws of Logic: Every cause must have an effect; and Every effect must have a prior, sufficient cause.   Next time: Suppressing Non-Contradiction

February 6, 2025                                                                    We seem to gain wisdom more readily through our failures than through our successes. We always think of failure as the antithesis of success, but it isn't. Success often lies just the other side of failure. Leo Buscaglia (1924-1998)   Well, “No,” Mr. Buscaglia, failure is  the antithesis of success!  (And if it isn't, then both words are meaningless!) What you did to add “punch” to the point you wanted to make is use a form of fallacious reasoning called equivocation :  that is, you switched meanings for “failure” – defining it with reference to “wisdom” in the second part of the quote after defining it in terms of material results in the first part.   Still, I appreciate the use of the word “antithesis”…  It opens the door for me to backtrack a little and cover a point that I missed in earlier posts explaining the Principle of Non-Contradiction.   “Antithesis” is a synonym for “contradiction,” and for “opposite.”  While “thesis” often refers to a lengthy research paper that a Master’s or PHD student writes in pursuit of such a degree, here we use the word “thesis” to simply refer to a concept or idea.    “Antithesis” sets up opposing  ideas – literally, “anti-“ (against the) the “thesis” –.  For example, “up” is a thesis, a concept about direction; “down” is its antithesis, the opposite idea/direction.   I really should say any opposing idea. We tend to limit antithesis to direct opposites – “up” vs. “down,” “on” vs. “off,” and so on – but antithesis is a broader concept than just those things that stand in direct opposition.  “Sideways” is also an antithesis (opposite) of “up,” as it is of “down.”   Other than being synonymous with Non-Contradiction and opposites, antithesis does not add much to this discussion; however, it does allow me to make a few comments about a related concept: synthesis.   As commonly use, “synthesis” has two meanings:   a)       something that is artificial, as opposed to natural; and b)       what results from combining two or more –presumably “pure” – things.    Polyester is a synthetic fibre.  Cotton is a natural fibre. When synthesized – i.e. combined – polyester and cotton make a synthetic  fabric.    Synthesis, in philosophy, is different.  It embodies a radically unbiblical notion of truth.  Truth, in the Biblical sense, is objective. It is universal, unchanging, permanent.  2+2=4 is an example of Truth in this Biblical sense: always true, everywhere true, absolutely true, eternally true.  Biblical Truth is rooted in the unchanging character of God and it is evident in the very nature of Creation (see Romans 1:20).   When we come to synthesis, the whole Biblical scheme of Truth is turned upside down.  Synthesized truth is local, conditional, always changing (i.e. evolving and “progressing”) and, to the extent that truth reflects the character of “God,” it assumes a changing god whose character evolves.  This is profoundly unbiblical, and a classic case of the above-mentioned fallacy of equivocation, where the same word – God – is given radically different meanings.   So, at this point, synthesis has ceased to be an option for any Christian who lives under the authority of Scripture.  However, it is useful to add this:   Although I don’t think people very often talk these days in terms of synthesis, it is the foundation of moral relativism – the belief in flexible, evolving “standards” of right and wrong that has dominated Western culture for several generations.  Synthesis, however, has two fundamental flaws:   a)       its ties to “progress” are irrational and arbitrary; these are the feeble claims of mere human “wisdom” and “progress” has no objective external reference point to differentiate it from regress. (i.e. “Progress” is whatever I want it to be.) b)       despite its claim to rise above or supersede antithesis, synthesis always rests, ultimately, on a foundation of Non-Contradiction/antithesis.    Remember, there is always at least one absolute truth!  Synthesis is simply a fancy way of saying “everything is relative.”  Wrong!                                                              Synthesis is also the foundation of Evolution – in the Darwinian sense – but that topic is beyond the scope of this post.  Perhaps we will turn to that in the future.   Next time: Non-Contradiction and Science

February 1, 2025   I confess to being somewhat behind in my blogging.  We spent a good chunk of January in Florida.   Of course, we paid attention to the Trump inauguration and events thereafter, and in particular, to the National Prayer service on January 21st – officially A Service of Prayer for the Nation – the “highlight” of which was the rebuke that the presiding clergy – “Bishop” Mariann Budde* – gave to the President about his apparent lack of “compassion” for various groups who tend to be favoured by the political “left” and the mainstream media.   What struck me about the rebuke – which I acknowledge was given politely, and what prompts me to write this – is the extent to which the ensuing controversy involves, at its roots, the Principle of Non-Contradiction.  Who would anticipate that!?   For example, “Bishop” Budde believes that borders are meaningless and count for nothing: that a non-border is the same as a border (i.e. normalizing the self-evident contradiction). Without real borders, citizenship, in the same way, counts for nothing: the non-citizen has the same legal standing as the citizen.    (Note that this normalizing of the contradiction in view requires no mention that the government’s role in tolerating, if not encouraging, this necessarily involves a betrayal of its duty to its actual citizens.  Indeed, making this point will very likely get you labeled as “racist.”)   As for “gender-related” groups (LGBTQ++), I have outlined the normalizing of contradiction(s) related to “gender identity” earlier and am not inclined to repeat it here.    The extent to which the new Trump Administration has put the Principle of Non-Contradiction in play in its early days is striking.  Most noteworthy, I think, is the Executive Order that makes it Federal government policy that there are only two genders!!  (I wish the EO referenced two SEXES.  “Gender” is a term that has been politicized, for the purpose of sidelining traditional/Biblical understandings of sex/male vs. female).  It is a harsh commentary on the state of our culture – and NOT the Trump Administration – that this should be necessary.   As for analyzing this incident through the lens of Non-Contradiction, my further thoughts are:   While the manner and tone of “Bishop” Budde’s rebuke to the President was civil, the content was nonsense.  Civility is to be highly valued as a virtue, but it is a secondary virtue to Truth.  Again, any belief, policy, or ideology based on self-contradictory assumptions is nonsense!  And even nonsense delivered civilly and eloquently is still nonsense!!    The liberal bishop’s rebuke was not based on Biblical theology; it was part-psychology and part ideology: certain “marginalized” people feel “scared,” and feelings trump (I couldn’t resist the pun!!) all else.  The coinciding claim that people are scared, presumably for good reason and not on account of some irrational, baseless “phobia,” is a claim that needs to be supported by good evidence; this was left unaddressed.  What needed to be proven was assumed – another shortcoming that should have been fatal to the bishop’s message.    Truth be told, temporal borders are strongly supported in scripture.  In relation to the territory that made up Old Testament Israel, see Numbers 13:3-12 and Joshua 13-21, for example.  Yes, hospitality was owed to guests within those borders, but guests were clearly distinct from Israel’s citizens.  The claim that illegal immigrants in the United States are no different than sojourners passing through ancient Israel is a false equivalence of the highest degree and an abuse of Scripture.   For an insightful analysis of “Bishop” Budde and her sermon, I commend to you this article by Sean Walsh from The Conservative Woman : https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/beware-the-expedient-christianity-of-the-secular-left/   Next time: Antithesis   * “Bishop” appears in quotes because the office, created in scripture, cannot properly be held by a woman.  Marian Budde is not, therefore, a legitimate bishop of real church.  And Yes, one can question whether the Episcopal Church is any longer a real church.

January 15, 2025   Scientists have evidence that Adam and Eve existed                                                                                                                 Headline, MSN.com ,   Well, well!!  At long last “scientists” acknowledge that Adam and Eve actually existed!  Who knew?   Now, I must not be ungracious – although I remain skeptical that this announcement is a genuine concession to Biblical teaching – but the timing of this story was providential, coming as I finally get ‘round to writing this post: I had decided to start with this question: “Did Adam and Eve quarrel before The Fall?”    The correct answer, I am sure, is “No.”  Before sin entered creation, they “saw” – with both their physical and mental eyes – all things from the same perspective and in the same way.  They lived in the perfect unity and harmony of the Garden.   However, God made all created things mutable; that is, they could change.  Mutation, though, would only happen if something were done to disturb God’s good work, and that “disturbance” occurred when Adam and Eve disobeyed God’s command to not eat of the forbidden fruit.    Their disobedience, of course, was contrary  to God’s command and – to once again use my preferred lens – that contradiction was costly.  As noted in the last post – and forgive me for being repetitive – that contradiction of the Creator’s command causes a collision – a costly collision with multiple types of damage – and one consequence is a change in human nature.   The Bible uses a number of metaphors/images to describe this change: stiff-necked (Deut. 10:15-16), a heart of stone (Ez. 36:26), spiritually deaf (Is. 6:9-10), spiritually dead (Eph. 2:1-2), and spiritually blind, to name a few. With regard to the last of this list, in Isaiah 9:2, the prophet speaks of “a people walking in great darkness;” he speaks of spiritual  darkness, of a type of blindness of the heart/soul that is unable to “see” – that is, to desire – God and so to follow righteousness, and so they are separated from God.   In his meeting with Nicodemus, recorded in John 3:1ff, Jesus has spiritual blindness in view when he says, “unless a man is born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God… (v. 3); spiritual sight comes after spiritual resurrection!  This resurrection is solely the work of God and all of us are born in need of it.   Now, I want to choose my words carefully because I am trying to briefly outline a Biblical understanding of why people don’t “see” contradictions and even normalize contradictions.  For example, the entire LGBT++ enterprise normalizes contradiction.  It has always done so.  It must always do so.   To some people, like me, the contradictions in LGBT++ ideology are obvious – and, of course, determinative.  Yet, to others the same contradictions are irrelevant and unimportant, and to still others, I think – particularly when we get into matters like the transgender stuff – they are unseen .    In Romans 1:18-32 Paul describes what lies behind human social problems, and that the blindness which accompanies them, at least some of the time.  It is a radically different view than that of the secular Social Sciences – psychology, sociology, and anthropology.  They often “explain” various behaviours in terms of “insanity” and “mental illness.”  I think Romans 1 addresses such behaviour – and more – without going anywhere near the modern idea of insanity.   This is important because the concept of “insanity” replaces the Biblical concepts of sin and legal guilt before God with ideas of “disease,” “illness,” and “guilt feelings.”  This serves to make us mere victims of mental malfunction, as opposed to moral actors in rebellion against their Creator.    These secular ideas are so widely accepted in the modern, secular West that even most Christians accept them, thereby undercutting the relevance and power of the Gospel in dealing with the effects of sin.   While this is a most cursory analysis of issues that are complex and many-layered, Christians who love the Bible need to reflect on, and come to terms with, this area where the Church has surrendered to secular ideology.     Fallen human beings are “blind” and, left to their own devices, these people will, of course, do “crazy” things; not “crazy” things always and all the time, but “crazy” things!!  And note God’s oversight of this in “giving them up/over” to their evil desires (see 1:24, 26, 28), where we remain guilty – as opposed to “ill” – and responsible for our actions.   Lastly, for this post, the Bible teaches that, in some cases, people do  not see because they are cannot  see.  To judge them – as opposed to their beliefs and actions – as beyond redemption is a grave violation of Jesus’ command “Do not judge…” (Mt. 7:1-3).    Spiritual sight is a gift from God! We are to be grateful for it, and to pray earnestly that God gives it to others, even our enemies.     Next time: TBD

In argument about moral problems, relativism  is the first refuge of the scoundrel.                                                                                              Roger Scruton                                                                                            January 4, 2025   The quote displays the late Professor Scruton’s (d. 2020) sense of humour.  However, if you are not acquainted with the late, great Dr. Samuel Johnson (1709-1784), you won’t get the joke.*   As we have been moving along, it may have occurred to some readers that “contradiction,” aka the Principle of Non-Contradiction sounds a lot like “relativism,” or “moral relativism,” if one cares to be a bit more precise.  These days one could also speak of “cultural relativism.”  “Gender identity” is also a form of “relativism.”   Relativist arguments go thusly:  “It’s all relative.” “You have your truth. I have my truth.”  “________ [ insert truth claim ] is (merely) a construct, conditioned by the place and times in which one lives/lived.”  Axioms such as: “To each his own” – in Woke phrasing: “To each their  own” – “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” and so on are all catchphrases for relativism.   What underlies all such statements is the worldview that there are no governing facts to which we all must submit, no correct answers, only opinions.    Yet, however “tolerant” and reasonable it sounds , this is nonsense!!!  The one who says “It’s all relative” is not merely offering an opinion – which one is free to accept or reject – he, or she, is making a fact  claim; the inference is: “It is absolutely true that it’s all relative” or “The correct answer is that everything is relative.”  So, contradiction rears its head once again.   What Christians, and all others who are able to reason consistently, should see – and understand – is that even fine-sounding nonsense is still nonsense!**  One website I visited - https://twominenglish.com/its-all-relative-meaning/ - and of quite recent vintage, offered what I regard as all the standard arguments lauding relativism’s supposed “tolerance;” it completely missed the contradiction, and  failed to properly distinguish between “relative” and “related.”   For instance, the article states:   Saying “it’s all relative” acknowledges… differences in experience or opinion without arguing that one perspective is better than the other.   Is that true?  It sounds reasonable, but isn’t the author’s unstated argument/truth claim – albeit implied and not clearly stated  – that being skeptical of all perspectives is the best option .  However, skepticism is applied to everything except the skepticism   itself  [and that makes sense when you think it through]!   What we have here is folly at the level of The Emperor’s New Clothes !  Roger Scruton’s “scoundrels” are fools, who pedal foolishness   as wisdom!  It is a sign of Christian maturity that we can identify contradiction and an even greater mark of that maturity that we do not let it pass, that we “call it out.”  We don’t want to be rude or nasty; this is one way that we learn to “speak the truth in love.” Now, all created – or temporal – things are related  to space and time; they also have limits.  Therefore, every created thing – by definition – has a context, each has a perspective, but these are built into the nature of limited thing, but that does not mean they are relative , and, therefore, without any fixed meaning.  [This is what Einstein’s Theory of Relativity  actually shows:  that within the bounds of physical space and time, there are absolute answers.***   So, once again we review where we have been: On is On and Off is Off without variance; every baseball pitch is either a ball or a strike without variance; only one object can occupy a given space at a given time without variance!   For what it’s worth, even Einstein is on side!! As he once said: “The more I study science, the more I believe in God.”  Amen.   Next time: Contradiction and blindness? * Johnson was the author of a landmark English language dictionary (1755) that was the benchmark dictionary for at least a century, and a celebrity in Britain in an age before celebrities.  Scruton’s quote is a play on a famous Johnson quote: “ Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” ** Here I paraphrase Professor John Lennox and his criticism of Stephen Hawking: https://www.azquotes.com/quote/1419298 *** Apparently, Einstein (1879-1955) disliked the name Theory of Relativity ; his preferred name was Theory of Invariance .  [See Einstein's Theory of Relativity is a Theory of Invariance-Constancy .] A different name can make quite a difference!!

For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Genesis 3:5                                                                                        December 31, 2024   One of the Bible’s most impressive descriptions of God comes in the 40th chapter of Isaiah (vv. 9-31).  There, God speaks, again and again setting Himself apart from His creation.  The poetry is magnificent!  “To whom then will you liken God, or what likeness compare with Him?” (40:18)   Underlying the astounding claims in these verses is the truth that God is self-existent.  He has no beginning and no end; he has always been and always will be.  He is not a creature and He – Father, Son and Holy Spirit – stands apart  in nature and being  from all that He has made.  The apostle John implies this in the prologue to his gospel (see John 1:1-14 and also Ex. 8:10; Ps. 86:8; Is. 46:9).   In an earlier post, Reality with a Capital R , we had noted that God is one  - one in that He is without division or parts.  This goes hand-in-hand with God’s self-existence.  Since He is one, He cannot contradict himself.  His Word is without contradiction; in fact, it must be without contradiction. There is no other like God and there can be no other like Him .   For our purposes, we want to note that it is impossible, both logically and in practice, to have two  “self-existent beings” – two Gods, in the Biblical sense – because one of those would, necessarily, have to have been created by the other.    To be sure, the Bible teaches that men and women are made “in the image of God ,” but the Imago Dei  stops far short claiming we are “like” God, as far – and further – than the image of yourself that you see in a mirror is from being you.  It is only a mere reflection of you.  And this introduction brings us to the story of The Fall in Genesis 3.    I think it noteworthy that the Serpent’s approach to tempting Eve employs contradiction: he says, “… you will be like God…”  What the Serpent implies is “Eve, You can be equal with God; you can be on the same footing as God when it comes to determining what is good and what is evil…”   But, of course, as the opening explanation makes clear, that’s impossible.  There is only one God, only one Being in whom and from whom all standards of right and wrong, good and evil, flow.  The Serpent’s lie is that it could be otherwise!   Genesis 3 begins with the observation that the Serpent was more “crafty” (ESV ), “cunning” (HCSB), “subtler” (NKJV) than the other creatures.  He doesn’t come out and say, directly, that Adam and Eve can dethrone God, as in take God’s place, but he “puts his toe up to the line.”  And, sadly, Eve takes the Serpent’s bait: offered the first, the Original, contradiction, she accepts, and does Adam, too.  The rest, as they say, is history! Just as we saw back in the Colliding with Reality  post, an attempt to have two objects  occupy the same space at the same time will fail, every time!  With two automobiles, both will likely suffer damage in the resulting collision, but here the Human Beings suffer all the damage, among which is the wherewithal to avoid contradiction and, thereby, to avoid sin.  As Isaiah would later write: “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned – every one – to his own way…   Thus, Original Contradiction begat Original Sin!*   Again, ponder the extent to which the Principle of Non-Contradiction is: 1) built into the structure of Creation, in both the physical and spiritual realms; and 2) is inescapable.  Oh that we would have spiritual eyes that see what is always before us!  (See Mt. 13:15)   Next time: Contradiction and Relativism * The term “Original Sin” identifies the origin of sinful human nature – that is, the spiritual death – that resulted from Adam-and-Eve’s first sin, and that is the sin nature in/with which all people are born.  See Rom. 3:9-18 and Eph. 2:1-3.

December 27, 2024 I do not feel  obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use. Galileo Galilei Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina 1615, Essay                                                                 Through these last several posts the focus has been on the meaning – contradictory meanings – of various words and terms, and you may have noticed that I seem – shall we say? – somewhat obsessed with such things.  I confess that I am something of a word-nerd .   And that brings me to the word that hold the position of most-disliked word that I must endure: feel .   You will note that this is the first post in which the word “feel” – or any of its derivatives: feeling, felt – appears (see the Galileo quote above).  There are four reasons that “feel” holds this place of “honour” (sarcasm alert!!) for me:  1. The word has bugged me all my adult life, and far longer than any other word. 2. It has such a hodgepodge of meanings/uses that it promotes, in most cases, obscurity rather than clarity 3. It elevates subjectivity (i.e. personal prejudice) over objectivity (i.e. the quest for Truth) 4. Beyond #3, it subtly reinforces the secular assumption that “Man is the measure of all things,” which, today, is best rendered as “I am the measure of all things.” As to point #2, here are some of the meanings commonly attached to “feel” as people use it:   a) a sensation in one’s body: “I feel a cold wind on my cheeks…”  b) an emotion I have within: “I feel angry/sad/joy/thankful/jealous…” c) a moral status or condition: “I feel guilty…” or “I feel sorry for…” d) having an urge: “When I see a piece of paper, I feel I have to draw.” (Ellsworth Kelly)** e) what I think: “I am a bit of a tomboy, but then a girly girl; and I feel like you can be both.”  (Doja Cat)** f) expressing an opinion: “I feel that all _________ (choose your noun) are fascists…” g) in having an intuition, hunch or 6th sense: “I feel that 2025 will be a good year..." The first definition/use is fine.  However, the rest of the list – which by no means exhausts the various uses of “feel” – is sufficient to show how detrimental the word is clear communication.    Furthermore, “feel” often clouds important distinctions between emotions and being/doing (see b) and c), in particular).  For example: feeling guilty (having guilt feelings ) is not the same as being   guilty .  In fact, people often feel guilty without having done anything wrong – and vice versa.    With regard to actual guilt without guilt feelings, think of Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka, who brutally murdered two teenage girls. Neither Bernardo, nor Homolka, has ever shown any remorse for their crimes or the guilt feelings that would be associated with that. As the years pass, we are seeing increasing evidence in our culture of a trend to rest the law on emotions. This is seen in a growing belief that some actions which break the letter of the law - rioting, killing, immigration - ought not to be prosecuted where people "feel" strongly that circumstances exist which justify the act. I am among those who see this as evidence of the seriousness of the cultural rot which infects The West.   Therefore, “feel” is a word to avoid, whenever possible.  I would also encourage you – if you are not in the habit of doing so – to pay attention to the frequency with which “feel” is used.   The sloppy use of “feel” parallels the normalizing of contradiction and goes back a long ways.  The opening quote would seem to suggest that “feel” had fallen into sloppy usage as long ago as 17th century Italy; however, I blame the translator!  Galileo wrote in Italian and I am skeptical that the word “feel” which appears in the quote is the literal translation from the Italian (or perhaps Latin, which was the common academic language of that time).   Much more recently, C.S. Lewis addressed the problem with feelings 80+ years ago in The Abolition of Man (1943).  There he critiqued The Green Book  which had been introduced in the British school system to replace classical instruction, and which undermined the teaching of natural law and objective standards of truth, beauty and ethics.  If you have not read this short classic, I heartily commend it to you, both as an explanation of Biblical principles and as a prophesy pointing to the times in which we now live.***   For a more recent and in-depth consideration of many things related to this issue, you should also tackle Carl Trueman’s The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual Revolution (2020).   On a lighter – and punny NOTE  – on my personal Hit Parade of pop songs, the second-worst song of all time is Feelings (Morris Albert, 1975)!!  At #1 is John Lennon’s Imagine.   Next time: The Original Contradiction * Saying attributed to Protagorus (c.490 BC – c.420 BC ** As found on Brainyquotes website:   https://www.brainyquote.com/topics/i-feel-quotes?__cf_chl_tk=bBFMHrkKT_s2UzAUdqZALYZ9Fa.m8q_IKItqlV4R6k0-1735321341-1.0.1.1-oLNCXUT4QvLZkXs8K3PBOnq6Q3zKbRjIx9HnCLQFnOE *** The Abolition of Man, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Abolition_of_Man

December 17, 2024   Language matters because whoever controls the words controls the conversation, because whoever controls the conversation controls its outcome, because whoever frames the debate has already won it, because telling the truth has become harder and harder to achieve in [a culture] drowning in Orwellian Newspeak. Erica Jong "Seducing the Demon: Writing for My Life” Penguin (2007), p.9.   Our Lord told his disciples that he “was sending [them] out as sheep among wolves; therefore, be as shrewd as snakes , and as innocent as doves.” (Mt. 10:16 NIV).  As Christians living in the midst of a culture that is, as per Erica Jong above, “drowning in Orwellian Newspeak,” this is one thing that Christ taught which needs more of our attention!   To place the Erica Jong quote in a Biblical context: given the decline in the influence of orthodox Christian belief* and influence over the last couple of centuries, politics has enlarged to fill the vacuum left by waning traditional religion – so much so that vast numbers of people now worship in the Church of Big Government and have adopted politics as their secular religion.   Belief in  and pursuit of  heavenly paradise has been replaced by belief in and pursuit of  earthly utopia.  Forgive me for saying this, but many “conservative” Christians are not very politically astute and so function as “doves” when the times call for “serpents.”  The appropriate Christian shrewdness begins with understanding the agenda behind so much of today’s politicized vocabulary.   Consider the word “racist” – commonly used to describe real, or alleged, prejudice and discrimination based on skin colour.  Now what is the opposite of “racist?”  According to “experts” such as Ibram Kendi (nee Rogers), the opposite of racist is “anti-racist.”  And to be “anti-racist” is not to oppose discrimination based on skin colour; no, it is to replace “bad” discrimination with “approved” discrimination that fits a particular political agenda.   Here’s how Kendi puts it quite succinctly:   “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.”   Notice how Kendi normalizes contradiction.  The “remedy” to past discrimination based on skin colour is other discrimination based on skin colour!  I hope this reminds you of Animal Farm : “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”  It is a parallel kind of “logic,” and it is nonsense. As well, it offers no solution; it merely substitutes one evil for another.   I mentioned that “anti-racism” is intended to advance a political agenda – that agenda is Marxist in its outlook.  (You can easily find this in Kendi’s writings – an online search will quickly reveal that, for Kendi, to be “anti-racist” is to be “anti-capitalist.”) And Marxism – which, at best, is a heretical distortion of Biblical truth – and Biblical Christianity do not mix!   So, “racist” and “anti-racist” are worthless words that Christians should avoid, except when explaining why they are worthless.  Instead, we can talk of discrimination, (unwarranted) prejudice and bigotry.   As well, they are damaging words.  To use these terms is to, regardless of what you intend, to validate nonsense and legitimize the Marxist “baggage” that travels with them.   Much more could be said about the problematic nature of “racist” and “anti-racist,” but I am content with a “once-over-lightly” explanation at this point.  Perhaps we will consider the matter in more detail at some point in the future.   As for other worthless words that Christians should eschew, of course, we should not use any “Woke” expressions other than to explain their propaganda purposes.  For this post, I conclude with a short list* of those I find most distasteful:   Progress, progressive Equity Tolerance Privilege Justice Narrative _______phobia (as in homophobia, transphobia, etc.)   In typical conversation, these words are useless because they have no fixed definitions.  Note that they are all “loaded” words in terms of their moral “weight,” yet we have no assurance that any are defined with reference to an external (common) reference point – that is, an objective “horizon.”  Each is defined subjectively and is thus “slippery” because the definition is subject to drastic change at the whim of the “advocate,” to advance whatever is the political agenda.  Again, see the Jong quote that opens this post.   Mature Christians are not to be naïve about such things!!   Next time: More Than Feelings     *         It is good exercise to practise being on the lookout for such words.

November 23, 2024 You get in trouble following yourself around. Billy Martin (Baseball celebrity) Billy Martin is/was a baseball legend – perhaps not in quite the way that Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle are baseball legends – yet Billy made his mark on “America’s pastime” from the 1950’s through the early 1980’s.    Although he was a good baseball player, Martin is best remembered as a successful and, shall we say, volatile Manager who became famous (infamous?) for his histrionic arguments with umpires over strike calls with which he disagreed – clashes which sometimes led to his ejection from games – and even to at least one suspension for kicking dirt on an ump.  This is our entry point into the theme of this post… To call a pitch a ball or a strike is to make a truth claim, and it is to make a truth claim which inevitably includes some element of subjectivity.  An umpire must subjectively interpret  the borders of the strike zone according to how he/she sees them, and those borders are not visible in a way that makes it clear to all observers where the boundary (horizon line, as I have been calling such things) is that separates a ball from a strike.   So, while baseball is just a game, the ball vs. strike issue – and the controversies associated with it – follows the same pattern as a multitude of other controversies: abortion, euthanasia, crime, poverty, drug abuse, immigration, pandemic restrictions and so on.  (Please note that each of these issues has an opposite that parallels ball vs. strike.)   Observant souls will note, “Truth is not always clear-cut. Social and political issues “coloured” with shades of gray!”  Having set these as their premises, the argument continues:  “We must be tolerant and allow for diversity and disagreement, and that requires that we forego objective Truth.”    This is a fairly typical argument in support of relativism, and it sounds  good, but let us examine the baseball strike zone as a template for the reasoned way to approach and resolve disputed truth claims that does not end in anarchy or tyranny.   This probably my favourite illustration of the Principle of Non-Contradiction:  the strike zone is a wonderful example of something that upholds the objective nature of Truth while also recognizing that our subjective experience and interpretation of reality is also in play  (forgive the pun!!).  Note the following: The strike zone has an objective definition (see the MLB Rulebook for the definition).  Hence, the strike zone is an object ! The strike zone’s definition allows for variation (it varies from batter to batter). Regardless of the batter, every pitch is either a ball or  a strike (just like the light is either “On” or “Off.”) People will disagree over whether a given pitch is a ball or a strike.  However, disagreement does not overrule this: every pitch is, at the end of the argument, either  a ball or  a strike.  No pitch is ever both a ball and a strike (i.e. a ball for me and a strike for thee/my truth AND your truth).  As well, no pitch is ever neither a ball nor a strike. (The Principle of Non-Contradiction is fully applied.) The Strike Zone   The strike zone has an objective definition (see the MLB Rulebook for the definition).  Hence, the strike zone is an object ! The strike zone’s definition allows for variation (it varies from batter to batter). Regardless of the batter, every pitch is either a ball or  a strike (just like the light is either “On” or “Off.”) People will disagree over whether a given pitch is a ball or a strike.  However, disagreement does not overrule this: every pitch is, at the end of the argument, either  a ball or  a strike.  No pitch is ever both a ball and a strike (i.e. a ball for me and a strike for thee/my truth AND your truth).  As well, no pitch is ever neither a ball nor a strike. (The Principle of Non-Contradiction is fully revealed.) Again, the strike zone illustrates how Truth may, in some sense, be unclear to us – as in “variable” or “comparative” – but it is never “relative.” Any lack of clarity results from our limits, not the "limits" of Truth itself.   Given the quote that begins this post, I don’t think Billy Martin was nearly as good a philosopher as he was a baseball player and manager.  However, I am confident that he understood the strike zone in precisely the way I have described it.  And, despite his antics on the diamond, Martin knew that the game could not tolerate his temper tantrums about missed calls.   Finally, think about what happens to the game of baseball if the truth about balls and strikes is treated as “relative.”  What will inevitably result is confusion, escalating tempers, violence and chaos, making the game uncivilized and unplayable!!  The same requirement exists for living in a free and orderly society! Next post: Worthless Words