They can't all be right...

...therefore they must all be wrong.

I realized today that I might be holding a strong bias against academics.  Many mutually exclusive worldviews exist.  There cannot be many gods, no gods, and only one God at the same time.  Christianity and Atheism are in direct opposition.  Every champion for each side has his opponent, otherwise we would all be of one mind.  If every argument for the existence/nonexistence of God can be disagreed upon, then they must all be incorrect in some way.  I don't want to waste my time studying ideas that are incorrect, yet the pursuit of truth requires that falsehood is exactly where I begin.  Yet with such an anti-scholar bias, would I believe the truth once I found it?

The idea of an absolute truth is absolutely unquestionable to me.  While we may all perceive the truth in different ways, there cannot be conflicting explanations as to why I exist.  If I do not exist, I would never be able to prove it because I am limited to the realm of "existence" from which to collect my data and form my conclusions.  Since I cannot know anything about nonexistence, I must work within the realm of existence.  So why do I exist?  Am I the product of a combination of chemicals obeying physical laws created by the reverberations of dimensional strings caused by random chance, or was I specifically designed and created by a Creator who operates outside the perceivable universe?  Both cannot be simultaneously true.  There exists an answer; the only question is whether or not the answer can be obtained.  We have been given eyewitness accounts of the interventions of a Creator that exists outside of the perceivable universe.  But what of the places where the eyewitness accounts seem to contradict naturalistic observation?

One of the arguments that I have always hated most is the idea that simply because a worldview can be properly constructed in which a Creator is unnecessary, a Creator must not exist.  A fundamental tenet of the Christian faith is that knowledge of God cannot be acquired without God revealing himself.  Indeed, this seems to agree with the idea of a being that exists outside of the testable universe.  If this is true, then nature should never prove that a Creator exists.  If so, man has created his own path to the knowledge of God and faith is no longer required.  If the presence of a Creator can be proven, then God's action in the universe would be unwarranted and mankind would all be of one belief, albeit not all of one doctrine.  Christianity smacks of parallelisms to this idea, namely the Fall and the Tower of Babel.  If the Bible is true, then the only way to believe in God is for Him to reveal himself to the heart personally.  The Intelligent Design movement, therefore, is mutually exclusive to orthodox Christianity.  They can't all be right, and everyone seems to have at least some wrongness about their arguments.

In an interest in deepening my knowledge of modern arguments in apologetics, I recently picked up "If God, Why Evil?" by Norman Geisler.  While the foundation that he lays in the book seems to be logical, it breaks down once the ideas are drawn to their full conclusions.  For example, one of his arguments is that man was created with free will.  Since all that God created was very good, free will mus therefore be very good.  Yet God cannot have free will.  It presents a logical paradox analogous to asking "Could God create a stone so heavy even he couldn't lift it?" or my personal favorite "Could God create an argument so stupid even he couldn't answer it?"  The Bible seems pretty clear on the fact that God is unchanging, cannot lie, and cannot denounce himself.  If that is the case, then He is (in some sense) bound by his own will.  While there are many interpretations of his will (specifically where his Will seems to run contrary to his actions), each of those wills cannot be to oppose himself.  God would be in conflict, and therefore imperfect.  If free will is not a trait which God possesses, then either...
1. God possesses free will and is imperfect
2. God lack free will and therefore lacks something good
3. Free will is not good, and therefore man was not created very good
4. Man was not created with free will
While the 4th option intuitively seems to run contrary to what the Bible says, Martin Luther once wrote on the "bondage of the will".  Clearly this is a book that I will need to read if I am to pursue this mystery further.

To underscore my initial point, Geisler makes multiple illogical arguments (not limited to the example described here).  It could simply be that I misunderstood his point or that he could not adequately address these seeming contradictions in the scope of his book, yet I find myself wanting to become superior to an author that is considered one of the greatest apologists of our time.  I want to feel as if I have something to contribute to the intellectual community that is genuinely unique and valuable.  This desire aligns perfectly with my angsty "No one truly understands me" perception which I never fully outgrew.  Perhaps this desire is to be embraced as motivation to work and study.  Alternatively, it could lead me to become an arrogant asshole that would deny the obvious truths that many others embrace.

EDIT: I came down a bit too hard on Geisler.  As I progress further through his thought process, his ideas are well-reasoned and explained.  Before I make judgments about his assertions on free will, I should probably read his book designated for the subject.

Duality

Those who know me best often describe me as a series of internal contradictions.  I am in a constant state of cognitive dissonance, never being satisfied with any one choice or solution.  Here are some examples.

I am both an introvert and an extrovert.
I need to be around people, yet always need to be alone.
I am a fairly disorganized and messy person, but hate messiness and disorganization.
I am both vain and filled with self-loathing.
I view myself as both superior and inferior to others.
I am filled with constant discontent, yet would describe myself as happy.
I have a very unhealthy diet, yet am quite health-conscious.
I am constantly self-absorbed, yet other people matter to me more than anything else.
I am creative, yet logical.
I always want to be in a dating relationship, yet yearn for singleness while involved with a woman.
I am confident and self-reliant, yet insecure and dependent upon others.

Many of these contradictions likely resolve to singular explanations that I simply have not take the time to investigate.  Many other people likely share these same dualities.  I write this only to point out that a new duality has recently been creeping into my mind:

I believe both that the Earth is young and that it is old.

I can't explain exactly how I feel on the subject.  If you ask me how old the Earth is, I would give you a different answer depending on the day.  It seems so overwhelmingly clear to me based on the evidence that the earth cannot be as young as the Bible claims.  Yet somehow, this is the position I stand by.  If I had to sign a contract asking me how old I actually believe the Earth is, I would go with the biblical definition.  Both explanations seem right, yet they are certainly at odds.  The Earth cannot be billions of years old and have been created only a few thousand years ago.  Unlike my other dualities, this contradiction feels strangely comfortable.  Irony comes in the knowledge that this is the only duality listed here which is irreconcilable.

As a nation, I don't see how we can adopt anything but a scientific explanation of what we see.  Yet in my own life, isn't the truth of the Gospel the idea that matters most and is to be upheld at all costs?

Youth Leadership

Ever since moving to North Carolina, I've been involved with Reverb at the church.  I am a "leader" of a group of students that has no interest in doing exactly the thing that I want them to do.  As a teacher, I know how this goes.  I'm not that far removed from my teenage years, so I still remember how it feels to be a part of a group that is trying to get me to appreciate something that I just don't value as much as they do.  Yet as a Christian in a position of authority over youth, is it not my job to push them toward that appreciation and relationship with Christ?

During worship this morning, a presentation was given by the Lutheran Hour Ministries that contained some statistics to support a perception that I've long held: the American Christian church is dying.  Over 1500 pastors will be newly unemployed this month.  Only 50% of churches have seen at least one person come to faith.  Over 85% of churchgoers are completely disengaged from the church community.  While the statistics continue, the fact remains that the church is suffering.  Faith is stagnant; the country is becoming secularized.  As an institution, I don't see how the government could be anything but secularized.  For example, I oppose homosexuality because the Bible says it is sinful; however, I don't see why people think it's the government's place to decide what's sinful.  Even though statistics don't show a strong increase in atheism over the past few decades, Christianity is being consistently exchanged for build-a-religion philosophies or something very much like it.  Americans are free, and there's nothing I can say to the contrary.  However, I find it irritating how uninformed and misguided many people are about what Christianity is in its true, un-American form.

Perhaps this reason more than anything is what makes me cringe when a student fails to locate Genesis in their Bible.  I didn't come to discover intellectual endeavor until I was a college student, and I feel most people can my age can relate.  Many of my friends described their own journeys as having been raised in the church and being actively involved in youth ministries without ever knowing Christ.  Upon reaching college, these friends either find the fulfillment of all those years at youth group or finally get away from all that church stuff.  It's frustrating to see how small, falsifiable arguments are capable of entirely realigning a person's priorities.  While these realignments surely stem from longer-developing positions and issues, I can't help but wonder how to prepare a person for a world of philosophy and logic to which they have had no prior exposure.  We shelter these kids from what we think are demonic ideas, all the while convincing ourselves that they are adequately equipped with their stories of Noah and Daniel's respective relationship with lions.  The secular world often accuses Christians of brainwashing their children at Jesus camps, and to some extent they're right.  We try to shelter our students from the very things they should be equipped to deal with.  1 Peter 3:15 tells us to always be prepared to give an answer for the faith that we have.  If people don't know what the "problem of pain" or the 3-O paradox are, how can they give an answer to it?  If so many Christians want schools to "teach the controversy", why can't we find it in ourselves to do the same, even if it is from a biased perspective? 

Perhaps I am disarming the work of the Spirit to some degree by being overly intellectual.  But have our traditional youth programs honestly been working?  Have they been breeding better, more loving, self-aware people?  Why are youth leaders all over the country pulling their hair out trying to figure out how to make their students successful?

On a related note, I discovered tonight that I am great at finding the heart of a problem, but awful at solving them (as every ex-girlfriend will attest).

Beginnings

I never thought it would come to this.  Me, a blogger.  Go figure.

I desperately need an outlet.  I am finding no satisfaction in conversation with those around me.  No one I speak with sees things the way I see them and are unable to offer the guidance I seek.  I should have been chronicling my investigations for years now, but I suppose late is more advantageous than never.

I told myself that I would follow the truth wherever that lead.  I am now faced with the realization that I may not be capable of abandoning the ideas to which I have cleaved my entire life.  Frustratingly, this aligns precisely with my long-held ideas.  Christianity says that the Holy Spirit --whom I, a member of God's kingdom, posses-- will uphold and preserve me.  He has promised to seal and guard my faith.  I have long been convinced that I am one of the elect.  If that is the case, then I have nothing to fear and all this doubt will merely be a mechanism that will strengthen and deepen my faith, ultimately leading to my salvation.  But do I have the courage to ever reject the only world I have ever known at the cost of my relationship with my family and friends?  I know that my parents would continue to love me, but their hearts would be broken if their son were to become an atheist. I still have many hurdles that would need to be crossed in order to reach such a point, but would I be able to do it if that's where the evidence led?  Never in my life has my faith felt weaker-- a phrase I have said many times only to subsequently have it bolstered twenty-fold.

I become very frustrated knowing that I can never objectively analyze all of the evidence-- not that pure objectivity would even bring me to the truth.  It frustrates me that the exact things that I see and experience directly contradict each other.  Faith contradicts logic; logic contradicts faith.  Neither can be relied upon.  How do I find truth?  Truth cannot be adequately distinguished in the word of others.  Every argument has a counter-argument.  Is it even possible to be right?  My desperate desire is to escape this body and see the world through some form that is not bound by neurological affect and presuppositions.  Without being able to do this, how am I to divide truth from falsehood?

The foundation of the Christian faith is the cross.  I vowed that I would not abandon faith unless there was no other choice.  Christianity would, by default, be correct until proven wrong without possibility of reconciliation.  I have no reason to flippantly sacrifice all that I have known without having absolute certainty.  Such an argument is fundamentally illogical, but my faith dictates that logic is not the foundation of my knowledge.  Logic breeds understanding, yet logic itself can be deceptive and misleading.  The appeal to a greater power and a greater knowledge would bring assurance that truth could be discovered, but how do I know when I am deceiving myself?  Is that voice in my head the voice of God (or God directing my thoughts), or is it simply a projection of my desire for God to exist and speak directly to me?

And this is the human condition.  I hate existence.