Menu
Welcome to ElectricChurch.net!
Philosophical Truth Seeking
What is the purpose for humankind? Why am I here? What is my destiny or where are we going? Is there an eternity, or is our end nothingness?
I’m not going to fool you. You already can guess where I’m going just by how I’ve framed the thesis question. Maybe you’ve heard some version of this discussion before. As opposed to a knee jerk reaction, I appeal to you to engage this subject as you would all the other vital and important subjects and or information that come to all of us on a daily basis on which we make value judgments. Weigh the evidence and or logic. Is it truth? If it is not truth, no damage has been done. I’ve just had another great opportunity to exercise my neural connections before they are re-absorbed by the cold and indifferent universe of pointless existence. If it is truth, how shall I respond? We all must accept and reject all kinds of information for all kinds of reasons. Remember though, fear should never be the arbiter of rejection or acceptance, the truth of the matter is the real arbiter, whether we wish to agree with it or not, truth is static, unchanging, and absolute regardless of whatever philosophy is in vogue about truth.
Cauliflower is good for you…. but I still don’t like it, nor will I accept it for my own consumption. It is a conscious, deliberate decision I’ve made and live by. On the other hand, if I had only one alternative to save my life and that was to consume cauliflower, would I do it? Yes! Would I be grateful for it? Yes! My self derived “sensibilitiesâ€, the grotesque appearance smell and flavor of cauliflower, would take a back seat to the truth and gratitude of saving my life. Rather, I would become an exponent of the virtues of cauliflower consumption. Thus I would find distinction in the aroma and flavors of cauliflower because of my close association with its efficacy and my positive mindset to it. There is nothing like a foundation of truth to stand on to find satisfaction, peace and a real cause we are willing to die and live for, in that order. Once real truth is understood and accepted, we then alter our lives in accommodation to it. Truth never accommodates itself for us, it is static, unchanging. We must rather submit ourselves to truth. Most “Christians†have not grasped this concept. If you do not accommodate yourself to the truth, you haven’t accepted it. If you do not accommodate yourself to the truth, you have rejected it as truth. To not put truth into practice is to have had no more than the neural exercise mention before.
The questions about our purpose have been asked introspectively by everyone or at least have been wondered about from time to time. We especially consider these questions when confronted with our mortality, or by someone else’s mortality. Many of us quickly put these thoughts out of our minds because; 1. We fear the answers, or 2. We know the answers and refuse to deal with them in an honest fashion because we wish to continue in the direction we have chosen, our self derived “sensibilitiesâ€. Subconsciously we can think, “If I don’t think too deeply, I don’t have to deal with the consequences of not considering these questions.†Physical science proves there are consequences to every action or inaction. Absence of action does not excuse you from being hit in the face with a ball aimed at you. Even our US law says you are not excused from consequences for not knowing the law.
Donald Chittick, Ph.D., in his book, The Controversy: Roots of the Creation-Evolution Conflict examines two distinct biases when approaching that controversial subject of creation vs. evolution.
“Why did modern science start from a culture with a Christian base? The reasons are not difficult to determine. A proper philosophical base for investigating the universe was needed and the Christian doctrine of creation provided that base. The Creator established laws for people and laws for the natural world. A created universe was expected to have design, order, and purpose. Man, using his created rational mind, could study this ordered universe in a rational way and seek to discover its laws; and modern science is based on the assumption of scientific law. In addition, moral laws given by the Creator established the ethical base for science. Scientists must be honest and truthful.
By contrast, if the universe were not created, it must have come to its present state by the impersonal interaction of the material of the universe, itself. No intelligence would have been involved. With such a philosophy, there would be no reason to expect such a universe to operate in a rational way. Man’s mind would also be a product of the same chance universe. It should not be capable of rationally studying anything. Hence, a materialist philosophy of this sort would tend to discourage one from becoming a scientist.â€
The first bias assumes a Creator or designer. With design come the rules of design or laws that make the design possible. These should be observable. They are. Even biased science textbooks enumerate the physical laws of the universe.
The second bias assumes there is no Creator or designer, just an impersonal random chance interaction of material in the universe. If this was true, we would not be able to observe it because chaos would still reign now and forever. There would be no one around to debate how random chaos came up with physical laws that don’t change.
Obviously you know my bias from how I’ve worded this essay. We all approach every subject with a conscious or un-conscious bias. The excellent question as framed by Dr. Chittick is; which bias is the best bias to be biased with. If the second bias were true we would not be here to discuss it. Using the logic that because we are here to discuss it means it could be true. That would be nonsensical logic. What it comes down to is our reasoning for wanting to defend one position or another.
I remember arguing with my parents about why I should go to the school dance. My real reason was pure hedonistic expectation. I was careful not to reveal that! I don’t remember my “reasoned†argument, but it probably consisted of some formulae of “you don’t trust me, all my friends will be there, I don’t get much free time just to be with my friends and enjoy a night out like you and mom do†or something like that. My parents for their part were concerned about what kind of mischief I’d get into. They were teenagers at one time as well and still had fair recollections of the kind of trouble youngsters could get into. No, they didn’t trust me, but wouldn’t say that (why I don’t know since I really was untrustworthy as all kids who invoke that phrase are). They let me go. I ran headlong to more hedonistic trouble than I’m sure they conceived possible… on more than one occasion. The point is; I defended my wanting to take part in those hedonistic activities not because of my logical well thought out reasoned arguments, which they were not. The real reason was I wanted to do what I wanted to do without anyone telling me I couldn’t do it! It was pure rebellion. We both accept and practice absolute truth or we are in rebellion to it.
In my work I can ignore the truth of the properties of H2s or Nh3. If I rebel against that truth, I die. If I practice the truth (proper protective clothing and masks) I live and make a living. Whether I live or die has nothing so much to do with my bias, as to the truth of my bias.
Absolute truth is not just a foundation, but a point of reference. If I ignore truth, I have no point of reference. If I invent my own point of reference, I have no truth.
All the paths of the LORD are loving-kindness and truth to those who keep His covenant and His testimonies. Psalm 25:10
You have given a banner to those who fear You, that it may be displayed because of the truth. Psalm 60:4
The Bible reveals truth as well as man’s origin, being, and purpose. As to the truthfulness of the Bible, I can point out no other work of literature that can make the same claims when it comes to the accuracy of the Bible. The Bible is 66 books written over a period of nearly 1500 years by over 40 different authors agreeing with and building on the same subject. How is this possible?
So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. 2Peter 1:19-21
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 2Timothy 3:16
As to proof of the accuracy of this ancient document, a young law student named Josh McDowell, with the idea that the Bible was a fable that just got in the way of his pursuits, set out to disprove the accuracy of the Bible. He became convinced of its accuracy and became obedient to that truth. He compiled his evidence into a book named: Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Since then he has written another book: New Evidence That Demands a Verdict. These books are in depth analyses of evidential proofs of the accuracy of the Bible. Another author that examines the accuracy of New Testament claims from the standpoint of a reporter getting to the bottom of an expose’ Lee Strobel’s: The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus.
My bias as to the truth of scripture is built on the observation that as it relates to science, the Bible is true, as it relates to human nature; it’s true, as it relates to fulfilled prophecy; it’s true, as it relates to it’s own accuracy; it’s true, and as it relates to my greatest needs of relevancy and a future; it’s true.
I disagree that all modern science came from a Christian perspective. That is ignoring a huge chunk of discoveries and progress made by other cultures. While I am a Christian, I believe that this kind of arrogance is what often draws a line between “us” and non-Christians.