Critical Thinking: An Endangered Species?

I was at the local mall with my girlfriend (for the protection of her identity, I'll refer to her as Sara) and her two boys. I am the youth pastor at my church and Sara and her two wonderful boys helped me with the preparation of the extensive scavenger hunt I am doing with my youth group during our annual participation in World Vision's, 30 Hour Famine. After about three hours of walking around the mall trying to figure out questions to add to the already long list of questions, counting every table and garbage can in the entire complex and so forth we desperately needed a coffee break. So Sara, her two strapping young boys and I sat down at a table in the busy food-court.

It is important now for me to tell you one important thing about myself. I am physically disabled and I use the aid of a wheelchair to get around. However God has allowed me to have a strong upper body; so unlike many persons whose disabilities are much more severe than mine, I am able to transfer out of my wheelchair and into a seating arrangement like a couch, or a booth at a restaurant and the food court table. I took a seat at the food-court table.

Since I wasn't using it at the time, Sara's eldest son asked me if he could take my wheelchair out for a spin while I was stationed at the table nursing my coffee. I of course said yes and reminded him to be careful of the other people in the mall as he sped down the hallway doing wheelies. However Sara chimed in with something that got my attention. She said something to the effect of:

"Just please be careful as it isn't very politically-correct for you to be riding in Ian's wheelchair."

She was saying that it may look offensive to bystanders to see a boy who clearly doesn't need a wheelchair treating a truly disabled man's wheelchair as he treats his own skateboard - as a mere toy; she feared that it may look like I am being mocked, or something like this. I instinctually spoke up:

"Good!" I said. "This city could use a little bit of political-incorrectness in its midsts."

On my way home from my day with Sara and the boys, it really dawned on me how far Western culture as a whole has fallen with regards to the relationship between feelings and facts. Now it is good that someone has a poked conscience at the sight of something that might be construed as wrong; it is not far-fetched to see how treating an aid like a wheelchair or a walker might be construed as 'mocking'. However this hyperactivity towards *feelings* has seeped into every orifice of society including many objective facts of reality. This Western culture is so obsessed with feelings that many facts are forced to the back burners, so to speak.

There was a time when one could have made a statement that they believe to be fact and thus imply that all contrary views are wrong; and they could do so without the fear of persecution. A mere 25 years ago a truth-claim would have been met with either a challenge (a counter-claim or a demand for supporting evidence) or simply being ignored, (the person simply ignores the claim and continued on their marry way believing what they want.) For an example, in an assignment that I had in the fifth grade I made the claim that Jesus Christ is God (cf. John 1:14, 8:58) and him being the only way to salvation (cf. John 14:6) to my Orthodox Jewish teacher. My assignment was to write a 3 paragraph essay on 'My Best Friend', of whom I claimed was Jesus. I got an 'A' on the assignment and a two word comment on the bottom corner of the page from my Orthodox Jewish teacher. She didn't warn me to be careful what I claim to be fact at the risk of others being offended; she didn't remind me that there are other people with contrary views; she didn't say that Jesus is God - for me - but not for many others, and so forth. She simply said: "Oh really!"

Now today, to make a claim or even an action that supposes the dichotomy of correct vs. incorrect is responded with punishment. There are many examples of this; here are three:

1. In 2012 in Nova Scotia 19 year old William Swinimer was suspended from school for waring a t-shirt that proclaimed that "Life Is Wasted Without Jesus"[i]. 
2. In 2007, 11 local Washington high school students were suspended for praying in a public area of the campus[ii]; however they were refused a private room when they tried to get a school sanctioned Christian prayer group going. 
3. In 2014, journalist with the The Orlando Sentinel, Lauren Roth reports about a 5 year old girl who was told not to pray over her lunch; why? ANSWER: Praying is wrong![iii] 

So 25 years ago I was able to tell my orthodox Jewish teacher that her Jewish beliefs about Jesus was wrong and my Christian beliefs about Jesus were right; and I was able to do this free from discrimination - but not without a challenge; but now a kindergarten child is persecuted for praying - thanking Jesus for her lunch. A high school senior was suspended for a week for making the claim (rightly or wrongly) that life is wasted without Jesus. In sum "critical thinking" has taken a back seat to feelings; as such it should be put on the endangered species list right next to the Indian Elephant and Indochinese Tiger.

There is of course is a way to go about doing everything. There is a right way to say to someone that they are flat-out-wrong and a wrong way, however telling someone that they are 'wrong' is not wrong; and thus implying such a claim, as I have done just now is not wrong[iv]. There is a right way to express your beliefs and a wrong way; a deeper look into the Wiliam Swinimer case shows that Swinimer's method of evangelism perhaps could have used some critiquing. And in life there are facts about things that dictate right and wrong, good and bad, etc.; and hurt feelings and or a belief in the apposing ideology doesn't change the fact that X still may be bad or good. This is a simple fact that all LGBT supporters should listen to; when someone says "homosexuality - the action - is bad" they are either going to be correct as it is objectively bad, or wrong as it is objectively either good or morally neutral; and not liking or agreeing with the proposition that they are correct doesn't negate the objective possibility that the proposition may still be correct. However in equal contrast, agreeing with a proposition doesn't mean that the proposition is true!

Political Correctness is eating away at critical thought and it has effected the objectivity of morality, as what is good is no longer 'good' but only subjectively good; and what is objectively bad is morally neutral. Political correctness demands that one should do or not do something or say something lest someone's feelings get hurt. I of course don't condone hurting people's feelings, but the truth is in some cases reality needs to be offered of which may result in bruised egos and hurt feelings.

Application:

The next time someone makes a claim that is in stark contrast with your views: A) Don't get offended; B) don't mock them; C) don't shut them down; D) challenge their claim; and E) look at the objectivity of the claim. In sum analyze the claim may it be:

• Homosexuality is wrong (or visa versa).
• Jesus is God (or visa versa).
• Salvation is only found through Jesus the son of God (cf. John 1:14, 14:6) (or visa versa).
• The universe and earth is not billions of years old but is only 6000 - 10,000 years old (or visa versa).
• God exists (or visa versa).
• Abortion on demand is *not* a woman's right (or visa versa).

...and so on; and do so with your head and not your heart; and do so through a worldview that is consistent with reality and not the prevailing one.


_________________

[i] - http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/student-s-jesus-shirt-sparks-feud-with-school-1.1280427 - access May 11, 2014
[ii] - http://www.christianpost.com/news/12-students-suspended-for-praying-at-school-26130/ - access May 12, 2014
[iii] - http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2014-04-07/features/os-girl-told-not-to-pray-20140407_1_school-officials-school-lunch-home-school - access May 12, 2014
[iv] - By saying "it is not wrong to tell people that they are wrong" I am telling you, if you disagree with the claim that you are wrong. 

The Nature Of God: Does everyone believe in God?

In a conversation John, a devote Christian and Timothy, a staunch atheist had one day John read a passage from the Bible that caused the conversation's intensity level to skyrocket. John read Psalms 14:1:

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. - Psalms 14:1

Timothy was highly offended as it seemed to suggest that John was calling him a fool for his disbelief in God. It is hurtful to be called a fool for the rejection of a proposition, any proposition such as "God exists", but the offensive nature of such a claim doesn't negate the possibility that it still may be true.

Is it foolish to believe that God does not exist? Paul clearly states that "...God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." - Romans 1:20 (my emphasis). So the claim is: a belief in God's non-existence is to deny what is clearly seen by the natural world - in sum the data discovered by the natural sciences speaks loud and clear the glory of God (cf. Psalms 19:1-4). Timothy would argue that at a basic level it is foolish to deny data procured from the scientific realm, but considers the aforementioned conclusion of the scientific data as a 'God of the Gaps' argument; in other words: to say 'I can't perceive of any other explanation, so God must have done it' is to stuff God into a gap of knowledge until a better answer comes to fruition.

What is God?

However lets look at this accusation with God's ontology or nature in mind. It is true that the human race is filled with multi-thousands of views of God ranging from: a human invention (atheism) to a unknown, unknowable or a logical possibility (agnosticism) to factual (theism), to monotheistic to polytheistic, from unitarian to trinitarian, to personal to deistic and so forth. And then there is abundance of uniques profiles dictated in the numerous amounts of religious texts throughout the world: The Bible, The Qu-ran, The Book of Mormon, The J.W's New World Translation and so on. It is important to note here though the common denominator - all systems believe that God exists; and this includes atheism; heed Professor Dr. Richard Dawkins words about the Judeo/Christian God, namely Yahweh:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction:"[i] (my emphasis) 

Dawkins, along with every other atheist believes that God is ontologically a work of fiction no different than Walt Disney's, Sleeping Beauty; or at least just an unsubstantiated claim.  The theist however believes that the nature of God is factual like the reality of the existence of natural forces are real. In the same way many theists are at odds with each other on the profile of God: Christians believe that God is triune, (three persons in one being of God) while many other theistic systems such as Islam believes God is unitarian (one person in one being of God); in the same way regarding Jesus Christ, many theists believe he is just a prophet or a good man or a good teacher or philosopher (or all of the above) while Christians believe all of the above and that he is the very essence of God (cf. John 1:14); and also that he entered his creation (cf. Phil. 2:6-8). And at a more basic level the monotheist is at odds with the polytheist on the basic number of gods - only one God verses many gods. So the bottom line is everyone believes that God's nature is real, but it is the essence of his nature that everyone is bickering over: Fictional? Factual? Triune? Unitarian? Monotheistic? Polytheistic? Personal? Deistic? A supernatural being? A natural reality? Subjective? Objective? Etc.

God Swap!

It is important to note though that when the atheist says 'God does not exist' they are referring to the invisible being who is spiritual, eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient and the creator of the universe; and they may object to the claim that they too believe in God and that the natural catalyst to the Big-Bang would be their 'creator-God'. However by excluding the supernatural being as God, they are limiting themselves to a natural creator of this universe and they are also offering themselves up as God - they are the god of their own lives. In a defense for secular morality atheist and co-host of the Atheist Experience Matt Dillahunty states that secular morality is superior because we get to decide what is right and wrong; we are the God of our own lives on both a macro level (as a race and nations) and on a micro level (as individual people).

When we talk about why secular morality is superior its because we say so ... we have been able to build off of the foundations that other people have left us and learned what works and what doesn't.[ii]

In sum either way the explanation is 'God' and this god will either be a natural reality like the currently unknown materialistic catalyst to the assumed Big-Bang and the human race or a supernatural being!

Arguing for God by who He is!

What we have been discussing in brief is a common apologetic argument called: The ontological argument for God's existence. To put it simply, an argument for God spring boarding off of its nature; it asks the question - what is the nature of God? So far we have concluded that God's nature is a reality - but what is the essence of his nature? Is it fictional as Dawkins proposes or factual as the theist would propose? Is God personal or distant? Is God Triune as the Christian argues or is He unitarian as the Muslim argues? Is there only one God (monotheism) or are there many gods (polytheism)? Is god a supernatural entity that exists separate from our space and time universe or is it a natural reality that existed before our natural reality? Is God made up and whose facets are relative from person to person and culture to culture or is God objective and has an ontology that is factual outside of individual belief? Is God a moral being? And how can one determine which worldview is correct?

The answers to all of these questions and more, will develop a profile of sorts of the nature of God; and this is what I aim to do over the next number of blog posts - develop a character profile of the nature of God. So please follow along with me as we learn who God is how we should therefore respond.

So as for the question asked above: "Is it foolish to believe that God does not exist?" it is obvious that the answer is a resounding 'yes, it is foolish to claim that God does not exist'; as to deny God's existence is to deny the foundation for reality. The question however is: Who or what is this foundation? Who (or what) is God?

__________________________

[i] - Great Britain: Bantam Press, a division of Transworld Publishers,2006), 51.
[ii] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq2C7fyVTA4 - accessed April 25, 2014