Here's a Thought

Why I Am Not Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglo-Catholic – But Am Very Clever


Well, to be sure, I was tempted by the Romanists in my late teens – and I felt the pull of the Anglo-Catholics when I was in my mid-twenties. But now a little older and fatter (mid-thirties), I find myself a boring ol’ Protestant – and a sassy one at that. Here are 12 lessons I’ve learned along the way – and if they help you along yours, great.


1. The church is God’s people called by God’s gospel gathered around God’s word. That’s it. And the implications are huge. There is no anxiety to be had about being unable to trace a series of institutions or a series of bishops back to the past. No, there is a series of “hearers and receivers” of Christ’s promise to forgive. That’s it. That’s church history. That’s our family. Nor is the history of Christian doctrine and practice the history of clergy doctrine and practice. Clergy is vocation, but it is not, as such, the church.


2. Related to this, all those cool-sounding Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic church fathers? They’re our fathers too. Seriously. They are not one iota less our fathers than that of contemporary Roman Catholics. They sat at Christ’s feet. They listened to His voice. Did they get some stuff wrong? Sure. I’m sure we do as well. But we are gathered around the same Jesus – and it is He who defines the church.


3. This is, incidentally, true even if they could get in a time machine, come to the present, and disown us. Would all of the church fathers own the Protestants? Maybe not. Perhaps they’d say that since I was not in fellowship with a particular bishop, I was not part of the church. That’s fine. We forgive them. Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox theology is the theology of all Italian families. If you have an Italian family recently immigrated from the old world, you can be sure that theirs is the only Italian family in the world, from the only real Italian region in the world, with the only real Italian culture in the world – whose traditions hail back to Romulus and Remus. But most of us can intelligibly talk about “Italian culture” without indulging in these (fun as they are) mythologies. Similarly, if a materialist defines a human being as merely a collection of atoms, it does not falsify the fact that a materialist is a human being precisely because he is more than that. Similarly, I don’t accept “church father Stan’s” belief that he is in the church because he is united to a bishop – but I do consider him to be in the church precisely because he is more than that.


4. I often hear of the benefits that obtain for those who have the consensus of the saints and in infallible church – and all the catastrophe that would and does ensue for those who do not. This used to bother me. But now I hear something like this: “Consider: If humans could fly, imagine how much we’d save on fossil fuel emissions. Imagine how many lives would be saved. How can you ever hope to save these lives and the environment apart from our ability to fly? To be honest, I don’t see how you sleep at night while denying the ability to fly.” Well, I do. The hypothetical benefits of an infallible church are just that – hypothetical. But the apocalyptic scenarios that allegedly obtain apart from these are, to be frank, pretty overblown. Sure, walking is limiting. But it’ll do.


5. These apocalyptic scenarios, by the way, often stem from observations of how many churches there are, how diverse interpretation in them is, and what little hope we have of ever “finding the truth” in such a case. This is, of course, all to be blamed on Luther. This does not falsify Luther’s correctness, mind you, but it is also bad history nevertheless. It makes complex what is simple and simple what is complex. With respect to the former, human beings are not Cartesian “thinking things” who use a toxic combo of voluntarism, nominalism, and any other “ism” as passive blocks of wood to disseminate the evil workings of “the man.” Sorry folks. Ideas matter, but not that much and not in that way. In general, human beings move along a far simpler axis. Show me the best food and the prettiest girls, or (alternatively) the most effective propaganda and fear-mongering, and I’ll find you the most people. This could be qualified of course, but don’t make it too sophisticated. With respect to the latter, belief is unified where there is a magistrate to unify it. Get a modern world with a bunch of independent magistrates and some freedom of thought and you’ll get 30,000 denominations. Sorry. Your options aren’t “Luther” or “Rome” or “Constantinople.” They’re “empire” or “non-empire,” “coercion” or “freedom to be wrong.” Allow the latter, and you’ll always have lots of opinions in this life.


6. These narratives, of course, have no teeth apart from the modern skeptical move which they are intended to evoke. “30,000 denominations!? How will I ever know which is the right one. I guess I can’t” – and thus begins the search for a surrogate reasoner (paradoxically chosen by – you?). The problem with skepticism is that it is a universal acid. Whether there are 30,000 links in the chain or just 1 link in the chain, a universal acid is a universal acid. And it will eat right through any confidence you can have in your own “finding” of your surrogate reasoner. And it will eat through all the judgments you made along the way. If the Protestant always has people smarter than him who disagree about the interpretation of the Bible, the Eastern Orthodox always has persons smarter than him who disagree about the interpretation of the fathers, the facts of church history, the veracity of their claims, the rationality of their theology, etc. It is worth noting that many who convert with this anxiety continue this same trajectory right out of the church and into the natural habitat of skepticism – agnosticism. At least it’s honest.


7. So what do we do? If the church fathers aren’t infallible and the lot of them can be wrong about something, what good are they? Imagine asking this same question to someone studying the history of philosophy, the history of science, the history of…anything? Why do we listen to the church fathers? Because they’re our fathers, for crying out loud! We don’t exist in a vacuum. And lots of them are smarter and more godly than us. Lots of them have great insight. And certainly the more consensus there is among them, the greater we should weight that opinion. That’s not an issue of infallibility. That’s common sense. In short, we listen to them because to not do so would be dumb. We listen to them for the same reason that we often listen to our own parents – not because they’re infallible, but because they’re part of us and they have lots to offer. And like our own parents, they also have problems. My children will, I hope, think of me the same way. Or, since it will be far more persuasive to quote a hip philosopher, church history is the “history of the interpretation” (both in doctrine and life) of the word (Gadamer).


8. Does this mean that everyone in the past can be wrong about something (say, gay marriage) and that a few blokes in the 21’st century might be right about it? Sure it does. Just as it means that everyone in the past could have been wrong about the existence of a spiritual realm, the objectivity of reality, and the importance of respecting your parents. Does this cause us much anxiety? It shouldn’t. Paul himself entertained the hypothetical implications of Christ not being raised in 1 Corinthians 15. I doubt Paul would object to someone saying, “Show me the body!” But does this hypothetical scenario make the apostle bite his fingernails? Hardly. Here’s one that is even better:

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel — which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!” (Galatians 1:6-9)

This text really is staggering. Note two things. Paul entertains a hypothetical scenario where an angel from heaven and even he himself preach a different gospel. He’s not anxious about this, of course. But it is the second point that is the most important. Paul expects ordinary Galatians to be able to tell the difference. He expects them to be able to “evaluate” the apostolic posse for themselves. They’ve received Jesus’ message. They should now know the difference between the real thing and its counterfeits.


9. Since we’re talking about evaluating Paul, maybe we should talk about the anxiety of anxieties – the question of canon. And let’s start with Galatians 1. Christians who have accepted Jesus’ message know God’s voice when they hear it. Why? Because it is God’s voice and creates its own recognition. That’s why there is so much consensus on the canon. Consensus? Yep. Most of the books are and always have been agreed upon. Are there some stragglers? Sure. There are several possible explanations for this: 1. Some people are better at hearing God’s voice than others. 2. God speaks more clearly in some places than others. 3. Some cases are more ambiguous because the criteria of canonicity are more ambiguous with respect to them. These objective (apostolicity) and subjective (hearing God’s voice) criteria have created a stunning level of agreement over time. We can argue about the details. But the argument at the fringes can never shake what is clear – and very clear to all who hear God’s voice through Christ.


10. Speaking of clarity, we should avoid an “a priori” concept of how clear something is supposed to be. God could always be clearer. Church history could be neater. But this is not an argument for or against a particular position. God’s existence itself could be clearer. Indeed, if God so desired, He could make Himself so clear that atheism and agnosticism were impossible. This does not mean that He is not clear. Nor does the fact that many persons mis-interpret Scripture mean that it is not clear. It means that God is as clear as He desires to be. He is clear enough for His precise purposes. Rather than having an abstract standard of clarity to which we seek to find an instantiation (and which could, in principle, always be one-upped) – it is better to ask how clear God has been in actual fact – and then to ask why and what for. These last two points lead to the most important point. To wit…


11. If I have learned anything along the way, it is this. Don’t ever ever ever ever ever let anyone tell you that the gospel of Jesus is not jumping off every page of the Bible. The gospel of God’s free grace through the death and resurrection of His Son, Jesus Christ, is clear enough for a child to grasp. And the basic manner in which we are to follow Him through loving God and our neighbor as the Spirit works to redeem this world through the kingdom of Jesus is right on the surface of the page. Damn skepticism. Listen to the Word. Obviously, this should be done with others (dead and living) simply because we are communal creatures who understand communally and who are spoken to communally – but God’s speech is the main thing for all of us. Gather with others around it and listen. Don’t tell it what to do or how to be. Let it speak and do its work.


12. Finally, that gospel is freeing. One cannot do theology or church history or exegesis if one is nervous that their eternal destiny is hanging in the balance of their conclusion – whether passed on to a surrogate or not. No. Rather, this is where I will insist to my bones that Luther is right. You must first be free in Christ. You must first know that all your sins are forgiven in Him. You must first know that He loves you and wages war against all your enemies and holds you in His hands. And then you can chill out. You can work through these things patiently and humbly with others. You can admit that you sometimes don’t know. You can avoid all those who seek to attack your fragile identity by standing on the unshakeable foundation of your identity in Christ. In other words, you can live in the real world. Indeed, you can even enjoy it.




On Being an Ant for Jesus

One frustrating aspect of the modern world is the juxtaposition between our large amount of awareness and our small amount of control. We are confronted, on a daily basis, with so many tragedies that it is difficult not to feel either overwhelmed or (perhaps more often) incrementally numbed. One can respond to only so many human rights and awareness raising campaigns, so many injunctions that it is “up to you” and that if “someone” doesn’t do something, “no-one” will. The anxiety over the fact that there is something wrong in the world does not just extend to the more obvious and senseless suffering, but also to comparatively trivial matters on our own turf – whether it be the politics over which we have very little influence or the institution in which we are but simple pawns. Modern life, it often seems, is far bigger than our capacity to process it.

The tendency to numbness and psychological overload are really the same. The numb are likely those who overload rather quickly. And these twin maladies have twin antidotes. On the one hand, we can re-animate our deadened emotions through the surrogate of spectacle and entertainment. In this, entertainment ceases to be a mode of rest for life and rather becomes life itself. Or we can compensate for our smallness by pretending to be “large” in the mode of self-expression and of asserting our opinion. Show me a prolific CNN commenter or Facebook alarm-raiser and I’ll show you someone who actually feels quite small. The more honorable version of this, of course, is the servant who is burned-out from a job which is far beyond their capacity.

But here’s the thing. We are small. We are very small. Most likely, your circle of influence is smaller than you think. Wisdom is learning that this is just reality. Virtue is to evaluate this as good. We were not designed to process what technology has made so available. We were designed to process the world in small bits and, indeed, to labor in making it reflect God’s own righteousness. In normal circumstances, this will mean doing something that is right in front of your face. And there, ironically, your circle of influence is likely much greater than you think. It is just that the extent of your power for good terminates before the world’s spotlight – in your often overlooked family and neighbors. We have the capacity to love our neighbors in all sorts of ways. This won’t “change the world,” but it will change your neighbor’s world. Such work is small to man but great to God – the penny of the widow.

It is, of course, urgently right to be concerned with our distant neighbors and wrong to ignore them. Some are called to work for them in radical ways. We are all called to sacrifice, to give to, and to pray for them. It is also right, of course, to be concerned with big issues, to strategize, to “organize” (or whatnot), etc. But we are not called to anxiety – which is often rooted in the pretention to control and the illusion of greater understanding than we actually have. We are not called to be bigger than we are. We are called to be still (even while doing), because God ultimately fights our battles (Psalm 46). The fruit of the Spirit is peace. And such peace grounds us in such a manner than we do not need entertainment to inoculate us. And it gives us the humility to recognize that, far from controlling the world, we do not even understand most of it. But He does.

The fruit of such peace, ironically, is a clearer mind with which to strategize and a great capacity to work tirelessly for God’s kingdom. We plant. Another waters. But He causes the growth.

The Transcendental Argument Against The “Transcendental Argument For the Existence of God” (™)

Van Til’s followers often speak of the “transcendental argument” for the existence of God. Greg Bahnsen applied this in a famous (in our circles) debate with atheist Gordon Stein. In short, the transcendental argument for the existence of God (or TAG) states that the Christian God must be presupposed for any fact to be rendered intelligible. That is to say, all facts are what and as they are because of the Christian God. Take away the Christian God (in all His particulars) and you have an unintelligible world and no basis by which to judge any proposition true or false. The preconditions for all intelligibility are to be found in the triune God’s special revelation to us. Van Til and his followers often start with the ontological Trinity (communicated in special revelation) and then apply this premise in terms of a solution to the “problem of the one and the many,” moving on to other philosophical or ethical problems from there. Some of Van Til’s followers (especially John Frame) have made the case that this argument cannot work unless it is elaborated in terms of more classical arguments. To say that the Christian God underlies the intelligibility of any facts requires more spelling out– and that inevitably involves considerable overlap with classical apologetics. Others disagree with Frame and argue that the transcendental argument is unique and in its emphasis on the preconditions for our beliefs, does not rely on the supplementation of any other arguments.

What does one make of this debate? The classical position is that reality is communicated commonly in reason and experience and specially in Scripture– and that these cannot (even in principle) contradict one another precisely because reality is one and their Author is one. Neither natural nor special revelation is more authoritative than the other, but one’s understanding of the content of and relationship between natural and special revelation is different. To a large extent, much of the content of reason and experience is immediately intuited by human beings. Unlike the Bible, which we can imaginably doubt, the unique quality of reason is that our persuasion of (at least many of) its conclusions is coercive. Indeed, if the Bible said in Proverbs 12:4 (thankfully, it does not) that “two and two is five,” not even Cornelius Van Til (despite his declared positions) would have believed the Bible on this matter. No amount of appeal to the transcendental argument or Scriptural authority could have made him believe it. Why? Because he was a reasonable man. Because he believed, despite some of his formulations, certain propositions with a sort of coerced certainty. This does not mean that Scripture must be demonstrated by reason, but it may never contradict reason as such. In most of the moments wherein Van Tilians appeal to realities beyond reason, it is clear that they finally settle on a position that goes something more like “Certain aspects of biblical teaching are beyond our ability to comprehend” (Something more like James Anderson’s “unarticulated equivocation” than any tension within reason itself). They do not contradict reason, but rather point to realities or a mode of being which human reason is incompetent to analyze. But of course, this is the conclusion of reason itself, and has plenty of analogues in non-Christian thought. The limitations of reason are precisely where we’d expect them to be, in the principled place of the boundary between the finite and the infinite. Reason can find its own boundary, but not its contrary. Call this, then, the transcendental argument against the transcendental argument. The preconditions for the intelligibility of the transcendental argument are the very tools of reason and experience that it is supposed to explain. Many presuppositionalists live on the “borrowed capital” of commonsense realism, but claims it for their Van Til’ian transcendentalism. For all the rhetoric, the authority of the Bible is not absolutely “over” the authority of reason or experience. It is not “made” authoritative by those things. It is authoritative by virtue of what it is, the speech of God. But it would not be the speech of God, or authoritative, if it contradicted the other modes in which reality authoritatively confronts us, including the modes of reason and experience. Granted the conversation between these is subtle, complex, and there are plenty of conundrums, but the reality is that no-one consistently applies a “trump card” approach in which Scriptural revelation “trumps” the legitimate inferences of reason and experience. Cut an “orthodox” Van Tilian with reality, and watch a Thomist bleed. The real “precondition of intelligibility” is just that, an intelligibile singular Reality in which both reason and Scripture participate.

The Bible itself assumes this, of course. Paul allows that if the resurrection did not occur (entertaining the possibility for the sake of argument) that his faith would be in vain. In the Hebrew prophets, God Himself is willing to enter into confrontation with His people around the authority of “reason.” The Hebrew prophets mock idolatry as “obviously” stupid. This is ultimately by God’s own authority, of course, but it is by reason itself also nevertheless. And while the larger argument might include the “reasonableness” of special revelation, it is still just that: reasonable. Any negation of special revelation can, then, be reduced to precisely a failure to reason properly or to an illegitimate philosophical move such as, say, the skepticism of Descartes or the dualism of Kant. It is within this latter framework and history that we find the tradition of skeptical rationalism to which Van Til’s philosophy is ultimately an early 20’th century Neo-Kantian response. He would have done much better to abandon the modern project altogether. Despite his best efforts, Van Til still stands on the shoulders of Descartes and Kant. But each of these stand on the shoulders of the common reality which falsifies them both – an objective order which God is pleased to reveal to children but which He sometimes hides from the critical philosopher.

Suggested Sources for Inquiring Atheists and Thinking Christians

In the past decade, I’ve taken a lot of time to read and digest much of the anti-Christian or anti-theist polemic on the market. This has been a very rewarding experience. I have particularly enjoyed John Loftus’ “Why I Became and Atheist” and Daniel Dennett’s very clever “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea.” More than any books, however, the greatest challenges to my own convictions have come from the many atheist and agnostic pals that have enriched my walk to Zion, if they’ll please pardon my inserting them into my own pilgrim’s progress.

Of course, while nothing replaces face to face conversation, it is worthwhile to lend a hand to the other side and suggest some texts which might help them see why I find the case for Christianity and against agnosticsm or atheism quite convincing. Of course, depending on the particular query at hand, one could recommend a whole bibliography. There are many wonderful works that treat issues like Christian faith and biology, physics, neuroscience, Old Testament morality, Old Testament archeology, the plausibility of certain miracle claims, etc.

However, I present the following resources to any who might be interested as the best attempts to get at “the big picture” within which all the particular debates take place. And, since even this list could be overwhelming, I’ve decided to go with a “book recommendation” tradition and limit the number of suggestions to  5 – though with a preface. To wit…

This may be obvious to some and counter-intuitive to others, but I think the most powerful thing any person considering the Christian faith can do is to read the Bible with an openness to being surprised. Sit down, pray (if you can), and listen. Get rid of all the science and Bible debate. Stop trying to find the “mean” Old Testament versus so that they can be posted on Facebook. Stop giving the “I heard it all in Sunday school and read it when I was a teenager” excuse. I did to, and my grasp of it is far different now. Sit down and read it with new eyes. Maybe you’ll walk away unpersuaded. But you won’t walk away exactly the same if you give it the time. Guides are helpful here. Dillard and Longman’s intro to the Old Testament is quite helpful. Carson and Moo’s intro to the New Testament is similarly helpful. And there are myriads of sources to get at the myriads of particular questions, but sit down and try and grasp the big picture. Why was this written? To whom was it written? What is it trying to say in its own cultural context? Most polemical treatments that are contra-Bible are about as hermeneutically nuanced as anti-Obama FB posts or the usual Fundamentalist treatment of scientific sources. You know the drill: Quote something scary out of context with no sense of the larger picture. Freak out and go on a rant. Feel great that you’re super awesome for not being duped into believing this crap. Have contempt (and let’s be honest, a little gladness) that everyone else is super-dumb for not being as cool as you. Or, for the more sophisticated, you reflect on how “conditioned” or “genetically prone to x” human creatures are (you, of course, being the exception) as an attempt to cloud an oversimplified judgment in artificial nuance. We’ve all done it. But, that’s three shame-on-you’s (and me’s)! Read the Bible. Seriously (!) – and seriously.

Onto the secondary sources list of 5.

1. “A Secular Age” by Charles Taylor. More than any book I’ve read, this book puts the modern debate over faith, reason, science, and Scripture into a context which is overwhelmingly illuminating. No other author has grasped (in as nuanced and subtle a fashion) the precise flavor and common environment within which all who are having this debate actually live. And this is true for believers and unbelievers. If you digest Taylor, then your approach to these issues can only be “pre-Taylor” and “post-Taylor.” And what is most fantastic, I think this can only lead to a greater mutual understanding, and the calming of nerves that so rarely accompanies conversations over this topic. Taylor is tough slogging (not a particularly linear writer), but it is well worth your time.

2. “The One and the Many” by W.J. Norris Clarke. Modern man is skeptical of metaphysics, particularly of the Thomistic variety. Well, let a good Thomist push back. Clarke’s book is thrilling and (what is more) well-written. If his case for the rationality of metaphysics does not persuade you, it is unlikely that anyone’s will.

3. “The Last Superstition” by Edward Feser. Feser is sometimes a jerk and he will likely offend you. What is more, I would not be surprised if he was excited to be described in such a manner. But if you can grow some thicker skin, this is good stuff. It is smart and fun. In my judgment, Feser has written the best polemic against the new atheism. The sections on metaphysics, philosophy of mind, the relationship between faith and science, are all wonderful. Take and chill pill and let Feser take his best shots.

4. “The Resurrection of the Son of God” by N.T. Wright. The blazing center of the Christian faith is the event of the resurrection of Jesus in space and time. No other book defends the historicity of this event like Wright, with a sensitivity to all of the theological, philosophical, biblical, and historiographical questions that it entails. You can disagree with Wright,but you can’t dismiss him.

5. “Our Reasonable Faith” by Herman Bavinck. This is a summary of his magisterial “Reformed Dogmatics,” which has also been recently released in an abriged form from its English translation. If not Bavinck, perhaps Horton’s “The Christian Faith” or its abridgement, “Pilgrim Theology.” It is blatantly obvious in most anti-Christian polemic that its critics very rarely perceive the “big picture” of Christian belief and practice (i.e. “the gospel”). Bavinck and Horton are excellent guides for explaining the Christian faith as a whole. How does reality relate to the gospel? How does the gospel relate to the Christian doctrine of God (Trinity), revelation, to the history of the church, to modern issues, etc. Each author is also very sensitive to the manner in which the Christian faith has developed through time (church history) and the manner in which essential Christian claims relate to our modern philosophical, existential, technological, and cultural situation. So take your pick, but you’ve got to see the big picture of Christian belief. Of course, one cannot always fault non-Christians for failing to see this. Many Christians themselves fail to see “the big picture” and instead focus on isolated bits of belief. Still, you’ve got to reject the best presentation of a thing, and here it is.

I could easily recommend more. How could one fail to mention Augustine’s “Confessions,” C.S. Lewis, Aquinas, or (getting dear to my heart) John Frame’s matchless texts on epistemology and the Bible? Alas, this is the problem of limiting one’s self to 5. Of course, these 5 assume a certain audience with certain issues. I cannot help that. I belong to that audience, obviously. In any case, if you want to “get” the Christian faith and explore what makes it persuasive to a modern person, I think the above is a handy guide.


Don’t Put it in Neutral!

In several recent books and articles I’ve read, I’ve noted several invocations of an apparently problematic thing called “neutral” reasoning. Presumably, “neutral” (as opposed to biblical, Christian, confessional, etc) reasoning can lead to all sorts of wrong conclusions. But let us pause for a moment to consider what this qualifier really means with respect to “reasoning.” Traditionally understood, a claim just is reasonable or it is not. An argument is cogent or it is not. From this perspective, the addition of “neutrality” as a qualifier is just a category confusion.

Rather, the object of critique seems to be the neutrality or lack thereof of reasoners (i.e. intelligent persons). The only cogent way to read this qualifier is to say that what is being criticized is a psychological posture of “neutrality” with respect to an object under consideration, presumably with the possibility that such neutrality can give way to commitment by a process of reasoning. And certainly, here, one can criticize many positions of neutrality. We ought not to be “neutral” with respect to many common-sense notions or to the Word of God in Scripture.

The object of critique might also be an implicit assumption that a position of neutrality is impossible with respect to certain (and in some views, any) objects under consideration. But in the relevant sense, this seems preposterous. Surely experience confirms that there are persons who are genuinely willing to consider the claims of the Christian faith even while they remain uncommitted to them. Inasmuch as these truths are evaluated to be good, we can infer that the Holy Spirit is at work in someone’s heart. However, it is even more relevant to note that the above anxiety tends to confuse moral and epistemic neutrality. I have known people who accepted the claims of the Christian faith and self-professedly hated them. This is also the position of the demons and of the great “unbeliever” himself, Satan. And this is not to mention the sad truth concerning Christian hypocrites, who believe certain propositions held forth to them in the gospel, but who do not (in a manner unseen to us) evaluate those truths as “good for them” in a way that constitutes Christian belief. Certainly this sort of epistemic neutrality is rare (given the darkening power of sin over human cognition), but it is not impossible for the unbelieving reasoner. The essential tension between belief and unbelief is moral, not epistemic. The latter is common, but is a more of a common effect of the real essence of sin (which is a matter of will). Indeed, it is precisely here (in the demons, for instance) that we see sin at its darkest – a persuaded mind which willfully fails to evaluate Reality as “good” and good “for me.” That latter bit, so emphasized by Luther, really is the essence of faith – the evaluation of God’s word not just as true (!) – but as good and good “for me.”

But let us imagine that one was “neutral” with respect to these things. What if someone stood at a critical distance from the voice of God and evaluated it by reason operating from a position of “neutrality.” Would reason all of the sudden become a false guide? The answer, if Christianity be true, is that reason would absolutely not be a false guide. It would not be a sufficient guide, to be sure. Many essential Christian doctrines are not derivable from reason, but they are certainly not contrary to reason. Both the universal laws of reason and scandalous particularity of Christian claims simply cannot be in conflict if they participate in a singular Reality. And that, they certainly do.

Of course, qualifications need to be made. This is not to deny that one can start from false premises and come to false conclusions. But here, the failure is not a failure of reason, but a failure of premises – none of which (qua reality) are defensible according to reason. And, it is worth noting again that this does not mean that reason is omni-competent. Reason is a tool and gift, but it is limited. It cannot mislead, but it can be unfit to lead. And finally, it is important to state that there are realities which transcend our capacity to reason. This is not to say that such realities violate reason, but that they just are the sorts of objects which transcend our capacity to reason about. Once again, this is not a violation of reason, but a transcendence over reasoners and reason themselves. There are many examples of the former. Perhaps God alone is an example of the latter.

This point is important to make lest we fail to feel the pressure of reasoning carefully…lest we easily cover a multitude of “reasoning” sins with a rhetorical wave of the hand. In truth, adding adjectives to the word “reason” does not make up for a failure to reason well. And most importantly, if common rules of reasoning and the particular claims of Christianity both participate in the same Reality, then we don’t need to worry about the Boogeyman adjective as though the qualifier “neutral” would give us a sort of reasoning which might mislead. Indeed, we can reduce our opponents’ arguments to failures of reason or to unreasonable premises.The Jesus Christ who entered into our history at a particular place in time is also the one Lord of all creation – with the regularities, laws, and spontaneous symmetries that render it reasonable to the fittingly fashioned human consciousness. And so the jocular injunction is in fact an expression of Christian virtue: “Let’s be reasonable.”

10 (Okay, 11) Random Thoughts About Marriage – And a Poem!

In about a month, Rebecca and I will celebrate our 10’th wedding anniversary. And so I’ve been wanting to pen some brief reflections about marriage. Here it goes…

1. When I got married, I really wanted my wife and I to have that “special” relationship – that marriage that was unlike most other marriages. I wanted it to be full of electric unity and the taste of God’s glory. There were just a couple of problems: A. This was more motivated by vanity than godliness and B. my wife and I are really really different (all four letters different on the Myers-Briggs for those who are into that kind of thing). And while my fanciful dreams of being better than everyone else were dashed, the reality is so much better. That’s my first thought when I think about marriage – learning to love and to be loved by the “other.” That is, learning to seriously see mystery in gender, personhood, behavior, etc – instead of being frustrated with a lack of conformity to imagined marriages or spouses. The greatest privilege of my life has been learning to really love another person, a real person, another – and to be loved back despite myself.
2. Along the lines of the above, don’t compare yourself to others. Marriages and the people in them are unique. Your life is a journey and your marriage is a journey. For Christians, a man and a wife are fellow heirs in the grace of life, a team working in God’s kingdom. Read Colossians 2 and 3 and note how Paul roots the identity of Christians in Christ rather than in the virtues that distinguish them from one another. One aspect of the heresy he deals with is that Christians are not “held fast” together in the Head (Christ) but are rather distinguished in terms of advancement. It is only after Paul extinguishes this with talking of the absolute conditions of being dead and alive in Christ that He gives advice about marriage and family. Marriage is best when our deepest identity and security is in Christ.
3. Speaking of which, marriage doesn’t scratch all your itches. Okay, maybe it does for you. But usually, marriage is not a replacement for all other relational needs. Dudes still need really close male bonds. Women need really close female bonds. And spouses should let each other have this space. I am so thankful for Rebecca’s friends who can grasp certain things about her that I try but constantly fail to grasp. Here’s to Rebecca’s awesome lady-friends!
4. Never underestimate God’s strategy in your relationship. So many of the things that formerly annoyed me about our relationship or about our communication have cashed out to be essential to our actual lived experience. God knew the future. He knew what we needed even when we didn’t. And so many formerly-perceived “pests” have become essential to our life.
5. Be grateful. If you struggle with contentment, really do go through motions of being grateful for your spouse. Get on your knees, name some specifics, and say “thank you.” And fake it till you make it. Say it until your heart really does delight in and settle upon these things. It will put all of your petty complaints in perspective.
6. Chill out! Have some fun! Seriously, don’t take yourself or your relationship too seriously. If you do, every little argument will become such a big deal. Let things go. Turn the tensions into spice. Love and delight in the “other,” and kiss as often as possible.
7. Cultivate calmness and honesty. The latter can be a problem without calm discussion, but see the previous point. Chill out and talk about stuff. And then have the prudence to discern what is worth just letting go and what you need to work on. If the latter, get some real goals, be patient and gentle, and stay thankful for all the good things.
8. Keep sex a priority. That cashes out differently for different people, but communicate, make sure you’re both satisfied, and be reasonable with your expectations. Sexuality is important for a host of relational, physical, and psychological reasons, and so it needs to be guarded and cultivated. Life can make this difficult, and so this is more an issue of principle than any hard and fast rule. Still, do it. It’s good for ya.
9. Pray together. I don’t have a quota, but pray together. You are, in a very real sense, one corporate person. Your reputations and wellbeing and relationship with God are bound up in one another. Marriage is not the communion of private persons. It is the public bringing together of two into one. And that you means you need to approach God as one. If you are coming at an issue differently, pray before God about it and see how He leads you together. Pray to Him as one and I’ll bet He’ll lead you as one.
10. Step back and delight. Know that your marriage is temporal. It is full of ups and downs, but it is a beautiful journey. It is a quest full of mystery and intrigue and one can way too much of their life forgetting this. Be present to it. Be aware of it. Look across the room and grasp everything as new again. And know that it will all end. Marriage is not forever. This quest has an end. And it is precisely the temporality of it, the fleetingness of it, that makes it so special. Being present to and self-consciously beholding the vapor of this relationship makes it all the more special. Few things signify eternity wrapped in moments so well.

11. A lot of these reflections come from some struggles that Rebecca and I had early in marriage. As I said, we’re very different and we married very young. But, let the record show that our journey together has been the best thing in my life. Rebecca is fairly private and I’m somewhat loud and “up-front,” and so no one really knows how much I depend upon her in every way. I don’t mean that she raises children and cooks for me (though she does that). I mean that she is my friend, my confidant, my encourager, my comforter – the one who has stood by me and loved me in moments of incredible insecurity, weakness, and doubt. And she has not done so begrudgingly, but with patience, love, and respect. She is “my sister, my bride” – and I hope that we have 60 more years together.

This poem probably sucks, but I wrote it for Rebecca about 18 months ago on the occasion of her 30’th birthday. You have to read it right, but for what it’s worth…this says something like all the above in a more succinct fashion.

Companion mine
My sister, my bride
My other self to have and lose
Other…for me to love…to chose
A body, a soul to muse…to use
Your love…my wine

Mysterious union
Not fracture, not fusion
Better than all our dreams, this.
With failure…with surprise…with kiss
In disappointment….in bliss
Walking to Zion

Lovers we
But not for eternity
Time, a companion…patient…waits
An unbreakable bond to break
“Now” loves only sure fate
But “now”…merry

Death’s dark sea
Drowns marriage…but not we
Death kills not love for earthly friends
If e’en in it our marriage ends
In resurrection our love ascends
My love for you…perfect…free

TCI Review of James K.A. Smith

The Calvinist International has graciously hosted my review/critique of James K.A. Smith’s philosophical project…

Class(ic)ifying Jamie Smith

God: Obvious and Elusive

It is sometimes objected to Christians that their belief in God is unfalsifiable. “How can your position be rational,” it is asked, “if God is not an item proposed for belief? Is a debate over the existence of God useful at all, given such a level of commitment?” And I have seen some reply, “Think of it like the ‘existence of other minds’ conundrum. You can’t ‘prove’ this idea, even though it makes sense out of all of your reality. And, like my belief in God, it is likely that your belief in the existence of other minds is close to unfalsifiable for you.” I think this response is inadequate (thought not technically false) for both philosophical and pastoral reasons.


1. The epistemic status of “belief in God” is the not the same as “the existence of other minds.” This is manifest from the fact that belief in God has declined in many cultures, but belief in the existence of other minds certainly has not. While I think the “existence of other minds conundrum” is a great way to get at various faulty epistemological theories, it is important to be careful to avoid conflating the manner in which it is “obvious” with the manner in which God’s existence can be said to be “obvious.” We need to be comfortable saying that there are ways in which some things are more immediately obvious than the existence of God. There is a sort of immediate spontaneously-arising belief which has almost never increased or decreased in any person in any era of history (including things like simple mathematical truths, etc). Granted, “obviousness” is not what all the folks who bring up this conundrum (especially Plantinga) have in mind. But then there is a deeper issue…

2. Taking my stand on Calvin’s sensus divinitas, I’d argue that God’s existence, while not more “obvious” in every sense than some basic observations, is nevertheless both (a) more foundational and more interior than something “obvious,” and (b) the highest point and end of human reason and desire. With respect to the first, Calvin’s sensus divinitas does not cease to exist in the case of an atheist. All persons are inter-personally related to God via God’s very own Personal engagement with them (Person to person). This is not “obvious” in the way that other things are obvious, but it is the very ontological foundation of all things which are obvious. God’s being is more related to the being of each person and event than those persons and events are related to themselves. As pure contingency, they are suspended (in every particular) in His pure actuality. With respect to the second, God makes Himself to be known as the final end of human desire and reflection. In this sense, He is not “obvious” in the manner of a basic mathematical truth, but He is the final Object to which all mathematical truths, physical observations, aesthetic reflexes, existential coping, reason, being, and reality point. He is the object/end of the highest reflections. Indeed, He is the site at which all being, human faculties, and created diversity converges. As such, He is not always obvious. Reason cannot always survive cohabitation with certain intellectual (ultimately, personal) immoralities, deficiencies of proportion and wisdom, etc. This is not to say that God is not “obvious” in any meaningful sense, but His specifically epistemic obviousness can sometimes be obscured by disoriented faculties which fail to reason properly – in proportion with being, reality, beauty – that is,  to reason with wisdom or character. There are many simple Grandmother’s who are, in this sense, far more reasonable than famous philosophers – and far more proportionate in their judgments. And to them, God is even “more” obvious (in a deeper sense) than the existence of other minds – all while remaining the mysterious and infinite Person which all being, goodness, and beauty finitely canvas.

In sum, God is not “obvious” in the manner that created realities are obvious. The latter are rather suspended between His Being as the ontological foundation of all that is “obvious” and His Being as the highest epistemic Object to be known (in all the rational, aesthetic, and personal dimensions of knowledge). That is, from Him and to Him are all things.


This is, of course, a rather large topic. And it is important for several (ultimately very practical) reasons. You see, Christians, especially suffering Christians, want to see God. They want Him to be “right there.” And it is theologies and philosophies which try to bridge the gap of divine absence which often lead to error. Indeed, this is perhaps precisely the reason John almost “out of the blue” emphasizes, in his first epistle, that “no one has seen God at any time” (1 John 4:12). But John goes on to say that in our love for one another, God dwells with us. And the same apostle, in his gospel says again that no one has seen God, but that the incarnate Christ “explains” Him or “makes Him known” (John 1:18). It is quite likely that John’s audience was assaulted by teachings which emphasized spiritual experiences, visions, and sight. But it is precisely the lack of these things that characterizes the present age. Faith is not belief against the evidence, but it is certainly belief when everything is not clear or “obvious.” This is precisely the contrast between walking by faith and walking by sight. It is not the contrast between reason and stupidity, but between immediate and apparent knowledge/experience and trust in an other’s knowledge/experience/character, etc. This experiential gap (wherein God is not “obvious” in the same manner that another person is obvious) is part of the current order of things. Even the incarnate Christ is no longer with us – the Holy Spirit bridging the gap of His absence by feeding us as pilgrims in the wilderness. In the interim, we make due with a diet of word, sacrament, and Christian love, through which the Spirit of the ascended Christ ministers to us.

Christians, especially suffering Christians, might be tempted to ask “why?” Why won’t God just peel back the clouds and make Himself obvious? Why must prayer sometimes be hard? Why must we sometimes persevere to believe that He is there, that He is not silent, that He cares? And here is where we must confront a strange reality: Because God wants it that way. You see, God’s revelation is clear, but that doesn’t mean it is as clear or as “obvious” as it possibly could be. No, God does not intend it to be so. God is not interested in being as “clear as possible.” He is interested in being “clear enough.” He is not interested in our desire for His revelation to be this way or that way, but He is interested in making Christian persons who are formed through suffering, through perseverance, for grasping after Him – and progressively coming to know His gentle providence sanctifying the Christian soul between the habituated rhythms of Sabbath and sacrament.

God’s existence is clear and rational, but it is clearest and most obvious to the rightly oriented soul. Do you want to know God more? Do you want to be persuaded of His reality? Then don’t just think. You have to pray. You have to love others. You have to engage Him in His word. And He has revealed Himself in such a manner as to call us to these activities. He has revealed Himself in such a manner as to be given to simple pious babes – while He is hidden from the disoriented (and fundamentally irrational) teachers of this age.

And being rightly oriented to reality, to God’s being, we find ourselves in a position to sift through all those threats to faith which are parasitic on life’s ambiguities. You’ve heard the objections. “Why didn’t God do it this way?” “If He’s so great, why not.” Why not? Why not? Why not? Like Christ, we can answer questions with questions. Why must these be answered? If there are independent reasons for asserting the rationality of a thing, then my lack of knowledge about all aspects of reality (and its mysteries) does not mitigate that thing. Let’s be frank. This is reality we’re talking about. Things are complicated. Why didn’t God do something this way rather than that? Maybe I could hazard an answer, but it is also completely alright to say “I don’t know.” And we all do this all the time, Christian or not – because that’s life. Life is walking by faith, no matter who or what the object is. But secondly, the Christian knows that the God who reveals Himself and makes Himself most clear to whole persons, the God who is known in Christ, who reveals Himself through nature/reason, Scripture, and history – in faith, hope, and love – is quite predictably difficult to grasp. Do we know why He does all He does? No. But why would we? There is still a ton of stuff that we (including the educated) don’t understand about ourselves, our neighbors, our spouses, others, history, life, science, nature, physics, biology, etc. Why should we understand the Author of all? The fount of life? The Christians always comes back to the obvious. God is God and I am a man. But the incarnate Christ has made Him known. There, I see God “for me” – to be grasped by faith and responded to in love.

In the end, God loves processes. He didn’t make the world all at once (sorry, Augustine!), but over time. And all of created order is motion from potentiality to actuality. It is childhood to adulthood. It is immaturity to maturity. It is Adam to Christ. And this is precisely why we do not yet see God as we would like. We live as pilgrims walking toward the promised land. We’re not there yet. God is not as “obvious” as we’d like. But the manna of Christ, Christian love, natural revelation, revealed Scripture (etc) is sufficient for the journey. And when it is not, know that this is a problem of our orientation, our desires and diets rather than the sufficiency of God’s revelation. And this is by God’s design. He will not just thrust us into the fullness of the eschaton. He will have us grow and learn to suffer and to walk by the Spirit. He will turn is into adults like our elder brother, Jesus. And He will do so not by circumventing our will and all of our faculties, but precisely through them. In short, God’s obviousness is clearest to “entire” persons. Speaking specifically of human freedom, Bavinck gets this basic principle just right:

“A freedom that cannot be obtained and enjoyed aside from the danger of licentiousness and caprice is still always to be preferred over a tyranny that suppresses liberty. In the creation of humanity, God himself chose this way of freedom, which carried with it the danger and actually the fact of sin as well, in preference to forced subjection. Even now, in ruling the world and governing the church, God still follows this royal road of liberty. It is precisely his honor that through freedom he nevertheless reaches his goal, creating order out of disorder, light from darkness, a cosmos out of chaos.”

–Prolegomena, vol. 1, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), p. 479.


An MRI with Hannah Arendt (or Atheists in God’s Image).

So I’ve been having some odd neuro-symptoms that I needed to get checked out recently. After delaying for a while, I finally saw a neurologist who ordered an MRI for me. At the MRI office, I was asked if I was claustrophobic. Without hesitation, I answered “nope.” My wife drove a confident me to my MRI appointment this morning, and a confident me went into the MRI room. A confident me sat down on the MRI bed – and a slightly less confident me was slowly pushed into the MRI machine. Within 30 seconds, an insanely maniacal freaked-out me realized that there was no way in Hell that I could make it through the procedure. I seriously panicked and I was out before the machine even turned on. Shameful, but I guess I am far more claustrophobic than I thought. Of course, when you are asked such a thing – it is difficult to think back to analogous circumstances wherein I spend a long amount of time in a small tube with loud magnets swirling around my head. So I left the office discouraged (especially since I’ve taken too much time off of work and put my wife through a lot as I’ve been trying to figure this out). Fortunately, the doc told me about open MRI’s (the sort where the machine is not a tube but leaves space for peripheral vision). And fortunately, there was a place a few doors down that offered just such services. So determined to use my day off well, I went a few doors down, gave them my doctors orders, shuddered at the look of the “open” machine and (later) scheduled an appointment for 2:00.

Then began the real planning. I called my wife to meet me at the metro with some tranquilizer pills that I happened to have that I have never used. Despite the “openness” of this machine, I knew I’d need to be in an altered state to make it. Then, since my wife had to watch our three children, I called a dear atheist Jewish friend to come hold my hand while I went through the procedure. I knew he wouldn’t pray for me, but I’ve been his confidant through a lot of trials, and I knew he’d be happy to help me through mine. And so it was. I met my wife. I took a “happy pill” and met up with my friend David near the office.

We went in. I was slightly relaxed from the meds. The doctor turned on a rock station (playing Boston I believe). David sat next to me, spoke encouraging words, gave me fist-bumps, and read me excerpts of Hannah Ardent’s Jewish writings. I believe he was reading from the introduction concerning the difference between Ardent’s zionism and that of Theodore Hertzl. The doctor allowed to tilt my head just enough so that I could see his face out of the corner of my eye. And, just to top it off, I prayed, recited Scripture, had libidinous thoughts (pure ones, mind you), drew numbers in my head, and frequently panicked. But I did it. 25 minutes. Done. Drugs felt even better afterwards.

I’m not sure what the moral of the story is. But all I can say that is that on this particular day, I appreciate the face, voice, and friendship of a young Jewish atheist. Medical crap can be rather lonely. And despite our ideological differences, there is a more fundamental sameness between David and I than difference. We are both God’s image. We are both persons. We are friends. And as much as we try to adjudicate our ideological differences, the underpinning of basic humanity is common. It is delightful. And it is precisely what God created us to need and enjoy. I needed God’s provision in the form of a person today, or I’m quite sure I wouldn’t have made it. It feels stupid to say so, but it’s probably true. And today, God’s face looked like a Jewish atheist who read Hannah Arendt out loud.

She Blinded Me With Science! Or, 5 Thoughts (Plus 1) About Science.

What follows is not a “professional” take on the scientific method. I am just gathering into one place my own thoughts concerning what makes scientific hypotheses more or less “persuasive” or “real” or “probably correspondent to the real world.” Here, I am using “science” in its limited modern sense – that is – the study of physical realities and the laws that govern their behavior. This sphere of explanation corresponds roughly to Aristotle’s “material” and “efficient” causality, without necessarily making reference to the philosopher’s “formal” or “final” causality. The abandonment of the latter by advocates of “scientism” (the view that science is the chief or only means of explaining any phenomenon at all) is demonstrably fraught with philosophical and practical problems, but I don’t want to get into that here. Nevertheless, I’ve been in several conversations of late with both conservative Christians and with confident atheists that have motivated me to collect my thoughts about what makes scientific claims “persuasive” into one place. And here, I do not mean to imply that any scientific theory will meet all the below criteria, but only that their persuasive power is either “more” or “less” intense depending upon the amount of the below criteria which are met and to the precise extent that each individual criterion is met. And so, in relative order of importance:

1. Scientific hypotheses build upon the sorts of observed events and facts that are very difficult to deny, even by those who are motivated to do so. For instance, if my brother and I got into a fight about whether or not he could lift 300 pounds, and I bet him 10 dollars that he could not lift 300 pounds, I’d be very motivated to observe his failure to lift 300 pounds. However, if he in fact lifted 300 pounds in front of my face, and there was evidence that the weights he lifted were real (believe me, I’d check!), then I would be confronted with the sort of fact that I could not choose to disbelieve even if I wanted to. That is to say, there are certain sorts of observations that, in a fashion, usually tend to compel belief and assent. The closer science sticks to these sorts of observations, the more persuasive it is. A recent example of this might be many discoveries in neuro-science. If someone was tempted to believe that the single direction of causality between the mind and the brain were from the consciousness to the brain (as a sort of tool through which the mind manipulates the body), they would have a very difficult time accounting for the discoveries of neuroscience. Indeed, I daresay that one really cannot be confronted by the findings of neuroscience and really believe that the causal relationship between the mind and brain is uni-directional. Now, likely very few people ever actually believed that (despite certain popular narratives!), but this just illustrates a very firm group of observations by modern scientists that built a cumulative case that is very persuasive. Things that happen to our brain can and do affect our consciousness. Inasmuch as science sticks close to these sorts of observations, its conclusions are at their most persuasive. The further we move into theoretical “models,” this degree of persuasion incrementally ceases. For instance, there are many well-accepted scientific theories (many of which are probably correct) which nevertheless no not “compel” belief in any obvious manner – or rather – they are not built upon observations that compel belief. Often, they are hypothesized as theoretical models to explain disparate phenomena (more on this below). Certain physics theories (String theory?) might be the least controversial examples here. To be fair, it is possible that certain observations would virtually compel belief if they were understood, but are the sorts of observations which take a specialist to even “see.” More controversialy, I suspect that many current culture wars over science are less a function of being unpersuaded than by a refusal to observe – less a function of mind than of will.

2. A good scientific theory or model should demonstrate “fittingness” with the observed phenomenon. I have often seen folks take all explanations which are not absolutely certain as epistemically equal. This is simply not the case. Some explanations are better than others, and obviously so. They are better to the extent to that they have a sort of aesthetic “fittingness” with the phenomena being explained. For instance, the hypothesis “Little magic blue people inside of atoms account for all of their behavior” is not a demonstrably false statement. But it also doesn’t account for any atomic behavior any better than, say, “little magic red people,” or “”little scientific blue people” or “little magic blue kittens.” That is to say, while this hypothesis is consistent with all of the evidence, it doesn’t actually “account” for the evidence in a way that is unique from, well, any other explanation. A good scientific theory or model isn’t just “consistent with” the evidence, but uniquely explanatory. It doesn’t remain content with mere logical consistency but seeks aesthetic harmony. The principle is something like, “If this theory is true, not only would it be consistent with these observed phenomenon, but you would expect the phenomenon to look exactly like, or very close to, what we find them to be in reality.” The recent science of plate tectonics is probably a good example of a theory that meets this criteria. In any case, closely related to this point…

3. Scientific theories are more persuasive the more often they generate predictions which lead to further observations. It is particularly neat when a scientific model can say something like, “If the world is as I expect it to be, then I should observe x in place y” BEFORE they observe x in place y! If a scientist can pull that off, and the more they can pull that off, they are really onto something. Their success in discovery means that the world is yielding its fruit to their hypothesis. And this suggests that their hypothesis is correspondent to the world. There are many examples of this (Einstein’s predictions related to relativity being a famous example), but one of the most exciting in recent times has been the prediction(s) related to the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland – specifically the prediction and (hopefully!) discovery of the Higgs particle.

4. Scientific theories lack persuasive power to the extent that they are unfalsifiable. The mark of pseudoscience is that the target is always moving. I am sure there are many examples of this in various health studies and paranormal theories. Conspiracy theories are a good foil here. The more you attack the central premise, the more the conspiracy gets complicated and the ground of explanation shifts. “You think everyone wants to kill you? Then why are most people so nice to you and why haven’t they killed you yet?” “Because they are toying with me and fattening me up for the perfect ceremonial kill moment, of course! I mean, who wants to kill someone without some irony?” You get it. There’s no way to falsify the hypothesis. But good science is falsifiable. Do you want to disprove Newton? Throw something in the air that doesn’t fall back to the ground. Do you want to disprove evolution? As one scientist famously put it, produce a fossilized rabbit from the precambrian period.

5. Finally, good science recognizes when it has made a wrong turn. It knows its limits. This is controversial, but it is not for that reason less true. If “science” leads you to a view which says that human reasoning is all just deterministic and a fundamentally irrational response to stimuli, then you have falsified the persuasiveness of your theory. If your hypothesis leads you to conclude something which is utterly counter-intuitive (i.e. “we are likely a computer simulation of another species”), you have likely gone of the rails. It is not that science cannot lead to counter-intuitive conclusions (“wave-particle” duality, anyone?). But there are basic phenomena to be explained – some of which are so basic that they cannot be explained “away” or “reduced” without violence to what they simply “are” (Consciousness is a good one here). Fundamentally, I’m saying that science really cannot do without mind and reason and at least some level of reliable observation. Perhaps Plantinga’s “evironment within which the mind is intended to function” is the basic phenomenological zone which needs explanation here. Whatever the case, certain things (and we could argue about what these are – I’m just going for principle here) are basic and constitute the phenomena to be explained rather than phenomena which are reduced to other things. I’m talking to you, social scientists! Once again, scientific conclusions can be counter-intuitive, but they cannot be counter-being and the basic nature of being. This seems obvious to me. It is not as though, by the way, that metaphysics is any different here. Metaphysics leads to counter-intuitive conclusions as well. Or at least, it points to realities which cannot be fully grasped by the human mind – and in this sense, there is a certain fittingness between science and metaphysics. Indeed, one might even say that the realm of rational science behaves precisely like classic metaphysics would anticipate it to behave. Hmmmm…

Addendum: I should have mentioned (number 6?) that a hypothesis is more persuasive when it has independent lines of confirmation or fittingness. So, for instance, evidence from different fields of biology, chemistry, physics, geology – fittingness with philosophy, reason, etc. This means that even if a particulate line of evidence is negated, the whole is not necessarily negated. Basically, there is something of a “cumulative case” principle here.