Trust based on good reasons

 clipped from ls.egen.net

Faith and Evidence

"That's not faith."

There is an episode of the TV series Bones, in which the main character is buried alive with a friend and they are running out of air.  She is not panicking because she is sure her partner Booth will rescue them.  Her friend says, "You sure have a lot of faith in him."  Her reply betrays a common assumption about the nature of faith:  "Faith is an irrational belief in something that's logically impossible," she says.  "Over time, I have seen what Booth can do.  That's not faith."(1)

These comments reflect how many people view faith: it is an irrational leap in the dark.  It is about accepting propositions without evidence or even against the available evidence.  However, in the Christian sense, faith is not opposed to reason or evidence.  It is simply not reducible to either one.  In the book of 1 John, we read:  "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.  The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us.  We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us" (1 John 1:1-3, emphasis mine). 

John is clearly appealing to evidence and reason to try to persuade people that the story he tells is true.  If it is true, then it would make sense for one to have faith in the Jesus of whom he speaks, just as it made sense for Bones to have faith in her partner since she had seen the evidence of his abilities.  But only if it is true.  John is obviously not asking people to believe against the evidence or even in the absence of evidence, but on the basis of a certain type of evidence—in this case, the trustworthiness of the witnesses.

Evidence can serve to instill belief or confirm belief, but it has its limits.  We all interpret evidence in the light of our experience and the beliefs we already hold.  Just as John offered one type of evidence, others would offer their own evidences that Jesus was not who the apostles claimed he was.  Thus, it is not strictly the evidence that determines who puts their faith in Jesus and who does not because faith is about more than believing an idea.  It is about commitment, a willingness to stake your life on the truth of something or the reliability of someone.

Furthermore, those who accuse faith of lacking in evidence often fail to notice that every belief system, whether it includes the supernatural or not, has foundational elements which are not proven.  Even a naturalist worldview that relies on science must accept many things without direct evidence.  All people have faith in their own worldviews, even naturalist scientists.  They have to believe that their way of determining what is true is the best way.  They have to believe others and trust the results of other scientists.  If you are a complete skeptic, you will never get anywhere in science.  You would have to do all the experiments yourself and even then, you cannot prove 100 percent that you are not mistaken.  You have to trust that your findings will hold true in the future, that the laws that operate now will not change tomorrow.  You have to trust that your mind and thoughts in some way correspond to the way the world actually is.

So, faith has evidence.  But all evidence has faith too.

Whether our faith is rational or irrational depends on a number of factors: how much and what types of evidence supports it, whether it has stood up to honest scrutiny and criticism, and how much explanatory power it has to make sense of our experience.  Christian faith passes each of these tests, but it will always go beyond any of these factors.  Like the faith of Bones in her partner, it is also about trusting a person.  Our faith determines the direction of our lives; it is where our loyalties lie; it believes that the one who made us also loves us and has spoken to us.   Over time, we have seen what God can do.  And that is faith.

Rachel Tulloch is a member of the speaking team at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in Toronto, Canada.

(1) Bones, series 2, episode 9, "Aliens in a Spaceship."

---

Copyright (c) 2009 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM)

---

A Slice of Infinity is aimed at reaching into the culture with words of challenge, words of truth, and words of hope. If you know of others who would enjoy receiving A Slice of Infinity in their email box each day, tell them they can sign up on our website at www.rzim.org/Slice

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

"Clean up culture—that's our job—and politics will follow."

 clipped from www.informz.net

National Derangement

The Political Illusion

May 6, 2010

Just when you thought it was safe to turn on your TV, there it was again—another mind-numbing story about politics.

You might have thought we'd catch a breath after President Obama's historic election. But no, we've been treated to daily doses of political news ever since—the "historic" election of Republican Senator Scott Brown, Tea Party events, and weekly political scandals. Now, we're looking ahead to November and the next "most historic election ever"—the one that will finally save America.

Are we all losing our minds, spending half our lives watching politics on the tube? I'm reminded of the words of Soren Kierkegaard, the 19th-century Danish philosopher. Almost 100 years before the invention of television, Kierkegaard predicted what would happen if such a thing were invented. "Suppose," Kierkegaard wrote, "someone invented...a convenient little talking tube which could be heard over the whole land. I wonder if the police would not forbid it, fearing that the whole country would become mentally deranged."

He was right: We are becoming deranged. We are succumbing to what French philosopher Jacques Ellul prophesied in the 1960s—the politicization of all aspects of life. Ellul foresaw the Information Age and the media's need for a steady flow of information to feed the populace. Media therefore would gravitate to covering centers of power. Politicians would be willing accomplices, because they'd gain fame and clout.

We've succumbed to what Ellul predicted—the idea that every problem has a political solution. This, he warned, leads to increasing dependence on the state and decreasing citizen control of government.

The result: The structure of government becomes so unwieldy that it can hardly function. For example, we've spent billions fighting terrorism—but we couldn't stop "the underwear bomber" from boarding a U.S.-bound plane, even though his name was on a terrorist watch list.

Ellul also foresaw that when government becomes all-intrusive, the intermediate structures that keep societies vibrant—families, churches, and voluntary associations—collapse and tyranny follows.

What's the answer? First, we better recognize that politics is not the be-all and end-all. Politics is merely the expression of culture. Clean up culture—that's our job—and politics will follow.

This happened when God's people were awakened in England in the 18th and 19th centuries. England then was in worse straits than we are today, with slavery, child labor, and rampant political corruption. But along came William Wilberforce, the Oxford movement, and the Salvation Army. What followed was a great, century-long revival of Christian faith. England was not only saved in the Wesley revivals, it was stronger than ever.

So we as 21st-century Christians must do the same thing. And there is no time to lose. If, as I believe, the political illusion has America by the throat, there are only two likely outcomes—revolution, which is what the Tea Party people suggest (albeit peacefully), or tyranny.

God has acted again and again through His people to change history's course. But for that to happen, the Church had better sober up, summon its spiritual resources, expose the political illusion, and begin to defend and live the Christian faith in our culture.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

Nurses disciplined for refusing to asssist in abortion

 clipped from www.licatholic.org

Nurses who refused to assist in abortion disciplined

---

April 14, 2010 | Vol. 49, No. 4 | BY PETE SHEEHAN

---

Nurses who refused to assist in abortion disciplined

April 14, 2010 | Vol. 49, No. 4 | BY PETE SHEEHAN

EAST MEADOW — Eight nurses who refused to participate in an abortion at Nassau University Medical Center here March 31 are resisting disciplinary action levied on them by hospital officials.

"This is a horrendous situation," said one of the labor/delivery nurses disciplined who asked that her name not be used. She and the others, she said, had signed paperwork at the time they began working there stipulating that they would not be required to assist in abortions but have often faced pressure to do so.

Some of the nurses involved have lost vacation time and others have their cases still pending, union officials report.

"The decision against these nurses by the hospital goes against protocol, goes against procedure, and goes against the law," said Jerry Laricchiuta, president of the Civil Service Employees' Association (CSEA) Nassau Local 830. The union is filing a grievance and is "considering litigation."

"This was not an emergency situation and at no time was the patient endangered," said Ryan Mulholland, communications director for the CSEA local.

The hospital's administrator, Arthur A. Gianelli, president and CEO of NuHealth System, declined to comment, citing "confidentiality requirements."

Joining the union in speaking up for the nurses are the Long Island Coalition for Life and Feminists Choosing Life of New York State.

On March 30, the patient, who was about 15 weeks pregnant, came to the hospital for surgery to prevent a miscarriage, Mulholland said. She had come to the hospital before because of complications. After preparation for surgery began, further complications ensued. The next day, she decided to have an abortion rather than undergo the surgery.

"Several of us had put in letters years ago stipulating that we do not participate in abortions," the labor/delivery nurse noted. "There are many reasons for that, other than our religious beliefs, and we represent many different religious backgrounds. Most of the doctors don't perform abortions either."

So the attending physician asked them for assistance in contacting a nurse who would be willing to assist with an abortion, she said. Because the patient was stable and in no danger and was being monitored for vital signs, the physician decided to wait until later in the afternoon for that nurse to arrive.

Meanwhile, hospital personnel asked the refusing nurses to sign a form for employees who refuse to perform or assist in procedures contrary to their conscience or religious beliefs, Mulholland said. One of the nurses contacted the union representative, who came to the maternity ward to assess the situation.

"They were asked to sign it on the spot and it was three or four pages long," said Laricchiuta, local president. Even though it was dated December 2009, he said, neither employees nor union officials were familiar with the form. Hospital procedure requires that employees be informed about any new policies before being asked to comply with them.

The procedure began when the nurse willing to assist in abortion came on duty. The baby died before the procedure was completed, Mulholland said, with no ill effect to the woman.

On April 2, all the nurses who resisted assisting in the abortion were verbally reprimanded, Mulholland said.

In addition, three lost vacation time and the other five also face further disciplinary action.

They were cited for alleged insubordination, failing to provide patient care and endangering patient safety, refusal to sign the form, refusing to accept transfer of a patient from another unit, and conducting union business in a patient care area. No specific reference to abortion was made.

"In addition to what the union is doing," the labor and delivery nurse noted, "some of the nurses are considering filing legal action," and also filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Celeste Broyles, treasurer for the Long Island Coalition for Life, said that the coalition supports the nurses and their union. "Health care workers should not be coerced or pressured into assisting in or performing abortions.

"We appreciate that there are health care workers who recognize that human life begins in the womb," Broyles said. "It is unfortunate that the hospital would put health care workers in that situation."

Florence Scarinci, Long Island representative for Feminists for Choosing Life of New York State, said "it is sad that 'pro-choice' always seems to mean the choice to have an abortion, rather than the choice not to participate in abortion."

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

 clipped from www.americanthinker.com

March 25, 2010

---

Secularism's Ongoing Debt to Christianity

---

By John D. Steinrucken

Rational thought may provide better answers to many of life's riddles than does faith alone. However, it is rational to conclude that religious faith has made possible the advancement of Western civilization. That is, the glue that has held Western civilization together over the centuries is the Judeo-Christian tradition. To the extent that the West loses its religious faith in favor of non-judgmental secularism, then to the same extent, it loses that which holds all else together.

Succinctly put: Western civilization's survival, including the survival of open secular thought, depends on the continuance within our society of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Arguably the two most defining and influential Christian concepts are summarized in two verses of the New Testament. Those verses are Romans 14:10 and John 8:32.

Romans 14:10, says: "Remember, each of us must stand alone before the judgment seat of God." That verse explicitly recognizes not only each man's uniqueness, but, of necessity, implies that man has free will -- that individual acts do result in consequences, and that those acts will be judged against objective standards. It is but a step from the habit of accepting individual accountability before God to thinking of individual accountability in secular things. It thus follows that personal and political freedom is premised upon the Christian concept of the unique individual exercising accountable free will.

John 8:32 says: "And you will know the truth and the truth will set you free." Whatever the theological meanings that have been imputed to that verse, its implicit secular meaning is that the search for truth is in and of itself praiseworthy.

Although I am a secularist (atheist, if you will), I accept that the great majority of people would be morally and spiritually lost without religion. Can anyone seriously argue that crime and debauchery are not held in check by religion? Is it not comforting to live in a community where the rule of law and fairness are respected? Would such be likely if Christianity were not there to provide a moral compass to the great majority? Do we secularists not benefit out of all proportion from a morally responsible society?

An orderly society is dependent on a generally accepted morality. There can be no such morality without religion. Has there ever been a more perfect and concise moral code than the one Moses brought down from the mountain?

Those who doubt the effect of religion on morality should seriously ask the question: Just what are the immutable moral laws of secularism? Be prepared to answer, if you are honest, that such laws simply do not exist! The best answer we can ever hear from secularists to this question is a hodgepodge of strained relativist talk of situational ethics. They can cite no overriding authority other than that of fashion. For the great majority in the West, it is the Judeo-Christian tradition which offers a template assuring a life of inner peace toward the world at large -- a peace which translates to a workable liberal society.            

A few years ago, I saw on television the interview of a reforming prostitute and drug addict. When asked why she had chosen to reform, her simple answer was, "I don't want to go to Hell." I am sure that she had previously received hours of counseling from secular social workers, all without discernible effect. What did it for her was the simplicity of a belief in Heaven and Hell, and with knowing that one day, she would stand alone before her God to be judged.

For the majority of a culture's population, religious tradition is inextricably woven into their self-awareness. It gives them their identity. It is why those of religious faith are more socially stable and experience less difficulty in forming and maintaining binding attachments than do we secularists.

Most men do have a need for God. This, I think, is proven by the desperation with which so many of those who have forsaken the God of their fathers (it has been fashionable to do so) are now reaching for meaning in eastern exotica, new-age mumbo-jumbo, and other attempts to fill the spiritual hole.

Or they surrender themselves to secular ideologies or do-good causes, especially those in which they can mass with others in solidarity, shouting in unison mindless, ritualistic simplicities and waving placards of hackneyed and inane slogans.

Secularism has never offered the people a practical substitute for religion. From the time of the philosophes with their certainties in 1789, the rationally thought-through utopias of those who think themselves the elite of the world, when actually put to the test, have not merely come to naught. Attempts during those two centuries to put into practice utopian visions have caused huge sufferings. But they, the clever ones, never look back. In their conceit, they delude themselves that next time they are sure to get it right. They create justifications for their fantasies by rewriting the histories.

We secularists should recognize that we owe much to the religionists, that we are not threatened by them, that we should grant to them their world. Why should we be exercised over a Christmas Crèche in front of the county court house? It is appropriately symbolic of Christianity's benign but essential role as guarantor of our political and legal systems -- that is, of a moral force independent of and transcendent to the political. And what harm will come to a child who hears prayer in the schoolroom? I daresay harm is far more likely to come in those places where prayer is not heard.

The fact is, we secularists gain much from living in a world in which excesses are held in check by religion. Religion gives society a secure and orderly environment within which we secularists can safely play out our creativities. Free and creative secularism seems to me to function best when within the stable milieu provided by Christianity.         

To the extent that Western elites distance themselves from their Judeo-Christian cultural heritage in favor of secular constructs, and as they give deference to a multicultural acceptance that all beliefs are of equal validity, they lose their will to defend against a determined attack from another culture, such as from militant Islam. For having destroyed the ancient faith of their people, they will have found themselves with nothing to defend. For the culture above which they had fancied themselves to have risen, the culture which had given them their material sustenance, will by then have become but a hollow shell.

An elite must, by definition, have a much larger base upon which to stand. For Western civilization, that base has over the centuries been the great mass of commoners who have looked to Christianity for their moral guidance and for strength to weather adversity. The elitists delude themselves if they think the common people will look to them for guidance once their religious beliefs have been eroded away.

The greatest crime of the elitists -- if they have their way -- will be their failure to use their gifts of intellect to lead and to preserve. Their sin will be the abandonment of that ninety percent of the population which had provided them with the secure societal and material wherewithal for practicing their conceits and dilettantes.

If the elitists of our Western civilization want to survive, then it is incumbent upon them to see to the preservation of the hoary, time-honored faith of the great majority of the people. This means that our elitists should see that their most valued vested interest is the preservation within our culture of Christianity and Judaism. It is not critical that they themselves believe, only that they should publicly hold in high esteem the institutions of Christianity and Judaism, and to respect those who do believe and to encourage and to give leeway to those who, in truth, will be foremost in the trenches defending us against those who would have us all bow down to a different and unaccommodating faith.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.