Philosophy: Good questions, bad answers (but not always) Part 1

There are two common questions that I always heard when people found out that I was a philosophy major. The first was “What is philosophy?” and the second was “What are you going to do with it?” The latter question I’ve already sort of explained but the former is one that I rarely answered because it’s always been overshadowed by the latter question, and up ’til now I don’t think I’ve ever really given a really satisfactory answer. The most common answer to this question, which I always heard in introductory level courses, is that philosophy is the “love of wisdom” but to be honest this is not really an explanation of what philosophy is but a translation of what the word “philosophy” means. The first half of the word “philosophy” is the word “philos” which means “love” in Greek and the second half comes from the word “sophia” or “wisdom”, so philosophy is literally “the love of wisdom.” But this translation doesn’t really answer our question. To be honest, the formation of the question itself isn’t quite right to begin with. A better question is: “what is the work or aim of philosophy?”

Depending on who you talk to, there are two different answers to this question.

Some philosophers, like David Lewis, will tell you that the work of philosophy is not to tell people what to believe or what is true or false because people will always enter into philosophy with their own intuitions and inclinations. Instead the work of philosophy is take those beliefs that we already held before we’ve ever stepped foot in philosophy and figure out how to better systemized and understand them. Philosophy is meant to take what we already believe, take our pre-existing intuitions and make better sense of them. The other answer is that the work of philosophy is to understand and analyze the state of reality and propose how humanity is suppose to react in light of that understanding and analysis.

In many ways I agree with both of these answers and I believe that both of these answers are right. You see philosophy is humanity’s attempt at understanding and analyzing reality with many already existing beliefs and inclinations. Philosophy is humanity’s attempt to understand the world around them while living in sin and rejecting the restored relationship that it has with God through the blood of Christ.

When you take a few philosophy courses and you start to talk to people of different philosophical levels, you tend to see the same fundamental questions being asked and it is these fundamental questions that make philosophy so great. These are questions that I think every human being on Earth has at one point thought, asked, wondered, or tried to answer. They are questions that plague the mind of a creature that has no knowledge of its creator, of it’s celestial parent, its meaning and purpose, its reason for living, and the answer to the question of why there is something instead of nothing. These questions and many others are questions that strike the hearts and minds of men and women year after year, generation after generation and they never go away because humanity will always wonder where it came from, why there is life, why they are alive, and what their identity and purpose is so long as they live in sin and remain ignorant of God and His will.

You see we are creatures who are dead to God and have a broken relationship with our heavenly Father who is the answer to all these burning questions. We wonder, speculate, investigate, think, theorize, and try to explain but these questions keep coming back, and not because humanity has failed to try or even remotely answer these questions, but because the answers we give, the answers we come up with just don’t cut it.

I believe that philosophy is a great tool in drawing out these burning questions. They’re questions that need to be asked at a poignant point in our lives when the world is still an enigma because there comes a point when we lay our hands on unrestricted pleasure and become numb to the burning sensation of these questions. In my experience I’ve discovered that philosophy can only provide so much and that even these very words that I am writing will not fully satisfy anyone, they will never really satisfy the heart that yearns for the answers to these questions, the heart that reaches towards that heavens for some sign or indication of truth. We will always have these questions, they will never go away and a person will continue to so long as a he or she settles for their own inclinations and intuition or that of others.

The title of this blog series is “Philosophy: Good questions, bad answers (but not always)”. The reason why I added the the parenthesis is because I believe that philosophy has and can lead someone to the right answer. I’m not saying it gives the right answer but I’m saying that it can give an answer that leads to the right answer. What that answer is and whether or not it satisfies that nit picky objections will be addressed in my next blog.

I don’t know how long this series is going to be and I honestly am not too sure what exactly I’m going to say in the next one, but I hope you’re up for it…so buckle your seat belts and prepare to have a headache because I know I will.

I Basically Just Believe in God: A Quick Evaluation of Alvin Plantinga’s Reformed Epistemology

This is relatively recent short paper that I wrote during my last semester at U.C. Berkeley in my Philosophy of Religion course. For those of your who don’t know what epistemology is, it is the study of knowledge or the theory of knowledge. It asks why and how we know what we know and how do we know it is true, essentially it seeks to find out what justifies our beliefs and knowledge. Plantinga’s Reformed Epistemology addresses the justification in the belief in God, which he contends is simply basic and needs no other reason or supportive premise to lead to the conclusion of God existence. Personally I agree and in many ways disagree with Plantinga’s epistemology but none the less I think it’s an idea that many Christians should think about when people challenge the justification of their beliefs and something for non-theists to think about when they seek supportive premises to a theist’s theism.

It’s not the best piece of writing I’ve ever done or the most thoroughly written so proceed w/that in mind. Enjoy!

—

Many skeptics have been unsatisfied with the classical arguments for the existence of God, such as the moral argument or the teleological argument, and as a result they view the belief in God as unjustified. Many argue that a justified belief needs to be supported by arguments and reason. Alvin Plantinga disagrees and argues that belief in God is basic, meaning that it does not need the support of reason or anything else to be justified. In response, the fervent skeptic may argue that if God is basic, then anything can be taken as basic, which means any basic belief can be justified. This paper will present Plantinga’s view and respond to the skeptic, but ultimately agree that Plantinga must concede that if God can be taken as basic, then so can anything else.

In order to explain the weak foundationalist stance that Plantinga uses, it seems prudent to explain classical foundationalism. Foundationalism is a view found in epistemology or the theory of knowledge. It is a normative view that argues that to be rational is to act in accord with certain norms and standards, and to be irrational is to act against them (Plantinga, 221). It contends that one’s belief and knowledge is like a structure made of other beliefs and propositions, which hold an epistemic relation to each other. This is known as a noetic structure (Plantinga, 221). So I hold a certain belief b because I know or believe some other proposition that supports b. Within this structure there are basic and non-basic beliefs. My belief that Bruce Lee fought Chuck Norris is a non-basic belief because it is dependent on my knowledge of the film The Way of the Dragon. Now, not every belief is dependent on another belief or proposition. Beliefs that are held without support from any other proposition that one knows, believes, or holds are called basic beliefs. Some of my beliefs in mathematics, logic, or beliefs about my sense perception are all basic beliefs because I do not believe them on the basis of anything else (Plantinga, 222).

Now, every noetic structure has a foundation made of basic beliefs. Plantinga posits a form of foundationalism he calls “weak foundationalism.” Weak foundationalism simply states, “(1) every rational noetic structure has a foundation, and (2) in a rational noetic structure, non-basic belief is proportional in strength to support from the foundations” (Plantinga, 223). Essentially, the noetic structure of everything we believe and know rests on the bedrock of our basic beliefs. The various forms of foundationalism may argue that certain conditions must be met in order to deem a belief as properly basic. For instance, if the belief is based on sense perception or is self-evident, then it qualifies as a basic belief. Plantinga rejects this and states that belief in God is just basic and there is no condition that needs to be met. Not only that but the person who believes in God in the basic way also knows that God exists (Plantinga, 225, 226). This argument is not meant to convince or prove God’s existence but to show that the theist, despite a lack of sufficient evidence or reason, is justified in his belief in God. It is justified simply because the theist takes his belief in God as basic, as part of the foundation to all of his noetic structure. This seems fine to the theist who wants to justify his belief in God but to the skeptic it is problematic.

Accepting God as basic seems to open the doors to many other things to be taken as basic, which paves the way for any random, superstitious belief. Taking Plantinga’s view commits us to believe that anything can be properly basic. If one were to take the belief in the Great Pumpkin from the Charles Schultz cartoon to be basic, then it seems that the Great Pumpkin is basic and needs no other justification. Plantinga disagrees because the Great Pumpkin is not basic to anyone’s beliefs, no one has a natural tendency to believe in the Great Pumpkin, and the Great Pumpkin does not exist (Plantinga, 226). On the other hand, there are many people who take God as basic and have a natural tendency to believe in God. This response is unsatisfactory. It is possible that there is a very fervent fan of Charles Schultz that believes in the Great Pumpkin as basic. This fan has a natural tendency to believe that there is a Great Pumpkin that returns every Halloween, and also believes that the Great Pumpkin does exists. According to Plantinga’s argument, this fervent fan should be correct in believing in the Great Pumpkin as basic and is justified in his belief. So it seems as though as long as the person is genuine in their belief, anything can be taken as basic. But Plantinga may argue that, though this person’s belief is genuine and sincere, genuine belief does not mean that something exists. This leads to the question: “Then how do we know that God exists?”

It seems as though Plantinga has already premised his view with the existence of God. Based on his above response, it seems that belief in God is basic because God exists, and the Great Pumpkin is not basic because the Great Pumpkin does not exist. But this view seems to require us to prove God’s existence. Now, if Plantinga thinks that our beliefs should reflect the external world (outside of our minds), then he needs to prove God’s existence in the external world to show why belief in God is basic and Great Pumpkin is not. If he instead believes that all that is necessary to justify a belief is what one has access to in his mind, then Plantinga does not need to show God’s existence in the external world (outside the mind). But this would lead him to say that the fervent fan is correct in his belief in the Great Pumpkin as basic. The fan has this belief in the Great Pumpkin rooted in his mind, therefore he is justified in is belief[1]. So unless Plantinga shows that God exists and the Great Pumpkin does not exist in the external world, he will have to assent that belief in anything can be taken as basic and that this belief is justified.

Plantinga has one last response to the original objection. The reason why the theist is right to claim that belief in God is basic, and not the Great Pumpkin is because God implants the very belief in God in every person, whereas the same cannot be said about the Great Pumpkin (Plantinga, 226). This response faces a few problems. If God implants the belief in every person, then why is there unbelief? Plantinga may respond by arguing that sin corrupts the hearts and minds of all people, which prevents many from believing in God. This still faces a problem because if, according to the Bible and assuming it is the Word of God, everyone is a sinner and has sin, then everyone’s sin should prevent them from believing in God. In order for Platinga’s response to hold, he needs to explain why one person’s belief is left in tact and another’s corrupted by sin.

If we are committed to Plantinga’s weak foundationalism and we accept the notion of basic beliefs, beliefs that are not supported by any other proposition, and this belief does not need to meet any of the foundationalist conditions, then it seems that we are committed to also believe that a person is justified in their basic belief in the Great Pumpkin or anything else they see fit. This does not mean that it is true and it does mean that everyone else must accept this belief as basic, but it does mean that a person is justified in his belief in God despite insufficient evidence or reason.

---

[1] This is a very general conception of Internalism and it is not meant to be exhaustive.

Free Will and God’s Foreknowledge

So I haven’t written in this thing since the beginning of the semester and since I am uninspired at the moment to work on my paper, I decided to post a short philosophy paper I wrote earlier last month. It’s a topic that a lot of people bring up and I figured my paper might spark some good conversation or perhaps just some reflection on your life and how you view free will and moral responsibility. Note: this is a philosophy paper and not a theology paper or Bible study lecture. Not everything I write is a part of orthodoxy.

Enjoy!

Causality, Cognition, and the Freedom of Will

            The question: “Would you like the Alaskan salmon or the beef tenderloin?” is hardly philosophical, but what if someone knew that you would choose the Alaskan salmon? What if this person had this knowledge before you were ever born? Can you say that you were ever free to choose the beef tenderloin? If not, then how can you ever be held responsible for this decision or any decision? These are the philosophical questions that arise when we examine this simple question with God’s foreknowledge and our free will. St. Augustine tries to defend the compatibility between free will and God’s foreknowledge by arguing that God’s foreknowledge does not cause our decisions, and if anything his foreknowledge proves that we have free will. But Augustine’s account faces several problems. In this paper I will elaborate on this problem of free will, present Augustine’s account, pose several difficulties to this account, and provide a definition of free will to resolve this problem.

The central problem is that God’s foreknowledge eliminates any genuine alternative. If I have two options—A or B—and God’s foreknowledge shows that I will choose A, then it seems that B is never a genuine alternative because I can never choose B. One may argue that it is a genuine alternative because I could have chosen B. This misses the point. If God knows I will choose A, then I can never choose B because if I chose B then I would go against what God knows, which means that God made a mistake and does not know everything. But if we hold to certain Judeo-Christian doctrine, then this is blasphemy and we cannot say this. If we cannot choose otherwise from what God foreknows, then it seems like we have no free will. This poses a problem for those who hold to the Christian doctrine that God holds us responsible for our sins. If we do not choose to sin out of free will, then it seems morally wrong of God to hold us responsible for our sins. This would also be blasphemous because it is held that God is perfectly loving and just. How do we resolve this issue without committing blasphemy? Augustine provides a possible resolution.

Augustine argues that God’s foreknowledge does not cause or determine our choices. There is no causal connection between what God foreknows and what we choose. God can foreknow that I will choose the Alaskan salmon over the beef tenderloin but this does not mean that his knowledge causes me to choose the salmon. Likewise with sin, just because God foreknows that I will sin at a certain time does not mean that his knowledge causes me to sin; therefore, I freely choose to sin and am morally responsible for my sins (Augustine, 12-13). So my actions are not contingent on God’s foreknowledge but God’s foreknowledge of my actions is contingent of me. Augustine also points out that the very fact that God foreknows what I am going to do proves that I have free will. According to Augustine, it is impossible for me to will something if it is not within my power to do so (Augustine, 12). Augustine does not specifically use the term “free will” but instead “the power to will” but we will take these to be synonymous. The very fact that God knows that I will something shows that I have the power to will; therefore, God’s foreknowledge does not take away my power to will. Unfortunately this account does not resolve the problem.

The problem is that under God’s foreknowledge a person is unable to choose otherwise, that there are no genuine alternative choices. The causal relation between my choice and me does not change the fact that I can only make a choice that is necessitated by God’s foreknowledge. Now, what about the power to will that Augustine contend that we have? This power seems to be just a thin veil over the reality that on the greater scheme of things we have no free will. Now, this does not mean we have no intentionality or that we are mindless puppets but shows that our sense of free will, in this case, is not actually free will. Another problem with Augustine’s account is that it does not clearly define free will.

Augustine only shows that we have free will because God does not cause our choices and actions, so it seems that Augustine is implicitly arguing for causality as the criterion for free will. But this is unsatisfactory because it is too weak. It would mean that animals or infants have free will because they have a causal relation to their choices; therefore, they can be held morally responsible for their actions. But this seems wrong because it does not appear that animals or infants actually understand the decisions they make, so it seems odd to say that they are morally responsible. Now, this draws out other issues about moral responsibility and exemption, but they cannot be addressed at this point and I will not elaborate on them. What is important is that we are left with a rather unsatisfactory resolution and definition of free will. I propose an alternative definition of free will to fill the gaps that Augustine left open.

Free will is a cognitive faculty and those without it are exempt from the common standards of moral responsibility. This cognitive faculty is the ability to examine, evaluate, reflect, and understand our options and make a conscious decision. If we can say that an individual has this faculty, then we can say that he or she has free will and is morally responsible for their actions. Beings such as animals, young children, the mentally insane, or anyone with underdeveloped cognition are exempt from the common standards of responsibility. This does not mean they are not punished in anyway but that their circumstances can allow leniency. This also exempts cases of mind control or manipulation, such as hypnotism and brain washing because it interferes with the cognitive faculty to examine, evaluate, reflect, and understand the choices and make a conscious decision (Wallace, 155-157, 159 ). This definition is largely based on R. Jay Wallace’s theory for free will and moral responsibility, but it is not as comprehensive as Wallace’s theory. Now, one may still argue that this cognitive ability does not change the fact that we cannot choose otherwise. But this objection only works under the premise that free will is the ability to choose otherwise. This definition suffers the same problem as the definition derived from Augustine’s argument. If animals and infants can all choose otherwise, then it means that they have free will and are morally responsible, which seems odd. Also, this definition is also too demanding.

So much of our lives, personality, and identity are the result of choices that were made for us, or choices made where we could not choose otherwise. We cannot choose our genetics, parents, siblings, where we grew up, what demographics we fall under, our physical attributes, mental capacities, language, culture, and even certain physical and psychological dispositions, such as blindness and learning disabilities. If free will is the ability to choose otherwise, then it seems that a large number of our actions and choices are not done freely. This definition seems like it can rarely be met, thus a different definition is needed. A cognitive definition of free will avoids these problems and remains compatible with God’s foreknowledge. Now, this does not mean I am throwing out Augustine’s account because a causal relationship between person and choice is still needed. Causality then is necessary but not sufficient for free will, so we can still say that God’s foreknowledge does not cause our choices, therefore; God’s foreknowledge and this new definition of free will are compatible.

Our dreams are made of dust.

I don’t know what I’m doing.

I know. Story of my life, right?

It’s been almost 4 years since I left the military and I turn 26 years old next month and my life is in no way what I thought it would be. It’s not anything that I hoped for or wanted.

I wish all I was ever told in life was to pursue something realistic and practical as oppose to following what is idealistic and romantic. I wish I all I ever did was listen to my parents. I wish my mentors and teachers told it to me straight and never put these dumb ideals in my mind. Maybe then I wouldn’t be in this mess. I never thought I would be here.

My parents were right.

Coffee mug to the mouth!

WARNING! The follow entry is just one huge venting session. None of the violent actions described in this blog are things or activities that the author would ever do. Do not be afraid to approach the author or invite the author out to dinner. He will not hurt you or want to hurt you. Please try to insert the proper comedic tone to this blog. Thank you.

One of the biggest pet peeves I have is people who smack their food when they eat or make any noise when they eat. Now, the occasional slurp, sip, crunch, and chew is fine. Many times you can’t help make a noise when eating especially if the food you are eating is loud. But if I keep hearing the same friggin’ mouth smack, over exaggerated slurp followed by an “ahhhh”, or you’re chomping away at your food in a manner that results in a sound that can only be described as something a cow makes when it eats, your mouth is getting a friggin’ coffee mug thrown at it.

Some people call this mean or violent. I call it preventive measures. Don’t just solve the solution. Get down to the source of the problem and make sure it never happens again. Ever.

Now, if I could do this, I would do this. But I can’t because almost every friggin’ Korean male FOB* I know, including my own father, does this crap. My roommates, past and present, do this. My uncles do this. Men at my old church do this. Korean Airmen I met in the military did this. The majority of the perpetrators are Korean men who either were born in Korea and now live in America, or are straight up FOBs.

But seeing that I have to live with some of these people and the fact that I don’t want to go to jail for assault and battery, I refrain from doing this act of throwing a coffee mug at their mouth. Not to the face. The mouth. They could have a broken nose or a black eye but it wouldn’t stop the sound. Breaking the jaw, the teeth, and perhaps cutting the tongue is the only solution. You may say, “What about the voice box?” Good point, which is why there’s also…dinner plate to the throat!

Now, I’ll never do this but know that in my mind I enjoy the sweet image of breaking in your mouth with my coffee mug…with hot coffee still in it! If that doesn’t relieve the annoyance, I’ll throw my dinner plate at your throat…with my steak knife still on it!

But seriously. If we’re at dinner and you’re chomping away at your food and you notice I have a rather annoyed face, know that I’m about 5 seconds away from mentally throwing dinnerware at you. I might even purposely do something mean against you just to get back at you. Hooray for passive/aggressive!!

Footnote:
*FOB: if you don’t know what this stands for, you deserve a coffee mug to the head.

…a former aspiring Christian philosopher.

So anyone that knows me well or has talk to me for more than 30 minutes prior to this summer knows that I wanted to be a Christian philosopher. That I wanted my Phd in philosophy and that I wanted to go into Christian apologetics and defend the Christian faith. Some time between the beginning of July and the end of August I changed courses.

Why?

Because of two main reasons:

1) practicality
2) change of interests

What led me to this?
The realization that philosophy does not lead to truth or anything really objective. It just leads to more questions and confusion. I thought I could use philosophy to change minds, which would lead to the changing of hearts (God willing) so that people would be more inclined or willing to follow in the Christian faith. But philosophy can’t do this. I forgot who said it but a well known philosopher once said, “Philosophy is about finding better arguments for ideas that one already intuitively believed in.” When people argue for atheism it’s because they already have an inclination for atheism or just general skepticism of any supernatural or divine occurrence. When people posit the existence of God, it’s because they’re already a theist trying to find an argument to support their theism. Everyone seems to do this.

Also, the world of academia was not what I thought it would be. Instead of a world of intelligent individuals working together to understand the world around them, I found a system of self-glorifying, selfish, prideful, angry people trying to make a name for themselves. It was something I didn’t feel I could be a part of. Hence, my interests have changed. I was turned off by academia and wanted something else.

That something else was something more practical, which really just means something that will give me a good pay check to sustain my future family. Have I sold out? Possibly but not without good reason. My parents have worked hard so that I could have what they never could and in many ways they succeeded but in many ways they failed (or at least they feel like they did. I don’t think they did). But there are many things that my parents wanted me to be able to do but never could due to financial constraints. My mom was almost always working when I was growing up. Always working odd jobs at flower shops, dry cleaners, and even making mechanical pencils to help make money for the family. My dad worked and still works 12 hours a day and even weekends. I see the hard work they’ve put into me and I want to repay them. Not just with love (though this is most important) but I want them to know that I am financially stable and that, if needed, I will be there to provide for them when they retire and can no longer work. With 6+ years of graduate school I don’t think I will be able to do this. Tenure positions at universities or colleges are hard to come by especially in an obscure major that doesn’t require too many faculty members to sustain a department.

With these two things in mind I decided to abandon my aspirations of being a Christian philosopher. Now, I just want to be a faithful Christian, who enjoys reading philosophy and shares the gospel with people. I want to be a hard worker who makes a comfortable amount to provide options and opportunities for my family. I want to be a good father and husband. Will I sell my soul to be a cheating lawyer or greedy businessman? No. But do I wanna try a career field that is more practical and lucrative than a career as a professional philosopher, living life in an ivory tower and at the seat of an arm chair? Yeah.

Go. Have dreams. Have ideals. But in the end of the day…your dreams and ideals will be drowned by the sobering reality that most people do not get to do a job that they love. Instead, you will do a job for the ones you love.

1 is the loneliest number…

Is it really that sad if I go to the movies or to the pier by myself? I don’t think so but apparently the rest of the world thinks it’s quite sad. But I never think of it as sad. I think it’s a great time for me to spend some time by myself and be alone. I enjoy being alone sometimes so why does it have to be sad? Sure watching someone eat by themselves in a restaurant or seeing someone walk out of a theater by themselves is normally seen as depressing and sad but so what? Right? I enjoy the solidarity and I enjoy the time to myself to just be alone and not have to talk, and say something interesting or entertaining.

Everyone wants to fill up their lives with talk and noises because silence is awkward but not for me because I like awkward moments. Even if the silence is not awkward, sometimes I just enjoy the peace. Now, I know what you’re going to say:

No man is an island.

Right? I know that no man is an island and I don’t plan on being an island. I’m not even an island. I’m not an island. Okay? (No, I’m not being defensive but it sounds like it…okay maybe I am). It’s just that sometimes I like getting away or making the world go away. Even if it’s for a moment. Too many things to think about. Too many things to worry and be concerned about. Too many people and too many arguments. Too much of everything. So sometimes I just like leaving it. It’s also one of the reasons why I enjoy writing because it allows me to leave reality and create my own. So yeah. If you see me trailing off and surrendering to an unpopulated area, just let me be. It’s not because I’m trying to be downer. I just like to leave reality for a bit.

I know. It can be a drug. An easy retreat from the harsh reality that life is not easy and that I will have to address the problems of my life sooner or later. I know. If I ever stop interacting with people in entirely, please…intervene. But don’t worry. That won’t happen.

Geeking Out

I decided to put some of my more intellectually demanding posts on hold simply because they’re intellectually demanding and I have no intellectual resources to answer the demand. Basically there’s too much thinking and research to be done and I don’t feel like doing it.

Instead I would like to write about, well…me. For those who don’t know me well, you should know that I am a comic book fan, movie geek, aspiring writer (but not a very good one), and all around fan of pop art. Show me a super hero movie, a Sci Fi toy, martial arts flick, interesting short story, or video game referenced painting and I will GEEK OUT.

Recently I went to the Mecca of geek outs: The San Diego International Comic Convention. A place where anime, Sci Fi, comics, toys, movies, and tv shows culminate into a 4 day event that attracts nerds, geeks, fanboys, and die hard fans all into one space of nutritionally void foods, bad hygiene, low social skills, and uncanny amounts of useless, socially irrelevant knowledge about comics and characters.

Why go to this? Because I belong there. I have an insatiable taste for pizza and coffee and I love comics and movies. Though, I do practice good hygiene and had girl friends in the past so I don’t fit the geek stereotype perfectly. Although, I am socially awkward and weird so I guess it balances out.

You see a lot of weird things at Comic Con. Things you never thought you’d see and things you never wanted to see. Of the many things that disturbed me the most, other than drooling pervs taking insane amounts of pictures with prostitute themed Supergirls and Princess Leias, was the 40+ year old men and women dressed as Xena, Sailor Moon, Han Solo and many other Sci Fi/fantasy based characters. I couldn’t help but think: is this going to be me in the future?

Not just the idea of me geeking out in cosplay (btw I would never do cosplay) at age 40 something but the idea of me still geeking out to comics and movies at that age. Is it really appropriate to be still geeking out at that age? Shouldn’t I be growing up? It’s one thing if you’re a creative mind in the industry of creating such material, it’s another if you’re just an average joe with a family and a job still acting like you’re twelve. Isn’t it?

I don’t think it’s bad to like comics or movies at that age but to be geeking out on the same level that you did as a teen or as a university student seems a bit odd. I came to the realization that I can’t be doing this forever. Maybe for the next few years but I think when I do get married and think about having a family of my own, I think I will have to retire the geek within me. By no means am I ridding myself of my interests but realizing that there comes a point where I need to grow up. I don’t think I can geek out when I’m 30 the same way that I did when I was in my 20′s. Some people never change and stay the same and that’s fine for them. But I think there comes a point in a man’s life where he has to think about what he really wants in life and what he should be doing with his life. Does God want me to live my life indulging in the frivolous interests of the youth? To live my life in constant escapism by retreating to comics and movies? I think God would rather me to use my energies and talents for His Kingdom. To be used by Him and not constantly reading comics but reading the word. Not analyzing movies 24/7 but to meditate on the word day and night. Not discussing the problems with the latest X-Man movie but discussing the word and having corporate worship with my brothers and sisters in Christ.

I’m still gonna be a fan of comics and movies but I think the interest is dying down.

Time to God out and not geek out, if that makes any sense.

Why Not Universalist Christianity?

I honestly wish Christianity was universalistic or just simply that universalism was true, that all paths lead to heaven. I really do. No need for conflict. No need to argue. Everyone goes to heaven. No one would be scared into belief and few people would have a problem with religion. It also seems philosophically appealing and satisfying. The problem with evil is eliminated and so many other problems in the philosophy of religion are resolved. Many seem to use the ideas behind 2 Peter 3:9 to justify this:

“The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”

God wants everyone to come to repentance. God wants everyone to be saved. There is no difference in what God wants and what God wills. If this is true, then God wills everyone to be saved since it’s what he wants. Which means that everyone goes to heaven! Yay!

We have all been set free from the bondage of sin by the blood of Christ. We all have the Moral Law within us, which God has implanted in everyone as argued by C. S. Lewis so we all know that God exists. This seems evident in the fact that so many world religions share so many moral values and virtues, such as love, justice, fairness, compassion, and hope. So we all know God exists, we all are freed from sin by the blood of Christ. It’s so obvious that all paths do lead to heaven!

So why not believe this? Why isn’t Evangelical Christianity hopping on board this much more attractive and pleasing doctrine? It makes so much sense, right?

Wrong.

I wish this could be true but I also wish I was taller than 5’6″ but you know what? That ain’t happening. What we wish to be rarely comes into fruition.

Why is universalism wrong?

To be continued…(or should I just wait for Augustine to comment with the answer?)

Winding down…

Another academic year has come to an end and just like last year I have to say good bye to some good friends.

It’s always heart wrenching for me to have to say bye to people. Especially if I just met them this year and was just starting to get to know them well. But as we all know this is a part of life. We do our best to deal with those moments when the people we’ve found friendship and love in are going away. We cry, we make cards and letters for these people, or we do whatever else it takes to deal with these moments. It may not be that big of a deal for other people but for me it is. Seeing people you’ve grown to love and care about are going away and there’s nothing you can do about. People that you so very much wanted to make more memories with are going to make memories without you and you without them.

It’s times like this I always wonder what could have been.