Last week, while we were talking about meaning, I looked at the life of Jesus. You can see from his life that Jesus knew who he was, and why he was here. (John 14:6 I am the way the truth and the life.; John 4:26 I am He; John 10:9-10 I am the gate; Mark 10:33-34 the Son of Man will be delivered.)

As I discussed what gives life meaning with a friend, He said this: "Meaning begins with the will." What do I live for? Everything else, whether it is right and wrong, priorities, pleasures,  compassion... everything flows from that move from the will: What do I live for?  If one lives for himself, those questions of origins, meaning, morality and destiny are informed from that motivation.  If one lives for God, those questions are informed differently. So as I looked at the life of Jesus, I realized that Jesus knew who he lived for.

I said at our weekly conversation that he even said that he did not speak on his own, but that his words belonged to the his Father who sent him (John 14:24). Paul writes of Jesus, “Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death even death on a cross!” Jesus knew who he lived for.

This idea was driven home again this week as I was spending my morning in the Bible. Luke 22:42-44 states: "He (Jesus) withdrew about a stones throw beyond them (his disciples), knelt down and prayed," "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done" "An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him.” And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground."

​Jesus in this verse is the perfect example of knowing what you live for. Jesus from his birth to death on a cross knew what he lived for, His Father's will. This is the question we have to ask ourselves beyond what we think our purpose is or what gives our life meaning, we must ask ourselves "What do I live for?".

"It does not define me." It is a simple statement, but in the past few weeks, it is a statement that has caused a variety of responses. Typically the conversations will go something like this: Other person says - "You can't do that, it will kill your career, and you won't get promoted or get xyz position." Me - "That may be true, but those things don't define me. They are not the reason I do what I do." Other person now in a rather defensive posture and tone, "They don't define me either, but ..." Other person says - "You can't get out of the military until you served your 20 years, because you will miss out on that retirement check." Me - "I am not worried about money. If I feel like God is calling me out of the service early, then I am going to follow. He has never left me begging for bread, and I am certain He will provide for me in the future. It just does not define me." Other person - "It does not define me either, but God can call you after your 20 years."

The statement "It doesn't define me" elicits the most unique responses. I get everything from agreement to a fierce defensive posture. Now to be fair, I understand why this statement would cause such a defensive posture. It can be seen as negative and even semi-accusatory. It is strange though, because most of the time I am talking about myself. I am just trying to help someone understand that what means so much to them does not necessarily mean the same thing to me. What gives their life meaning is simply different than what gives my life meaning. What I find is that what gives their life meaning is something a little less than eternal (money, job, title, esprit de corp).

I have never been offended when I have heard the words, "It doesn't define me" from someone else, because when I talk about what gives my life meaning, "It does define me." Since I left high school, I have sought nothing more than to follow God where I feel he is leading me. I could write pages and pages of his unique, and faithful leading. When I was asked what my plan B was, I have on more than one occasion said, "There was no plan B, I was all in." When it comes to following God's lead, I am all in, and that is what gives my life meaning. Being all in with God is something that is eternal.

​I am not perfect, and I can tell when I let other things start to creep in. I start wondering what I should do to make the next rank or job, and I get caught up in thinking I am in control. I forget that every time that I have followed God's leading that he has not forgotten me. He has always provided for me more than I could ever imagine. I find true peace when I am all in with God. I have been called fatalistic, but I can assure you that fatalistic is something I am not. I am all in with God. That defines me. What defines you?

What propels you through adversity? It has been said that we can endure many a "what" about life if we could only answer the "why". A Professor of Tulane University said after a funeral, "With meaning, many things are bearable." So that leads me to ask the question what gives life meaning, or as some might say "What is the meaning of life?"

As I have been preparing for my next coffee shop talk, I have thought about all the answers I have heard to this question over the years. I have heard things like, "family", "kids", "procreation", "nothing", "community", etc... that for one reason or another just did not fully answer the question for me. You can observe in others, while they might not verbalize it, that their meaning is their job, status, or wealth. While I think I might be safe to say that some of these answers are more noble than others, I feel that all of these answers fall short of answering the question, "What is the meaning of Life?"

For those that say that your meaning is what you make it, what happens when your meaning is taken away from you? Is your answer to the question, "What is the meaning of life?" less than eternal? If your answer is anything less than eternal, what happens when whatever gives your life meaning is gone? I see so many people who base the meaning of their life on their job, or their family. You can see in our media those that make it wealth or status. The obvious problem occurs when what you have built your life around is not eternal. With the loss of a job, the loss of a family member, or the turn of bad health, the foundation on which some have laid the meaning of their life is shaken to the core. Of course, without this shaking everything is fine, and we can go on pretending. When what you build your life on is less than eternal, I can guarantee that you will be continually redefining what makes life meaningful for you.

This does not even begin to cover the fact that what may bring meaning to life for some might bring suffering in life for others. Who is to say which meaning is credible and which is not? Who judges between two meanings in conflict and how is that judged? The problem with an answer to the meaning of life that is anything less than eternal is that it is necessarily self-centered, and leaves us pitted as mini kingdoms in conflict. For those that say "We're here to die, just live and die"(nihilism), I would tell you there is little comfort in that answer. If life is nothing, and death the end of it all, then death is what in reality ends suffering. Death it seems would be a more logical choice than life if it truly did offer a release from suffering. However, as a prominent apologist once said, "the  resigned posture that deems life to be completely devoid of ultimate purpose and bereft of meaning can hardly be touted as rationally comforting dogma." The idea that we are here for nothing cannot be lived out, and if it is to be lived out, it is not what most would consider a good way to live. Bertrand Russell's, an atheistic philosopher, summation was "that the only sensible posture of life was one of unyielding despair and that any attitude other than despair was merely a seduction of the mind." I have no interest in living a life bereft of meaning.

What is an eternal answer to the question "What is the meaning of life?" To "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind, and Love your neighbor as yourself." This meaning is eternal. This is a meaning that no matter what comes your way, cannot be taken away. This is a meaning that holds promise for both the present life and the life to come. It also reminds me of a story my friend told me about her dad. I do not fully remember all the parts of the story, so I hope that I do not butcher it too bad. As I remember, while her dad was in surgery, his house burnt to the ground, and not a scrap was saved. When he woke up from his hours long surgery, his family regretfully informed him that he had lost everything in the house fire. He simply stated, "The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, blessed be the name of the Lord." That my friends is what it looks like to have an eternal answer to the question of "What is the meaning of life?" When adversity took everything away from him, he did not lose his meaning.

​On a personal note, I would submit that I settle for less than eternal more often than I would like to admit. This post has been probably one of the most challenging I have worked on to date. It has been a challenge because while I know that my answer to the meaning of life is eternal, I can see how in other areas I settle for less than eternal. That time that God called me to feed the homeless man, and I stubbornly chose not to. God made sure that I knew He could do it without me as the non-religious guy in our group ensured the homeless guy had something to eat. There are other times when I choose to follow my will as opposed to following what God has clearly given me direction to do. I do not know about why most people settle for less than eternal, but I do know that I generally settle for less than eternal due to selfishness. I choose what I want, and make it so. This perhaps sums up the problem with making meaning whatever you want. It makes life self-centered. It makes life about what I say it is. It makes life about something less than eternal.

There are two paintings hanging in my dinning room. I am very proud of them both, but there is something distinctly different about them. It is not the fact that one of them is an owl in a tree and the other is a fox in the snow. It is not the size, or color that I am talking about. What distinguishes the two paintings can be summed up as 1st grade art (the fox) versus 6th grade art (the owl).

Now for those who perhaps do not know what I am talking about, I will explain. The 1st grade art is very good for a first grader. You can tell that there is a red and white fox sitting on the snow with snow flakes falling all around. The painting is far from perfect due to the splotches of paint where an over zealous 1st grader got a little too much paint on her brush. That is not even mentioning the sloppy overlap of paint on the lines, outside of the lines, and sometimes just not near the lines. In comparison the sixth grader painting is of a purple and pink owl sitting in a tree with a pink song bird sitting on the branch above the owl. While there are no splotches of paint, and the painting inside the lines is much better, it can be easily discerned that the painting was the creation of a student of art vice a master of art.

So what's my point you ask? First is that when you walk into the dinning room, there is not a person in this world that imagines those paintings are self created. When you look at these two paintings you think, "I wonder who painted these?" Interestingly enough, we ask this same type of question about everything we see. "Who made that car?", "Who made that watch?", "Who made that outfit?", "What type of plant makes that fruit?", and "Who or what made that?" I realize this is perhaps the pontification of a man that has spent too much time pontificating, but I have to ask the question, "why it is hard to believe something created the universe?" It is a natural conclusion everywhere else in life.

The second thing you will notice when evaluating the paintings is the difference in skill level. It will lead you to make assumptions perhaps about the ages or other overall aptitude of the artist. This same kind of evaluation happens every time we see an impressive building, vehicle, aircraft, ship, watch, or piece of technology. We make assumptions about the creator of these things based on the complexity of the creation. Once again, I am left wondering, "why it is hard to believe that something with a great deal of skill, perhaps supernatural skill, created the universe?"

I realize that this example seemingly oversimplifies what is to some a very complex question, but I would love to understand the difference. Someone would probably think I had lost my mind if I told them those two paintings just up and one day happened. So during my first discussion we will cover Origin, and I will try to cover the different worldviews on where it all came from.

​Science would have you believe that it came from nothing (infinite energy and zero mass), the eastern thought would have you believe it has always been, and the Christian worldview would tell you that an eternal God created it all. The philosophical principal that I gave an example of with the two paintings is stated by Norman Geisler as, "Only being can cause being. Nothing does not exist, and only what exists can cause existence, since the very concept of 'cause' implies an existing thing that has the poser to effect another. From absolutely nothing comes absolutely nothing." I hope in the first discussion to both shed some light on the fact that something from nothing is not logical and that there is more room for faith in science and vice versa than we are typically taught to believe.

As I started this series of posts on thinking well, I set out to describe a good argument, and then discuss pitfalls that can mislead us. I have covered as many logical fallacies as I could while trying not to bore the reader. In this last post on logical fallacies, I will discuss begging the question, hasty generalizations, and the straw man.

When begging the question, a person will make an assumption and go through the process of circular reasoning where the original assumption is inserted into the argument. The conclusion is put into the premise, and the premise would not be true if the conclusion were not already assumed to be true. This is often referred to as being a circular argument. An example is, "The rights of the minority are every bit as sacred as the rights of the majority, for the majority's rights have no greater value than those of  the minority.” The assumption stated in both the premise and the conclusion is that minority rights are equal to majority rights. The problem with the statement that "begs the question" is that no evidence was offered proving this assertion. The statement is presented as fact, but the conclusion is just another way of saying the premise. One way to avoid this logical fallacy is to write out your premise and conclusion, and see if you have any gaps in your statement. If you find that your conclusion basically says the same thing as your premise (in different words), then you are probably begging the question.

The hasty generalization is when we make a gross generalization based on one instance. A conclusion drawn from an inadequate sample size is a hasty generalization. An example would be "My car needed a new transmission due to a flaw, and your car needed a new transmission due to a flaw. We drive the same car, so all cars of this type must have a transmission flaw." A sample size of only two cars of a certain brand is far to small to say that they all have a transmission flaw. Another example is "All Christians are judgmental, or at least the one that hurt me was." While being hurt by someone from specific worldview will affect how we see that worldview, an inadequate sample size is still a hasty generalization.

The straw man is when someone presents a case as much weaker than it actually is. In the straw man, the arguer sets up a weaker version of the opposing argument and knocks it down in order to "score points" in the mind of his audience. The problem is that just as knocking down a straw man is not very impressive, neither is knocking down a watered down version of an opposing argument. A classic straw man example is "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that." The fact that the senator in this argument does not want to fund an attack submarine program is not the same as leaving the country defenseless. A way to avoid this logical fallacy is to be charitable to the opposing argument. State their argument fairly and as accurately as possible. If you do not, then knocking down the opposing argument only makes your own argument look weak.

​In conclusion to the logical fallacy discussion, I would like to emphasize how important it is to listen. We must listen to our own argument, and scrutinize it as much if not more than the opposing argument. We must listen to the opposing argument, because it is only when we have heard the opposing argument and understand it that we can say we disagree with it. I confess that I have a long way to go when it comes to listening, but it is something I am constantly working on.

"In order to avoid logical fallacies, we need to  know a little about them. When we know what they look like, then  perhaps we can avoid them." In this post I am hoping cover the slippery slope, complex question, and "appeals" to force, pity, consequences, popularity, and ignorance (to name a few).

The slippery slope aims to show that a particular proposition is untrue based on an increasingly unacceptable set of events that would follow. The idea is that if we take one step down a path, that it will set off a chain reaction ending in some sort of dire consequences. The assertion is that one cannot stop at any point once a single decision is made down a "slope". This assertion that you cannot stop at any point down the "slope" generally does not meet what we know of reality since we constantly stop at various points on the "slope". The other problem with the slippery slope is that there is not generally enough evidence to support the unlikely set of consequences. An example would be, "If I make an exception for you, then I would have to make an exception for everyone." Now unless you are unique, you realize that you can make an exception for one person, and not for someone else. If you find yourself saying if A then B, if B then C, if C then D, etc... then you need to make sure that your chain of events is reasonable. This can be a little tricky to spot, but ask yourself, "Have I ever seen this chain of events individually? or Have I ever seen this chain of events as a whole?" If you cannot answer yes, or the dire set of consequences seem improbable, then it probably is a slippery slope.

The complex question is an attempt to tie two otherwise unrelated points together in an attempt to treat them as a single position or statement. A person is made to accept both positions or reject both positions when in reality one may be true while the other is not. It can also be seen as a question that asserts something as true while asking a question. One example is "Have you stopped beating your wife?" This question cannot be answered without giving credence to the assertion that you beat your wife. Another example is "Do you support freedom and the right to bear arms?" This question is meant to be answered as a single proposition, but the illegitimate use of "and" combines two unrelated points together in an attempt coerce someone to accept or reject them both.

Finally, there are the "appeals." Appeal to force essentially says, "You will believe 'xyz' or you will be fired/imprisoned/pummeled." The appeal to pity sounds something like, "You do not like this essay that I spent so much of my limited time on?" It is an attempt to get someone to fall in line essentially using guilt manipulation. The appeal to consequences states, "If we allow this, then our culture will be changed. We should stop them!" The appeal to popularity is an argument that is based on the assertion that lots of people believe it, and therefore must be correct. The appeal to ignorance states, "There really is not that much evidence out there, so you should just believe what I am telling you." Now while I have named multiple "appeals", this list is not all inclusive and there are many more out there. I would encourage you to do a little self study in order to increase your ability to spot them.

My point is that when an assertion is not backed up with valid logic (the conclusion follows from the premise) and does not reflect reality, then you might need to reflect on what you know of logical fallacies. Is there a violation of logic, and in what way? A true worldview or premise will not contradict itself, it will fit the facts of life/experience, and will be something you can live with.

​I encourage right thinking because I encourage searching for the truth. I encourage searching for the truth because I believe truth can be found in and through Jesus who stated, "I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me." His words offer us a new way of being and living, and when you seek the truth you will find Him if you search for Him with all your heart and all your soul."

By avoiding logical fallacies, we can have a good argument and form a well thought out worldview." In order to avoid logical fallacies, we need to know a little about them. When we know what they look like, then perhaps we can avoid them. Since there are several, I am going to try to address approximately three of them per post. In this post I am hoping cover the self contradiction, false dilemma, and my favorite ad hominem (also known as character assassination). 

The self contradiction is when a statement fails to fulfill its own conditions for rational acceptability or truthfulness. Self contradictions are necessarily false, because when an argument contains premises which contradict each other, no conclusion is possible. This is one of those logical fallacies that is easier to recognize with an example. Here are a few: 1) "I cannot speak a word of English." 2) "You should never believe anything without empirical data." 3) "If God can do anything, God can make a stone so heavy God won't be able to lift it." Obviously the use of English in the first statement contradicts its premise. The second statement asserts a truth that cannot be measured with empirical data making the statement necessarily false. The contradiction in the third statement that God can do anything except lift his exceptionally heavy stone should be obvious, but that is a classic example of a self contradictory statement. 

The false dilemma is a statement that gives a very restricted set of options, when in reality, there are more options available. We generally know the false dilemma by the phrase, "either...or". I am sure you have heard the statement, "You are either for me or against me" when in fact it is sometimes possible to be neither. Interestingly enough, we can find this very statement when Joshua asked a man "with a drawn sword in his hand... Are you for us or for our enemies?" (Joshua 5:13-14) The man stated, “Neither, but as commander of the army of the Lord I have now come." The commander of the Lord's army was there on his own business in this case, and was therefore neither for Joshua or his enemies (the false dilemma). A more personal example would be a question that can sometimes be asked of parents, "Do you love me more or my sibling?" The dilemma presents only two options, when in fact as most parents know, we love our kids unequivocally equally. The false dilemma is often the favorite logical fallacy since it reduces an argument or proposition to two options, which can seem like an insurmountable obstacle.

​I call the ad hominem my favorite logical fallacy, because it often reminds me of an elementary school playground. The ad hominem is a statement that shifts an argument from a point being discussed to the personality of the person who stated it. It is an attempt to undermine an idea by attacking the person who is proposing the idea. Some examples are: "Only uneducated people believe that!" or "Don't believe him, he is stupid!" Aside from this form of logical fallacy reminding me of playground banter, the fact is the character of a person does not determine the truth of a statement. In fact, an individual with a very low IQ could state, "A fire is hot!", and rather than attacking the truth of his statement based on his intelligence, most would just say, "Thank you captain obvious!" My point with the ad hominem is that if you have to rely on name calling or character assassination to make your point, then you might have a pretty weak point. Truth is truth no matter who states it, and personal ridicule does not change truth. I now hope that by reading this post you can start to spot these logical fallacies. When you read the news, see an advertisement, or have a discussion with a friend, try to identify one of these logical fallacies. I am certain that you will start to spot them, and in doing so you will begin to think well.

I would encourage you to have a well thought out worldview." How do you you have a well thought out worldview? I have heard it said that "All people are equal, but not all ideas are equal." Logic is one way that we know when one idea is more reasonable than another, because the rules of logic reveal to us the difference between good and bad logic. There are many logical fallacies that I will discuss in a separate post, but in this post I will address some of the aspects of good logic. 

To be clear, I believe Christian faith is pro-logic, and I believe you can have a reasonable faith that does not rest purely on feelings or some authority that others may not recognize. With that being said, make no mistake about it, my personal interactions with Jesus over the past twenty years have made my faith unshakeable. Yet even with my personal interactions with Jesus to rest on, I continually seek to develop a reasonable faith founded on logic so that I can explain well the salvation message of Jesus to those who cannot necessarily walk in my shoes. 1 Peter 3:15 states “But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an  answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you  have. But do this with gentleness and respect, ..." 

So with that said, an idea starts with an argument. No, not the type of argument that ends in yelling and hurt feelings, but the type of argument that links an assertion or premise (truth claim) to a rational discussion about whether it reflects reality. A good argument is composed of unambiguous language with valid logic about a premise. The language must be unambiguous (ambiguity=murky meaning) so that the premise is clear or without double meaning. The logic must be valid so that the conclusion follows the premise, and the premise when examined must reflect reality. By avoiding logical fallacies, we can have a good argument and form a well thought out worldview.

​I encourage everyone to have a good argument, and follow the evidence where it leads. The maintenance of preparedness requires continued effort.

"We can use our own minds at this point as opposed to relying on scientist to do our critical thinking for us.” So if this is a call to think for yourself, do you think critically?

Critical thinking is the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment. When you evaluate an issue, do you approach it with objective analysis in order to form a judgement? I would like to propose two things in this post. First, truth can be known. Sounds simple, but we are currently living in a culture that holds the question as the answer and the answer in question. Our culture questions what can be known, and in indecision, it makes a decision to uphold eternal skepticism as a virtue. So I will ask the question again, do you think critically?  Do you discern the truth about something through an objective analysis of the issue? 

The second thing I would ask you as you think critically about an issue would be' "is it livable?" Can you live out the judgement you have formed about an issue? I think sometimes we will ask the right questions, and come up with an answer that upon first inspection gives us an answer we are looking for. The problem is not just the fact that our answer is not objective, but that it is not livable. Does your answer give you hope or comfort? Have you examined the arguments, and counter arguments? 

I want to encourage everyone who says that philosophy is not for them to realize that this is something we all do everyday when we form our worldviews. Since we all have a worldview of some kind, I would encourage you to have a well thought out worldview. Don't be afraid to ask the question, and don't be too lazy to seek the answer. If you seek truth, I am confident you will find it in the one who said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life.”

This morning, I naturally woke up at around 6:30am, and I was unable to get back to sleep due to all kinds of things. Things like thoughts about the day, thoughts about my current season of life, aches and pains of not being twenty anymore, and the thought of getting an early start might be helpful today.

So I hopped out of bed, made a pot of coffee, and chose to spend time in God’s word on the front porch. It was a bit on the cool side at 46 degrees, but it was exceptionally beautiful this morning. I caught the pre-sunrise sky with the deep blue expanse accented by clouds that ranged from light pink to fiery red covering parts of the sky in wispy cloud formations that looked more like angels wings than anything else. I observed a variety of birds going about their morning chores, and a family of cardinals working in the sidewalk mulch. Then as the sun crested the horizon, it’s direct light hit the tips of the tallest trees first, and then gradually worked its way to earth casting long morning shadows in the field in front of the house.

God’s hand of glory and complete sovereignty on full display in the process as the promise of a new day broke through. The hope that comes with the light and activity of the dawning of a new day could be seen, heard, smelled, and felt. The hope that comes with the light chasing away the darkness, and the activity of the dawning of a new start, a chance to try again.

It is something that I need a constant reminder of, and it perfectly aligns with the lyrics of the song that I had playing in my head as I woke up this morning. The song is “I Thank God” by Maverick City, and the condensed lyrics go something like: “Wandering into the night, wanting a place to hide this weary soul… just when I ran out of road, I met a Man I didn’t know… He picked me up, He turned me around, He placed my feet on solid ground… I thank the Master, I thank the Savior, I thank God.” A thankful heart is what I am starting my day with today. That is something that I needed this morning in this season of life, and I hope it blesses you too