¿Son las verdades morales un producto de la cultura?

En mi nuevo libro, “La Escena de Crimen de Dios: Un Detective de Homicidios Examina Evidencia para un Universo Divinamente Creado”, yo examino ocho trazos de evidencia en el universo mientras pregunto algo simple que usamos en investigaciones: “¿Puedo explicar la evidencia ‘en la habitación’ (del universo natural) mientras me quedo dentro de la habitación?”. Esta es la pregunta que uso en cada escena de muerte para determinar si en verdad es una escena de crimen. Cuando la evidencia “en la habitación” no se puede explicar al permanecer “en la habitación”, tengo que considerar la participación de un intruso. Si la evidencia dentro del universo no puede explicarse al mantenerse “dentro” de la esfera natural del universo, debemos tener en cuenta igualmente la participación de un intruso cósmico. Una pieza de evidencia crítica en el universo es la existencia de morales objetivos que son transcendentes. ¿Podemos nosotros explicar estas verdades mientras nos quedamos “dentro de la habitación”?

Muchos filósofos y pensadores ateos buscan explicar las verdades morales desde “dentro de la habitación” del universo natural. Ellos ofrecen que las sociedades y culturas son la fuente de la moralidad. De acuerdo con este punto de vista (llamado “relativismo moral”), la moralidad varía de cultura a cultura. No hay morales  universales que son objetivas ni transcendentes para “todas las personas todo el tiempo.” Los relativistas morales creen que las culturas y los grupos de personas son los que crean sus propios códigos morales en vez de descubrirlos. Los códigos morales son una construcción social diseñada por la mayoría para ayudar a que el grupo mantenga la armonía social y aumenta su capacidad de supervivencia. Pero si el acuerdo cultural determina las verdades morales, varios problemas emergen:

Este enfoque confunde la diversidad cultural con la claridad moral

El relativismo moral reconoce correctamente la diversidad cultural y moral del mundo, pero esta observación falla en falsificar la existencia de morales transcendentes y objetivos. Las culturas pueden diferir en sus creencias acerca de lo que causa la tuberculosis, pero esto no significa que no haya una verdad objetiva acerca de la causa y la naturaleza de la enfermedad. La diversidad de las creencias subjetivas tiene muy poco que ver con la existencia de la verdad objetiva.

Este enfoque falla en identificar qué “cultura” rige qué

Si las verdades morales emergen del consenso de los grupos de personas, ¿qué grupo de personas es el que decide? ¿El tamaño o cuán poderoso es un grupo es lo que decide cuál grupo es calificado para ser la autoridad? El relativismo moral nos niega la habilidad para declarar que un grupo tiene más autoridad que otro, a menos que estemos dispuestos a apelar a una autoridad que transciende todos los grupos.

Este enfoque silencia la critica intercultural

Si las verdades morales son un producto del consenso cultural, ninguna cultura está en una posición para criticar o alabar el comportamiento de otra cultura. El relativismo moral no nos permite decir, “La tortura es objetivamente mala.” Lo mejor que podemos hacer es simplemente decir, “No nos gusta la tortura aquí en nuestra cultura”. Pero ¿cuál es la razón por lo cual le debe importar a alguien lo que pensamos si las verdades morales son relativas en cada cultura? Si la moral es simplemente un producto de la opinión cultural, las proclamaciones acerca de los verdades morales son como declaraciones sobre nuestras preferencias de comida: interesantes, pero en última instancia, no importan.

Este enfoque depende demasiado en el acuerdo

Si los grupos de personas deciden qué es lo que es moralmente correcto o incorrecto, ¿cómo debemos considerar un acto en particular si no hay un acuerdo cultural definitivo? ¿Significa esto que un acto no tiene estatus moral hasta que la mayoría se puede poner de acuerdo es ello? ¿Y qué tan grande tiene que ser la mayoría? Si el relativismo moral es verdad, no podemos hacer una declaración acerca del estatus moral de cualquier acto hasta que hemos llegado a un consenso cultural.

Este enfoque margina a los reformadores morales

Si las verdades morales son decididas por el acuerdo cultural, basadas en las creencias de la mayoría – ¿cómo debemos evaluar aquellos individuos en la minoría? ¿No serían considerados inmorales por definición? Los reformadores morales como Ghandi y Martin Luther King Jr., quienes empezaron sus esfuerzos de reforma moral como individuos defendiendo un punto de vista minoritario, serían impotentes para lograr un cambio si la verdad moral fuera realmente establecida como los relativistas morales proponen. Los Reformadores como éstos apelan hacia las verdades morales que transcienden la opinión de la mayoría cuando argumentan por el cambio. Si la verdad moral empieza en el nivel de la cultura, no hay una autoridad más allá de la sociedad a quien podemos recurrir.

Este enfoque alienta y emplea el comportamiento inmoral

Si los códigos morales son creados sistemáticamente y aceptados por las culturas como un esfuerzo para mantener la armonía social y para aumentar su supervivencia, ¿cómo podremos evitar los actos culturalmente egoístas? Si una actividad en particular aumenta la armonía social y la supervivencia de nuestra cultura, pero logra esto en detrimento de la cultura vecina, ¿hace esto el comportamiento moralmente aceptable? La esclavitud puede aumentar la supervivencia de una cultura en vez de otra – especialmente en vez de la cultura que esta esclavizado. De hecho, un argumento para la continuación de la esclavitud en América giraba alrededor de los beneficios que tuvo para la economía. Los retos para la supervivencia, incluyendo la supervivencia económica, pueden y han sido utilizados para excusar comportamientos inmorales egoístas.

Este enfoque confunde el reconocimiento con la existencia

Mientras está claro que los grupos de personas emplean principios morales para promover su bienestar y su supervivencia, los que reclaman que las sociedades son la fuente de estos principios –ya sea a través de algún proceso de  progreso social o evolución psicológica– están confundiendo el reconocimiento moral con la existencia moral. Aun las propuestas evolutivas más robustas relacionadas con el origen de la verdad moral simplemente ofrecen una descripción del por qué y cómo los humanos han empleado los principios morales para aumentar su supervivencia. Las culturas reconocen y emplean los principios morales, pero esto no significa que fueron creados a través de estos principios. De hecho, muchos científicos y filósofos son sospechosos de cualquier relación entre la evolución y la virtud moral. El proceso evolutivo muchas veces resulta en la falta de armonía y en conflictos; parece que la moralidad requiere que nosotros superemos el “monstruo evolutivo” dentro de cada uno de nosotros.

El relativismo moral es simplemente otro intento fallido de “permanecer dentro de la habitación” del universo natural para explicar la existencia de las verdades morales objetivas. La mejor explicación para la existencia de la verdad moral transcendente es simplemente la existencia de la fuente transcendente de la obligación moral que esta “afuera” de la habitación del universo natural.

 

J. Warner Wallace es autor de Cold-Case Christianity, tiene una trayectoria de más de 25 años como policía y detective, posee un Master en Teología por el Seminario Teológico Golden Gate Baptist y es profesor adjunto de Apologética en la universidad de BIOLA.

Traducido por Bryan Woodward.

/by
Doubt: A Splinter In The Mind

Doubt: A Splinter In The Mind

Beyond surpassing wonder about God or mere inquiry about Him and His truth, doubt digs much deeper. Doubt doesn’t just ask, “What is real?” It poses the challenge, “Is my faith real?” Is what I believe really valid? Or is it simply a modified myth, an uber-marketed religious fairy tale supported by millions of gullible minds throughout history?

Doubt trumps wondering, and it body-slams mere curiosity. In its worst form, it goes beyond simply searching for answers to questions, inevitably denying the legitimacy of the questions themselves.

FREE “Doubting Toward Faith” Chapter – Click here to DOWNLOAD NOW!

For Christians, doubt can either serve us or sink us. It can drive us to seek truth or it can drown us in despair, hopelessness, and confusion. If ignored or left unchecked, it can bore into our brain, releasing a virus of unbelief, infecting and eventually destroying every healthy thought about God. It can take us to the place where nothing else matters. Where we find ourselves loathing even life itself.

If left unchecked, intellectual doubt metastasizes, seeping its way into our emotions and collecting a wide array of fears, worries, anxieties, anger, confusion, depression, and ultimately despair at the thought of being played or duped or envisioning a life without our once “cherished belief” in God.

Horrifying so, doubt is no stranger to our time. And capturing the zeitgeist of our changing times is quite the project. We live in a multi-textured culture that is replete with innumerable beliefs, opinions, ideas, and life philosophies. Ours is a culture of doubt and longing, faith and questioning, searching and probing. And much of the doubt has been accelerated by fast-paced change. Our culture is living between the tension of what we once were and what we are now becoming. And for many, waiting in the blank space between the definition of what we were and the search to define what we are becoming feels for the moment confusing, and even a bit uncomfortable.

Echoing this angst, Os Guinness writes, “We live in an age of doubt, disillusion and disaffiliation, which naturally prizes what has been described as ‘the faith that you go to when you don’t know where to go.”[i] Both our pluralistic and secularized culture has produced a fragilized-self as it pertains to doubt.[ii] We’ve shifted from Christianity to Anyanity (pluralism) or Noanity (atheism).

Belief isn’t nearly as comfortable and cozy as it once seemed. There’s an irritant to it; like a pebble in a shoe, these competing beliefs have made the faith walk a little less comfortable. Today, record numbers of those who once professed faith in Christ are walking away from the church, even limping, in the name of doubt.

Such torturous doubt splits the mind. And contrary to popular belief, intellectual doubt is not the opposite of faith; unbelief is. Doubt is in between, seesawing and dangling in the middle.

Yet, make no mistake. Doubt never stays put. It’s not neutral.

It makes up its mind.

It’s directional.

It’s going somewhere.

This means a person will either doubt toward unbelief or they will doubt toward faith. You’ll waver one way or another. But thankfully God can discern the nature of our doubts. There’s skeptical doubt and sincere doubt. There is antagonistic doubt and authentic doubt. And the difference between them is worlds apart. Those who hold to the latter want their doubts solved so they can go forward with God, while the former want their doubts confirmed so they can move beyond God.

Next time you find yourself experiencing a bout with doubt, or the angst of a splintered mind let me encourage you to doubt toward faith. And I’m not talking about an empty existential faith that takes a leap into the darkness, but rather a bona fide trusting faith in the Person of Jesus Christ. Yes, next time you doubt.

Doubt.

Toward.

Jesus!

[i] Os Guinness, Renaissance (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2014), 25.

[ii] Philosopher James K.A. Smith describes fragilization as follows, “In the face of different options, where people who lead ‘normal’ lives do not share my faith (and perhaps believe something different), my own faith commitment becomes fragile—put into question, dubitable.” How (Not) To Be Secular (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2014), 141.

[iii] Adapted from: DOUBTING TOWARD FAITH

Copyright © 2015 Bobby Conway

Published by Harvest House Publishers

Eugene, Oregon

www.harvesthousepublishers.com

Used by Permission.

/by

The Wisdom Chronicle

The Wisdom Chronicle is designed to bring nuggets of wisdom from the dozens of books I read every year. I endeavor to share the best of what I have gleaned. The determination of relevance lies with you. Blessings, J. Whiddon

  1. QUESTION FOR UR TEEN “Rather than asking, “What are you going to do when you grow up?” and “Where are you going to college?” we could ask today’s multitalented, multipassionate teens a question like, “What problems would you like to help solve?” I’ve had some amazing conversations with youth that began with this question. In their answers we’ll often see connections to high school electives, college majors, and careers, so it can stimulate a great conversation.”

Excerpt From: Koch, Kathy. “Screens and Teens.”

  1. PLACE OF REST “When we walk down heaven’s golden streets, we will never see a hospital. There will be no more sickness. We will never see a counseling center. There will be no more depression or mental illness. We will never see a funeral home. There will be no more death there. We will never see a policeman in uniform or a police station. There is no crime there. There will be no courthouses on the square. There will be no lawsuits and no one seeking to cheat anyone else out of something that is rightfully theirs. We will never hear the shrill sound of an ambulance siren. There will be no more emergencies. We will never have to lock our homes or look behind us to see who is following us as we walk along. There will be no more fear. We will never see a handicapped parking place or a ramp for a wheelchair. There will be no nursing homes there for we will never grow old. Heaven is a place of rest.”

Excerpt From: O. S. Hawkins. “The Joshua Code.”

  1. HAPPY BDAY “A man entered a stationery store and asked the clerk for a “birthday-anniversary” card. The clerk replied, “We have birthday cards, and we have anniversary cards. Why not take one of each?” He said, “You don’t understand. I need a card that covers both events. You see, we’re celebrating the fifth anniversary of my wife’s thirty-fourth birthday.

Excerpt From: Hodgin, Michael. “1001 Humorous Illustrations for Public Speaking.”

  1. REARING CHILDREN “If you neglect to instruct them in the way of holiness, will the devil neglect to instruct them in the way of wickedness? No, no, if you will not teach them to pray, he will teach them to curse, swear and lie. If ground be uncultivated, weeds will spring up.

If the season of their youth is neglected, how little probability is there of any good fruit afterwards? Youth is the molding age (Proverbs 22:6). How few are converted in old age? A twig is brought to any form, but grown limbs will not bend.

There is none in the world so likely as you to be instruments of their eternal good. You have peculiar advantages that no one else has; such as the interest you have in their affections; your opportunities to instill the knowledge of Christ into them, being daily with them (Deuteronomy 6:7); your knowledge of their character. If therefore you neglect, who shall help them?

Excerpt From: Flavel, John. “The Mystery of Providence.”

  1. PC AND TRUTH “Political correctness, which foists upon us a common language for postmodern thinking that encourages the notion that all truth is defined by man subjectively, rather than being defined outside of man, who is then subject to that truth. Since we don’t like being anyone’s subjects (that smacks of kings and despots), we rebel to think we are bound by anything. After all, independence is core to America’s national identity.

Political correctness likes the road to truth to be wide, very wide, with many roads to it so that

anyone can build their own road. The obvious end result is the dissolution of absolutes. But Jesus said He was the truth. Absolutely.

Political correctness, when confronted logically, is confusing and intellectually dishonest in its attempt to relegate truth to the wide road. Truth, by definition, must be narrow and not wide. It only allows for one way.”

Excerpt From: Battaglia, Joe. “The Politically Incorrect Jesus.”

  1. SIMPLE OBSERVATION “The world is round,” said Christopher Columbus. “No, it’s not,” said the public, “it’s flat.”

To convince the public otherwise, fifteenth century scientists first had to prove that the world wasn’t flat. One of their more convincing arguments was the fact that sailors at sea were first able to observe the tops of the masts of an approaching ship, then the sails, then the hull. If the world were flat, they would see the whole ship at once.

All the mathematical arguments in the world weren’t as effective as a simple observation the public could verify themselves.”

Excerpt From: Al Ries & Jack Trout. “Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind.”

  1. FLAG DAY Henry Ward Beecher, a prominent nineteenth-century Congregationalist clergyman and social reformer, stated this:

“A thoughtful mind, when it sees a nation’s flag, sees not the flag only, but the nation itself; and whatever may be its symbols, its insignia, he reads chiefly in the flag the government, the rinciples, the truths, the history which belongs to the nation that sets it forth.”

Excerpt From: Lee, Richard. “In God We Still Trust: A 365-Day Devotional.”

  1. CHRISTIAN FOUNDERS “It wasn’t long after the colonists defeated the Red Coats that the state governments that had been controlled by the British had to be established with new state constitutions. It is interesting to read what many of the men who signed the founding documents placed in their original new state constitutions. Delaware provides one example, but other states were similar:

“Every person appointed to public office shall say, “I do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do knowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.”

Excerpt From: Lee, Richard. “In God We Still Trust: A 365-Day Devotional.”

  1. EVIL FAITH? “I think that a case can be made that faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate. Faith, being belief that isn’t based on evidence, is the principal vice of any religion.” -Richard Dawkins

It would be a mistake to think that this extreme view is typical. Many atheists are far from happy with its militancy, not to mention its repressive, even totalitarian, overtones.

Excerpt From: John C. Lennox. “Against the Flow.”

  1. WISDOM “To acquire information, much less wisdom, one’s lips cannot be moving. Moreover, as we listen to learn, we learn to listen.”

Excerpt From: DeMoss, Mark. “The Little Red Book of Wisdom.”

/by

La ciencia por sí sola no dice nada, los científicos son los que lo hacen

No puedes poner honestidad en un tubo de ensayo.

La ciencia por sí sola no dice nada, los científicos son los que lo hacen.

Estas son algunas de las reveladoras conclusiones que podemos extraer en el escándalo del correo de calentamiento global.

“¿Dices que la ciencia no es objetiva?” No, a menos que los científicos lo sean, y la mayoría de veces no lo son. No quiero impugnar a todos los científicos, pero es cierto que algunos de ellos no han sido completamente honestos. Algunas veces mienten para conseguir o mantener sus trabajos. Algunas veces mienten para obtener fondos. Algunas veces mienten para promover sus propias creencias políticas. Algunas veces no mienten intencionalmente, pero obtienen malas conclusiones científicas porque solo están buscando lo que quieren encontrar.

La mala conducta en los científicos es más común de lo que crees. Una encuesta realizada por investigadores de la Universidad de Minnesota encontró que el 33% de los científicos admitieron haber actuado mal durante sus investigaciones, incluyendo a más de un 20% de científicos, en la mitad de su carrera, que reconocieron “haber cambiado el diseño, metodología o resultados de un estudio como resultado de presiones recibidas por parte de los patrocinadores”. ¡Piensa cuántos más habrán hecho esto, pero no quieren reconocerlo!

Mentiras descaradas y engaño parecen ser el caso con el “Clima-gate.” Los correos expuestos revelaron la selección puntual de eventos, manipulación de datos y el trabajo tras bambalinas para censurar las opiniones opositoras; así como el dudar de las mediciones realizadas al no encajar en las conclusiones pre establecidas. Matt Drudge comentó acerca de esto como el “Mayor escándalo en la ciencia moderna.”

Actualmente considero que existe otro gran escándalo científico, pero estas tergiversaciones no son tan obvias. En este escándalo, en lugar de las mentiras descaradas, las conclusiones científicas son extraídas bajo la mesa por suposiciones filosóficas previas. Tal como en el caso de la controversia sobre el origen de la vida y de las nuevas formas de vida. ¿Fueron las fuerzas naturales actuando sobre mezclas químicas inertes las que produjeron vida, o fue el resultado de una acción inteligente? ¿Las nuevas formas de vida habrán evolucionado a partir de formas de vida inferiores debido a fuerzas naturales o fue necesaria la intervención de una inteligencia?

El Dr. Stephen Meyer ha escrito un fabuloso best-seller, en donde aborda estas preguntas, llamado La Firma en la Célula. Al haber obtenido su doctorado en la Universidad de Cambridge en Filosofía de la Ciencia, el Dr. Meyer está en la cima de la cadena alimenticia de la ciencia. En nuestra entrevista radial del 8 de agosto, me comentó que ha estado trabajando en un libro de +600 páginas –el cual no limita los detalles técnicos- durante más de una década.

¿Qué califica a un hombre con un doctorado en “Filosofía de la Ciencia” para escribir un libro acerca del origen de la vida o la macro evolución? Todo. Lo que algunos científicos, y muchos en el público en general, fallan en entender es que la ciencia no puede realizarse sin un fundamento filosófico. Toda la información debe ser interpretada. Y mucho del debate entre los exponentes del Diseño Inteligente (como el Dr. Meyer) y los Darwinistas (como el profesor de Oxford Richard Dawkins) no es sobre la evidencia –pues todos están viendo la misma evidencia. Es un debate sobre la filosofía. Un debate sobre qué causas pueden ser consideradas como posibles, incluso antes de examinar la evidencia.

Los científicos buscan causas, y lógicamente, solo hay dos tipos posibles de causas –una causa inteligente o una causa no inteligente (es decir, causa natural). Una causa natural puede explicar una maravilla geológica como el Gran Cañón, pero solamente una causa inteligente puede explicar una maravilla geológica como las caras de los presidentes sobre el Monte Rushmore. Asimismo, las leyes naturales pueden explicar por qué la tinta se adhiere al papel en el libro del Dr. Meyer, pero solo una causa inteligente puede explicar la información que allí se encuentra (es decir, ¡el Dr. Meyer!)

¿Cómo se aplica esto a la pregunta acerca del origen de la vida? Mucho después de Darwin, descubrimos que una “simple” célula está comprendida por miles de volúmenes de información en el ADN en lo que se conoce como complejidad específica –en palabras del día a día, sería como un programa de software o un mensaje realmente largo. ¡Richard Dawkins reconoce que la cantidad de información contenida en la mal-llamada “ameba primitiva” ocuparía 1,000 volúmenes de una enciclopedia!

¿Cuál es el origen de todo esto? Aquí es donde entra la filosofía. El Dr. Meyer está abierto a ambos tipos de causas. Richard Dawkins no lo está. En el libro del Dr. Meyer se explica cómo las fuerzas naturales no parecen tener la capacidad de realizar tal trabajo, solo la inteligencia la tiene. Sin embargo, Dawkins y su Darwinismo presionan filosóficamente para descartar causas inteligentes antes de examinar la evidencia. Por lo tanto, para ellos no importa cuánta evidencia apunte hacia causas inteligentes (como lo hace un mensaje suficientemente largo), siempre concluirán que tuvo que ser algún tipo de causa natural. En otras palabras, su conclusión es el resultado de sus suposiciones filosóficas previas.

Mientras Dawkins no tiene una explicación natural viable para el origen de la vida o el mensaje que esta contiene, él asegura que no puede ser el producto de inteligencia. Esta suposición filosófica conduce a lo que parece ser una conclusión increíble: El hecho de creer que 1,000 volúmenes de una enciclopedia son el resultado de fuerzas naturales y ciegas es comparable a creer que la Librería del Congreso es el resultado de una explosión en una imprenta. Yo no tengo tanta fe como para creer eso.

“¡Este es un argumento del Dios de las brechas!” podría protestar Dawkins. No, no lo es. Simplemente no carecemos de una explicación natural para una forma de vida “simple” – cuya información equivalente a 1,000 enciclopedias, esto es evidencia empírica y verificable para creer en una causa inteligente. Piensa en la causa del libro El Espejismo de Dios de Richard Dawkins, por ejemplo. No es simplemente que carezcamos de una explicación natural para el libro (pues sabemos que las leyes de la tinta y el papel no escribieron un libro). Es también el hecho que conocemos que mensajes solo provienen de mentes. Por lo tanto, podemos confiadamente postular a un autor inteligente, en lugar de un proceso natural y ciego.

¿Por qué es tan difícil para Dawkins y otros Darwinistas reconocer esto? Tal vez porque se rehúsan a hacerlo. Y así, como los “científicos” del calentamiento global, ellos tienen sus razones políticas o morales para negar incluso lo obvio. O tal vez nunca se han percatado que no pueden hacer ciencia sin filosofía. Como Einstein dijo: “El nombre de ciencia es un pésimo filósofo”. Y un pésimo filósofo de la ciencia puede llegar frecuentemente a conclusiones científicas equivocadas. Esto se debe al hecho que la ciencia no habla – los científicos sí lo hacen.

 

El Dr. Frank Turek (D.Min.) es un galardonado autor y frecuente orador universitario que presenta un programa de televisión semanal en DirectTV y un programa de radio que se transmite en 186 estaciones de todo el país. Sus libros incluyen I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (No tengo suficiente fe para ser ateo) y Stealing from God:  Why atheists need God to make their case (Robando a Dios: ¿por qué los ateos necesitan a Dios para presentar su caso?).

Traducido por Erick Jimenez.

/by

On Shariah-Governed Enclaves in France: A Clarifying Note

Over the past week, I have been contacted concerning a comment I made in passing, in a recent lecture I delivered on Islam, concerning so-called no-go zones in France, governed by gang-imposed Sharia law. This was not an area of particular interest to me, and so I had regrettably not researched it with my usual care. It was not the focus of my lecture, and was only raised in response to a questioner in the Q&A concerning the effects of the increase of Islam in Europe. I had mentioned the fact that there are now Shariah courts in the UK, and had also briefly touched on so-called “no-go zones” in France. In what was regrettably a poor choice of wording on my part, I likened these Muslim enclaves in France to a cancer — my meaning of course was that such enclaves are a breeding ground for Islamic radicalism. It was not intended to refer to the individuals who live in these areas. By likening the enclaves to a cancer it was the ‘No Go Zone’ structure itself I was talking about, and not the Muslims living within such areas nor even the ones who were enforcing such a structure.

Unfortunately, my words have since been taken by several angry bloggers and made to sound like I was likening Muslim communities in general to a cancer. These bloggers then proceeded to label me a bigot, an Islamophobe, a hate-preacher and a racist (since when was Islam a race?). I have very strong relationships with Muslims across the UK and further afield, and so you can imagine why I found those comments to be rather offensive. I have never said, and never would say, anything negative about Muslim communities in general. Yes, I criticize Islamic radicalism (as I hope any moderate Muslim would join me in doing), but I always make a distinction between Islamic radicalism and the vast majority of Muslims in the west who are peace-loving. For sure, I do on occasion raise texts from the Quran and Hadith literature that I sincerely find to be troubling, but the appropriate response where such disagreement exists is to engage in reasoned dialogue and debate, not to call each other names.

Regarding the French no-go zones to which I referred, I have since taken the time to look more critically at my sources regarding this. I had previously been aware of Fox News’s apology and retraction of statements concerning these no-go zones, but my understanding is that they had dramatically overstated the case (claiming, ridiculously, for instance, that all of Birmingham in the UK was Muslim-only and implying that there were officially-designated Muslim-only zones). Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch (note: I do not endorse everything Spencer says) commented on Fox News’s retraction here:

No No-Go Zones? Really?

Since I have neither the time nor the interest to summarise and review all of the relevant information here, I will offer the following two additional articles that defend the existence of no-go zones in France and Britain:

European ‘No-Go’ Zones: Fact or Fiction? Part 1: France (Soeren Kern)

European ‘No-Go’ Zones: Fact or Fiction? Part 2: Britain (Soeren Kern)

At the time of writing, I have not researched this topic sufficiently thoroughly to come to a firm conclusion. I do, however, have some reason for skepticism. First, it is not entirely clear to me whether these regional problems are permanent or temporary in nature. Second, it is not clear to me to what extent Islamic radicalism has a part to play in what goes on in these poverty-stricken areas, which are reportedly plagued by “high-rise slums, drug-fueled crime, failing schools and poor, largely Muslim immigrants” (New Republic). I suspect that the case has been rather overblown.

To finish, then, it is regrettable to me that my words concerning these ‘no-go’ zones in a talk I delivered recently in England have been misunderstood and misrepresented. I did feel that it was necessary to clarify where I stand, both on my unfortunately worded comment and the existence of European “no-go” zones. I do not at this time intend to comment further on this matter.

/by

The Wisdom Chronicle

The Wisdom Chronicle is designed to bring nuggets of wisdom from the dozens of books I read every year. I endeavor to share the best of what I have gleaned. The determination of relevance lies with you. Blessings, J. Whiddon

  1. OUCH! “Some believe the shin was invented for finding furniture in the dark. Others find the little toe much more effective for such activity.” — Michael Hodgin
  2. INDECISION “For many young people who struggle to make decisions, the lies are colliding. Teens want to be happy while they’re the center of the universe. They want to have choice, but choosing one thing means they can’t choose something else. And they can’t know now if they’ll be happy if they’ve never gone to college before, played basketball in high school, or dated Ashley or Jamie. As a result, they make no decision. And no decision is a decision.”

Excerpt From: Koch, Kathy. “Screens and Teens.”

  1. ACT NOW Preacher to the congregation: “Crying babies and disruptive children, like good intentions, should be carried out immediately. – Michael Hodgin
  2. AGE MATTERS “A while back, Fortune magazine did their cover story on Warren Buffet of Omaha, Nebraska. The magazine tells the amazing tale of one of our country’s most successful billionaires. He has been an enormous success as he has invested in all kinds of companies in the process of building the conglomerate, Berkshire Hathaway. He has been referred to as “The Wizard of Omaha.” He looks for strong companies that are well positioned in the market. He seeks to take over these companies. Then he leaves the management of these acquired companies in place, rather than replacing them, as do many other corporate chairmen.

One of the companies he owns is Nebraska Furniture Mart, which was founded by Rose Blumkin. He keeps in touch with the local managers in many different ways, usually informal, such as by phone, or by means of periodic meetings over a meal. The following is Fortune’s description of Buffet’s dealings with the Blumkin family, prior to the family’s splitting into competitive factions. The Blumkin family (or as Buffet refers to them, “the amazing Blumkins”) meet for dinner every few weeks at an Omaha restaurant. The Blumkins attending usually include Louis, 68, and his sons: Ron 39; Irv, 35; and Steve, 33.

The matriarch of the family and chairman of the Furniture Mart is Rose Blumkin, who emigrated from Russia as a young woman, started a tiny furniture store that offered rock-bottom prices. Her motto is “Sell cheap and tell the truth.” She built this furniture store into a business that last year did $140 million in sales. At age 94, she still works seven days a week in the carpet department.

Buffet says in his new annual report that she is clearly gathering speed and “may well reach her full potential in another five or ten years. Therefore, I’ve persuaded the Board to scrap our mandatory retirement-at-100 policy. And it’s about time,” he adds. “With every passing year, this policy has seemed sillier to me.”

Perhaps he jests, true, but Buffet simply does not regard age as having any bearing on how able a manager is. Maybe because he has bought so many strong managements and stuck with them, he has worked over the years with an unusually large number of older executives and treasured their abilities. Buffet says, “Good managers are so scarce I can’t afford the luxury of letting them go just because they’ve added a year to their age.”

Excerpt From: Hodgin, Michael. “1001 Humorous Illustrations for Public Speaking.”

  1. HEAVEN “Heaven is real. Throughout time God has implanted within the soul of man a longing for such a place. All primitive people believed in an afterlife. In ages gone by, the ancient cave dwellers depicted such in paintings on the walls of their caves. More than three thousand years ago the Egyptians buried their pharaohs with supplies, eating utensils, weapons, and even servants in their quest for a life that is beyond this one. The American Indians had their “happy hunting grounds” where they believed the departed lived again. God has implanted and instilled within the very being of man a desire for more from life than what we have on earth.” Excerpt From: O. S. Hawkins. “The Joshua Code.”
  2. CELL PHONE “Technology can be our best friend, and technology can also be the biggest party pooper of our lives. It interrupts our own story, interrupts our ability to have a thought or a daydream, to imagine something wonderful, because we’re too busy bridging the walk from the cafeteria back to the office on the cellphone.” –STEVEN SPIELBERG
  3. INFO VS. WISDOM “Teens want information, especially that relevant to their personal interests and the problems they’d like to help solve, but young people may believe they don’t need to go deeper and actually seek wisdom. Information satisfies them. Because many don’t prioritize going deep, they don’t believe they need teachers. As a result, many do not recognize their need for guidance.

Stopping at information, short of seeking wisdom and guidance, short-circuits young people’s progress toward future dreams and their worthy plans for changing the world. Frustration sets in as they discover they’re not totally prepared to be the change agents they want to be. The “information lie” is a subtle one, and young people may not realize that information is not enough.”

Excerpt From: Koch, Kathy. “Screens and Teens.”

  1. PREPARATION “Luck is the residue of design.” -Branch Rickey
  2. RAISING KIDS “And how many families there are, though not so profane, who yet breed up their children vainly and sensually, and take no care what becomes of their souls, if they can but provide for their bodies (Job 21:11)! If they can but teach them to carry their bodies, no matter if the devil actuate their souls. If they can but leave them lands or monies, they think they have very fully discharged their duties. O, what will the language be with which such parents and children shall greet each other at the judgment-seat, and in hell for ever!”

Excerpt From: Flavel, John. “The Mystery of Providence.”

  1. ANGER “Speak when you’re angry, and you’ll deliver the best speech you’ll ever regret.”

–Unknown

 

/by

The Wisdom Chronicle

The Wisdom Chronicle is designed to bring nuggets of wisdom from the dozens of books I read every year. I endeavor to share the best of what I have gleaned. The determination of relevance lies with you. Blessings, J. Whiddon

  1. MERCY AND GRACE “There is a difference between mercy and grace. Mercy is not getting what we do deserve. Grace is getting what we do not deserve. Jesus’ love is always manifested in His grace. Consistently in Scripture we find Him extending this undeserved and unmerited favor upon sinners. Even at the cross we find Him praying for the forgiveness of those who were persecuting and killing Him. The Word, who became flesh, truly was “full of grace.”

Our Lord was also “full of . . . truth.” In fact, He was the embodiment of truth. It is only when His grace leads us to know the truth that we are truly free. Jesus came, not to talk to us about God, but to show us what God was like so that the simplest mind might know the Father as intimately as the most intelligent academic.”

Excerpt From: O. S. Hawkins. “The Joshua Code.”

  1. WHAT IS TAUGHT ONLINE? Have you ever seen teens with their tech tools and wondered if they almost worship their technology? It’s where they turn for answers to their questions and to solve their problems.  As teens become increasingly acclimated to speedy answers via the Internet, will it be harder for them to wait on God for an answer to prayer, if they do pray?

HOWEVER, screens can positively affect faith development, too. Bible apps are convenient, and they allow us to keep the Bible with us. Devotional material read on handheld devices and Facebook posts from ministries, churches, and friends can encourage, humble, and mature young people. Worship music and videos of church services and concerts can be inspiring. Streaming allows teens to watch church services and conferences they might have missed in person.

When it comes to meeting our deep human need for security, we want technology to take its rightful place. Digital tools can’t meet anyone’s need for security, but they can be tools that help teens develop the relationships with God and others that are real and trustworthy and nourishing.”

Excerpt From: Koch, Kathy. “Screens and Teens.”

  1. TECH PACE Every minute of every day:

 

  • YouTube users upload 48 hours of new video.
  • Email users send 204,166,667 messages.
  • Google receives over 2,000,000 search queries.
  • Facebook users share 684,478 pieces of content.
  • Twitter users send over 100,000 tweets.
  • Apple receives about 47,000 app downloads.
  • Brands and organizations on Facebook receive 34,722 “likes.”
  • Instagram users share 3,600 new photos.
  • 571 new websites are created.
  • WordPress users publish 347 new blog posts.

 

Excerpt From: Koch, Kathy. “Screens and Teens.”

744.  “We have more information than ever before – but less wisdom.”

— Henry Kissinger

  1. WAR “Democracy is more vindictive than Cabinets. The wars of peoples will be more terrible than the wars of kings.” These prophetic words were spoken more than a dozen years before the catastrophe occurred in 1914. Churchill was never a warmonger as his enemies claimed. On the contrary: he warned against it just as urgently as he warned against unpreparedness for it—the two were indivisible. But Churchill was sufficient of a realist to grasp that wars will come, and that a victorious one, however dreadful, is preferable to a lost one.”

Excerpt From: Johnson, Paul. “Churchill.”

  1. NOT SURE? [When asked, “How can you believe in a God you cannot fully explain?”] ANS: “We need to grasp that it is not only believers in God who believe in concepts they do not fully understand.

Scientists do as well. It would be just as foolish and arbitrary to dismiss believers in God as having nothing to say, because they cannot ultimately explain the nature of God, as it would be to dismiss physicists because they do not know what energy is. And yet that is exactly what often happens.”

Excerpt From: John C. Lennox. “Against the Flow.”

  1. PERSONALITY “A well-developed sense of humor reveals a well-balanced personality. Maladjusted people show a far greater tendency to miss the point in a funny remark. They take jokes personally. They take things that are meant to be enjoyable much too seriously. The ability to get a laugh out of everyday situations is a safety valve. It rids us of tensions and worries that could otherwise damage our health.

You think I’m exaggerating the benefits? If so, maybe you’ve forgotten another proverb: “A joyful heart is good medicine, but a broken spirit dries up the bones” (Prov. 17:22). Isn’t that eloquent? Literally, it says, “A joyful heart causes healing.”

Excerpt From: Charles R. Swindoll. “Dear Graduate.”

  1. INTEGRITY “Integrity is not what we do when it serves us. It is who we are in the dark and how we treat people when it makes no difference to us. If forced to choose, I would hold to integrity over intellect, wealth, talent, popularity, or any brand of success. Integrity can’t be taken from a person; it can only be given away.”

Excerpt From: DeMoss, Mark. “The Little Red Book of Wisdom.”

  1. THE LITTLE THINGS “Emerson said, “The creation of a thousand forests is in one acorn,” and I always try to remember that every great dream and great achievement is made up of hundreds of little ones, every great relationship is made up of many small hugs, small gestures, and intimate words. God is in the details, and if we don’t get the little things right, we’ll never get the big ones.”

Excerpt From: Reiman, Joey. “Thinking for a Living.”

  1. WHERE’S OUR TRUST? “In God We Trust may still be inscribed on our currency, but it’s no longer on our hearts.” — Joe Battaglia
/by

Shabir Ally vs. Jonathan McLatchie (Tawhid vs. Trinity): Watch the Debate Live Online This Sunday

On Sunday 16th of August, at 5:15pm GMT (that’s 12:15pm Eastern Time; 11:15am Central Time; 9:15am Pacific Standard Time), I am going to be engaging in a public debate with Islamic scholar Dr. Shabir Ally in London, England, on the question of “What is God Like — Tawhid or Trinity?” The live-stream is embedded above. Be sure to tune in!

See my previous debate on this subject with Abdurraheem Green here. See Shabir Ally’s previous debate on this subject with Nabeel Qureshi here.

For anyone in the UK who might wish to attend this event in person, the details are found on the promotional poster below:

Ally-McLatchie poster

/by

The Wisdom Chronicle

The Wisdom Chronicle is designed to bring nuggets of wisdom from the dozens of books I read every year. I endeavor to share the best of what I have gleaned. The determination of relevance lies with you. Blessings, J. Whiddon

  1. SONS “The Son of God became the Son of Man in order that the sons of men could become the sons of God.” — Unknown
  2. GREED “The Greeks had a curious word they used when referring to greed. The word means “a thirst for having more.” To illustrate, it’s probably fanciful yet fairly descriptive to think of a fellow who is thirsty taking a drink of salt water, which only makes him thirstier. His thirst causes him to drink even more, which ultimately results in making him terribly sick. And if he continues to drink he could die.

That’s the whole point of greed. You’ll want more and more of something that really isn’t good for you. And in the getting of it, you’ll suffer the painful consequences.”

Excerpt From: Charles R. Swindoll. “Dear Graduate.”

  1. AMAZING LOVE “God proved His love toward us. How? It was not by writing His love in flaming letters across the sky nor by belting His strong voice from heaven expressing His love. The Bible says, “When the fullness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law” (Galatians 4:4). Jesus was not some sort of remedial action, a last minute splint for a broken world when everything else had failed. The preparation God had done was staggering. He had raised up a Greek nation that took the Greek language across the known world so the gospel could spread without a language barrier. He raised up a Roman empire that built a road system of fifty thousand miles across the world so the gospel could move from country to country. Yes, it was in the “fullness of time” that Christ came (Galatians 4:4).

Excerpt From: O. S. Hawkins. “The Joshua Code.”

  1. THINK BIG “Don’t listen to that mocking little voice that tells you to be more realistic. Ignore it. You can either accept reality as it is or create it as you wish it to be. This is the essence of dreaming—and thinking big.”

Excerpt From: Hyatt, Michael. “Platform.”

  1. SECURITY AND TECHNOLOGY “Security is our first core need, and it’s defined by the question Who can I trust? We’re healthiest when we meet our need for security in God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, in trustworthy people, and in ourselves as we learn to be right and do right even when the burden is heavy. Security is rooted in forgiveness—from God, from others, and especially from ourselves.

It becomes a problem when we begin looking for security in all the wrong places. Some young people try to meet their need for security in their technology and its availability. Many believe technology will never let them down (as human relationships often do!).

When teens don’t have instant access to their technology, their security feels threatened.

Many of today’s teens are secure in things being quick, perfect, and easy. They trust that the access they need will always be readily available.

[For them,] It’s WHAT they trust that matters, not WHO. This is potentially very damaging because technology is not how God designed this need for security to be met.

Trusting people doesn’t come naturally to young people partly because they’re relating through social media and texting. It’s hard to truly know people and develop friendship and discernment skills. They may be attempting to meet this need with the number of “friends” they have. What they don’t understand is that security is not found in quantity (multiple online connections). It’s discovered in QUALITY (real and faithful relationships).”

Excerpt From: Koch, Kathy. “Screens and Teens.”

  1. ADDICTION AGE “Children who develop addictions to screens are much more susceptible to developing other addictions someday. Research suggests 90 percent of addictions have roots in the teen years. To further drive home this point, one in four Americans who began using any addictive substance before age eighteen are addicted, compared to one in twenty-five who started using at age twenty-one or older.

Excerpt From: Koch, Kathy. “Screens and Teens.”

  1. XTIAN DIVORCE RATES NOT SAME “We often hear that divorce rates in the Church mirror divorce rates outside of the Church. One study even suggested that the best predictor of divorce was “the concentration of conservative Protestants living in the county,” but as Brad Wilcox of the University of Virginia has demonstrated, this study (and others like it) fails to distinguish between nominal conservative Protestants and committed conservative Protestants. Christians who are active in their faith, evident by religious practices like church attendance, are far less likely to get divorced than those not active in their faith.”

Excerpt From: Sean McDowell & John Stonestreet. “Same-Sex Marriage.”

  1. CHOICES “Choices are the hinges of destiny,” — Unknown
  2. ACHIEVEMENT “No bird soars in a calm.” — Wilbur Wright
  3. DECISIONS “Giving into fear is a poor chisel with which to carve out tomorrow. In life, we first make decisions. Then our decisions make us.”

— R. Bowen Loftin.

 

 

/by

Sharing Your Faith With Muslims

Last weekend, at a church in Middlesbrough, England, I presented the above talk on sharing one’s Christian faith with Muslims in a winsome and persuasive way. Islam is a religion that accounts for well over a billion people worldwide, and self-professes to be the world’s fastest growing religion. It is a subject that we often hear about through the media, but few Christians have a deep understanding of the Muslim religion or are acquainted with what the Qur’an and other primary Islamic sources actually teach. This means that few are equipped to effectively bring the gospel to their Muslim friends, colleagues and acquaintances. In this presentation, I delve into the primary Islamic sources to investigate what Islam teaches about Jesus, the Trinity, and salvation. I explains how to graciously demonstrate the internal problems and inconsistencies inherent in the Islamic religion; as well as how to explain core Christian doctrines in a way that Muslims can relate to; and how to skilfully and persuasively share the gospel with your Muslim friends.

/by