The Fantastic Four and the Rise of the Silver Surfer: A Brief Biblical Analysis of Popular Cinema

Recently, I had the opportunity to take in the better part (latter part) of a recent release known by the title above, whose storyline is taken from the older Marvel comic books series, known as the "Fantastic Four." Each of the four has a special set of unique abilities (not unlike the equally well-known "X-men" of recent cinematic fame).

A few preliminary points are worth noting. None of them but one -- Susan Storm -- are exactly "human," for one of them is mostly plastic (it would seem), the other composed of a rock similar to granite, and one is half man, half flying torch (Susan's brother, Johnny Storm).

The character development proceeds in an exaggerated and haphazard manner, making their interactions (now and again, just shy of corny). The acting simply does not match the efforts of the likes of Hugh Jackman -- as the X-men's "Wolverine" -- who corresponds to the impetuously reckless Johnny Storm in the former movie.

Reed Richards are Susan are lovers whose wedding seems forever postponed (until the very end) by emergency and the call of duty. She represents the longing maternal type, with strong nesting instincts, who strongly desires the "normal life" forever denied her by her superpowers and inescapable publicity. The 2 car garage and "white picket fence" are implied but not stated.

The "Thing" -- Ben Grim -- in the comic, lives for the fight, notorious for his "It's clobberin' time" introduction to many of his frays, who plays a pick-on-you-at-all times "big brother role" to the human torch.

The villians number three in this episode, a reluctant and mysterious alien surfer -- known as "Noren Radd" in his own world -- whose arrival, our heroes learn to their chagrin -- always precedes the abolition of life on that planet 8 days later. The Surfer turns out to be extremely powerful, and yet a hesitant Nemesis to the Four.

Victor Von Doom (a.k.a. "Doctor Doom" in the comic series) temporarily joins forces with the distrusting Four to acquire the Surfers source of power, the board he rides.

The shorter dialogues in the film actually prove the most telling.

Sue Storm (Actress Jessica Alba): "Why do you want to destroy us -- destroy our world?"

Surfer: "I have no choice."

Sue: "We always have a choice."

Surfer: "I am NOT the destroyer."

In the end, a super-strengthened (via his encounter with the silver alien) Johnny Storm overcomes Dr. Doom, and retrieves the board for the surfer, who turns his full power against his former master (Galacticus, the destroyer to whom Noren refers).

It is the combined power of the four in Johnny and the quiet wisdom of his sister that win the day. She persuades the surfer with genuine concern, and fairly good logic.

Each of the Four has extraordinary powers of a different kind, making them in the ancient world what would have been demi-gods. It is their foibles, bickering, and semi-comedic squabbles which prevent this identification. Neverthess, the human torch possesses all the power of the Greek god, "Hephaestus," and more, and Ben Grim the power of a Hercules. Reed Richards, a kind of human rubberband (shapeshifter in the extreme) forms the brains behind the Four. He is a Silicon Valley super-geek persona possessed of extra-ordinary intelligence -- unsure of himself at times, and alternately very successful in his endeavors. Doom is his counter-part for mental abilities.

The Four however, have a quietly nationalistic bent. Though the Surfer represents a "world-threat," the four are seen aiding only the U.S. military against the threat. No U.N. forces, or transnational group, ever shows up in the script. These are American demi-gods, who fight for the values and culture that we identify as those of the United States, including the Invisible Girl's "American Dream." By way of contrast, the Silver surfer, is much more powerful, and appears utterly serene, without humor, and transcendent. He can be persuaded by a strident appeal to reason, and his emotions are ascetically subdued even when very strong. He uniquely displays self-control, patience under fire, an unwavering calm, and the virtues of honesty and integrity (and a notable lack of personal vanity) you do not find in the others.

He is their superior not only in strength, but in virtue as well (Sue comes the closest in the latter department. She shares his sensitivity to things that ultimately matter. Even when the Surfer sees no escape for earth's inhabitants, he sympathetically urges them, "You have only three hours; cherish every minute you can."

He is a more universal (non-national), non-patriotic god. His implied knowledge of many worlds suggests his greater wisdom. His heed of Sue's patient arguments suggests his greater humility. He is, in the end, by a total exertion of his ability, able to stop even the destroyer of worlds, though at total cost to both himself and the prime villain. Doctor Doom, we learn earlier enough, is no match for the Surfer, who overcomes him with a single exercise of his power.

Nevertheless, the combined powers of the four (in Johnny Storm) are easily able to subdue (i.e. clobber) the rogue Doom who has absconded with the Surfer's board and powers for a short while. The lesson? American ingenuity and ability can rise to overcome even the greatest of problems.

This raises the question no one asks, "Since the combined efforts of the four in one proved so efficiacious against Doom, why not against the Silver Surfer much earlier in the show when they knew their powers had become somewhat transferable by Storm's first fight with the Surfer (which did not go well for the torch)?

In any case, the "united we stand" theme comes through loudly enough. This is clearly -- as are all the universes in the Marvel comics -- polytheistic worlds. There are not only many worlds, but very many superheroes in the pantheon. There is also a kind of implied pecking order, where some beings are higher on the food chain than others.

Here is what we are never told, but which logical substratum operates in all such movies. This kind of world (or "multi-verse" as some comic-book dialogues have it) only makes sense in an evolutionary context. The order of beings, similar to Plotinus' (Neoplatonist) ancient "chain of being" comes about because the process of evolution favors some species (and individuals within the species -- usually mutants of some kind) which process confers upon them their abilities to save the world -- or in the case of the villains -- wreak extraordinary havoc in the world.

Even with Spiderman, Peter Parker becomes who he is because of an accident, and encounter with a mutant (radioactive) spider. In evolution, it is ACCIDENCE (chance) that makes the difference. Thus, we find a logical connection between evolutionism and (an implied) polytheism, common to many religions of the world (for instance, Hinduism, which is evolutionary in its cosmology, and promotes over 300 thousands gods in its total history).

All of "X-men" are mutants, both blessed and cursed by the process of evolution. They are on the one hand, ostracized and hunted, and (on the other hand) uniquely gifted. And these blessings and curses are always held in a kind of Taoist (dualistic) tension of the yin and the yang. Neither ever fully prevails over the other.

The fact that there are "good guys" and villains - and we never doubt that Doctor Doom is a bad guy, or that the recklessly winsome human torch is a good guy - implies and objective ethical standard known not only to humans, but to their demi-gods and even the transcendent beings like Noren Radd, who can be turned from the dark side by soft appeals to reason. and well-chosen words, which convey the conventional wisdom of contemporary American values, like the absolute freedom of choice.

The source of these values never receives attention (because this would end up -- if held consistently -- promoting the Christian message, which alone provides the foundations for logic, science and morality). But the transcendent Surfer is won over by American values. This implies that our contemporary values are themselves not the values of merely any one nation, or any one planet. For even the gods -- who decide the fates of worlds -- must acknowledge them.

Paradoxically, it is the ordinary and soft side of Susan Storm, not her preternatural powers of invisibility and force -field creating, that win the day. The ordinary woman is extraordinary, when she reasons and quietly teaches.

The implied message is that there is a little superhero in every person who holds these values. Begin waving the American flag now. The dark side of this message is the lie of evolutionary polytheism, that it is THAT world in which we can all be heroes after a fashion (since that world is entirely fiction).

The cosmology never receives direct attention in the movie. It is either implied or simply assumed, as with most movies that wish to sell a little something more than just entertainment. They are teaching tools. The Surfer was not the alone target of the Ms. Storm's reasoning, but the popcorn munching audiences, who pay top dollar to come watch the Anti-american villans (like Doom) get their just desserts at the end of an All-American fist.

A final note of assessment worth the mention is the larger question of "cinematology" itself. The Larger Catechism (presumably following the Bible since that is its characteristic habit) tells us that God forbids "stage-plays," an ancient and Medieval counterpart in most ways to the modern cinema theater.

This was the context from which the word "hypocrite" arose, though this fact by itself does not prove the point conclusively without committing the "etymological fallacy." The origin of a word's history does not account for the changes it undergoes through time, and it does not tell us whether the original identification of word and idea was a correct one. Hypocrites, were, simply put, "mask-wearing actors," or "pretenders." The fact that the Lord Jesus used this term repeatedly with the clear intent of roundly chiding his opponents in each case cannot but arrest the attention of every disciple of Christ when considering the question.

For now, I shall leave the question open-ended, with the additional notation that the Bible repeatedly warns against the "lust of the eyes," favoring instead auditory forms of learning -- the preached word (not the "teevoed" Jesus film). This suggests that radio (and internet, since the printed word -- reading of the Bible -- is also favored) , rather than television, is the more preferred mass medium of biblical choice by implication.

This question is worth exploring further at a more convenient time. It has been said that culture merely displays the outward projection of a society's religion. Every movie which conveys a lesson (most do) promotes a set of values. This activity, by any other name, is still preaching. This is obvious in the case of the Fantastic Four's overdone patriotism, but less obvious in other films.

I suggest our takeaway lesson for the day is two-fold: every movie conveys a worldview which sits most often in the backdrop, never receiving direct attention. But the lessons it teaches, and values these convey, will in the nature of the case be informed by the tacit cosmology.

If you chose to watch -- leaving the WLC question aside -- at least watch critically. For the need of a watchful eye, and care taken to avoid the counsel of the wicked, occupy many a page of the Holy Scripture. Parents must always retain the attitude that when others intend to promote falsehood -- apologetically speaking -- It's clobberin' time. We do not have to (and dare not) simply adopt what we are told. Remember, we ALWAYS have a choice.

Even the Silver Surfer agrees.

Okay, Just A Few More Points About Today's Darwinism

Underneath the contemporary debate between the "intelligent design" crowd and the Darwinators operates a philosophical set of assumptions about the nature of the sciences wholly at odds with the Bible. We should favor neither side, even though it seems more "logical" to some to wish the nonsecularist approach to win the day.

This superficial perspective, however, quickly melts away under a few well-placed questions. Let us ask these, shall we?

1. Is "intelligent design" consistent with Islam and contemporary Judaism? And is the teaching of the Bible consistent with these?

First, we answer, "Yes." Second, "No." Do you see a problem? This implies that (surprise!) the intelligent design program is at odds with the Holy Bible by the transitive property of equality (there is a logical counterpart to this mathematically formulated axiom).

Second, Does the Bible (think Colossians 2) warn us against "philosophies not founded upon Christ"? How intelligent is it to violate a direct command of the Word of God - and how is this "Christian"?

Third, Do Christians want to have to depend on the authority of the sciences in order to publically declare that God is the Creator? Does the Bible forbid two masters (final authorities)?

Fourth, the Bible proclaims REVELATION, and revelation is not theoretical because of its final authority. It is infallible, certain, pure, from above, divine in origin, irrefutable, not subject to the vicissitudes resulting changing pools of evidence (eternal), powerful to effect its ends, etc.

In other words, special revelation bears all the communicable and INCOMMUNICABLE attributes of God. Theories do not. Thus, attempting to establish any doctrine of the Word upon "scientific" grounds amounts to an extraordinary DEMOTION. The Bible says, "DO NOT DO THIS" in about fifteen different ways.

Therefore, the Word teaches that the "intelligent design" and "scientific creationist" programs are vastly sub-biblical (my polite way of saying "sinful") even when their protagonists -- many of whom are believers in the Lord Jesus -- mean well by so doing. Good motives and goals are not good enough. We need the right standard. Only the right standard guarantees victory. And it has well been said, "There is no substitute for victory."

Righteousness exalts a nation, and has but one standard. Therefore, let the whole nation of God's people say with one voice what the Word says. Say it loudly, skillfully and often. The truth is destined -- some would say "predestined" -- to win the day. The contrary is impossible.

This means that the Frog-prince theories -- said to thrive with the "kiss" of time unto ever greater transformative states -- is doomed to die the death of a thousand contradictions. The tragic part of the whole things is this: the light of nature makes it extremely obvious that there is a Creator, and even tells us a good deal about Him.

It takes a very darkened mind to miss this. The Bible files this information under "Duh." (Romans 1:20 ff) You do not want dark minds teaching your children. For the Lord's children are children of light. And what has light in common with darkness?

Homeschoolers rule; if not today, then tomorrow. But they rule. Public schools? Oi Vey. Their biology classes require you to deny common sense (for general revelation is common to all men) to get an "A." I should rather swim in a pool of protozoan pondscum than teach what is obviously silly. What then?

The European Parliament and postmodern American established "education mill" has simply quit common sense and gone into full-blown denialism. They revamped the textbooks to include all and only evolutionary views in response to the "Sputnik event" in the late 1950's. The space race between the USSR and USA seemed to many to require a more "serious" approach to the sciences to outdo (or else catch up to) the competition.

But once you adopt nonsense as your set of first principles, your learning curve drops sharply. This began in earnest throughout the sixties, as SAT scores fell, and the liberal arts began to feel the squeeze with departments everywhere downsizing through that decade to the present. Now technical skills have replaced the liberal studies requiring a sense of absolute or objective truth to foster their growth. So much for the blessings of Neo-Darwinian textbook renovations.

Thinking you are just an animal with no inherent dignity as a God-made image of the Creator does nothing to elevate your ethical refinement (but much destroys it). This is why students on public school campuses often act like animals. They simply believe what they are told. Then we need the "self-esteem" Dr. Phil crew to "fix" their maladjusted ways (without mentioning the real problem -- called sin).

Bring on the ADD and ADHD diagnosis when the kids need spankings (and hugs). Throw drugs at them and ruin their livers, and harm their developing anatomies. Then the problems really begin.

Homeschoolers can easily avoid this "evolutionary trajectory." The Bible has the answer. Darwin? Not so much. I am renaming his Magnum Opus, "The Origin of Specious Arguments.

Europe's Darwin Cult Opposes Creationism in Schools

Reuters has reported that a European Parlimentary Council plans to urge all its member nations to oppose the teaching of creationism and "intelligent design" in its schools. Here is the brief introductory descriptor:

"STRASBOURG, France (Reuters) - Europe's main human rights body voted on Thursday to urge schools across the continent to firmly oppose the teaching of creationist and "intelligent design" views in their science classes.

The Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly approved a resolution saying attacks on the theory of evolution were rooted "in forms of religious extremism" and amounted to a dangerous assault on science and human rights."

This is simply pure propaganda and just barely merits a response. Here are a few facts that easily dismantle the "parlimentary wisdom."

First, until about 1859 (when Darwin published the Origin of Species), the vast majority of scientists were creationists. This shows that there is nothing about "science" that requires evolutionary nonsense to be taught, as though "science" were somehow inherently an "evolutionary" enterprise.

Second, given the assumptions and implicates of evolutionary theories -- Neo-darwinian and Punctuated Equilibria versions included -- the sciences would simply be impossible. Evolutionary views logically undermine the necessary preconditions for doing science. I will not rehearse the details here since I have done this repeatedly elsewhere online, and in several articles.

Third, biblical Creationism (not "intelligent design" or "theism" more generally) alone provides the foundations of knowledge -- logic, the sciences and ethics (i.e. do not falsify research or mangle the human subjects) -- which remain NECESSARILY prequisite to the scientific enterprise.

Fourth, calling the only truly prelogical, prescriptive, and metascientific worldview "extremism" -- to forbid its teaching -- is like outlawing sugar before the marshmallow roasting contest. This is called "question-begging" (a notorious informal fallacy) of the self-refuting variety. How is overly zealous "Evolutionism" NOT extreme, since it would eliminate the sciences if maintained consistently?

Fifth, to assume that ALL attacks on evolution are 'rooted in extremism" is self-refuting since the best arguments against evolutionism come from evolutionism itself. This implies that evolutionism represents the kind of extremism the Parliament wishes to condemn. Well done. At least we agree on something.

Sixth, many of the criteriological values of the sciences - which form the basis for prefering one theory over another -- simpler is better (Ockham's razor by name), predictive power or explanatory scope -- assume that certain features of theory are more like to correspond to the real world. This implies metaphysical convictions consistent with views the sciences cannot themselves prove. Here, the sciences reveal their underlying faith commitments, showing that there is not fundamental difference in kind between what it calls "religion" and what it calls "science."

The Christian worldview (the one they would find even more extreme than intelligent design) can provide the basis for making just this distinction which they need to exclude their desired target, while their secularism hopelessly flounders just here. In other words, only by pretending that the Christian worldview is true for a moment to grab the distinctions they need to uphold their arbitrary distinction between faith and science can they then proceed to act as though their secularized philosophy of science has any merit.

This is VanTil's doctrine of "borrowed capital," which shows the absolute need even of false views to depend for some of their more critical components upon the biblical outlook. Dr. North calls this "STOLEN capital," a form of epistemological plagiarism which fails to properly credit the God of heaven for the revealed knowledge they need to make sense of their own claims (I kinda lean North on this one).

Plenty more criticisms could easily leverage themselves against such flimsy views, including the assumption built in to it that the theoretical sciences can yield provable (determinable) theories. See my book, Subduing Science: the Reformation of Natural Philosophy, for a thorough and extended refutation of this silly set of scientistic dogmata.

It would seem that "Europe's main human rights body" knows very little about the history and philosophy of the sciences. Yet, they wish to play "the Decider" on issues about which they are ill-informed at best. And their primary dogma (positivism) would -- like Lewis Carroll's Queen -- require us to believe 5 contradictory things before breakfast.

This is just one more reason to homeschool your children. We need a future generation that can actually "think" about the subjects in which we require them to engage intellectually. This kind of propaganda coup the Euros are attempting would have done Herr Goehring proud (As head of the Luftwaffe, he and they dropped quite a few leaflets urging surrender in would-be occupied lands). Sieg Heil, and keep up the good work fellas. You keep me employed.

Of Legal Theory and Language: What Does "Meaning" Mean?

The Word of the Lord self-refers as a transnational and transcendent legal code: The Law of the Lord. This self-reference sets it over against all man-made legal codes, over which it resides as the vastly superior template, the very definition of justice, and foundation of all civil rights.

This is easily demonstrable.

A fundamental problem exists in U.S. legal theory with respect to the proper interpretation of the Constitution in any one instance. The conflict inherent within this -- and all other man-made legal codes -- stems from a divergent possibility for the term "meaning," when asking what the founders of this document -- the self-proclaimed "supreme law of the land" -- intended by this or that statute or right.

Sometimes asking what they "meant" requires a response which assumes that "meaning" amounts to their particular intentions (meaning as intentionality), and many will invoke the Federalist Papers and other primary source documentation to aid them in this endeavor. At other times, however, asking what the second (or perhaps third) Amendment "means" requires a response which assumes that "meaning" refers to the logical implication(s) of the particular amendment in question in some contemporary context not native to the time of the founders. For example, "What is the meaning of the Bill of Rights" for the new legal field of online copyright law.

In terms of intellectual property rights, the rise of the internet presents some novel and challenging jurisdiction dilemmas, and other legal questions which will require (eventually) the U.S. Supreme court to apply the rights of individuals to questions regarding the intervening civil authorities who (will allegedly) have done what one will say amounts to a violation the rights of the individual.

This will require logical rigor on the part of the Supreme Court in its applications of the relevant aspects of constitutional law to the matter at hand.

Somtimes it is the case that what a legal document strictly implies by its wording runs up against what the founders would have wanted (their authorial intent). For instance, in the early years of the U.S. as a nation, it was commonplace for the state (federal government) to swubsidize missionary efforts of religious organizations. Justice Joseph Story argued that so long as this subsidizing did not involve favoring one denomination over the others that the non-establishment clause of the first amendment had not been violated.

Today this would raise the hackles of just about everyone -- who would invoke the non-constitutional phrase "separation of Church and State." The founders envisioned (and the US practice for many decades in its early years) plural support by the state for the Churches, not non-support for all churches.

The non-support interpretation -- a very late latecomer in legal interpretation of the Constitution arose by the study of the logical implications of the various relevant constitutional features which bear on the subject (and so far as I can tell, probably got it right, more or less).
But this would have the founders flipping over in their graves, who clearly would have seen this as anti-religious, not simply "secular."

The logical outworking of their own doctrines implied conclusions they did not want. They, like all men, all not that logically self-conscious about the choices they make, and it is very difficult to anticipate more than about 20 years down the road even what legal questions are likely to arise, forcing a careful scrutiny upon one section of a document more critical and analytical than anything the authors of that document themselves might have applied to it.

In short, humans do not know, and cannot ascertain ALL the logical implicates of ANY document they pen, in all possible combinations. Thus, their intentions for writing a document can easily run up against the implications of the document itself (which they did not anticipate, and would not have liked if they could have discerned them).

So this raises the question: What is one supposed to do when the legal implicates of the constitution plainly contradict the intentions of the founders who wrote it? The constitution does not deal with this problem at all. Nor do the Federalist papers.

Note that whatever document one uses to answer this question could easily establish new laws when applied to the U.S. constitution, and yet it would have to come from a source OUTSIDE that constitution. This would make the governing document the non-constitutional referee chosen to settle the question.

In order to avoid this problem with legal codes -- their own insufficiency to answer the future problems of interpretation, intention and logic (and there are others I could highlight at some length) dooms them to failures as the "final" or "supreme" law of the land. Whichever document finally interprets and determines the implicates forms the ACTUAL supreme law of the land. This is because whoever finally interprets finally judges (all judgments devolve upon the interpretations of legal codes and their logical rules for applying them to specific circumstances in this or that case.

To have a single legal code that is sufficient as the real "supreme law," one would needs its author to anticipate all possible future problems of interpretation, langauage use, logical regulations, and every situation in which a legal problem might arise. In short, it would take a God.

This is the greatness of the Law of the Lord. Because God can and does know all possible and actual conditions, conclusions, facts and reasons, He alone is able to yield a legal code where the intent of the Author (behind the human authors) could never be at odds with what His statements (properly understood) imply in any possible combination. God INTENDS exactly and ONLY what He says AND IMPLIES by what He says.

Only the Law of the Lord then avoids (by the Author's exceedingly great Wisdom) the problem of intentionality vs. statutory implicates. These two are one in the Word of God because it has the mutual consent of all the parts, ascertained judiciously, and infallibly examined BEFORE the code ever met with pen and paper.

The U.S. constitution shows itself insufficient, dependent on a theoretically endless number of secondary authorities which actually function to govern the "governing document." Thus, the Constitution lies in suggesting that it alone is the "supreme law of the land." That option is simply not available to the imaginations of men. Human wisdom and ingenuity -- because they are made in God's image -- can only get you so far. They make pretty good coffee.

But truly supreme legal codes, the foundations of justice, mercy, prudence, infallible judgment - these come only from the "only Wise God," whose law is perfect, who wisdom is unfathomable, and whose ways are beyond finding out.

The Law of the Lord is perfect. The U.S. Constitution has -- well - issues (unresolvable issues to be precise). All men -- and their legal codes -- are like grass, which flourishes today, and tomorrow is no more. And their "civil rights" rise or fall with their legal code which defines them. But the Word of the Lord stands forever. This is where justice lives, and the contrary is impossible.

THAT is the "meaning" of today's post.

The Old "Remorse" Argument (The Problem of Evil Badly Disguised)

Some have thought it profound to point out that just prior to the Noahic Flood, the text indicates that "God sorrowed [regretted] that he had made man," and see this statement as inconsistent with God's omniscience. In other words: since God is omniscient, we would expect that He would only do that which He would never regret, since He 1. Saw it coming 2. Could have avoided it 3. Always does what is good and right.

The fairly obvious rejoinder to this comes from the fact that the expression "God regretted that He had made man," simply represents God's extreme grief at the radical wickedness of man at the time. Obviously, Noah was an exception to the rule, since God did not destroy him along with the others. But "Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord," for "He was righteous in his generation."

Likewise, the New Testament bids the Lord's people, "Do not grieve the Holy Spirit." The explanation that God "regretted" making man simply preludes what God was about to do -- UN-make almost all men (except for eight). God's motivation was grief at their sin. Thus, the expression is an anthropomorphism like the many references to "God's hands" or "fingers" to render the situation analogous to one's with which the reader is more familiar, but which is not meant to be taken in a literal sense.

The fact that God experiences grief at sin is told us all through the Bible. Thus, this challenge simply amounts to an altered form of the problem of evil in general. If God could see it coming, and is all-powerful, and all-knowing, why did He make a world where sin exists?

First, the short answer is "I don't know." The Bible does not tell us everything about God, and (so far as I know) no one has claimed that it does. There are plenty of things God does for which the Bible says "Mind your own business" when one asks "why?"

This misconstrues the Christian claim that "we know that what the Bible teaches is true" with "The Bible tells us all truth." The first is true, while the second is not.

The refutation to the question of the so-called problem of evil is fairly direct however. There is --without the Christian worldview - no such thing as evil, since the very concept requires an OBJECTIVE standard by which to distinguish good from evil -- not available on any atheistic account or agnostic assumption set. Nor can the other monotheism or polytheisms consistently uphold such an objective standard.

Only the Bible provides a sufficiently comprehensive and detailed, transcendent legal and ethical code sufficient to answer the question, "How ought we to behave in this or that case?" The simple observation that almost no other worldview even attempts this means that -- since something must be objectively true (for the opposite assumption refutes itself) -- the contrary to the Christian worldview is logically impossible. Islam does not come close with Sharia law, nor does the contemporary Judaic outlook of conservative Jews -- as I have already shown.

Thus, the challenger with the "problem of evil" cannot even consistently offer such a challenge, since (given his view) there is no evil to create a problem. His is the problem of inconvenience, not objective evil.

To admit the existence of objective moral values (like good and evil) requires the preconditions -- prelogical and pre-ethical foundations -- for such values as well. Given that the Christian worldview alone provides these, the assumption of the one entails the other. The contary is logically impossible, and all the challenger needs to do to refute the charge is to provide an example of one worldview other than the biblical one which can in fact do this.

Not gonna happen any time soon. Certainly no Atheistic worldview can give rise to objective (but only conventional) moral values. Thus, such contestants are in the position of the man who wants to beat something with nothing, and whose own implicate -- there is no objective truth or objective moral values -- refutes his own position in each case.

Thus, we know with certainty that God has sufficient moral reasons for the evil He has foreordained, and that if we knew what He does, it would be obvious that He is correct, both veridically and morally. The doubter has no rational basis for anything, never mind such a basis for his particular complaint that he finds Christianity -- God's moral claim upon his life -- inconvenient.

That is not an argument. It's a whim. Thus, contrary to what most proponents of the "problem of evil" expect, the Christian simply does not need an answer of the kind the complainer wants - and God has not given one; nor does He have any moral obligation so to do.

His universe, his rules. If you do not like them, go make your own cosmos. If you cannot do so, you have found the answer to your own challenge. Your are not God, and He is wiser than you. He, as the final arbiter of all Truth, is necessarily correct. The fact that one should presume to judge an omniscient Being is (truly) madness.

Thus, I counter-offer to the one who posits the "problem of evil," the problem of madness. How does it follow, and upon which worldview, that absolute moral values -- not conventional mores, or social norms (which vary from time to time and place to place in their definitions of 'evil') -- obtain apart from the Christian worldview?

Without the (not an) answer to this question, the problem of evil reduces to the counter-problem of madness. And, mind you, Christians have been waiting patiently for about 2,000 years now.

Of Dr. VanTil, Philosophy, Apologetics and the Language of the Bible

One of the foremost of jobs postmodern philosophers have given themselves is the task of clarifying more obscure uses of language. This remains something of the "holy grail" of the analytic school of philosophy, whose charter reads: "Now these three remain: faith, hope and clarity -- and the greatest of these ...." (you know the rest).

Among Christian "apologetes" Dr. Van Til is well-known for his probing insights into the nature of the apologetic situation -- what each party does and does not in fact know, and how this comes about, given the light of nature and the teaching of all the word of God -- and the fundamental character of worldviews as they interact in such a contest.

Many of his insights are nothing short of breathtaking. But much controversy has surrounded several of his teachings in part because he writes not only like a philosopher (using far too many abstractions linked by far too many verb forms of "to be"), but he writes like a Dutch philosopher, with English as his second language. Then also the conceptual difficulties concerning the theologically mature topics about which he concerns himself, and his cutting edge efforts add their own technical language to the already difficult linguistic mix.

The topic of which I write today, I believe represents an actual conceptual error on Dr. Van Til's part, not merely a linguistic or stylistic problem, stemming from the above considerations. And the topic comprises an extremely important point to those concerned with biblical and theological accuracy regarding the Lord and His holy attributes.

Dr. VanTil concerns himself often (quite understandably) with the way that the Christian God functions in the Word to explain why things appear as they do. He also wishes to contrast God in this role with the problems his absence in other worldviews itself generates for ultimate explanations. Now certainly VanTil does not mean to reduce God to some mere explanatory principle, for God is far more than this. But He is not less than One who explains Himself to us.

The sovereign Lord of all has decreed by his revelation that He has been pleased to explain what we might call the "cosmic situation" also, which answers all the major philosophical and theological questions -- uniquely, consistently, and thoroughly (though not comprehensively) --like no other. We know much about God, and we know it with certainty; for the contrary is logically impossible. But we do not know everything about any one thing.

In affirming that explanations of facts much eventually have a final resting place (in every worldview) -- the final authority to which one appeals in explaining and proving anything -- He often avers to this fact thus:

"God is the only 'brute fact' in the cosmos," or in some similar fashion. Other times, he waxes a bit more eloquent saying that "God remains the final point of reference in all human explanation." At other times, it is well to note that VanTil refers to facts (similarly to Thomas Kuhn's "theory-ladenness of all facts") as having no one example of a "brute fact," since facts do not come with their own explanations, but are interpreted in light of other facts (all facts are facts "in-relation" says he), and these in turn obtain their significance only in light of a larger frame of reference notoriously dubbed the "world-view."

Dr. VanTil was a deliberate systematician in his philosophical explorations. Thus, it would simply violate the principle of charity to assume that his two claims, "There are no brute facts," and "God is the only brute fact," are somehow in conflict. Given the rest of his teachings, it remains fairly clear that Dr. VanTil meant to say, "Other than the final reference point in all human explanation -- the God of the Bible -- there are no brute facts." Just so, the Bible itself often states blanket principles, only to modify or qualify them shortly after or elsewhere (as with the commandment, "You shall not kill" -- which less than one chapter later receives the attending modifications or attentuations God intended all along, but chose to state in an orderly fashion just so. (This is a common Hebraic convention followed in both Testaments.).

But I yet hold that this way of asserting God's finality in ending disputes -- for God's Word necessarily has final authority in all matters upon which it speaks -- produces a conceptual problem worth exploring.


The phrase, "Brute fact(s)" throughout VanTil's writings usually carries the connotation of something that has in fact no explanation, but which does the explaining (as a final point of reference and justification of claims) of all other facts, events, phenomena, processes, persons, behaviors and the like (what we wake up to in the morning).

The term "brute" suggests an unexplained something that has no superior or higher authority that can or does explain that to which one so refers. "It is 'just there,' so to speak. But God does not function this way in the Christian worldview, and so the term proves quite misleading. There is nothing "brute" about God in the sense of being "just that way," which does not receive some attention in the Holy Scripture. Put differently, we know SOMETHING from the Bible and the light of nature about ALL of God's glorious attributes, for the Bible is sufficient.

Thus, God is not UN-explained, but SELF-explained as the final reference point of all human reasoning. If it were otherwise, all would devolve in mystery, and knowledge would be impossible. God explains just who He is, and declares that 'Knowledge of the Holy One IS understanding." And we learn this knowledge from God Himself.

God is thus self-authorized to speak (for Himself about Himself), and the Word teaches that the heavens therefore "DECLARE" (i.e. expound, proclaim, explain) the glory of God (Psalm 119:6-7). Thus, also spake the Lord Jesus about Himself, saying "take my yoke upon you and learn of me, for I am gentle and humble in heart..." God's explanation about both Himself and the world necessarily suffices for His people to know Him and walk with him in righteousness, subduing the world to the glory of its Maker and Redeemer, as God has commanded us.

Thus, contrary to VanTil, we must DISTINGUISH God from all "brute facts," while yet affirming that He remains the final Judge of all matters of knowledge, and the "final point of reference in all human reasoning." Just because of the latter, we must deny any such "brute-ness" -- unexplained existence -- about God. This is not to deny that God is mysterious in his counsel or eternal decree, or to suggest that anything about Him can be fully and finally known by us.

God is infinite and eternal. This necessarily requires mystery to some aspects of His being. His wisdom is unfathomable, but openly declared (made plain so that men are without excuse). And we can be wise (analogously to God) as God is wise -- just nothing like to the same degree. But the difference is a difference of degree, not of kind.

For God's wisdom -- though mysterious in its extent and insurpassable glory -- is a COMMUNICABLE attribute of God. Even the ants have wisdom from God to a certain degree. God's wisdom is original, and ours remains totally dependent upon His (for without Him we can do nothing, nor can we know anything at all apart from His self-disclosure in revelation). Yet some men are wise (for many prophets were full of wisdom and of the Holy Spirit, as it says of Stephen the martyr also, and most of all, it says so of the Lord Jesus, who is -- not was -- truly a man). "For there IS but one God, and one mediator between God and man, the MAN Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5). Doubtless, this text was written long after the resurrection of Christ from the dead, and it proclaims His real humanity in the present tense, just as He also appears in the Revelation, as well to his disciple (the eleven and then to Peter also).

A brute fact yet requires explaining, while God has already explained and declared who He is, as it was from the beginning. By way of sum then, I wish to say that although VanTil's use of the phrase "brute fact," properly conveys (denotes) the idea that explaining needs a final resting place in order to avoid an endless chain of authorities (ad infinitum ad nauseum) -- which would explain nothing at all -- and that the God of the Bible alone provides this final arbitration and interpretation in all His holy Word -- yet his CONNOTATION by that phrase that God remains somehow "unexplained" -- rather than sufficiently self-explained, remains an important error that needs correcting, since it implies the total loss of knowledge with respect to its connotation by the use of ordinary language.

Brute facts in VanTil's own lexicon represent facts yet to be explained, which depend on a surrounding field of reference -- outside the thing explained -- for the true explanation of their existence and proper function. This cannot be the case with God. For God is sovereign, and His Word IS the Truth necessarily. God is independent from His creation, and needs no one to help Him explain who He is, and what He has done.

We must find a better -- more biblical and precise -- way to speak of God -- in whom are hid all the treasures of Wisdom and knowledge, with respect to His ultimate authority to "tell it like it is," as we say colloquially. In order to avoid great confusion -- the difference between total mystery and some mystery (i.e. some revealed knowledge, but not total revelation), we have need of greater care in speaking of the Holy One.

For God has not authorized us to imply (or connote) about Him what is not consistent with all His Word. The irony here, is then, that just BECAUSE God's authority is final, we may not speak in conceptually muddled (misleading or mistaken) terms about Him. For God Himself does not so speak. He speaks clearly and with rigorous (indeed unfathomable) logical consistency regarding all His attributes, words and deeds.

What then shall we say of Him to avoid such misleading suggestions? First, it seems out of character to refer to God (in any context) as a "fact," for such a reference degrades and depersonalizes Him. Facts are objects, not persons -- again by ordinary language use. We should stick with the more prolific and lively metaphors the Bible itself uses, in speaking of God as the final Judge or Arbiter, or even as the ultimate Pastor (Shepherd) of His sheep; and the Lord Jesus is a "preacher of righteousness" in the assembly who has not failed to declare God's righteousness, or to sing God's praises (the Psalms do both simultaneously in the singing of them, and this is the point of the biblical prophecy of Christ singing God's praise in the midst of the assembly).

The Lord -- as one greater than Solomon -- is the Preacher (or Teacher) of righteousness, the final prophet, High priest (for the priests were teachers) and King of his people. The lips of a king speak as an oracle -- rendering the final verdict in a nation over which he rules, just as did the prophets (oracles) in Israel. So the point of final reference in all human reasoning may be said better as simply "King of wisdom" or "Lord of knowledge," the final Judge in all matters of every field of knowledge, upon which the Scripture touches explicitly or by the implications of the many possible combinations of all the Scriptures (properly interpreted) -- which seem almost innumerable. Granted, there are many synonymous ways to say such things in the English language. But the further we diverge from the biblical metaphors, the greater care we must take not to imply or connote what the biblical metaphors and pictures never intended. Such metaphors are there for good reasons.

As a final point intended to help people wrestle well with all manner of ideas to be taken captive to the knowledge of Christ, it comes all too easily to stray into technical, overly-complex and "philosophical" language when speaking of the Lord of Glory in this or that apologetic context. We must self-consciously work to avoid this. The language of philosophical reasoning (or logical analysis) must never be allowed to move us to speak irreverently or casually about the Great King. For a man speaks from the overflow of the heart. And we must keep God's Name holy at all times, especially in the context of debate, where the verbal attributions of Christians will be taken as representative of the Bible.

God is not a fact; He is not an argument or explanation. He is not a principle to be discussed, nor may we handle His reputation in such ways that pagans are wont to do when speaking of Him. I do not believe this is a pedantic point, but of the more important --weightier matters -- of rational debate (which must also be ethical for the Christian).

The best way to do this, is to mimic the language of the Lord Jesus, the apostles and prophets when THEY speak of God when disputing with their many opponents. We must say what the Lord says regarding Himself, not what Aristotle prefers, what David Hume likes, or in the jargon of some contemporary school of thought today fashionable and tomorrow obsolete.

Now we do have authority to speak of God also the way the creedal and confessional statements of the Church do also (a secondary, but real, authority, which is from above -- also called "the pillar and ground of Truth" in the Word), but even here I would suggest that one at least COMPARE the language of these to the Word, so that he remains better aware of just WHY the Church found it necessary to speak of the Lord as She has done. Thus may we better use such language appropriately (skillfully), and with discretion consistent with the Holy requirements of God's Word.

But now the Word of the Lord stands forever. And -- once again -- the Bible has the answer. How then ought we to speak of God in debate? We must speak as God speaks of Himself -- when His inspired representatives (the apostles and prophets) speak of Him in apologetic contexts. For who knows better than the King of Wisdom how to win debates, and God's favor, at the same time. Just as it says, "Good understanding wins favor." And again, "the answer of the tongue is from the Lord."

Presumably, Christians who engage in debate for the glory of God seek the advance of His kingdom. But the phrase, "Thy kingdom come" is preceded by "May Your Name be kept holy." The point cannot be made better by any other than the Lord who has said it.

But here, Dr. VanTil's point remains finally indisputable: The law of the Lord is perfect, and constitutes the Final Word on language, knowledge and wisdom. And the contrary is impossible.

And One More Thing About Worldviews

Traditionally, Christian apologetes (you don't have to like the word to use it) look for dialectical tensions in other worldviews to isolate the more basic contradictions with such a schema in order to undo the allegiance of such ideas in some particular audience. There is a much better way to systematize just how to handle a would-be challenger to the Christian outlook, though this procedure surely forms a part of what we wish to accomplish.

Three practices should form the focus of any serious assault on bad ideas presented in the name of this or that bogus religion. These can be stated thus, though each of these in turn has component parts too, so you could break it down quite a bit further. But, to keep today's post on this topic short and sweet, I will simply outlined the major procedures.

First, isolate what we might call the "transcendental failures" (TF, hereafter) of the view in question. By a TF, I mean a place at which it cannot make sense out of those logically necessary propositions we talked about at length earlier -- transcendentals -- like "human language is objectively meaningful," "laws of logic are real entities," "There are moral absolutes," and the like.

The denials of any such propositions end up being their OWN refutation. This always happens when one butts heads with a necessarily true claim. Consider the challenge, "The ultimate truth is knowable." To deny this claim, the hard agnostic would have to affirm that he KNOWS that ultimate truth CANNOT BE KNOWN. Less-than-promising for a line of reasoning, is it not?

How does one know what cannot be known? One does not (by definition, and on his own terms). Therefore, we know that the Agnostic is lying when he says this. Other ways to spout the same nonsense include, "There are no answers to ultimate questions" (which attempts to answer the ultimate question, "is ultimate truth knowable?").

So when Christians affirm that logically necessary claims are true, they do so because they know that the contrary claims are logically impossible -- a catch-phrase from epistemology which is more polite than saying, "Boy is that stupid." Ultimate truth cannot be known? Oh yes, yes. And down with protesting; never trust writers; all language is gobbledly-gook; 98.9% of all statistics are made up on the spot; and bloggers are unreliable.

Do you see a pattern here? It is called the pattern of self-refutation. Philosophers call these "self-referentially absurd" claims, and the pop "anti-Christian" culture specializes in this. anytime a person claims what implies the denial of a transcendental, they encounter the TF problem, which shows up as self-refutation (incoherence).

This can occur with single statements, or by the tangled mutually-refuting character of many statements which -- taken together -- accomplish what these single statements above do. Unbiblical worldviews have the mutual dissent of all the parts. As an intellectual kingdom divided against itself, it cannot withstand a few well-placed questions, which draw out their implicates -- and which implicates then begin refuting each other as ubiquitously as butter on popcorn.

So first, when we look at networks of ideas (non-Christian worldviews), we wish to look for transcendental failures of a particular kind: their inabilities to resolve the classic problems of the philosophical traditions of the West. This requires homeschoolers to know the history of western philosophy. But the tapes from a reformed group are already available for this (Covenant Media Foundation sells them as cheaply as one might hope).

Techincally, this is more like a meta-transcendental failure, but why quibble. This is stage one, for analyzing pretentious worldviews. Be ready to explain which such problems they cannot resolve and just WHY they cannot resolve them.

Part two simply isolates some of the claims contained in the worldview for comparison with other stated AND IMPLIED teachings found in that same worldview, which are basic and essential (not peripheral or collateral) to that worldview, and which are not compatible one with another. The transcendental failure of such worldviews guarantee these do exist and only await your careful inspection to be discovered for glorious display in public, in front of as many people as possible.

This is the dialectical tension exposition. Most go right to this part without sufficiently exploring exploring the TF of the worldview in question to understand WHERE these dialectical tensions come from. They are the effect of failing to account for the larger more ultimate questions in life, common to different cultures, which shows these a function of the light of nature, not merely of curious people asking this or that. The "problem of evil" shows up in every culture in some form or other, such that the book of Job finds a ready audience in every human heart.

Dialectical tensions can be hunted in a systematic fashion by comparing various parts of the worldview in question, one with another, in an orderly way. Every worldview has at least 3 major sections -- a metaphysic (view of what the "cosmic furniture" in this world really is), an epistemology (explanation for how we know what we know), and en ethical standard -- way of sorting good apples from bad.

Ask what each of this assumes, what each of these implies, and then cross-reference them, and you are well on your way to a powered-up critique of each worldview.

The historical errors and contradictions involving incidental bits of information (not at the heart of the worldview you wish to assess) form a third -- more superficial -- critique. These are probably either best left out of any formal debate altogether, or you can use them to show your Christian friends (who already know that the worldview you assess is bogus), who will probably get a good laugh of it all.

Facts do not come with little signs explaining them. They must be explained. There are no brute facts on this planet since each occurs in the larger framework of the light of nature, and since each has to be interpreted from what is already known about other facts. People think in webs of beliefs, or as they say in historiography texts, in terms of "intellectual matrices." There are many fancy ways to say this, but it comes down to worldviews in collision (ultimately) when two people disagree about values, important facts, religious ideas, philosophical definitions, legal concepts, and the like.

The approach recommended here should help. Snoop around on the inside of other worldviews, a and then ask many questions. This is as good a place to start as any. And it's fun. If you want, you can read already packaged critiques of many worldviews on the internet. But that is a bit like just getting the right answer (sometimes, not all critiques are equally good, and some are simply short-sighted), rather than learning how to do the math.

Do the math.