|
Apologetics
3. Questions about Deceptive Ways of Thinking
(Deceptive
'isms')
A
series that helps consider the foundations for faith
Contents:
Introductory
Comments
•
Setting the scene
1.
What Relevance do Graves have to do with this?
•
Lessons from
history
2.
How should we deal with this Hypocrisy?
•
Facing consequences
of presuppositions
3.
How can Post-Modernism be Deception?
•
Definition&
Assessment
4.
Why is Relativism Deception?
• Definition&
Assessment
5.
Why is Universalism Deception?
• Definition&
Assessment
6.
Why is Naturalism Deception?
• Definition&
Assessment
7.
Why is Pluralism Deception?
• Definition&
Assessment
8.
Why is Multiculturalism Deception?
• Definition&
Assessment
Summary
Questions
On
this page we will define the various ‘Isms' that society employs
to deny the presence of God, to deny reality while pretending
to hold certain beliefs that run counter to Christianity,
but which people are unable to hold to.
Because
each one is a pretense, that is why we refer to them as 'deception'.
Christians are familiar with deception because we see it is
one of the main strategies of Satan which was first seen in
the Garden of Eden when Eve was led astray.
We
will start by observing how this is no new phenomena and see
how Jesus confronted it regularly.
We
will move on the make suggestions as to how to deal with it,
and will then go through the most commonly found beliefs that
Society says it has, yet denies in practice.
For
this particular page, the work and writings of Dr. Francis
Schaeffer are particularly helpful. Much of his work at L'Abri
was helping students face the conclusions of their world views.
|
Return
to top of page
| 1.
What Relevance do Graves have to do with this? |
In
Jesus' day, one of the problems that he faced was that of
religious hypocrisy. Now there is a sense whereby every single
person on earth is a hypocrite and we need to understand that.
Our
word ‘hypocrite' comes from the Greek word for ‘actor' and
in the days of the Greeks an actor wore a mask. An actor pretends
to be someone else – and we all do this in some measure.
However,
in Jesus day, one religious group called the Pharisees particularly
sought to appear religious and focused all their thinking
on outward behaviour.
On
one occasion Jesus berated them:
“Woe
to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!
You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the
outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and
everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear
to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy
and wickedness.” (Mt 23:27,28)
In
other words they pretended to be one thing but in fact, on
the inside were something completely different. They purported
to be holy, spiritually good, but in fact they were no better
in their internal struggles than anyone else. That's why Jesus
likened them to painted graves which covered up death.
Jesus
wanted them to face the truth about themselves, not what they
just said.
In
the Western world today we have many people and groups purporting
to hold to particular ways of thinking, but when you examine
both the beliefs and the practice you find they are wanting.
|
Return
to top of page
| 2.
How should we deal with this Hypocrisy? |
|
What
we are suggesting here is that each of these “ism's” that
we are going to examine fall apart when you examine the theory
itself and the lives lived by those who espouse the theory.
In
his book, How Should We Then Live , Francis
Schaeffer wrote: 
“People
have presuppositions, and they will live more consistently
on the basis of these presuppositions than even they themselves
may realize. By presuppositions we mean the basic way an individual
looks at life, his basic world-view, the grid through which
he sees the world. Presuppositions rest upon that which a
person considers to be the truth of what exists. People's
presuppositions lay a grid for all they bring forth into the
external world. Their presuppositions also provide the basis
for their values and therefore the basis for their decisions.”
Now
we have considered presuppositions before. All Schaeffer was
really saying was that we all have ways of thinking about
the world, and depending on what we think, that's how we'll
live. He continued later:
“Most
people catch their presuppositions from their family and surrounding
society the way a child catches measles. But people with more
understanding realise that their presuppositions should be
chosen after careful consideration of what world view is true.”
In
his book, The God who is There, Francis Schaeffer
said:
“We
ought not to try first to move a man away from the
logical conclusion of his position but towards it... We should
try to move him in the natural direction his presuppositions
take him. We are pushing him towards the place where he ought
to be, had he not stopped short.”
Here
he suggests that, actually, if we look more carefully at these
presuppositions we all have, we will find that people stop
part way and don't live out the full logical conclusions of
those presuppositions. So, all we have to do is encourage
people to look more deeply at what they say they
believe and gently encourage them to face what are the logical
outcomes which they know deep down they don't go along with!
If they have integrity they will then look afresh at all other
possibilities.
In
another context, in Death in the City, Francis
Schaeffer commented on men not living according to
their presuppositions when he spoke of the way men -
"through
all kinds of strange and devious devices, to give hope for
life after death. This we find a strange thing: men who are
naturalists and yet seek seances with those who have died.
In men like Ingmar Bergman we find a denial of the existence
of God but a growing interest in demonology."
|
Return to top of page
3.
How can Post-Modernism be Deception?
|
a)
The definition stated
Post-modernism
is a world view or collection of beliefs
that a) rejected the optimism of modernism (19th & early
20th century beliefs in the goodness and positive evolution
of man using the sciences and technology) and b) rejects ‘big-picture'
answers to life, and c) rejects the idea that truth exists
objectively, but
says it is created within individual cultures.
Cultural
relativism is an expression
of post-modernism, saying that what is found to be true in
one culture may be different or wrong in another culture.
Because
Christianity is one of the ‘meta-narratives' (big story) rejected
by post-modernism, which is optimistic and speaks about objective
truth, it is important that we give some thought to this.
b)
The falsity of the definition
Post
modernism is an inadequate response to the over optimism of
materialistic scientists of earlier decades.
Post
modernism rejects all the characteristics of modernism but
is unable to come up with better characteristics.
Example:
It criticises power structures of the ‘modern period' but
is unable to establish safe parameters for the use of power
by individuals and indeed, as it opens the door to varieties
of experience and varieties of morals, it allows unfettered
use of power that is simply abuse of power in another guise.
The
writing off of meta-narratives (big stories) as answers, has
an irrational base. 
For
example, Christianity as a meta-narrative has been written
off by some because it was seen as a cause of abuses of power
in the Crusades or as part of the British
Empire. But this has
three faults:
•
a misunderstanding of the
role of Christianity in both those historical periods (see
later page on history)
•
an ignoring of the basic tenets
of the Christian story and refusal to judge it on reasonable
means of assessment
•
an ignoring of the effects
of Christianity in bringing good into the world (see later
pages)
An
adequate response recognises the neutral possibility of science
and technology being used for the good of mankind, but also
that without some moral base that is fixed and stable, moral
behaviour deteriorates in a downward ethical spiral.
c)
The falsity by practice
Although
there is theoretically a rejection of the optimism of modernity,
nevertheless our society, and we as individuals within it,
still rely heavily on science and technology and have high
hopes of it.
The
philosopher who scathingly speaks of the tools of modernity,
is amazingly transformed into a believer in the science of
medicine when Cancer or other serious bodily malfunction is
diagnosed.
Similarly
many an atheist is transformed on their death bed into a believer
in God. Absolute truth suddenly becomes very real.
|
4.
Why is Relativism Deception?
|
|
a)
The Theory Stated
‘Relativism'
is a theory where right and wrong, good
and bad, and true and false, vary from time to time, from
place to place and from person to person.
In
other words, behaviour, for instance, may be considered right
in one situation at one time in one culture, and wrong at
another time in another culture.
i.e.
there are no absolute, no things that are fixed right or wrong.
Because
as Christians we follow a God who declares that there are
absolutes of right and wrong, this is an area of great importance
for us to reflect upon.
b)
The Falsity of the Theory
We
repeat here what you will find on the previous page examining
relativism:
As
with so many of these philosophical arguments, they undermine
themselves by definition.
With
Relativism there are a whole variety of ways it undermines
itself:
i)
Self-declaration
Relativism
maintains there are no absolute truths. However to maintain
relativism is true is to declare it is absolute, i.e. it is
self-defeating
ii)
Reliance on absolutes
Even
more relativism depends on appealing to factual truths to
prove itself – which is relying upon a standard that it denies.
iii)
Generality
If
relativism is true absolutely for everyone, it is false by
definition. If it is only relative, relative for who? Does
it apply for me, for you, for who?
iv)
Problems of Opposites
A
relativist may says, “Well God exists for you, but he doesn't
for me.”
He
either does exist or he doesn't exist. They can't both be
true.
What
the person actually means is, “You believe but I don't”, but
belief is not the same as factual reality.
v)
Problem of accusation
A
relativist accuses the Christian believing in absolutes of
being narrow minded and bigoted. Yet in claiming that relativism
is right, the relativist is doing exactly the same as the
absolutist.
vi)
By Application within Society
For
any society to have Laws, we have to maintain they will be
applied to every citizen. We do not allow that one law can
work for one person and another law for another person. We
impose moral absolutes, at least as far as the Law goes! We
also impose this in business practices, in science and technology
and medicine. We only disregard it when we wish to act selfishly,
but even then to disregard the requirements of society or
of behaviour generally, means we bring upon ourselves a variety
of unpleasant consequences.
vii)
By Personal Application
Every
person without exception believes in certain absolutes. It
is the only way we survive. You believe it is absolutely wrong
for me to kill you or your family. There are a myriad ways
that we will each apply this in our own lives for protection
and for well-being. In practice we do NOT believe in relativism
when it comes to the way you will behave towards me!
c)
The Falsity by Practice
The
vast majority of sane and rational people do NOT actually
believe this in practice.
When
it comes to personal survival virtually everyone will say
it is wrong for you to try to kill me for no reason than you
feel like it.
In
fact you can add dozens of traditionally accepted moral standards
to this one – it is wrong to rape me, steal my car, steal
my identity etc.
Relativism
is in fact used by people to excuse their anti-social behaviour
or denounce faith communities who do openly espouse absolute
values.
Christianity
is opposed to relativism in that it declares that God, the
Creator, has established objective truths and values on the
basis of His design of the world.
The
truth is that many people who hold to such a relativistic
world view are actually quite unhappy about it.
In
one of his somewhat lighter books, The Church at the End
of the Twentieth Century, Francis Schaeffer
spoke of an occasion when he was speaking in Washington
alongside a public speaker
holding such relativistic views. The man spoke about restoring
values to our modern society and when he finished a student
stood up and asked him upon what base did he build his values.
In Schaeffer's words, he “thought
for a moment, looked down and said, ‘I don't know'.” Schaeffer
added, “I have never felt so sorry for anybody in my life….
Here was a man crying to the young people for a return to
values, but he offered nothing to build on.”
|
Return
to top of page
| 5.
Why is Universalism Deception? |
|
Answer:
a)
The Theory Stated
‘Universalism'
in this context is a view of religion
that says that all world views, can be valid avenues of salvation
and any religion claiming exclusivity is wrong.
As
Christianity proclaims itself to be a unique world religion,
for us who are Christians, this is a particularly important
area to think about.
b)
The Falsity of the Theory 
This
view of religion is often used as a means of levelling all
religions and ultimately, taking away the authority from any
and all of them.
It
is based on an ignorance of different world religions. If
one religion says one thing and another says the opposite,
they both cannot be
true.
i)
The example of Christianity
For
instance in the Christian faith, note the following unique
claims:
- that Jesus Christ is
the Son of God
-
that
he was born of a virgin without a human father
-
that
he came from heaven
- that he performed thousands
upon thousands of miracles of healing
- that he was crucified,
died, and was resurrected three days later
-
that
he ascended into heaven
-
that
he is God's unique way of bringing salvation
-
that
he died to deal with our sins so that we can be completely
forgiven simply by believing
-
that
the Holy Spirit was given to Christian believers on the
day of Pentecost.
Note
again that these are unique claims, which is why the unbelieving
world does not like them and why other religions do not like
them.
ii)
The Example of Islam
The
example of the primary branches of Islam have been high-lighted
in Iraq in the early years of the twenty-first century, as
Sunni and Shi'a have fought for their brands of Islamic faith.
To say that “any religion claiming exclusivity is wrong” fails
to recognise that different religions and different branches
of religion have claims to exclusivity.
Here
is the content of a note posted on one of our blogs from a
Muslim:
"The
truth is that Jesus was not God; he never proclaimed as such,
there are no direct quotes from him in this regards.
God talked with Jesus and revealed His word on him, He chose
Jesus his Messenger/Prophet/Messiah, Jesus was not a son of
God. Jews did not believe that Jesus was a true Moshiach
or Prophet of God and to prove that they tried to kill
him by putting him on cross, Jesus became unconscious due
to the injuries inflicted on him. He was delivered from
cross alive and placed in a room like tomb where he was treated
for the injuries. This was done secretly lest the Jews
again torture him. Afterwards, he went to spread the gospel
to the remaining ten tribes of the House of Israel, he died
a natural death later at some point in the history. This
is all truth in my opinion. Since Jesus never died on the
Cross in the first place so there is no question of his resurrection
or ascension to skies or heaven in the context of the incidence
of crucifixion"
This
is fairly standard Muslim teaching which is at complete odds
with Christian teaching. As we said above exclusivity means
both cannot be right and therefore any view that says “that
all world views can be valid avenues of salvation” misses
the differing claims of the various world religions.
The
question for us then becomes on what grounds we assess different
world religions, and that we'll cover on another page devoted
to that subject.
c)
The Falsity by Practice
The
reality as we have demonstrated above is that where there
are mutually exclusive religious beliefs, an informed individual
recognises that and will choose ONE religion, even if it is
the religion of atheism that worships self.
|
Return
to top of page
| 6.
Why is Naturalism Deception? |
|
Answer:
a)
The Theory Stated
‘Naturalism'
is a theory of the world that excludes
the supernatural or spiritual
‘Materialism'
is another way of expressing this. Materialism is the belief
that nothing exists but matter and its movements. It includes
the idea that consciousness and will are wholly due to material
agency.
‘Humanism'
is another expression of this which focuses on mankind to the
exclusion of any divinity or spiritual power, to observe human
needs and seek answers through rational human achievement.
As
the Humanist manifesto 2000 declares:
“The
unique message of humanism on the current world scene is its
commitment to scientific naturalism”
How
will Humanism help the world? According to the 2000 global manifesto:
“by
goodwill and dedication a better life will be attainable by
more and more members of the human community ”
As
we'll note below, that forgets the basic human condition and
embarks on a flight of fancy or unbridled optimism that ignores
the reality of humanity as a whole.
Because
it is an outright denial of the supernatural it is an important
area for Christians to consider.
b)
The Falsity of the Theory
On
a later page, 'Questions about the Meaning of Life', we consider
the ONLY options that are open to us when considering the origins
of the world. There we point out the inability of attributing
‘meaning' to a world without personality – such is the stance
of Naturalism.
From
a philosophical viewpoint, naturalism is self-defeating in that
it claims that the way of assessing the truth about the world
is through empirical science, but the starting point of empirical
science is that only that which is ‘material' can be measured,
and by definition ‘spiritual' cannot exist because it cannot
be measured – but that is a case of prejudging the truth by
setting fixed boundaries even before examining the possibilities.
c)
The Falsity by Practice
Perhaps
the best way to address this theory is to observe those who
are its adherents.
i)
Leaps of Faith required
On
Page 6 of this series we quote Richard Dawkins
writing in Unweaving the Rainbow. It bears repeating
here in this context.
In
his Forward he wrote, quoting his colleague Peter Atkins:
We
are children of chaos, and the deep structure of change is
decay.
At root, there is only corruption, and the unstemmable tide
of chaos. Gone is purpose; all that is left is direction.
This is the bleakness we have to accept as we peer deeply
and dispassionately into the heart of the Universe.”
Dawkins
them commented:
“But
such very proper purging of saccharine false purpose, such
laudable tough-mindedness in the debunking of cosmic sentimentality
must not be confused with the loss of personal hope.”
Even
that statement about not wanting to lose personal hope, is a
massive leap of faith away from the horrors that Naturalism
brings. Dawkins affirmed a world of chaos and decay and corruption
without purpose and yet, despite the logical conclusions of
his readers which made him write that book, he leaps away into
talk of hope when, in his system, there is no hope.
To
try to persuade his readers who look to their guru for solace,
that he is not merely a purveyor of a life that is empty and
purposeless, he resorts to the use of poetry a number of times.
It's a bit like Jesus' painted graves, adding on something to
hide the death – but he's not very happy with it, which is perhaps
why he keeps shouting and keeps crusading.
Not
only is Richard Dawkins apparently not happy, neither are a
number of other scientists – about him! In a letter to the London
Times, published Feb.
15th 2007, four notable
scientists bothered to write:
“We
are scientists from different disciplines who …. completely
disagree with Dawkins that science can rule out the supernatural.
Our faith in the existence of the God revealed both in creation
and in the person of Jesus is not diminished or contradicted
in any way by our scientific understanding. On the contrary….
putting together science and faith leads to a fuller and deeper
picture of the whole of reality.”
ii)
Leaps of Optimism Required
When
we start from human wisdom, we will find ourselves full of contradictions.
The Humanist Manifesto II is an interesting document which,
despite moving away from the “far too optimistic” statements
of the Manifesto I in 1933, seems to be full of unclear optimism
which is a jump of faith from the coldness of basic science.
Consider the optimism of 1973:
“Using
technology wisely, we can control our environment, conquer
poverty, markedly reduce disease, extend our life-span, significantly
modify our behaviour, alter the course of human evolution
and cultural development, unlock vast new powers, and provide
humankind with unparalleled opportunity for achieving an abundant
and meaningful life."
Thirty
four years later those seem incredibly unrealistic.
iii)
Confusions Required
Yet
observe the contradictions of writing in this later manifesto:
“While
we do not approve of exploitive, denigrating forms of sexual
expression, neither do we wish to prohibit, by law or social
sanction, sexual behaviour between consenting adults. The
many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves
be considered "evil". Without countenancing mindless
permissiveness or unbridled promiscuity, a civilised society
should be a tolerant one."
Within
the sexual mandate is a blind optimism which bears little relationship
to the real human race. In an attempt to sound free-thinking
and reasonable there is the one hand a willingness to permit
any sexual behaviour between consenting
adults while
on the other disparaging mindless
permissiveness or unbridled promiscuity.
What
is the basis for making such distinctions? “Reasonable
minds” and “critical intelligence”!
Yet
they are honest enough to acknowledge that since Manifesto I
in 1933,
“In
learning to apply the scientific method to nature and human
life, we have opened the door to ecological damage, over population,
dehumanising institutions, totalitarian repression, and nuclear
and bio-chemical disaster."
Humanism,
as a form of Naturalism and Materialism, while purporting to
use the scientific method intelligently, is optimistic in the
face of humanities inhumanity to man, and thus lacks any real
credibility.
|
Return
to top of page
| 7.
Why is Pluralism Deception? |
Similar
to Universalism, pluralism is the wider
belief that religions, world views. and truth claims can exist
side by side as equals.
Because Christianity denies many of these other world views,
it is important if we are Christians to consider these things.
Rather
than repeat here what has been written extensively elsewhere
on this site, we would simply like to refer you to the “Difficult
Questions” section of the site to the question, “Aren't
all Viewpoints Equally Valid” where we deal with the subject
of pluralism in some detail and consider:
- the
lie about equality
- pluralism
is morally defective
- the
myth of religious equality
|
Return
to top of page
| 8.
Why is Multiculturalism Deception? |
Answer:
a)
The Definition Stated
Multiculturalism
is a product of the above ‘isms' that believes
that every culture is equal and valuable.
The
tool of multiculturalism is racism. The laws against racism
demand that we think and treat all individuals the same regardless
of colour, race or ethnic background. That in itself is satisfactory;
what is not is the belief that what all cultures do is good.
From
our perspective multiculturalism has been used as a tool to
demean Christianity and especially cultures founded on Christianity.
For this reason it is needs examining.
b)
The Falsity of the Theory
Multiculturalism,
as observed in Britain
in the early part of
the 21st century, demands that in our thinking we put all
cultures on the same level.
We
can see how our thinking has changed dramatically over the
years from the following. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of
1974 (that I still have from my schooldays!) has nothing on
‘culture' beyond ‘tillage, rearing, production' of bees etc.
The fact that it is a concise dictionary normally doesn't
make it very different from a modern dictionary of 1993 but
which now speaks extensively of intellectual human achievement,
customs etc. by way of explaining 'culture'.
So
culture is all about how different societies, think and act,
the way they do things, and the customs they have. Immediately
we recognise this, we realise that different ‘cultures' will
have mutually exclusive customs and practices and therefore
to talk about equality is in practice, meaningless.
In
The Poverty of Multiculturalism by Patrick
West (who does no favours for Christianity) he declares:
“The
idea that no culture is better or worse than another ignores
the reality of the human condition: that some societies are
tyrannical, oppressive, violent, that they inflict pain on
their members and deny them basic freedoms; while others are
open, democratic, peaceable, permitting freedom of speech
and of association."
Later
under a chapter headed, ‘Three Multicultural Paradoxes' West
writes:
“The
statement that ‘All cultures are equal' raises the question:
‘Who says so? The problem with Hard Multiculturalism is
that it is self-contradictory.
First
of all, it is a variation of the paradox of the Cretan Liar
who said, ‘This statement is false'. If all truth is relative
then why should we believe the person who utters the statement
that all truth is relative….
Second,
tolerance in the name of relativism has become its own intolerance.
We are commanded to respect all differences and anyone who
disagrees shall be shouted down, silenced or slandered as
a racist. Everyone must be tolerant. And that's an order.
Thirdly…
postmodernists… often fail to recognise that cultural relativism
was also devised in the West. No other culture has emerged
with the theory that all cultures are relative.”
c)
The Falsity of Practice
The
absurdity of this is seen in the very characteristics of different
cultures who wish to maintain their particular expressions
of their homeland's life to the exclusion of others.
This
is not to say that we don't accept their culture, and may
even envy it (see the film, Big Fat Greek Wedding),
but to speak of ‘equality' is meaningless.
This
only has meaning and significance when we start taking note
of cultural practices from other parts of the world with which
we are uncomfortable.
For
us in England,
there has been a slowly rising tide of concern over arranged
marriages in some Middle Eastern cultures, especially when
the women concerned are given opportunity to express their
side of such marriages where there is male violence and domination.
Conflicts
of culture have also arisen over the issues of women being
completely veiled, a habit seen from the West as speaking
of male domination and female subjugation.
The
practice of the surviving wife being burnt on the funeral
pyre of the deceased husband, as carried out in certain parts
of the world, is conveniently forgotten by the advocates of
multiculturalism.
Josh
McDowell and Bob Hostetler,
in The New Tolerance, quote a policy by the New York
State Regents as follows:
“Each
student will develop an ability to understand respect, and
accept people of different races; sex; cultural heritage;
national origins; religion; and political, economic, and social
background, and their values, beliefs and attitudes”
They
then quote American Federation of Teachers president Albert
Shanker who
“objected
vehemently to this stated educational policy. He wrote:
Do
we really want [students] to “respect and accept the values,
beliefs and attitudes” of other people, no matter what they
are? Do we want them to respect and accept the beliefs that
led Chinese leaders to massacre dissenting students in Tienanmen
Square? And what about the values and beliefs that allowed
the Ayatollah Khomeini to pronounce a death sentence on Salman
Rushdie…? Is exposing unwanted children to the elements and
certain death, a custom still widely practiced in some countries
in Asia and Africa, to be respected and accepted because it
is part of somebody else's culture? Is female circumcision?
Must we respect the custom of forcing young children in the
Philippines or Thailand to work in conditions of virtual slavery?
And must we look respectfully on Hitler's beliefs and actions?”
You
will see, if you followed the link under pluralism to the
Difficult Questions, the ‘lie about equality'. The tough truth
is that so often these things are simply used as tools against
Christianity.
Listen
again to Josh McDowell in The New Tolerance:
| |
Sunday Services
Back to Apologetics Contents Page