For the past two weeks we have carried brief articles analyzing some of the daily, one-paneled cartoons, titled Non-Sequitur. The first one we critiqued, published on August 23rd, finds cartoonist Wiley Miller scoffing in the same vein as Pontius Pilate, who asked Jesus, “What is truth?” (John 18:38). The implication clearly was that Truth does not exist or, if it does, is not knowable.
While it is the case that many people claim to have a corner on Truth (who do not), this problem does not negate the actual existence of Truth. Wiley is guilty here of the “hasty generalization.” Because he has found examples of some who claim to know Truth who (in actuality) do not, he has drawn the conclusion that it does not exist at all. This is a weak inductive fallacy and would be akin to an art critic deciding that, because he had seen seven forgeries of the Mona Lisa, the real painting must not exist.
We also pointed out that the alternative to Truth is chaos. An absence of a standard for morals and ethics means that everything is permissible. If not, why not? We notice that Wiley, for example, enjoys criticizing CEOs. By what standard did anyone working for Enron or some of the other companies do wrong? What makes stealing and fraud inappropriate? Oh, sure, we have laws against it, but those are man-made and subject to change. Laws against theft merely reflect an attitude of a culture at a particular time. We once had laws against homosexuality and abortion, too, but now it is legal to destroy human life in the womb. Holland has authorized euthanasia whether a patient has consented to it or not. In Germany once, Jews were legally killed.
What is odd is that we recognize mathematical, scientific, and historical truth–just not moral and ethical truth. Why not? Is the reason that the only objective source for morality is God? Many prefer chaos and confusion to that dreaded alternative. Some may feel comfortable with uncertainty and constantly fluctuating values, and, if that were the only choice, the only proven option, then we would have to deal with it. But if Truth exists, why ignore it and the stability it furnishes?
In the second “Non-Sequitur” we reviewed, the thesis was that man invented religion to justify war. Of course, it is assumed that man evolved and then invented religion to justify his actions. Put into the form of a statement, this point would read something like this: “Man arrived on this earth by evolution. Then he invented religion as a manipulative technique to justify war. Therefore religion is an imaginary and evil thing.”
Wiley is guilty here of Petitio Principii (circular reasoning). He assumes evolution is true so that he can then show how bad religion is. Another way of stating this point is, “Evolution is true; therefore, religion was invented by man and is therefore untrue and bad.” How do we know that religion is bad? “Because it is imaginary.” How do we know that it is imaginary? “Because evolution is true.” The fact is that the Bible is true, and evolution is imaginary and unproven. Men made up evolution as an alternative to God because they did not like His morality, and Thomas Huxley is on record as admitting so. But, if we begin with WileyÕs assumption of evolution, then he cannot complain about religion anyway, since it was a consequence of evolution.
September 10th
How interesting that, on the eve of the first anniversary of 9-11, Miller again inveighs against religion. No, he does not assault the religion of those who attacked the United States; such would probably not be politically correct. His main character on this day was a stodgy, elderly woman (not wearing a veil). The panel is split into two segments. The upper half is labeled: “What they Mean…” and the lower one reads: “…When they say….” In the top portion, the woman’s mouth is open so wide that her nose, glasses, and hair are collectively smaller by comparison. The author uses the word hell three times, but in place of the e, he has placed a skull. Since we are graphically challenged, we will replace the word with four blanks.
The woman in the “what they mean” section is shouting: To ____ with reality, to ____ with my ability to refute facts supporting your position and proving my dogma wrong, and to ____ WITH YOU!!” In the “when they say” portion underneath, she says in quite a normal voice: “I’ll pray for you.”
The first and most obvious question is, “How does Wiley know what people mean when they say, “I’ll pray for you”? Has he “evolved” beyond the rest of us to be able to discern motives? Surely, he cannot be claiming the spiritual gift of discernment. How does he know that such vituperative comments are seething under the surface of mild-mannered women? Perhaps he has psychologically projected these sentiments from himself to her.
How quick are so many to misapply Matthew 7:1-5 in telling Christians not to judge sinful acts. Seldom do they realize that Jesus is not speaking of someone’s deeds; He is prohibiting the judgment of people’s motives–especially when we are not in possession of all of the facts. This is precisely where Miller errs–by judging the motives of those who disagree with him.
Reality
The woman is portrayed in the cartoon as decrying reality. Apparently, the cartoonist thinks that religion cannot exist in the face of reality. Some religions cannot. Pronouncing cows as sacred and allowing people to starve is not very pragmatic. Spending considerable amounts of money to build idols and temples is not very useful, either. Neither is there any evidence for the validity of these religions. The Muslim religion was born of the sword and propagated by fear. Christianity, however, as taught in the Bible (not as practiced by some who call themselves Christian while violating its teachings), began with abundant evidence of its validity. It teaches people to rise above hatred–to love even their enemies (Matt. 5:43-44). It is non-violent–even in the face of persecution.
Furthermore, it recognizes reality and builds upon it. It explains the greatest questions man has ever asked: “What is man’s origin?” “What is man’s purpose in existence?” “What happens after death?” “Why do sin, suffering, and death exist?” “Which actions are right, and which ones are wrong?” “What should be my attitude toward myself and others?” These questions matter to most people, although some may be content to say, “I don’t know and I don’t care. I don’t have any answers, and neither do you.” But, then, that would be an answer, would it not? Is that the “truth” that Wiley upholds?
“Yeah,” some would say. “Go ahead and believe in a bunch of miracles and fairy tales if you want to, but I’m sticking with what I can see and hear for myself.” Some do subscribe to empiricism, but it fails as a worldview, since it requires skepticism of anything not personally witnessed. This ideology actually does away with logic, since deduction operates in the mind on the basis of information received from others–rather than relying on one’s own senses. The fictional Sherlock Holmes would have never been able to solve a case. We could not rely on any history at all–even from eyewitnesses, since we would doubt their testimony. Is such a view realistic? We operate on the information of others constantly. Those in the first century bore witness of the miracles of Jesus and the apostles. The evidence convinced them and ultimately a great portion of the Roman Empire. We are grounded in reality.
Refutation and Proof
The woman in the cartoon is angry because she cannot refute the facts of her opponent, establish her position, or admit her dogma has been disproved. Such a predicament would be frustrating, but we are not the ones in that position. Maybe Wiley has captured here the reason that so many atheists are angry. Christian doctrine, as set forth in the New Testament, has been open to scrutiny time and again, and it still remains. Brother Thomas B. Warren successfully debated Dr. Antony G. N. Flew and Wallace I. Matson back in 1976 and 1978 respectively. We have willingly debated atheists over the centuries and will probably do so again. We are not the ones afraid of public discourse.
Actually, those who oppose God are the ones who may have an emotional, rather than logical, stake in the issue. Usually, they are upset because a loved one has died and they cannot accept the possibility that he might be in hell eternally. We all have ties to such people, and it is difficult. But the way we feel about something does not change the reality of the situation. Is it rational to say, “Uncle Joe is forever lost; therefore, I won’t be saved, either,” or “My grandmother will not be in heaven; therefore, I conclude that God does not exist”? These are emotional responses. Logic does not connect the premises with the conclusions.
May You Suffer
The woman in the cartoon is made to invite her antagonist to a fiery eternal abode, which would be an incongruous attitude, to say the least. If we understand the nature of hell, we would not want even our enemies to be sent there. The apostle Paul was about as exasperated as anyone could be with those who opposed the Gospel, yet he wished he could be accursed for them (Rom. 9:3). If we love and understand God and His will, we cannot hate anyone to the point of wishing him lost. Love demands doing what is in the best interests of others (1 Thess. 5:15) because Christ did so for us (1 Cor. 5:15).
But even if Christians were guilty of hate, the result of such animosity would not be yelling at others at the top of our lungs. We would say nothing, for without access to, explanation of, and encouragement toward the Truth, opponents very likely will enter into the place of torments with the rich man (Luke 16:19-31). In other words, if Christians possessed no love, they would withhold the one thing necessary for others–the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Their ultimate separation from God would be preceded by our sounds of silence.
“God Says I’m Right About Everything”
In the lower portion of the cartoon, the woman is holding a sign with the words printed above. This idea is inverted. God does not proclaim us right; rather, we uphold Him. Naturally, anyone could claim that God is speaking through him; in fact, many do, but they are either liars or deceived. God, through the Holy Spirit, said that we have been given “all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3) and that “the faith has been once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). So, how do we know if we are right or not?
We have the Word. Either what we teach agrees with it–or disagrees. If we are in agreement, we want to continue to teach what we have. If we find we are in error, then we ought to change. We have a history of putting our beliefs to the test. If we have not had a written or oral debate with a particular religious group (or a non-religious group), the reason is that they were unwilling or they are too new to have scheduled one.
As Proverbs says, “The first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him” (Pr. 18:17). We are willing to examine our teachings. We do not tell others that we are right and they are wrong. We discuss the matter with them and let all see for themselves what the Scriptures teach. Honesty is the only correct approach to spiritual matters. We believe that we are preaching the Truth (1 Peter 4:11), but that does not prove we do so. The evidence comes from comparing views and seeing which position has merit.