Beyond these questions, I have often wondered, how do they connect? In my conversations with people over the decades, I have come to believe that you cannot answer one of these without trying to answer all of them. In my study of epistemology, my colleague Ward Crocker (founder of Family Apologia), has inspired me to think more deeply about this topic. In our numerous discussions, he brought to my attention some writings by my former colleague, Christopher Cone who has written extensively on the topic of epistemology and metaphysics..The graphic below is Cone’s effort (as a presuppositionalist) to connect these basic questions. Cone writes:
There are four major areas of philosophical inquiry that make up the basic components of worldview: epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, and socio-political philosophy. Epistemology (the study of knowledge) addresses the question of how can know what is true and what is not. Metaphysics (the study of reality) addresses the question of what exists. Ethics (the study of what should be done) addresses the question of what we should do in light of what reality is. Socio-political philosophy (the study of ethics on a societal scale) addresses the question of how communities and society should behave.
The Components of Worldview Chart illustrates a logical ordering of these topics of inquiry. The arrow on the far right indicates that we begin at the bottom and move toward the top. We can’t address socio-political issues until we deal with ethics, we can’t handle ethics until we answer questions of metaphysics, and we can’t answer the metaphysics questions until we address the epistemological ones.
I appreciate Cone’s approach, but am unconvinced that we must begin with epistemology. I think there is another approach to Hume’s IS/OUGHT problem (a.k.a., the naturalistic falacy). I think most people begin with Ravi Zacharias’ basic questions of Origin, Meaning, Morality and Destiny which don’t always begin with epistemology. Science itself begins this search with sense-experience. In teaching my graduate students, I developed the following graphic that integrates all of the concepts above with some of my own ideas.
This is a work in progress, and I am sharing it today looking for your insights and ideas. The key aspects to my illustration are that we approach the “Is“, “Ought“, and “Will be” in four main categories:
These categories bridge the gap between Metaphysics, Epistemology and Ethics and treat them more as a web of integrated thought rather than a liner progression. Within these four categories I see six basic questions of life which help us connect our thoughts with this broader philosophical concepts:
How did I come into being?
What is purpose in life?
What is the right thing to do?
How can I fulfill my purpose?
How ill my legacy be judged?
What happens when I die?
In teaching my graduate course in Ethics, I refocus the above illustration as follows:
Here the emphasis is on Metaethics, Normative and Applied ethics. With this shift in focus, the six basic questions get a bit of a rewrite as well.
How do we/I come into being?
How can we/I know what is right?
What is the right thing for me/us to do?
What must we/I do now?
How will our/my legacy be judged?
What happens when we/I die?
Notice here that the questions bring into the discussion answers that are targeted at both the individual and the larger society. How many of these questions can be answered purely on the individual level and how many can be answered universally?
So again, this post is just a rough sketch of the ideas I unpack over many hours of lecture, but enough content, I hope, to give an idea of where I am taking these concepts so that you can give some feedback.
My introduction to the legendary physicist Max Planck was decades ago during my undergraduate studies in thermodynamics. Through his work across the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Planck deduced a universal constant ‘h’ for the distribution of energy emitted from a blackbody. What came to be known as Planck’s constant forever changed scientific perceptions of the natural world. His work was a foundational precursor to modern quantum theory and marked the “end of the mechanical age in science, and the opening of a new era.”
Today, in my study of science and religion, I am discovering that what made Planck such a great physicist was also his understanding of philosophy. In his 1932 book, Where is Science Going?, Planck laments the crisis of history that he observed overwhelming every branch of “spiritual and material civilization” and corrupting“the general attitude towards fundamental values in personal and social life.” Some people saw this change as positive progress while others believed it marked the end of civilization. This skepticism, Planck notes, first took root in religious fields—eroding the moral systems of society—and evenly burrowed its way into the sciences such that, “There is scarcely a scientific axiom that is not nowadays denied by somebody. And at the same time almost any nonsensical theory that may be put forward in the name of science would be almost sure to find believers and disciples somewhere or other.”
More than 70 years later, Planck’s lament rings familiar as many wonder, as he did then, if “there is any rock of truth left on which we can take our stand and feel sure that it is unassailable and that it will hold firm against the storm of skepticism raging around it” Every generation has its share dystopian acolytes, yet Planck’s concern seems keenly prophetic in depicting the state of the modern mind.
Planck’s chief concern in science was the trend among respectable institutions to reject the principle of causality which was, prior to his time, universally accepted and a foundational assumption for research. Specifically, Planck opposed scientific positivism which denied the reality of the outside world. Planck shared common ground with positivists in seeing the individual’s sense-perception of the outside world as the starting point for all scientific knowledge . Einstien in his intoruction to the book summarizes this idea well:
Thus the supreme task of the physicist is the discovery of the most general elementary laws from which the world-picture can be deduced logically. But there is no logical way to the discovery of these elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance and this Einfuehlung is developed by experience.
Recognizing this shared epistemolgical starting point, but the positivist was not willing to go any further. Planck rightly saw the danger in the positivist’s rejection of a reality outside one’s own personal experience. The following is the example he used to illustrate the dilemma:
Our daily habits of speech make it rather difficult for us to observe the strict positivist rule. In ordinary life when we speak of an outer object—a table, for instance—we mean something that is different from the table as actually observed by physical science. We can see the table and we can touch it and we can try its firmness by leaning on it and its hardness and if we give it a thump with our knuckles we shall feel a hurt. In the light of positivist science the table is nothing more than a complex of these sensory perceptions and we have merely got into the habit of associating them with the word table. Remove these sensory perceptions and absolutely nothing remains. In the positivist theory we must entirely ignore everything beyond what is registered by the senses and therefore we are impregnable in this clearly defined realm. For the positivist, to ask what a table in reality is has no meaning whatsoever; and this is so with our other physical concepts.
The ultimate danger of positivism was its denial of scientific realism and of any objective reality outside experience. If this is true, Planck argues, then the entire scientific revolution is rendered meaningless because both Ptolemy’s earth-centered universe and Copernicus’ heliocentrism are equally valid. “They are merely two different ways of making a mental construction out of sensory reactions to some outer phenomena; but they have no more right to be looked upon as scientifically significant than the mental construction which the mystic or poet may make out of his sensory impressions when face to face with nature.” Thus, the positivist is left with no way to meaningfully observe nature and must consequently reject any esthetic or ethical standard.
The positivist philosophy is impotent to make sense of everyday experiences. For example, when a stick is placed into a glass half filled with water, what do we observe? The length submerged appears bent. But is any trained observer tricked by their eyes into thinking the stick is truly bent? No. They recognize the law of refraction is at work and the appearance of a bent stick is a deception of the eye. Experience then is falsifiable. Reality exists outside experience if we only have a way to determine that reality. However, the positivist is not so lucky. “The positivist will not allow us to conclude anything. We have a sensory impression of the part of the stick that is in water and a contiguous sensory impression of the part that is in air; but we have no right to say anything about the stick itself.”
Planck’s illustration reminds me of the old scientific riddle, “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?” As a trained acoustician, my first response is to answer “the tree does make a noise, but does not make a sound.” But this is a purely materialistic interpretation of this question. A noise is the production of energy waves when the tree strikes the ground, but only becomes sound if there is someone to hear it. But there is a deeper metaphysical truth exposed by this question I had not considered prior to reading Planck. The question really asks, “does anything exist outside of observational experience?” “Can the sound exist for me, but not for you?” How a person answers this question exposes them as either a scientific positivist or scientific realist. In denying any external reality, the positivist has no way to discern any truth outside of personal sense experience. Even more destructive, the positivist is left in isolation with no way to share in the experience of others.
When we come from the animal world to the world of human beings we find the positivist scientists making a clear distinction between one’s own impressions and the impressions of others. One’s own impressions are the sole reality and they are realities only for oneself… But, in the strict positivist view, we have no reliable knowledge whatsoever of other people’s impressions. Because they are not a direct sensory perception, they do not furnish a basis for the certainty of our knowledge.
Positivist logic has continued to creep its way into the foundation of Western culture and today we can observe the deleterious consequence in our isolationist—even narcissistic—ethics as predicted by Planck. The everyday positivist of our time concludes:
If I can feel only my pain, then only my pain exists.
If I self-identify as female, then no one can deny my feeling because there is no biological reality to constrain me.
If I feel like aborting my baby, then the feelings of others do not exist in my reality and any choice I make is justified.
If I am offended by your actions, your feelings or intentions do not matter because only my feelings can determine my truth.
If my heart tells me something is good, then there is no external reality to contradict my feelings or tell me my actions are bad.
If a man is not a woman, then he cannot speak to a “woman’s issue” because he cannot “know” her experience.
Positivism leaves us stranded on our own island of reality; impotent to exchange ideas or speak to the experience of others because there is no common reality outside of us to govern that exchange. Given this challenge, how then must we respond? Planck makes the choice for scientists clear:
So we are faced with the alternative of either renouncing the idea of a comprehensive science, which will hardly be agreed to even by the most extreme positivist, or to admit a compromise and allow the experiences of others to enter into the groundwork of scientific knowledge. But we should thereby, strictly speaking, give up our original standpoint, namely, that only primary data constituted a reliable basis of scientific truth.
So then, if we accept all sense perception as absolute we cannot deny the validity of any scientific experiment. To every researcher, their own experience is truth and theoretical physics is excluded from knowledge. If science rests solely on the foundation of isolated experience, then the dependability of science is lost. But, if we choose to accept the reports of others as knowledge (scientific data) we break the chain of logic in scientific positivism.
Now, having poisoned the roots of scientific positivism, Planck moves into the realm of the metaphysical. If sense-perception is a starting point, but not the end of science, we must have a way to determine the validity of experience outside our own. That is, we must accept a scientific realism that exists outside of individual perceptions, feelings, and emotions. The two pillars of realism he outlines are: “(1) There is a real outer world which exists independently of our act of knowing) and, (2) The real outer world is not directly knowable.”
On the surface, these two statements appear in contradiction. But together they make the case that scientific knowledge is only partial and corrigible and it must interact with other disciplines, such as philosophy and theology, to make any sense of the real world. Every new scientific discovery only unveils a new realm to be discovered. The goal of science is unobtainable as it can never reach the metaphysical.
How will you determine the truth that exists outside you own experience?
Take a minute and watch the video above. It seems like a powerful demonstrate of white privilege, doesn’t it? It has been seen by almost 5 million people. It appears to validate deeply held beliefs that some people have it easier in life because of their race… but does it? In fact, this is a particularly misleading and manipulative video and it’s sad that so many have fallen prey to the lie it generates about blacks. The video’s director wants you to believe that the reason whites have an advantage is simply because they are white. Evidently, he believes that if you’re black, your life has been extremely difficult just because you’re black and that you want, no… you need, to have someone or something to blame for your circumstances.
In the video, the author gives a visual representation of what he believes is a problem (white privilege) and asks leading questions designed to satisfy the viewer’s preconceptions about black people. His premise is that whites have an advantage over blacks and therefore white privilege is a real thing. Now, maybe someone out there can make that case, but that is not what this video demonstrate.
In fact, upon closer inspection this video accidentally, not intentionally, demonstrates the real problem… broken families. Let me explain to you how this video proves a different truth than it’s director intends. The very first question the speaker asks is, “how many of you grew up with two parents in the home?” Go back and check the tape. Every question the speaker asks afterward builds on the answer to that first question. He goes on to ask:
“Who has worried about their next meal?”
“Who had to help pay bills?”
“Who had a tutor?”
“Who went to a private college not based on their athletic ability?”
Etc, etc, etc… All of these questions were based on the very first question about which of the teens grew up in a two parent home. But that’s not a racial issue, its a marriage issue.
Getting Married and Staying Married Gives Kids an Advantage
As I understand it, both blacks and whites have the ability to get married and stay married. And if we follow carefully the line of questions in the video, it really proves that getting married before you have children and staying married after you have children is an advantage for your children in nearly every way.
This echoes what the Scriptures say in Ecclesiastes 4:9-12
Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their labor: If either of them falls down, one can help the other up. But pity anyone who falls and has no one to help them up. Also, if two lie down together, they will keep warm. But how can one keep warm alone? Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves. A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.
Two are better than one. Two incomes are better than one income. A husband and wife that stay together through life’s difficulty are far better than the single parent families in which black children are being raised today. The author of the video inadvertently demonstrates that it is better to raise a child in a two parent home rather than a single parent home. He demonstrates that having a mom and a dad is better for the child’s emotional stability, it gives them a head start in life, they are able to achieve more, and it gives them an advantage over their peers.That is not “white” privilege, that is “married parents” privilege.
Black People Aren’t The Only People Who Grow Up in Single Parent Families
Do you know what else this video demonstrates? If you look closely, there are white and non-whites in back line with all those black teens. This video proves that it is not just black people whose future opportunities are negatively affected by being raised in a single parent home. The fact that the narrator doesn’t mention the white people in the back is largely because that fact ruins the narrative he hopes to advance. He proves that the whites who grow up in single family homes suffer the same fate as the blacks who grow up in single family homes. If anything, this video demonstrates that race is not the controlling factor for being disadvantaged, belonging to a single parent family is. That is a hard fact for some to hear, but I don’t think you can sugar-coat it.
The video proves “white privilege” only if you believe that staying faithfully married and ensuring that both parents work hard to give their kids the best opportunity for success in life is only for white people. It is true that black children are disproportionately affected by not having a mom and dad in the home, but the power to create a better life is largely within the hands of black people. Don’t take my word alone for it, read what Larry Elder has to say about the problem of kids without dads:
When I was in college in 1970, Daniel Patrick Moynihan had just written a book called “The Negro Family: A Case for National Action.” At the time, 25% of black kids were born outside of wedlock, a number that Moynihan thought was alarming, and as you know, Moynihan later on became a senator to New York, a Democratic senator. Fast forward, the number now is 75%. It is 35% in the white community; it is 50% in the Hispanic community. Now, if in 1965, 25% out-of-wedlock birth for blacks was a national scandal, what do you call 75% and 50% in the Hispanic community and between 30% and 35% in the white community? Would do you call that? How can we ignore that?
To my friends and family members who have liked and loved this video… you have to rethink what you are agreeing to. You have to listen carefully to what is really being said. This video exposes some deep personal biases which may not be based in fact. This video takes advantage of you by appealing to your sensitivities and prejudices. This video doesn’t prove whites have more advantages than blacks because of skin color. It proves that the best thing you can do for your kids is stay married, keep your kids in school, make sure they don’t get pregnant before they are married with a good job. Parents, white and black, you have the power to give your kids a good start in life.
With so much anger over NFL protests during the national anthem, the issue of the American Flag and what it symbolizes has become a hot topic. To some, the Flag represents systemic oppression. To others, it represents the hope of freedom and the ideal of human equality. But what happens to a nation when Her people become so balkanized that they no longer have a shared symbol of unity? Hold on to that question and let me tell you a story.
Recently, I was out to lunch with some colleagues. After entering a local Chinese restaurant, I saw the buddha statue (pictured above) decorated with a swastika. I was shocked. I asked myself, “What was the symbol of Nazi hatred doing on a statue here in an Asian-American restaurant?” When I got back to my office, I did some research and found some information that challenged by perceptions of this symbol.
First, it seems I am not the only one who was dismayed seeing these symbols pop up in unexpected places. In this story out of New York, “Sixth-graders at an elite Bronx private school have been caught drawing swastikas in art class, so administrators met with the kids — talking mainly about how the symbols represent peace in some cultures.” Parents, seeing their kids draw these swastikas assumed that there must be some sort of white-supremacist or nazi influence. But was that the only possible response? From a 21st century perspective the swastika is a symbol of Hitlerian hate, yet to countless others throughout history the swastika was a symbol of peace. Really? Is that even possible?
The swastika is a very old symbol with use widespread throughout the world. Sometimes referred to as a “Gammadion” “Hakenkreuz” or a “Flyfot,” it traditionally had been a sign of good fortune and well being The word “swastika” is derived from the Sanskrit “su” meaning “well” and “asti” meaning “being.” It also is considered to be a representation of the sun and is associated with the worship of Aryan sun gods. It is a symbol in both Jainism and Buddhism, as well as a Nordic runic emblem and a Navajo sign.
Basil Jackson in this article goes into more detail of just how old the swastika is:
The swastika is one of mankind’s oldest symbols and one of the most powerful in effect. Apart from the circle, the swastika is probably the most widely distributed of all symbols. The swastika has been found on a fragment of Greek pottery dating back to the eighth century, and the use of the swastika has also been demonstrated among Egyptian, Greek, Arabic, and Navajo civilizations.
Would you be surprised to learn then that the swastika was a symbol even used by Jews? It’s true. The swastika has been discovered by archeologists inside of a Jewish 2nd century AD synagogues “paved with simple white mosaics and a swastika” and also among other ancient remains dating back to the 7th century BC:
The most striking types were the bowls and dishes with two handles, and the pottery with Philistine decorations, the concentric whirls, the so-called Maltese Cross, the square cross in use long before the Christian era or its late adoption by the Knight Templars, the swastika, and especially the strange swan-like bird with its neck curled around over its back.
Clearly, these kinds of symbols do not have inherent meaning but can be adopted and used for many reasons—including the manipulation of an entire nation. Hitler was a master of manipulation—using a symbol that spoke peace to the psyche of the German people and then subverting it with his own brand of terror. Jackson concludes:
Hitler recognized the power latent in this symbol, but instead of leaving the swastika spinning “with the sun,” representing the powers of light, he gave it a satanic twist by reversing the emblem and thus causing it to spin in a counterclockwise fashion. This is a significant clue in the understanding of the satanically energized control that Hitler had over millions. He knew and used the power of the symbol to reach into the very depths of the unconscious of his people, and thus gained control over them.
Even today, James M. Skidmore observes, “In places like Pointes-des-Cascades, where pre-Nazi swastikas exist, extra care must be taken to contextualize their presence.” If you happen to be traveling around the world, remember that not everyone shares your point of view. Not every swastika is a Nazi-swastika. You cannot just see a swastika on a statue and assume it means “hate”… even though it certainly has that shared meaning within our own Western context.
So then, back to the original question, what happens to a nation when Her people become so balkanized that they no longer have a shared symbol of unity?
Without doubt, some people will always look at the American flag as a symbol of oppression, but the problem for us as a nation comes when we are so divided that we lose any foundation for unity—we become broken and polarized. As I discuss in this short video, “Polarization is the ultimate consequence of a Secularized, Pluralized and Privatized society demonstrated in the balkanization of civic, social, religious, and family structures.”
Symbols like the American Flag do not have any inherent meaning, but that is why it is all the more important we as a people have a consensus. The flag should not be a symbol of my experience, your experience, or any one group’s experience. The flag should not be a Christian symbol, a Muslim symbol, a Buddhist symbol or an Atheist symbol. It should rather be used as a symbol that reflects our common ideal of human dignity.
We should not allow the white-supremacists or the Hitlers of our day steal the symbol from “we the people”. No one person owns the right to define the symbolism of the American flag. We don’t stand for the National Anthem to honor a president… or any person. Neither the foolish Tweets of Donald Trump nor the race baiting of Liberals should dull our passion to stand together for something better.
We should not stand in denial of the sins of racism & bigotry that do exist & will always exist because all mankind is sinful. Every nation is scarred by sin. Standing does not mean we deny the bad, but that together we can rise above it.
But I cannot shake the feeling that when people of good will sit or take a knee, we let the wicked think that America belongs to them. We let the wicked become little Hitlers who take it upon themselves to redefine the meaning of a flag that should otherwise stand for something good.
The only people who should be ashamed to stand during the national anthem and salute the American flag are those who deny the truth enshrined in our constitution that all human beings are created equal and worthy of dignity.
Instead of sitting or taking a knee, we should stand together and demonstrate to the world that “we the people” are willing to come together, rise above our failures, work to eliminate the influence of the corrupt, and dedicate our lives to helping every man and women know real freedom. The flag means nothing except the meaning we give to it. And if we lose our common symbol of unity, we will find only discord.
 “Psychology, Psychiatry, and the Pastor: Part,” Bibliotheca Sacra 132 (1975): 201–202.
 Avraham Negev, The Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land (New York: Prentice Hall Press, 1990).
 Melvin Grove Kyle, “Excavations at Tell Beit Mirsim, the Ancient Kirjath Sepher 1928,” Bibliotheca Sacra 85, no. 340 (1928): 394.
 “Psychology, Psychiatry, and the Pastor: Part,” Bibliotheca Sacra 132 (1975): 201–202.
In this book, Copan and Craig bring to bear the most recent biblical scholarship, philosophy and scientific foundation for understanding what Genesis 1 teaches about creation. This view provides a counterpoint to the tradition of thinkers like Schleiermacher who argued for a detemproalized creation which has no connection to philosophy or science, but is only concerned with religious experience. Specifically, Copan and Craig endeavor to give reason to accept the idea that the God of the Hebrew scripture created the material world from nothing. This book is broken down into eight chapters. Chapters 1 through three provide the biblical and extrabiblical witness to creation ex nihilo, chapters 4 through 6 give a philosophical underpinning for the book’s thesis, and the final chapters 7 and 8 provide the scientific and naturalistic evidence for the thesis.
Chapter 1 makes the case that creation ex nihilo is the best interpretation of the teachings of the Old Testament. The chapter offers three lines of reasoning. First, the cosmology of Genesis is distinct from other Ancient Near Eastern mythology in its assertion of both monotheism and a contingent creation distinct from the creator. Second, the Hebrew word for creation, bārāʾ reinforces the cosmological idea that God created purely from his word and not from any existing material reality. Third, in a two-stage process, the Hebrew God created all matter and then organized it into the universe.
Chapter 2 surveys key passages from John 1:3, Romans 4:17, Hebrews 11:3 and a series of other verse that reinforce the Old Testament concept of creation ex nihilo. These NT verses, according to Copan and Craig, mirror the explicit teaching of the Old Testament of a God who is both distinct from all he created and whose creation remains contingent on his being. One key argument is that “Either creatio ex nihilo is true, or God is not all-powerful. But God is truly all-powerful” therefore, creation ex nihilo is an indirect, yet clear, teaching of the NT.
Chapter 3 provides insight from other non-biblical literature that supports the Hebraic concept of creation ex nihilo. The three main sources for the study are the Apocrypha, later Jewish sources such as Josephus, Philo, Gamaliel II, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Medieval Jewish exegetes and the Church Fathers. These early sources reinforce the Hebrew cosmological worldview that God is the uncreated beginning for all matter. These sources, including the Church Fathers, confirm that the biblical doctrine of ex nihilo makes the most sense of the biblical teachings of God’s sovereignty, freedom, eternality, and necessity.
Chapters 4, 5 and 6 provide a deeper philosophic understanding and foundation for creation ex nihilo. The Scripture makes a distinction between the concepts of God as creator and conserver which many scholars and philosophers tend to conflate. God as creator and patient preserver implies an A-theory of time and objective temporal becoming. Competing solutions to the problem of divine aseity are argued among Platonists and anti-Platonists. Copan and Craig concede they do not have an authoritative answer for theists looking to explain abstract objects but posit the most promising solution lies in a nominalist or conceptualist account. Considering there are a variety of plausible solutions, there is a valid reason to accept the concept of ex nihilo. Philosophic support for an uncreated creator and a created universe are supported two basic arguments:
An actual infinite cannot exist.
An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
The series of events in time is a collection formed by successive addition.
A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
Therefore, the series of events in time cannot be actually infinite.
Both arguments form the logical foundation for belief in the aseity of God and creation ex nihilo.
The final two chapters 7 and 8 provide a scientific foundation for accepting creation ex nihilo. Here the authors argue that standard Big Bang cosmology of an expanding universe and the principles of thermodynamics demonstrates the universe must have a beginning. Therefore, the theistic assertion of creation from nothing by an uncreated creator cannot be contradicted by the best empirical evidence. The authors finally address three arguments against creation ex nihilo; a self-created universe, supernaturalistic and naturalistic alternatives. The authors conclude that these theories are not as straightforward as the ones posited in previous chapters nor are they supported by the best scientific evidence. Therefore, creation ex nihilo is the most plausible biblical, philosophic, and scientific answer to the cosmos.
I give Copan and Craig’s book Creation out of Nothing: book 5 stars for anyone interested in discovering the biblical, scientific and philosophic foundations for creatio ex nihilo.
 Paul Copan and William Lane Craig, Creation out of Nothing: A Biblical, Philosophical, and Scientific Exploration, Logos ed. (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Apollos; Baker Academic, 2004), 91.
What are we to make of the recent attack in Las Vegas that left 58 dead and hundreds injured? What would motivate a man to undertake such an evil?
The investigation into the specifics of his motive are ongoing, and I cannot pretend to have a complete answer. There are; however, some basic facts that can tell us some important things.
The shooter was wealthy. By all accounts, he had enough wealth so that he no longer needed to work, but spent his time in leisure gambling. From the outside, he was a financial success living a life that many people look upon with envy. so why would a man of success, living “the dream” do such a terrible thing?
In part, the answer comes when we realize that setting goals and fulfilling dreams is far different than having meaning and fulfilling purpose. Ravi Zacharias in his book, Recapture the Wonder: frames the question well:
Skeptics would use a tragedy like this to point to the absence of God in the human experience. “Where is God in such disfigurement?” ment?” they will argue. “How can one blame this man for seeing no purpose and fulfillment in being alive?” I think it is here that we make our first very subtle mistake, both in our logic and in our experience. It is shallow reasoning to deduce that because pain or unfulfilled dreams have brought disappointment appointment to experience, life itself must be hollow and purposeless. less. In fact, this conclusion may miss the deeper problem within our common struggle to find something in life of ultimate purpose.
Ravi Zacharias. Recapture the Wonder: Experiencing God’s Amazing Promise of Childlike Joy (p. 3). Kindle Edition.
“No affiliation, no religion, no politics. He never cared about any of that stuff. He was a guy who had money. He went on cruises and gambled.”
This, to me, is a picture of depression, isolation, sadness, and sorrow… not success. Ravi goes on to observe something important here we can all take to heart.
You see, fulfilled dreams are not necessarily fulfilled hopes. Attainment and fulfillment are not the same. Many dream and wish for the attainments that would make them the envy of our world. Careers, positions, possessions, romance … these are real goals, pursued sued by the vast majority who are deluded into believing that succeeding in these areas brings fulfillment. But deep within there is some stronger longing, sometimes even hard to pinpoint. We know there is a vacuum, a space of huge proportions that seeks a state of mind that attainments cannot fill. That dream of ultimate fulfillment is intangible but recognizable, indefinable but felt, verbalized but imprecise, visualized but blurred, inestimable but traded in for something less, something daily. I suggest it is the greatest pursuit of every life, consciously or unconsciously, and it is not mitigated by one’s worldly success. That
Ravi Zacharias. Recapture the Wonder: Experiencing God’s Amazing Promise of Childlike Joy (pp. 4-5). Kindle Edition.
Too many people are consumed with living a dream that empties us of our souls. We see poverty as the anti-hope and wealth as the ultimate fulfillment. But if we can learn anything from the shooter in Las Vegas, it is that the size of ones bank account does not correspond to fulfillment. Ravi says:
I believe it is possible that those who have attained every dream may be at least as impoverished as the man at the dump-perhaps even more-as they bask in the accolades, knowing that the charade is shattered by the aloneness within them.
Ravi Zacharias. Recapture the Wonder: Experiencing God’s Amazing Promise of Childlike Joy (p. 5). Kindle Edition.
We can talk about gun control. We can talk about mental health. We can talk about Islamic radicalization or Antifa. These are all important and necessary conversations. But right now, today, we also need to talk about meaning and the value for human life that only comes from God. Without God, there is a loss of wonder that only leads to the descent of humanity. If you are someone struggling to understand why, then the first step is to turn towards Jesus Christ—the one person who has all the answers.
Today, amidst the terror of inhumanity, I am reminded of the old hymn I used to sing when I was a kid.
O soul, are you weary and troubled? No light in the darkness you see? There’s light for a look at the Savior, And life more abundant and free.
Turn your eyes upon Jesus, Look full in His wonderful face, And the things of earth will grow strangely dim, In the light of His glory and grace.
Through death into life everlasting He passed, and we follow Him there; O’er us sin no more hath dominion For more than conqu’rors we are!
Turn your eyes upon Jesus, Look full in His wonderful face, And the things of earth will grow strangely dim, In the light of His glory and grace.
His Word shall not fail you, He promised; Believe Him and all will be well; Then go to a world that is dying, His perfect salvation to tell!
Turn your eyes upon Jesus, Look full in His wonderful face, And the things of earth will grow strangely dim, In the light of His glory and grace.