Carpenter, Skeptic, Savior

I learned a valuable lesson about skepticism a couple years ago.

My wife and I had just bought our first home (yay!) and decided it would be a great investment idea and a lot of fun to replace all of the carpet with laminate wood flooring. Six months later, we were approximately 10% of the way done, and learned that we didn't find it to be much fun (and, it turned out, we were also eight months away from moving again).

But I learned the value of asking good skeptical questions:

• "Is this really a right angle?"
• "Was that cut supposed to be measured from the tongue end or from the groove end?"
• "These measurements can't possibly be accurate!"

(Okay, that last one isn't a question, but you get the idea.)

I learned that carpenters have to be very good skeptics: They have to know how to ask constructive questions that challenge the status quo to help develop a correct understanding of reality. We have to do the same thing in physics problems (hence my use of a Pascalian group problem-solving strategy), and in studying theology.

It's also important to remember that Jesus was a carpenter, who had to ask such skeptical questions about every cut He made. In many ways, He also applied that same clear-cut understanding to the spiritual world, calling into question those who sat on their spirituality a little too comfortably.

Here's to good skepticism!

T-Rex on Doubt vs. Skepticism

http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=544

While clicking through random Dinosaur Comics, I found this little gem about post-modern thinking in a prehistoric context.

Clearing up Misconceptions about Fear

I mentioned last time that I wanted to try reading some alternative Christmas texts this December. I started with Isaiah 11, which provides a great description of who Jesus is and what He seeks to accomplish.

I was astonished by how twice it describes Jesus as being characterized by "the fear of the Lord."

This is a phrase that many Christians (present company included) tend to step lightly around and that skeptics love to hate. "How can you have a loving relationship with God," they both ask, "and be afraid of Him?"

It's certainly a difficult question to answer (and not one I'm going to attempt to answer here), but here's the more astonishing fact about this passage: It says that Jesus (God Himself, in human flesh) would have "the fear of the Lord."

If it's difficult for us to explain how we can be called to love and fear God, it's even more difficult for us to begin to fathom how God the Son can perfectly love and fear God the Father!

A couple of thoughts based on this:

First, if we're confused or uncertain about what "the fear of the Lord" looks like (and we very often are), we should look to Jesus. He's our example of everything else that human life should be---why not the fear of the Lord? As a prime example, we can see right away in this text that Jesus "delight[s] in the fear of the Lord."

Second, look at what this attitude of fear toward God (however it is harmonized with everything else in Jesus' divine psyche) produces.

1. Judging the poor with righteousness.
2. Treating victims with fairness.
3. Faithfulness to His people.
4. Peace.
   

Shouldn't these results be appealing to our socially-concerned skeptical friends? Better yet, do we show them this connection between fearing the Lord (something they don't understand or agree with) and caring for the needy and the hurting (something they often think we don't care about) by living it out?

When I have to play the skeptic

I've worn a lot of hats since I joined the faculty at my university: adviser (officially and unofficially), instructor, tech support, committee member (that's at least 4 hats), team coach, author, copy editor, spiritual encourager, substitute instructor, event coordinator... I'll probably think of ten more tomorrow morning.

There's one hat that I've had to wear that I did not expect to. The skeptic hat.

Christian professor aren't supposed to be skeptics, right? We're supposed to defend the underdog faith-based perspectives. We're supposed to encourage wonder and awe at the universe, and point out the flaws of human reasoning. (Okay; so maybe we're supposed to be skeptical about the skeptics, but only to show the limits of skepticism, right?)

But sometimes skepticism is necessary, even for a Christian professor.

An example that often comes to mind is when students in my physics classes try to draw out metaphysical implications of physical laws. This usually happens when we reach Newton's Third Law (N3L), and someone in the class inevitably tries to argue for some version of the concept of karma based on N3L. "For every action you make there's an equal and opposite reaction, so... what goes around comes around, right?"

I tell them that that sounds nice, except that that isn't what N3L says. N3L is a mathematical relationship, and there's no math to karma. (Enter the skeptical argument.) I encourage them that, if they believe in such a concept, N3L is a nice metaphor or picture for the concept. I further encourage them that, if they also believe in a God who oversees this concept, it stands to reason that this God created N3L in such a way as to illustrate this concept. But there's no definitive logical progression that leads one to believe that N3L proves this concept.

So, I play a nice skeptic, but a skeptic nonetheless.

But perhaps I'm more. My desire, after all, is to uphold not only rationality (which the above argument defends) but also the Christian worldview that holds that spiritual matters are illustrated in creation but revealed in God's word.

Pascal said that, ideally, human reason uses rational proof, skepticism, and faith in harmony with each other to reach the truth. When have you had to switch back and forth between these hats?