Not All Cigars Are Cuban

I suppose the less I write the better my point will be. Imagine a glass cage. It has four equal sides, a mesh wire top, and sand on the bottom. Inside there is a mouse wheel with a rat running along the tracks. It is running quite fast for a rat, but there is something particular: it has a red “X” burned into its back. I have just created a scene in four sentences.

The magic in writing isn't all about what you say, but also what you don't say. I never said what color the rat's hair is, the color of the sand, if the room the rat was in is dark or bright, or if a room even existed. However, I bet you instantly created all of those images. For me the room was dark (probably because I am writing in a dark room), the rat had gray fur, and there was an annoying sound of spinning metal – or maybe that's my computer fan. Whatever it is, I didn't write it, I left those images for your mind to create, and it happened.

So often we think what we want to write and then feebly attempt to transpose the exact image into our reader's mind. That's no fun. Stories are best written in open spaces so the mind may wander. If you spend all your time describing only minute details you are defeating yourself and, much more importantly, you are strangling the reader's magic. The ashen colour of the rat's fur, the unnerving darkness of the cellar's laboratory, or how thick, shinny, or sharp the cage's glass is irrelevant to point being made: there is a rat and it has a red x on it's back. Over describing only strangles the mind, and when you strangle the mind the reader falls asleep.

At about this time you are probably wondering about the title. I suppose an explanation is appropriate. “Sit down.” a man said tapping on the desk. A Carnegie Steel foreman was just closing the door, “I heard there was a break in at the shipyard?” “They knew the shipment came.” he turned to grab a cigar out of a wooden box on his desk, “would you like one?”... Remember every cigar is NOT a Cuban cigar, the point isn't the quality of what they are smoking, the point is that something important was stolen by a competitor from Carnegie's shipyard.

The Sun Also Rises: Book Review

"This wine is too good for toast-drinking, my dear. You don't want to mix emotions up with a wine like that. You lose the taste." - Brett

Hemmingway died. If you have read Ernest Hemmingway you will realize the misfortune of his passing, but others will at once find that statement cold and realistic. Every day people die but we never go about speaking of it – like an unnatural secret. It happens so often and so fast we don't believe it will ever happen to us. The book The Sun also Rises is a quaint story about the oh-so-often disillusionment of love and friendship. Following Jake and Brett through the night clubs of Paris and the bull rings of Spain, they move from pleasure to pleasure trying to hide their pain. It happens so often and so fast that they don't believe it would ever happen to them. So I intend to be both cold and realistic when I say, “Hemmingway died.”

Now there is nothing particular that I would say concerning Hemmingway's passing – nothing regarding a rifle or an empty house, neither seizure induced electrical therapy nor depression, but to stir the apparent curiosity about its happening. For the only apparent thing is how apparent it was for me and not for Hemmingway that Hemmingway died.

As a lost generation writer, Hemmingway believed what he heard, wrote what he saw, and lived the life he dared to avoid. The Sun Also Rises details his story of a time of comings and goings quickly faded and lost by a generation that feared to believe. Feared to believe that they walked the back alleys of happiness and combed the desolate wastes of a world gone wrong. Close to the hearts of both Hemmingway and his fictional characters, they walked down the lonely streets called “yesterday” and breath a sigh reassuring themselves that nothing crooked can be straighten for the devil we call “tomorrow.” What is apparent to every reader is that Hemingway died long before his physical suicide.

His life and aspirations were beset with forgetfulness and he made it known in this story: A week spent for a fishing trip far away from home, a night at the bar to sedate the soul of regret, and a vacation to Spain for the festival of the bulls to drown out the noise of a fallen conscience. Wrought by “could-have-been's” and “should-have-not's” this story's moral was an open experience, not a closed idea. Things came and went and the reader was forced to make up his mind. Left to question your own artifices, one begins to wonder how easily one's life could be squandered, and challenges you to have the strength to change it. Sadly, most do not, and for Hemingway he foretold his future.

The main characters illustrate a real sense of the modern soul-train bound for nothing. Brett and Jake, were “matter-of-fact” with both their hearts and minds. Their languages accented the modern man - foul and carefree - and full of despair and inability to survive. Night clubs, the far-fringes of loved called romance, Bull fights, fairs, and drinking ripped and sagged under the weight of their hearts and souls, barely able to keep the characters alive to the end... barely.

I love reading and I love a vast array of authors, but Hemingway still isn't there for me. His stories are cold and realistic, strong and clear, but his passion is always lacking. The experience was mussling and foreboding, and left me with a sombre assurance, “it was a good book, it was a good book.” And that's the difference between a good book and a great book.

On Writing Well by William Zinsser

     The greatest writing book of all time, hands-down, is the Elements of Style by Professor Strunk and E.B. White. The simple articulation, the quaint but powerful phrases, and the rules that seem too short to be correct, has given writers of every generation the simple paths to greatness. But the long standing complaint against the school of brevity is briefness. Their questions and dilemmas bounce short of answers as the reader is left with text that abruptly turns to white space. So where do the readers go? They don't go anywhere. With rule after rule stacking on one another, readers stop looking and the book becomes frustrating. This idea is what inspired the book On Writing Well by Willaim Zinsser. This book expands specifically on the issues, questions, and rules of the brief legend; splicing and cutting more text across that terrifying white space we call doom. If you have the Elements of Style, this book would be an addition worthy of its binding, but if are looking for a book to dive right into with full explanations of simple rules look no further.

A. Delete Clutter

The new age of information is all about adding clutter. You never hear about a missile crashing but prematurely hitting the ground, you never hear about a business losing money but that a business is running at a negative cash-flow position, and further, you never hear about a country declaring war but offering all possible routes of diplomatic negotiations that unfortunately lead to a undesired conflict of opposing interests. You hate it, I hate it, and so does everyone else. The single most despised thing in the world is clutter. You start with a good plan, something perfect. The plan goes through a process of explanations and feather puffing, and before you know it, your plan is wearing several tons more information and piles of goodness that shrouds your perfect idea. Clutter, Clutter, Clutter, in the eyes of a writer is like saying More, More, More, and more is always bad. Don't bet that someone will understand you, hopefully. Hopefully you will spend that time and just state your perfect plan. Don't be a politician, cut out ALL clutter.

B. Be Simplified

Be simplified, don't be simple. There is a difference. Being simplified is about knowing that maple syrup and pinto beans are a bad idea, or that people who sell cow brain tacos to the masses should be arrested and forgotten among the conversations of great dietary achievements. Writing is about knowing what to write and when to stop. No one cares if a man walked to a store because it's bland, says nothing, and, above all, is simple. But someone may be interested if Mother Geronimo had tea with Peter Gilmore in a Hindu Temple. The idea is to be direct in what you are saying and where you are going. Be simplified, NOT simple.

C. An audience of One

Imagine the front cover of a New York Times Best Seller. Imagine the numbers of sold copies printed across the top with golden font and silver trim. Imagine the the literary praise and seeing your book placed along side the shrines of your childhood dream-authors. Now take that idea firmly by the horns and go throw it in the trash – that is not writing. Writers always write for themselves without thinking what the audience wants to hear. Writers are famous not by writing what audiences want to hear, but being able to explain their own ideas so that readers can understand.

D. Cadence

Most people don't believe me when I say there is rhythm in writing. Yes, I am speaking about writing, not poetry. But good poetry is worth reading if you want good cadence. Read poetry, watch for cadence, and your writing will start flowing.

E. Use direct/proper/useful words

“Lord, please help me with the hard things in my life and guide me to make the right choices from day to day,” as you continue in piety, “And please help my friends get their things done and help them over come their problems... and.... and.” Lord have mercy on your soul if you pray like that. There are no grades for a well spoken prayer, but you may succeed at saying nothing. Writing, like speaking, is about nouns and verbs. If you have poor nouns you have poor subjects. If you have poor verbs you have poor actions. And if you attempt to dribble by with auxiliaries alone may God miracle your way to heaven because, He knows, the road to hell is paved with adverbs and adjectives. Don't expect the reader to understand you, use word that mean what you mean, remember to be direct.

F. Unity, Place, Person, Nouns, Verbs, Moods, Tenses, reduces subjects to single sentences

Everyone hates planning, doesn't matter who you are. If you enjoy the face-splitting drudgery it is because you enjoy the end result, and that is why you must remember this rule. When you are writing keep everything matching. Plural nouns stay plural, people and person stay in different sentences, scenes don't jumble out of order and run together, people who are doing something are doing it now, and sad characters don't walk through doors and become happy – unless this is a Norseman bursting through the gates of Valhalla. Plan ahead and keep unity.

G. Introductions and Conclusions

Intro's should be entertaining, closers should be surprising. There is nothing worse for a writer to experience than labouring hours in detailing a thousand facts that would twirl the reader's mind into a high-sky adventure but never see the sun light because a reader isn't willing to endure the first paragraph - or first several pages. Introductions must capture the reader. Use an interesting fact, an odd observation, or perhaps a series of unanswerable incidents, anything that makes the reader say, “Wow, I didn't know that,” or, “What is happening or what will happen next?” the longer you can hold the reader the more willing he will be in enduring your thousand facts – even if they are boring. But there is one last tie: the conclusion. If you force a reader to endure an entire essay, then you better be thinking how you can sweep the reader off of his feet. If not, he will be sweeping your essay to the trash. Hook readers with a shocking fact or good story and end with a surprise that no one saw coming.

H. Practice detailing landscape...

I was once told that the only people who enjoy every moment of a traveler's tale are the travelers. They are the only ones who find wonder in ever step and a piece of God's goodness behind every rock, but people like you and me, when we ask, “Tell me everything about your experience,” only want to know everything that would interest us – be honest. When writing we have to keep this in mind and not bore our readers out of their wits. There is only one way to become better at detailing landscapes; Practice. But there's advice that may help you in the right direction: write the first three things that come to mind. If the mountain range is accented with black ice, a frozen lake, and a misplaced lightening rod, then speak about those things; as I have also been told, a picture is worth a thousand words, but people care less. So don't rabbit trail and attempt to speak about the wonder of every step or God's goodness behind every rock, just speak about the wonderful three steps or the greatest trio of God's beauties.

I. Humour is Serious Business

Humour is about practical truth. The best moments in life are often found around a thanksgiving turkey or a cold night out in the Christmas snow with friends and family reminiscing about times scarcely remembered. You cry together, laugh at each other, fight for trifling matters, but they are always good memories. They are memories of perfect origin, and nothing in life would be enough to barter for something else. Some people call it the simple things in life, and that is what I believe they are. Simple, and almost forgotten... almost. And that is what humour is, simple things almost forgotten, so next time you want to exaggerate a truth to make it “sound funny” remember that life is funny as it is and there is no need to dress it up in some clown outfit – that's just downright wrong and scary.

J. Intention and Quest....

Stories and legends are magical things: Enrapturing readers with failing plots and paper-thin characters, dazzling readers with hackneyed remarks as old as time, and villains that love being …. yes, we haven't got that far. Articulating intentions and quests are as difficult as articulating people – because that is what you are doing. A villain never loves villainy as much as he loves to conquer and pillage and burn in the name of a lost love, no hero has ever brought a tear to the reader who didn't face his deepest tremblings, and nothing was so magical as the hug of a child or nothing so propelling as the death of a friend. The thing to remember is, “The difference between a person and a hero is one more second of hope.” That's all, that's the magic: the undying, the unquestioning, the unrelenting fight that lasted one more second beyond all hope and the one second just before all despair. This is the moonlit realm that quest and intention run rampant, and your job is to find their flag and conquer it.

Kantology: Addressing Kant and the Ontological Argument

"You can learn the easy way or you can learn the hard way, but taking the easy way will become hard and taking the hard way will become easy... Is this Ontological?"

The problem with Kant's assertion is that he never affirms the negative. His argument follows as this: "If I say a triangle exists and I also believe in exactly three connecting angles, I am saying the same thing – a triangle and its property." If I deny one concept I am in contradiction of the other (ie. I can't say I believe in a triangle while not believing in three connecting angles). But, if you deny the triangle in its totality then you can deny both without contradiction. If a triangle does not exist, then the properties of triangles (three connecting angles) do not exist either. Thus denying the existence of God in its totality will have no outside contradictions. So what is the problem? Kant cannot say, "God does not exist."

Kant states that the problem with Anselm's argument is that the affirmation of a deity and then proposing that this deity must exist is similar to the argument of the triangle. If you assume the existence of a triangle it is only logical to assume the existence of three connecting angles. So if God exists, then the rational conclusion is that He must be the greatest imaginable being. That is fallible. But before we travel any further, what does Kant offer to deny Anslem's argument? What idea does he have that does not externally or internally contradict Anslem's presupposition? Nothing. If, for a moment, Kant assumes that God does not exist, and then says "there is no outside argument to contradict that statement." We must say "Of course!" It is only logical to say, "If a triangle does not exist, then there are not three angles." So if God does not exist it only makes sense that He cannot be the greatest imaginable being. Again, the assumption is fallible and you are left with the same paradox... An issue of assumptions.

So why does the Ontological Argument still exists as both an exotic and rare argument if it suffers an apparent paradox? The paradoxes of both Kant and Anslem stand upon different corners - one paradox is not accepted and the other is. Kant's paradox rests upon an attempt to unglue Anslem by a straight-out denial of God (which assumes the non-existence of God - a paradoxical argument, which, of course, Kant understands and thus refuses to use such terms), whereas Anslem begins his paradox with the assumption of the existence of the human intellect (an excepted paradox of the Mind/Body Dichotomy - "the 'I' must exist to deny itself" with no further evidence needed to support the argument). Thus the only arguement Kant may successfully achieve is one of possiblity, "God possibly does not exist."

In response to Kant's refutation, Dr. Alvin Plantinga contends that the Ontolotical Arguement has never been sucessfully refuted because the possibility argument is a way of saying nothing on the topic. If this is true, then why is it that most people shy away from debating it? It's because the greatest threat is itself. The Ontological Argument holds an extremely abstract paradigm. If you are not dealing with a well-informed individual, you will be pointlessly assaulted with the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Pink Unicorn; Stupid and irrelevant at best, but nonetheless, your opponent will still miss the entire point: That God exists.... So that's why I enjoy it. If you understand it, use it. You'll have fun.

Zen in the Art of Writing - Ray Bradbury's Rules to Writing

"Always Know Your Writing Mechanics.... Always.... No excuses.... No reasons.... Always, Always, Always, Know Your Writing Mechanics" - Ray Bradbury

Most authors know how to tell a soon-to-be-writer what he wants: smooth mechanics, solid vocabulary, clutter control, and clear thoughts. There are many books out there that describe, in simplicity, the stratagems of good writing and the wisdom discovered in error. But there is a scarcity of authors who explain the playground problems that every soon-to-be-writer needs constant reminders of – encouragement.

Though Ray Bradbury takes a small step to explain the foundations of writing, in his book Zen in the Art of Writing, he dedicates the rest in speaking to the reader on what writers need to over come; why criticism should be sought and not avoided, why dreams are always controversial, and, in his offensive rhetoric, why to keep on pushing. Time and again Bradbury determinedly goes out of his way to offend the largest groups of people only to demonstrate that writing is not about everyone else, but continuing to write despite everyone else. This is a book to help a soon-to-be-writer learn that good writers express what they believe.

For those who haven't had a chance to read his book, go and read Zen in the Art of Writing. For the less fortunate, below is a compilation of my study notes:

A. Write with Gusto and Zest

People often lack Gusto and Zest when they write. They write more automatically than a machine, and people realize it. Write words that describe what you are saying and don't be afraid to put zest and gusto into your word choice.

B. Write a lot, a lot, and a lot

You only get better by writing more often. Sit down and get comfy, because you need to write a lot, not only to gain confidence, but understand why writing is hard. Try writing a story per week at least 1000 words. From M-F write Rough Drafts 1-5. Then, on Saturday, hurl you r mess into a final copy for a friend to read.

C. Inspiration, The Muse, Poetry, Novels, Wants, Dislikes, Learn

Learn to gain inspiration from all sorts of literature and life experiences. Constantly read Novels for story and writing styles, poetry for cadences, similes and beauteous expressions. Read what you enjoy, so that you can improve, and read what you do not enjoy, so that you can expand your tastes and knowledge.

D. Write without Embarrassment

Don't write with embarrassment because then you admit to writing what others enjoy. It isn't their story, it isn't their life. If you want to write about pink elephants jumping over pancakes then do it. If you want to write about unicorns killing dandelions or birds killing people then do it. But whatever you do, don't write about what other people want to hear. Remember, if they want to hear themselves, they can write their own books.

E. Passion

Any story without passion is devoid of a honest reader. You may write a sci-fi book, but if you do not have passion about sci-fi, then don't write about it. If a story isn't inspired by a writer, by a person, then why would a person want to read it?

F. Not True does not mean Not Real

As Ray Bradbury stated, “The difference between science fiction and science fact is that one is a problem and the other a solution.” Writing about a problem doesn't mean it isn't true. Writing about a problem provides a way for a solution.

G. Search the Past for Today and write completely for tomorrow.

Inspiration is as plentiful as our past. Search your past and you will find the scarce moments you didn't believe existed. Memories that kept you walking at night and kept you sleeping during the day. Also, write completely. If you want to write about love, then give the audience something to love. If you write something sorrowful, then give the audience a reason to cry. If you write a mystery, then give the audience something to wonder for. If you write a book give someone a reason to read it. If you can't give a reason, then you don't have a reason to write it. Books are your dreams written down, and dreams have something to say.

H. Be a good Self-Editor, but don't drain your Character

Friends may give good ideas, but they aren't good editors - They don't know what you are trying to say. Read over your paper and edit it four or five times through by condensing your thoughts. Remove all unnecessary words, keep one or two thoughts per sentence, and one subject per paragraph. The process will help pull all the annoying cotton balls out of your paper and will straighten your tangled mess. Keep condensing until you have done the impossible, then have your friends give their good ideas on how to improve and expand your work. Start by making your point clear, start by editing well.

Delusional

“The mark of an educated mind is to be able to entertain a belief without accepting it” - Aristotle

My earliest memories were always about pitting my thoughts against someone else. It doesn't matter who it was, I was like Sam-I-Am: I was persistent and loved doing it. I could speak to a Mormon out in the cold or an Atheist in the warmth of my house. My audacity even ran afoul with my parents too. But I kept at it because I enjoyed ever bit of it. I enjoyed the chess-like imagination of two ideas engaging and re-engaging. A fight to mental death or immaterial mercy. It was a realm like that of the Roman Colosseum, with two warriors and the silent clashing of thoughts, of shields and swords. When I wasn't debating, I was preparing. And as I went on, I felt the need to peer over that forbidden curtain and see what my opponents were doing. What consumed all his time? Where did his training come about? Since the publication of The God Delusion, I wanted to read its contents and see for myself what books my opponents were reading, what training manuals filled their libraries and, if I were wrong, what books I would follow myself.

Two days ago, after coming home from work, I sat down, read the preface, and thumbed through the contents: A Deeply Religious Non-Believer; The God Hypothesis; Arguments for Gods Existence – this caught my attention; Why there almost certainly is no God; The Roots of Religion; What's wrong with Religion? Why be so Hostile?; Childhood, Abuse, and the escape from Religion. So far? My first impression hopefully will not be my last. I expect to see a book of words without thoughts. Chapters filled with rhetoric used to call out the atheists from the shadows of society and proclaim the superficial doubt of religious intellectualism. As Dr. Plantinga has previous stated, I would thus far agree, “I am not afraid of the New Atheists. The only thing I can say is that the older Atheists had better arguments.” But my purpose isn't to weigh value, it is to find answers.

As I read through The God Delusion, I will be discoursing on each chapter. My contending points, fallacious quotations, or any imperative information will be complied after finishing each chapter. The final compilation should resemble something of a personal nature – a war of ideas.

So, what do I expect out of this book? I expect to find answers: I expect to see the God argument from the other side; To read, research, counter, or believe whatever may be found. If this book fulfills my first impression, then let the goal of this book be to become a compilation of resources to counter those who find the necessity of reverberating Dr. Dawkin's claims. Until then, we must wait and hope.

"180" Movie - A Living Waters Ministry Production

"Where was the World? Where was everyone?"

There will be a time when a book's appalling words and chilling facts describe a world too ready to be embraced. A time when individuals will stand alone calling out, "Where is the world? Where is everyone?" As a lonely star in a cold winter's night their voices will find no warmth. The silence will bring no comfort. Until the world has changed and time begin again, they will only find despair. But those times are not our times and those words are not our words.

Today is the time where men and women are fighting against the appalling words and chilling facts too ready to be embraced. Every day they are standing against the American Holocaust and fighting against the deaths of over 53 million of America's children. Will you let them stand alone? Will you let your hopes become regrets? Will you be left calling out, "Where was I?"

If you have a moment please take the time to watch this video.

A Midnight Caller

My first full length poem. I hope you enjoy.

A Midnight Caller

I walk every night to the street-lit corner

hoping and dreaming the return of my lover

My hand turned out, my face turned queer

I skip and dance because I have found her here

But tonight the stars are not glowing and yellow

The night is cold and brisk and quite mellow

A man, A man approaches in the midnight hour

Death is known as the midnight caller

In the night as I wait

I can watch every step he take

Alone in the street-lit corner

I know, here comes my lover

He greets me with a smile and extends out his hand

I know it is time, I know what he wants – tonight we see a far-away land

We ride in a carriage down a cobblestone way

Death sits and he stares as God told me to stay.

The street-lit corner has passed and gone

For now death and I have left for yester's dawn

The carriage has stopped, and death has not spoken

He extends out his hand and delivers a token

Outside the carriage I see my friends at play - warm with glee

But death's carriage door will not open, I am forced to watch those who are free.

I see myself outside at play

I see my friends, my mother, my father, my family in the day

My youthful memories begins to glide and vapor

The door of my heart begins to taper

I shake and fight, I know what is next

Death smiles and laughs he knows it's my turned to be vexed.

The carriage carried us into the darkness beyond

I shake and quiver, knowing we will go on

The night is still dark save for a street-lit corner

The carriage stops for a moment near a murmur

This was the house of me and my lover

The moment has come that I wished to cover

I began to cry and weep for all the regrets I lived to keep

Then Death, glaring and smiling, held out his hand and began to speak

At first he spoke low and piercing

Then his voice rose and split my soul, he was cursing

Death enchanted,

“You were brought a wife

Gleaming and glow

To love and cherish

over the moonlit snow

Every night she waited til the stars struck hours

Sleeping before her Charming was in her towers

Always alone to the end

Always dreaming for an amend”

I never stopped crying until he finished his last word

I wanted it to stop, I tried any way, I wanted something but what I heard.

He pulled me out of the carriage with hands as old as iron

He brought me into my lovers bedroom to see my wife's heart burn

I tried to hold her and I tried to speak

But time had run out, and death for us all, for now I couldn't be meek.

Death seized me by my skull

He called and brooded into me a lull

“You ask your crime?

T'is Ignorance

And the wish for time”

Then he threw back my head and let it fall

The darkness became darker and I felt the death of all

The carriage began again, traveling down the cobblestone way

I would not have known, but because Death told me a place we were to stay.

Again we stopped, but I didn't look out the iron of the door

I knew whatever it was, I wasn't prepared for what was in store

I layed and I waited hoping death wouldn't seize me again

but I awoke to the dawn, the sun over the horizon, a day to begin

I stepped out of the carriage whose door was open wide

I was happy to see everything, the sky, the earth, it was an overwhelming tide

Looking around I knew where I was – it was all over

My life was no more, but so was my hoping and dreaming and street-lit corner

My wife was there with tears no more

I seized her and felt as if I would let go nevermore

She smiled and asked if I had received a token

Wondering if Death was near me and had spoken

I had forgotten death and the carriage

I felt for the token and pulled it out with all my courage

I read it once and have always felt rotton

For those who are yet alive, I write the words so they won't be forgotten

“Imagine if you would have spent a little time

Imagine eternity with reminisce of joyous chime”

Focus, Focus, Green

Focus, Focus, Green

“What are you doing?!?! You forgot?” I vividly remember my football coach yelling at us in his picture enhancing words, “You don't forget what's important... Do you forget to wipe after using the restroom? Walk around stinky?,” he paused to point, “No, you do what's important. Make your football job important.”* Life is the same way. You can't do or remember everything. You have to prioritize, choose which cards to hold and which to discard. The quicker you do it the better because your competing against time - he hasn't lost yet.

In my accelerated college course the first thing I took was a course on memory. It was an audio course taught by a man whose name I have misplaced, but I do know he had a funny voice that was feinted – like speaking with your nose plugged – and achieved a few awards for his ability. One of his lessons showed that the mind remembers the objects you focus on. The lesson went something like this:

Look around the room. Find everything that is the color green. Keep looking, find all of them, every single one of them. Look at your clothing, look at the ceiling, look everywhere. Now close your eyes. Your mind should be black and void. Now slowly visualize all of those items. Do you see them now? Keeping visualizing them one by one. Are they all in your head? Do you see them all? Keep your eyes closed and tell me how many red objects are in the room. Sound unfair? Can't remember any red objects? It isn't unfair – you only remembered what you focused on.

The course continued on explaining and teaching me how the mind more willingly remembers pictures over text. Need to remember a license plate? Assign a picture for each character. Say the license plate is 4QRW421H. That might be long for remembering a sequence of random numbers and letters, but there is a way to make it easier, less random. Picture (Four) (Q)ueens (R)unning (W)ildly (for) (twenty-one) (h)ours. Maybe they are getting tired and slowing down, or drank too much coffee and still going strong – why would they be running for twenty-one hours? Make it into a story. Conversely, to make another example, you could say Four Quilts are Ripping William into four-hundred and twenty-one pieces of human-burgers - the more dastardly the easier to remember. But the entire idea of the course was to find the things worth remembering, focusing on those things, and sticking them into your memory – a license plate is important to remember if you are at the DMV.

As Christians we are fortunate to have the Bible with commandments and histories that converges on God's will. So why aren't Christians perfect? We have God's will spelled out for us – literally in most cases. Sweeping aside sin and its intrusion, by far and wide the single reason is focusing on the wrong things - I did not say bad things.

Most confusing is that there is a difference between wrong things and bad things. There are many good things in our lives and many bad ideas, but focusing on good things in the wrong place should be equally avoided. Working hard is almost proverbial, it is the quote of every failed husband. Working diligently is proverbial. Working without sacrificing your family. Loving your family without sacrificing God. Everything is balanced on a slim edge of time and eternity.

Time sits unnervingly. He hasn't moved and never sleeps, tapping away on the table he is counting your remaining life. Breaking down under the glare of time, I get lost in the frantics of deadlines, wants, places to go, remembering, forgetting, while everything around me seems to be falling apart. Sometimes I fix that by working extra hard to complete my “To-Do” list. I feel better at night to have a list of accomplishments thanking me. But Time is still the victor. I focus on “To-Do” lists for the wrong reasons. I become economical and extricate all the “fluff.” Instead of posing for my little sister so she can draw a picture of me, I am in my room, door closed, trying to finish up a job. Instead of coaching my little brother's football team, I am trying to catch up on my reading. I focus on the wrong things because I have the wrong reasons.

To defeat time you must focus on the one who can break it: God, who was before and will be after. God provided Ten commandments, but, in comical fashion, Christ understood we couldn't remember that – He stated two: Love our neighbors as our self and love our God with all of our hearts, with all of our soul, and with all of our mind. Our family is our closest neighbor, not the job to make us feel better. Working hard was never something God commanded us to do, He commanded us to work hard for Him. When we focus on God, we focus on the right things in the right place. Time can only claim victory when we focus on things constrained by time. But when focused on God and family we grab Time by the neck and place it in the right place – not tapping away our life, but collecting moments that will last forever.

I started off college learning how to learn. When we live our life we must begin by learning how to live. We need to focus on what is important and remember. Don't be looking for green when you know we are asking for red. If you don't know what color to look for, look for which color to look for. Spend time focusing on what is right. So next time, when you use the restroom take your Bible with you.... As I said, the more dastardly the easier to remember.

*No, that is not a word-for-word quote of my high school football coach. You wouldn't know it, but he was an English teacher. On the football field he religiously held a few choice words that I omitted or replaced.

The Count of Monte Cristo: A Book Review

The Count of Monte Cristo
A Novel by Alexander Dumas

“...All human wisdom is contained in these two words: Wait and Hope.”

          A man may walk into the halls of Chateau d'If, but out of her chains a man never returns. A sailor by trade, a captain by gain, fortune has spoken differently to the virtuous. In the shadow of trust his betrothed is seized by his friends, his rank stripped by the ones he loves, and his weary father cast aside to the harshness of his son's betrayal. In the darkness of Chateau d'If he finds the enchantments of vengeance and a lord willing to teach him its ways. Here are the chronicles of Edmond Dantes, the Count of Monte Cristo.

          Traveling through the toils that assail the human soul, the reader is confused and dazzled by the complexities of ancient society. The book begins at the collapse of the Napoleonic Empire, Napoleon banished to the island of Elba, and a betrayal of a man in the wrong place at the wrong time. But the central story doesn't begin until the entrance of a mysterious figure into the Parisian aristocracy; A man with God-like powers, one who holds the caprices of life and death, and guides the providence of heaven. The Count of Monte Cristo is warmly received and the story begins: find and punish those who plundered his heart.

          The daunting question is, “who can contain the cup of retribution?” Some books have stood against generations of criticism because valour has been championed, but this book has stood because vengeance is eternal. The reader is not merely shown how a shard of fervor can ravage a man, but how vehemence, wholly in the grasp of the anguished, can break the soul of society. Can a man seek revenge without ravaging himself? That is the story you must read to the end to find out.

          But don't believe you will finish it quickly. The unabridged edition, which I recommend, is not for the feint of mind. Weighting at over five pounds, the book is over twelve-hundred pages and mounts a vocabulary that will require an excellent dictionary. Don't let that deter you, there is an exception and with patience comes a reward. In a brilliant fashion the presumptuous consequences of a long book – forgetting characters, unable to recollect specific events, complex story lines, and simply the terrifying look of a book larger than any encyclopedia – is played to an advantage. Have you ever been left to yourself when, suddenly, you remember something of sentimental value? Whether it is sad or comforting there is a special feeling of excitement in remembering. Like so, Alexander Dumas guides his reader through a lost memory. Always looking to the past, the reader will be intrigued at how much of the book is forgotten only to be remembered in the splitting pages to come. No one is left with a book – perhaps it wasn't written to be so - they are left with an experience of a long forgotten memory.

          I was left with a small dirt-grinned piece of glass reflecting the tarnishes of life and shimmering with a sparkle of happiness. The French aristocracy and their liveliness, the intimate feelings of barons and baronesses, and the transformation of the entire story. One seeks vengeance and one finds the answer. There is a price for every choice we make, but the difficulty is finding out that you never knew the final cost. There isn't anything to disregard about this story, it is a masterpiece.

          However, before I leave this book on my shelf, there is one more thing I would like to say. There is something special I was told. Too often people prostrate themselves on a lonely island watching their hopes dip below the horizon. You may become one of those people when you try to finish this book, you may be one of those people already; not knowing if good will come, if good will ever come. To those people there is a word of encouragement... Wait and Hope.

Writing is Like.......

An essay to remind myself how to write

Everyone remembers the first time their mother asks them to iron their clothes. Unwillingly, you erect the creaky board, flatten your clothing on the slender surface, and with one hand wield your iron. The grudging task involves taking your material and smoothing every wrinkle, pressing every seam, and striving to keep every fiber unburned. In other words, iron clothes is like writing.

At first, the writing process is daunting and confusing. You begin to write your first draft in a breeze. Every sentence seems to leap like an Augustinian revelation and every analogy flows with antiquated wisdom. Then the revelation unfolds and the folly proceeds. You reread your work and your writing is spontaneous, incoherent, and of ogresque quality. The conglomeration of letters, sentences, and paragraphs ends with the reader managing to crawl away – never to return. Every wrinkle is left visible, every seam is found unpressed, and the smoke from your paper is clouting the room.

My first lessons in writing was a manhunt to find a proper board - and nothing can be more frustrating. You spend entire days editing and re-editing the same work. Your sentences are too long or too short, they are vague and unintelligible, and you don't know how to fix them. With your sentences floating belly-up, your paragraphs aren't swimming any better. With a secession of convoluted thoughts, there's no epic view to a final draft. You are lost on a misty mountain. So, the first step to ironing your clothes is to find a concrete surface that isn't going to move; by understanding the English language. Learn your mechanics, learn your sentence structures, learn how to punctuate, learn how organize your work, and, above all, learn patience. This even means throwing away your mothers ironing board – or perhaps saving it for another day - you'll be rewarded in the end for doing it.

Then, you must trust your material. Too many times your half way finished when you decide to throw another pair of shorts on to the ironing board. You exchange pairs with a feint hope that the errors will fix themselves. Talent and ability will never remedy the problem. Writing is about doing and redoing until the task is finished. The first copy will be rough. The second copy will be rough. The third copy will be rough. Every copy will be rough until you have corrected and re-corrected a thousand times. Each time you correct again, every moment you spend after wanting to quit, is the skill required for you to smooth the wrinkles of your writing. You need to trust you material, stop changing, and finish what you've started.

And, lastly, the most elusive of the writing virtues is a good voice. You can write, write, and write, but if you don't have a voice no one will hear you – and most certainly no one will want to. Grab a book written by a favorite author and read aloud. Hear your voice rise and fall, hear the pitch and stress of the author's words, and pause and begin again at the signs of punctuation. To become better at ironing, you need to hear the sound of the steam. Is it the sound of a gentle rain, bubbling of skin under hot oil, or the blast of a train at full tilt? You are the writer, so choose; your voice will only expand or contract to describe what you already hear.

The difficulty in writing is “beginning and finishing your work.” Work until you fail, and keep working until you have succeeded. Don't worry about failing, and don't shudder at the sight of your mother's ironing board. Those are the lessons that will guide you to becoming what you were designed to do. So plug in your iron, wait until the ready light turns on, and start writing.

The First Writing Class

A Lesson in Short Story Writing


My teacher entered the class. With her back facing me, she began to write a list of disjointed words. For several minutes she continued in her mysterious fashion.

When she turned to face the class, she told us to write. Write anything. Write about a word on the board, write anything that comes to mind. Again and again she repeated herself. Then my teacher tottered to her chair and, sitting down, asked what we were waiting for.

I began to write, but I didn't know where to begin. Words flurried about my head, lost in the abyss of my own creation. Expressions attempted to draw a conclusion upon my paper. I was paralyzed by the vastness of my teachers challenged. I was told to write about anything, to me I was told to write about everything.

When I looked upon the word beauty, the snow capped Himalayas and the crystal waters of the south pacific seized my mind. When I began to write the word power, every conqueror stole the battle for my soul. When I looked through the spaces of my fingers, towards that ever expanding list of words, I could see the word fear. I thought of every male who trembles before his creator and every mothers desolation when she catches the last moments of her child. Every word meant more than one thing, and I was challenged to write it.

I closed my eyes and began to write. First it was black, then, slowly, like a new dawn, light shone across the horizon. Trees began to grown and animals filled the void. Voices called me by name and the winds held my hand. The feeling must have been like the day Adam was created: to behold the beauty of the world all at once.

Time seemed to stop for a moment, then all was over. I walked to my teacher and handed her my papers – I was the first one done.

She looked at me suspiciously, and then, my fear came true. She began to read. I watched as her disappointed face slowly became neutral, and finally a smile. She looked at me and said, “You have learned how to write.” I laughed and replied, “No, I have learned how to love.”

A Soldier's Honour

An essay defining true Honour

        Honour unguided, like a dream, is easily broken. Shattered among the ground, the shards of honour have created the most vile of mankind, the individuals deceived by the satisfaction of mere authority. By replacing virtue as the guide to honour, destruction and evil fills the empty void and throws mankind into the oblivion of a single, deceptive belief: that an individual acts as the possessor of honour, when instead, one has forsaken her long ago. However, men are not only the devices of tyranny, but also the shining hope of freedom. Over the years, honour has been entrusted to the knights, the watchmen, and the soldiers who have paid the greatest price to protect the ones they love. G.K. Chesterton understood the soldier's honour as a commitment to the virtues of love, hope, and obedience, when he stated, “The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.”¹ Though unguided honour has ravaged the history of civilization, honour that is guided by the virtues of love, hope, and obedience, has defined the true concept of honour that all have come to respect.
        History has testified to the horrors committed in the name of honour. Perhaps the most infamous acts performed under the guise of honour were the ones described by General Eisenhower at Ohdruf's Concentration camp in Normandy; “... [It was] beyond the American mind to comprehend.... I never dreamed that such cruelty, bestiality, and savagery could really exist in this world.”² Eisenhower ordered every high ranking official in the local area to immediately witness the grotesque mutilations that America was fighting to end. The execrable events that marked Hitler's ending were not the events that marked his beginning. Hitler did not rise to power upon fear and atrocity, but he rose upon the love and loyalty of the German people.
      The Führer did not merely promise wealth, power, and dignity, but he also fulfilled his promises faithfully. Six years after Hitler assumed office, the bankrupt, ill, and indecisive Weihmer Republic became the rich, flourishing, and commanding Third Reich. But what Germany neither saw nor took heed to understand was what Hitler's promises were guided by; as described in the Mein Kampf³, Adolf's passions were guided by the lust for domination and the desire for revenge. Germany's transformation was surely delivered, but not by the honour the German people believed in. The German people believed in an honour that was defined by virtue, but desired national honour so passionately that an entire nation was willing to risk life, liberty, and country for anything that resembled true honour.   
        Few have endured and have been guided by the virtues of true honour. A knight's accomplishments are not recognized by actions, promises, or fulfillment alone but by the guidance of love, hope, and obedience. The first and greatest virtue is love. Love is the all-encompassing virtue that withstands all the troubles of life: “Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, and endures all things - true love never fails”⁴. The second is hope. “Hope is faith holding out its hand in the dark”⁵: it is the light of God being seen when all lights go out. Through the darkest of times and through the perilous of moments, the virtue of hope continually assures the watchman of what is true when nothing is to be seen. And the last quality of honour is obedience. Obedience is the act of walking down the path less traveled not because one wishes, but because one must. The collection of virtues defining honour is demonstrated by the choices an individual makes; one chooses either to uphold the virtues of honour through all the toils of life or to abandon honour when she is most needed. Unlike the sunshine patriot, the bearer of honour is not defined by what he wishes, but by what he is given, and by what he accomplishes.
      Though historically the knight in shining armour has been the epiphany of the nobility of honour, the definition of honour has also been described by the ancient philosophers and completed by the Christian belief. Aristotle believed, “Every art and every investigation, and similarly every action and pursuit, is considered to aim at some good. Hence the Good has been rightly defined as 'that at which all things aim'.”⁶ Aristotle described that all of mankind travels down the road of life to find happiness and, in so doing, directs all actions towards objects of goodness. And from the path of goodness mankind immortalizes the men and woman who reach the pinnacle of goodness – which is honour. The German people believed in Hitler not because of the concentration camps, but because he was able to renew Germany.        
        The Nazi regime rebuilt destroyed cities, fed the famished citizens, and carried the burden of the people. With so much good, how did Hitler's honour end with such atrocities? Honour ended with evil because the ancient philosophers could not define the standard of goodness, therefore the path to honour was the path that each person believed to be right – all paths lead to honour. Without a standard to guide honour, honour became as morally good as described by the people who benefited by her riches and as morally evil as described by the people who were destroyed by her deception. Honour was a dead end, a poor collection of good thoughts, until Christianity asserted a standard to goodness that the ancient philosophers could not conjecture.

      The virtues of honour are completed by the doctrines of the Christian faith by defining the virtues of love, hope, and obedience with the standard and purity of God's goodness. The prophet Micah stated, “ He hath shewed thee, O man, what [is] good; and what doth the LORD require of thee. But to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?”⁷ Through the Ten Commandments and the prophets, mankind was shown God's expectancy, provided the standard of goodness, and shown why honour was treasured above all other virtues. Honour stands alone unlike any virtue because honour is defined by something beyond mankind – defined by God – because honour is the virtue that saved mankind. The strife for true honour has been the story of every civilization and the glory of every belief.     
        In Paradise Lost, Milton portrays the acts of honour in the elegance of poems and valiance of legends. The Biblical story of creation and the fall of mankind depicts the struggles and the importance between the bonds of male and female; between a man and a wife; between a knight and his love; and between life and death. As Adam held the forbidden fruit in his hand, he chose the ultimate sacrifice for the one he loved. Looking at Eve, Adam proclaimed, “If death consort with thee, death is to me as life.... Our state cannot be severed. We are one, One Flesh. To lose thee were to lose myself.”⁸ Adam ate the fruit, his body died, and his soul separated from his creator. In the love for his wife, in the hope for the things to come, and in the obedience to one bond, Adam perished with Eve. Adam's choice was the only choice for Eve to be saved from death.    
        For thousands of years after the death of Adam, the race of man fell; but love, hope, and obedience endured. The sacrifice committed by Adam was a great sacrifice, and the cost was dear, for again, “darkness fell upon the face of the deep”^9. And in darkness, mankind awaited another sacrifice. Ten Thousand years later, God, in all His glory, came to fulfill that honourable sacrifice. As the Bible speaks about the church being the Bride of Christ, so did Christ endure the sacrifice for the sin of His wife. Upon the cross, Christ bore the shame that Adam carried before his Creator long ago in the garden. Christ tasted the fruit of his creation, His body died, and His spirit was separated from His Father. In the love for His Bride, in the hope for the few to be saved, and in the obedience to God, Christ died and rose from the grave. Virtue prevailed so that two may be together again. Honour is defined by sacrificial love, impelling hope, and determined obedience.        
        Unguided honour has been the demise to every good intention, but the fulfillment of every good deed is the pleasures of true honour. The love of every knight, the keeper of every watchman, and the duty of every soldier is to understand true honour.“To love is to risk not being loved in return. To hope is to risk pain. To try is to risk failure, but risk must be taken because the greatest hazard in life is to risk nothing.”¹⁰ To risk everything is to gain honour – the greatest of virtues.

1. G.K. Chesterton, Chesterton Society, www.chesterton.org (accessed 04/13/2011), ILN, 1/14/11

2. General Dwight Eisenhower, Eisenhower Memorial, http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/stories/death-camps.htm (accessed 04/13/2011)

3. Mein Kampf ( My Struggle) by Adolf Hitler, Published by Eher Verlag (accessed 04/13/2011)

4. Holy Bible, King James Version, 1 Cor. 13:4-8 [Paraphrased]

5. George Iles, Think Exist, http://thinkexist.com/quotation/hope_is_faith_holding_out_its_hand_in_the_dark/206715.html (accessed 04/13/2011)

6. Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, Book 1, Chapter 1, The Object of Life, pg. 1

7. Holy Bible,King James Version, Micah 6:8

8. Paradise Lost by John Milton , Book IX, pg. 285, Lines 953 – 959 (accessed 04/13/2011)

9. Holy Bible, King James Version, Genesis 1:2

10. Bill Bixy, Think Exist, http://thinkexist.com/quotation/to_love_is_to_risk_not_being_loved_in_return-to/9949.html (accessed 04/13/2011)

Evolution vs. Naturalism

Why they are like oil and water

by Alvin Plantinga

As everyone knows, there has been a recent spate of books attacking Christian belief and religion in general. Some of these books are little more than screeds, long on vituperation but short on reasoning, long on name-calling but short on competence, long on righteous indignation but short on good sense; for the most part they are driven by hatred rather than logic. Of course there are others that are intellectually more respectable—for example Walter Sinnott-Armstrong's contribution to God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist[1] and Michael Tooley's contribution to Knowledge of God.[2] Nearly all of these books have been written by philosophical naturalists. I believe it's extremely important to see that naturalism itself, despite the smug and arrogant tone of the so-called New Atheists, is in very serious philosophical hot water: one can't sensibly believe it.

Naturalism is the idea that there is no such person as God or anything like God; we might think of it as high-octane atheism or perhaps atheism-plus. It is possible to be an atheist without rising to the lofty heights (or descending to the murky depths) of naturalism. Aristotle, the ancient Stoics, and Hegel (in at least certain stages) could properly claim to be atheists, but they couldn't properly claim to be naturalists: each endorses something (Aristotle's Prime Mover, the Stoics' Nous, Hegel's Absolute) no self-respecting naturalist could tolerate.

These days naturalism is extremely fashionable in the academy; some say it is contemporary academic orthodoxy. Given the vogue for various forms of postmodern anti-realism and relativism, that may be a bit strong. Still, naturalism is certainly widespread, and it is set forth in such recent popular books as Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker, Daniel Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea, and many others. Naturalists like to wrap themselves in the mantle of science, as if science in some way supports, endorses, underwrites, implies, or anyway is unusually friendly to naturalism. In particular, they often appeal to the modern theory of evolution as a reason for embracing naturalism; indeed, the subtitle of Dawkins' Watchmaker is Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design. Many seem to think that evolution is one of the pillars in the temple of naturalism (and "temple" is the right word: contemporary naturalism has certainly taken on a religious cast, with a secular priesthood as zealous to stamp out opposing views as any mullah). I propose to argue that naturalism and evolution are in conflict with each other.

I said naturalism is in philosophical hot water; this is true on several counts, but here I want to concentrate on just one—one connected with the thought that evolution supports or endorses or is in some way evidence for naturalism. As I see it, this is a whopping error: evolution and naturalism are not merely uneasy bedfellows; they are more like belligerent combatants. One can't rationally accept both evolution and naturalism; one can't rationally be an evolutionary naturalist. The problem, as several thinkers (C. S. Lewis, for example) have seen, is that naturalism, or evolutionary naturalism, seems to lead to a deep and pervasive skepticism. It leads to the conclusion that our cognitive or belief-producing faculties—memory, perception, logical insight, etc.—are unreliable and cannot be trusted to produce a preponderance of true beliefs over false. Darwin himself had worries along these lines: "With me," says Darwin, "the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"[3]

Clearly this doubt arises for naturalists or atheists, but not for those who believe in God. That is because if God has created us in his image, then even if he fashioned us by some evolutionary means, he would presumably want us to resemble him in being able to know; but then most of what we believe might be true even if our minds have developed from those of the lower animals. On the other hand, there is a real problem here for the evolutionary naturalist. Richard Dawkins once claimed that evolution made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. I believe he is dead wrong: I don't think it's possible at all to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist; but in any event you can't rationally accept both evolution and naturalism.

Why not? How does the argument go?[4] The first thing to see is that naturalists are also always or almost always materialists: they think human beings are material objects, with no immaterial or spiritual soul, or self. We just are our bodies, or perhaps some part of our bodies, such as our nervous systems, or brains, or perhaps part of our brains (the right or left hemisphere, for example), or perhaps some still smaller part. So let's think of naturalism as including materialism.[5] And now let's think about beliefs from a materialist perspective. According to materialists, beliefs, along with the rest of mental life, are caused or determined by neurophysiology, by what goes on in the brain and nervous system. Neurophysiology, furthermore, also causes behavior. According to the usual story, electrical signals proceed via afferent nerves from the sense organs to the brain; there some processing goes on; then electrical impulses go via efferent nerves from the brain to other organs including muscles; in response to these signals, certain muscles contract, thus causing movement and behavior.

Now what evolution tells us (supposing it tells us the truth) is that our behavior, (perhaps more exactly the behavior of our ancestors) is adaptive; since the members of our species have survived and reproduced, the behavior of our ancestors was conducive, in their environment, to survival and reproduction. Therefore the neurophysiology that caused that behavior was also adaptive; we can sensibly suppose that it is still adaptive. What evolution tells us, therefore, is that our kind of neurophysiology promotes or causes adaptive behavior, the kind of behavior that issues in survival and reproduction.

Now this same neurophysiology, according to the materialist, also causes belief. But while evolution, natural selection, rewards adaptive behavior (rewards it with survival and reproduction) and penalizes maladaptive behavior, it doesn't, as such, care a fig about true belief. As Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the genetic code, writes in The Astonishing Hypothesis, "Our highly developed brains, after all, were not evolved under the pressure of discovering scientific truth, but only to enable us to be clever enough to survive and leave descendents." Taking up this theme, naturalist philosopher Patricia Churchland declares that the most important thing about the human brain is that it has evolved; hence, she says, its principal function is to enable the organism to move appropriately:

"Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in the four F's: feeding, fleeing, fighting and reproducing. The principal chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive...Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism's way of life and enhances the organism's chances of survival [Churchland's emphasis]. Truth, whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost."[6]

What she means is that natural selection doesn't care about the truth or falsehood of your beliefs; it cares only about adaptive behavior. Your beliefs may all be false, ridiculously false; if your behavior is adaptive, you will survive and reproduce. Consider a frog sitting on a lily pad. A fly passes by; the frog flicks out its tongue to capture it. Perhaps the neurophysiology that causes it to do so, also causes beliefs. As far as survival and reproduction is concerned, it won't matter at all what these beliefs are: if that adaptive neurophysiology causes true belief (e.g., those little black things are good to eat), fine. But if it causes false belief (e.g., if I catch the right one, I'll turn into a prince), that's fine too. Indeed, the neurophysiology in question might cause beliefs that have nothing to do with the creature's current circumstances (as in the case of our dreams); that's also fine, as long as the neurophysiology causes adaptive behavior. All that really matters, as far as survival and reproduction is concerned, is that the neurophysiology cause the right kind of behavior; whether it also causes true belief (rather than false belief) is irrelevant.

Next, to avoid interspecies chauvinism, let's not think about ourselves, but instead about a hypothetical population of creatures a lot like us, perhaps living on a distant planet. Like us, these creatures enjoy perception, memory, and reason; they form beliefs on many topics, they reason and change belief, and so on. Let's suppose, furthermore, that naturalistic evolution holds for them; that is, suppose they live in a naturalistic universe and have come to be by way of the processes postulated by contemporary evolutionary theory. What we know about these creatures, then, is that they have survived; their neurophysiology has produced adaptive behavior. But what about the truth of their beliefs? What about the reliability of their belief-producing or cognitive faculties?

What we learn from Crick and Churchland (and what is in any event obvious) is this: the fact that our hypothetical creatures have survived doesn't tell us anything at all about the truth of their beliefs or the reliability of their cognitive faculties. What it tells us is that the neurophysiology that produces those beliefs is adaptive, as is the behavior caused by that neurophysiology. But it simply doesn't matter whether the beliefs also caused by that neurophysiology are true. If they are true, excellent; but if they are false, that's fine too, provided the neurophysiology produces adaptive behavior.

So consider any particular belief on the part of one of those creatures: what is the probability that it is true? Well, what we know is that the belief in question was produced by adaptive neurophysiology, neurophysiology that produces adaptive behavior. But as we've seen, that gives us no reason to think the belief true (and none to think it false). We must suppose, therefore, that the belief in question is about as likely to be false as to be true; the probability of any particular belief's being true is in the neighborhood of 1/2. But then it is massively unlikely that the cognitive faculties of these creatures produce the preponderance of true beliefs over false required by reliability. If I have 1,000 independent beliefs, for example, and the probability of any particular belief's being true is 1/2, then the probability that 3/4 or more of these beliefs are true (certainly a modest enough requirement for reliability) will be less than 10(to the power -58). And even if I am running a modest epistemic establishment of only 100 beliefs, the probability that 3/4 of them are true, given that the probability of any one's being true is 1/2, is very low, something like .000001.[7] So the chances that these creatures' true beliefs substantially outnumber their false beliefs (even in a particular area) are small. The conclusion to be drawn is that it is exceedingly unlikely that their cognitive faculties are reliable.

But of course this same argument will also hold for us. If evolutionary naturalism is true, then the probability that our cognitive faculties are reliable is also very low. And that means that one who accepts evolutionary naturalism has a defeater for the belief that her cognitive faculties are reliable: a reason for giving up that belief, for rejecting it, for no longer holding it. If there isn't a defeater for that defeater—a defeater-defeater, we could say—she can't rationally believe that her cognitive faculties are reliable. No doubt she can't help believing that they are; no doubt she will in fact continue to believe it; but that belief will be irrational. And if she has a defeater for the reliability of her cognitive faculties, she also has a defeater for any belief she takes to be produced by those faculties—which, of course, is all of her beliefs. If she can't trust her cognitive faculties, she has a reason, with respect to each of her beliefs, to give it up. She is therefore enmeshed in a deep and bottomless skepticism. One of her beliefs, however, is her belief in evolutionary naturalism itself; so then she also has a defeater for that belief. Evolutionary naturalism, therefore—the belief in the combination of naturalism and evolution—is self-refuting, self-destructive, shoots itself in the foot. Therefore you can't rationally accept it. For all this argument shows, it may be true; but it is irrational to hold it. So the argument isn't an argument for the falsehood of evolutionary naturalism; it is instead for the conclusion that one cannot rationally believe that proposition. Evolution, therefore, far from supporting naturalism, is incompatible with it, in the sense that you can't rationally believe them both.

What sort of reception has this argument had? As you might expect, naturalists tend to be less than wholly enthusiastic about it, and many objections have been brought against it. In my opinion (which of course some people might claim is biased), none of these objections is successful.[8] Perhaps the most natural and intuitive objection goes as follows. Return to that hypothetical population of a few paragraphs back. Granted, it could be that their behavior is adaptive even though their beliefs are false; but wouldn't it be much more likely that their behavior is adaptive if their beliefs are true? And doesn't that mean that, since their behavior is in fact adaptive, their beliefs are probably true and their cognitive faculties probably reliable?

This is indeed a natural objection, in particular given the way we think about our own mental life. Of course you are more likely to achieve your goals, and of course you are more likely to survive and reproduce if your beliefs are mostly true. You are a prehistoric hominid living on the plains of Serengeti; clearly you won't last long if you believe lions are lovable overgrown pussycats who like nothing better than to be petted. So, if we assume that these hypothetical creatures are in the same kind of cognitive situation we ordinarily think we are, then certainly they would have been much more likely to survive if their cognitive faculties were reliable than if they were not.

But of course we can't just assume that they are in the same cognitive situation we think we are in. For example, we assume that our cognitive faculties are reliable. We can't sensibly assume that about this population; after all, the whole point of the argument is to show that if evolutionary naturalism is true, then very likely we and our cognitive faculties are not reliable. So reflect once more on what we know about these creatures. They live in a world in which evolutionary naturalism is true. Therefore, since they have survived and reproduced, their behavior has been adaptive. This means that the neurophysiology that caused or produced that behavior has also been adaptive: it has enabled them to survive and reproduce. But what about their beliefs? These beliefs have been produced or caused by that adaptive neurophysiology; fair enough. But that gives us no reason for supposing those beliefs true. So far as adaptiveness of their behavior goes, it doesn't matter whether those beliefs are true or false.

Suppose the adaptive neurophysiology produces true beliefs: fine; it also produces adaptive behavior, and that's what counts for survival and reproduction. Suppose on the other hand that neurophysiology produces false beliefs: again fine: it produces false beliefs but adaptive behavior. It really doesn't matter what kind of beliefs the neurophysiology produces; what matters is that it cause adaptive behavior; and this it clearly does, no matter what sort of beliefs it also produces. Therefore there is no reason to think that if their behavior is adaptive, then it is likely that their cognitive faculties are reliable.

The obvious conclusion, so it seems to me, is that evolutionary naturalism can't sensibly be accepted. The high priests of evolutionary naturalism loudly proclaim that Christian and even theistic belief is bankrupt and foolish. The fact, however, is that the shoe is on the other foot. It is evolutionary naturalism, not Christian belief, that can't rationally be accepted.

Alvin Plantinga is John A. O'Brien Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame.

1. Reviewed elsewhere in this issue by Douglas Groothuis, in a piece covering four books dealing with atheism in one fashion or another.

2. Coauthored with Alvin Plantinga in Blackwell's Great Debates in Philosophy series (Blackwell, 2008).

3. Letter to William Graham (Down, July 3, 1881), in The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John Murray, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-16.

4. Here I'll just give the bare essentials of the argument; for fuller statements, see my Warranted Christian Belief (Oxford Univ. Press, 2000), chap. 7; or my contribution to Knowledge of God (Blackwell, 2008); or Natural Selection and the Problem of Evil (The Great Debate), edited by Paul Draper, www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_draper/evil.html.

5. If you don't think naturalism does include materialism, then take my argument as for the conclusion that you can't sensibly accept the tripartite conjunction of naturalism, evolution, and materialism.

6. "Epistemology in the Age of Neuroscience," Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 84 (October 1987), pp. 548-49.

7. My thanks to Paul Zwier, who performed the calculations.

8. See, e.g., Naturalism Defeated?, ed. James Beilby (Cornell Univ. Press, 2002), which contains some ten essays by critics of the argument, together with my replies to their objections.

[Books and Culture magazine July/August 2008]