Philosophy is worrying me way too much.

I went back to Facebook notes for a while there. I felt that I was a bit too cranky on blogspot. I don't know what it was. Probably still processing Indian experiences methinks. It was a little scary and frustrating for a while, gosh, but concerning all the stuff mentioned in my previous blog, I got a fair bit of it sorted out at a missions debrief conference. SMBC conferences are full of awesome.

Really I'm just blogging because anything is preferable to my philosophy assessment which is now 4 days late or something. I swore I wasn't going to do this but this time around it's not even procrastination, really. It's more like not really having a clue what I'm supposed to do and worrying that I'm sounding like a complete mental case because honestly, who am I to disagree with David Lewis? Even if he does really believe in other actual worlds? We have to take him seriously because he's all 'logical' and uses big words and whatnot. It's incredibly frustrating. I just cannot enjoy something when all of the readings more or less go straight over my head and we keep discussing questions TO WHICH THERE ARE NO ANSWERS. What is even the point? Mind you, I do miss the Friday's lectures because I refuse to go to uni for just one hour and I haven't been diligent about catching up online. It's kind of silly to expect to learn when you don't turn up to class...

Regardless, give me tropes, give me figures, give me iambic pentameters, give me English because it makes my heart glad to understand something. It is the most fun I have had at uni. Apart from intro to development studies which was also great. If it weren't for English, I swear I'd try my luck with Moore College already. Don't raise your eyebrows - I know of two other girls my age who are studying there presently. Oh and the whole CBS thing, of course. I'm sure that's got a lot to do with my actually liking uni.

I don't normally do the pointless life update, usually I'll only blog if I've been challenged or encouraged or read something but this is testament to the lengths to which I will go to avoid philosophy. But... I don't think I dislike philosophy itself that much. I think that perhaps it's something I have to look at for myself. I do think it's important to understand where ideas come from and a lot of it is quite interesting. Maybe I'll stick with simple, non-threatening novels like Sophie's World in which the history of philosophy is explained via letters sent to a little girl who effectively undertakes a correspondence philosophy course by some random guy. I'd love philosophy if I were in Sophie's world. In the uni context it's just too much.

I really hope that this dislike of philosophy doesn't make me an essentially stupid person. That would really upset me.

What one person thinks is reasonable, another...

It seems that the Heavenly Man is providing me with a wealth of material to blog about. It’s certainly making me think. I’ve read about persecution, of martyrs, but this is something else. Such faithfulness, is it possible within myself?

One word: rebuked!

I sound like a broken record don’t I? Well, this blog is actually being composed for an apologetic purpose so keep reading.

Bear with me, I’m about to quote from several different authors and I don’t know about you, but I sometimes find quoting tiresome. Regardless, I’m going to share a song that Brother Yun and his fellow believers sung to remind them that following God is synonymous with persecution and that those who truly love and follow him, will undoubtedly endure it (at least skim read it or the rest of my writing and its purpose will be lost on you).

Martyrs for the Lord

“…Those apostles who loved the Lord to the end
Willingly followed the Lord down the path of suffering
John was exiled to the lonely isle of Patmos
Stephen was stoned to death by an angry crowd.

Matthew was stabbed to death in Persia by a mob
Mark died as horses pulled his two legs apart
Doctor Luke was cruelly hanged
Peter, Phillip and Simon were crucified on a cross.

Bartholomew was skinned alive by the heathen
Thomas died in India as five horses pulled his body apart
The apostle James was beheaded by King Herod
Little James was cut in half by a sharp saw.

James the brother of the Lord was stoned to death
Judas was tied to a pillar and shot by arrows
Matthias had his head cut off in Jerusalem
Paul was a martyr under Emperor Nero…”

Reading this list of atrocities actually reminded me of a certain philosophical piece of writing that I strongly dislike and love to critique: David Hume’s Of Miracles. What this song made me think about, nay, marvel over, is how Hume could dismiss the testimony of the apostles. In his article, Hume comes up with a set of criteria for examining the integrity of human testimony concerning miracles and it goes a little something like this:

We cannot conclude that the resurrection was a miraculous event that really occurred based on human testimony because-

A) "There is not to be found, in all history, any miracle attested by a sufficient number of men, of such unquestioned good sense, education, and learning, as to secure us against all delusion in themselves; of such undoubted integrity... of such credit and reputation in the eyes of mankind…"

If Hume ever found such men, I wish he’d let me know considering my present single status. Is there some integrity scale that I don’t know of? How could you decide whether or not a person was good enough or educated enough to be listened to?
I love this from William Lane Craig’s Reasonable Faith: "Although the apostles were unlearned men, all one needs in order to prove that something happened is five good senses and common sense."

B) "Where there is an opposition of arguments, we ought to give the preference to such as are founded on the greatest number of past observations."

Basically, the idea of a man rising from the dead is one that Hume has never observed for himself, therefore as opposed to listening to the testimony of many eyewitnesses stating otherwise, Hume will continue to believe in what he already knows. The thing about this article is that nothing is concrete. It's all about believing in the event which has the greatest probability. He continually leaves open a window of possibility and the resurrection is it.

C) "The passion of surprise and wonder, arising from miracles, being an agreeable emotion, gives a sensible tendency towards the belief of those events, from which it is derived… But if the spirit of religion join itself to the love of wonder, there is an end of common sense; and human testimony, in these circumstances, loses all pretensions to authority."

D) "He may know his narrative to be false, and yet persevere in it, with the best intentions in the world, for the sake of promoting so holy a cause."

I really cannot stand such condescension. Read through the list of cruel deaths again and tell me if you think it is reasonable to conclude that these men believed in miracles because of a love of wonder and then suffered torture and death for it. Convince me that men would die in such a way for the sake of a lie.

The irony is, Hume’s ultimate test for truth is that it would have to be more of a miracle for people’s testimony to be untrue than for the event they were retelling to be untrue. The apostles endured intense suffering, unto death, because they saw Jesus resurrected from the dead. There is no other possible reason for each one of those men to die the way they did. The following is an illustration adopted from William Paley also from Craig’s Reasonable Faith:

"Suppose twelve men, whom I know to be honest and reasonable people, were to assert that they saw personally a miraculous event in which it was impossible for them to have been tricked; furthermore, the governor called them before him for an inquiry and sentenced them all to death unless they were to admit the hoax; and then all went to their deaths rather than say they were lying. According to Hume, we should still not believe such men."

Hume reminds me of an insolent child who simply refuses to accept the truth of the matter by closing his eyes, sticking his fingers in his ears and singing loudly to himself until it all just fades away. Every scripture I’ve ever read concerning spiritual blindness strikes me. Particularly this:

"Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive. Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed." – Isaiah 6:9-10

It’s all I can come up with to understand how a man who was so reasonable could possibly come to such an unreasonable conclusion.