Local Weather Forecast
Today: Current:76	Sunday: 86/62	Monday: 90/70
Complete Forecast for  May 17 2008

The idea of right and wrong, with which religion concerns itself, can be confusing. May I suggest a way to think about it that might help?

What people really mean when they ask "what is right" is "What presuppositions do you have?" That is, any idea of "right" to which a person clings is dependent on some assumptions - or presuppositions - about the nature of "life, the universe and the whole thing" as the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy puts it.

Don't panic. There are only three ways to look at the universe that I know of - 1) there is no God; 2) there is a God with a name; or 3) God is a thing, not anything definable, except God is real and we're not.

If there is another view, I don't know about it. If anyone would write and tell me another, I'd be grateful.

Let's figure out "right" from just these three. The main thing to remember is, you have to choose one of those three presuppositions - and you're stuck with the daily result of what each leads to. No mixing the presuppositions. That's like trying to drive a car to Houston and Cincinnati at the same time. Who can do that?

OK, remember, don't panic.

The first presupposition, "There is no God" seems pretty popular today. Some people want to believe there is no God and that's exactly what it is - a belief. There is no way to prove there is no God. You'd have to know everything that is knowable and no one can do that. So you can believe there is no God, but you can't really prove it.

The logical conclusion of "there is no God" is eventually "anything goes" in society. Even reason, because who has the real authority to say reason is valuable? We're going to see much more of that unreasoned thinking as the 21st century unfolds.

The second presupposition indicates God's name. That means God has a personality or character and a name. God created men and women in that image. God has a name. We have names.

The logical conclusion of this presupposition is that people, all of nature and the idea of time and eternity actually exist (A billion or more people don't believe this, by the way). The idea of a God, people that count and a life after this level, plane, dimension - or whatever one calls this life - is real.

You can't prove that presupposition either. It's a presupposition just like the first one. But the logical conclusion of this presupposition is that life does have a purpose, and a truth exists (unlike the first presupposition). There is a "right" and a "wrong" after all, and a corresponding solid basis for reason exists.

The way problems are solved in this presupposition is by reasoning from a point of truth, to a logical conclusion. For instance, if I'm created in the very image of a God who is of ultimate value and that makes me valuable, so is everyone else. That leads to an idea of right behavior. That leads to a very good question of how we should be treating each other on a daily basis.

In this presupposition, anything does not go and we know why - because the logical conclusion of any other presupposition does not match reality as we know it. Reality is defined by one of these three presuppositions. Which one fits best?

The third presupposition, "God is not anything, but everything," is that post-modern idea people say we're entering into.

The logical conclusion of this presupposition is a huge identity crisis. That crisis says something like "if God is not anything but everything, so am I. Since this does not match what I'm seeing in the mirror and around me, it must mean I live in some sort of delusion."

Therefore life becomes a delusion, and who can take part in a life of delusion? No wonder people who tune in to this presupposition "drop out." Thanks, Timothy Leary.

Fortunately, few who like the "cosmic" feel of this presupposition actually enjoy the logical conclusion of living it out, so they simple don't. And that inconsistency actually makes society easier to live in. Thank God. Countries whose majority subscribe to this third presupposition are better off if they don't actually live by it.

This is just the start of presuppositional apologetics. There are obviously more, like "if there is a God and truth, what is it?" But this a good start and worth another look.

So when someone asks "what is right?" say, "I reason from a set of presuppositions to a logical conclusion that best matches reality as we know it." When asked what that reality is, say "I believe in a world that exists, populated by valuable people whose unique identity indicates they have a distinct purpose."

That's hard to argue against and most people say it sounds good. But that idea can only be had to its fullest by rightly living out the logical conclusion of the second presupposition.

And that's reality.