Are Your Own Conclusions Safe?

Predetermined Answers

In Christianity, questions are commonplace. In fact, the Bible instructs us to prepare an answer for those who may inquire of us (1 Peter 3:15).

Christians throughout time have taken this seriously, resulting in an array of pre-packaged responses and lines of reasoning to routine questions.

This is the region of Christianity responsible for managing scrutiny. The Department of Biblical Defense.

Self-Reflection

I take pause and look back over my time as a Christian. I imagine someone might ask me, or more likely, I might ask myself:

During Noah's flood, how did the plants survive 40 days and 40 nights underwater?

The Christian Self, aiming to validate The Christian Frame, has encountered a subtle mental processing problem. We logically know that plants underwater for such a time period would result in mass loss of plant life on Earth, while at the same time feeling the need to perceive The Flood as a factual event.

What does The Christian Self do?

It justifies! For me, I would have probably said something along these lines:

The plants survived 40 days and 40 nights underwater because God created the Universe, and if he already did that, there is no reason he cannot make plants survive underwater.

Observing the Mechanics

In the flood example above, we slid past an important mechanic taking place in the mind of Christians during the justification of improbable events. The mechanic's outline looks like this:

1. RELIGIOUS CLAIM (the world was flooded)
2. QUESTION (how did the plants survive?)
3. RESOLUTION (God can do anything)

In the Flood example, the structure resolves to:

1. God flooded the world for 40 days and nights.
2. How did the plants survive?
3. God can do anything, so he can do this too.

We never actually get to a place of understanding the processes which took place leading to the outcome. For example, imagine if the structure went something like this instead:

1. God flooded the world.
2. How did the plants survive?
3. Noah stashed seeds in the Ark and later planted them.

Now, the Bible doesn't validate the Noah Seed Theory, but at least in this line of reasoning we conclude with a process which could produce the reality we currently live in.

Breaking the Mold

If you notice this pattern in yourself, this ability to absorb any line of reasoning and deflect it to the all-encompassing ability of God, you might be content.

If, however, you are not content with your reasoning processes, I can help. Here is a little trick to break free from this cycle in any situation. With absolutely no sarcasm, the trick is to just be honest.

Here is what that might look like:

1. God flooded the world for 40 days and 40 nights.
2. How did the plants survive?
3. I don't know.

So simple you might be likely to just brush it off as trivial. But look again, the model does not ask you to abandon your faith. It only asks you to consider what you actually know.

If you did not observe the flood, and modern scientists claim the flood was an unlikely event, why feel the need to defend the frame?

If we took a daisy and submerged it in water, what have you then? A dead plant.

I have very little to say on the survivability of submerged plant life, but the question itself is not the point. It is the underlying mechanic which is activated by the question.

This mechanic stops free-thinking in its tracks because it pacifies our need to come to a real conclusion. It hands us something good enough to soothe us in the meantime, all while withholding from us the true limits of our own understanding.