TIS SENIORS’ RESEARCH PAPER – Reasons For Faith
BY: (JY, DL, KBY)
Introduction
This research emerged from discussions in our ‘Reasons for Faith’ class and is aimed to research the theme of ‘worldviews’. Methodologically, we approached this phenomenologically, opting to gather data by interviewing individual participants. Nine groups were formed to conduct the research on nine selected participants.
The participants consisted of a wide range of people from various walks of life. The purpose of these interviews was two-fold. Firstly, to better understand the worldview perceptions of the individual participants, including how they came to settle on that worldview and secondly, to gain a subjective understanding of how worldviews mediated how individuals dealt with normal day-to-day life matters including suffering. Both themes have been discussed in class and therefore this research was aimed at exploring a deeper phenomenological meaning beyond the framework of theories and text.
What is a worldview?
Mueller (2006) suggests that a worldview is how one understands and interprets life. Worldviews guide behavior, give emotional safety, confirm cultural standards, aid in the assimilation of culture, and examine cultural change (Hiebert, 2008). Our outlook on the world is our worldview. Or to put it another way, a worldview is the framework by which one views life. How do we look at life? How do we think about things? What makes a difference in how we think of things? Are our beliefs reflected in our behavior? Who and what have influenced that viewpoint? In order to explore these questions, worldviews should be studied beyond a theoretical framework, and purpose to extend our learning through this project.
(Worldview is something that you believe is true, and live your life based on.)
The Phenomenological Method
Phenomenology emerged from philosophy, primarily influenced by Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger; it aims to describe and explore experiences, which can only be done by collecting data from individuals who have lived through those experiences. This is often referred to as the “lived experience” and data collection is often limited to interviews. These interviews offer a rich description of the experience. Researchers therefore draw on characteristics identified during the data analysis, (Ricoeur, 2007).
Phenomenology as proposed by Hesserl (1962) and Heidegger (1962) is the science of pure ‘phenomena’ (Eagleton, 2011, p.55). Welman and Kruger (1999 p.189) contribute by explaining that the phenomenological approach seeks to understand social and psychological phenomena from the perspective of the people involved. These ideas are important to us because the phenomena of grasping a worldview is not limited to written expressions alone. Van Manen (1997) puts it this way, ‘we are all phenomenologists sharing by means of word and image, insights with others’ (p.4).
(Philosophy dealing with consciousness, thinking/thoughts, and experience.
Research Questions
To address the overarching question of this study, the following research questions shall provide some focus:
1. How do participants understand, locate and settle on their worldviews?
2. How are worldviews meaningful in the day-to-day lives of participants – what role does it play in their understanding of themes like suffering?
Participants
Our current high school senior class was asked to work in small groups to stage and conduct the interviews. We recruited participants randomly. Relying on those who might be willing to participate in a 20-minute classroom-based interview, regardless of their worldview. Our particular participant was ……. A Christian, and a formal Bible teacher of our class. He had deep knowledge about Christianity.
The Interview Questions:
1. When we are on the train, we often see people yielding their seats to the elderly or the needy. Do you believe that people are inherently selfish? Yes: how would you argue for the case of parent love? No: Why not? I think our every action stems from some sort of self-fulfillment whether it be making us feel saintly or satisfied? I don’t think there is altruism in the world
2. I’ve always struggled with this question throughout my life. I often hear people ask me to “seek God,” but fail to see a real connection in that. For you, what physical proof is there for the existence of God? Or is it solely based on your beliefs and prayers?
3. Many people follow the words of God. For me, I am not sure if he is a good or evil God. But considering that God is all powerful, couldn’t He also make this entire thing up? In other words, can God tell a lie if He wanted to?
4. In the Bible, Abraham sacrificed his son for God in obedience of His command. People always urge one another to abide by the words of God, but in this particular situation, would you follow command of the Lord or would you cherry-pick from the Bible? Would you sacrifice your child if God asks you to?
5. I think evil is unnecessary in this world for people to go through. Why wouldn’t God create humans who could appreciate good without having the evil to compare it to
6. Many people say the world we live in now is the best of all possibilities, but for certain people, this is definitely not the case. So my question is, why is there suffering in the world?
7. There are terrorists in this world and often no justice for those who were killed in the process. Why do you think bad things happen to good people?
8. Why do you think God did not intervene when the Serpent was tempting Eve?
9. The Christian God is portrayed as a loving God, but how could He send anyone to hell?
10. Do you think you will go to heaven and some Christians won’t?
Transcript of Interview with Makala Doulos
The interview with our participant took place as planned. Our group interviewed Mr. Doulos in the Reasons for Faith Classroom in front of other groups. We started off with me describing what we were learning during class, and asked some questions about Christianity/God.
Question:
So, during this course, we are learning about phenomenology.
Answer:
Phenomenology?
Question:
Yes, sir. So we are learning phenomenology in the course right now. So our first question is why do you think God did not intervene when the Serpent was tempting Eve?
Answer:
Yeah. I mean that’s the core question, isn’t it? Why did God if this story of Adam and Eve is true, you’ve got these two people and God knew that they were going to have the opportunity to be deceived by the Serpent, why did God not intervene? I think that that’s one of the toughest questions that we know of, but the fact of the matter is, is if you actually go to what Jesus was talking about in the Gospels, he said something that’s a little bit freaky. He’s talking back to the Pharisees and to these religious leaders and he says, “Do not the scriptures say that you are gods?” In other words, he didn’t say god like creators of the universe, but more like this idea of the Greek demigods that he created human beings with incredible free will, with a choice, they could choose something, and if he had just made Adam and Eve as somebody who would just walk around naked in some garden and be nice to him and all of that, it might’ve been nice for a while, but wouldn’t it be kind of like a pet? I mean, I don’t know, I was looking at Year of the Monkey monkey from a couple of years ago, and even though it was real smart and had artificial intelligence and some sort of a soul and all of that, but it just always just liked him. He’s got angels that already do that. And so I think what God did was he didn’t intervene because what he was creating were beings that were so powerful that love required to give them a choice to say, “I’m going to walk away and do this independently,” or, “I’m going to go ahead and stay in relationship with God and let that grow forever.” It’s a terrible choice. We all do that, right? I mean I think of my years of drinking where I picked up a bottle in some of my pain and it shattered my life for a number of years. I mean choices have consequences, of course, but I think that God allows those because he respects the fact that we’re so powerful and we can make choices. That’s just my opinion. Yeah. Does that help?
Question:
Yeah. My next question kind of relates to the first question, but the Christian god is portrayed as a loving God he’s all loving. He’s kept every single human being. But how could he send anyone that he loves to hell?
Answer:
Yeah, wow. Think about this. There will be a number of people who do go to hell. There will be people who– I think it goes back to this again– I looked back in the back and I see one of these C.S. Lewis quotes. But C.S. Lewis said it this way and so I’ll kind of defer to an expert in the field, right? Sometimes when you don’t know how to say– you quote somebody else, right? But C.S. Lewis said it this way. He said, “In the end, there’s going to be only two kinds of people. There will be people that said to God, the maker of the universe, the maker of time, the maker of eternity, the maker of all the rules of physics, the maker of morality, the maker of math, those who say to that being, ‘Hey, you’re smarter than me and I want to follow you and I want to trust in you because you know better. And I know that you sent your son and that he loved me and I didn’t know how exactly how to do it but I tried to follow your will.’ Those people I think will be welcomed into the kingdom.” But God again says this in 1 Corinthians 13, he says, “Love does not demand its own way. It doesn’t force its way on somebody.” Any of you boyfriends who are trying to pressure your girls into going somewhere, or saying something, or doing something. Or girls who are manipulating boys. That’s not love, is it? That’s just manipulation. And so God is saying, “Look, based on your level of revelation about me if you say in the end, ‘I want my will,'” God says that’s okay. So C.S. Lewis summarized it this way. He says, “In the end, there will only be two kinds of people. The people that say, ‘Your will be done, God,’ or those that God says to them, ‘Okay. Your will be done.'” Because I don’t think hell is some container, some vat of lava that God throws people into. He just says, “Fine, if you want to run, live your own life for eternity, go do it. But I’m not going to help you with that.” Just like your dad wouldn’t give you money to keep doing drugs, right? Go ahead. Go away if you want to do that. But that’s up to you. So God’s not throwing anybody in hell. We walk away from the goodness. We’re doing it right now in our lives, by the way. We do it every day. We walk away from incredible spiritual strength, relationships with each other, relationship with God and we just walk away from it. That’s what hell is. God doesn’t toss somebody into a vat of lava or fire. God says, “I love you enough to let you walk away.” I think that’s the answer. I think it’s love. Would you want a God that makes you a meat puppet?
No.
“Oh, worship me.” And he puts a little hand in your mouth and makes you say, “Oh, God, I love you,” and stuff. I think that would get pretty boring for the maker of the universe in about three femtoseconds.
Question:
I think that this fits quite well into KBs question. Do you want to move on to question number five? So I think evil is unnecessary in this world for people to go through. Why won’t God create humans who could appreciate good without having the evil that comes with it?
Answer:
(I have I hold a position that some academicians hold too, which is a little bit esoteric. So you guys have to listen to this if you’re going to think you care about it at all. I feel real distracted by some of the kids that don’t watch it, but that’s okay [kids were messing around up front].) So, it’s a weird one: I don’t think evil exists as a pure thing. I think the only things that do exist are the things that are eternal, like good, and virtue, and honor, and beauty, and symmetry, and maths, and physics. I think there are things that are true that are eternal, and they never change, and they’re beautiful, and they’re good. But evil is not a– it’s not like a yin and yang thing. It’s not like evil has a dog in the fight. Evil is nothing but a perversion of that which is good, or a distorting, or a changing, or a downgrading of that which is good. If you think about it, we can hear it right? Some of the most beautiful music all the way from rock and roll, to symphonic, to jazz. There’s music that’s utterly beautiful, and it moves you at a deep level. And there’s other music that rhythm, and sound, and lyric are designed to do nothing but bring up primal urges in you, to kill each other and to maim each other, and to shoot each other, and to take drugs, and to lie, and to do all of this stuff. And we say, “Well, wait a minute. Is it this versus that, or is it just music turned into terrible drama?” Or the same thing with art. Some of the most beautiful art, all the stuff that’s even created today, to hundreds of years ago, that just manifest beauty. And then other things. A few years ago, there was this guy that put a jar of urine with a cross in it, and he put it in the Chicago Museum or something, called it ‘Piss Christ.’ Okay. He has the right to do that. But is that pure art? No. It’s probably just the downgrading, right. He’s just going for shock value. So, I think what evil is, is not like, “Why does God allow evil to exist?” It doesn’t exist. It’s us taking what’s good and tearing it down so that we can get something we want out it.
I’m going to challenge all of us with something. I think about it quite often when I pick up my phone. Here’s my $400 Xiaomi or my $900 iPhone or something like that. If I gave a dollar a day to some sort of thing in Africa that was managing money very well, I could probably save 20 or 30 kids’ lives per year just by giving them good food. So again, I don’t think it’s like God allows evil to exist. I think it’s that he says, “I’m giving you the standards here. I can help you reach these standards.” But we choose to live at this base level of just– instead of art we look at pornography. Instead of music, we listen to explicit rap music. Instead of art, we just do crazy things and draw all these horrible pictures of memes and terrible things and stuff. So, I think evil doesn’t exist. I think it’s just a downgrading of something that’s good. Now, that’s controversial. I would not walk away. That’s just [Mak’s?], Dr. Peter [Kreeft’s?], some others. But that’s how I kind of knit that one together. Because evil definitely has an effect. People get hurt. We all get hurt.
Follow up Question:
Okay. So. Referring back to your analogy. Like you think the phones and kids in Africa. Do you think one the essential problems in the world is that there’s too many people? And since there are so many we couldn’t satisfy what they need. And as a result, you let these large groups of people with a family with 10 kids, suffering from hunger, or suffering from all kinds of disasters because they lack the resources.
Answer:
Sure. Again, I’m going to give the minority answer. I think the answer is the opposite. I think the fact that we’ve aborted, since the early 1970s, about 1.5 billion people, across a number of economies, has created economies that are stagnating to the point where their investment is down. I think the Silk Road from China across Asia might have been built 15, 20, 30 years ago if we actually had more people and more money in the economic engines. Because you find that the free nations of the world, once they get up to a certain point, actually do start pouring billions and billions of dollars into investment in foreign nations; China’s a model of that. Some people are saying it’s imperialism, and part of it is, maybe, but the fact of the matter is that the lives of people all the way across Asia are being improved. So, no, I don’t think there’s too many people, I think there’s too few. And since we can abort people just on a whim, our value of what human life is, is, “Well, if we can abort them, we can do infanticide. If they’re too old, we can get rid of them.”
And so, I think, it’s actually a problem of how we handle our money. Here I am, I’m a teacher, and I make whatever I make, and I have my housing allowance. That puts me in about the 95th percentile of world income, which doesn’t feel like it for us; we just feel like we’re middle-class, but really, we’re at the top. The fact of the matter is, is that if we changed our business models to say, “What if 100 companies got together and just said, ‘Hey, we’re going to go take the African continent, and in 50 years, bring it up to the level of the rest of the world’?” What an investment opportunity; there’s resources everywhere. Instead of banana republic-ing, pulling resources out of Africa, how about we just keep investing? What if we joined China? What if Iran, and Europe, and NAFTA, America, etc., joined that and said, “We’re just going to concentrate on the African continent for 50 years, and pour investment into it, try to fix the corruption, etc.” But no, there’s plenty of resources. I think the planet would hold about 40, 50 billion people, and at a carrying level. Couldn’t go beyond that, and it won’t go beyond that because when you have rich nations, you don’t have 20 kids in your family, you have one or two and it levels out. So probably 30 billion is where it would level out if we invest in each other. So, I don’t think there’s too many, I think there’s too few. I think we’ve killed too many people off and our economies are stagnating. Now, I’m really in the minority, but I think the data could support that.
Question:
But do you think people would really do that because– I think people are inherently selfish. We do things for something that we want, more or less. And so with that in mind, do you think– well, I don’t know if you’re going to agree with this or not, but will businesses really invest into these small countries where you might risk your company losing a lot of money?
Answer:
The risk/reward thing is always a balancing act, right? The people that take the risks, usually, are the ones that lose seven times out of 10, but then they hit three times out of 10, and they do pretty well. Jack Ma, Bill Gates, guys like that– Steve Jobs. And inherent selfish– this is why probably, capitalism, even communist China with its Chinese distinctive is saying– we’re a market economy with a communist party, right? Highly regulated market economy. And so, yeah, selfishness is a driver, but if that’s combined with, “Hey, I want to make some money.” But one of the ways I can make some money is actually to go out and help 10 other people make some money and raise the boat. But I think the reason we haven’t done it is exactly your answer. “Hey. I just want mine, man. It’s spring break. I just want to go on my vacation.” Somebody said to me, “Oh, you went to Africa to help people last year during your spring break. You’re so noble.” I’m like, “How come all of us aren’t doing that? It was fun.” It was fun to go help them with the farm and help them consult on their electric and all of that stuff. But yeah, I think we’re, including myself, we’re too selfish to make it happen.
Question: So, my next question is you know Leibniz?
Answer: The what?
Question: Leibniz or Leibniz?
Answer: Okay.
Question: Leibniz, he said the world we live in now is the best of all worlds, but for certain people, that is definitely not the case. So, my question is why there is suffering in the world?
Answer:
Oh, my gosh. Well, let’s be honest about something. The new atheists are kind of just angry. “There’s no God and you’re an idiot if you believe in God.” I think like Richard Dawkins. But guys like Dostoyevsky, Leibniz etc., came up with some very compelling arguments, philosophical arguments, against the existence of God and that is that suffering is dys-distributed. In other words, it’s unevenly given. I had a sister who died of a seven-year cancer. She had skin that was falling off of her. She was so sick at the end that they’re taking cadaver skin and patching her up and stuff. And she was so sick. And she was so in pain. And I was there helping dress her wounds for years because she’s my sister. You bet I was a little bit mad because guess what? “This is my little sister. What the heck are you doing, God?” Right? Or how come 20,000 kids a day are dying of starvation? I have a nephew in the Philippines who died of a nutritional problem. He got a little bit sick and his nutrition was so bad when he got diarrhea, he ended up having organ collapse from an electrolyte imbalance because he didn’t have the right food. He was one of those 20,000 a day that die of malnutrition and starvation in my family. Okay.
So the question of dys-distribution is actually one of the biggest things, but I think there’s two answers. I said something to my sister one time and she was hurting so bad and she was dying and I’m in Indonesia teaching. And I said, “Cindy, I’m praying for you and I feel like you can be healed.” And she texted back to me and she said, “Mak, it’s okay. I’m already healed in so many ways.” It was a journey for her. A terribly powerful journey for her. I’ve had other people that have died of cancer and other diseases who have said to me– one lady dying of lung cancer, never smoked, had two kids and a husband, and she said, “Mak, I wouldn’t change it for the world.” “What? How stupid. What? What are you talking about?” But guess what? It’s the people that were dying and going through the process telling me. Not me telling them, “Oh, God has a plan. Da, da, da, da, da. Everything’s fine.” No. The people going through the suffering were saying to me this is so powerful for me. This is so good for me.
Question: There are terrorists in this world and often no justice for those who were killed in the process. Why do you think bad things happen to good people?
Answer: Okay. The second one is we’re all going to die. How we going to live? Whether we live 15 years or or 150 years. How are we going to live? That’s the big question. And then the third one comes back again to free will. There was a quick study done. If all the Christians who lived over the UN poverty line, who were dedicated Christians– so cut that number in half, get you down about 500 million people, 400 million. If those people gave one penny– what’s that? About one mao, less than a mao per day into a system that was properly managed, those 20,000 kids a day wouldn’t die of starvation. Wait a minute. So now I’m back to my iPhone, right? What am I doing? Am I helping? Am I not part of the problem of the dys-distribution of suffering? I think disease is going to take all– we’re all going to die. But I think that we own some of this. There’s no reason that a whole area in Africa or India, or something, should die of starvation. There’s so much food going away, just wasting even in those countries. There’s so much we can do. So, there’s three things. What are we doing? Two, ask the people that are going through the suffering, what do they think about it, right? And I can’t remember the third one. But it is a big problem. The questions is, why is it so separate? But I think the answer is, again, back into free will and that suffering itself is often a pathway to people finding what they need in life. Okay. I guess we got time for what, one more?
Question: Okay. But would you say euthanasia is a way of ending someone’s suffering? Because Mr. Luman he’s– one of his presentations, he talked about this woman suffering from a spinal injury. I think, not much– I think she’s one of the minorities who are– who is able to go through this, through the power of God.
Sure.
Question: And so other people, I think, will be devastated. And with their disability, would want to seek other methods to, I guess, end their lives and end their sufferings. What’s your opinion on that?
Answer: Let me break this down a little bit. There’s a whole big difference between reasonable medical care at a reasonable cost for a good professional doctor, and a team of doctors actually goes in and, “Wow. We really gave it a good effort. And then we let nature take it’s course,” right? I’m okay with that. And I’m even, okay if somebody gets to a place where they can’t move, they could hardly breathe, etc, and they say, “Look. Just let me go. Turn the machine off,” right? Or somebody who’s even incapacitated. And what you do is you turn something off and you let nature take its course. That’s one ethical question that I think we could get to, and say, “That’s just respecting the fact that life is a cycle.” But me walking up to grandma because the quality of her life is a little bit low, and popping her instead of with one pain pill, I’d give her a pain pill that’s 15 times as powerful, and she dies in her sleep. We got to figure out where that line is. Your generation is going to have to do that. How much do we value human life? I mean I’m going to say it. We have a friend in this room (she has Down Syndrome). Do we figure out that somebody who has a missing chromosome is not worthwhile and should be eliminated? There are societies that have done that. And so, the question is where does euthanasia become murder? And it does somewhere. I don’t know exactly where that line is. But if I started to say, “I’m judging that their quality of life is too low. I’m judging that their life is too challenging. I’m judging that their pain is too great,” zip. I’d be really careful about that one.
Question: But what if it’s an individual choice?
Answer: That’s not euthanasia. That’s somebody saying, “I just want to go.” Let them go. If somebody wants to commit suicide, they have the right to do that. I’m not sure it’s a great idea. I’m just saying they have the right to do that because they’re free moral agents. But, yeah, just killing grandma because she’s a little bit too old, let’s be really careful before we make a society like that. …
I think the bell is going to ring. Can I just say something to you guys? I’m leaving at the end of the school year. You guys know me as like, “I’m so intense and all that.” I just love every single one of you. There are times where I’ve sat in a chair and I’m just wept for my students. And if you just know there’s one guy in the world. And many teachers are like this. I’m not the only one. You got of them here even at this school. I just love you guys so much. You’re so smart. You’re so strong. You’re so good. You’re the world changers. So, I may not have a chance to talk to you before I leave, but I’m just so honored to have known you guys. And I’m sorry. I know in Asia you’re not supposed to get emotional. And they don’t learn that stuff but, anyway. Be well. Be strong. Be good. Stop by if you want. I’ll get you hooked up with a permanent email, and you could stay in touch. Some of you guys have done that over the years. So, anyway.
Discussion
We analyzed the data by coding the data most carefully looking for clues of meaning and learning to understand what our participant(s) was/were communicating. We did this by listening back over the interview and critically analyzing the data. Underlining parts of the text and formulating codes and categorizations.
As a reinforcing measure to critically analyze our data, we employed the use of NVIVO. Using a Mac version of NVIVO 12 we started by importing our data into the program then compared our codes with a ‘word frequency’ for each question. For the sake of this discussion, I shall be concentrating on only three questions posed in the interview and discuss the word clouds associated therewith.
Research Question 1:
So, our first question is why do you think God did not intervene when the Serpent was tempting Eve?
Research Question 2:
Leibniz, he said the world we live in now is the best of all worlds, but for certain people, that is definitely not the case. So my question is why there is suffering in the world?
WORD CLOUD.
Research Question 3:
Why won’t God create humans who could appreciate good without having the evil that comes with it?
WORD CLOUD
COMMENT/REFLECTION:
The analysis of the word cloud really helps us, the interviewers to reflect on the question. By this I mean that we interviewers are able to remember and reflect on the question and response just by looking at the word cloud. We would not have to struggle and go back to the transcript to read the long section again. For example, in the first word cloud God, choice, and life are some frequently appeared words. Based on these words, I was able to quickly reflect on the question which was about free will that was given to us human beings. One interesting thing is that the word cloud, just by providing few words, bring back thoughts and memories about the stories that were told during the interview. For example, the word dying and sister helps me reflect and think back to the personal story that Mr. Doulos had provided for us as an example about why people suffer. In the third word cloud, I was able to analyze the response about evil really simply. The question was about why evil exists, but our interviewee gave us an insightful response that evil does not exist, but it is human that changes what is good to something evil. And this answer surprised me because it provided me a totally new thought. In conclusion, this word cloud helped me to go back to the interview and easy summarization about the interview response.
Limitations
– Lack of acknowledgement about a different religion
– Lack of time in interview (Certain amount of Questions Asked)
– Small sample size from each religion
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to firstly, examine how individuals formulate and settle on their worldviews. Secondly, how these worldviews impact on the day-to-day lives of participants. Probing what role their worldview might play in their understanding of themes like suffering?
DL, KB, and I formed a group and came up with questions about Christianity. We prepared and revised the quality of the questions so that the interviewee was able to respond with a deep answer. Due to limitation in time, we were not able to ask every single question as listed above in the interview questions section, but we were able to learn in depth about the worldview: Christianity.
I personally really enjoyed listening to the other interview, but the most exciting part about the interviews was that I got my questions answered. Since I learned new things and was able to grow as a Christian, I really appreciated this experience.
First of all, this period of time of interviewing people from different religion was great. We had the opportunity to learn more not just Christianity, but also about Buddhism. It was surprising how two different Buddhist had different mindset. One was stricter about Buddhism, while another man was more open minded. It was also interesting to know how Buddhism was not a religion where you chose to become: you are born Buddhist. This was a total new concept for me. For us Christian, even though we are born under a Christian family, if you do not put your faith in God, you do not become a Christian. Whereas in Buddhism, you do not get a choice but to become a Buddhist.
Another good output of this whole interview project was that I got an answer to my question about Christianity from our interviewee Mr. Doulos. About how and why evil exists in the world. He gave me a great answer which was that evil does not exist, but evil is a choice that we make using what is good. If that does not make sense, an easier way to say this would be that we people take what is good and turn it into evil. Another great answer he gave to our group was about why didn’t God intervene when Adam and Eve were tempted by the serpent. This question was the major question that both Christians and non-Christians had. And the answer he gave us was that us human beings are not a pet of God. God does not control us, like how we have power over our pets. That was an insight for me as a Christian. I never thought about comparing this situation as a human to pet situation. All in all, this was a great experience, or discussion should I say, that really influenced me into a better Christian by answering some questions that I had for years. And this is how the interview helped me as a Christian.
Due to these reasonings, I strongly enjoyed learning new things, and the interview itself.
References
Brunet, E., Derrida, B., Mueller, A., & Munier, S. (2006). Phenomenological theory giving the full statistics of the position of fluctuating pulled fronts. Physical Review E, 73(5), 056126.
Eagleton, T. (2011). Literary theory: An introduction John Wiley & Sons.
Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time. 1927. Trans.John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson.New York: Harper,Hiebert, P. G. (2008). Transforming worldviews: An anthropological understanding of how people change Baker Academic.
Husserl, E. (1962). Ideas, trans. WRB Gibson, New York, Collier, , 270.
Ricoeur, P. (2007). Evil: A challenge to philosophy and theology.
Van Manen, M. (2016). Writing in the dark: Phenomenological studies in interpretive inquiry Routledge.
Welman, J., & Kruger, S. (1999). Research methodology for the business and administrative sciences. johannesburg, south africa: International thompson. wenglinsky, H.(2002). the link between teacher classroom practices and student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10, 12.
