“God is Not PT Barnum”

“If God is real, then why doesn’t he just prove that he exists?”

I get this question a lot from folks, particularly atheists, and nothing could be better designed to produce a migraine. Thankfully, John Shore over on Suddenly Christian has figured this question out:

If you think about that question, though, you’ll see pretty soon that what anyone asking it really wants is for God to not only prove to them personally that he exists, but to simultaneously prove his existence to a whole bunch of other people, too. Because if God proved his existence to just you, then that’s going to leave you with one whopper of a challenge on your hands, insofar as right away your choices will boil down to exactly two: Either tell people how you personally encountered God, and risk them thinking you’re absolutely badoinkers — or don’t tell anyone how God proved to you he was real, and risk having a stress-induced heart attack from having to keep such an extraordinary experience locked up inside of you.

The truth is, we don’t want God to prove he’s real to us in the same way everything else in our lives that’s “real” to us is real to us. Because it would destroy that within us which keeps us ever moving forward toward resolution, knowledge, clarity, context, wholeness. It would strip from us the very thing that makes us human.

For me, this is a fresh perspective. It actually addresses some of my own doubts, and perhaps why I doubt. Good stuff. Go read the entire article here:

http://johnshore.wordpress.com/

Angry People (The Lost Art of Reasoned Debate)

I’ve got to admit that I have been pretty pleased with the conversations we’ve been having here on Sharp Iron. The comments have been generally thoughtful, sometimes amusing and occasionally absurd but for the most part they have been good natured and polite.

I find that this is usually not the case when people disagree over issues having to do with religion, politics , the environment and morality. Especially when it comes to blogging. People with opposing points of view tend to meet each other like Cape Buffalo, not at all like the open minded and respectable folk I am sure they see themselves as.

A common thread, that runs through what now has taken the place of intelligent discourse, appears to be self-righteous anger. Lately I’ve read a lot of spiteful invective on some websites that are devoted to atheist apologetics. Don’t misunderstand me, it’s not that every atheist I’ve argued with tends toward using insulting and demeaning language towards theists, but it certainly is prevalent. From both sides of the debate, ridicule would appear to be the order of the day. Few seem to be listening to what anyone else has to say, most are too busy sharpening their next barb. As a Christian it may seem easy to explain away such behavior, citing the atheist’s lack of enlightenment and their slavish devotion to personal pride as sufficient cause. But I don’t remember being so angry when I was an atheist and feel that this opinion is a very patronizing one.

Besides, the theists, particularly the Christians, seem to be just as angry. Whether you are visiting a fundamentalist Christian site or one frequented by those more ’sophisticated’ liberals, the air is thick with venomous words. Mean spirited remarks are the norm and little meaningful discourse is invited, most dissenters having been run off by the local mob. More interesting here is that the Bible is very specific in it’s condemnation of inhospitable behavior, as well as the self indulgent addiction we call anger. “I’m telling you that anyone who is so much as angry with a brother or sister is guilty of murder” (Matthew 5:22). Perhaps the problem is with how some people define brother or sister.

It would seem to me that this type of anger is indicative of a lack of confidence in a stated opinion, an unwillingness to give an inch, out of fear that once any ground is given then a total rout is inevitable. If someone is so sure of their position, confident in holding the moral or intellectual high ground, then it would make sense that all comers would be welcome. Instead we encounter numerous bastions of like-minded people, clannish environments in which the threat of dissent is thoroughly squashed, not with superior arguments but with insult and ridicule. By refusing to respect those who disagree with them they lose any respect they ever owned.

This angry response to those who would dare argue with them provides little means of converting others to their way of thinking, instead providing ample rhetorical ammunition for potential opponents. Dallas Willard writes about anger in “The Divine Conspiracy”;

“It is a feeling that seizes us in our body and immediately impels us toward interfering with, and possibly even harming, those who have thwarted our will and interfered with our life.”

Anger is frequently used in attempts to force others to change their positions. Even when apparently successful it never enlists opponents as allies, no matter how reluctant. Instead the seeds of resentment are planted, breeding its own harvest of anger. And so the cycle goes.

“All our mental and emotional resources are marshaled to nurture and tend the anger, and our body throbs with it. Energy is dedicated to keeping the anger alive: we constantly remind ourselves of how wrongly we have been treated. And when it is allowed to govern our actions, of course, its evil is quickly multiplied in heart-rending consequences and in the replication of anger and rage in the hearts and bodies of everyone it touches.”

We learn by meeting, and respectfully engaging with, those who see things differently than we do. No matter how different the opinion, no matter how absurd it may seem to us, if presented thoughtfully and respectfully, then it deserves our hospitality.

Working Off the Books or Extra Credit Towards Salvation?

It would seem that, among the many Christian denominations , there is a nearly uniform consensus that belief in Jesus as God is essential for eternal salvation. Since the beginning of the Church many learned men and women have formulated different theologies but almost all of them would have at least this much as a foundation.

But is it reasonable to assume that this is so? And if this happens to be the case, is this the only requirement for salvation or are there further steps that need to be taken?

Not everyone can even seem to agree on what ’salvation’ is. There are those, probably in the majority, who see salvation as an eternal existence with God, in Heaven. The alternative to this salvation is generally thought of as being consigned to eternal suffering in a place called Hell. (My thoughts on the validity of Heaven and Hell are written elsewhere on this blog so there is no need to pursue that line at this time.)

Other Christians see salvation as being a divine release from the emotional and psychological pain of human bondage, often coupled with a heavenly reward as well. But a reward for what?

If we hail from one of the more works-driven traditions, such as Roman Catholicism, then we are rewarded for a life well lived, engaging in acts of charity and mercy as well as adhering to religious laws and traditions. Protestants on the other hand feel that no amount of work or action on the part of the believer can ever earn God’s approval, as God is perfectly holy. In this case it is only the good graces of God who spare the believer from a punishment that he deserves only too well.

But in neither case does it seem that only God’s grace is the means of salvation. Just the personal decision to accept God as lord is an action in itself. Our salvation would seem to require at least some effort on our part.

(The Calvinists get around this by saying that we are not allowed this choice, that God has determined before time began who would be saved and who would not. The doctrine of election is point that divides the church, if only on academic grounds. But is it really necessary to craft these tortuous explanations, when we may be only addressing the problems inherent to other equally artificial explanations?)

Our salvation apparently required an effort on God’s part as well, resulting in the sacrifice of his son as an atonement for our sins. And scripture is clear on how important our individual actions actually are. “Faith without works is dead” (James 2: 14-17) and the disciple of Christ will grow “fruit of the spirit”(Galatians 5: 22-24), attitudes and actions that would identify the true believer as such.

When Peter asks Jesus what he should do to prove his love for him, Jesus repeatedly tells him to ‘feed my sheep’ (John 21: 15-17) Even with this and other clear cut instructions from Jesus, the idea that God requires more from us than a mere profession of faith is not something that Protestants tend to emphasize. In fact, it is often stressed that no matter what a person does, he can not lose his salvation – “once saved always saved”.

I wonder where we find the biblical basis for this unambiguous doctrine. It is possible for someone to exhibit mean spirited, even evil behavior throughout their lives and stay confident that once they said the sinner’s prayer their salvation was assured. Of course an intentional lifestyle along these lines would likely be hypocritical so perhaps all bets are off. But what of the deluded person who does not see the error of their ways? (this may describe most of us)

I would hesitate to suggest what God may do with anyone, whether they appear good, or bad (by my standards). Yet many Christians do not hesitate to make assumptions about the fate of those whom they call the ‘unsaved’.

I know personally (and you probably do as well) people of other faiths or even of no faith, who seem to more closely follow the ways of Jesus than quite a few of our pew-mates. I have heard many people say that it doesn’t matter how good a person you are, if you have not professed acceptance of Jesus as God and King, then you are hell bound. Of course, the converse of that would be that no matter what you say or do, publicly or privately, if you are one of those ’saved’ by your profession of faith, then you will be with him in eternity.

Does anyone else see a problem with this? Oh, I expect to hear from people who will say that I am denying God’s word, but when I read the Bible I don’t see this doctrine (even in John 3:18 – this conversation with Nicodemus can be interpreted differently). I speak regularly with a number of atheists, mostly on the net. They seem to be fairly riled up over a lot of things that religious people say and do, but in my experience this particular doctrine of the elect seems to antagonize them the most. One of my concerns is that if this doctrine is not even biblical then what damage is it doing to our ability to share the Gospel with skeptics?

St. Paul says this in his letter to the Romans:

When outsiders who have never heard of God’s law follow it more or less by instinct, they confirm its truth by their obedience. They show that God’s law is not something alien, imposed on us from without, but woven into the very fabric of our creation. There is something deep within them that echoes God’s yes and no, right and wrong. Their response to God’s yes and no will become public knowledge on the day God makes his final decision about every man and woman. The Message from God that I proclaim through Jesus Christ takes into account all these differences. Romans 2:14-16

Jesus himself once said this of a pagan, a man who professed Caesar as god incarnate and messiah:

Taken aback, Jesus said, “I’ve yet to come across this kind of simple trust in Israel, the very people who are supposed to know all about God and how he works. This man is the vanguard of many outsiders who will soon be coming from all directions—streaming in from the east, pouring in from the west, sitting down at God’s kingdom banquet alongside Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Then those who grew up ‘in the faith’ but had no faith will find themselves out in the cold, outsiders to grace and wondering what happened.” Matthew 8:10-12

So what is it that God requires of us? Is it the belief in God that is important or is it our faith in his Way, a faith that some non-believers seem to hold as well? Is an atheist who holds faithfully to the ‘golden rule’ somehow less in God’s eyes than a believer who has trouble keeping it? I would suggest that none of us, even though we may believe, have the right to pronounce death sentences on those who do not.

Quantum Miracles: Physical Spirituality

OK, please bear with me here. Other than the fact that I am as curious as a cat (and live with three of them) I haven’t the foggiest notion what I am talking about. Still, there just might be something to this.

In 1935 the Austrian physicist Erwin Schroedinger envisioned a scenario that illustrated some of the mysteries of quantum mechanics. This famous thought experiment became known as the dilemma of “Schroedinger’s Cat.

Here is a description of Shroedinger’s Cat that I found a bit easier to digest.

Schrodinger’s Cat

A cat is in a box with a lid that is shut. Within the box is a radioactive nucleus that has a 50-50 chance of decaying in an hour. If the nucleus decays this triggers a mechanism that breaks a vial of poison gas that kills the cat. The cat has two states: alive or dead. Schrodinger argued that if quantum mechanics is regarded as a fundamental universal theory then it must be applicable to all systems be they small or large. If so, then we must write, for the cat’s state,

|cat> = a|alive> + b|dead>,

that is, the cat apparently is in a superposed state of life and death! Then we open the box.

According to the measurement hypothesis (discussed next) when we open the box, we are performing a measurement of the cat’s state; this is said to cause the cat’s superposed state to collapse into one base state or the other |dead> or |alive>. The cat is found either pushing up the daisies, or purring for its milk. Schroedinger considered this to be so absurd that (like Einstein) he concluded that quantum mechanics could not be the final word; something was missing.

This is such a strange notion, a cat that is somehow both alive and dead, and, more to the point, contrary to what appears to happen in the macroscopic world that there seems to be only two possibilities: either quantum mechanics works only on a microscopic scale, in which case it is not a universal theory, or it is a universal theory in which case it cries out for a better understanding of the notion of superposition.

Since the advent of quantum theory, many physicists have tried to devise different interpretations of the superposition of states.

From “The Quantum World” , Florida State University Physics Department.
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/users/ProsperH/AST3033/quantumworld.htm

So, in a layman’s nutshell: Just the act of observing an experiment will affect the outcome. The tree falling in the forest makes no noise.(The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle makes a similar statement, but let’s not go there right now.)

 

The reason I wanted to talk about Schroedinger’s cat is because I think it might just have some bearing on the validity and relevance of miracles. A group of us have been engaged in a discussion over some of the works of CS Lewis and recently the topic was his essay “Miracles”. Lewis, for those of you who do not know, is considered by many to be one of the greatest of Christian apologists, practicing the art of intellectually and rationally explaining the Christian faith to those who do not believe.

In this essay it is his premise that the miracles that have been witnessed by many people over the centuries present clear evidence, to anyone who is interested, that there exists a God, particularly the God of Christianity. One of the people in our group took issue with his suggestion, a suggestion that is not unique to Lewis and is considered a part of Christian doctrine as told in the various creeds.

She contended that so many of these miraculous events are easily explained away by non-religious people and the more that science reveals of our natural world, the less people are likely to accept supernatural explanations. There also tends to be a lack of consensus among spiritual believers over what constitutes a miracle, from dramatic healings to the finding of lost keys.

I would have to agree with her. I have witnessed events that I can only describe as being supernatural evidence of God but rarely have I presented them to others as being miraculous. When I have witnessed those attempts at convincing a skeptic that God does work miracles in this world, they have never been successful. That doesn’t mean that miracles have never drawn someone closer to accepting spiritual possibilities, but I have never seen it happen.

The evidence of miracles had very little to do with my turning away from atheism, and the same can be said for my family and friends. I can not recall ever witnessing a miracle (before I found my faith in God) that I would have identified as such. But since I now enjoy a relationship with God, through Jesus, rarely does a day go by that I do not encounter a miracle or two. Some of them may be considered mundane but more than a few cannot be easily explained away naturally.

So could it be, that because I have changed my perspective on life, miracles do exist for me as I observe them? And when a skeptic observes the same event, there is no miracle, because of his particular vantage point? I am not suggesting here that our perception causes us just to see things differently (though that is certainly true) but that in many (perhaps all) instances it is our actual physical observation that helps shape the outcome.

In other words; the skeptic opens the box to find the cat dead because his rational mind, weighing the evidence in hand, tells him it must be so. When the person of faith opens the box, she witnesses the miracle of a live cat even though the same evidence was clearly visible to her. Her faith has effectively changed the outcome of the event.

And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith.
Matthew 13:58

What do you think? Other than perhaps I should consider putting a little less catnip in my pipe.

Science and Faith; Universal Allies

In an article on http://atheistperspective.com , the author at one point has this to say;

The longer I spend talking about creationism, the more I feel I’m validating something which is just patently stupid…. Creationists are not interested in science, they are interested in defending their religion.

I have to agree with him here, I think he is close to the mark (although maybe a little insensitive). I hate to say it, but the vast majority of Creationist arguments are weak at best and do not stand up to honest scientific scrutiny. When I was an atheist (and even today) I felt as he does now. And of course when you abbreviate the Bible to a couple of sound bites then it does sound absurd. There is a great danger when we take the Bible too literally. We end up missing the point and it seems that, to many of us, the Bible often stands in place of God.

On the other hand….if we are nothing more than the most advanced animal on the planet, in which all of our activities may be explained as functions of our instinct to survive, then why do I continue to be moved by sunsets? Why do high mountains, with their harsh and inhospitable terrain attract me so? Why is there a Beethoven, a Duke Ellington or a Buddy Guy? How come Rembrandt, Degas and Picasso are all able to represent beauty in their own individual ways? What is beauty? Or even,Why is beauty and to what is its purpose? I have no need to eat lichen on a mountain peak’s hostile environment. I cannot procreate with a painting. Myriads of orchstrated man made sounds do nothing to help me detect the approach of my next meal.

Why do I become teary eyed every time I see “It’s a Wonderful Life“? I know what is going to happen, is my hardwiring faulty? Perhaps this emotional response is sourced somewhere in my DNA from when I was a savage hunter. (I guess my ancestors were just a bunch of weepy gatherers)

Why is a sense of right and wrong written on every person’s heart for him or her to consider or ignore? My cat certainly doesn’t have this capacity . For that matter, why do I have a cats? (I have three, talk about lacking a survival instinct.) They are rude, dirty and expensive, yet I spent a lot of (non-expendable) money last year at the feline ER after one got into a drunken bar fight. Where did I get that ridiculous gene?!

Why are the stripes on some animals, such as cats, beautiful to some of us? To what real purpose does it serve to have these varying shades and hues of thousands of individual hairs? It can’t be not to attract a mate because as we know, all cats are gray in the dark, right? Is it for camouflage? I guess there are more white cats in Finland than in Brazil.

Why do I love my wife, my children and my friends when they at times can make my life hell? Why l do Iove at all? To take pleasure and joy in the beauty that we find in nature, the arts and each other hardly makes sense if all we are is the sum of millions of years of random natural selection, a collection of particles bumping in the night.

Look at pacifists like Gandhi. We all admire them for what they do but usually it gets them killed. Some of the first people killed by the Nazis and the Communists were the pacifists and those who gave their lives protecting others. Of course, many more did not choose self sacrifice, their sense of survival overriding their sense of justice. Now that secon course of action makes much more sense in a merely naturalistic world. Yet we still admire those who give their lives for others. Is there a passive self destructive gene as well?

Why are we curious about things that cannot really benefit us? To what concievable, materialistic benefit is astronomy? What are we looking for? Why waste the time on any scientific research that does not help put a chicken in every pot? Because of scientific research we have the capability to destroy ourselves and much of this planet. It would seem that science has become very detrimental to the specie’s survival. Has the evolutionary process gone awry?

What has gone awry is the seeping away of our collective conscience and it is not unique to the secular world. It is my belief (and I am sorry if this sounds arrogant) that the vast majority of religious people in the world have completely missed the point. And because of this we have made God out to be so unpalatable that some of us will prefer almost anything in his place. This is why God gave us Jesus. Not to act as cosmic traffic cop, laying down the law, the ‘oughts’ and the ‘ought nots’. He did not come to give us the answers to every question we have about the universe. He came to show us how simple and pure it can be to know God while at the same time being who we are, with all of our passions, dreams and yearnings intact.

Science is not the enemy of faith. Faith is not the enemy of science. God is not about giving us all the answers (how boring would that be?). He leaves the answers for us to find for ourselves and this is often accomplished through science. Religious doctrine and scientific dogma have their places but there is nothing wrong with questioning either of them. The study of our universe, what we call science, is one essential ingredient for man to be complete. God made us curious, and it is our passion for his creation that drives this curiosity. The great religious scriptures were not written to answer our questions about natural history nor were they written to discourage us from searching for answers through scientific discovery.

Many secularists accuse people of faith as being closed minded. Perhaps, but much of the world’s problems arise when we consider scientific discovery to be our sole source of truth.

The Bible as Poetic Metaphor

In his book “Taking the Bible Seriously but Not Literally” Marcus Borg discusses some of the different ways in which Christians see the Bible. First there are the Natural Literalists, those who say the Bible is the direct Word of God, essentially dictated to the scribes through the Holy Spirit. This has been a common way of viewing the Bible since medieval times and there is essentially little conflict within the person who holds this view. God said it so it is true. End of story.

More common in varying degrees within today’s church is something called Conscious Literalism, in which we decide, based upon our reasoning abilities, upon which parts of the Bible are factual and which are metaphorical. This creates much tension within the Christian who holds to this view, whether they be conservative or liberal. Essentially, the Conscious Literalist still holds the Bible to be the Word of God but they will concede that certain parts of it are no longer relevant to today’s world. Conflict comes into play when we decide what parts are relevant. For example, in Leviticus homosexuality is punishable by death but right beside this is an admonishment to not wear clothing with blended fabrics. Who is to decide?

Borg postulates that though some of the bible is most probably factual and some is most probably metaphorical all of it is true, especially as it helps us to participate in a relational experience of God. The Old Testament, he says, is written by Jewish men and describes Israel’s developing relationship with God, from the cultural and linguistic perspective of the ancient Jews. The New Testament, on the other hand, is written by early Christians and is projected from their particular cultural and linguistic world view.
Since the different scriptures were selected as canon and compiled at various points through out history they obviously were not considered infallible or inerrant at the time of their writing. In fact the inerrancy of scripture was not proposed until after the protestant reformation, making this particular dogmatic claim very much a part of modern society. This has presented us with a situation in which the Bible is always being judged according to the epistemological and ontological criteria of this past age, resulting in debates over its truthfulness as determined by its factual and historical accuracy. This obviously is not the best way of presenting the Bible to unbelievers as well as believers.

Borg suggests that the Bible should be looked at in a sacramental way, sacred in that it is a place in which we can meet God. The official sacraments of the church (two Protestant, seven Catholic) are points in which the spirit of god is manifest in the actions that are taking place. I agree with Borg that there are many more sacraments than seven. God can be found in art, music, literature, nature, athletics, service, sacrifice etc. etc.

When looked at this way, the Bible is not a static book of absolutes but a living, breathing, adapting bridge between us and the sacred spirit of God. It is very much like a lens in which we may view the world and also see God. It is important to revere the object of our focus, not the instrument that allows this to happen.

What are your thoughts?

*If God Is In The Details Why Does Genesis Offer So Few?

All things are possible with God. So it could very well be that the universe was created precisely as it has been laid out in the book of Genesis. Science certainly has not been able to prove otherwise, but for many of us the culmination of the evidence does paint a slightly different picture.

It is often said that God is in the details. The closer we scrutinize nature and observe its intricate workings the more God reveals himself to us. We often come upon paradoxes that would only seem to be explicable as long as there is some benevolent intellect at work behind the scenes. (For example: proteins are manufactured in cells yet cells need proteins to exist).

But if God is in the details, Genesis surely does not present us with too many of them. Perhaps the creation account is correct but the picture it paints has been made with broad, flowing strokes of the author’s brush. Perhaps there was no felt need at the time to be very detailed and precise in describing the process of God’s creativity. We should remember that the Bible was originally an oral history. How much detail could be retained and then passed on from generation to generation? How much detail was even necessary to convey God’s message of love and beauty? We need only to look around and it is all there for us to behold.

As creation surrounds us, it bedazzles us, inspires us and nurtures us. It also intrigues us. Being creatures in his image we are obsessed with the rest of God’s creation. The longing for God’s nature drives us to uncover more of his mysteries. How and why do things happen? To what purpose is there to the observable world, if any at all? The more we study our universe the more we learn about ourselves as well as the artist who first imagined us.

There are some very concise (yet hypothetical) explanations by various highly accredited scientists, theologians and philosophers that bring Genesis and science together with little trouble. The problem seems to be that many good people on both sides of this debate feel that the wall of separation is too high to be able to see over.

Maybe both arguments are correct. Before I am accused of relativism here let me try to explain by analogy:

Statement #1) In 1863 Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves.
Statement #2) In 1865 the Union finally defeated rebel forces thereby ensuring the emancipation of the slaves held by the Confederate states.

Although both the above statements are true, neither one is complete. Some people may even think that these statements are virtually at odds with each other.

Is it possible that Genesis says all that is necessary but is deliberately lacking the detail to fully explain God’s artistic process, that it describes the picture without identifying the medium or the technique? Isn’t it also possible that secularized science does a good job of identifying the palettes, pixels and mediums involved in the painting yet fails to see the hand of the artist, the passion that the artist has for his work? Every work of art denotes an artist and every artwork is the culmination of an intricate combination of materials and processes used by the artist. It is often hoped by the artist that his work be studied, pondered and examined and that truth may be revealed to the observer in the process. With all good art there are usually more questions raised than answers given but the truth will shine through.

How else could it be in the hands of the Maestro?