Thursday, October 17, 2013

Hello God? Please Leave a Message at the Tone

Okay, so I have now finished two books by author Kyle Idleman.  I should probably break down and buy his t-shirt at this point.  His latest offering Gods at War seeks to show the reader that the world we live in is inundated with "false idols" and false gods, all attempting to take the #1 place in our hearts (and in so doing, pushing God out).  He makes some effective arguments for this truth in the book.  Idolatry in the modern sense, has little or nothing to do with worshipping Greek gods or offering human sacrifices. In fact Idleman suggests that these days, simple things like entertainment and work can actually squeeze God out of our lives. God must now "fight" for the top spot on our list of achievements.  No longer is He the trophy on our top shelf, but rather one of many (and in some cases, not there at all).  


But why are we all so busy?  Why do we sign up our children for so many activities?  Why do some of our hobbies take up just as much time as we spend at church (if not more)? Relax, this is not going to be a blog post making you feel guilty about not tithing enough to the church or giving enough of our time to volunteering at the local food pantry.  Instead, I want to examine what it might look like to run away from something as good and righteous as a God who loves us.  I have a feeling it starts small: habits we pick up from our parents or coping strategies we have devised throughout our lives.  Little twists and turns of the soul that say "it's okay everyone, I can do this myself... no need for help."  And certainly no need for God's help.  After enough running, I think it is safe to say that God can easily move from something awe inspiring, to more like a big brother in the background - and then finally to a mere paper entity.    

The confusing thing is that most of these false idols (as Idleman puts it) are in essence good things.  Working hard, making money, volunteering our time, becoming high achievers, etc.  So how do we make the switch between earning money and worshipping money?  How do parents go from desiring the best for their children, to desiring their children to be the best at everything all the time?  There is a disconnect somewhere along the way.  I am reminded of the pageant moms on the hit T.V. show 'Toddlers and Tiaras.'  It is difficult to say what they are worshipping on that show, but it definitely isn't God!



There is an interesting excerpt halfway through the book where Idleman writes, "How many times have we been so distracted that we've missed a divine moment?  How many things does God long to say to us, but he keeps getting our voicemail because we're too busy to pick up?"  I imagine it in a metaphorical sense, such as God calling first my home phone and then my cell phone.  Maybe even stopping by the house eventually, only to find me traveling for work or running here and there like some silly automaton.  Sorry Lord, just leave a message ... I'm doing stuff.  Stuff.  And like most people, I really do adore some of the stuff I'm doing!  Hobbies are fun, work can be satisfying, and watching my kids or friends succeed at sports are all good things.  I promise I'll get back to God if He just leaves me a message.  After all, can't He see I'm busy?

It's of equal interest to me how the author relates almost each chapter to something that can be good of it's own accord, but once moved to the center of someone's world - everything turns to chaos.  What if none of us are actually busy, and we are just distracted?  Is it possible to be spiritually distracted?  Examples in the book include people who seek comfort through food, people who look to sex for fulfillment, and even folks who hold good health as the highest priority in their lives.  Idleman says the symptoms are often similar: whatever we idolize will eventually isolate us, unless that something is God.  But it usually isn't God that we worship, it's typically our stuff.  

Matters get worse when we try to self-diagnose our situation.  We are used to going to the medical doctor and telling the nurse what our physical symptoms are.  We may get medication for pain or to help us sleep at night, but the cause of the illness sometimes runs deeper.  "But Doctor, why can't I sleep at night?"  We want to treat the symptoms caused by false worship instead of looking further upstream to find out why we have those symptoms in the first place.  Maybe alcoholism is ruining someone's life, and the answer is to stop drinking.  But why is that person drinking too much in the first place? 

And worse yet, we have symptoms stemming from other symptoms.  Many people will never read Kyle Idleman's book because they don't have time.  And if we do read it, will we even be clear-headed enough to self-diagnose?  I suspect that often the answer is 'No.'  And so it occurs to me that there is really no place to hide.  At some point, as the false idol of our misdirected worship begins to isolate us and demand more and more of our time, we will switch gears and search for a new idol.  The cycle continues.  If we are lucky, God will have pity on us and take away our first love in order to show us our own soul.  He may change our financial situation on purpose or alter our health in order to force us to look further upstream.  Most of us would rather not look upstream.  We are content pursuing symptom treatment.

As I write this I am smiling, because I think it may be easy for someone reading this to feel guilty (or as Christians call it, "convicted") when considering their own proverbial closet full of idols.  I smile because I felt that way as well.  The reason I am still smiling is because when I put the book down, I remembered that as a follower of Christ I am literally soaked in grace.  For every nuance I may screw up, God can restore me.  We are not in charge, God is.  We don't have to be perfect, because God is.  And for the Christian, Jesus has taken on our imperfection such that we will come out the other end victorious.  It's just that we need to answer our voicemail a little more often.  Or at least leave the door unlocked in case He decides to stop by.  



.

Thursday, August 29, 2013

Over 16,000 Pageviews!



We celebrate today, as A Logical Faith website has reached over 16,000 pageviews!  I am so grateful to all of you who follow this blog faithfully - please come back and visit again.  For those of you who are new ... Welcome!

We look forward to 16,000 more views in the weeks and months to come.




.

Just the Facts, Ma'am!

There was a recent debate and discussion series held in Brisbane, Australia between Dr. William Craig and Professor Lawrence Krauss.  Those of you who read this blog regularly may recognize Dr. Craig from some of my past posts.  He is a philosopher and Christian apologist.  His opponent for this event was Prof. Krauss, a theoretical physicist and cosmologist - and also a staunch atheist.  Both men are highly acclaimed as academicians, and both are usually fairly entertaining to watch.  The question of the evening was: 'Has Science Buried God?'  


I am not certain why I still find myself drawn to these dialogues.  Most of the time they seem to devolve into two people from opposite ends of the continuum trying ardently to change each other's mind.  In other words, what begins with the historical and empirical facts can often end up in a stalemate of opposing worldviews.  What I noticed about this particular dialogue between Craig and Krauss was that "the facts" themselves played very little part in the evening's event.  Let me explain.  Some of you reading this may remember a television show from the 1950's called Dragnet.  It starred Jack Webb as police Sgt. Joe Friday, a tough no nonsense street cop who was famous for using the phrase "just the facts, Ma'am" while interrogating some of his female witnesses.  Sgt. Friday was incessant about getting to the bottom of the matter and finding out who actually committed the crime, and how they did it.  He was unwavering and incorruptible.  In fact, he almost reminds me of the honest and hardworking character Atticus Finch in Harper Lee's novel 'To Kill a Mockingbird.'  Both characters represented an attempt to portray uncompromising truth and honesty.  Both - in their own rites - were fictional American icons.

I thought of Joe Friday often while listening to the debate in Brisbane.  I felt like repeating his catchphrase many times.  Most of Krauss' points seemed to hinge on emotional arguments that stem from an apparent disconnect between human suffering and a loving God, and roughly one third of his presentation seemed to be an attempt to impugn Craig's personal character.  Craig,  in turn, was forced to spend much of the talk defending his character, as well as the character of God himself.  Nothing much was said about Science burying God.  In fact,  it was more or less an exercise in the justification of good and evil.  Morality seemed to take center stage in this debate, not string theory or the cosmological constant.  Krauss even had with him a small electronic buzzer with which he would make noises during Craig's presentation whenever he felt misinformation was being presented.  It was very, very strange.  

I suppose my point is this: I have perceived a recent shift within the atheist movement that appears to be much more concerned about validating morality, than about disproving God.  I believe Krauss is a fair representation of this latest strategy.  We are past "just the facts" now as they pertain to science or history, and well on our way to searching for meaning through morality and the human condition itself.   In many ways this is refreshing, but in some ways we are back to square one.  Krauss (and many like him) seem to be saying, "okay I'm ready to address moral principals now, just don't tell me that God has anything to do with those principles."  In other words, I know the difference between right and wrong ... I just can't explain how I know something is truly "right" yet (apart from personal preferences and personal experience).  No one would ever admit this, but there it is.  And if you point this out, be prepared for an emotional backlash!   It is akin to telling someone who just purchased a brand new car that the dealership neglected to inform them that there wasn't an engine under the hood.  The car may move, but only if it goes downhill - and you have to have someone behind it pushing the entire time.  

Why does this bother me?  Why would it have bothered Sgt. Friday?  I think it means that certain groups have migrated into the realm of staying an unbeliever at all costs, and then moving forward in an attempt to justify their current way of life without the God that they so despise.  Now remember that the argument here isn't that people who don't believe in God cannot be moral or good - we know they can.  This has never been the real issue.  As Craig points out in Brisbane, the true problem is that we cannot uphold an objective morality as existing apart from some type of Deity or supernatural force.  Let's face it: good and evil didn't evolve through natural selection or a series of biological accidents over millions of years.  These concepts are more than just choosing to live a certain way or a particularly charitable lifestyle.   The meaning of 'good' goes beyond the physical action of being good.  It has a higher calling.  Jesus knew this, which is why he often pointed out that giving to the poor and offering your time and energy wasn't enough if your heart wasn't in the right place.  

I suspect many who attended that discussion in Brisbane went home thinking much the same way they did when they first arrived.  In fact, I'm not so sure that this dialogue would have changed many hearts at all.  Oh well, at least they weren't hurling fists at each other.  It would have been interesting to replace Krauss' little buzzer with a pre-recording of Sgt. Friday's voice.  How many times would that machine have uttered his catchphrase that evening I wonder?  "Excuse me sir, can we get back to the facts at some point?"  But do factoids and poll numbers really matter that much when we discuss how someone ought or ought not to live?  It's up to you to decide.   

If we have truly entered the realm of discussing what is just and moral with the New Athiests, I am okay with that.  But remember, even it it were possible to successfully define the terms moral and immoral without invoking a God - a moral person could still act in an immoral fashion from time to time.  The problem then becomes what is it behind these terms that are over and above the action of doing good itself?    And I think this is often where both sides throw up their hands and give up.  Because if we have made up our minds already that we cannot be bothered with God, then we are forced to look for deeper meaning in our lives from sources other than the one from whom all meaning comes.   We will forever be unhappy and dissatisfied.  People like Sgt. Friday who call us out regarding these issues, will do nothing except annoy us greatly.  I have a feeling this is why Krauss brought the buzzer in the first place.



.

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

The One Right Question: Finding God in a Sea of Confusion

"It's important to understand that the grace of God doesn't simply invite us to follow ... it teaches us to follow."  
                                                       - Kyle Idleman

My adult Sunday school class recently finished the book Not a Fan by Kyle Idleman.  This is not a book for the weak of heart.  I suppose some could read through it from beginning to end and keep the text at arm's length.  Sometimes I envy people who can do that.  As I began reading this book, it occured to me that I was in for a journey - whether I wanted one or not!  Idleman is a pastor at Southeast Christian Church in Louisville, Kentucky, and the back of the book proclaims that his church is the fifth largest in the country.  In just over 200 pages, Idleman lays out an argument that goes something like this:  People who desire God fall into two camps.  The first group is composed of fans, or those who think God is really great and Jesus was a pretty cool guy, but they don't do much beyond pay Him lip service and attend the occasional church service.  They can look very convincing from the outside because fans say all the right things and know all the right people.  They know about God, but they don't have a relationship with God.  The second group is composed of followers, or those people who are actually in love with God, and are doing what He tells us to do in the Bible.  If fans are the people in the football stadium who cheer on their favorite team, then followers are the people who actually tend to the wounded players and stay long after the game is over.   

Furthermore, Idleman says that most people in the Christian church today are just fans (see, I told you it wasn't for the weak of heart)!  He wields the scalpel of truth even deeper by saying this in the first chapter: "Fans assume their good intentions make up for their apathetic faith.  Maybe you've already decided your a follower and not a fan; well, I hope you keep reading, one of the core symptoms of fandom is that fans almost always consider themselves to be followers."  Only the pastor of America's fifth largest church could get away with saying something like this.  Others say things like this at their own peril, and I don't say things like this at all.

It was an interesting  book, and an interesting study.  We ended the 7 week unit by discussing the following item.  Now that we see a distinction between fan and follower, what are we going to do about it, and is this even the correct question to ask?  No really, what IS the one right question to ask from a study like this?  Is it am I a fan or follower?  Is it where do we go from here?  Or is it simply well ... on to the next study?  I'm not certain that we ever reached a definitive answer at the end of those 7 weeks.  So that is my question today.  What is the one right question to ask in order to cut through all the confusion and find God in today's culture?  

It would probably be prudent here to talk a little bit about what I mean when I say "confusion."  I think that between what we learn from our peers and family, what we see in the media, what we hear in church, and what we read in books - it is easy to become confused about who God is.  After all, if you are going to be a follower (instead of a fan), it is good to know what you are following!  This is not just a pithy statement.  Think back, when was the last time you heard a sermon message about what it really means to count the cost of following Jesus?  I think a good many people never arrive at the question of fan or follower.  Many probably stop seeking God after they get confirmed at church, or maybe others might compartmentalize God into one day per week.  I have been guilty of both at various times.  This question forces us to dig deeper.

I remember telling my wife that I get angry sometimes when I read books like this.  For example, Francis Chan's excellent book on the dangers of lukewarm living (titled Crazy Love) reminds us that loving God isn't about a rulebook or checking things off of a list.  But then he goes on to list out some of the lukewarm living indicators.  In this book Kyle Idleman reminds us that following God is more than having a fish bumper sticker on your car, but then on the inside of the back cover I read about the 'Not a Fan marketing campaign" where you can purchase a t-shirt with the logo on it.  I mention these things not because I don't believe what both of these pastors are saying, just that I think it is easy to get sidetracked or confused in lieu of all the different lines of feedback and noise coming at us all the time.  Would a fan even care enough to be nervous about any of this? Would a follower care at all?  Oh well, maybe I'll just go and buy the fish sticker AND the t-shirt!


We have some pastors telling us that if you love God and do what He says, then you will have good health and plenty of money.  We have some telling us that in order to love God, you must carry picket signs and shout obscenities while standing outside of abortion clinics.  Still others tell us that being gay is the worst sin there is.  What are we to make of all this?  What does the Bible actually say about finding God?  Romans 10:9 tells us that "If you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." This is terrifyingly simple.  An honest study of the Scriptures as a whole does also mention being baptized and having a repentant heart.  You could fill a book with just these two things, but my point is this: if we are able to swim through this sea of confusion, then we may find in the distance - however remote or dimly lit - an island with a lighthouse on it.  The lighthouse is what God actually said, the sea is what we think He said.  But at this point we must ask another question ... and this is the question that I think applies to both fan and follower, pastor and lay person.  Now that we can see the lighthouse, what do we do?  Are we comfortable in the sea?  Maybe the water is warm and we have expensive SCUBA equipment that can keep us content for hours.  Do we press ahead to the lighthouse anyway?  After all, the island is so small, and it is really far away.  Maybe better to wait for the tourist boat to come back for us instead, and whisk us back to the resort.  After all, we can always ask the people at the front desk about the lighthouse once we are safely back at the hotel.  

I consider myself a follower sometimes, and a fan at other times.  But this may be a cop out answer.  Because if we have accepted Jesus (remember Romans 10:9?) then we also get something called grace.  Grace to me, means that even when I screw up, I am still loved.  Grace to me, means that I don't have to try so hard to be a follower, and that I need not be so ashamed when I end up acting more like a fan.  If you are lucky enough to have made it to the lighthouse, then rejoice.  I think for most of us, however, we are prone to take the occasional stroll back into the sea.  I suspect this is an honest answer, but how wonderful it is to take up residence in the lighthouse itself - as we were always meant to.  But we can't get to the lighthouse unless we ask ourselves the right questions.  The sea is a dangerous place, and the problem is that the water is warm and it is comfortable.  Human beings, however, are called to be more than just good swimmers.  


.  

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

The Batter's Box: Why Success Shouldn't be Perfect

My ten-year-old daughter has played softball since she was very small.  She loves it.  Early on, her coaches recognized that she was good at the fundamentals: hitting, fielding, and throwing.  Since then, the coaches on every one of her teams have spent a lot of energy to help guide her and bring her along in all of those areas; making her a better player each  season.  Recently, she made the jump from minor league to major league ball.  The majors consist of a wide variety of age groups, and she is on the young end.  The big fish now finds herself in a new (and much larger) pond.  Most of the girls are twice her size and three times as aggressive on the field.  In other words, she has a few things to learn in order to succeed in her new environment.  It didn't help that she was hit by a pitch her very first time at bat, and at her very first game.  It has been an uphill battle helping her to stay in the batter's box for each pitch.  The subsequent weeks after being hit, she would literally "flee" from home base as soon as the pitcher would let go of the ball.  She was scared to death.  As parents, we then struggled with whether or not to push her to overcome this fear, or allow her to quit.  We opted to see if she would someday return to the batter's box without this same hesitation that seemed to rule her life.  She agreed that she didn't want to quit.  We were very proud.    

While thinking about all of this, I couldn't help but make some comparisons regarding how many of us struggle with our Spiritual faith.  After all, if the realm of "active Christianity" could be considered a baseball diamond, then it seems to me that sometimes it would just be easier to sit in the bleachers.  Being active isn't all it's cracked up to be.  We get tired sometimes.  Can't we watch the other people compete?  Who wants to venture into the batter's box when you run the risk of getting hit?  Couldn't I just ebb along like the guy who has had a bit too much to drink, and lets all the other baseball parents know just how much better of an umpire he would make?  But the game must go on.  First inning ... batter up.

If we are honest - at least in so much as we can admit to when no one else is around - I think most of us struggle with what we are supposed to do in life.  If your own journey has taken you somewhere in the vicinity of the baseball diamond metaphor, then you know that this life has something to do with faith.  Which dugout each of us emerges from or which team we play for may vary, but the entity running the scoreboard is always the same.  God never changes.  How much (or how often) am I supposed to follow God?  What does this look like?  What in the world does it mean to be a "good Christian."  And why is it that every time I think I've met someone who is pious beyond reproach: they also fall short of my expectations in some way.  The grand questions continue to loom.  How much repentance is enough?  Does God actually mean what He says in the Bible when we read that we are saved by grace through faith, and not by our own doing?  Can't I just watch the batter's box from a safe distance?

I wonder what damage has been done to believer and non-believer alike, when the answers to these questions pour out of someone with an angry heart or a latent agenda.  I remember one gentleman in particular who used to tell people that they weren't going to Heaven because they weren't baptized in a baptismal pool (full immersion).  Someone should probably notify the Pope that he isn't saved, I suppose.  I believe it is a very necessary thing that churches (and the people in them) allow those who are aspiring to venture out onto the baseball diamond a chance to root around and ask questions ... to kick the tires a bit.  Allow them to count the costs regarding what it really takes to stand in the batter's box during each pitch.  People who aren't allowed to ask questions about belief systems will ask them anyway.  They will simply look around for whatever venue happens to suit their hearts, or worse yet, they will find anyone who will listen (regardless of their theology).  Because if we are talking about baseball diamonds here, we want to make sure that our teammates are at least in the correct bracket or league.  The theology matters.

If we are struggling with our faith from time to time, then what is to be done?  Do we set up an appointment with the pastor or priest?  Do we search out a church until we find the best fit?  Do we leave church all together (ie: sitting in the bleachers)?  I have a feeling the answer to this question lies more in the nature of the player who is approaching the batter's box than it does the box itself.  And it is here where I must take notes from a ten-year-old.  Because she was frightened, nervous, and uncertain ... but still she approached the batter's box.  Helmet on and bat held tightly.  Maybe crying a little bit, it's hard to see from the stands.  Probably hoping that all eyes aren't fixed only on her, but needing certain eyes to be fixed nonetheless.  The pitch may not be perfect, maybe she swings too soon or too late.  Never mind.  It isn't the approach that matters most to the one keeping score.  It is His image as reflected in the little girl that He cares about.  How pure it is, how much (and to what degree) it is connected to Himself.  Because the fact of the matter is, the scorekeeper doesn't keep score through a point system (no matter how much some of us want Him to).  The person in the batter's box has already won, simply because she showed up.  Back seat drivers and pseudo-umpires on the other side of the fence are just so many empty words.  What matters is whether or not we suit up and grab the bat.  It's about getting off the bleachers, and actively cultivating our faith walk.

As I write this, I am a happy Dad.  My daughter's last game demonstrated that she is winning against her fear.  Many have helped her in this journey, from coaches to grandparents.  But ultimately the choice was up to my daughter, and no one else.  She was forced to deal with the following dilemma (as we all are): do I give up and quit, or do I press on?  I am fairly confidant that we are supposed to press on.  Throw out the idea of perfection though.  Only God is perfect.  Fortunately for us, He is not obsessed with our character flaws.  But, rather how much we respond to the goodness that He has put into us already.  Do we reflect Him well?  Is that reflection strong?  Can others see it in us?  Do we decide to keep pressing on even though it can be confusing?  

I think that we are supposed to keep suiting up and grabbing our bat and helmet.  Don't worry about people that tell you that your faith walk isn't good enough (to whom are they comparing us to anyway?).  Instead, keep your eyes fixed on the baseball diamond.  At some point for all of us, the confusion will end and the struggles that we consider so formidable right now will give way to a direct and unencumbered connection between ourselves and the God who loves us so desperately.  I am grateful He has given us pointers along the way.  We have the Jesus of the Bible, we have the existence of the Christian church, and most importantly - we have the joy associated with overcoming bad pitches conjoined with the truth that it's okay if we swing the bat imperfectly.  Just as long as in some way, shape, or form ... we keep swinging.  Remember that advancement in the spiritual realm (sanctification) isn't always an upward arching line on a graph or chart.  It can be up and down, but the key is not to discard the uniform.   


.

Saturday, March 9, 2013

.


"Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?' But, conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because one's conscience tells one that it is right."


             -- Martin Luther King Jr.



.

Thursday, February 7, 2013

Are the Scientific Elite, Really Elite?


Is science at war with faith?  Many seem to think so.  I have just finished reading the book The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions by David Berlinski.  Berlinski is a mathematician with a Ph.D. from Princeton University, who has written a book dealing with the attitudes and philosophies of the scientific ruling elite.  The book is brilliantly written.  At times hard to follow, as he delves deep into the details of quantum physics and string theory.  But there is always a coherent narrative running through each chapter that will hold the reader in place.  It has been a while since I have read a book this thoughtful.  It is 225 pages; I blasted through it in about two days. 

Berlinski states in the preface that he is writing this book for the general public who feel that the scientific community often holds them in contempt: like so many intellectually dim children who have never received proper parenting.  In other words, he is bringing to light a type of  arrogance that runs through certain scientific circles which seems to say "we are smarter than you are, and we like it that way."  I have often perceived this while watching talks or debates, when a biologist (or some other type of scientist) smiles wryly after chastising his opponent about evolution or the scientific method.  The condescending tone is often palpable.  But Berlinski goes further than this.  He says that not only is there a degree of schoolyard bullying that is alive and well, but that this attitude is often buttressed by an atheistic worldview.  Now I must pause here briefly, because I don’t want anyone reading this blog post to think that I am so naive as to forget that haughty attitudes don't come only from non-believers.  I have known many people who attend church regularly for whom I would gladly avoid completely.  There is arrogance and immaturity in the religious community as well.  What Berlinski is saying here (I think) is that the problem occurs when these worldviews exercise undue influence upon the scientific data – hence affecting the way in which said scientist interprets the scientific conclusions themselves.  They are atheists first, and scientists second.  The former doesn't just influence the latter, it helps guide it.

Berlinski makes one more point at the end of chapter one.  He compares much of the elite scientific community to a type of church.  He writes, “And like any militant church, this one places a familiar demand before all others:  Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”    In other words, only non-theistic theories and conclusions are welcome.  None of that god stuff, thank you very much.  And unfortunately there are many cases where scientists were dismissed (or lost their tenure) after publishing papers which mention the possibility of intelligent design.

What am I to think of this?  Are we at war?  Is it the Faithful vs. the Scientist?  Well, I don’t think so.  I think that the struggle about teaching Creationism in the classroom has colored many people’s perception of science and faith.  Only a small portion of the religious crowd are actually creationists.  I myself do not believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, for example.  Christianity does not hold this as a necessary core concept.  There are many scientists that are Christians and Muslims.  The people that Berlinski is picking on here are the folks who consider themselves much smarter than everyone else, and often hide behind string theory or oscillating universes in order to latently insert their atheistic worldview.  And to this point, Berlinski pulls no punches.  He spends multiple chapters breaking down the work that Einstein, Gödel, Bohr, and Schrodinger have put forth.  They are all brilliant theories: but none of them advance the slightest notion that God can be disproved.  They simply don’t go there, they were never meant to.  He also notes that many of the modern scientific models and “mega-theories”  - when compared side by side – point to very different conclusions about the Universe.  Alas, we can take no shelter under the tent of science, at least as it pertains to avoiding God. 

I have a feeling that the heart of the matter reflects a battle between worldviews, not science and faith. It is a battle about how belief systems color how we interpret our surroundings.  These views speak to us in terms of how to live our lives, how to function on a daily basis, and how to raise our kids.  C.S. Lewis warns us to beware the “inner circle.”  The inner circle is composed of those in any occupation, that believe they are the final word on any given subject.  Lewis reminds us that it is better to simply go about our day making sure we do a competent job, than to pretend that we are kings within our own particular discipline.  Because you see, the inner circle is self-regulating.  There is often no one policing what they say or do … so correction never comes (and believe me, the human race often needs correction)!  Science may be self-correcting; but people often are not.  A group of people who believe they are never wrong, are quite unlikely to ever see a need to re-examine their worldview.  Why would they?  After all, they are the elite!

I am afraid we must look to the words that Jesus uttered 2,000 years ago, recorded in the Gospel of John:  “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.”  As people who believe in God we will often be persecuted, laughed at, disdained, and yes … even hated.  This has nothing to do whatsoever with science and the theory of special relativity.  I think the holocaust was the ultimate, modern expression of this hate against an entire population of people who believed in God (the Jewish nation).  Jesus warned us about this.  But He also says this, “… but take heart, for I have overcome the world.”  People may persecute you from time to time, but if you turn away from God, what else is there?  Do we then pray to evolutionary psychology?

If you ever get the chance to watch a documentary or read a scientific paper that simply presents the scientific facts without a worldview slipped in, I suggest you enjoy it while it lasts.  These presentations are few and far between.  More often you may hear someone from an inner circle make statements in this order: first atheism, then conviction, and finally the science.  The war is not between science and faith, it is between worldviews.  Telling people that evolution is a vehicle to promote change in organisms is a fine thing.  Telling them that this means God doesn't exist is ludicrous.   May God forgive the mistakes that we are making, on either side of the fence.  

 


.

Saturday, January 19, 2013

The Moral Law: Are We Really Special?

I recently finished reading a fascinating article on CNN.com entitled Morality: it's Not Just for Humans.  In this article, the viewpoints of prominent primatologist Frans de Waal are mentioned.  De Waal spent more than 20 years working to bridge the gaps in understanding between human behavior and primate behavior.  According to some of his latest research, he maintains that chimpanzees have a sense of right and wrong, just like human beings.  During some recent studies designed to test the ability to share, de Waal noticed that both his human subjects (children ages 2 - 7) and his primate subjects (adult chimpanzees) seemed to participate in sharing-like tendencies.  He also admits that although some of these results seemed clear on the surface, he cannot use this data as an honest litmus test when compared with the complex moral functioning of an adult human  being.  Keith Jensen from the University of Manchester would agree.  Jensen comments on de Waal's work by stating that these types of tests are not adequate to fully test the gap between a primate sense of justice, and the human use of morality. 

The article was interesting, and I thought it to be fairly even-handed regarding both viewpoints.  But then I began to read the comments from the reading audience at the bottom of the article.  Name-calling and insults were the order of the day.  The discussion broke down quickly from one of academic and scientific study, to whether or not evolution is true - and are human beings actually special?  And then what followed were arguments between those who believed in God, and those who don't.  This is intriguing.  I wonder, where do they ground their belief (or lack thereof) that this article could raise so much controversy and elicit such strong reactions? 

One of the main arguments for God in my book is the Universal Law of Morality.  And it is just that ... universal.  Though I am most intrigued by how human beings make use of morality in light of what each person individually considers right and wrong, I can make the leap (without too much trouble) that this sense of fair play may extend to the animal kingdom around us - at least as it pertains to the more complex creatures.  But before I go any further down this path, I want to list out the specific points as they pertain to the Moral Argument, properly speaking.  I think this will help to frame my subsequent points as well.  The following items were provided by Christian writer and philosopher C.S. Lewis in his book Mere Christianity - but they were certainly also written about before Lewis lived.  Lewis frames his argument for the existence of a moral law as follows:

1.) Human beings find within themselves a law pressing down on them, asking them to do the "right thing."

2.) This is not evolutionary herd instinct, because it directs behavior based on whether a person "ought" or "ought not" to do something - regardless of whether or not they want to do it.

3.) Anyone claiming there is no real Wright or Wrong, will usually go back on this a moment later, and especially when they themselves have been wronged!

4.) Someone caught breaking this law will usually attempt to explain away the reason that they broke the law, they do not try to discredit the "law" itself.

5.) The moral law can be taught by parents, but it was not invented by them. 

6.) Once you judge any one proposition by another proposition, and decide that one of them is greater than the other, you must be using some third (higher) proposition to judge the first two by.

7.)  We can see then, that something special is going on here.  Some law or lawgiver that seems very concerned with right conduct, fair play, and a sense of justice. 

Now with these points in mind, think about the morality debate in a different light.  Many view this dilemma in terms of an Either/Or argument - where it must be true that either morality is unique and special to man (thereby from God), or it exists in the animal kingdom at large and was therefore created via evolution (and it isn't special at all).  But try to think of it inclusively: merely the fact that any kind of morality exists in the world at all, whether it evolved or not, is spectacular.  If you align yourself more so with an evolutionary understanding of things, then how unique and special is this kind of sense of justice?  After all, if everything revolved around competition and survival of the fittest in lieu of Natural Selection, then why should organisms care for altruistic behaviour at all?  But it turns out that they do - especially human beings.  If you align yourself more with a theistic background, then what would be so strange about the (good) God of everything and everyone, endowing any organism complex enough to grasp higher thinking with an ability to treat each other fairly?  If there really is an actual wright and wrong that exists, couldn't this reality apply across the board?

I have a feeling that the reason for the lewd comments at the bottom of the CNN article were based on a misunderstanding of the real question.  It isn't whether or not chimpanzees can act in moral fashion with each other.  But rather, why do we have any kind of complex morality at all?  Especially the kind that exists in human beings.  I think if mankind were left to our own devices with nothing going on at all 'behind the scenes' except evolution, then any altruism or fairness that existed would resemble something more like a general herd instinct to preserve the species.  But that isn't what I see when I look at real life examples of people showing love to one another.  It is much more than that.  I think morality is still something that points to a higher governor to which we are all called.  And if someone reports that other animals can show affection and fairness to each other as well, then I am much encouraged.

At the end of the CNN article it is mentioned that de Waal has a new book coming out.  It will be called The Bonobo and the Atheist: In Search of Humanism Among the Primates.  It is said that de Waal will address evidence for a sense of fairness as rooted in biology, and then move on to address the role of Religion in society.  Judging from the title of his book, I have a feeling de Waal will judge God in a less than glowing light.  I fear he has also misunderstood the real question. 


.

Resurrection Sunday Still Matters

The literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is the linchpin of the Christian faith.  It doesn't matter which denomination or slant ...