Religion or Relationship?

 I've seen many memes and posts say that the Christian faith isn't about religion, but relationship. I must vehemently disagree. Jesus never spoke against religion. In fact, he fulfilled His religious obligations. Instead, He spoke against empty, legalistic "religion" - itself a vain corruption of the religion God desires.

But to understand the difference, I think it helps to define what religion is. Religion is the organized, corporate, creative response of the community to God's grace. It embraces the love of Christ by reflecting it into the lives of others, especially those in need; and it remembers and proclaims God's story of salvation and our part within it.

Healthy religion is ordained by the Father, empowered by the Holy Spirit, and illuminated by Christ's grace. I pray that all humanity embraces God's invitation to *both* religion *and* relationship with Him.

As the Apostle James once said, "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world," (Jas. 1:27).

#Religion #Faith #Christianity #Jesus #Relationship

The Fear of the Lord

 Someone recently asked me, "Are we supposed to fear God because we fear being punished?"

Always game to wrestle with a good question - especially one many of us have probably asked at one point or another - I thought it might be beneficial to post my response here:

"When 'fear of the Lord' is spoken of positively in Scripture, it denotes awe or wonder at the incredible strength, depth, and mystery of God. It may be exhilarating or calming, but it isn't fear of punishment.

Our relationship to God should be characterized as one of awe/wonder *and* love. Fear of punishment is antithetical to love and is a sign of spiritual immaturity. Many people first turn to Christ because they are afraid of punishment for sin (I know I did). But if we fear God because we fear being punished, then we are only at the beginning of our spiritual journey.

Entire sanctification/perfect communion with God/theosis  is characterized by being entirely illuminated by God's holy love, so that our relationships with Him, with each other, and with all of Creation are fueled entirely by His grace, and reflect nothing but His love.

As the Beloved Apostle wrote in 1 Jn. 4:16b-19, 'God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them. Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness on the day of judgment, because as he is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear; for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love. We love because He first loved us.'"

#Love #Grace #Faith #Sanctification #Spirituality #Mystery #Theosis #Nazarene

The Problem of Citing Bodily Autonomy in Defense of Legalized Abortion

Author’s Note: Abortion is an extremely sensitive issue for many, and must be approached with sensitivity and compassion, especially for the women and families who have been so deeply impacted by the agonizing decision over whether or not to terminate a fetus, and for those who have been wounded by the often uncaring and hurtful words of people on both sides of the debate. The intention of this piece isn’t to provide a “gotcha” argument for either side, but rather to help all those involved in forming public opinion and policy to reasonably think through the unquestioned assumptions we often hold regarding when individual lives (and their associated rights) do or don’t begin.

Many pro-choice advocates appeal to the individual woman's right to bodily autonomy as justification for free access to abortion. Though attempting to build a strong philosophical foundation for any political belief is important, I do not think the concept of “bodily autonomy,” or the right for a person to make all choices regarding the health and care of their bodies, is as sound as it may at first seem.

We as a society seem to have already agreed there are certain times when bodily autonomy can and indeed should be violated. For instance, most tend to agree that people should be vaccinated, even if the personal views of individuals run counter to the practice. This violation of bodily autonomy is generally justified by the risk non-vaccinated people pose to the rest of the population. When it comes to gun control, many societies have agreed that the right to bodily self defense must be weighed against the concerns of a safer society and the realities of mass shootings, suicides, and domestic abuse. And almost every nation on the planet is willing to compromise the bodily autonomy of certain classes of people (soldiers, prisoners, etc.) in order to maintain a stable society. Finally, we're also coming to the realization that the fight against climate change will likely require global action which restricts the choices of many individuals with respect to their own bodies (everything from freedom of transportation to the types of food we eat will be impacted)(1).

All of these pressing concerns demonstrate the reality that a perceived right to bodily autonomy isn't as inviolable as we may initially think. This is especially true when we consider that no man or woman is an island, and each decision we make impacts the lives of many others. This also means that when we decide to end the life of an unborn child (or, at the least, the potential life of a fetus); the decision almost always has further reaching impacts than in the life of the mother alone. The truth is, no body is really autonomous.

If we say a fetus is less of a person simply because it is wholly reliant on the mother for life, then we may as well argue that no one has rights; because literally every human being on the planet is part of an interconnected, complex system and each requires the others to survive. The species could not survive if each human being were truly divorced from the support she or he receives from others.

Because of this, and because I do think a fetus is a life with certain inalienable rights, I cannot support legalized abortion (except in the case of medical emergencies). I must admit that as a person of faith, I believe there is a sacredness to life... to all life, but especially to human life. And when we remove our sense of life's fundamental value, then all individual rights are at risk of dissolving before the ever-increasing needs of "the greater good." The irony is that when we begin to see unborn children as expendable tissue, it isn't that far of a cognitive leap to seeing born children as expendable as well.

But I also recognize that not everyone in this country holds to my particular religious beliefs. Since our country is based upon the principles of free expression, freedom of religion, and freedom of belief; any relevant policy decisions must be based not on the tenets of a particular religion, but through the development of coherent political philosophies arrived at through the application of reason.

Though I have many religious reasons for opposing abortion (the sacredness of life, the creation of humanity in God’s image, and God’s care for the voiceless and defenseless); I do not believe that faith and reason must necessarily conflict. And in this case, I believe that they do not. I simply think there is a stronger philosophical foundation for contending that fetuses have certain rights which must be considered equal to any other right (including the rights of born men and women); than the contention that abortion is justified by the right to bodily autonomy alone, especially since no bodies are truly autonomous.

This is because the same reasons for asserting the rights of those who have already been born apply equally to the unborn. These reasons are both biological and philosophical. Both groups exhibit biological individuality (both born and unborn have their own, unique DNA). And both groups exhibit the potentiality for agency (agency being defined as the capacity for intentional action).

If we judge the value of human life on individual agency alone (as many pro-choice advocates seem to affirm), then we suddenly run the risk of arguing that the elderly, the infirm, or the handicapped are somehow less human. This is why "potentiality for agency" is a better basis for asserting individual rights than simply "agency" or even viability alone.

But when we destroy a life, for any other reason than to save another life (and even then it's an ethical gray area that must be approached with compassion and sensitivity), we necessarily violate the intrinsic value of that life (whether born or unborn).

I don't want to restrict anyone's rights more than necessary. And I certainly don't want women to be oppressed, or left out in the cold to take care of vulnerable lives alone. We must have strong social webs of support for women in need. But I just can't see the justification for supporting legalized abortion in light of all this.

Footnotes

(1) I briefly considered including seat belt laws in the list of ways we as a society have decided public health concerns trump bodily autonomy, but I felt that would unnecessarily bog down the article. Suffice it to say there are many laws on the books which restrict the rights of individuals to make decisions regarding their own bodily health.

A Dialogue on Discussing Religion with Atheists

My previous post reflected on guidelines for discussing religion with Atheists, principally that any conversation should be characterized by grace, humility, and a genuine desire to listen and learn. In it, I briefly mentioned ontological and teleological arguments for God as evidence (though, I contended, not "proof") for the reasonable assertion that God exists.

This sparked a very interesting conversation today with an Atheist friend of mine, whom I will refer to as C.S., and which I thought was worthy of reproducing here. It delves into a number of subjects, including cosmology, quantum physics, psychology, philosophy, logic, and even comparative religion. If anything, it helped me to wrestle with my own thoughts on these diverse subjects as I continue to wrestle with and synthesize both my belief in God and my respect for science and logic.

Without further ado, here is the exchange in it's entirety. I hope you are able to get something out of it as well:

C.S.: Philosophical arguments like the Modal Ontological Argument have no bearing on reality. What we can and cannot meaningfully, logically say is a function of our language, not the universe.

Also, as an atheist, I think there are three issues that get mixed up all the time. The possible existence of gods, what’s the real definition of gods, and which religion/dogmas are correct and true.

Many of the debates I have seen in YouTube mostly deal with the question of god’s existence. Apologists rarely ever want to defend the existence of their specific god, or the validity of their specific religion.

Ian Hyde: C.S., I've actually been thinking about that quite a bit recently, but I'm going to break my response up into two parts. Your first point is one of the reasons I think it is important to distinguish between the philosophical application of logic and the scientific process.

Both processes are essential to our understanding the cosmos, but where the scientific process discovers observable phenomena, philosophy orders them. The problem with the modal ontological argument is as you say, it's an application of logic without any direct bearing on phenomena in the universe as we find them.

I find it useful only in that it demonstrates that the idea of the necessary maximal greatness is at least logically coherent (if not evidentially demonstrable as a matter of fact). Therefore, it becomes necessary to link the ontological to the teleological, for it to have any bearing on the universe and not just the inner workings of our own minds.

This is where the dual process theory of the mind comes into play. Both the language of logical expression and the capacity for scientific reasoning are conscious processes (the so-called "System 2". They come with a choice. They can be embraced or ignored. But our abilities to instinctively distinguish order from disorder, life from nonlife, to perceive patterns, attribute meaning to events, or perceive intelligence are all unconscious processes (the so-called "System 1"). System 1 makes us conscious; System 2 makes us human.

Incidentally, it's also System 1 which provides the mechanism for perceiving the Divine, and it's the perceptions generated within System 1 which provide the foundation for the reasoning expressed by System 2. It's also the processes of System 1 which directly affect the results of the double-slit experiment or the results of the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment.

Consciousness creates the reality which we then investigate using the scientific process. And if the presence of our consciousness defines the results of probabilistic outcomes experimentally in quantum mechanics; then it seems reasonable to infer a Divine Consciousness defined the almost immeasurably unlikely probabilistic outcomes leading to the creation of the Cosmos and us in turn.

That's how I link the ontological to the teleological, anyway; by understanding the observable universe to be a function of Divine Consciousness in a similar way as logical processes are a function of our own consciousness.

Ian Hyde: In response to your second point, I also agree that the three issues you listed are often conflated; though I also find the common atheistic argument that "Christians don't believe in 999 of the gods of other religions, while atheists just extend that logic to one more" based on a similar conflation of the issue.

If God is defined according to an ontological definition of "the maximally great Consciousness from which the cosmos is derived", then It is present in nearly every theistic religion. Even ancient pagan religions generally had one central deity from which all others were derived and which presided over all others. And almost all monotheistic faiths (and even non-theistic positions) today recognize the existence of elemental forces and the possibility of ultra-powerful beings which would seem to us as gods.

The primary distinguishing mark between monotheism and polytheism is not how many of these things exist, but what is worthy of worship. Monotheism (or its close cousin monolatry) simply state that only the Creator is worthy of worship and not the creature. Elemental forces or ultra-powerful beings, even in pagan mythologies, are generally understood as creatures springing from a singular Divine principle.

In turn, the distinguishing mark between Christianity and other forms of monotheism again does not revolve around which God exists, but rather how that God is self-revealed and expressed in the relational character of the Trinity (as opposed to other supposed self-revelations). We believe that the Father is self-revealed in the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ and that both in turn are communicated through the work of the Holy Spirit. All three exist relationally and eternally as distinct Persons, while all are fully One God.

This means that if I did not think the kerygma (teaching) of the Church as expressed in the Scriptures and the writings of the Church Mothers and Fathers was true, then I wouldn't be a Christian. I'd probably be something else, but I still wouldn't be able to be an atheist, materialist, or philosophical realist; since I'd still be convinced that God very likely exists and is worthy of worship.

C.S.: Just because we can perceive patterns and attribute meaning to events, and/or perceive intelligence doesn’t mean that the answers we come up with to explain them are correct. Our senses can and do deceive us. We are really good at coming up with patterns for things that aren’t there. And attribute meaning to things that have none. Have you been to an art gallery lately?

Also, are you implying that some people have problems with their System 1 if they don’t

perceive divinity?

And System 2, the conscious process, is affected by many things like education level/understanding, cultural background, biases, experiences, brain damage/disorders, etc. The scientific method helps take biases away when trying to answer hypotheses, and can provide a high level of certainty in some cases.

But we all don’t engage in that method at all times, and can’t account for supernatural events or beings with it.

So consciousness creates a reality, but it’s not the same reality for everyone. I still don’t understand how you make the jump from quantum mechanics to Divine Consciousness. I’m probably missing something.

I know close to nothing about quantum mechanics, but doesn’t it rely on mathematics and science to some extent?

You can infer almost anything if your System 1 and System 2 allow you to. Mine are telling something else.

C.S.: Point 2. I think the ontological definition of God is a presupposition and nothing more. They are just words. It obviously hasn’t been proven that God exist and what attributes it has.

Also, a difference between Christianity and other pagan religions is that followers were and are instructed to stop worshipping other deities. And not only that, but once in power, they made it a priority to convert whoever they came across, by force if necessary. That’s a big difference.

The same reason you don’t believe in Zeus and worship him accordingly, is the same reason I don’t believe in Yahweh. To me there’s no difference between the two. I would require the same kind of evidence for both if I was asked to believe in either.

Ian Hyde: I really should go to an art gallery soon. :) Anyway, all art has meaning, whether conscious or unconscious (our aesthetics are a function of System 1, while their analysis is a function of System 2).

Also, I think everyone actually does instinctively, unconsciously perceive Divinity within System 1; but they choose whether or not to suppress that perception using System 2 processes.

Here's a link to a published article called "The Development of Childrens' Prelife Reasoning: Evidence From Two Cultures" by Natalie A. Emmons and Deborah Kelemen on the research backing my claim up (namely that we, as a species, are biologically primed to perceive the supernatural).

I also recommend the book called Born Believers: The Science of Children's Religious Belief by Justin L. Barrett, who is a professor at the Fuller Graduate School of Psychology (Fuller is also where I earned my MDiv.).

To better understand the logical leap I made, I suggest looking up the double-slit experiment. Basically, when a coherent light travels through two slits in a metal plate unobserved, they exhibit an interference pattern when registered on a screen behind the plate (which means the light traveled through the slits as a wave). But when the beam of light is observed, the screen registers individual particles travelling only through one slit or the other rather than through both slits as a wave.

Even if the light is only observed *after* travelling through the slit, it registers as a particle hit, rather than a wave. This means that, even though the light should have moved as a wave unobserved through the slits, it uploaded a back-history as a particle when it was observed before hitting the screen.

This demonstrates empirically two things: 1) The act of conscious observation changes the outcome of the experiment, without physically manipulating the light. and 2) The act of conscious observation collapses the wave function deciding a probabilistic outcome and making it appear as if it had been a deterministic one.

This is perhaps best expressed in Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which asserts there is a fundamental limit to our ability to predict outcomes, making them essentially uncertain and probabilistic until observed. The more precisely a particle's location is known, the less precisely its momentum can be known.

Where I connect it to Divine Consciousness is that, just as our observation defines the reality with which we can interact and measure; Divine Observation was required for the definite moments (the Big Bang and subsequent events such as the rise of our particular physical laws, the condensation of matter, the formation of the Solar System, the creation of the Moon, the rise of life, and then humanity) which allowed our consciousness to be possible. Without Divine interaction, these definite events would have remained undefined, probabilistic realities.

Incidentally, both Heisenberg (the father of quantum mechanics) and Georges Lemaitre (the fellow who first postulated the Big Bang theory) were devoted Christians. That really has no bearing on their scientific theories, but it does suggest that these scientific observations were not seen as antithetical to their faith.

Now, it's totally possible that I am the one missing something, and not you. But I keep going over it all in my head, and it seems to be logically sound and backed up by empirical research.

C.S.: I will look into the stuff you provided, but I think that you’re assuming stuff. The double slit experiment demonstrated those two things you mentioned and nothing else. You say that Devine Observation was required for the big band to take place, but that’s just an assumption.

C.S.: Oh and by the way, when it comes down to children, I told my 6 year old the truth about Santa. He kept asking questions about it and the possibility of certain things, like how can he have enough presents for all the kids. So, I told him that I was the one who bought his presents, and that Santa didn’t exist.

A few days later, he still believes Santa is real. Go figure. Even with all the doubts and

questions he has about it.

Ian Hyde: It's an assumption based on how consciousness shapes reality within the Universe. In any case, it seems to be more plausible to me than the Many Worlds Interpretation supported by Lawrence Krauss, which is the only other alternative I've heard of which explains these observations.

The problem with the Many Worlds Interpretation is that it requires an infinite variety of universes, which is in contravention of Occam's Razor, the founding principle on which all scientific theories are based. Occam's Razor states that plurality should not be introduced into a theory or system without necessity. Or, as Isaac Newton said, "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes." I can think of no greater plurality than an infinite

number of universes.

As to your response titled "Point 2" above, I agree that the ontological argument doesn't adequately provide attributes of character (though "Maximally Great Being" does imply attributes of being: namely omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence) or provide proof of God's existence (I think I tried, unsuccessfully, to state that in my original response). It's just meant to provide a basic working definition for God and to demonstrate that God's existence, at the very least, isn't illogical.

Also, it's true that Christians are instructed to worship no other deities, but the definition of deity in that context is altogether different than that which describes the Maximally Great Being of the ontological argument. Other deities are understood to be creature, rather than Creator, and ontologically limited in a way the Creator is not.

As for those who would kill to bring people into their religion, they do so in direct contravention to Christ's teaching. The very instant they kill someone for not believing what they do, they cease to be Christians (defined as someone who follows Christ's teachings).

Finally, Santa Claus does exist! St. Nicholas of Myra was a bishop in the 4th century. He was imprisoned for 8 years for his faith, upheld the cause of the vulnerable and the poor, and became a model for generosity. What he stood for, the essence of his character, lives on whenever anyone lives generously or cares for the less fortunate. I have as much proof for his existence as I have for anyone else's. :)

Ian Hyde: BTW, the other problem with the Many Worlds Interpretation is that even multiverses are subject to the expansionary characteristics of the observed Universe (as multiple possibilities branch off) and STILL require a single point of origin, as demonstrated by the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth (BVG) Theorem. Even a multiverse, it appears, calls for a single Creator.

#faith #science #philosophy #logic #ontological #teleological #consciousness #quantumphysics #cosmology #psychology #comparativereligion

Recommendations for Discussing Religion with Atheists

We've all seen internet comment sections get out of hand. I'm sure too many of us, if we looked at our own responses carefully and honestly, would admit that we have occasionally said something hurtful, not because it was right, but because we just wanted to win the argument or because we felt insulted by something the other party said.

But as more and more opinions are shaped, challenged, or reinforced through discussion online; the way we respond becomes just as important as the arguments we use. In fact, I would argue it becomes more important, as it is indicative of how we view people who disagree with us. If we cannot love those who disagree with us, then we certainly won't be able to love those who hate us, and our responses become antithetical to the gospel, even while trying to prove its veracity.

I’ve always found that the best way to have a discussion about God, or any other religious, philosophical, or even aesthetic idea with someone who differs in opinion from you, is to approach them with as much grace as possible.

Always assume the best in their intentions, and try to actively engage in a way that values listening as much as talking. It’s a little bit like taking marriage counseling. Instead of just waiting for them to quit speaking so that you get your turn, truly listen to them. Weigh what they say. Ask yourself, if you were in their shoes, with their reasons, and their experiences, would you feel the same way?

So let’s imagine I am having a discussion with an atheist. We likely have very different opinions about God, seeing as I am a devoted Christian. So when I write a response, I don’t think, “Man, I’m gonna trip his logic up good!” Instead I think, “Are there ways that he can legitimately challenge me to think more deeply about my faith?” “Am I willing to be honest with myself about the hard questions?” “Is there a way I can provide him with thought-provoking answers that helps him think about things from an angle he’s never considered?” “How can we both grow through this experience?”

I’ve found having this attitude generally leads to much more fruitful and edifying conversations for all parties involved. :)

As to practical matters of discussion, I try to keep this Dietrich Bonhoeffer quote in mind, “How wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know.”

This means that when we discuss God with someone who doesn’t believe, our reasoning should avoid arguments of infinite regression or appeals to a god of the gaps at all cost. There are good, objective reasons for thinking God exists based on the available scientific evidence (though I would argue that “evidence” and “reason” is quite different from “proof”).

For instance, the modal ontological argument at least demonstrates that God’s existence is logical and plausible; the double-slit experiment and the “Schrodinger’s Cat” though experiment both demonstrate that consciousness plays a defining role in structuring our physical reality (and when it is understood that we are in the same box as Schrodinger’s Cat, an Outside Observer to the Cosmos becomes a necessity. And I would argue that the dual process theory of the mind provides evidence that the very basis of that consciousness which plays an integral role in structuring the physical universe is at its most basic level (the so-called “system 1” or “unconscious mind) also geared toward finding patterns in our environment, distinguishing life from non-life, and providing a foundational belief in transcendent Deity.

All of these, when taken together argue (but do not prove) that God’s existence, and our foundational experience of religious belief, are both rational and even probable. Deciding to live one’s life on such a religious foundation then becomes what we call “faith.” Faith after all is not belief in spite of evidence, but rather relational trust based on the evidence that God exists and cares for us.

#atheism #faith #christianity #discussion

The Relationship Between Spirituality and Religion

Every once in a while, I hear someone make the assertion, "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual." I see where they're coming from. The statement is usually uttered by someone who is trying to demonstrate that their faith is a deep component of their personality, and not simply empty, outward tradition or mindless, repetitive action.

But for me, I think the concepts of religion and spirituality only take on meaning when understood together. I don't think a person can have one without the other. While spirituality is the inward change experienced through faith, religion is its outward expression. Both are human responses to God's action in the world (what we refer to as "revelation").

As a hospice chaplain, the analogy I immediately go to describes the difference between grief and mourning. Grief is the inward, emotional and psychological experience of loss. Mourning is its outward expression. Indeed, it's no accident that grief is almost always described as a spiritual experience and mourning usually includes religious ritual.

So when a person tells me, "i'm not religious, I'm spiritual," a number of questions immediately come to mind. If your faith and spirituality are indeed shaping your life and worldview, do they not find expression in every day actions? Do those actions include ritual or repeated expression? If not, do you really have faith or is what you are experiencing just intellectual assent, compartmentalized and far removed from other areas of life? Are you confusing knowledge (gnosis) with faith? Are you allowing your interactions, relationships, and actions (the substance of religion) to be transformed by faith? Can spirituality even be truly transformative without physical expression?

It isn't my intent to judge anyone's faith or spirituality, I just want us (me included) to take a deep look at our assertions and how they actually reflect our lives and practices. Words have different meanings for different people. When we make a claim (often with the implication that our opinion is superior), we should make sure that at most it can hold up to scrutiny, and at the very least, that we are talking about the same things.

#Spirituality #Religion #Faith

Recommendations for Those Struggling Between Faith and Reason

Many within Western Culture have struggled with just how faith and reason interact and some have erroneously maintained that these are incompatible, and that faith somehow suggests a rejection of reason.

For those struggling between these philosophical and cultural forces, I have a couple of recommendations, as I too have found myself at a similar crossroads and wrestled deeply with issues of faith and reason. I will go ahead and tell you that I do affirm my Christian faith and I also fully affirm the reliability of reason in determining and judging scientific discovery, but through this struggle I have both greatly expanded my ideas regarding who or what Christ is, and how this translates into purpose for my life. Anyway, here are some brief suggestions as you continue your journey:

1) Do not be afraid to doubt. Doubt is the means by which we humbly question our own assumptions. It provides the opportunity for self-reflection and discovery. Never fear doubt. If you decide to continue living a life of faith, remember that scripture never presents God as One who punishes doubters and that doubt forms a foundational catalyst for transformation in many scriptural stories (cf. dialuges beteween God and Abraham, Gideon, and Moses; the Lament Psalms; the books of Job, Ecclesiastes, & Lamentations).

2) Challenge your own definitions. Many on here argue from basic assumptions regarding what words like "reason," "faith," "spiritual," and "good," really mean. These are all philosophically, culturally, and historically complex terms each with many, often competing definitions. For me, a major turning point was when I no longer defined faith as "blind belief" or "belief contrary to evidence," and instead defined it as "relational trust" in a God who is present in the Incarnation of Christ, and who died and resurrected. This definition was shaped by a re-evaluation of the often misquoted verse in Heb. 11:1 (which refers to hope in the future based on the evidence of Christ's resurrection, and not in a baseless past). I realized that the only God which could matter at all is not a cosmological-derived god found in the gaps of reason; but instead in a relational God found in the Incarnation of Christ.

3) Challenge your cultural assumptions. Despite my belief in objective truth, I know that we all view life through our own cultural lens. For Evangelical Christianity in America, this has often meant that people equate faith with right-wing political machinations and the heavy collusion of state and church forces. This is unfortunate, because it turns a lot of people off to Christianity, who see it simply as another corrupt means of control. But the more I have studied the teaching of Jesus, the critical, textual, and historical development of the New Testament, and the effects of cultural biases; the more I have fallen in love with the promise which Christ has provided and represents even today.

4) Do not fall into the trap of confirmation bias. So many people, whether theists or atheists or any other stripe of religious philosophy (or the lack there of) actively seek out sources that only reinforce their current beliefs. Don't be afraid of contrary opinions, but at the same time, don't give undue weight to those who reinforce ideas you may already be forming simply because they are convenient. For example, I personally have become convinced of the relative historical reliability of the gospel accounts and the conviction that the disciples believed they had witnessed the resurrected Christ. I think the historical record confirms this (as do most scholars), despite the recent influx of scholars and writers who suggest that Christ never existed. I think the often overly vocal minority opinion is given so much weight in some circles because it confirms the preconceived notions of those who hold to it.

5) Expand your ideas concerning what is possible. A large part of my theological development has been heavily influenced by the works of the Jesuit priest, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and his writings positing the noosphere and the idea of The Omega Point as a realization of the hope that all of Creation will one day be fully integrated, fully self-realized, and fully united (cf. theosis) in the Body of Christ itself; as well as the works of Carl Jung within the field of analytical psychology. So many people lose sight of the great promises of what someday will be, that their philosophy collapses into nothing more than a self-serving, hedonistic practicalism.

You'll notice that in the recommendations above, I have tried to guide you to some influential thinkers while at the same time I have avoided telling you exactly what to think. I want you to discover that for yourself. Still, it may be provide some comfort during your intellectual and spiritual struggle ahead that others have fought along the same path you now undertake and many have found fulfilling insights (which are usually accompanied by more questions) along the way. God bless you as you look for answers and I hope that you find what you are looking for.

#faith #reason #philosophy #belief

My Thoughts Regarding Evidence for God

Preface

A friend recently told me he had lost his faith. He had been a young-earth-creationist and had found the apologetic arguments regarding the relationship between science and scripture dissatisfying to the intellect, and insufficient evidence for his continued walk with Christ. Still, he asked for my thoughts on faith, how it fits with our current scientific understanding, and what my "best argument is for God's existence."  I generally dislike engaging in apologetic arguments, as I think Christ is best reflected in the life lived by faith and in the life of the Church, but below is the substance of my reply. Many Christians may find it controversial, but within it I believe I have confirmed the orthodox faith while also affirming the value and reliability of scientific discovery.

Introduction

"I think the only argument for Christianity is found in the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Christ. I do not think "proof" of God's existence can be found in cosmology, or evolutionary biology, and certainly cannot be found in any argument for a "god of the gaps."

Interestingly enough some of the 20th century's best theologians (including the theologian and theoretical chemist Charles Coulson) fully recognized this and emphasized the centrality of Christ's person to any theological understanding of God's work in the cosmos. I am particularly fond of the Dietrich Bonhoeffer (who was put to death for opposing the Nazis and leading the confessing church in Germany during WWII) quote,

"How wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know."

It is with this in mind that I define my faith, not as "blind belief," as some might claim faith is; but instead as "relational trust," based on the evidence related below. I trust God because I think He has been trustworthy in the past, even in the midst of the chaos and suffering in which we find ourselves. Some might argue that this contradicts Hebrews 11:1, which states, “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Many Atheists tend to see this as justification for casting Christianity as unreasonable. But I would contend that this passage is not referring to things of the past, but things of the future. We do not hope that the past will happen again. Instead, based on what has already happened (and the evidence on which we base the knowledge of what has already happened), we hope in the unseen future.

The thoughts which follow are largely the result of much wrestling on my part. However, I've come to the conclusion that throughout scripture, God does not punish our doubt, instead He often speaks to us through it. If this weren't true, then we would have to ignore the dialogues of Gideon and Moses, many of the Lament Psalms, the entire books of Job, Ecclesiastes, and Lamentations, and the narrative of the post-resurrection encounter between Jesus and Thomas.

So, here I'll outline my current thoughts on my faith. Please bear with me, because this is a long one, but in the process of laying all this out, I am trying to communicate why I still have faith while at the same time affirming a completely material cosmos, discoverable through the natural sciences:

1) My Thoughts on God and Humanity
I am a Christian, but I absolutely affirm the necessity of scientific discovery for accurately shaping our worldview. I have no problem with the current, standard theories concerning the big bang, multiverses, or evolutionary biology. My current understanding of God most resembles what might be called Extensionalist Panentheism. Unlike Pantheism, best exemplified in some of the more spiritually inclined writings of Albert Einstein and Baruch Spinoza, which equates the total sum of the Universe (or Multiverse) with God; my understanding of Extensionalist Panentheism posits that the Cosmos is an extension (or expression) of the mind of God. The expression of God subsists within every particle or force within the Universe, and yet expands beyond it, even into,paradoxically, non-existence and potential futures. In this view, the Universe becomes an outflow of the mind of God, in whose Word everything finds existence (Jn. 1:3).

Its intelligence may be expressed through revelation (the interaction of mind-to-mind), but whenever such revelation happens, it takes the form of direct experience, and so in the process of abstraction and human mental process (including the translation into symbolic language), becomes a dim reflection of the original revelation and is written down by those who receive it using the best (often mythic) symbols available to them (i.e. the prophets of old). Ultimately however, the perfect revelation is expressed in the Word made Flesh, the Incarnate Son of God whose relevance is communicated through the Spirit (sometimes known as "ruach" in the OT Hebrew or "pneuma" in the NT Greek, both roughly translated as "breath" or "wind") (cf. Gen. 1; Jon. 1).

This perfect expression took on carnality, for the sake of carnal beings. I think that we are wholly physical (I do not believe we have a spirit, other than that which fills all life, that can be separated from the body, as this strikes me as a Neo-Platonist and Gnostic idea which was introduced to Christianity in the third and fourth centuries). Even our minds, where we find our identity and personality, are generated in the brain; just as the cosmos is generated from God through the Word. Because we are completely material, in a material cosmos, any salvation of the individual must be expressed materially. This is why the New Testament (and especially the Pauline and Johannine Writings) place such an emphasis on the bodily resurrection. Christ's sacrifice may have been the first and only truly selfless sacrifice, and served as both an example and as the avenue through which salvation comes. But if Christ was not bodily resurrected, then human beings have no hope of bodily resurrection in the future (1 Cor. 15:17).

I do not think science nor scripture support a vision of the afterlife where a person's disembodied spirit eternally inhabits heaven or hell. For one, we've come to discover through the neurosciences that the seat of our emotions, memory, and intellect all rest in the biological processes of the brain. Our hope is not in a disembodied, eternal heaven; but in a bodily resurrection and a restored creation where humanity is no longer separating from God by our sin and where we are no longer subject to the suffering found in chaos (Rev. 21:1). If there is judgment and a reckoning for the broken relationships we've caused, and for both individual and systemic sin; then I think this reckoning takes the form of self-imposed bitterness and hatred in individuals, to such an extent that one could stand in Paradise itself and still feel as though they were burning in hell. If this state is permanent, then it is likely so, because a person's bitterness and sin has twisted them up so much inside that they wouldn't receive the gift of grace even if it were offered.. Since I affirm that we are made in the Image of God, in that we have the creative and destructive powers of free will (Gen. 1:26-28; Deut. 30:19), I think that even when all is accounted for on the Last Day (which would require a physical resurrection), if a person is willing to turn from their own twisted insides toward the ever-present mercy of God, then they will receive it immediately (cf. Ps. 103:1; Ps. 118). I'm not 100% sure on whether those who find themselves in that state would do so, as it may be that if a person truly becomes utterly consumed by hate, then they may not even want to turn away from their own suffering, out of sheer bitterness and obstinance.

2) My Thoughts on the Old Testament
If God exists, and if this God were to reveal anything about Himself, then myths are just as good a literary form as any. After all, even today, we use myths (movies, fictional literature, etc.) to communicate ideas which are central to our cultural and relational understanding. Myths are often used to convey very poignant truth about who we are, and to completely dismiss them as irrelevant because of a lack of understanding regarding their source and purpose, is a bit silly.

 As C.S. Lewis said,

"Literature adds to reality, it does not simply describe it. It enriches... and in this respect irrigates the deserts that our lives have already become."

I think that the Bible is a mix of song, poetry, myth, history, proverb, and parable. But when we confuse these literary genres, we totally miss the point of the text.

For example, the Jews most likely borrowed many of the elements in the creation story, the flood, and the early genealogy lists from the Babylonians (and them from the Sumerians before them).

But what makes the biblical stories kind of cool (if you're a nerd like me) in this context are the changes they made to the stories. In the Atrahasis and Gilgamesh epics, the earth is flooded because humans just party too hard and keep the gods up, so they decide to kill everybody. In the biblical story, God regrets his decision to create humanity because it fills the earth with violence.

This theme crops up again and again in the OT, and shows that even at an early point (they were probably included in the OT at the latest 2,600 yrs ago, but maybe a couple of hundred years before that), ideas about social justice were beginning to take shape. Even in some of the more brutal parts of the OT, the system of laws in place is much “fairer” in the modern sense than comparable law codes of the time (like Hammurabai's).

Also, and this often gets lost on modern audiences,but the narrative (especially from creation to the flood) takes on a very precise parallel structure. Genesis two (Adam & Eve) and three (Cain & Abel) are parallel structures, the days of creation are parallel structures (days 1 & 4 – light & light givers created; days 2 & 5 – waters & fish created; days 3 & 6 – earth and land creatures created; day 7 is a bookend of “rest); the flood exhibits a similar parallel device, as does the tower of babel, and the entire section of Genesis 1-7 exhibits an overarching parallel structure.

Additionally, in the Babylonian creation stories (the Enuma Elish), Marduk wrestles Tiamat (a chaos dragon), kills her, and creates the world from her carcas. In the Bible, Yahweh only needs to speak the Word, and chaos (tohu – an early cognate of Tiamat) recedes. This makes Yahweh a bit unique in the ancient near east, in that creation is an extension (through the Word) of God's mind into “the void” or “nonexistence.” The chaos dragon creeps up again throughout the OT and even in the NT, as a dragon or leviathan.

Since the Jews who were in exile in Babylon knew the Babylonian myths, they would have immediately recognized the similarities and recognized these biblical stories as myths. And if they somehow missed that, then the parallel structure would have tipped them off.

Finally, just in case anyone was still tempted to treat these stories as literal historical events, there are six “Creation Psalms” (Ps. 8, 19, 29, 65, 104, 139) which use creative language and have never been treated literally. I think this is primarily because they are immediately recognized as the creative outflow found in most songs.

The funny thing is, these creation stories, from the earliest Jewish works, all through early Christianity (cf. Origen and Clement of Alexandria), were understood in their mythical, figurative, and symbolic sense. And even the laws found in the Torah suggest a much greater work in the cosmos and a more socially just form of being (compared to the surrounding cultures, even if brutal by today's standards).

When Fundamentalist (and many Evangelical) Christians take these stories literally, not only do they make the faith look stupid to outsiders, but they miss much of the beauty of these early works. And that honestly makes me kinda sad that they think they are doing good, and yet are often totally missing the message that is in the works. Unfortunately, this also encourages people on the opposite end of the spectrum to completely reject any value in the text, even though their level of knowledge regarding them is on the same level as the Fundamentalists.

3) My Thoughts on New Testament Evidence
Long story short, it's all very much open to interpretation, and I'm not opposed to an allegorical reading for many of the events surrounding Jesus' life (in fact, Clement of Alexandria argued that ALL scripture has a deeper allegorical meaning, and that only chumps take everything literally, a position which came to define the Alexandrian School). Still, based on the below considerations, I think there is a genuine historical core which makes for very interesting study and discussion.

But, even where stories and myths are re-appropriated, I still find it useful to discuss the differences with source material, and what it could mean for interpreting theological positions based on the gospels. The gospel of John has fascinated me the most out of any of them. While the first three are Synoptics (meaning they share much of their material, with the most likely hypothesis being that Matthew and Luke used Mark, Special-L, Special-M, and Q as their source materials); John is very different in many respects.

At various times this has led scholars to tend to disregard John as non-historical, but I actually think John might be the most reliable of the gospels. His gospel is unique in that he shares details regarding the temple which (generally) only insiders would have known before it was destroyed in 70 CE. His timeline is also more likely for the Passover, given Jewish practice at the time (and also more theologically significant, as Jesus dies the moment the Passover lamb is slaughtered on the Day of Preparation before the Sabbath). He writes in slightly terrible Greek (especially compared to Mark or Luke), and uses multiple Hebraic idioms, suggesting a native Semitic speaker. The source of the book is evidently Ephesus, or nearby Asia Minor, and this fits with the written accounts of John's life by the men who knew him, specifically Ignatius of Antioch, Papias, Polycarp, and possibly traditions handed on to Irenaeus. The gospel writer self-identifies as the beloved disciple in the narrative, which is most likely John (as the only major unnamed disciple in the book).

The Johannine Epistles and Revelation are evidently already aware of the Gospel's existence, and as they have an estimated composition date of the mid-90's CE, this suggests the Gospel was earlier. The language between them is very similar (though there are some significant grammatical differences with 2-3 John), and may be from the same author.

Finally, we actually have a small scrap of papyrus from the gospel, dated to about 125 CE at the latest (called P52), and possibly only one copy removed from the original. Evidence from the writing and type of script suggests a devoted hand without formal scribal training, which would be consistent with an upstart community, not yet well established.

All of this suggests at least a strong core of a genuine first-hand account by the beloved disciple. The text may have been augmented with an unnamed sayings gospel and a signs gospel. This suggests that either some of John's followers added this material, or he used additional material to assist in telling his own story (as biographers often have). Based on the writings of his followers, and the date of the gospel, I think it was relatively finished while he was alive and I think it was really written by him.

Even when we look at the fact that the other three gospels were most likely not written by the apostles themselves, their sources were most likely in circulation while the people who remembered these events were still alive (especially with Mark, who seems totally unaware of the Temple's destruction in 70 CE). Additionally, recent scholarship on oral traditions of Africa (from the early Colonial period to the 1960's) has show a remarkable consistency among oral accounts, even over hundreds of years. Ironically, the effort to immortalize events by writing them down tends to remove them from the collective memory of a culture's storytellers.

Despite the explosion in written gospel narratives during the first few centuries of Christianity, there appears to be a genuine core narrative and teaching to Jesus' life which carries through the four canonical gospels (which in turn rely on at least 7 sources), the gospel of Thomas (which seems to have a genuinely early core), the epistles, and the writings of the Apostolic fathers (Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, the Shepherd of Hermas, Bartholomew, etc. who are often overlooked, though these writers knew the apostles firsthand).

4) My Thoughts on Sources Outside the New Testament
As for outside sources, there is a ton of debate on the quotes by Josephus concerning Jesus. There are three normally quoted (Antiquities, XVIII, 3.3 & 5.2, XX, 9). I think two of them are probably later interpolations into the text, but Antiquities XX, 9 appears to contain a genuine narrative concerning Jesus. The nature of Josephus' treatment in this passage may suggest that he was more familiar with the trouble-making Chrestians and the Christ they followed, and so his attribution to Jesus as the Christ may not be a sign of belief (or later interpolation), but simply a helpful identifier for his Roman patrons, who were increasingly coming into contact with this group. Still, I would give this passage's authenticity about a 50-50 shot.

Perhaps most helpful when reading Josephus is not what he says about Jesus, but what he says about the destruction of the Temple. This strongly echoes Matthew and Mark (which was likely written earlier), and actually suggests that much of Jesus' teaching had nothing to do with "the end of the world," or "the rapture," but the end of the Temple in Jerusalem and the cataclysmic change it would bring to Judaism and humanity's relationship with God.

In fact, I think we can make a strong case that Jesus never talked about an afterlife that consists of a disembodied soul floating up to God was borrowed from Neo-platonism and Gnosticism. I don't actually think there is a soul apart from what is generated by the body, or a heaven we go to. As to the breath or Spirit which emanates from God, I think this is present in all life. And when the bible speaks of humanity, it may very well be speaking of that state of evolution in which life begins to exhibit the consciousness and will which is reflective of the power of God (cf. Gen. 1:27, Deut. 30:19)

Jesus seems to be speaking of a restored creation (cf. Rev. 21:1), and the Gehenna (what we interpret as "hell") that he speaks of is the natural consequence of suffering and shame brought about by the unjust life. I think there may be a physical resurrection for us, but only if Jesus was physically resurrected, and this would indeed be a miraculous event. If Jesus was only symbolically resurrected, then I think we rot in the ground as we have always done.

Even without Josephus, we have the written accounts/letters of Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and Seutonius from the early second century which lend credence to the New Testament claims regarding the quick spread of these teachings.

Essentially, when all of these various factors are taken into account, I think we can reasonably say that Jesus of Nazareth lived and taught (and that some of these teachings survive), that people perceived his ability to heal, that he was crucified by the Romans, placed in a tomb (which was not unheard of in the first century, as with the case of Yehohanan, son of Hagakol, whose body was discovered in 1968), that his body was discovered missing from the tomb, and that his followers genuinely believed he had resurrected and so spread the word (with almost all of them later dying for it, even after being given chances to recant).

Conclusion

While I think we can be relatively certain of the above events, that still doesn't guarantee that he was the Son of God or that he genuinely resurrected. But I do think that the suggestions that he didn't exist at all, or that we can't know anything about him, lack the same level of evidence.

Additionally, when everything above is put together, when the relative reliability of the Gospels (including the at least seven internal witnesses/sources within the canonical texts, as well as genuine core elements in the Gospel of Thomas) and the Apostolic Fathers, I think that a genuine belief in the Incarnation and Resurrection of Christ may be postulated (especially when framed within the cosmological understanding outlined above). Now, whether you choose to believe or not, and in turn live out a life of faith or not? That's totally up to you dude. I don't blame anyone who doesn't believe. In fact, I've always liked C.S. Lewis' quote,

"I am not asking anyone to accept Christianity if his best reasoning tells him the evidence is against it."

I just want us to have a good-natured discussion and still be able to have a beer together afterward. :)

In any case, I wish you the best on your journey, and along the way I hope and pray that you find enlightenment, peace, and joy and, dare I say, that you even find God in the process."

#faith #evidence #science #cosmology #atheism #Christianity

Further Thoughts on Faith and Science

After posting "Thoughts on Faith and Science," I received this response, which I thought was worthy of reflection and address:

"You and the article's author are talking about two different things. However, to your point:

'The third is my understanding of miracles. While I don't think it is necessary that most of the miraculous stories in the bible be literally true (and I am not denying their possibility or existence either), I do think that the basic understanding of the Incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ be true in order for Christian faith to maintain any coherence. These miraculous events, if actually breaking any physical laws, would be 'one-off' affairs, meaning they would be non-replicable (sic) and therefore untouchable to scientific investigation.'

This is what makes science and religion completely incompatible. Science encompasses all things and for something to lie outside the realm of science means that they are at odds on a fundamental level. Merely the existence of some supernatural being (and even there, in the very word supernatural, implies incompatibility with natural science) already defies the very idea of science, much less that this being could pass part of itself into an impossible child (for humans) who then subsequently dies and comes back to life with no outside intervention after a much-too-long period of time.

A miracle may be a miracle in the sense that it is impossible to explain by our current understanding or knowledge. This is fine and compatible with science. But if you step outside the realm of science - 'untouchable to scientific investigation' - then that is where you can no longer the idea of a miracle with science. Fundamentally.

You can argue that the incarnation was poetic and metaphorical, that the death was not a death but some coma that was misinterpreted as death, that the resurrection was a recovery from this coma (perhaps with outside aid, despite what the bible says), and I will buy every bit of it. That is completely compatible with science. But to say that it's a 'one-off' and 'untouchable to [science]' is not acceptable to science." - Mr. Chen, Posted on Facebook, September 11, 2015.

Below are my musings in response to the points of contention Mr. Chen brought up:

Thanks for your thoughts Mr. Chen! I apologize for the late reply as I've been pretty swamped with schoolwork recently.

You're right, my response was really more geared toward comments I had seen in the posting from which this article was taken, and not to the article itself. Another poster made a great summery of the article in his comment [posted on Facebook, above these], with which I generally agreed (especially in its application to political ideas).

I've had some time to reflect on your points and they made me realize that my statement that miraculous events are “untouchable to scientific investigation” isn't exactly true. They may not be repeatable in a lab, but they are subject to historical, anthropological, and archaeological investigation, which are still branches of science. I think, then, a reasonable conversation about events like the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus must rest on what we know about these areas.

However, I've also noticed that we're operating on a number of assumptions regarding natural science that we should probably take a look at. First, we are assuming God would need to break the laws of physics in order for these events to happen. This may very well be true, but I wonder if there are other theological interpretations where this isn't necessary. It seems to me that while the standard laws of physics would be largely deterministic in regards to what events are possible, the nature of many quantum events seem to be more probabilistic in nature. This opens some pretty fantastic possibilities for what would still be regarded as natural phenomena. Since I'm not an expert in these areas, these are just my musings as I read more about them, but I find their implications very intriguing for discussions about God or miracles.

I also question your statement that “science encompasses all things.” I would argue that science encompasses our reasonable inferences regarding subjects we can observe. To truly “encompass all things” we must have knowledge of every bit of information in the universe, and I don't think our species will ever make it to that point naturally. I'm not saying that it's impossible, but based on what I currently know, I think we will always have more to discover.

Perhaps the best analogous event to what we are talking about (and to which we can both agree actually happened) is the Big Bang. Again, I am not an expert in this field, so I may very well be off in my understanding of it. However, my understanding is that the current laws of physics break down in the moments immediately following and surrounding the singularity which signaled the beginning of the event. This could have multiple implications. If the laws of physics can break down once, why can they not do it again? One may very well call this event miraculous, for lack of a better term.

The problem is, many Christians are tempted to leave it at that, with a definition of miracles resting in ignorance rather than what we know. To me, the only relevant God is a revealed God. This means that the true importance of any miraculous (or otherwise unexplained) event rests entirely in revelation. For Christians, this revelation rests primarily in the Incarnation and in the experiences of those who wrote scripture. I think such revelations are naturally possible (without breaking any physical laws) since, much like other quantum events, the nature of the mind also appears to be less deterministic and more probabilistic.

Now, I recognize that allowing for the possibility of miracles does not necessarily mean their certainty. This is where I think historical, anthropological, and psychological study becomes important for their investigation. But the purpose of my response here isn't really to delve into their certainty (which would probably take a bunch more posts); it's mostly just to show the reasonableness of their possibility.

Finally, just to address the coma theory. While as possible as just about anything else, even that would be very unlikely. A man who had just been beaten severely, crucified, stabbed in the side, and left for dead in a cave with probably very little oxygen, and no food or water; would be just about as unlikely to get up, go on a walk and talk with people, as one who had actually been dead. Such an event would probably require Divine intervention. :D #science #religion #atheism #christianity #faith

Thoughts on Faith and Science

The paragraphs below consist of my response to an article in the New Yorker titled, “All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists.” Actually, this is less a response to the article (which advocates for critical thinking, a position with which I heartily agree), and more a response to many of the comments after the article which seemed to defend the position that faith and science are incompatible (a position with which I heartily disagree).

There have been many mainstream and well respected scientists (including physicists) in the past century who have been religious and who still provided valuable and solid scientific insights, including Charles H. Townes (inventor of the laser), Kenneth R. Miller, Tom Mcleigh, Russel Stannard, etc .

I think perhaps the key is avoiding belief in a "god of the gaps," or a definition of God that is defined by what we don't know. Naturally, as scientific knowledge advances, such a god would inevitably retreat. It is this type of god Richard Dawkins argues against in his book, The God Delusion. Ironically, he uses the argument against the "god of the gaps" as an atheist argument, when Christian theologians (Henry Drummond, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, etc.) have argued against such a definition for centuries.

My understanding of God ultimately derives from the Incarnation of Christ, in that His (or Its, for that matter) presence consubstantiates the physical cosmos. This means the presence of God exists in and all around the cosmos, even extending into nothingness (a God who doesn't exist being the same as That which does), both personal and impersonal. In this point of view, deriving better understandings of the natural world through science helps us better understand the workings of Creation. I find no contradiction with this in scripture, primarily for three reasons:

The first is that many of the miraculous stories found in the Bible are best understood poetically, prophetically, and allegorically. This isn't a new or heterodox position, as it was advanced by St. Clement of Alexandria as early as the second century. This means you don't have to believe in literal talking snakes in order to be a Christian. The creation story is best understood as a poetic myth describing the magnificence of God's creation, and the saga of Adam and Eve is best understood as a conflict which is played out in every human being's life, and not just a "first couple." Please understand, I do not use the word "myth" to mean "fable" or "falsehood", but rather "narrative truth communicated through symbolic means." I firmly believe that some truths cannot be communicated literally, and often story is the best way to transcend cultural and linguistic barriers.

The second is in my understanding regarding the nature of scripture itself. Many people confusingly call it the word of God, though this term is reserved in the New Testament only for Christ himself, and their theology often reflects an unintentional conflation of the two. Perhaps a better term for scripture should be "words about God." This means that all scripture, while I believe it is Divinely inspired, useful in a variety of contexts, and a reliable witness to God’s work in the world, is still humanity's response to the revelation of God rooted in the Incarnation. So of course there are textual variances, scribal mistakes, redactions and a variety of genres testifying to the very human need for creative communication (through the use of myth, poetry, song, parable, and symbol) beyond just the rote assertion of historical or scientific facts. This does not diminish the truth found in Christ (at least for the Christian).

The third is my understanding of miracles. While I don't think it is necessary that most of the miraculous stories in the bible be literally true, I do think that the basic understanding of the Incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ be true in order for Christian faith to maintain any coherence. These miraculous events, if actually breaking any physical laws, would be "one-off" affairs, meaning they would be non-replicable and therefore untouchable to scientific investigation. It may even be that they do not “break” physical laws, so much as their unique occurrence means they do not factor into the formulation of physical laws based on observable, repeatable phenomena.

This is where it becomes a matter of faith based on the testimony of the gospels. This should not be confused with "blind belief," which I define as intellectual assent for no reason. Instead, it should be defined as a radical, life-changing trust in Christ that is so essentially transforming to a person and community that they become the Body of Christ participating in the redeeming of the cosmos, today.

The above isn't necessarily meant to convert anyone to my point of view and it touches on a lot of elements that deserve a much more extensive treatment. It is simply meant to demonstrate that a rational, scientifically-minded human being can still exhibit faith in God.

 #science #religion #atheism #christianity #faith

Debate Review 1: Is There a God? - Rick Warren v. Sam Harris

Below are my reactions to the informal debate between Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church and the neuroscientist Sam Harris on Religion and Atheism, which was published back in 2007. This is intended to be the first review in a series of debates between prominent atheists and theists. The link to the debate is below:

Informal Debate on Religion and Atheism Between Rick Warren and Sam Harris, 2007 - via Newsweek

Bridges in the Debate for Mutual Understanding

Hmm, while an interesting debate, I think there are a few valuable take-aways for those reading. First, you'll often find religious debates revolve around the same issues without really moving forward.

For instance, in this debate Sam Harris opens up to an understanding of spirituality that is couched in reason. That's something that both sides should really explore further, as it seems like a great bridge.

Additionally, Rick makes some statements regarding wonder, order, beauty, etc. that would be helpful both when talking about our understanding of the universe, and in the Christian understanding of God. Another bridge.

The Inadequate Treatment of Miracles

However, a number of statements were made (particularly by Rick) that were either unhelpful, in my opinion, or were not unpacked sufficiently. For instance, he appealed to miracles as a reason for faith, but did not address Sam's statistical or cultural concerns surrounding the phenomenon.

It would be helpful if miracles were explained in their theological and phenomenological sense: If miracles are (or were) real, then they have been directed by the Deity. If they have been directed by the Deity, then they were performed within that particular cultural context (time, place, etc.) for a reason, presumably as part of some greater story. And, if they occurred for a particular place and time, then they are not repeatable.

This is relevant, as it makes them statistically undetectable and experimentally untestable, but not necessarily any less real. They simply move from the realm of the natural sciences to the realm of the social sciences. In this realm, their entire context must be taken into consideration, including the context of the witnesses.

It is still possible that their occurrence is bogus, but it must be recognized as possible that their occurrence isn't. Honestly, when placed in the study of social sciences, even their non-occurrence may mean something theologically relevant.

The Value of Mythic and Poetic Language in Scripture

The problem is that both sides attempt to argue from a natural sciences standpoint. And in this realm, Rick Warren is severely disadvantaged. There are many faithful Christians who believe that Genesis (esp. ch. 1-11) is primarily mythic poetry, that while borrowing from similar tales in other cultures, is still transformed to say something real and true about the relationship between God, humanity and Creation.

It is helpful here to note, that when I use the word "myth," I do not mean the popular understanding of the word as a story that's made up. Instead, myths are generally structured stories which often call on a variety of sources and often are transmitted orally before being written down. Such stories often convey a deeper human truth. It makes sense to me that if God has revealed Himself to humanity through the stories in scripture, then he would use the cultural tools available to both reach as wide an audience as possible and maintain relevance over a long period of time. These tools would include poetry, wisdom sayings, songs, mythic stories, biographies, etc. I see no reason why He would be constrained to modern notions regarding scientific or historic accuracy, as these things have not been a major concern for humanity during most of its history.

But Rick doesn't acknowledge this. He simply says he believes in the literal reading of Genesis and doesn't back that claim up in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.

The Differences Between Faith, Belief, and Dogma

Additionally, Sam seems to understand faith as the opposite of reason, and faith and dogma as equivalent. He questions why God would allow someone, born within a tradition, to be punished for believing that tradition. Rick doesn't challenge him on this, but I will. I would argue that dogma is defined as an immovable position which disregards any subsequent discovery or fact. Faith, on the other hand is much more malleable.

In fact, faith even maintains room for doubt! If you notice, almost every major "hero" of the faith in the OT has doubts at some time or another (Job, Moses, Gideon, Elijah, Jonah, the writers of half the Psalms, etc.). In each case, God never punishes the doubter. Instead, the doubter comes out stronger for the experience.

For the person born in their own tradition, they are not judged because they don't believe in Jesus (especially if they have never encountered Him). They are judged according to how they faithfully adhered to their understanding of goodness. Scripture tells us that every human being betrays that understanding eventually, and that makes our reconciliation with God (through Christ) most necessary.

Faith is better defined then, not as belief in defiance of reason, but instead as trust founded on reason, experience, and revelation. One may question their beliefs continuously, and still remain faithful. In fact, whenever new situations, knowledge, or experiences arise, it makes sense to question our assumptions. And this is absolutely OK, and I would argue, is a sign of wisdom. However, I have still found reason to have faith, and because of this, I will do my best to be faithful.

My Further Thoughts on These Issues

Note: To give a bit of background on my opinion. I am a Christian, and I believe in the God whose attributes include transcendence, imminence, and goodness. I believe God is, and has been, active in the cosmos. And I believe in objective truth. However, I also understand that truth and fact are often different things.

There is allegorical truth, poetic truth, wisdom-truth, ethical truth, etc. But in the realm of fact, there is scientific and historical fact. I do believe truth needs to be informed and understood in terms of scientific and historical fact, but I do not believe that truth needs to rest entirely within the realm of fact.

In my own study, I have come to the conclusion that the bodily resurrection of Jesus fits into the realm of historical and scientific fact, and therefore the theological truths I arrive at are anchored in this. This is rooted in my understanding that the gospel accounts are for the most part reliable, at least in regards to his teaching, miracles, death, and resurrection (a complete analysis of this viewpoint would require its own post). And as a result of this conclusion, my theology rests along the same lines as the rest of orthodox Christianity. However, this does not mean EVERY story in the bible can be treated in the same way, or that every story should be treated as literally, historically accurate.

I think that in order to tell the difference, we use experiential, structural (to the scriptural passage), traditional (contextual), and reasonable (scientific, historical, philosophical) methods to arrive at our conclusions. Because we arrive at different conclusions, theological debate becomes a worthwhile exercise. However, I also believe that such differences of interpretation are not grounds for discrimination or hate, as Jesus' teaching makes clear.

The problem with the above debate is that neither side really devotes sufficient energy to using these methods to arrive at truth. In my final analysis I think Sam did better and "won" the debate. However, even his arguments were insufficient to turn me away from my conclusions. I do not think that this is due to an "unreasonable" attitude on my part.