Faith, Doubt and Reason

Break

2010-11-22T13:41:00.000-08:00

I just wanted to write a post to let you know that I'm going to take a break from blogging for the next few weeks. I've been unhappy with the quality of the posts lately and I feel like I need to take time off to try and refocus. So I'm probably not going to post anything for awhile. I hope you'll be patient with me.

In the meantime, if you're looking for something to do, you could always check out the Desert Bus for Hope. It is a rather cool and entertaining charity fundraiser.

Maps and Knowledge

2010-11-16T11:46:00.001-08:00

Two weeks ago I wrote a post about maps and about how difficult it is to make a map that's entirely accurate. I realize that the post is a bit different from what I normally write.

I wrote that post because I find that map making is a helpful analogy. The process of making a map is similar to the more general process of gathering and organizing knowledge about the world.

As I mentioned last week, any attempt to make the perfect map is ultimately doomed to failure. You can't make a map that's a perfect representation of, for example, the California coastline. Even the best maps are plagued with flaws and subtle distortions.

A similar thing happens when we form an understanding of the world. We study, we make observations, we put the pieces together and we accumulate knowledge. Then we take that knowledge and bring it together to form a coherent picture of the world we live in.

As we do this we run into the same problem we have with maps. The idea we have about the world in our head is never the same as the world itself.

The world is complex, intricate and full of detail. We can't possibly fit all of that information into our heads, just like we can't fit all the detail and complexity of the earth onto a globe or a piece of paper.

Maps are a helpful tool. They help us to navigate the world we live in, but we must never confuse the map with the world. We must never confuse our understanding of a thing with the thing itself. If we do, then we will inevitably deceive ourselves.

TGD: Chapter Five - The Evolution of Religion

2010-11-11T13:37:00.000-08:00

Chapter Five is entitled, "The Roots of Religion," and in it Dawkins discusses why people hold religious beliefs and why such beliefs are so widespread.

He describes the problem in the first section of the chapter. He says that since we are the products of evolution, we need to consider why natural selection seemingly favored religious belief. It isn't an easy question to answer because religious practices and beliefs seem so inefficient and natural selection usually punishes inefficiency.

So Dawkins asks the question, since religion has such a high cost in terms of time, energy and resources what evolutionary benefit does it offer?

This is a good question. Consider Christianity as an example. Christians are called to follow the example of a man who failed to pass on his genes to the next generation. To the extent that Christians follow Jesus' example, it would seem that we are becoming less fit, in the Darwinian sense.

It is tempting to offer a religious explanation for this dilemma. One might argue that God blesses and encourages religious behavior, thus allowing religious people to continue to multiply despite their self-sacrificing behavior.

This explanation has two problems. First of all, I'm not sure that God shows his followers special favor. Instead, I would argue that God is working to bless the whole world.

Second, there are so many different religious beliefs and practices. Even if we claim that one group survives because God has favor on them, then why does a group with a contradictory set of beliefs and practices survive as well? Is God simultaneously working to support both groups?

Clearly there isn't a simple, religious explanation that works in this case.

Having said all that, I'm looking forward to this chapter. Dawkins is, first and foremost, an evolutionary biologist and in this chapter he's making an evolutionary argument. Since it's his area of expertise Dawkins is able to make a compelling case.

In the first section, Dawkins just goes over possible explanations for why human beings seem to have evolved with religious beliefs.

The first explanation comes from the theory of group selection. The idea is that religious behaviors that hurt an individual's chance of survival might help the group's chance of survival.

The second explanation is that religious behavior might not benefit our genes. Dawkins writes, "An animal's behavior tends to maximize the survival of the genes 'for' that behavior, whether or not those genes happen to be in the body of the particular animal performing it." It is possible that religious behaviors may not have evolved to benefit us, but to benefit someone or something else.

For the third explanation, Dawkins suggests that religious ideas themselves might behave in a gene like fashion. He argues that the religions themselves may have "evolved" in order to ensure the survival of the religious ideas, in much the same way that animals evolve to ensure the survival of their genes.

I look forward to reading a more detailed account of what Dawkins believes is the cause of religion.

No Answer

2010-11-08T21:31:00.000-08:00

I hate not knowing the answer. I know because I've been dealing with that feeling this whole week. I've come across some very good questions, and I've been trying to come up with some answers, so far unsuccessfully.

Why can't I come up with the answer? I don't know, but I can think of a few possibilities, none of which I like very much.

First of all, I might be in over my head. There might be an answer to the question. There might be a very good answer even. I'm just not smart enough to figure it out.

I don't like this possibility much. I'm a proud man, and I like to think of myself as the kind of person who knows all the answers. Especially when it comes to mental challenges, I'm reluctant to admit that I need someone else's help.

What's more, these questions don't seem all that difficult. It's not like we're dealing with nuclear physics or anything. These seem like the kind of questions I should be able to answer, but I'm just not able to.

The other possibility is that these questions might not have an answer. I like that possibility even less. I am aware that in the real world not every question has a definite answer, but saying that there is no answer feels like a cop out.

Besides these are important questions that deserve serious consideration. If I say that there just isn't an answer it feels like I've admitted defeat.

Some people can be happy not having the answer to the questions life throws at us. Unfortunately I am not one of those people, at least, not by nature. I need to feel like I know the answers.

With time I could probably learn to live with uncertainty, and indeed I may have to, but for now it's really bugging me.

Hopefully I'll be able to find some answers soon.

On Maps and Map Making

2010-11-02T21:47:00.000-07:00

Today I'm going to take a break from my usual topics of conversation to talk about maps. It might seem like an odd digression, but it isn't entirely unrelated. I hope you'll bear with me.

I enjoy looking at maps from a few hundred years ago. It's interesting to see what people back then thought the world looked like. It's cool to see early maps of America that are weirdly stretched and where some parts are disproportionately large.

It is easy to tell, just by looking, that these maps are far from accurate. What's not as obvious is that even modern maps have their inaccuracies.

As an example, whenever I look at a globe or a map of the world I always look for the San Francisco bay. Since I grew up near there I have a pretty good idea of the shape of the bay.

But on world maps, the San Francisco bay always looks oddly misshapen. On that scale all the detailed features of the bay are reduced to one small scribble. Most of the time the North bay is completely missing.

It usually isn't as obvious, but even smaller, more close up maps have this problem. They can't record every minute feature of a river or coastline perfectly. On some level, the shapes they draw are always an approximation.

Still, it's more than just a lack of precision that keeps maps from being accurate. Most maps are flat. Since the earth's surface is curved, the maps have to stretch and distort the terrain to make it fit on a flat surface. As a result, on most maps Greenland looks like it's as big as Australia when in fact it's a lot smaller.

Globes do a lot better because they're curved, but they're still not perfect. You see, not only is the earth not flat, but it's not a perfect sphere either. It has odd imperfections, including a slight bulge around the equator. Most globes are spherical, so they distort the earth's features to make them fit on a perfect sphere.

Even with all of their flaws and imperfections, maps are very useful tools. Maps take a large and confusing world, reduce it and simplify it enough that we can better understand it. Maps help us to find our way. Even a bad map can help a person trying to explore an area he's never been to before.

But it's important to note, and crucial to remember, that no matter how good it is a map is no substitute for the real thing. There always are, and always will be, subtle details that our maps fail to capture. If we think that the world out there has to look exactly like our map, then we are only setting ourselves up for confusion and disappointment.

TGD: The Story So Far...

2010-10-29T11:16:00.000-07:00

At the end of chapter four, Dawkins takes some time to summarize his argument against the existence of God. I think I'm going to do something similar.

Unlike Dawkins, I haven't been advancing one single argument. Instead I've been responding to various points that Dawkins has been making. However, in the process I have been advancing a kind of counter-argument. I think it's time to tie the pieces together and take a look at the argument I've been making (At the beginning of each point, I'll place a link to a previous post where I discuss the issue in detail).

Here is a quick summary of my argument for the existence of God:

First of all, based on the cosmological argument, we know that our universe was created by an external force. We don't know if this first cause is an abstract force or an eternal, divine being, but we know that the cause for the physical universe does not lie inside the physical universe.

Second, we know that our universe is special, because it is able to support intelligent life. This most likely did not happen by chance. From this we can infer that whatever created our universe did so intentionally, with the purpose of one day making intelligent life. From this we can infer that the cause of our universe is both intelligent, and able to make decisions.

Third, Dawkins' argument that such intelligent beings are ruled out by their improbability doesn't apply in this case. Dawkins' argument addresses the improbability of intelligent beings appearing spontaneously within the physical universe. As I said in step one, the cause of our physical universe exists outside the physical universe.

Fourth, when we take a second look at Dawkins' argument, we see that he is merely making the claim that the cause of the physical universe should be simple. This claim is merely a matter of preference or, to be more precise, faith*. There is no reason to believe that the cause of the physical universe actually is simple. Instead, it seems more likely that the cause of our physical universe is complex, for the reason given in step two.

Fifth, a being of such supernatural power and intelligence would theoretically be able to perform miracles. If such miracles occurred, we would expect to find evidence of them. In fact, there are many accounts of miracles throughout history, from ancient times up until the present day. There are even some (relatively) recent accounts of miracles that were witnessed by thousands of people.

Sixth, Dawkins argues that human perceptions are flawed. That every account of a miracle is the result of either some kind of deception, or it was invented in the mind of the person experiencing it. Given the very high number of people who claim to have experienced miracles, it is likely that at least some of them are genuine. Since Dawkins is arguing that miracles never happen, if even one of those accounts represents a genuine miracle, it is enough to refute Dawkins' argument.

The above argument makes the case that there is an intelligent being who created the universe and works miracles. I've avoided using the term God, but clearly the being described matches God's description on several counts.

Of course, I don't believe in just any God; I believe in the Christian God. My belief in the Christian God is partly a result of my own, unique experiences and partly a result of my belief that the New Testament contains a fairly reliable account of a miracle-working Rabbi who lived in the first century.

That is (more or less) the argument I've been advancing throughout the first four chapters. Starting with chapter five though, the book takes a different direction. Dawkins spends less time arguing against God's existence, and more time arguing about how religion is a bad influence.

By the same token, for the remainder of this series I will spend less time arguing for God's existence, and more time focusing on the role of faith. This should be interesting, because in this area I agree with Dawkins on more than a few points. So it should make for some interesting posts as I read the book and discuss the nature of religion and the role it should play both in our private and public lives.

Thanks for reading, and I hope you enjoy the posts to come.

* Ultimately any belief about the origin of the universe must be a matter of faith. Science can only tell us so much about the early universe. At some point, something happened that no one can really explain. This is a point that Dawkins doesn't quite seem to grasp.

Confession

2010-10-25T10:15:00.000-07:00

I have a confession to make. When I write posts for this blog I don't always have the purest motives. Often times my goals are selfish, prideful, or short-sighted.

Sometimes my main purpose in writing a post is to prove that I'm right, or to demonstrate how smart I am. I tell myself that I'm doing it to correct a common misconception or to educate my readers. I tell myself that I'm doing it because I want to serve others, but sometimes I think my real motivation is to stroke my own ego.

For that I apologize, and I hope you'll be able to forgive me.

Part of the problem is that I really believe in what I'm doing. I believe that the things I am writing are important. I believe that I am doing what is right.

But righteousness can easily be corrupted, and turn into self-righteousness. All it takes is a slight shift in perspective. We stop paying attention to the good that we are trying to do and instead we focus on our own efforts. Suddenly our goal is no longer to do good, but to be seen doing good, to have people recognize and acknowledge that we are doing good.

Now I must stop and think. I know that the things I write about are good and true (even if the writing itself is corrupt and motivated by pride). Do I need other people to recognize that? Do I need other people to agree with me so I can feel validated?

This is a real pitfall in evangelism, or in any other attempt to persuade people. We want people to see our point of view. We want other people to be convinced, to change their minds and see things from our point of view.

In one sense this is natural and good. If we are right, then it is only natural that we would want other people to see things our way. But it is easy for us to wish to persuade others, not because we think we are right, but because we want them to affirm us in our beliefs.

This is not an easy thing to sort out. It can be hard to draw a clean line in between pure and impure motivations, but it must be done. If not, we run the risk of letting our selfish motives corrupt our good deeds and steer us away from our good intentions.

TGD: Chapter Four - Simplicity and the Nineteenth Century

2010-10-22T11:37:00.000-07:00

At last we reach the end of chapter four. The final section is entitled, "An Interlude at Cambridge," and in it Dawkins describes a conference he participated in. The conference was sponsored by the Templeton Foundation, an organization which he has little fondness for. The Templeton Foundation awards a prize to individuals who, "Make an exceptional contribution to affirming life's spiritual dimension." Unsurprisingly, Dawkins was the only atheist speaker at this conference.

At this conference gave a version of his argument against God's existence, which I discussed earlier. Naturally his argument was not readily accepted by the other speakers. He describes a few of their main objections.

The major argument revolved on whether or not God is simple. The crux of Dawkins' argument is that God is incredibly complex. The people whom Dawkins was debating with argued that God is actually simple.

The people arguing that God is actually simple probably have a different understanding of God's nature and a different definition of the word simple. These differences of opinion are inevitable when people with different world views talk to each other about what they believe. These differences provide a real challenge for anyone who tries to talk someone out of their world view.

Besides claiming that God is actually simple, the other major response Dawkins received for his argument is that it is very "Nineteenth Century". If Dawkins' opponents explained what they meant by calling his argument "Nineteenth Century", Dawkins doesn't give it. He does, however, share his own opinion about what they meant by it.

According to Dawkins, saying that his argument is "Nineteenth Century" is simply a coded way of saying that Dawkins is being rude by making a direct attack on religion like that.

I have my own opinion about what they might have meant by the phrase "Nineteenth Century". The Nineteenth Century was the height of modernism and Dawkins' world view is very modernist. In particular, his belief that science and religion are fundamentally incompatible is a distinctly modern idea.

This idea has, for the most part, fallen out of favor. The only people clinging to the belief that science and religion are incompatible are religious fundamentalists and men like Dawkins.

Having said that, this is an important conversation to have. I think most people understand that science and religion can coexist, but most people haven't given too much thought to how that compromise works in practice. Reading Dawkins' book has forced me to reevaluate my beliefs about how science and faith interact.

So I'm glad that Dawkins is making this argument. My only regret is that he didn't work harder to understand the people he was arguing with. I think he could have gained some valuable insights into how religious people view the world. So far what I've read from Dawkins indicates that he doesn't really grasp what makes a religious person's mind ticks.

Three Phrases that (Don't) Mean the Same Thing

2010-10-19T09:48:00.000-07:00

I spend a lot of time in this blog writing about the Kingdom of God. As I've mentioned before, the Kingdom of God is a central concept in Christian thought. Unfortunately, most Christians don't spend a lot of time thinking about the Kingdom of God.

Most Christians, at least in America, assume that the phrase "Kingdom of God" simply refers to people who are Christian and/or the place where Christians will go when they die.

Evangelicals spend a lot of time talking about whether or not someone is "saved", "truly Christian", or less commonly, "in the Kingdom". They tend to use the terms interchangeably, as though they meant the same thing. I believe that the reality is more complex than most Christians realize.

First, let us consider what we mean when we say that someone is a Christian. Most people would agree that a Christian is someone who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that he was crucified, that he was raised again, and that, through his death, he made peace between God and man.

That's the gist of it. Some people would define it a little differently, but at the end of the day Christianity is a belief system. Whether or not someone is a Christian is based on what they believe.

I've talked before about how religion relates to the Kingdom of God. I agree that religious beliefs do matter; that believing in Jesus and his work on the cross is an important piece of the puzzle. I just don't think it's the whole picture.

There is so much more to God's Kingdom than simply having the right beliefs. If we want to see God's Kingdom come, we must also concern ourselves with love, justice, mercy and forgiveness. There are many misguided Christians out there who actively work against God's Kingdom. At the same time many people who aren't Christian are, without being aware of it, actually helping to build God's Kingdom.

Next, I want to think about what we mean when we say that someone is "saved". Most Evangelicals use this term to refer to the final judgement. A person who is "saved" will not be condemned, but instead they will receive eternal life.

This idea is also related to the Kingdom of God, although in a different way. This question is concerned with who will inherit God's Kingdom.

In the present age, there are many people working to build God's Kingdom, but the work is far from finished. Most of the time our world can be a terribly cruel and unjust place. We try to make things better, but the task is so daunting that it can often seem overwhelming.

The Bible looks forward to a time when God's Kingdom will be fully established; when love, justice, mercy and forgiveness will be the rule rather than the exception; when everyone will be able to experience peace and joy in God's Holy presence.

The question is, who will inherit this Kingdom? Once the work is finished, who will be allowed in, to enjoy the blessings of the Kingdom? This is a difficult question, and not one that I am comfortable answering. It is not my place to say who will be let in and who will be kept out. That is for God to decide.

I feel confident saying that people who are Christian, and who are working to build God's Kingdom, will enter into God's Kingdom as long as they remain faithful till the end. Beyond that, I do not know. I suspect that God may decide to expand the guest list quite a bit, and I think that there will be more than a few surprises when the time comes.

So in the end I can't be certain what will happen, or who will be in or out, but I trust that God will judge fairly. I believe he will show mercy to everyone who asks him, and that he will be found by everyone who seeks him.

Late Post

2010-10-18T21:10:00.001-07:00

Hi everyone, I'm sorry about the delay but I had a busy day today. I've got a post in the works, but it's getting late so I'm going to finish it up tomorrow. Thank you all for your patience.

TGD: Chapter Four - The Multiverse, Big Crunches, Black Holes and other Strangeness

2010-10-15T11:17:00.000-07:00

Today I want to talk a little bit more about the anthropic principle and the question of why our universe is fit for life. It's an interesting question and it's not one that can be answered easily without appealing to God.

The simplest and most straightforward way to address this problem is to claim that our universe couldn't possibly have been any different from the way it is now. This argument is often made by theoretical physicists trying to put together a unified theory that can explain the entire universe. Once we finally have this theory, they argue, we will see that the universe has to be the way it is.

Surprisingly, Dawkins considers this argument unsatisfying. Even if there truly is only one way that the universe could have been, we can still wonder why that one way is so well set up for the eventual evolution of life.

Dawkins gets around this objection by arguing that there may be multiple universes with different physical laws, some of which allow intelligent life to develop. He argues that, as unlikely as this may seem, it is still more likely than the existence of God. This based on the dubious argument he made earlier that it is extremely unlikely that God exists.

I don't think Dawkins' argument here holds water.

People who oppose intelligent design theory rightfully point out that the God hypothesis doesn't actually address the problem. Simply saying, "God did it," might be a valid explanation, but it doesn't help us understand our universe any better. In the same way, "There are billions of alternate universes," might be a valid explanation, but it doesn't actually tell us anything about our universe.

Since neither hypothesis makes for a good scientific theory, the only thing we can argue about is which idea is simpler or more likely. The end result is that we end up arguing about what words like "Simple" really mean. From one perspective, a single universe-designing entity seems relatively simple. From another perspective such an entity is prohibitively complex; even more complex than a billion or more alternate universes. At the end of the day, the argument is almost purely subjective.

In this section Dawkins presents a couple of different variations on the multiverse hypothesis. I want to take a bit of time to comment on each of these.

Another form the hypothesis takes is the serial universe model. The idea here is that our universe is destined to collapse in a "big crunch" and when it does a new big bang will occur and a new universe will form. If we assume that this process has been going on for a long enough period of time, then there have might have been a billion universes already and we're living in one that happened to be fit for life.

The big problem with this theory is that not every universe is guaranteed to collapse. In fact, the most recent evidence indicates that our universe is destined to continue expanding indefinitely, so this theory has fallen out of favor.

Another theory that Dawkins brings up is that every time a black hole is formed a new universe is created inside the black hole. The theory is that the universe inside the black hole might "inherit" similar properties to the parent universe. This system creates a lot of universes where black holes can form and, as a side affect, quite a few universes where stars can form and life can evolve.

I don't know much about this theory, so I don't know how all the details are supposed to work out. What happens to he "baby universe" when the black hole evaporates? Or what happens if the parent universe collapses? Dawkins likes this theory because of its superficial resemblance to the theory of evolution, but it seems to me that this theory creates more problems than it solves.

Finally, in both of the above theories, you can't actually observe or interact with these hypothetical alternate universes. In one case the alternate universe exist either before the "big bang" or after a future "big crunch". In another case, the alternate universes hide behind the event horizon of a black hole.

This is important, because if we could interact with these other universes, they wouldn't really be alternate universes at all. They would just be another part of our universe.

This is the final clue that a multiverse hypothesis doesn't really solve the problem. If we suppose that there is more than one universe out there, then we need to consider the laws that govern their creation and existence, just as we do for objects in the universe. Ultimately we will need a new set of laws to explain objects in the multiverse. How likely is it that those laws will be any simpler, any less contrived, than the laws that govern our universe?

In the end, we'll just be asking the exact same questions about the laws of the multiverse that we now ask about the laws of the universe. Where do we go from there? Hopefully, scientists will have more sense than to propose a multi-multiverse.

The Missing Piece

2010-10-11T11:03:00.000-07:00

Awhile back I wrote a post about homosexuality. Near the top of the post I wrote that I'm not convinced that homosexual activity actually is a sin. Today I'd like to write a little bit more about why that is.

First of all, I want to reaffirm that, even if I was sure that it was sinful, I would still have some concerns about how the church approaches the issue. We live in a world where LGBT individuals are frequently abused and in some cases this leads to tragic results.

The church should always be an institution that stands up against such abuse, no matter who the victims are. Sadly, all too often it is the church that is responsible for the abuse. Even when the church isn't explicitly involved, often times Christian teachings are used as an excuse to justify the abuse. This is tragic and the church ought to take a stand against it.

Still, the reason why I'm not convinced it's a sin don't just stem from concern about the affect this belief has on the larger culture. The main reason why I remain unconvinced is because I don't have enough information. I don't have enough information about the relevant parts of scripture to be certain that homosexuality is a sin but, more importantly, I don't have enough information about the behavior itself.

Most sins have obviously harmful repercussions. Sins like murder, adultery, and theft all have consequences for the victims as well as the people who practice them. Other sins don't have any obvious external repercussions, but they still hurt the people who practice them.

If homosexual activity is a sin, it pretty clearly falls into the latter category. It doesn't harm other people in any way (except, obviously, in cases of rape, but that's a separate issue). If it is a sin, it's because it has some kind of detrimental affect on the people who engage in it.

If that is the case, I have no way of knowing, or understanding, what that affect might be. Since I don't experience the temptation myself, it's hard for me to judge whether or not it is a sinful act. I'm missing the most crucial piece of evidence: the affect that homosexual activity has on the people who engage in it.

Without that piece of information I don't feel comfortable passing judgement on people. The way I see it whatever they do, and whatever they experience as a result, is between them, their partner, and God. It is not my place to stand in judgment over them.

On the other hand, the mistreatment of homosexuals at the hands of Christians determined to carry out what they believe the Bible teaches is something I can see. That kind of sin has obvious consequences. While it is still not my place to pass judgment, I have a duty to point out that this behavior is highly destructive. I have an obligation to speak out against it, and to protect anyone who may be harmed by it. This is a responsibility that all Christians share.

TGD: Chapter Four - Deep Inside of a Parallel Universe

2010-10-07T11:06:00.000-07:00

First I'd like to apologize for being late with this post. I was a little busy last week and didn't get around to writing a God Delusion post. Anyway, as promised I'm now going to talk about the anthropic principle and how it works as an argument.

As I mentioned last time, the next two sections of chapter four both deal with the anthropic principle. The first section talks about how the anthropic principle applies to the planet earth.

We now know that not all planets are able to support life. In fact there are a number of factors that make our planet and our solar system especially suited for the evolution of complex life. At first this might seem like an odd coincidence, except that if our planet didn't have just the right conditions then we wouldn't be here to talk about it. We'd be on some other planet that is well suited for the evolution of complex life having the same discussion.

Dawkins uses the argument to address the problem of how life appeared on earth in the first place. He argues that even if we discover that it is extremely unlikely that life could have emerged from nonliving matter, say one in a billion, then life still would have appeared because there are almost probably more than a billion habitable planets in the universe.

Here the argument works very well, because we know that there are billions of galaxies containing billions of stars. Of course, we still don't know all of the probabilities. We don't know how likely it is that a given star has an earth-like planet with all the right conditions to support life. We don't know how likely it is that life emerged from nonliving organic compounds. So we can't be certain that life emerging from nonliving organic matter on an earth-like planet is a sure thing, but it does seem reasonable*.

In the next section Dawkins talks about how the anthropic principle applies to the universe as a whole. He mentions the fact that, from the standpoint of contemporary physics, several of the fundamental constants of the universe seem to be "just right" for life, much like our planet and our solar system.

Obviously the same trick won't work here. After all, we can see that the universe is large and it contains a vast quantity of stars, any one of which could contain a life-friendly planetary system. Our universe, on the other hand, is the only one we've got. If this universe wasn't fit for life, then we wouldn't exist. There isn't any other universe for us to evolve in.

Unless we hypothesize, as Mr. Dawkins does, that there are many different universes each with different fundamental constants. Then we could use the same argument to show that the fact that our universe is fit for life is unremarkable.

The fact that Mr. Dawkins is credulous enough to think that a multiverse theory is plausible, after all the incredulity he's shown towards religious beliefs, is shocking. What evidence could anyone provide, either experimentally or observationally, to prove that these alternate universes exist? They aren't a part of our universe at all and they may not be connected with our universe in any way. They are as undetectable as Russell's Celestial Teapot, the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Back in Chapter Two, in the section on Monotheism, Dawkins wrote this to describe the Abrahamic God, "He not only created the universe; he is a personal God, dwelling within it, or perhaps outside it (whatever that may mean)." Notice the incredulity Dawkins shows at the idea that anything could exist "outside" the universe. But where do these alternate universes exist? Certainly they must be "outside" our universe(whatever that may mean). Interestingly the same idea, which seemed absurd coming from a theologian, suddenly seems completely reasonable coming from a theoretical physicist.

So we see that Dawkins is not really a true skeptic. He is a selective skeptic. He is highly skeptical of religious ideas and beliefs, but much less skeptical of scientific-sounding ideas. Even when those ideas have the same amount of evidence, in fact even when it's the exact same idea, the sciencey sounding one is deemed "plausible" while its religious equivalent is considered preposterous.

I have some more thoughts I would like to share on this topic, but I'll save them for next week. I've also discovered, after reviewing chapter four, that I still have one more section to cover. So I hope you're enjoying my coverage of chapter four, because it's going to continue for a couple more weeks.

* Advocates of intelligent design theory disagree. They argue that the appearance of life from non-living matter is so improbable that it is basically impossible. I personally disagree, but I'm not an expert on the subject. If you want to learn more I found a website that provides a rebuttal to the intelligent design argument.

Living in Darkness

2010-10-04T14:53:00.000-07:00

I try not to write about politics too much on this blog, but from what I've written it should be pretty clear that I lean pretty far to the left (at least, by American standards). I am one of the few liberal, evangelical Christians. Indeed we're so rare that most people consider the phrase "liberal evangelical" to be a contradiction in terms.

I am often frustrated by the prominence of the religious right in America, and the affect they have on how Christianity is perceived. When I found out that Barack Obama was going to run for President, I thought it would be a great thing. I knew that he was Christian, and deeply religious. If he were elected, I told myself, more people would see that there are Christians who care about poverty, the environment, healthcare, and other important issues that the religious right neglects.

What I didn't expect is that almost two years into his Presidency, 18% of the country would believe that he is actually a Muslim, and an even larger number would be unsure of the President's beliefs.

I've read several articles that try to understand how so many people could be so thoroughly mistaken about the President's beliefs. I'm sure a lot of people are simply misinformed. Conservative media and the religious right have put a lot of energy into spreading the lie that Obama is a Muslim.

I am convinced that this isn't simply a matter of ignorance and misinformation. I'm sure that most of the people who claim that Obama is a Muslim have heard him talk about his Christian faith. I'm sure that plenty of them remember the controversy over his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. They're not ignorant about Obama's professed beliefs. They believe that he is lying about his religious beliefs in order to deceive the American public.

A year ago I wrote about this exact issue. I wrote that it is wrong to accuse people of lying about their religious beliefs. I stand by my original conviction, although I am worried that I didn't phrase my objection strongly enough.

The Apostle John wrote, "Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness." When Christians band together to slander our president, a fellow Christian and a brother in Christ, they are surely living in darkness.

The religious right shouldn't be using these kinds of tactics to smear Obama. They should be able to talk about the problems they have with Obama's policies without bringing his religious views into the picture. The fact that they feel the need to resort to these tactics reveals a lot about how many people within the religious right view their faith.

They don't view Christianity as a religion available to anyone, regardless of their culture, politics, ethnicity or nation of origin. Instead they treat Christianity as an exclusive club, where only people with the right credentials are allowed to join, where people all share the same beliefs and opinions.

This kind of exclusive mentality is dangerous. When we have this attitude toward others, it reveals that we don't understand the power of God's forgiveness. Exclusiveness and hatred of fellow believers is also toxic to the faith. It divides Christians against each other and drives people away from Christianity.

Personally, I would love it if more Christians understood the importance of social justice, and became more liberal as a result, but I understand that not every Christian shares my views. I only ask other believers to extend their liberal brothers and sisters the same courtesy.

Compassion at its Limits

2010-09-27T13:18:00.000-07:00

Today I'm going to talk about something that my wife and I have been going through recently. I want to share our experience as well as some of the questions it has raised for us. I'm interested to hear your thoughts on these issues.

About a year ago, my wife and I decided to take someone into our home. She is an older woman who attends our weekly Bible study. She was kicked out of the house she had been living in and had no place else to go. We decided to take her in at least until she could get back on her feet.

Since that time we've made ourselves available to her. We've looked into more affordable housing options, programs to help people get back on their feet, and programs to help elderly and disabled people find work. For the most part she ignored our help, and when she did follow up it was only after we had both insisted that she make the call.

We have also tried to support her in other ways, especially by talking with her and praying for her. It has been good, but far from adequate. This woman has suffered from abuse, and she probably needs to see a professional. Unfortunately, she has been reluctant to speak with a therapist about her situation.

Recently, my wife and I both decided that we weren't willing to let this woman stay with us any longer. We have tried everything we could think of to help this woman turn her life around. Unfortunately it seems clear to both of us that the kind of help she needs isn't something we are able to give.

However, the process of arriving at that decision raised a number of interesting questions for us.

1) What is our responsibility toward people in need? How do we help people who are unable to help themselves? What about people who are merely unwilling to help themselves? How do we ensure that everyone is being cared for and everyone is being treated fairly?

2) What do we do when we've reached the limits of compassion? How do we react when we're doing everything we can to help, but things still aren't getting any better? Do we continue caring for others even when we know that it won't make a difference?

3) How do we decide that we've done all we can? When and where do we draw the line, and say that we're not going to continue helping the person? How do we determine if our attempts to "help" are doing more harm than good?

These are just some of the questions we've been thinking about as my wife and I have come to this decision. We've talked about these issues write a bit, but I'd love to hear other people's thoughts on these issues. Please share them with me in the comments.

TGD: Chapter Four - The Anthropic Principle and Faith

2010-09-24T21:37:00.000-07:00

The next two sections of chapter four both deal with different versions of the anthropic principle. Simply put, the anthropic principle states that any universe (or world) in which intelligent life exists must have the right conditions to allow intelligent life to exist. Therefore the fact that our world and our universe have the right conditions for intelligent life is unremarkable.

On the one hand, it is hard to argue against the anthropic principle, because it is self evidently true (ie it is a tautology). Obviously if the conditions on the earth or in the universe were different, such that intelligent life could not exist, then there wouldn't be any scientists to study it. From this, we can safely conclude that no scientists will ever be able to demonstrate that it is impossible for intelligent life to exist in our universe.

So, in a sense, it is completely unremarkable that our planet and our universe are "just right" for us. Indeed, they could not possibly be anything else. Of course, it is only unremarkable that our universe allows intelligent life to form if intelligent life itself is unremarkable. I do not believe that to be true. Instead I think our existence is very remarkable.

Now, the funny thing about the anthropic principle is that there are a couple of different versions of it. Different people use this principle to make different conclusions. Some people use it to argue for the existence of God, while others use it to argue for the existence of multiple universes.

Dawkins uses the anthropic principle to support the idea that there must be a complete scientific explanation for the emergence of intelligent life. He interprets the anthropic principle as, "Intelligent life exists, therefore there must be a scientific explanation for how intelligent life came to exist." This is only true if we assume that the origin of intelligent life has a scientific explanation.

Dawkins holds the assumption, along with many scientists, that anything that exists (or has existed) has a scientific explanation for its existence. This belief is not based on evidence, or at least not direct evidence. It is a kind of faith, although it is rarely acknowledged as such.

All too often this faith gets a free pass. People who believe in God, or in the resurrection of Jesus, are often ridiculed for believing in something that can't be proven. On the other hand, people who believe that everything that exists has a scientific explanation rarely face ridicule, even though their own beliefs are just as unprovable.

Many scientists, including Dawkins, operate under the assumption that there is ultimately a scientific explanation for everything. The problem (at least in Dawkins' case) is that they seem to think that their own beliefs are indisputably true. That simply isn't the case. There is no guarantee that every problem that scientists attempt to solve has a scientific solution. The scientists believe that a solution exists but until they find it, they can't be sure.

Before I finish this post I want to make something clear. I don't have a problem with scientists who believe that what they're studying has a scientific explanation. In fact, I think it's a good thing. Science wouldn't advance if scientists didn't believe in what they were doing. I just want to point out that the scientist's belief is an act of faith, in much the same way that a religious person's belief in God is an act of faith.

Next week I'll take a closer look at these final sections of chapter four. I'll talk more about how well the anthropic principle works on the planetary and universal scale.

Science and Faith: Explanation vs. Justification

2010-09-20T20:29:00.000-07:00

Since I've been reviewing The God Delusion I have been thinking quite a lot about the role of science and religion and how the two relate. It isn't always easy to separate scientific and religious truth claims. There isn't a simple bright line that neatly divides the two fields. Still, it is important to understand what divides the two fields, and how to reasonably draw a line between them.

The best way to do that is to look at the goals of science and religion. Although at times they both tackle the same subjects, both fields have very different goals. Simply put, the goal of science is to provide an explanation, and the goal of religion is to provide a justification.

What do I mean by that? Well, first of all, an explanation is a descriptive model. The goal of an explanation is to provide an understanding of what is happening in a given situation. If our understanding is very good, we should even be able to predict what will happen in certain situations.

Scientific explanations also tend to be reductionist in nature. They explain complex phenomena in relatively simple terms. For explanations, the goal is always to make things as simple as possible, so they can be more easily understood. If the explanation is more complex than the thing you're trying to explain, then it's not a very good explanation.

Justification, on the other hand, works differently. Instead of trying to understand the universe in terms of simpler things like particles and forces, a justification seeks to understand how the universe relates to more complex things, typically God. A justification is able to explain, not just how the universe operates, but how it came to exist, why it is the way it is, and what purpose it has.

Unsurprisingly, most atheists don't think the universe needs any justification. The famous atheist philosopher Bertrand Russel once said, "The universe is just there." To put it another way, the atheist position is that the universe is self justifying. I have my issues with this, which I've been over many times before. For now I will just conclude with one of my favorite xkcd quotes, "If the question of what it all means doesn't mean anything, then why do I keep coming back to it?"

In any case, I hope this helps you to understand the difference between scientific and religious theories. It may also shed light on many of the conflicts between science and religion. I think it's also helpful for anyone who wants to try to separate out scientific ideas from religious ones. This is useful for anyone who struggles to see how scientific and religious ideas can operate together without one trampling all over the other.

TGD: Chapter Four - In Which I Agree With Richard Dawkins Wholeheartedly

2010-09-17T15:19:00.000-07:00

The next two sections of Dawkins' book, Irreducible Complexity and The Worship of Gaps, are mostly devoted to explaining the theory of evolution and pointing out the flaws in the so-called theory of intelligent design. As you may have gathered from what I've written so far, I don't have any problems with evolution and I'm not a big fan of intelligent design. As such, I don't have much to write about these sections.

His basic argument is that the success of evolution and the failure of intelligent design should make us suspicious of any attempt to explain the universe in terms of design. I've already discussed the problems with that argument last week and the week before, so I'm not going to do that again. Instead, I'll take the opportunity to point out some of the things Dawkins and I can agree on.

First and foremost, we can agree that the Intelligent Design theory isn't science. It doesn't provide any useful explanations or make any testable predictions. It doesn't give scientists a framework to help them organize their findings or suggest new areas of research.

This is because intelligent design isn't trying to be science. The theory wasn't created by scientists interested in discovering how the natural world works. It was created by religious people interested in controlling what textbooks said about how the natural world works.

It is unfortunate, for many reasons, that so many Christians are so heavily invested in controlling science education in the United States. The most obvious reason is that a large number of people are actively trying to sabotage science education. Every success the movement wins makes our children more ignorant about the biological sciences.

The second problem is that this kind of polarization has a chilling effect on scientific research. Researchers normally seek out problems and potential challenges to a theory. They do this so that they can conduct further research and see if the problem or challenge can be resolved. When you have a group like the ID movement latching on to such problem areas as "proof" that evolution doesn't work it makes it difficult for researchers to do their job.

The last problem I'm going to talk about is one that Dawkins isn't concerned with. The biggest problem I have with the intelligent design movement is that it directly harms Christianity's reputation. It creates the false impression that Christianity and evolution are mutually incompatible, an impression that Dawkins seems to think is correct.

Moreover, it creates the impression, among educated people, that Christians are either backwards, uneducated, or simply unconcerned with the truth. This creates an obvious credibility problem for Christians everywhere.

There, I've now written an entire post about something Dawkins and I agree on. I apologize if your pet pig sprouts wings and flies away, but I'm afraid it couldn't be helped.

Science and the Miraculous

2010-09-13T12:18:00.000-07:00

About a month ago I talked about miracles. I explained that miracles don't have to be big, flashy displays that defy the laws of science. As I explained a miracle is anything that reveals God's character to us.

This is why many bizarre phenomena, such as ball lightning, that defy scientific explanation aren't considered miraculous. They don't reveal anything about God's character.

Of course, there are some miracles that illustrate God's character as well as his power over nature. Things that seem impossible, or at least very improbable. Many people struggle to believe in Christianity because of the accounts miracles in scripture. They aren't sure how to reconcile a belief in supernatural miracles with a scientific worldview.

It is a problem. If we believe that scientific knowledge provides a complete and accurate understanding of the universe, then we have to concede that these kinds of miracles are impossible. Of course, our present scientific understanding is far from complete. More to the point, I don't believe that the scientific method can ever give us a complete understanding of the universe in which we live.

First and foremost, scientists can only study phenomena and events that are repeatable. Repeatable, in this case, meaning that the events can be reproduced in some sort of predictable fashion. If there are any events or phenomena that cannot be reproduced in this fashion, then science is unable to explain them. Supernatural miracles fall into this category, because God causes them when and where he choses. Since we cannot reproduce the event, we are unable to study it scientifically.

Some people might argue that, if supernatural miracles do occur, we should see more evidence of them. Specifically, one might argue that if such miracles were commonplace, then it would be difficult for scientists to produce such elegant theories that explain so much about our universe.

This only shows us that such miracles are rare, and that God prefers to work through natural laws, rather than against them. The only way we can conclude that supernatural miracles never occur is if we assume that the laws of nature are absolutely true at all times. We can accept scientific knowledge without coming to this conclusion.

TGD: Chapter Four - When All You Have is a Hammer

2010-09-11T15:00:00.000-07:00

I have a confession to make. I think Dawkins is probably quite a bit smarter than I am. I know he is much more well educated than I am. So why don't I defer to his superior intellect and expertise?

The simple answer is that I do, when it comes to evolutionary biology. The man knows a lot more than I do about that subject, having studied it for most of his adult life, and I trust his opinions in that field.

The problem is that even when he's discussing radically different fields of knowledge, he still thinks like an evolutionary biologist. He has this strange idea that the understanding he's gained in his field, the knowledge and information he's acquired through many long hours of studying, can be just as easily applied in any other discipline.

Or at least, I assume that's what's going on. It's the only way I can explain the content of this next section. He writes that the theory of natural selection should make us suspicious of any sort of design hypothesis. He says that it should raise our awareness to the fact that there may be other possible explanations whenever a design explanation seems necessary.

The problem with this approach is that it fails to consider how other scientific disciplines differ from biology. A biologist can rely on the laws of physics and chemistry to explain how DNA and RNA works, how mutations happen, how environments change, and how creatures survive and reproduce, all of which goes into explaining how complex life evolved.

A physicist or cosmologist trying to come up with an explanation for the origin of the universe doesn't have that advantage. As I discussed last week, such discussions really fall outside the realm of pure science and into philosophy and metaphysics.

Still, let us suppose for a moment that the complex and wonderful universe we find ourselves isn't the result of design, but instead is the result of some kind of emergent complexity. Emergent complexity happens when a simple initial state, governed by simple rules, is able to produce complex, interesting results.

As an example, let us look at Conway's Game of Life. The rules to the Game of Life are very simple, and given certain initial conditions it can produce complex, interesting results. It is a tool meant to illustrate the power of emergent complexity.

If we assume that the universe works like a more sophisticated version of the Game of Life, then we have to consider the fact that the rules for the Game of Life weren't arbitrarily selected. Those rules were chosen specifically to allow for emergent complexity. Additionally, not every initial state in the Game of Life produces emergent complexity. Most of them fizzle out or fall into a stable, repeating pattern after a few generations.

If anything, the Game of Life illustrates the problem of trying to use emergent complexity to explain the universe's origins without appealing to some cosmic designer. Emergent complexity only works under very specific conditions. It's extremely unlikely that those conditions would come about by pure chance.

So emergent complexity, as an explanation, doesn't eliminate the need for a designer. It just gives the designer a new job description.

Coming back to the point I made earlier, the reason Dawkins doesn't see this flaw is because he studies evolutionary biology. He's used to studying emergent complexity. He doesn't give much thought to the conditions that make emergent complexity possible.

He takes those conditions for granted. The conditions that make life possible in the universe, and specifically on earth, aren't of much interest to biologists. The laws that govern the formation of complex matter, that govern the formation of stars and planets, that describe the orbit of a planet around a star, all fall outside of Dawkins' area of expertise.

As a biologist, he takes it for granted that our universe, and the earth, are able to support life, as well he should. However, as someone seeking to understand the nature of the universe, he needs to think about these issues. Otherwise he might miss out on the answer to one of mankind's most important questions, "Does God exist and if so what is he like?"

If Dawkins is going to convince people that God doesn't exist, he's going to have to learn to take this question a little more seriously.

The Holy Spirit and the Kingdom of God

2010-09-10T14:00:00.000-07:00

Hello everyone, I'm sorry this post is so late. I've had a rough week. Anyway, I'm back on track now and with any luck I should have my next post about The God Delusion up later today.

In my original post about the Kingdom of God, I talked about five different ways of thinking about the subject. So far I have talked about how the Kingdom of God relates to politics, religion, society and morality. Today I'm going to talk about the role of the Holy Spirit. I'd also like to tie these ideas together.

Let me begin by quickly recapping what we've discussed so far.

In the sphere of politics, Jesus taught us to change the world through love and service, rather than through force. In the area of religion, we see that Jesus' teachings allowed his followers to enjoy fellowship outside their traditional religious divides. In the area of society, Jesus gave us a vision of radical social and economic equality. Finally, in the area of morality, Jesus taught about the centrality and importance of forgiveness and reconciliation.

If I were to choose one word to summarize everything that we've gone over so far, it would be impractical. It is impractical to try to govern people through love and service. It is impractical to expect deeply religious people to embrace people from other religions. It is impractical to ask people to give away their possessions to feed the poor. It is impractical to set up a moral system that insists that even the most wretchedly immoral people should be forgiven.

So far all we have is a collection of high ideals and noble ambitions. We have a beautiful vision, but we have no way to turn that vision into a reality.

This is where the Holy Spirit enters the picture. The Holy Spirit is God's presence with us and around us, helping us to make God's Kingdom a reality.

Without the Holy Spirit, what you have is a Kingdom without a King. There is no source of power; no punishment or threat of coercion; no way to force people to do what they should. This is because God's Kingdom is not built using traditional means. Instead it is the power of the Holy Spirit which forms the Kingdom of God. A power that loves us, guides us, and shows us the way, instead of using force to make us act against our will.

It is the power of the Spirit that inspires people to love and serve, rather than ruling through fear. It is the Holy Spirit that convinces us of the truth of Jesus' death and resurrection, as well as showing us what that means in our lives. It is the Holy Spirit that inspires us to give generously, allowing us to build a more just society. Finally, it is the Holy Spirit that transforms us so that we follow the moral example and teachings of Jesus.

This is the crucial work of the Holy Spirit. It prepares and enables us to live in God's Kingdom and to make God's Kingdom a reality here on earth.

TGD: Chapter Four - The Probability of the Necessity of the Impossibility of God’s Existence

2010-09-02T10:07:00.000-07:00

Today we begin chapter four and, at long last, we finally come to Dawkins' main argument against the existence of God.

He begins by sharing an old argument that may be familiar to some of you. It is the argument that the probability of life originating on earth is no greater than the odds that a hurricane sweeping through a scrapyard would, by sheer luck, put together a working Boeing 747. Dawkins makes the point that, however unlikely it is that life first appeared on earth without divine intervention, it is even more unlikely that such a divine being would exist in order to intervene in the first place. In his words, God is the ultimate Boeing 747.

The problem with the argument is that there is a big difference between God and living creatures. Simple organisms are made up of tiny pieces that can be taken apart and put together. In this sense theories of how the first life form emerged are similar to explanations of how a jet airplane might be put together out of a random collection of parts.

This argument only works as an argument against God's existence if we assume that God is made up of tiny pieces that were, at some point in time, randomly assembled. This is very different from the traditional Christian view that God consists of one substance and has always existed.

Comparing the existence of God to the emergence of life is a poor analogy. It is more appropriate to compare the existence of God to the existence of the universe itself. To that end, let us talk about the existence of the universe.

We don't know how the universe came to exist, but we can safely say that there are three possibilities.

First of all, the universe may have always existed. As I've already mentioned, what we know from science makes this unlikely, if not impossible. According to the big bang theory, the universe has a discrete beginning in time. Also, if the universe were eternally old, then the entropy of the universe would have maxed out a long time ago.

Second, the universe may have created itself. The universe may have simply blinked into existence without any assistance from an outside force. It seems absurd to me that anything should be able to create itself, let alone a universe which has no mental faculties or decision making abilities, but some people consider it a possibility.

Finally, the universe may have been created by something else. Whether that something else is God or a prior universe or some kind of universe factory. Of course, whatever created the universe will need a similar account of it's own existence. It either has always existed, created itself, or was created by something else. (This leads to a potential infinite regress, which also seems absurd.)

Given the possibilities, I think that the most likely one, by far, is the claim that the universe was created by something else. Furthermore I consider it most likely that that something else, unlike the universe, does not suffer from entropy and is therefore able to exist eternally.

I realize that some people, like Dawkins, consider the existence of a creator God absurd, but is it any less absurd than the claim that the universe created itself, or that our universe was created by something that was created by something that was created by something, going back forever?

In any case, probabilistic arguments rooted in science can't weigh in on the issue. Scientific arguments have no place in this debate. Scientifically speaking, each of these ideas is impossible. It is impossible for something to create itself, it is impossible for something to exist forever, and it is impossible that the universe was created by something else, that was created by something else, ad infinitum. Each of these things is impossible, and yet one of them must have occurred.

Dawkins claims that the existence of God is extremely unlikely. Even if that's the case, I would argue that it isn't any less likely than the alternatives. Besides, Dawkins' whole argument that God's existence is extremely unlikely hinges on the assumption that God is similar to an amoeba.

If there is any similarity between God and an amoeba, it is that they both exist. Aside from that, they don't have very much in common.

Growing Up and Getting a Job

2010-08-31T10:27:00.000-07:00

I'd like to take a moment to comment on an article I read recently on the New York Times. This article, like many I've read before, tries very hard to answer the question on their readers' minds. What the hell is wrong with young people these days?

They phrase it more politely than that of course, but it's pretty clear what they're driving at. They want to know why young people won't settle down, finish school, find a job, get married, and have kids. I've read dozens of articles in major newspapers with this exact same question, this exact same complaint.

I'm going to focus on the issue of finding a job, because that's the issue I happen to be the most familiar with (and also one of the most common complaints). I also think that most of the other issues are tied in with that one.

This article is actually slightly encouraging in that it acknowledges that the economy is doing poorly, and expecting young people to just go out there and find a job right away isn't exactly realistic. This realization comes a little late in my opinion. Even when the economy was doing well, there was always a real shortage of entry level jobs.

I graduated with a computer science degree in 2005. I was surprised at how little help I received with finding a job. No one pointed me in the direction of companies looking for interns or entry level programmers. Nobody gave me any advice on how to design my resume or interview well. I went online looking for advice, but I found most of it to be either obvious, unhelpful or contradictory.

I applied for several companies that I never heard back from. The one interview I did get didn't go anywhere. Since then I've been applying for programming jobs off and on without any success.

I signed up with a temp agency and managed to get a few different job placements. None of them were amazing jobs, but I would have been glad to stay with them if they had hired me full time. None of them did.

While I was a temp I worked at a lot of different places for a variety of different bosses. Some of them were okay, but some of them were downright capricious. I remember being told by one company that the person I was working for was an impossible man with unrealistic expectations. I wasn't the first person who had been let go with little to no reason, and the HR person was getting frustrated trying to find someone who could satisfy him.

Most of the time I would work hard and finish an assignment much earlier than was expected. My reward for finishing my responsibilities in a timely manner was a swift return to the unemployment line.

At which point I would come home and read another article about how young people are just too lazy to find a job.

As the economic meltdown continues, we're going to have to learn how to solve these problems. If we're ever going to return to full employment, companies are going to have to suck it up and start hiring inexperienced workers. They can't rely on some other company to train their workforce for them.

At the same time, middle aged men and women are going to have to get over their naked hatred of lazy twenty-somethings. They'll have to learn how to put aside their prejudice and understand that, properly employed, we can be valuable and productive members of society. They just need someone pointing them in the direction of a job that needs doing.

I don't think we're going to solve any of these problems anytime soon. I expect this financial crisis will continue for quite awhile. In the meantime I expect that the older generation's disdain for the younger generation will continue unabated. Of course, this disdain is only reinforcing the economic crisis that hurts all of us, but I don't think the older generation has quite figured that out yet.

Here's to hoping they figure it out before unemployment hits 25%.

Miracles and Signs

2010-08-30T20:23:00.000-07:00

Most of the time, when people use the word "miracle" they're talking about an event that is clearly impossible. Something that violates the laws of physics. Something that defies everything we know about the world works.

Sometimes the term is used differently. Sometimes the word is used to describe an event that is entirely possible, even expected, that still manages to evoke a sense of awe and wonder in us. As an example, people often refer to the miracle of childbirth, even though giving birth to a child is the natural result of pregnancy.

The reason we have this second usage is because miracles don't merely refer to unlikely or impossible occurrences. It refers to events that reveal God to us. It refers to events that demonstrate God's power as well as his character.

Sometimes these events are called signs. That term is helpful because that's what these events are. They are signs that point us to God. They show us who God is and what he is like.

Everyone loves a flashy sign, an extravagant miracle that displays Gods power and majesty. Unfortunately the smaller, less visible signs are often overlooked. We don't always recognize or appreciate the smaller ways in which God reveals himself to us.

Partly this is because those smaller signs are so often lost in the noise and confusion that the world generates. However, I think a large part of the reason why this happens is because we learn to take those little signs for granted.

As wonderful as it can be to experience a truly incredible miracle, we must be careful not to lose sight of the less spectacular, but far more commonplace miracles. We should be mindful of all the little ways that God makes his goodness, his righteousness and his majesty known to us through everyday occurrences. If we can learn to do this we will never lack a reminder of who God is and what he has done for us.

TGD: The Miracle of Belief

2010-08-27T11:44:00.000-07:00

Back in chapter two I talked about how Dawkins uses an appeal to ridicule to advance his argument. I suspect this appeal is effective for a lot of people because they share his assumption that religious beliefs are silly, especially any kind of belief in miracles.

In the preface Dawkins said that he hoped this book would convince even religious readers to become atheists. I can see it working in some cases. There are, after all, quite a few people who don't believe in miracles, but still cling to religious beliefs for any number of reasons. I can see such individuals deciding to become atheists after reading this book.

However, I don't think the book will have much of an impact on people who seriously believe in miracles. The only message that this book offers such people is captured perfectly by the title. The message is this, "If you believe in miracles, then you're delusional." I don't think that's an argument that most religious people will be able to accept, especially if they've experienced a miracle themselves.

On the other hand, for people who haven't experienced a miracle and who have no religious background, Dawkins' argument works fairly well. If you accept the basic premise, then you'll probably find the central argument of this book persuasive. I have done what I can to show that there is still good reason to believe that miracles do occur, but I realize that those arguments aren't entirely persuasive.

I know that in my case, I only started to believe because I had the good fortune to experience the power of God in a miraculous way. As such, I'm sympathetic to people who don't believe that miracles are possible at all. I was that way for a long time. For most people I suspect it's one of those things you have to see to believe.

I know I'm not likely to convince my more skeptical readers, but I hope that I can at least give them some understanding of where religious people are coming from. It's easy to read a book like The God Delusion and come away with the impression that religious people are all gullible or delusional or just stupid. Hopefully, by reading these posts you can gain a slightly broader perspective on what religious people are actually like.

Next week I'm going to get started on chapter four of The God Delusion. We finally get to take a look at Dawkins' argument against the existence of God. I hope you'll stick around.

Is the "Food Court Gangster" a THQ Customer?

2010-08-26T09:53:00.000-07:00

I'm doing something a little unusual with this post. I still plan to write about The God Delusion this week, but today I want to write about a recent Penny Arcade strip and the controversy it generated.

Recently, the video-game developer THQ decided to include some extra features that would only be available to first time buyers. They announced that they don't care about upsetting people who buy used games. The webcomic Penny Arcade made a hilarious comic and wrote a news-post commenting on the situation. (For those who don't follow the comic The "Food Court Gangster" is the name of the character in the comic who buys his games used).

In both the comic and the news-post, the author makes the point that THQ has no problem upsetting people who buy used games because those people aren't their customers. They are customers of Gamestop, a retail outlet that, in addition to selling new games, buys and sells a large volume of used games.

Now there's a lot of truth to this. Game publishers and developers don't make any money from the sale of used games. If that was all that they had said, I probably wouldn't have felt the need to comment, but in the news-post Tycho goes further than that. He writes that buying used games is equivalent to piracy. "From the the perspective of a developer," he writes, "They are almost certainly synonymous."

That statement is problematic for two reasons. One, because it equates the legal act of buying a used game with the illegal act of downloading that game from a file sharing network. Two, because it ignores the economic impact of buying and selling used games.

While it is true that the "Food Court Gangster" isn't a THQ customer, Gamestop is. In fact, if I had to guess, I would say that Gamestop is probably one of THQ's biggest customers. If Gamestop makes money buying and selling used games, that's money they can use to stay in business and buy more games. Remember, without the sale of new games, there is no used game market for them to make money on.

Additionally, the sale of used games has an indirect effect of selling more games. Let's say Bob is thinking about buying a game, but isn't sure that it's worth the $60 price tag. If Bob knows that he can resell the game later for five or ten bucks, he's more likely to go ahead and spend the money. Plus, the money Bob makes selling used games can be used to buy more new games.

Let's put it this way, suppose video game companies could stop Gamestop from selling used games altogether. How many Gamestops would be able to stay in business after one of their primary revenue streams is cut off? Let's say that half of the Gamestops are able to stay in business. Would this be a good thing for the game industry?

I know that game developers and game publishers would like to make money on the sale of used games. The recording industry would like to make money on the sale of used CDs, and the publishing industry would like to make money on the sale of used books, but that's not the way copyright works.

If you own the copyright on a particular work you get to control who gets to make copies of that work. You don't get to control what a person does with their copy after it's been made. We might feel bad that Gamestop makes a lot of money on the sale of used games, but that doesn't make it wrong or illegal.

Going back to the original event that sparked the discussion, I don't think THQ's decision to make some content available only to first time buyers is so bad. However, I think game companies need to be careful. If they punish people who buy their games used too much, they might find out that those people are their customers after all.

The Lost Art of Lament

2010-08-23T23:07:00.000-07:00

What do we do when we've lost hope? How do we respond when the one person we thought we could count on lets us down? Where do we turn for comfort when we feel certain that God has abandoned us?

The answer is simple: we cry out. We cry out to God whether he is there or not. We cry out to God whether he is listening or not. We cry out to God whether he rescues us or not. Even though we feel certain that he's not there, that he isn't listening and that he most certainly is not going to rescue us, we cry out anyway.

This act of crying out to God is called lamenting and it is something of a lost art, especially in the evangelical church. Even though scripture is full of laments, most Christians are unwilling to share laments of their own. Many are skeptical of laments, even the ones that appear in scripture.

I can understand why. Laments are so often filled with difficult questions, either asked or unasked. Most people come to religion looking for answers. The last thing they want to encounter is more questions.

As a result, most churches don't spend a lot of time lamenting. This is unfortunate, because I think a good lament might be just the thing we need.

In the world we live in, not every question has an easy answer, and not every problem has a straightforward solution. In fact, I suspect that there are a few important questions that don't have any answer, and some problems that simply defy solution.

In any case, religion certainly can't provide all the answers or all the solutions, no matter how hard it tries. We need to be honest about that. And if we want to be honest about that, then we should learn how to lament properly. We need to learn how to ask the questions we don't have the answer to, instead of pretending we already have all the answers.

Scott Pilgrim

2010-08-18T14:18:00.000-07:00

I realize that I haven't been terribly consistent with my posting lately. This post and last week's post were both late, and I haven't done a post on The God Delusion in the past two weeks. I'm sorry about the delays. My life has been a little bit crazy lately. Hopefully I should be back on schedule next week with a post on Monday and another post on The God Delusion by next Friday. In the meantime, I hope you'll be patient with me.

Short Version: Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is the best movie to come out in a long time. If you have any interest in video games, offbeat romantic comedies, or highly original movies, you should go see it right now.

Longer version: This Friday I went with a group of friends to see Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. A few weeks prior I got the chance to borrow the graphic novels from a friend. I enjoyed the books, but I was skeptical that the movie would be able to condense the story enough while still preserving the spirit of the comics. In fact, the movie did an even better job than I had dared to hope.

The movie takes all the weirdness of Scott Pilgrim's world and puts it on the screen, without trying to rationalize it or explain it away. It adopts the conventions of comic books and video games in new and interesting ways. I feel like this movie is pointing the way forward for comic book and video game adaptations.

More importantly though, the movie has excellent writing and a great story. Beneath all the silliness and absurdity the movie has a surprising amount of depth. The fights may seem unrealistic, but the way the characters interact and grow and change is very authentic.

Scott Pilgrim is a great movie. It's also a movie that groks contemporary geek culture. I honestly didn't expect to see a movie like this for at least another five or ten years, if ever. I'm so used to mainstream culture demonizing gamers that I'm surprised that a movie like this, which celebrates gaming culture, got made.

Of course, getting a movie like that made is one thing. Getting it to be successful is something else entirely. Although it got great reviews (excluding a few people who decided to review the audience instead of the movie) the movie isn't doing that well in the box office.

I'm hopeful that the movie will end up being successful. Once word of mouth gets around, I expect a lot more people will come and see it, and in any case it's pretty much destined to become a cult classic. So I think that in the long run the film will definitely be a success.

Still, I would like to see the movie do well in the short term. For one ting, the people who made it deserve a solid return on investment. For another thing, I'd like to see how the reviewers who panned the film react when it becomes a much loved classic.

We will see what happens. Only time will tell.

The Hardest Subject

2010-08-11T14:55:00.000-07:00

Today I'm going to talk about something I've never talked about before despite the fact that it is a central aspect of the Christian religion. I'm going to talk about God's judgement. More to the point I'm going to talk about Hell, whether or not it exists, and who ends up there.

I've never talked about this subject before for two simple reasons. One, it's an incredibly sensitive topic for obvious reasons. Two, I don't have many strong convictions in this area. I have some strong opinions, but I'm not entirely sure of those opinions.

However, as long as I remain silent, most people will probably assume that I hold the traditional protestant view. Namely, that Hell is real and terrible and that anyone who doesn't confess their faith in Jesus during their life will spend eternity there. I may not be entirely sure that my beliefs are correct, but I strongly believe this view is wrong. If only for that reason, I should probably let you know what my beliefs concerning the final judgement actually are.

First of all, I have a hard time believing that every single adult* who isn't a Christian at the time of their death will be judged. Far too many people have lived and died having never even had an opportunity to become Christian. Many more people only know of Jesus through the message spread by crusaders and conquistadors, men whose actions contradict and pervert the message of Christ.

It seems far more reasonable to me to assume that they mercy God has shown through Jesus on the cross isn't meant only for Christians. I don't claim to know exactly how far God's mercy extends, but I am very uncomfortable putting limits on it. I am especially uncomfortably limiting it only to those people who hear about Jesus and believe in him while they are still alive.

As I write this, I know that many evangelicals who read this would probably cringe at this suggestion that God's mercy isn't reserved just for them. "If God's just going to let everyone into heaven anyway, then why bother evangelizing?" they would probably ask.

Simply put, I believe that being Christian is about more than merely reserving a seat in heaven. I think that following Jesus has something to do with participating in the Kingdom of God, which has begun and even now is growing silently and invisibly all around us, but I'll save that discussion for a future post.

Second, I have a hard time believing that God would send anyone to an actual, eternal Hell. I once had a discussion with a friend at church who said, bluntly, that the only reason anyone believes in Hell is because of Dante's inferno. This is an exaggeration, to be sure, but it's probably more true than we'd like to admit. I also think Pascal's notorious wager has something to do with why so many people continue to believe in Hell. For many people, fear of Hell is what convinced them to become Christian in the first place.

In addition, there are some deep philosophical reasons why many Christians believe in an eternal Hell. Most Christians believe in the immortality of the soul. In fact, most Christians assume that this belief is a core part of the Christian faith, even though the Bible doesn't make that claim.

Because they have this assumption, when they read about God punishing the wicked, they assume that the punishment must be eternal. They don't consider the possibility that the person's soul could die, even though this punishment is referred to as, "The second death." They ignore the obvious interpretation because of their belief in the immortality of the soul.

A great book to read if you're interested in learning more about alternative views about Hell is The Great Divorce by C. S. Lewis. It's written for a popular audience, which makes it an excellent antidote for The Inferno.

So, what do I believe concerning the final judgement? I believe that God is merciful and his judgments are just. I trust that God won't be harsh or unfair in his judgments. For that reason, I have hard time believing the traditional view. The traditional view may provide certainty, but if we really trust God then I think we can handle a little uncertainty.

* Most evangelicals believe that children under a certain age are exempt from judgment. This is called the "Age of accountability". There isn't much basis in scripture for this belief, but most people are uncomfortable with a theology that condemns infants to Hell just because they weren't baptized.

TGD: Chapter Three - Science, Gambling, and the Odds

2010-08-05T12:05:00.000-07:00

In the last three sections Dawkins deals with arguments for God's existence that, in my opinion, aren't terribly convincing. In this post I'll try to go over all three sections so we can be done with chapter three and move on to the heart of Dawkins' argument.

In the first of these three sections Dawkins writes about the "appeal to respected scientists". The gist of this argument is that many well respected scientists have believed in God, therefore you should as well.

The argument is a kind of appeal to authority, and not a very good one. Scientists aren't in a better position to know whether or not God exists than anyone else.

In any case, Dawkins points out that these days very few notable scientists are religious in the traditional sense. Quite a few are religious in the 'Einsteinian' sense, which Dawkins decided to lump in with atheism back in chapter one.

This argument seems more relevant to the question of whether or not religion and science are compatible, but I'm not going to bring up that subject again. For now let me just say that the belief, or lack thereof, of scientists has no bearing on the question of whether or not God exists.

In the next section Dawkins discuses Pascal's wager. This isn't an argument for God's existence so much as an argument for why you should believe he exists.

The wager works like this. If God doesn't exist then it doesn't matter one way or the other if you believe in him or not. On the other hand if God does exist then you'll be better off if you believe in him than if you don't. So you should believe in God, in case he does exist.

Dawkins points out to problems with the argument. First, the argument assumes that there is only one possible God that might exist. The argument doesn't deal with the possibility that you might choose the wrong God to believe in.

Second, Dawkins points out that deciding to believe something is not simply a matter of choice, at least, not for him. In order to believe something you need to have some evidence for it. Otherwise you're just paying lip service.

I hate to pile on old Pascal, but I have a few additional problems with the argument. First, it assumes you have a traditional view of heaven and hell, which is not a belief I'm committed to (and it's certainly not a belief I want to promote for the sake of a bad argument).

Finally, the wager only works if you assume that believing in God doesn't cost anything. If, on the other hand, believing in God is something that could potentially cost you your life or your freedom, then the argument doesn't work so well. The argument certainly doesn't convince us to obey Jesus when he tells us to give up everything we have and follow him.

The final argument that Dawkins brings up is one that I've never heard of before. The argument comes from a book called, "The Probability of God". In it, the author uses Bayesian methods to determine the odds that God exists.

I am fond of Bayes' theorem, but this argument doesn't sound like a very good one. Based on Dawkins' description it seems like the man took a very informal argument for God's existence, assigned numbers to various factors that make it more or less likely that God exists, and then used Bayes' theorem to come up with a final probability.

Since I'm not familiar with the argument, I have no way of knowing if Dawkins misrepresented it, but it didn't sound very convincing to me. If you're curious, you can always buy the book. If nothing else, you'll learn how to use Bayes' theorem, which is worthwhile enough.

In any case, we're now finished with chapter three. In a few weeks I will return with chapter four.

Morality Clubs and the Kingdom of God

2010-08-02T18:44:00.000-07:00

As you may recall, awhile back I talked about the Kingdom of God; specifically, I talked about a few of the more commonly held views of what the Kingdom of God is. Since then I've talked about how the Kingdom of God relates to politics, religion, and society. Today I'm going to continue the series by talking about how the Kingdom of God relates to morality.

The view that the Kingdom of God is essentially an ethical system is very common. Many people believe that the Kingdom of God is just a moral code that people are obligated to follow. People who hold this view usually try to ensure that people obey the moral principles which they equate with the Kingdom of God.

In principle this is a nice idea, but in practice it often leads to the creation of "morality clubs"; groups whose sole purpose is to make sure that everyone (or at least, everyone in the group) follows the correct moral code. These groups are usually manipulative. They use shame and guilt to control people's behavior. They also lead people to become very judgmental towards each other and even towards themselves.

If you're familiar with the gospels, you will probably recognize that this is not how Jesus treated people. Jesus was kind and affectionate to even the worst of the worst. Strangely, he was the most critical of people who were working hard to be paragons of virtue. Jesus did not look favorably on the morality clubs that existed in his day.

Obviously, Jesus did present a set of morals in his teachings, but at the center of his teachings were several teachings on mercy and forgiveness. God's mercy and forgiveness, which Paul described as grace, lies at the heart of Jesus' ethical teachings. If we understand Jesus' teaching on this matter, we will see that it is the perfect antidote to morality clubs, both in our time and in Jesus' time.

According to this teaching, being completely wicked is not the worst thing a person can do. The most evil thing that we can do is be good and consider ourselves superior to the people who aren't as good as we are. According to Jesus, this judgmental attitude is always worse than the evil deeds done by the people we judge.

If we follow this teaching, if we put forgiveness first, then we lose the right to control or manipulate others. We cannot use guilt or shame to get people to behave the way they should. Instead, we are asked to freely extend forgiveness to everyone and trust God to do what is right.

If we follow this teaching, it will free us from these kinds of manipulative morality clubs. It will also free us from the deep injustices of our society. Of course, if we follow this teaching, we will also come to understand that no one follows it perfectly, and we don't have any way to force them to comply.

That lack of control is a problem for many people. That's why so many people prefer their morality club to the true kingdom of God. Such groups are safer and easier to control. But they aren't truly God's kingdom, and they never will be.

Taking a Break

2010-07-21T00:46:00.001-07:00

I'm sorry about not getting the Monday post up. It's been a busy week for me. Since I'm going on vacation next week I'm going to make things easy on myself and just take the rest of the week and next week off. I'll start posting again when I get back from the vacation, which should be around the first of August.

So have a nice July. I'll be back with more posts in August.

TGD: Chapter Three - The Case for the Resurrection

2010-07-16T23:26:00.000-07:00

Last week we began to talk about whether or not the New Testament provides enough historical evidence to establish Jesus' divinity. I ended by saying that we should focus our attention on the question of whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. This week I intend to present the historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection.

First, let's talk about the reliability of the books in the New Testament. Considered as a whole, the New Testament is far and away the single most reliable work of ancient writing we have. We have more than 5,000 ancient manuscripts for the New Testament, some from the early second century. Moreover, there is an extremely high level of agreement between the manuscripts.

What does this mean? It means that claims that the New Testament is unreliable because it was written a hundred years or more after Christ's death and copied by generations of scribes is completely false. We now know that most of the New Testament was written by the end of the first century and that the version we have today is nearly identical to the original.

We know that the New Testament is reliable. The next question is, is it an accurate portrayal of history? Does the New Testament provide us with an accurate description of the events of Jesus' life and the early church?

Let me begin by saying that if the New Testament were a normal historical document describing ordinary events no one would seriously question its historical validity. As I've already said, it's the most reliable ancient text we have and most of it was written within fifty years of the events it describes.

We have an incredible amount of evidence that the New Testament is a reliable source of history, but the claims made in the New Testament are also very incredible. For that reason we must scrutinize the New Testament rather closely.

The first question we can ask is, do these accounts agree with each other? The answer is that they do, aside from a few minor details. The gospel accounts all give an incredibly detailed account of Jesus' ministry, teaching, death and resurrection. Some of the smaller details differ between the four gospels, but major events remain the same.

The next question we can ask is, how well do these stories agree with what we know about the time period from other ancient sources? There are actually a number of details, particularly from the Book of Acts that historians can independently verify. There are a few places where the author is mistaken, but judging by the standards of ancient history, the Book of Acts holds up rather well.

The final question we must consider is, did the authors have an agenda which may have colored their writing? In the case of the New Testament it is clear that each of the authors had an agenda. They wanted to convince the reader that Jesus Christ was, in fact, the Jewish Messiah.

Knowing this we have to ask, how much of an affect did this have on their writing? Certainly it had an impact, but it didn't stop them from including several details which ran counter to their agenda.

First, the gospels record that his name is Jesus. This goes against Isaiah, who prophesied that the Messiah would be called "Immanuel".

Second, all of the gospels assert that Jesus was raised in Nazareth. This creates a problem because, according to prophecy, the Messiah was supposed to come from Bethlehem. As we mentioned last time, only Matthew and Luke address this issue directly.

Third, all of the gospels claim that Jesus was crucified. This creates a problem because, according to the Old Testament, anyone who is hung on a tree is cursed.

All of this shows that the authors of the gospels weren't simply inventing a story about a Messiah, but were writing a historical account of an individual, Jesus of Nazareth, whom they believed was the Messiah.

Finally, I want to take a quick look specifically at the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. I know it's an incredible claim, but I think it should be considered plausible for two reasons.

First, the claim that Jesus had risen from the dead appears in even the earliest Christian writings. The claim that Jesus rose from the dead wasn't being made centuries after the fact. Paul wrote that Jesus had risen from the dead barely twenty years after it happened. Paul's readers could have easily asked around to see if this was true.

In fact, Paul wrote that more than five hundred people had seen the risen Christ, and that most of them were still alive.

Finally, many of the people who believed that Jesus Christ rose from the dead died for their belief. Not only did they believe it was true, they were certain enough that they were willing to die for that belief.

All things considered, I think it's fair to say that we have good historical evidence that Jesus Christ did, in fact, rise from the dead.

What Dreams May Come

2010-07-12T21:47:00.000-07:00

I've been having a lot of dreams lately. I've been thinking about all the things I would like to do with my life. Some of those dreams I've had for awhile. Others are more recent. All of them seem good. It's hard to decide which ones to pursue.

It's a good thing, actually. For a long time most of my energy has been going into trying to find a job. Recently I managed to find a permanent job that meets my needs. Now that I'm no longer focused on trying to get a job I have more time to think about what I would like to do with my life. I also have some stability, which makes it easier to make plans for the future.

There's a joy that comes with these dreams. There's a joy in seeing something that's still over the horizon. There's a joy in picturing something that isn't here yet. There's a joy in chasing a dream and making it a reality.

There's also a bit of sadness that comes with these dreams. A sadness in knowing that to pursue one dream is to neglect the others. A sadness because I know that, no matter what I do, some of these dreams will never come to pass.

Still it is more than worth it to have these dreams; to see these realities that lie just over the horizon. It is a wonderful thing to see these dreams and to welcome them from far away.

Soon I know it will be time to make a choice. I will have to decide which direction my life is heading. I will need to decide where I want to go and which of my many dreams I want to try and make a reality. I am looking forward to that as well, but right now it feels nice just to take a break and dream for a little while.

And I need to savor the dream while it lasts. I'll need to remember the wonderful dream I had during those times when I am struggling to make it happen. I need to hold on to the joy to keep me going when it gets rough.

For now, though, I think I'm going to enjoy my dreams just a little bit longer.

TGD: Chapter Three - Birth or Resurrection?

2010-07-08T13:25:00.000-07:00

The next section of Dawkins book deals with the argument from scripture. Specifically, he deals with the argument that the New Testament provides historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God.

He makes the claim that the New Testament is not a valid or reliable source of history. He claims that the New Testament was written a long time after Jesus lived, that it was copied by scribes many times, that it contradicts the historical record, that it contradicts itself, and that its authors all had an agenda that colored their writing.

Dawkins uses the stories about the birth of Jesus as an example to prove his point. He points out the difference between the accounts in Luke and Matthew, and he points out the historical problems with the account in Luke.

There are problems with the accounts of Jesus' birth, but, from an historical standpoint, that is the least reliable part of the gospel story. The gospels were written by followers of Jesus. Jesus' first followers witnessed Jesus' ministry, death and resurrection, but none of them witnessed Jesus' birth. At best, Luke and Matthew were relying on second or third hand accounts of an event that happened almost a hundred years ago.

On the other hand, the accounts of Jesus' ministry are first or second hand accounts of events that happened fifty to seventy years ago. It's reasonable to assume that the accounts of Jesus' life or ministry are much more accurate than the accounts of Jesus' birth.

Moreover, while the doctrine of the virgin birth is important, it's not nearly as important to the Christian faith as the resurrection. The claim that Jesus was raised from the dead is the central truth claim of the Christian faith. We can see this, because nearly every book in the New Testament refers to Jesus' resurrection.

Unfortunately, Dawkins doesn't directly address the issue of whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. Instead he isolates the weakest part of the Biblical narrative and criticizes it. Then he implies that the whole story is equally unreliable.

The problem with Dawkins' argument is that the whole story isn't equally unreliable. Next week I will present the case that Jesus of Nazareth did, in fact, rise from the dead. I hope that you'll come back for that.

White Privilege and the Economic Meltdown

2010-07-05T20:56:00.000-07:00

I recently read a fascinating article on Facebook. The article talks about the effects of white privilege and how it makes it harder for white Americans to cope with the current recession, at least psychologically. He also talks about why it's important to pursue racial equality, even during a recession.

The article is really good, and I don't have much to add. I recommend reading it first before you read my own reflections.

I wanted to say that the article captures something crucial about human nature. We have a hard time putting others first when our own well being is on the line. When we are under pressure the first thing we give up on is generosity. Kindness and goodwill are luxuries we indulge in only if we are absolutely sure we can afford it, and often times not even then.

Unfortunately, as Tim Wise points out, this selfishness is shortsighted. When we fail to take care of people in need, the whole economy suffers. If we fail to take care of those people who are in need, we will soon find ourselves in need and there might not be anyone to take care of us.

One of the greatest contributions that religion has made in Western civilization, is that it teaches us the importance of loving and caring for others. In particular, Christianity teaches us to value others more highly than ourselves; to love and care for even our enemies. Through religion, we have the belief that taking care of others is always worth the cost.

One of the great scandals of American Christianity is that it has largely abandoned this teaching, especially with regard to racial equality.

There are exceptions of course. The abolitionist movement was championed by Christian activists, as was the early Republican party (which ended slavery in America). The civil rights movement was also championed by African American churches. Still, the majority of American Christians, especially white evangelical Christians, have either ignored or actively supported racial inequality.

This is a tragedy. White evangelical churches are in the best position to deconstruct the mythology surrounding white privilege. Yet most of the time they help to build up the myth that whites are deserving of their privilege. At the same time they ignore the very real racial inequality that persists in this country.

This is one of the main reasons why I am so very out of step with Evangelicals, both socially and politically. I continue to pray that the church will repent, but more importantly, I pray that we, as a Nation, repent of this evil, and begin working to solve the deep injustices that plague our country.

Art and Craft

2010-06-28T17:42:00.000-07:00

I've written a couple of posts about whether or not videogames should be considered art. Today I'm going to talk about the kind of craftsmanship that goes into making a videogame.

Actually, I'm going to let this guy talk about the craftsmanship that goes into making a videogame:

For those of you who can't (or don't want to) watch the video, I'll summarize. He's talking about a Game called Fuel. He doesn't talk about the gameplay, or the story, or the art direction. He spends his time talking about the game world. Specifically, he talks about how they used technology to create a truly massive game world.

Even though he doesn't really enjoy the game, he loves the way they made the videogame. Since he's a programmer himself, he's able to appreciate the craftsmanship that went into making it.

His comments actually remind me of Roger Ebert's commentary on Citizen Cane. As you may know, Citizen Cane consistently tops the AFI's list of the top 100 films of all time. I've seen the movie, and I certainly wouldn't consider it the greatest movie ever made. Until I listened to Ebert's commentary, I never understood why the film was so highly regarded.

In his commentary, Ebert talks about all of the techniques that were used to make the film. Early on he said that Citizen Cane has nearly as many special effects shots as Star Wars. That remark surprised me, because I didn't think that a movie like Citizen Cane would need much in the way of special effects. Throughout the movie, he explained several of the more noteworthy special effects that were used to make the film look the way it does.

I wonder if Roger Ebert knew as much about video game development as he does about movie making, if that might affect his opinion that videogames can't be art. Strictly speaking, it shouldn't matter one way or the other. Just because something is challenging to make doesn't make it a work of art.

Still, we admire it when a high level of craftsmanship is used to create something beautiful. Once we know the work that goes into making anything, whether it's a videogame or a movie or anything else, we begin to appreciate it that much more.

TGD: Chapter Three - Experience Revisited

2010-06-25T14:37:00.000-07:00

Last week I talked about Dawkins' arguments against the validity of religious experiences. After further consideration (and some helpful conversations with friends) I realize that I wasn't exactly being fair to Dawkins' argument. Since I give Dawkins such a hard time whenever he isn't being fair, I owe you (and him) an apology. I'm sorry for presenting a straw man of Dawkins' argument.

Now I'm going to try and restate Dawkins' original argument, and this time I hope to do it justice.

To begin with, it is obvious that most people's personal experiences are valid most of the time. However, there are cases where individuals can be mistaken. We sometimes see or hear things that aren't there. Some people routinely see or hear things that aren't there. Still, by and large, most of us can trust our senses most of of the time.

One way we test to see if our experiences are valid is to wait and see if the experience persists. We also check with the people around us to see if they experience the same things we do. Using these methods, and others like them, we can deal with the occasional bizarre experience. So long as we know that our experience is mostly valid, we can easily weed out the few experiences that are invalid.

Science makes careful use of these types of corrective procedures. Scientists take careful notes, and use instruments to make quantifiable measurements. They confer with their peers to make sure that their observations or experiments produce similar results. If they don't, then the scientists try to figure out what is causing the discrepancy and try again.

Religious experiences generally lack this kind of verification. They often aren't well documented and they often lack confirmation from another observer. Certainly, none of them are persistent or experienced by everyone. For this reason, it is reasonable to dismiss such experience.

That is my understanding of Dawkins' argument. Having said that, I still think there is a problem with it.

The main problem is this: religious experiences are too widespread. If you add together all the people of every religious stripe who claim to have witnessed some kind of supernatural phenomena, you'd come up with a number easily in the millions, if not tens of millions. If we assume that all of these people are seeing and hearing things that aren't there, that creates a problem.

I'm not sure if he realizes it, but Dawkins is making the claim that millions of otherwise normal people are functional schizophrenics*. They are considered "sane" only because their hallucinations do not prevent them from functioning in polite society.

The claim that millions of people see and hear things that aren't actually there does speak to the issue of whether or not experience really is a valid way to gain knowledge. After all, if it's reasonable to claim that millions of Christians all share similar hallucinations when they claim to hear from God, how can we be sure that millions of cell biologists aren't experiencing something similar when they look through an electron microscope?

The argument Dawkins is making has to be carefully considered. I think you could still make the claim that scientific knowledge is reliable, even if millions of scientists experience occasional hallucinations, but it would be a difficult claim to defend.

More to the point, I don't think that Dawkins has even considered the possibility that he and millions of his fellow scientists might be experiencing occasional hallucinations. He takes it for granted that what he sees with his eyes and hears with his ears is almost always completely trustworthy. I imagine he holds similar beliefs about most of his peers.

Which brings me to the second objection I have with this argument. He doesn't give a any reason why religious experiences should be singled out for skepticism. Plenty of us have private experiences; things that are only seen by ourselves and perhaps one other person. How can we be sure that those experiences are real?

If we hold them to the same standard we would a vision of the Virgin Mary, then we have to conclude that they aren't real. There just isn't enough evidence to prove that that dinner alone or that romantic walk on the beach really happened.

I think it's more reasonable to assume that those religious experiences are just as valid as any other private experience. They might not provide enough evidence to prove God's existence, but they certainly provide enough evidence to make the God hypothesis seem reasonable.

* This is an awkward phrase, and I might be misusing the term Schizophrenia, but it's the best I can come up with. How do you describe someone who is sane, except for the fact that they sometimes see or hear things that aren't there? I don't think there's a word for that.

Grace and Social Justice

2010-06-21T12:46:00.000-07:00

I read this post on Internet Monk awhile back. He writes that the beatitudes are pronouncements of grace. He says that Jesus is announcing God's undeserved love to the mourners, the poor, the meek, the hungry, and so on. This interpretation differs from my own understanding, but since I read it, I've been thinking about it. I think Chaplain Mike may be on to something.

Let me start by giving you my own understanding. I believe that this passage speaks primarily to issues of injustice. It speaks to people who seek justice in the world or who suffer from injustice. Jesus is saying that they are blessed because they will see God's justice.

When I first read that the beatitudes are pronouncements of grace, it seemed strange to me. It seemed out of place, like he was reading Paul's ideas into the words of Jesus. As I thought about it some more, I started to think about the role of grace in God's justice. I began to realize that grace is really important to understanding God's justice.

Grace, as I have written before, is God's undeserved mercy. It is the love and kindness that he shows to everyone, whether they deserve it or not. It is this love that gives justice it's true shape.

Think about what justice looks like among people. How often do we see a person begging for money? How do we respond? How do we justify our response?

First of all, most people, and I'm included in this group, don't give money to beggars. And how do we justify that decision? We think to ourselves, "She's just a scam artist," or, "He'll just spend it all on drugs." We tell ourselves that they don't deserve our help.

A similar thing happens when we consider programs aimed at helping the poor. We wonder if our tax dollars might be better spent elsewhere. We worry that the poor will become dependent on government handouts; that they won't learn to work or provide for themselves. Once again, we don't believe that they deserve it.

The beauty of God's grace is that it cuts through all of these arguments. God's justice is about loving people and providing for them, whether or not they deserve it or even need it. This is what God's justice looks like.

I'm grateful that Chaplain Mike helped me to see the purpose of God's grace in the midst of it.

TGD: Chapter Three - Experience and Knowledge

2010-06-18T21:43:00.000-07:00

Last week I talked about the section titled, "The Argument from Personal 'Experience'". In that section Dawkins tries to address people who claim to have personally witnessed something supernatural.

In the chapter Dawkins doesn't just talk about personal experiences. He also talks about large scale miracles with tens of thousands of eye witnesses. It is a stretch to call these events "personal experiences". I spent most of the last post talking about these kinds of miracles, because they provide the best evidence that God exists and because Dawkins did a poor job providing a credible reason why we should ignore these events.

So this week I want to go back and actually talk about personal experiences. I want to talk about events that are only experienced by an individual or a small group of people.

In these situations Dawkins is able to make a much stronger case. The human mind isn't nearly as reliable as we usually assume it is. He makes a good case that humans are able to see and hear things that aren't actually there, or to be severely mistaken about what we are seeing or hearing. From this, Dawkins argues that it is reasonable to ignore people who claim to have experienced a private miracle.

The problem with Dawkins' argument is that he applies it selectively. He says that people who see the Virgin Mary are seeing something that almost certainly isn't there. But if it's possible that we can see people aren't there, then how can we ever be sure that the people we do see actually are there? How can I be sure that my next door neighbor is real and the Virgin Mary isn't?

In order to make that determination we need to know something. We need to know that my next door neighbor is a real, living person, whereas the Virgin Mary is not. But how do we know that?

This raises some serious epistemological problems. If we can't even trust our own personal experiences, we can't really know much of anything.

You might think that we could somehow use science to determine what's real and what isn't, but scientific knowledge is gained primarily by experiment and observation. In order to do this, the scientists have to be able to trust their faculties. While they are observing or performing experiments, they need to be sure that their experiences are valid. Otherwise the observations or experimental results aren't reliable. And if none of the individual experiments or observations are reliable, then the conclusions we make based on those experiments or observations aren't reliable either.

Dawkins doesn't address any of these issues. He makes the claim that any so called religious experience is really just a malfunction of the human brain, but how can we be sure?

Dawkins is relying on his readers to have an intuitive sense that religious experiences are probably false and other kinds of experiences are almost certainly true. He fosters this by constantly mocking religious beliefs, thus reinforcing the idea that religious beliefs are silly (and therefore false) while other kinds of beliefs are normal (and therefore true).

Unless Dawkins is able to provide a good reason why religious experiences should be singled out for unusual skepticism, then he's just making the claim that it is impossible for us to ever have certain knowledge. That's an argument I've heard before.

The Twisted Story

2010-06-15T13:56:00.000-07:00

I'm sure that all of you have heard the gospel at some point. The story is very well known in the Western world. It is so commonly heard and so often repeated that it just becomes part of the background noise after awhile.

Moreover, the gospel, the Christian message, has been at the center of European culture for 1600 years now. The story is so widespread and has become so common that almost everyone has heard it, but we rarely stop to think about what a strange story it is. The story seems normal to us, because we've heard it so often in so many different forms. Though we've often heard it described as, "The Greatest Story Ever Told," it might be more accurate to say that it is the most twisted story ever told.

It is a story of the God who made everything. The God who made everything created people in his image to govern the earth for him. But people turned away from God. They lost their privileged status and fell under a curse. The world, which was once perfectly good, began to turn against them.

This is just the setup. This is the part people frequently object to, but this isn't the part that's twisted. The twisted part comes next.

God decided to set things right again. He sent a person who will be good, who won't turn away from him, to be his representative and to make peace between himself and humanity. This person led a good life. He gathered some followers and taught them how to lead a good life. Unfortunately, a lot of people with political and religious clout didn't like this person, so they conspired to have him killed.

Now, here comes the twisted part. God allowed it. He let the people in charge kill his representative. God's representative went along with this plan and even forgave the people who killed him.

Finally, it is revealed that this was God's plan all along, to allow his chosen representative to die, despite the fact that he did nothing wrong. His death acts as a sacrifice, the good person is punished instead of the people who actually deserve it. Then the good person is brought back to life, and he promises that the people who follow him will be brought back to life as well.

What do you think. Is the gospel story really as twisted as I've made it out to be? If it is, why do you think Christians made such a bizarre story central to their faith? Finally, how did such a bizarre story become the dominant story in the Western world?

TGD: Chapter Three - Miracles

2010-06-12T00:08:00.000-07:00

The title of the next section of Dawkins' book is, "The Argument from Personal 'Experience'". In this section Dawkins responds to people who claim to have firsthand evidence of God's existence, people who have witnessed a miracle or had a vision or something similar.

The most accurate thing Dawkins writes in this section is this, "This argument from personal experience is the one that is most convincing to those who claim to have had one. But it is the least convincing to anyone else, and anyone knowledgeable about psychology." If you witness a miracle yourself, or if someone you know and trust tells you about a miracle that they experienced, it can be very convincing. From a distance, however, it is easy to remain skeptical.

This is the main reason why I haven't written about any of the supernatural phenomena I have experienced on this blog. You have no way of knowing if I'm telling the truth or not. You can't really gauge how skeptical I am. Without any way to tell if I'm a reliable witness or not, my testimony would be fairly hollow.

On the other hand, the problem does work both ways. Just as I cannot say anything to Dawkins to convince him that I have experienced a miracle, there is nothing that he can say to me that will convince me that I haven't.

Not that he doesn't try. He spends most of the chapter talking about how easy it is for people to deceive themselves; to see or hear things that aren't actually there. He talks about the tendency of the human mind to see patterns where none exist.

In the case where a miraculous event is only witnessed by one person, these are all valid considerations. However, when there are two or more witnesses, things become more complicated. A lone individual might just be seeing things, but when two or more individuals see the same thing at the same time, that's a little bit harder to write off.

Dawkins addresses this issue briefly, towards the end of the chapter. He talks about the Miracle of the Sun, where 70,000 people in Fatima, Portugal witnessed the sun dance about in the sky and careen toward the earth. He writes, 'It is not easy to explain how seventy thousand people could share the same hallucination. But it is even harder to accept that it really happened without the rest of the world, outside Fatima, seeing it too - and not just seeing it, but feeling it as the catastrophic destruction of the solar system, including acceleration forces sufficient to hurl everybody into space."

What Dawkins is doing here, besides being deliberately obtuse, is setting up a false dilemna. Either the residents all shared the same hallucination, or the earth was yanked from its orbit. The possibility that the people of Fatima saw a vision or experienced some other kind of miracle isn't even considered.

He quotes Hume, who wrote, "No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endevours to establish." I think the Fatima miracle more than qualifies.

We have newspaper evidence that more than thirty-thousand people saw the sun dance in the sky. A simultaneous mass hallucination, or conspiracy on that scale is so ridiculously implausible that the possibility that the people of Fatima saw a divine vision begins to seem reasonable to even the most skeptical minds. The only way we can escape that conclusion is if we begin with the assumption that miracles are virtually impossible.

Of course, this is precisely where Dawkins begins. He begins with the assumption that miracles are impossible. He describes an example of an instance where there is a truly massive amount of evidence that a miracle occurs. He then states that the probability that all of that evidence is either false or misleading is still greater than the probability that a miracle actually occurred, because miracles are impossible.

When we boil away the sophistry, what we're left with is a classic example of circular reasoning. Really, this argument is nothing more than atheistic fideism; the assertion that we should believe that God doesn't exist even when all the evidence says that he does.

Even if we somehow manage to swallow the notion that the miracle of Fatima is some kind of hoax or optical illusion (maybe swamp gas refracting the light from Venus), it is hardly the only recorded supernatural occurrence in recent history. One should also study the Azusa Street Revival and the Toronto Blessing. And I'm sure a quick study of religious revival movements would turn up a few more examples of large-scale miracles. Some will be more credible than others, but if we want to establish that God doesn't exist, we need to provide a reasonable explanation for all of them. If Dawkins has such an explanation, he isn't exactly shouting it from the rooftops.

A Little More Conversation

2010-06-09T11:01:00.000-07:00

I have a confession to make: I'm not very happy with my latest post. I didn't have a clear purpose for writing it, other than the need to write a post on Monday. Without a clear purpose in mind, the post just sort of meanders and doesn't really go anywhere.

Why am I telling you this? I'm telling you because I want to take this blog in a different direction. That means adapting my writing style and it could mean that I write a few more sub-par posts like that last one. I'm hoping you'll be patient with me while this change is happening.

Now let me tell you about this new direction. Up until now, most of the posts on this blog have had a strong thesis, a main point that I argue in favor of. This style of writing comes naturally to me, and I'm fairly good at this kind of writing.

The problem is that this kind of writing doesn't leave much room for response. The reader either agrees with me or they don't. Unless they feel like cheering me on or posting a rebuttal, there's no need to respond to what I've written.

I want to write posts that are more open ended; that leave more room for response. The previous post was a failed experiment. It was open ended, but it lacked a clear focus, which is also hard to respond to.

Basically, I'm trying to learn how to strike a balance. I'm trying to learn how to write posts that have a clear purpose and bring up interesting ideas, but are still open ended enough that people have room to respond with their own thoughts if they want to.

This is going to be a challenge for me. I like to present my ideas in a finished form. I prefer to share a fully fleshed out argument, and I like to make my arguments as convincing as I can.

My other hobby is computer programming. I mention that because I think I sometimes approach writing with a similar mentality. A program is a series of instructions that direct the computer towards a desired conclusion. My essays often are collections of statements designed to direct the reader toward a desired belief.

Obviously, people are not like computers. Human beings have a variety of different beliefs and opinions. Their minds all work in different ways. This is frustrating if you're trying to convince them of something, but it's fascinating if you're willing to have a conversation with them.

I'm trying to learn how to be more conversational and less argumentative. Please have patience with me as I figure this out.

P.S. My review of "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins isn't going to change much. Those posts are, by nature, more argumentative, but they give me a chance to respond to someone else's ideas. Besides, I'm enjoying the review so far, and I think it's worthwhile to offer a Christian perspective on Dawkins' writing.

Things People Believe

2010-06-07T11:57:00.000-07:00

I spend a lot of time on this blog talking about religious belief. Today I want to talk about other beliefs that people have. Things that cannot be proven, but that people still believe to be true.

For example, a lot of people believe that scientists will one day discover a unified theory of everything. This belief relies on the assumption that all of nature has an underlying order to it and that human beings can, through careful study, determine what that order is.

It seems reasonable to think that this is the case, but what evidence do we have that this is true? The only evidence we have is that past scientific theories have made some very successful predictions. We assume that science will continue to produce better, more complete theories until they have found an ultimate theory that explains everything.

It seems likely that scientific progress will continue to advance, but it is difficult to prove that science will necessarily advance.

To give another example, many people believe that human history is a story of continuous progress; that human beings today are morally and intellectually superior to human beings a thousand years ago, and that human beings a thousand years from know will be even further along, both morally and intellectually.

This belief is even more problematic. We can certainly make the case that technology has advanced in the past thousand years, but it is hard to make the case that moral knowledge has advanced in that time. If anything, advances in technology and industry have allowed us to commit even worse atrocities in modern times.

Another common belief people have is that we will one day create human-level artificial intelligence; that we will one day program computers to perform all of the mental tasks that a human being is capable of.

This last belief seems likely to me. It seems probable that we will one day have computers able to perform all the same tasks as the human brain. Either computer scientists or neurologists could one day understand the human brain well enough to simulate it in a computer.

This last belief raises a lot of interesting ethical questions. If this belief is true, and we do develop such intelligences, we will need to consider what rights they have and how they deserve to be treated.

There are, of course, many more beliefs people hold that I could talk about. the world is full of interesting ideas that remain unproven.

TGD: Chapter Three - Ontology, Foolishness and Beauty

2010-06-04T09:49:00.001-07:00

In the next section of "The God Delusion" Dawkins addresses the ontological argument for God's existence. The ontological argument goes like this: We can conceive of a being that is the greatest conceivable being. This being may or may not exist in reality. However, a being that exists in reality is greater than one that exists only in the imagination. Therefore any being that exists only in the imagination cannot be the greatest conceivable being. Therefore, the greatest conceivable being must exist in reality as well as in the imagination. Therefore, God exists.

The ontological argument is an interesting argument. Dawkins quotes Bertrand Russell, who said, "The argument does not, to a modern mind, seem very convincing, but it is easier to feel convinced that it must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the fallacy lies." This is precisely what makes the argument so fascinating.

The problem was eventually identified by Immanuel Kant. Kant pointed out that the argument relies on the assumption that existence is a property. Based on that faulty assumption, Anselm is able to make the claim that objects that have this property, the property of existing in the real world, are more perfect than objects that don't. Still, Kant's refutation of Anselm's argument wasn't published until almost seven hundred years after Anselm originally made the argument. When Russell said that it is hard to figure out exactly where the fallacy is, he wasn't kidding.

Of course Dawkins is never convinced that the argument has any validity to it. He finds it absurd to think that such grand conclusions could follow from a simple logic puzzle. He even chastises Russell, who was, for a brief time, convinced that the ontological argument must be sound. He compares the ontological argument to Zeno's proof that Achilles will never catch up to the tortoise*. He says that Russell should have realized that the ontological argument was bogus, just like the ancient greeks realized that Zeno's proofs were bogus.

There are a couple of problems with Dawkins' comparison. First of all, the fact that Achilles will actually catch the tortoise is self evident, whereas God's nonexistence is not. Secondly, Dawkins claims that Zeno's contemporaries simply labeled Zeno's argument a paradox and waited for later generations to solve it. Dawkin's ignores the fact that Zeno's contemporaries found his arguments troubling. Zeno's arguments showed that there was a flaw in how they understood the universe.

Dawkins' line of thought here seems a little bit troubling. He seems to be suggesting that God's nonexistence is obviously true. He's also saying, if you encounter some evidence or line of reasoning that might lead you to believe that God exists, it's probably just a trick. You should ignore it and go on believing that God doesn't exist. Dawkins routinely takes religious people to task for advocating that people should believe in God whether or not logic or the evidence supports it, but that seems awfully close to what he's implying here. That people should believe that God doesn't exist whether or not logic or the evidence supports it.

One thing Dawkins brings up as he's talking about the ontological argument is that Saint Anselm makes the claim that atheists are fools. Anslem makes this claim based on the first verse of Psalm 14, which says, "The fool says in his heart there is no God."

For once I'm going to stick up for Dawkins, and point out that Anselm is misusing scripture here. Psalm 14:1 isn't saying that all atheists are idiots. For one thing, the word for "fool" in Hebrew doesn't refer to an idiot, but rather someone who lacks moral character. Secondly, the verse doesn't say that atheists are fools. The verse isn't about atheists; it is about fools. Finally it says that fools have said, "In their heart," that there is no God. These fools might be very religious on the outside, but deep down they do not really believe in God. The claim this Psalm is making is when people behave immorally, they deny the existence of God. If you read the entire Psalm, it's clear that this is what the Psalmist is getting at.

Now that I've straightened that out, let's move on to the next section. This next section deals with the argument from beauty. In this section Dawkins doesn't even bother to explain what the argument from beauty is, he just says that he isn't convinced by it. I'm a little disappointed that he doesn't even bother to restate the argument. He should at least try to understand the argument being made before he dismisses it.

Still, in his own way Dawkins has been addressing the argument from beauty since the beginning of the book. In the opening chapter he talks about the transcendent beauty of nature. He talks about how that same feeling of transcendent wonder that inspires some people to pursue God, inspires Dawkins to pursue science.

The argument from beauty, in a nutshell, is that feelings of transcendent wonder indicate the existence of something transcendent. Dawkins seem to be saying that such feelings merely indicate the wonder of nature, or the beauty of a particular work of art. None of it points to a higher cause, which is the source of all things wondrous or beautiful.

* The paradox is this: In order for Achilles to catch the tortoise, he must first reach the tortoise's starting location. Once he does that, the tortoise will have moved, so Achilles will have to reach the tortoise's new location. Of course, by the time he does that, the tortoise will have moved again, and so on ad infinitum. Therefore Achilles can never catch up to the tortoise.

Art, Life and Videogames

2010-06-01T12:52:00.000-07:00

Awhile back I asked the question Are Videogames Art? In that post I talked about a few of the more common objections to the claim that videogames are art. Today I'll try to make the case that games can in fact be art.

Before we begin I need to clear something up. These days most videogames include stories, characters, dialog, 3-d models, animations, scenery, cut-scenes, etc. Any one of these things could potentially be considered art in its own right. That does not make the game itself a work of art. In order for a game to count as art, the gameplay itself must have some artistic merit.

So to begin, we need to consider the gameplay alone. What does a game look like when you take away the dialog, textures, cut-scenes and other art resources? What is it that makes a game a game?

I would aruge that what makes a game a game is the rules. Rules define the roles of any objects that are part of the game (whether those objects are physical objects, like dice or cards, or pieces of computer software). They also define the roles of the players; they control how the players interact with the game objects and how game objects interact with each other. These rules can be applied by the people playing the game, or by the computer. In either case, the rules define the game experience.

It may seem like I've painted myself into a corner here. How can anything as dry and uninteresting as a set of rules ever be considered a work of art? However, one does not play a game by reading the rules. One plays the game by putting those rules into action. It is in playing a game that we discover its artistic merit.

I would like to use Conway's Game of Life as an example. The game takes place on an infinite square grid. Each square can be either alive or dead. Each square interacts with its 8 neighbors (squares that are adjacent to it, either vertically, horizontally or diagonally). A live square stays alive if it has two or three live neighbors, otherwise it dies. Life appears in a dead square if it has three live neighbors, otherwise it stays dead.

The Game of Life is an interesting game. It is a zero player game. You just set the initial state (decide which squares are alive in the beginning) and the game plays itself.

The Game of Life is also a good test case. The rules are very simple, but the game is incredibly complex. It can be difficult to predict what will happen. Sometimes large, complex patterns die off within a few generations. At other times small, simple patterns, like the F Pentomino, expand and grow and change for more than a thousand generations.

Some patterns are stable. They either remain unchanged or they return to their original form after a few generations. Other patterns move as they change, allowing them to travel across the grid.

I might be reaching a little bit, but I would argue that the game of life qualifies as a work of art. The fact that such a simple set of rules allows for all of these possibilities is impressive. Watching the F Pentomino sprawl out over a thousand generations is quite beautiful.

Not only can the Game of Life be beautiful to watch, it also challenges us. It forces us to come to terms with the fact that we can't always know the end from the beginning, even under such simple conditions. Think about it: even with a small, simple, deterministic set of rules, predicting how a Game of Life will play out can be very hard. The fact that this simple game can be so surprising is a noteworthy achievement.

I don't think we'll see Conway's Game of Life running on computers in the Louvre anytime soon, but I think we can make the case that games deserve consideration as works of art. In the future I'll talk about how this argument applies to more traditional computer games.

In the meantime, please feel free to let me know what you think.

Edit: I realize this post is dense, and it might be hard to follow if you're not familiar with the game of life. If you want to actually see what I'm talking about, check out this video. It provides a good example of the kind of complexity the game is capable of.

TGD: Chapter Three - Degree and Design

2010-05-28T17:33:00.000-07:00

Last week I said I would talk about the rest of Aquinas' proofs and the ontological argument for God's existence. Unfortunately, I seem to have bit off more than I can chew. I've managed to cover Aquinas' last two proofs but the post is already getting long. I will have to write about the ontological argument next week. I'm sorry for the delay.

Last week I had just finished discussing the first three of Aquinas' proofs for God's existence. Today I'm going to pick up right where we left off.

Aquinas' fourth proof is the argument from degree. This argument states that things vary in how perfect or how good they are. He argues that there must be a being which is the most good, which is the source of all things good and of all that exists. This being we call God.

This is Dawkins' reply to the argument from degree: "You might as well say, people vary in smelliness but we can make the comparison only by reference to a perfect maximum of conceivable smelliness. Therefore, there must be a pre-eminently peerless stinker, and we call him God."

Not only is Dawkins' reply funny, but it gets at the main problem with the argument from degree. Aquinas makes the assumption that existence is a form of perfection. From this he is able to conclude that the source of all that exists is the source of all things good and perfect. This is the same sort of dodgy logic that the ontological argument relies upon.

So I don't think the argument from degree works as a proof of God's existence. However, I think it raises some impportant questions. How did humans first learn to be good? What is the ultimate source of moral goodness? These are questions that need to be addressed.

At last we come to Aquinas' fifth proof. This is the teleological argument, or the argument from design. Before I write about what Dawkins has to say, I want to describe the argument and give some background.

In this argument Aquinas argues that inanimate objects act according to a purpose, because they always behave according to the same pattern. He argues that this did not come about by chance. He argues that there must be an intelligence behind the universe that guides inanimate objects to behave in predictable patterns.

Aquinas' argument relies upon the idea, common in his time, that objects behave according to a purpose. These days we don't think of objects as having a purpose. It may seem silly to say that objects have a purpose but does it make any more sense to say that inanimate objects behave according to natural laws? Doesn't the existence of natural laws imply the existence of a supernatural lawgiver?

Still, so long as those natural laws seem arbitrary most people are willing to accept that they exist. If we argue that God exists because some arbitrary set of natural laws exist that's just a rehash of the cosmological argument, which I talked about last week. However, if the natural laws seem contrived; if the natural laws appear to have been carefully set with a particular purpose in mind; then that would be evidence for an intelligence guiding the universe.

This is the summary Dawkins' gives of the argument from design: "Things in the world, especially living things, look as though they have been designed. Nothing that we know looks designed unless it is designed. Therefore there must have been a designer, and we call him God." Dawkins points out that the theory of evolution blows this argument out of the water completely.

Of course, Dawkins' version of the argument is very different from Aquinas' original argument. I would accuse Dawkins of deliberately constructing a straw man, but I know exactly where he got this version of the argument. This form comes from creationists who stubbornly refuse to accept the theory of evolution. Dawkins has spent much of his career debating against creationism.

On the (relatively) small scale, evolutionary theory works as an explanation for the complex, seemingly designed, nature of life. But on the cosmic scale evolution doesn't solve the problem of design, it just moves it. In order for evolution to work, the laws of the universe have to be just right. The cosmological constant has to allow for the slow, steady expansion of the universe, in order to allow stars to form and generate the elements required for life. Similarly, if the force of gravity were stronger or weaker then it becomes impossible for life-sustaining stars to exist, making it impossible for life as we know it to exist.

So we see that the laws which govern our universe were not chosen arbitrarily. Instead it seems that they were finely tuned to allow life to form. This gives us reason to believe that there is an intelligence guiding the universe. This argument doesn't prove the existence of any specific deity but it demolishes the claim that God doesn't exist.

Next week: Saint Anselm makes his appearance.

Pentecost

2010-05-24T22:19:00.000-07:00

Yesterday was Pentecost Sunday, which is the anniversary of the date when the Holy Spirit first fell upon Jesus' disciples, just as he had promised it would. It seems like as good a time as any to talk about the Holy Spirit.

Awhile back I was talking with someone about this blog. He said that if I wanted to try to connect with people who think in modern, secular terms, I shouldn't talk about the Holy Spirit. It's good advice, but I just can't follow it. I can't explain what Christianity is, what Christianity is all about, without talking about the Holy Spirit.

So since then I've been wondering, "How do I talk about the Holy Spirit with a modernist?" So far I haven't had much luck. The Holy Spirit doesn't fit easily or comfortably into such a world-view. If you're committed to thinking about the world in scientific terms, then the Holy Spirit is always going to seem absurd and a little silly.

Still, it's not just modernists who have this problem. This has been an issue since the beginning. You see, as I was thinking about the day of Pentecost, the day when the Holy Spirit made its grand entrance, I was reminded that those first witnesses had a hard time understanding what was going on as well.

In Acts 2, we read about how the Holy Spirit fell on that first group of Christians and enabled them to speak in many different languages from all over the ancient world. Most people are, understandably, amazed and confused by what is going on, but some people have a different response.

They think that these Christians are drunk.

But the real kicker is what happens next. When Peter hears people in the crowd claiming that he and his friends are drunk his response is, (paraphrasing) "We're not drunk; it's only nine AM."

Actually, I think I've just found a way to explain to non-Christians what it's like to be filled with the Holy Spirit. It's like being drunk, except it's only nine o'clock in the morning, and you haven't had anything to drink yet.

That's a joke of course, but the thing is, I don't know that I can give a better explanation than that. I could talk about all the wonderful things that the Holy Spirit has done in my life, but most people would just be confused and a lot of people would probably assume I'm a little bit kooky.

In the future I plan to talk about the role the Holy Spirit plays in God's Kingdom. I will try to lay the groundwork for a theological understanding of what the Holy Spirit is. But the simple truth is that the Holy Spirit is strange and, often times, people who are filled with the Spirit are a little strange themselves.

TGD: Chapter Three - Cosmology and Omnipotence

2010-05-21T23:15:00.000-07:00

In Chapter Three of "The God Delusion" Dawkins begins to address the arguments for God's existence. The first section concerns Aquinas' five proofs for God's existence.

Not surprisingly, Dawkins isn't impressed with Aquinas' arguments. I can understand why. Dawkins and Aquinas are working from different assumptions. They both understand the universe in radically different ways. Dawkins is a student of modern science, biology in particular, and Aquinas was a student of Aristotelian metaphysics.

So it will be my task to try and bridge the gulf that separates these two great minds and see if we can find some common ground. Let's get started.

Aquinas' first three proofs are the argument of the unmoved mover, the argument of the first cause, and the argument from contingency. Dawkins groups these arguments together, since they have a similar form. I will focus on the argument from contingency, sometimes called the cosmological argument, because it is the strongest.

This is Dawkins' summary of the argument: "There must have been a time when no physical things existed. But, since physical things exist now, there must have been something non-physical to bring them into existence, and that something we call God."

It's worth pointing out that modern science actually strengthens this argument. According to the Big Bang Theory, the universe has a definite beginning in time. This suggests that the universe isn't self sustaining, but was brought into existence by some outside force.

Moreover, even if the Big Bang Theory turned out to be incorrect (even though there is some very solid evidence for the theory), it is impossible for the universe to be infinitely old. If it were, then according to the second law of thermodynamics the universe would have reached a state of maximum entropy by now, which would make it impossible for life to exist.

So the cosmological argument effectively proves that the natural universe was created by an external force, which Aquinas calls God. Unfortunately, this is as far as the cosmological argument takes us. Dawkins rightly points out that, based on these arguments alone, there is no reason to assume that this "God" is a being with all the attributes we normally associate with God.

At this point, Dawkins has a brief digression where he talks about God's attributes. He claims God's omniscience contradicts his omnipotence since, if God already knows what he is going to do in the future he cannot change his mind. This is a silly argument, similar to asking if God, being omnipotent, can make a boulder so heavy he can't lift it. Both assume that there is a contradiction in the will of God.

In the example of God making a boulder so heavy he can't lift it, the contradiction is obvious. God wants the boulder to stay on the ground while at the same time wanting to lift the boulder. The argument assumes a contradiction to prove a contradiction. I'm not impressed by it.

The argument about God changing his mind is more subtle, but is basically the same. God wants to do something in the future, but when the time comes he wants to do something else. However, if God is omniscient, his knowledge doesn't change over time. So God has no reason to change his mind, if we assume that God's will is consistent. We only get a contradiction if we assume that God's will is contradictory.

What this really boils down to is, can God do something that is logically impossible? As many theologians have pointed out, not being able to do things that are logically impossible isn't really a limit on omnipotence. Contradictions are, by definition, nonsense. Saying that God cannot perform nonsensical actions doesn't place any meaningful constraints on God's power.

I'm afraid this post is getting long, so I'll stop here for now. Next week I'll write about the rest of Aquinas' proofs as well as the ontological argument for God's existence.

Society and the Kingdom of God

2010-05-18T12:38:00.000-07:00

Awhile back I wrote about the Kingdom of God. I talked about five different ways to answer that question. Since then, I've written about how the Kingdom of God relates to politics and religion. Today I'm going to talk about how the Kingdom of God relates to society.

I've written before about how important it is for Christians to try to create a just society. Social justice is one of the defining characteristics of the Kingdom of God. Today I'm going to talk about what justice looks like in the Kingdom of God.

First of all, in a just society people treat each other fairly. They don't murder, steal from, or lie to one another. Even more than that, they don't deal deceptively with one another. They don't rip people off by buying things for less than they're worth or by selling things for far more than they're worth. In other words, they obey the golden rule.

Additionally, in a just society people get along with one another. They don't hold grudges toward other people. They aren't envious of other people's status, relationships, or possessions. People live peacefully with one another.

Finally, in a just society people show mercy to others. They love and have compassion for people who are less fortunate than themselves. They do not exploit or oppress people who are weaker or are less fortunate than themselves. Instead the strong protect the weak and the rich care for the poor so that no one is in need and no one is taken advantage of.

This idea of a just society is central to the Kingdom of God. It may seem like a lofty, Utopian ideal, but it is something that Christians are called to pursue in our own lives, in our communities, and in the world at large.

TGD: Imagine a World Without Religion

2010-05-14T14:57:00.000-07:00

Before moving on to chapter three, I wanted to take a moment to talk about how Dawkins uses hypothetical scenarios to further his argument. In a few places he uses hypotheticals to paint a picture and support his argument. They are powerful illustrations, but they depend a number of questionable assumptions.

The hypothetical scenario I want to talk about appears in the preface. He describes an advertisement for a documentary he presented. The advertisement had the words, "Imagine a world without religion," beneath a picture of the Manhattan skyline; in which the twin towers were still standing.

As an American, I feel the impact of that argument. It feels like a blow to the solar plexus. I'm sure we all wish that those towers were still standing and I'm sure we all wish the 3,000 people who died when they collapsed were still with us.

It's also a damning argument. Everyone knows, on a deep level, that the ideology of the 9/11 hijackers was deeply perverse and destructive; and everyone knows that their ideology was undoubtedly religious.

Still, we need to take a step back and ask, is religion to blame for the attacks of 9/11? Certainly, religion was a factor, but was it the cause?

To give an example, what if the slogan had read, "Imagine a world without airplanes?" This message is far more accurate. The 9/11 attacks would have been impossible without commercial airlines, yet no one blames the Wright brothers or their infernal invention for destroying the world trade center.

Additionally, the first slogan ignores any other affects that religion has had on the Manhattan skyline. Like, for example, bringing European immigrants to the Manhattan island in the first place.

Religion has been a major factor throughout all of history. It is literally impossible to imagine what the world would be like today if religion had never existed. Instead, I'm going to stick to a very simple rule. I'm only going to consider those cases where religion has a direct role in the creation or destruction of individual buildings.

Obviously, all the religious buildings wouldn't exist, including the great cathedrals of Europe as well as most of Vatican city. The Wailing Wall wouldn't exist and neither would the Sacred Mosque or the Dome of the Rock.

So far we've lost all the places of worship, but since there's no religion, no one will miss those. We might miss the artwork that went into those buildings, especially the Sistine Chapel ceiling. Still, so far we haven't lost much.

But it doesn't stop there. Medieval universities, including the universities of Paris, Cambridge and Oxford, all started as Christian schools based out of cathedrals or monasteries. They received their official support from the Vatican. Additionally, all of the Ivy league schools, except Cornell, were founded during the colonial period by various Christian groups.

As an aside, Richard Dawkins graduated from the University of Oxford. One wonders where Dawkins would have received his education from in this hypothetical scenario, but, as I said earlier, we're only going to concern ourselves with the affects of religion on buildings, not people.

I could go on, but I think I've made my point (and allowed myself to make a cheap shot at Dawkins' expense). I've shown that these kinds of hypothetical situations are very contrived. One cannot surgically remove religion from human history and make a realistic estimate of whether humanity would be better or worse without it. Even if someone could produce such an estimate, we have no way of testing it.

I'm not going to deny that many terrible atrocities have been committed in the name of God, but we shouldn't forget about the massive amount of good that has also been done in God's name. Would the world would be better off without religion? That's a question that no human can answer, not even Richard Dawkins.

The Upside-Down Cross

2010-05-10T09:15:00.000-07:00

Lies have an interesting way of revealing the truth.

Confused? I'll explain.

When a lie spreads through a large group of people, it often reveals a lot about what those people really believe. As an example, I'll talk about a lie that is pervasive through large sections of the American evangelical church.

The lie is this: the peace sign is actually the sign of Nero; a broken, upside-down cross.

In actuality, the peace sign is based on the semaphore signals for N and D, which stand for "Nuclear Disarmament".

What does this lie reveal about the American evangelical church? First, the obvious, it reveals the conservative nature of American evangelicalism. It reveals how deeply rooted their opposition to liberal politics is. They have no problem believing that the peace sign, a common symbol of the anti-war movement in the 60's and 70's, as actually the symbol of the most hated persecutor of Christianity in history.

But it also reveals something else. It reveals that they believe that the message of the cross is diametrically opposed to the message of peace.

So we see that the lie reveals a fundamental misunderstanding about the meaning of the cross. The message of the cross is fundamentally a message of peace. Peace, first of all, between God and humanity, and secondarily, peace among men. (If you don't believe me, consider what Paul said about Jesus.)

Of course, the lie is even more revealing than that. Why would conservative evangelicals feel the need to slander peace activists like this?

The answer is simple, if they don't, then their congregations might consider the fact that Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers." They might consider the fact that the call for nuclear disarmament sounds a lot like Jesus' call to turn the other cheek. In other words, they use this lie to make sure that their followers' eyes remain blind to the truth.

The truth is that there is another symbol, one that is easily recognizable, which more accurately fits the label of "upside-down cross". That symbol is the crusader's sword.

First of all, cruciform swords, when held upright, bear a clear resemblance to an upside-down cross. More importantly, however, the crusaders inverted the message of Christ. They took a message of peace of love and used it as a justification for violence and bloodshed. When they drew their swords, they turned the cross upside down, both literally and metaphorically.

This perversion is still alive and well in the church. Men spread the lie that the peace sign is an upside-down cross to obscure the fact that they themselves have turned the cross upside-down. In the words of Greg Boyd, they have fused the cross and the sword.

In my experience, nothing combats a lie more effectively than the truth. If you hear someone calling the peace sign an upside-down cross, please correct them. Also, consider telling people about the true upside-down cross.

TGD: Chapter Two - Science, Religion and Little Green Men

2010-05-07T16:00:00.000-07:00

Today I'm going to finish chapter two of "The God Delusion". Most of the rest of the chapter talks about the idea that theology and science represent two separate areas of study. Dawkins refers to this idea by the acronym NOMA, and that is the title of the next section.

NOMA stands for non-overlapping magisteria. The idea behind NOMA is that religion cannot speak on scientific matters and science cannot speak on religious matters. Dawkins rightly points out that this is a poorly thought out compromise that simply does not work in practice.

If you don't agree, consider this question, "Did Jesus of Nazareth rise from the dead?" This is the central truth claim of Christianity. It is a question about our physical universe. It is a question that, in principle at least, science should be able to answer. And Christianity isn't the only religion that makes such claims.

If you're a regular reader of this blog, you might be surprised that I agree with Dawkins on this point. After all, I don't believe, as Dawkins does, that science and religion are fundamentally incompatible. I do believe that we can have a compromise between science and religion, I just don't think that NOMA is the way to go.

The reason I don't like NOMA is, ultimately, because I'm a monotheist and not a deist. If you're a deist, if you believe that God merely created the universe and doesn't interfere in its operation, then NOMA might seem like a good idea. However, as I said earlier, monotheists believe that God is actively in control of the whole universe. If God has control over everything, then every area of study is, in some sense, theological.

So why do I believe science works? Why do I allow scientific truths to influence theological beliefs? Why don't I insist that every scientific principle be related in theological terms?

The simple answer is, because science works. Science provides many useful explanations that help us make sense of the world around us. It provides truths that can be empirically verified.

So, even though science and religion clearly do overlap, religious people should respect science's ability to discover truths about nature. I would argue, as many theologians throughout history have argued, that if our theological opinions contradict observable facts about nature, then it is our theological opinions that are in error.

In the next section Dawkins talks about a study on the affects of prayer on patient health. Long story short, a recent double blind study on the affects of intercessory prayer on patient health and recovery found no connection. I will admit to being disappointed by the results of the study, but I'm not going to stop praying for people. I've seen a lot of good things happen in the course of prayer*.

In the next section, Dawkins suggests that the main reason why scientists espouse NOMA is to convince religious moderates that science isn't a threat to their faith. These religious moderates are valuable allies in the fight to teach evolution in public schools. Dawkins is very critical of this tactic. In his view, science's real enemy isn't creationism; it's religion.

It is unfortunate that Dawkins holds this view. There is a need, now more than ever, for a positive dialogue between scientists and theologians. I'm enjoying reading Dawkins' scathing critique of religion, but I'd prefer to read a book with fewer rhetorical attacks and more constructive criticisms.

The final section of chapter two is about extra-terrestrials, about the difference between super advanced aliens and gods, and about why he thinks the aliens are at least theoretically possible, whereas God is not. Unfortunately, we will have to wait until chapter four to discover why Dawkins thinks God can't possibly exist.

* This touches on the issue of the validity of personal experience vs. scientific fact. I'm not going to ignore this issue. I will address it when it comes up again in chapter three. For now I will just say that this is only a single study, which addressed a specific kind of prayer and looked for a particular affect. From this one study, we can't draw the conclusion that prayer never works.

Are Videogames Art?

2010-05-03T13:40:00.000-07:00

Instead of doing my usual rant about God or religion or politics I'm going to write something fun and lighthearted. I hope you enjoy.

There's been a lot of conversation recently about whether or not videogames are, or can ever be, art. I happen to believe that videogames should be considered art, but I understand why some people disagree. Today I'm going to talk about some of the more common reasons why videogames aren't considered art.

1) It's interactive, so it can't be art.

This is one of the most basic objections. I like it because it cuts right to the underlying question: How do we define art? For some people, anything that requires interaction beyond just passive observation is, by definition, not art.

Of course, not all artists agree to this definition. A quick video search for "interactive art" on google turns up some interesting results. I don't know if they truly are "art" but they certainly are interesting.

I've seen a lot of people argue that it's obvious that games are art. Great games have well written stories, beautiful scenery, interesting characters, an engaging plot and beautiful animation. How can they not be art?

The answer usually has something to do with interactivity. Those qualities I mentioned above, writing, scenery, characters, they are nice, but they're not interactive.

Interactivity is what makes a game a game. Without interactivity that's designed to challenge the player, it isn't a game. If the interactivity doesn't have some artistic value, then the game isn't really art. It's an artistic movie that won't play correctly until the user presses the right button sequences.

So in order for games to be art, the interactivity has to heighten the artistic experience somehow.

2) I don't appreciate what's going on, so it's not art.

The fact that games are interactive is also the main reason why a lot of people, like Roger Ebert, will never accept that games can be art. In order to grok how games can be art, they have to play the darn things.

As I said above, it's not just that games are interactive, they're interactive in a way that's meant to challenge the player. Most games require a considerable amount of skill in order to be fully appreciated. Someone who's new to videogames can't just sit down and play, let's say, half-life and become immersed in the story. They're going to need a few hours to get used to using the wasd keys to move and the mouse to look around.

For this reason, it's hard for outsiders to get into games. They don't know how to interface with the medium, so they can't appreciate it.

This challenge is not unique to games, but it is more severe with videogames than with other mediums. Plays and movies require a certain amount of suspension of disbelief in order to be appreciated, but they don't require a whole new skill set.

3) Games and Art are two different things.

This is also related to the issue of interactivity. Part of the difficulty games face in being accepted as a legitimate medium is that they're trying to be two things at once.

Multiplayer games like Starcraft or Modern Warfare provide an opportunity for players to compete with one another to test their skills. They're similar to traditional games like chess or football. Most people don't consider chess to be a work of art, despite the fact that it is an elegantly simple game that is extremely challenging to master.

To make matters worse, we can't neatly sort games into those two categories. Starcraft and Modern Warfare both have single player portions that tell a story. They're trying to be "art" while at the same time still trying to be a "game".

These are the major reasons why videogames often aren't considered art. At some point in the future I'll write some more about why I think games can and should be considered art. In the meantime, can you think of any arguments I missed? Or maybe you just want to share your own opinion on whether or not games are art.

TGD: Chapter Two - America, Religion and Ridicule

2010-04-30T14:40:00.000-07:00

Last week we covered the section Mr. Dawkins wrote about monotheism. Today we pick up with a section titled, "Secularism, The Founding Fathers and the Religion of America."

I don't have much to say about this section. He argues that America wasn't founded as a Christian nation, but as a secular nation. He notes the fact that, despite being the world's first secular country, today America is more religious than any other Western country.

I agree with Mr. Dawkins' assertion that America is a secular country, so I won't dispute it. In fact, I agree with Fred Clark that America's secularism is a good thing for everyone.

He gives a few reasons why America is so religious, despite its secular constitution. He has some good theories, but he neglects to mention the first and second great awakenings. If you really want to understand why modern-day America is so religious, you need to study those revivals.

The next section is titled, "The Poverty of Agnosticism." In this section he disagrees with people who argue that the truth about God's existence is forever unknowable. He argues that, while it might be impossible to prove God's existence, we can make an educated guess about the probability of God's existence.

The arguments presented here are the hallmark of new atheism. He makes the comparison with a small teapot orbiting the sun. He points out that, we can reasonably assume that such an object doesn't exist without making an exhaustive search of the solar system. He also points to 'fake' religions like the church of the Flying Spagetti Monster, claiming that such beings are just as plausible as God.

These arguments are both fairly similar. Both arguments assume that there is no credible evidence for God's existence and try to convince the hearer that believing in God is also very silly. Of course, the silliness of an idea has no bearing on whether or not the idea is true. If we had solid historical evidence that the Flying Spagetti Monster had raised a man from the dead, then I would take its church much more seriously. In any case, the belief in God, the Flying Spagetti Monster, Zeus, celestial teapots, or any other idea depends entirely on the evidence. Plenty of people think that quantum mechanics is a ridiculous theory, but that doesn't make it any less true.

Once again I want to stop and point out the kind of argument Dawkins is making. So far Dawkins hasn't addressed the classical proofs for God's existence, nor has he advanced his own "proof" for God's non existence. He hasn't engaged directly with the evidence for or against religion at all. Instead chapter two has been an extended appeal to ridicule.

Again we need to ask, why is Dawkins structuring the argument this way? If the appeal of atheism lies in its rationality, why start with a strong emotional argument? Why not start with the facts? The God hypothesis should stand or fall on its basis in fact, not on our subjective opinion that it is a silly idea.

Dawkins may consider himself a champion of rational thought, but he's not above using an emotional appeal if it serves his purposes.

Intelligence and Acceptance

2010-04-26T09:54:00.000-07:00

I recently read something on internetMonk that really upset me. The post is entitled, "Are Liberals and Atheists Smarter?" and it upsets me for a few different reasons.

First of all, it's unclear what, if anything, IQ tests actually measure. Studies involving IQ tests and social science have a long and dubious history.

Secondly, the post goes with the assumption that Christianity and conservative politics belong together. This is unfortunate, but I've gotten used to it.

The thing that upset me the most was the way he wrapped it up. After making some very solid points about how we need to engage the broader culture academically, he falls back. He says that he supports this kind of engagement only up to a point. He concludes that we must be willing to be fools for Christ.

I have a problem with his use of scripture here, but for now I won't go into that. Instead I'm going to talk about why this post bothers me, personally.

For me this is about acceptance. It is about the kind of people who we think are welcome in church and the kind of people who, in our opinion, don't really belong.

The message that conservative evangelicals have been sending is clear. If you believe in evolution, you don't belong here. If you believe that the earth is more than a million years old, you don't belong here. If you vote democrat, you don't belong here. If you're gay, or your friends are gay, you don't belong here. If you ask the wrong questions, you don't belong here. I could go on, and on, and on, but I think you get the point.

Recently, Bruce Waltke, a renowned Old Testament scholar, had to resign from Reform Theological Seminary. The reason: he said, in an interview, that if evangelicals continue to deny evolution, we risk becoming a cult.

I think fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals should be more open to theological views that allow for an evolutionary model, but not because we might become a cult. I have family members who already think I'm in a cult. That's doesn't upset me.

What upsets me is the message it sends to outsiders. The message is, if you believe in evolution, you don't belong here.

I think churches often do a similar thing, not just with evolution, but with intelligence. People who ask difficult questions, people who think critically about their beliefs, people who can poke holes in the pastor's sermon, are made to feel unwelcome. They are told, either implicitly or explicitly, that they don't belong.

The question that I have had to ask, the question I have to keep asking myself is, does God accept me as I am? Would I be a better Christian if I were just a little stupider? If I didn't ask as many questions? If I learned to accept things as true without thought or critical examination?

When I ask these questions, the following words come to mind: "But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without affect." There I am reminded, again, that it is God who made me who I am. If God had wanted me to be stupid or thoughtless, he could have made me that way.

Going back to the scripture that was used on internetMonk, I will say that I have no problem being "a fool for Christ". I have no problem with appearing foolish in the eyes of others. As a geek, I've kind of gotten used to it.

However, if we equate being "a fool for Christ" with actual stupidity. If we equate it with not pursuing higher education, not asking hard questions, and ignoring any evidence that might contradict our understanding of the Bible, that I have a problem with. I have a problem with it, partly because it's obviously a bad idea, but mostly because it's going to force a lot of people out of the church, and prevent a lot of new people from joining the church.

Forgiving Homosexuals

2010-04-23T12:51:00.000-07:00

Background: On the internetMonk there was a discussion about whether or not the author should review "Jesus Freak: Feeding, Healing, Raising the Dead". The issue: the author of the book is in a same sex relationship. I commented that if we decide not to review this book, based only on the author's sexual orientation, then we're saying that Jesus' forgiveness only goes so far. In response someone asked the question, "Has she asked for forgiveness?" Below is my answer to that question.

Also, I wrote this post under the assumption that homosexuality is a sin. In fact I'm not entirely convinced that it is a sin, but I was hoping to convince Christians who do believe that it is a sin.

I assume she has asked for forgiveness, since she identifies as Christian. I imagine that she has confessed that she is a sinner in need of God's forgiveness, and that she has asked for God's forgiveness for her sins.

Obviously she is a practicing homosexual. I can think of a few ways these things can be reconciled.

First, she might not believe that homosexuality is a sin. Does this disqualify her? Does this mean she isn't saved? I don't believe so. I don't think we need to be fully aware of all our sins in order to be forgiven. The important thing is that she has asked for forgiveness.

As an example, Leviticus says that eating shellfish is a sin. I assume (based mainly on Paul's letters) that the law against eating shellfish does not apply to gentile believers. In fact, I'm a big fan of eating shellfish. However, even if I'm wrong I'm not worried. I believe that Jesus will forgive me for sinning in ignorance. I believe that Jesus has forgiven me for the sins that I have committed unawares.

Second, she might know that it is a sin, but be unwilling to repent. This is more complicated. I think of the words of Saint Augustine who prayed, "Lord, give me chastity and constancy, but not yet." I believe that a person in this situation is still saved, although they are deeply conflicted. There is a danger that someone in this position might give up the struggle. They might choose to reject Jesus' forgiveness. However, if they persist they will certainly be saved.

Third, she might accept that homosexuality is a sin and believe that Jesus forgives even unrepentant sinners. This position seems a little shaky, although, wasn't it Luther who said, "Sin boldly, believe more boldly still"? This is a tough question, and I'm not sure what I think about this position.

On the one hand, it seems like she should give up her sin in order to follow Jesus. On the other hand, she is being obedient to God in other ways. So we see her obedience clearly isn't perfect, but then we must ask ourselves, who is perfectly obedient? I can only think of Jesus, who said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

In conclusion, I want to say that, as sins go, homosexuality is often unfairly targeted. Most men in the church struggle with an addiction to pornography. Many American Christians sin by bearing false witness. I personally struggle with anger, as do many other Christians. When Christians struggle with these sins, we rarely ask, "Is this person saved?" even if the person is clearly unrepentant. We have more patience for these sins than we do for homosexuality.

I wonder what would happen if we treated all these sins the same as we treated homosexuality? One thing is certain: we wouldn't have nearly as many sinners in church.

TGD: Chapter Two - On Monotheism

2010-04-22T15:43:00.000-07:00

I'm picking up my review of "The God Delusion" where I left off. This week we begin with the section on monotheism.

In this section Dawkins talks about the three major monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. He then explains that Christianity and Islam are both offshoots of Judaism.

He writes that Christianity was founded by Paul of Tarsus as a less exclusive, less 'ruthlessly monotheistic' form of Judaism.

Some of you might be confused. Wasn't Christianity founded by Jesus? Or at least by Peter, Jesus' chief disciple? His claim that Paul founded Christianity is probably based on the fact that Paul's letters are among the earliest Christian documents. That said, this claim has some serious problems.

In his early letters, Paul has to defend his position as a leader within the church. If Paul were the founder of the religion, he would have brought that up in his defense. Instead he freely admits that he joined the religion after Jesus' death and resurrection, and that the only reason he has the right to be a leader is because Jesus appeared to him after his resurrection.

Whatever we think about Paul's claim, the fact that he had to make this argument shows that he wasn't yet an established leader in the church.

Leaving that aside for now, Dawkins goes on to talk about Islam. He writes that Muhammad and his followers retained the uncompromising monotheism of Judaism and used military conquest to spread the faith. Then, as if to be fair, Dawkins points out that Christianity was also spread by the sword, first by Emperor Constantine, and later by crusaders and conquistadors.

Since I'm not Muslim, I won't respond to Dawkins' comments about Islam, but I will reply to his comments about Christianity.

In this section Dawkins gives the impression that Christianity was founded by Paul, and then popularized (and legitimized) by Constantine. The truth is, by the time Constantine conquered Rome and made Christianity the official religion, it had already grown quite popular. The religion survived more than two hundred and fifty years of Roman persecution, and had grown steadily during that time.

The question we must ask is, why did so many people convert to Christianity during an age when Christians were being persecuted? What was it about Christianity that people found so appealing that they were willing to risk being burned alive or being eaten by lions? This is the question that Dawkins needs to answer and it is the question that he is deliberately avoiding, for now at least.

Having said my piece, I will concede that Dawkins does have a point. Since the time of Constantine, Christians have been using violence to spread their beliefs. The idea that the message of God's love could be spread at the end of a sword or a gun is the single most destructive and perverse error that Christians have ever made. This is a topic I've touched on before, and it's something I plan to talk about more in the future. For now, let me just say that Dawkins has a good point here.

Dawkins briefly mentions Buddhism and Confucianism, only to say that he has nothing against those religions. He thinks they shouldn't be treated as religions, but as ethical systems. I know that in the West it is popular to think about Buddhism this way, but traditional Chinese Buddhism includes a belief in reincarnation. I doubt Dawkins would consider a belief in reincarnation to be more rational than a belief in resurrection from the dead. I can only conclude that he didn't do his research.

Dawkins finishes the section on monotheism by talking about deism. Deists believe in an impersonal God, who designed and created the universe and then let it run its course.

Even though he doesn't believe in it, Dawkins has a clear fondness for this idea of God, He writes, "The deist God of the eighteenth-century enlightenment is an altogether grander being: worthy of his cosmic creation, loftily unconcerned with human affairs, sublimely aloof from our private thoughts and hopes, caring nothing for our messy sins or mumbled contritions."

The great hope of the Christian faith is that God we worship is not at all like the God Dawkins describes. Our God cares about humans; he knows our thoughts and hopes; he is concerned about our messy sins. The great joy of every Christian is that God has joined us, in our messy state, and one day we will join him, in his perfection.

I find this passage to be very revealing of Dawkins' beliefs. Most people who are angry with God are angry because he is apathetic and distant and he allows people to suffer. On the other hand, Dawkins seems to be offended by the idea that God might actually care about us.

Before I conclude this post, I want to add one last comment about deism. Deism may be a dead religion, but deist philosophy has had a lasting impact on how we think about God.

Most people, even people who believe in God, tend to think that the universe runs itself. They believe that if God disappeared tomorrow the universe would be largely unaffected. The sun would still shine and the grass would still grow. No physical or chemical or biological process would be affected in any way by God's departure.

This is not monotheism. Monotheism is the belief in one God, who created everything, and without whom, nothing could exist. God didn't just create everything, he sustains everything from moment to moment. If we take God out of the equation, then the universe would disappear along with him.

The difference between these two philosophical positions is striking, and it's part of the reason why conversations between people with different beliefs are so hard. At a basic level, theists and atheists aren't speaking the same language.

Despite that, I'm having fun reading through Dawkins' book. I hope you're enjoying it as well.

Doubt

2010-04-19T16:00:00.001-07:00

With all the posts that I've been writing recently, I've been thinking a lot about the role of doubt. Between reading Mr. Dawkins' forthright attacks on religion, and rethinking the role of faith in my own religious beliefs, I suppose it is only natural that I should think also think about doubt.

It started as I was reading Mr. Dawkins book and I began to ask myself, what if his arguments are convincing? What if he is able to make a convincing argument that God never existed, or that Jesus never rose from the dead? Would I receive such evidence? If, after a thorough examination, his argument proved to be sound, would I renounce my faith?

Yes, is the only answer that I can reasonably give. I cannot go on believing that something is true if I know for a fact that it is false.

Of course, I'm very doubtful that Mr. Dawkins will be able to make such an argument, but there's a chance that I might be wrong about that. And that's the point. There's always a chance that we might be wrong. That's why we have doubts.

Recently I've been experiencing some doubts of my own. I've doubted whether or not God is really as good, as loving, as faithful as I believe him to be. This doubt isn't based on reason, but rather on my own fears and insecurities. I'm not persuaded by this doubt, but I acknowledge that it does exist.

I can see doubt at work in other Christians as well. It looks a little different for everyone, but I suspect that most Christians struggle with doubt from time to time.

As an example, there's a woman I know. She goes to church regularly, she prays, she reads the bible every day.

She's also a victim of sexual abuse.

Understandably, she has a lot of struggles. She has a hard time believing that God is really good. She has a hard time trusting that God will take care of her. I don't think anyone can blame her for this.

Doubt is a reality for many. How we face our doubts is a question that needs to be considered.

As a final example, I'll talk about an online discussion I participated in recently. The discussion was about the early chapters of Genesis. Quite a few people in the discussion were young earth creationists, who favored a strongly literal reading of Genesis. One person argued that if we hold a non-literal interpretation of Genesis, then we're questioning the reliability of God's word.

Ignoring the whole creation/evolution issue for now, I want to consider how this person is responding to doubt. Clearly, doubt is the enemy. Indeed, doubt is a powerful enemy. Questioning their interpretation of just one part of the bible threatens to unravel their whole belief system.

I don't think that's a healthy way to respond to doubt. We need to allow for the possiblity that we might be wrong. If we don't allow ourselves to ever experience doubt, then we won't ever be able to learn when we're wrong.

TGD: Chapter Two - On Theology, Taxes, the Trinity and Catholicism

2010-04-15T22:09:00.000-07:00

In last week's post I was so busy responding to the opening sentence of chapter two I didn't have time to talk about what chapter two is actually about. Chapter two is about the God hypothesis, which Mr. Dawkins defines as, "There exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us." He talks about some of the more common forms that this hypothesis takes. He spends some time offering specific critiques of various religions, but his main point is to argue that all religions are fundamentally similar and that they are all fundamentally wrong.

Considering that this chapter is written about religion and it is in a book about God, it is surprisingly light on theological content. Last week I had to spend a whole post explaining everything that was wrong with Mr. Dawkins' description of the God of the Old Testament. Mr. Dawkins wouldn't have had to study too hard to find out that his description was terribly inaccurate. Indeed, I'm sure Mr. Dawkins is aware that religious Jews believe that their God is a God of love and a God of justice. This fact alone should have caused Mr. Dawkins to wonder why his own view was so different from theirs. If he were a humble person he would have listened to what they have to say, because most religious Jews are far more familiar with the Old Testament* than he is. If he were an inquisitive person, he could have asked a Rabbi why the Jewish people believe what they do about God. Any Rabbi worth his salt could have easily corrected some of Mr. Dawkins' most egregious mistakes. Mr. Dawkins didn't do this (or, if he did, he left it out of the book) because it would ruin the argument that he is trying to make.

Many people have taken Mr. Dawkins to task for failing to engage with any serious theology. He mentions this in the preface to the paperback edition. He argues that he only needed to engage with theological arguments that seek to prove God's existence (which he does in chapter 3). If he can show that God most likely does not exist, then it shouldn't matter one way or the other what theologians have to say about God's character, or any of his other attributes.

If that's the case, then I have to ask the obvious question: why not start with chapter 3? Why waste time insulting a being that doesn't even exist? If the debate is really about God's existence, and not God's character, why not skip straight to the part where you prove that God doesn't exist?

That's something to think about as we go over this book. Now I'm going to pick up where I left off.

The first section of chapter 2 is titled, "Polytheism". You would think that I could safely ignore this passage since I'm not a polytheist. Unfortunately, that is not the case. It seems that Mr. Dawkins doesn't have a lot to say about polytheism, so instead he rambles. He ends up talking about Christianity quite a bit. I'm going to respond to a few of the points he makes along the way.

First of all, Mr. Dawkins writes that we shouldn't promote religious organizations by granting them tax-exempt status. He points out that society could benefit from the extra tax money, and that allowing televangelists to collect large amounts of money tax-free isn't exactly great for society.

I have to admit that when Mr. Dawkins describes it like that, it does sound like a good idea. There are some Christian ministries that abuse their tax exempt status. It is tempting to think that we could put those ministries out of business and reduce our National debt at the same time.

Realistically, though, if stopped giving churches tax-exempt status, then small community congregations would be hit the hardest. It would weed out a lot of smaller religious organizations that benefit the community around them, while allowing larger, more parasitic ministries to survive. Men like Oral Roberts or Joel Olsteen would continue to make boatloads of money; they would just have slightly less take home pay. The pros don't outweigh the cons.

Second, Mr. Dawkins writes about the doctrine of the trinity. He quotes Thomas Jefferson, who said, "Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man has ever had a distinct idea of the trinity."

I would disagree with both Dawkins and Jefferson on this point. The authors of the Nicean creed clearly had a distinct idea of the trinity. It can be translated roughly as, "God exists as three persons of one substance." Saint Patrick used the analogy of a clover, which has three leaves, but is still only one clover. These explanations may not be as precise or as distinct as Dawkins or Jefferson would like them to be, but they are certainly distinct enough for reason to act upon.

The last thing I want to comment on for now is Mr. Dawkins' words about Catholicism. He writes, "But it is especially the Roman Catholic brand of Christianity that pushes its recurrent flirtation with polytheism towards runaway inflation. The trinity is (are?) joined by Mary, 'Queen of Heaven', a goddess in all but name, who surely runs God himself a close second as a target of prayers. The pantheon is further swollen by an army of saints, whose intercessory power makes them, if not demigods, well worth approaching on their own specialist subjects."

That's a long quote, but he's just getting warmed up. He writes for several paragraphs about the polytheistic quality of Catholic worship. I'm not a Catholic myself, so I'm not going to argue with him about this, but I feel the need to point something out.

For a man who claims to not have any religious beliefs, a man who says that all religions are equally ridiculous, he seems to have a lot of contempt for the Catholic church. Since he has no religious feelings of his own, I would expect Dawkins not to care if Catholics worship one God or an army of saints. As it stands, the language used in this section sounds like it comes from Oliver Cromwell, not the avowed atheist Richard Dawkins.

I point this out because I fully expect to read, later in this book, about the advantages of a secular, atheist society. I expect to hear something about how a world without religion would be free from petty religious quarrels. If that's where he's going, he might want to tone down the anti-Catholic rhetoric here.

* Technically, the Tanakh, or the Hebrew Bible, is slightly different from the Christian Old Testament, but these differences are relatively minor. I hope my Jewish readers will forgive me for using the two terms interchangeably.

Religion and the Kingdom of God

2010-04-12T22:01:00.000-07:00

I've mentioned before that I'm a fan of internetmonk.com. It is a blog that I would recommend to anyone seeking a deeper understanding of the gospel and the Christian faith. Sadly, this past Easter the author, Michael Spencer, passed away. I'm not going to write a tribute to him. Many other people have already written wonderful tributes to him. Still, today I'm going to be referring to a topic he wrote quite a lot about: the coming evangelical collapse. If you're interested in what I write about it here you might want to check out his posts on the subject.

A while back I wrote about the Kingdom of God. I explained that Christians have many different ideas about what the Kingdom of God actually is. One of the more common ideas is that the Kingdom of God is a specific religious group. Today I would like to talk about religion and how it relates to the Kingdom of God.

My thoughts in this area are strongly influenced by the Internet Monk, Michael Spencer. In his blog, which is subtitled, journeys through the post evangelical wilderness, he wrote about the coming evangelical collapse. He believed that American Evangelical Christianity was headed into a period of decline, and that it wouldn't be recovering anytime soon.

What is Evangelical Christianity? The best definition I can give is that an Evangelical Christian is someone who believes that the only thing that a person needs to enter God's Kingdom is to believe that Jesus Christ died to pay for their sins and that he rose again three days later. As a whole, I see the Evangelical movement as a poster-child for the idea that the Kingdom of God is purely a matter of having the correct religious beliefs.

I also believe that the movement is headed towards collapse. Even though I'm an Evangelical myself (as is Michael Spencer) I don't have much hope for the movement.

Why is that? I think there's a lesson from church history that will help us to understand.

In the middle of the first Century, Jesus' followers faced a crisis related to religion. All of Jesus' early followers were Jewish. Jesus himself was Jewish and during his life he preached almost exclusively to Jews. However, after Jesus ascended into heaven a funny thing began to happen. Through the work of the Holy Spirit a large number of gentiles (i.e. non Jews) began to believe that Jesus was the Messiah. By about 55 A.D. the gentile believers began to outnumber the Jewish believers.

Early on people asked the question, do these gentiles need to convert to Judaism? At first the answer seemed obvious, of course they do. Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. His first followers were all Jewish. Obviously anyone else who wanted to follow Jesus would have to be Jewish as well. Specifically, the would have to be circumcised, keep the sabbath and eat kosher foods.

However, as the movement expanded, and more and more gentiles joined in, the answer started to change. People began to notice that God's Spirit was at work among the gentiles just as it was among the Jews. Many people clung to the idea that the gentile believers should convert to Judaism, but others noticed that God didn't seem to care. They thought to themselves, if God doesn't discriminate between Jews and gentiles, why should we? If God accepts these people as they are, who are we to push them away?

In the end it was decided that gentiles didn't have to convert to Judaism in order to follow Jesus. This decision blew open the doors of the church. For the first time, God's Kingdom was available to anybody.

It's easy to say that that was a different time. One could claim that the first century was a unique period in Christian history, but I disagree. In fact, I think that twenty-first century Evangelicals could learn a lesson from these first century followers of Jesus. I think we need to learn a lesson about how to accept people who are different: people from different cultures and backgrounds, people of different ethnicities, people who speak different languages, and even people with different religious beliefs. None of these things can prevent people from entering the Kingdom of God.

Does this mean I'm abandoning the gospel? Am I saying that it doesn't matter that Jesus died for us, or that he was resurrected? Of course not. In fact, it is because of Jesus' death and resurrection that I can say, with confidence, that no one is excluded.

When Paul was explaining the gospel to the Ephesians he told them that when Jesus was crucified he put to death the wall of hostility between Jews and gentiles. Did Jesus give his life to put an end to the barrier between Jews and gentiles, only to create a new barrier between Christians and non-Christians? Did Jesus' death on the cross bring reconciliation for all humanity, or did it merely move the goal posts?

The problem with the Evangelical church isn't that they focus on the gospel. The problem is in how they preach the gospel. The Evangelical gospel is somewhat limited. Most Evangelicals only talk about how Jesus forgave our sins. They don't talk about how Jesus reconciled us with God and with each other. They don't talk about how Jesus frees us from oppression. They don't talk about how Jesus heals our disease and gives us victory over death. If they do talk about those things, it is always secondary to the forgiveness of sins.

This focus on sin creates a barrier. Since the focus is on the forgiveness of sins, they usually start out by telling people that they're sinners. Most of the time, this drives people away.

Some Evangelicals realize that this is poor salesmanship, so they try to spin the message so that it doesn't sound so bad, but the problem is more fundamental than that. The problem is that they're preaching a message of exclusion and the gospel is a message of inclusion. The gospel is an invitation, not a threat. If the Evangelical church can wrap its head around that idea, then it will realize that the coming collapse isn't such a bad thing after all. If it takes this idea to heart, the collapse might be avoided altogether.

TGD: Chapter Two - On the Character of God

2010-04-08T13:47:00.000-07:00

Chapter Two of "The God Delusion" begins with the following sentence: "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sado-masochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." Today's post is going to be a response to this one sentence. Now, I don't pan on walking through the rest of the book one sentence at a time, however, since I worship the God whom Dawkins is slandering, it seems only fair that I should offer a rebuttal.

I'll start by responding to the most egregiously false accusations.

On the top of that list would be the claim that the God of the Old Testament is unforgiving. This is simply not true. Throughout the Old Testament we see God forgiving people. He repeatedly forgives the nations of Israel and Judah, in the book of Jonah he forgave the entire city of Nineveh, which was the capital of one of the most notoriously bloodthirsty empires in the ancient world, and he famously forgave King David when he committed both murder and adultery. Those are just a few examples.

What's more, whenever God does punish people, it's almost always after he has been patient and forgiving over an extended period of time. He waited four hundred years to punish the Amorites for, among other things, ritually sacrificing infants. If anything, the God of the Old Testament is forgiving to a fault.

Then there's the accusation that God is filicidal. I will freely admit that I had to look this one up. Filicide is the act of killing one's own son or daughter. Presumably this refers to the crucifixion of Jesus. That doesn't happen in the Old Testament, but we'll ignore that for now.

First of all, Jesus was a grown adult who went willingly to his death. More importantly, God wasn't the one who killed him. Finally, as John Cleese might say, he got better.

(If we assume he's sticking to the Old Testament, this could be referring to the book of Exodus, in which God calls the Jewish people his firstborn son. The main problem with this theory is that the Jewish people are still alive and well.)

The accusation that God is megalomaniacal is more humorous than anything else. The God of the Old Testament made the whole universe out of nothing and Dawkins is accusing him of having delusions of grandeur. To what great heights could a delusional, omnipotent deity aspire to? Does he take a break from ruling the heavens and the earth so he can pretend to be the King of Scotland? Does the one who formed a human being out of dirt like to pretend that he invented the sandwich? In the preface to the paperback edition, Dawkins said that he wanted this sentence to come across as humorous*. This is one place where I think he succeeded admirably, although not as he intended.

The claim that God is racist presumably refers to how God treats the Jewish people compared with everyone else. It's true that God had a special arrangement with the nation of Israel, but that arrangement does not include special treatment. The Old Testament makes it clear that God cares for the nations surrounding Israel, just like he cares for Israel. In fact, as part of their special arrangement, the Israelites have an obligation to be a blessing to the nations around them. God's treaty with Israel isn't about God loving Israel more than everyone else. It's about God wanting Israel to be a blessing to everyone else, which is more like the opposite of racism.

Of all the accusations that Mr. Dawkins makes against God, the one that is the most accurate is that God is jealous. God is jealously protective of the Jewish people. He wants them to stay faithful to the promise that they had made to serve him. Even though they repeatedly break that promise, God keeps his promise and remains faithful to them. God becomes jealous, but he does not abandon him. In my mind, that is one of God's best qualities. He stays faithful to his people, even when they cause him pain.

The last accusation that I'm going to address directly is that God is unjust. In many ways that one word sums up the whole sentence. The central point being made is that God's reign of the earth, as described in the Old Testament, is unjust.

The question is to big for me to provide anything close to a thorough answer. Instead I will do my best to present, in brief, what the Old Testament has to say on the subject.

In the beginning, God made everything good. Humanity lived in paradise with God and God provided them with everything they would ever need. God gave them only one rule and it was easy to obey. Things fell apart when humanity broke that law. God punishes humanity in order to restore justice, and God promises to fix what is broken.

This is the basic pattern of Genesis 1-3, and it forms a template that recurs over and over again throughout scripture. The template goes something like this: 1) God does something good for an individual or a group of people, 2) sooner or later that individual or group does something evil, 3) God responds to the evil that has been done and 4) God promises to one day get rid of evil and replace it with good. Of all these steps, step 3 is the most flexible. In some cases it seems to be missing (in these cases God is being patient and forgiving). In other cases, God asks the person to make a sacrifice before forgiving the sin. Very rarely, God refuses to forgive the sin and punishes the person for what they have done. As I said above that last option almost always happens after God has already shown an incredible amount of patience and forgiveness.

When people question God's justice they concentrate on steps 2 and 3. They question why God regards certain actions as evil; they question whether or not the people who committed evil were truly responsible for their actions; they question the methods God uses to punish people; they question God's decision to forgive in some cases and not in other cases.

But the claim that God is just does not depend primarily on steps 2 and 3. The books of Ecclesiastes and Job openly acknowledge that how God punishes evil, or fails to punish evil, can seem very unjust at times. Instead, the claim that God is just depends on steps 1 and 4. God is just because in the beginning he made everything good and in the end he will make everything good again. Moreover he has promised us that we will be included in that future where everything is restored, even though we sometimes do evil. That is why I can say with confidence that God is, indeed, just.

This was a bit of a dense post. If there's something you don't agree with, or something that doesn't make sense, feel free to post it in the comments. I look forward to reading them. Thank you.

* In the preface, Dawkins was responding to critics who complained that his writing was too shrill. The above sentence was the example most often given. Dawkins wrote, "It is not for me to say whether I succeeded, but my intention was closer to robust but humorous broadside than shrill polemic." I will say that I think the sentence failed to be humorous, if only because the idea is so unoriginal. As for the broadside, I think it missed its mark. Most of the shots are wildly off course, as I have already shown.

What's the Meaning of Grace?

2010-04-05T22:37:00.000-07:00

Grace is an odd word. Unless you've spent some time in churches, you're not very likely to know what Christians mean when they use the word "grace". In fact, I'm guessing that more than a few people who are raised Christian don't really understand what is meant by the word.

The word "grace" in the New Testament refers to God's unmerited favor. It describes the love that God has given to everyone, whether they deserve it or not. When we say that we have received God's grace, we are saying that God has blessed us, not because we are so awesome, but because God is so loving.

I've seen many people who don't understand this. They've heard people talk about grace, but they still believe that we must work to earn God's love. They believe that the people receive God's favor because, in some sense, they deserve it.

This is not what what we mean when we talk about grace. If we say that we have received something by grace, then we are insisting that we did not do anything special to deserve it.

I understand why there's so much confusion about this topic. We want to believe that God is kind to us because, for some reason or another, we deserve it. We don't like the idea that God can show his love to us even when we don't deserve it.

Still, we need to grasp this fundamental truth. This basic idea that the love that God has shown us is given, and not earned, is essential to our faith. It reminds us that we are not special people who have been given God's special blessing, which is only for the truly enlightened. It reminds us that the love that we have received isn't for us.

The love that we have received is for the whole world, for every last person who needs God's love, whether they deserve it or not. So we are free to share God's love with everyone. We know that they don't need to say or do anything special to deserve it.

If anyone's interested in hearing more about what God has done for us, I'd recommend this post on She Laughs at the Days.

TGD: Chapter One - Religion and Respect

2010-04-02T12:42:00.000-07:00

This post covers the entire first chapter of "The God Delusion". The first chapter is really just an introduction, so I can breeze through it. Starting with chapter two we get into the meat of his argument and I'll slow down so I can deal with it in more detail.

In "The God Delusion", Mr. Dawkins is making the case against religious belief in general. It's a sizable task and we'll see how good a job Mr. Dawkins does with it. He uses the first chapter to set the terms of the debate; to explain exactly what he's arguing for and what he's arguing against.

This chapter is broken up into two parts. The first part deals with what Dawkins refers to as "Einsteinian religion".

"Einsteinian religion" refers to any belief system that equates the natural universe, or the laws that govern it, with God. Such belief systems don't have a supernatural component. Mr. Dawkins has no problem with this sort of religion; he considers it another form of atheism. His only problem is that when people with this sort of belief system use words like God and religion they confuse the debate. He wants the reader to know that this isn't what he has in mind when he's making the case against religion.

As you might have guessed, Albert Einstein believed in this sort of God, although he was hardly the first person to think along these lines. That honor belongs to Baruch Spinoza, the father of modern pantheism.

Personally, I wonder what Einstein would think about someone lumping his beliefs in with atheism. I suspect that Einstein's use of the word God was intentional. I suspect that Einstein understood that his belief system, like all belief systems, depended on certain metaphysical (i.e. non-scientific) claims. I'm not sure that Mr. Dawkins grasps that fact.

However, since I'm not a pantheist myself, I won't argue the point any further.

The second part of this chapter deals with the amount of respect that (supernatural) religious beliefs are given in modern, secular countries, especially America. He argues that, in general, we give religious beliefs far more respect than they deserve. He points out that it is generally considered rude to criticize another person's religious beliefs, no matter how ridiculous they are. He also gives several examples where countries will grant privileges to people based on their religious beliefs.

I don't agree with Mr. Dawkins about this, but I think he does make some good points. Specifically, there does need to be room for people to be able to speak critically about other people's religious beliefs. No ideas should ever be considered completely exempt from scrutiny. Personally, I welcome Mr. Dawkins' criticisms of my beliefs and I have no problem speaking critically about his beliefs. In the proper context, critical discussions like this can be beneficial to both parties.

The thing is, you really, really need to have the proper context for a conversation like this. For a person with deeply held religious beliefs, those beliefs are often part of their core identity. For this reason, it really shouldn't come as a surprise that people will get offended when you mock their religious beliefs. This is why criticizing people's religious beliefs is often considered off limits, at least in the public sphere. This is why governments will, at times, bend over backwards to respect people with different religious beliefs.

In my mind, the solution isn't to show less tolerance to people's unusual religious beliefs, but to extend that tolerance to cover nonreligious people. Just as wise governments go out of their way not to offend people's religious beliefs, they should be equally respectful toward people without religious beliefs. (For example, the government shouldn't erect a large cross on the land they own on top of a giant hill in the middle of the city, but that's another post).

Having said that, I'm glad that Mr. Dawkins feels free to mock religious beliefs. This series would be much less interesting if he felt the need to be polite and deferential whenever the topic of God came up.

How Big is God's Mercy?

2010-03-29T16:35:00.000-07:00

Earlier today I read a beautiful post on facebook. It was written by a woman who had recently lost her father. At the funeral she had chosen to read the parable of the sheep and the goats from Matthew 25. The parable talks about how God rewards those who care for people in unfortunate circumstances. She went on to share a story about a time when her father went out of his way to care for people in need.

The subject of this post is not that story, but one of the comments it provoked.

In the comments below the post, one person felt the need to remind this woman that the real reason why her father is saved is because he believed in Jesus.

This comment bugged me for a few reasons. First of all, the comment implies that having faith and being a good person are two completely separate and unrelated things. Secondly, the comment asserts that having faith is more important than being a good person.

The thing that bothered me the most, however, was that it felt like the commenter was putting limits on the mercy of God.

Anyone can feed the hungry, clothe the naked, care for the sick, or visit people in prison; they don't need to believe that Jesus is Lord. On the other hand, if you really believe that Jesus is Lord, then you should be doing the things he told you to do. Otherwise, why do you call him Lord? Why should we expect God to have mercy on people who claim to follow him, but don't do what he says, and reject people who do what he asks, but don't claim to follow him?

This is a difficult topic, and I don't have all the answers. But there is one thing I will say. If there's one thing that the New Testament shows us clearly, it's that God's mercy was much bigger than people expected it to be. We can try to put limits on God's mercy, but I wouldn't expect him to abide by them.

As a final note, I don't think Christians realize how these statements sound to unbelievers. When you tell people, "The thing that really matters to God is whether or not you believe in him," most of the time they don't think, "Oh, well I suppose I should believe in God, then." Usually they think, "I guess your God only cares about you." The truth is that God cares about everyone. We need to make sure that people know that God cares about them whether they believe in him or not.

TGD: Let's Get Started

2010-03-26T11:03:00.000-07:00

This is my first post going through Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion. This series is going to be a long one. I don't want to interrupt my usual Monday post until I'm finished, so I'll be posting these later in the week, typically on Thursday or Friday. For those f you following along at home, I'm using the 2008 paperback edition. I'm going to skip the preface to the paperback edition for now. That preface contains Dawkins' response to common objections to the book. I'll refer back to it if/when I make those objections myself.

The God Delusion opens with a preface in which Mr. Dawkins describes his four main goals in writing the book. His first goal is to raise awareness about the viability of atheism as a belief system. "You can be an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled." This message is aimed primarily at people who were raised with religious belief, but have become dissatisfied with that belief.

I don't object to this statement, although there is a flip side to this coin. Just as many people grow up religious and don't know that atheism is a realistic possibility, many people who lack religious beliefs don't know that faith is a realistic possibility. They don't know that you can be religious without turning off your brain. To paraphrase Mr. Dawkins, "You can be a person of faith who is intelligent, rational, balanced, and intellectually fulfilled."

Dawkins' second goal is to raise awareness about the power of science to provide explanatory "cranes" that help us understand the universe and our place in it. I'm not exactly sure what kinds of explanations Mr. Dawkins believes that science is capable of providing, but I don't expect to see eye to eye with him on this point. Many scientists overestimate science's reach and its explanatory powers.

He cites the example of natural selection as a "crane" that provides an explanation for the origins of life. Natural selection has the advantage of being firmly rooted in the physical sciences. Explanations that try to address more fundamental questions, such as the origins of the physical universe, wouldn't have that advantage. I look forward to seeing how Mr. Dawkins addresses this issue.

Dawkins' third goal is to raise awareness about how we refer to children of religious parents. For example, he says that we shouldn't talk about Catholic children, but rather, children of Catholic parents. I think this is a reasonable goal, especially in the case of young children, who can't possibly share their parents beliefs.

Dawkins' fourth goal is to encourage atheists to be proud of their beliefs. He talks about the stigma attached to the word "atheist" and about the discrimination that atheists face, particularly in the US. He believes that atheists need to be more open about their beliefs if things are going to change.

I'm actually supportive of his efforts here. I'm obviously not an atheist myself, but I don't think that atheists should be forced to hide their beliefs. Nor do I think they should be discriminated against.

Beside these four goals Dawkins also makes it clear that he intends to show that religious belief is a dangerous delusion. This is the central message of this book, and it's the point that I disagree with most strongly. As this series continues, we will go through this book together and I will respond to this argument as it develops.

I hope you're looking forward to it. I know I am.

Faith, Doubt and Reason Explained

2010-03-22T16:36:00.000-07:00

One of my goals in writing this blog is to talk about the search for truth. It is my interest in discovering truth that motivates many of my posts about philosophy, religion and science.

The search for truth always begins with an idea. The idea might be true, or it might be false. We must evaluate the idea to determine which one is the case.

In order to evaluate an idea we need only three things. We must be able to believe that the idea might be true, we must be able to believe that the idea might be false, and we must have some way of determining which is more likely.

Faith describes our ability to believe that a given idea is true, and doubt describes our ability to believe that a given idea is false.

For an idea to be meaningful, it must be subject to both faith and doubt. An idea that cannot conceivably be true, or that cannot conceivably be false, is meaningless. Any idea worth considering can be believed and it can be disbelieved.

The question is for meaningful ideas, ideas that can be either true or false, how do we determine whether the idea is true or false?

We consider the evidence. We consider our experiences. We consider our existing beliefs. We consider what it means for the idea to be true. We consider what it means for the idea to be false. Finally, having considered these things, we decide whether the idea is true or false.

Reason is what allows us to go through this process with every new idea and make a determination. Reason is what we use to distinguish truth from falsehood, and its job is never done.

Even those questions that we believe are settled must be examined from time to time.

Some people say that we should never question religious truths, but I vehemently disagree. I believe that if we don't consider the possibility that our religious beliefs are false, we render them meaningless. After all, if an idea cannot possibly be false, what does it mean when we say that it is true?

In that vein, I've started reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I will be posting my reflections on this blog as I go through the book. If you're curious about how an open-minded person of faith responds to Richard Dawkins, then keep reading. I expect it will make for an interesting series of posts.

More Thoughts on Social Justice

2010-03-19T14:22:00.000-07:00

I want to speak a little more about the topic of social justice. I want to talk about what social justice looks like in action.

A woman from my church runs an nonprofit organization called Bridge of Hope. Bridge of Hope works with refugees living in the city heights neighborhood in San Diego. Bridge of Hope provides refugee families with food, furniture, clothing, toys and other supplies. Bridge of Hope supports these families and helps them to adjust to life in America.

What Bridge of Hope does is a great example of social justice. They care for the poor and the oppressed. They try to give these refugees a better future.

Another good example is Love146. Love146 is an organization that works to end modern day slavery and human trafficking. They also provide safe houses for people coming out of slavery. They also work to prevent people from becoming slaves and to make sure that once someone is set free they stay free.

These organizations, and others like them, do good work. This is why Glenn Beck's recent comments about social justice get to me. When he says that social justice is a 'code phrase' used by communists and Nazis, he is slandering people who work hard to make the world a better place. When he tells people to leave their church if that church believes in social justice he is actively undermining organizations like Bridge of Hope and Love146.

Glenn Beck is actually making the world a worse place, and that's what gets to me.

Engaging the Pain

2010-03-15T17:06:00.000-07:00

How do we respond to people when they are going through a tremendous amount of pain?

Last Sunday, after church, a woman came up to me and asked me to pray for a friend of hers. Her friend was a woman who had lost her son, lost her job and was in danger of losing her house.

She was upset. She was in a lot of pain. She was grieving the loss of her son. She didn't have the resources, either financially or emotionally to deal with her current crisis.

I sat there with her. I prayed for her. I listened to what she had to say. I listened to her anger and frustration. I listened to her tears.

I offered her a few words of comfort, encouragement and support. Understandably, they didn't make much of a difference to her. I gave her the names and numbers of a few people I know who might be able to help her. I don't know if that will make much of a difference either, though I hope it does.

Mostly, I just sat there in silence and acknowledged how completely useless I was in this situation.

I know that one day, the ruler of heaven and of earth will come back, and he will wipe away every tear, and there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain. But until that day comes there will be pain and crying and mourning and death, and I don't know how to respond. This is the dilemma we all face.

I believe that every person has an obligation to help people in need to the best of their ability. At the same time, I know that that's not the answer this woman needs. No person can give this woman her son back, or give back the years this woman has lost to grief.

Ultimately, it is up to God to restore this woman, to give back what was taken from her. Until that happens, we live with the pain. The question remains, how do we respond to it?

Why Social Justice Matters

2010-03-11T16:12:00.000-08:00

Recently, Glenn Beck told his viewers to leave their church if they preach about social justice. I don't normally pay attention to Glenn Beck, but this recent comment is particularly out of line and I want to address it.

What is social justice? Broadly speaking, social justice is the effort to create a society that is more equal, both politically and economically, for everyone. Those who seek social justice seek to help support and uplift those groups that are marginalized within a given society; for example, the poor, the oppressed, slaves, widows, orphans, immigrants, and racial minorities.

The specific term "social justice" was coined by the Jesuit scholar Luigi Taparelli in 1841, but the idea has been around for much longer than that. The idea that society has a responsibility to care for the poor and the marginalized goes at least as far back as Moses.

In the Old Testament Law, which was written by Moses, God's people are instructed to care for the poor, widows, orphans and foreigners. This instruction is repeated in several different places throughout the Law of Moses.

This theme of social justice is picked up by the prophets, who frequently criticize Israel and Judah for oppressing foreigners and not taking care of the poor. Nearly all of the Old Testament prophets touch on this theme. The book of Amos deals almost exclusively with the theme of social justice.

When we enter into the New Testament things only become worse. Jesus frequently commands his followers to share their possessions with people in need. The book of Acts, which describes the history of the early church, tells us that people in the early church shared all of their possessions with one another so that everyone's needs were met.

Glenn Beck also warned his viewers that they might lose their right to read all the passages of the Bible. If Glenn Beck had actually exercised that right himself, then he would know that social justice is not a minor issue for Christians. It lies at the very heart of scripture and of Jesus' teachings.

Glenn Beck's show provides a great example of what happens when you mingle politics and religion. Having a conservative pastor tell their congregation how to vote is bad enough. Having a political pundit tell his audience where they should go to church is even more disturbing.

Glenn Beck is telling his audience not to follow the teachings of Jesus because they don't fit with his particular political agenda. This is a disturbing trend, to say the least.

Living It Out

2010-03-08T23:04:00.000-08:00

I recently read a post on Pastoralia titled, Why the Bible is Insufficient for Mission. In it he talks about the fact that the Bible is losing relevance in our culture. He says that scripture is no longer seen as authoritative by most of the culture, and if we want to interact with people outside the church we can't rely on people acknowledging the authority of scripture.

When I read that I immediately realized that what he was saying is true. At the same time, I began to lose confidence in what I'm doing here. I started to realize that what I'm doing here just isn't working.

I quote scripture quite a lot on this blog. I even went so far as to write a post explaining why I quote scripture all the time. I'm beginning to understand that if I keep doing that, then the only people who read this blog will be people who share my respect for the authority of scripture. And what's the point of that?

So what do I do? How can I share the message with people who no longer believe that it is true?

The answer he gives is simple. The answer is to live it out. Instead of telling people what the Bible says, we should demonstrate it with our lives and our actions. Instead of telling other people to devote their lives to Christ, we should show them what it looks like to live a life devoted to Christ.

So in the future, I plan to spend less time on this blog talking about theological issues and more time talking about how to live a life devoted to Christ. I'll still touch on theology and scripture, but my goal is to focus on more practical matters.

As always, feel free to let me know what you think.

Evangelism

2010-03-01T16:42:00.000-08:00

As far as words go, evangelism has a pretty bad reputation. For many it is a source of fear, shame, embarrassment and awkwardness. In my case the word brings up feelings of anxiety, nervousness and even a slight amount of dread. Why does the word evangelism bring up such strong negative emotions in people.

Before I answer that, I'd like to talk about what exactly evangelism is. Evangelism is sharing the good news about what God has done for us in Jesus Christ. The hope is that the people hearing the good news might come to believe in Jesus.

Of course, not everyone who hears the good news believes in it. Many Christians feel that it is their obligation, when sharing the good news, to convince as many people as possible. Their evangelism starts to turn into a debate or a sales pitch as they attempt to win over as many people as possible.

This leads to pushy evangelism strategies that create so many of the awkward moments that evangelism is famous for.

The truth is that I've been guilty of this as well. On more than a few occasions I've entered into debates with people who don't believe in Jesus in a futile attempt to persuade them.

The question is, why do we do it? Why do we push so hard to convince people to believe in something that they just don't agree with?

In my case I do it because I don't trust God.

Let me explain myself. I came to believe in God because he was very patient with me and very generous toward me. He waited patiently until I was ready to believe that Jesus was the risen Son of God who died so that we might have peace with God.

I came to believe in God not because I was very smart or because I was a great person. I believed because God loved me. God loved me because I needed it, not because I had earned it.

This unasked for, unearned and unconditional love of God is what Christians call grace.

Here's the problem. I know that God has acted this way toward me, but for some stupid reason I don't believe that he will treat everyone else the same. I run into trouble when I start to think that God, the same God who showed me an incredible degree of kindness, goodness, patience and gentleness, will turn around and be cruel, wicked, impatient and harsh to everyone else.

Certainly that is not the case. God is the same now as he was then. The God who had grace enough for me will have grace enough for those who come after me. I didn't believe the good news the first hundred times I heard it. God didn't hold it against me, and he won't hold it against the people I choose to share the good news with.

Knowing that, I know that I don't need to put pressure on people. I don't need to twist their arm to get them to agree with me. I'm free to wait for an appropriate time and place, let people know about Jesus, and, unless they want to know more, I can shut up afterward. It's much less awkward for everyone involved.

A Crisis of Meaning

2010-02-22T22:18:00.001-08:00

Hello everyone, I'm sorry about the late post.

Lately as I've been writing this blog I've experienced something of a crisis. I feel the need to take this blog in a new direction, but I'm still not quite sure where.

I would like this blog to be more than just a vanity project. Nor do I want it to be a place where I post my thoughts whether anyone is interested or not.

Ideally I'd like to find something meaningful to contribute. Right now I'm just not exactly sure what that is.

Everything You Know is Wrong

2010-02-15T13:24:00.000-08:00

Awhile back twenty sided tale, a blog I follow, posted a link to this video. The video's a fan made music video for a Weird Al Yankovich song. The song is funny and rather strange, like most Weird Al songs, but it got me thinking about something more serious.

I started to think about what it was like when I converted to Christianity. I remember what it was like when I started to think about things in a new way. I remember how it felt when I realized that I could no longer rely on my existing beliefs. They no longer seemed as certain as they once had. For a time it really did seem as though everything I once knew was wrong.

It seemed that way because my worldview was changing. Worldviews provide a stable framework that allow us to make sense of the world we live in. If our worldview shifts, we lose that sense of stability.

Worldviews provide stability in a few ways. First of all, along with a worldview comes certain assumptions; things that we believe are true without needing evidence or proof. Before I was a Christian I assumed that the scientific method was a reliable and sufficient method to find truth. I assumed that anything that existed could be understood scientifically. That assumption, along with a few others, formed the basis of my worldview.

These assumptions informed my understanding of the world. They allowed me to know and understand things about the world. They were the tools I used to determine what was true and what was false. They also helped me to judge what was potentially true. In other words, my worldview helped decide what I believed was possible and what I thought was impossible.

Around the time when I converted to Christianity my worldview began to shift. My basic assumptions about the world started to change. This had quite a few significant consequences.

First of all, since I could no longer be certain that my basic assumptions about reality were true, I was no longer entirely sure what was true and what was false. I still had strong opinions, of course, but I lacked certainty. I just couldn't be sure what was true or false because I wasn't entirely sure what I believed at a basic level.

Even worse than that, I was no longer certain I knew what was possible and what was impossible. I remember that there were times when it seemed like anything and everything might be possible. I say that and it might sound wonderful or amazing, but it was actually quite terrifying. If we're certain that some things are just impossible it provides a sense of security and comfort. Without that certainty, one can never feel completely safe.

Over time my new beliefs began to settle. My new worldview started to take shape. Once again I had some basic assumptions, a way to determine what is true and what is false, and a way to determine what is possible and what is impossible. It took awhile, but I've gained a new sense of stability and security.

I think changing worldviews is often a difficult and uncomfortable process, but in my case it has been more than worth it. Not only have I gained a broader perspective, by tearing apart my old beliefs and reexamining them, but I've also gained so much by learning to believe in and to trust in God.

I hope you found this post interesting. I also hope that if any of you are reexamining your beliefs that this post is helpful for you.

The Gospel

2010-02-08T19:07:00.000-08:00

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son so that all who believe in him would not die, but would have eternal life." It is an ancient story and it is one that I'm sure you've heard many times before. Even so I'm going to tell it again here because the best stories deserve repeating.

This story in particular deserves repeating because it isn't always clear that God loves us. Often times it can seem that the opposite is the case. When our luck runs out, when tragedy strikes, or when everything seems to be falling apart we can come to believe that God is against us. That God has nothing but evil intentions toward us.

But throughout history God has sent messengers to let people know that he is watching over them and that he is concerned for them. And at just the right moment in history God himself came down to earth and visited us.

He came as a human being so that he could experience everything we experience whether good or bad. He did this to show that he is not unconcerned with our struggles. Indeed God has experienced our struggles and made them his own.

Indeed this man even suffred and died just as mortal men do, to show that God is with us even in the depth of our pain.

And if the story had ended there it would have been a fine story. A tragic tale of a God who really cared for his people. A God who lived among them in good times and in bad times. A God who even went to the grave with them.

But the story does not end there. For the man who was God came back from the dead. By doing this he showed the whole world that humanity has a future. He showed everyone that God is for humanity. That his plan for humanity isn't limited to this mortal life.

His plan for humanity includes teaching people how to love each other. It includes healing our diseases and our infirmities. It includes freeing us from oppression. It includes taking away all of our guilt and our shame and showing us how to live with honor and integrity.

His plan includes an end to war, an end to strife and the beginnings of real peace.

This is the gift that God has offered to everyone, without exception. This is the gift given to everyone who trusts him. This is the good news.

Why Do I Bring up the Bible so Often?

2010-02-01T19:43:00.000-08:00

Anyone who reads my blog knows that I bring up the Bible quite often. A quick glance at the archives shows that almost half of the posts I've written are tagged with the word scripture. I use that tag whenever I reference or talk about the Bible.

It should be obvious that I personally believe that the Bible's message is relevant even today. I believe that people should try to understand the message of the Bible and apply it to their lives, but not everyone thinks the way I do. I know that not everyone who reads this blog shares my beliefs about scripture. So why do I reference the Bible so often?

I talk about the Bible because I want to provide my readers with a fair presentation of the Christian faith. The Bible is accepted as an authoritative text by nearly every Christian tradition. I use scripture to show people how the arguments I'm making fit in with the Christian belief system.

I want to offer people a fair presentation of Christianity because, unfortunately, the religion is often misrepresented. A recent example would be Pat Robertson's remarks about Haiti. I don't like to see people get taken in by these deceptions. I want people to understand what the Bible actually teaches.

I want Christians to understand what the Bible teaches so they can put it into practice. I also want them to understand what the Bible teaches so that they won't be confused by bad preaching or deceived by preachers who have their own agenda.

I want non-christians to understand what the Bible teaches so that they can be more informed. I'm especially concerned for people who have decided to reject Christianity based on bad information. Like most Christians, I hope that someday everyone reading this will come to believe, as I do, that Jesus is the Son of God who paid the ultimate price so that we too could be called sons and daughters of God.

I know it's foolish to hope that the people reading this will all decide to convert based on my presentation of the gospel. I still do hope for that, but I know it is foolish. In any case, I hope that the people reading this will at least be able to make a more informed decision about Christianity. If people hear a fair presentation of Christianity and make an informed decision to reject it, that's better than if they reject it based on a lie.

Thank you for reading this blog. Thank you for hearing me out. Please feel free to let me know what you think. I'd love to hear it.

The Last Word

2010-01-25T14:26:00.000-08:00

Last week I talked about the inappropriate comments made by Pat Robertson regarding the earthquake in Haiti. I said that there would be people who reject Christianity because of what Mr. Robertson said. Since then I've read a few articles that comment on what Mr. Robertson has said and both come to the conclusion that Mr. Robertson's remarks, while tactless, are basically an accurate reflection of Christian beliefs.

Both articles talk about the problem of evil. Simply stated, the problem of evil is this: If God is good and God is all powerful then why does evil exist?

I don't enjoy trying to answer the problem of evil. Attempts to reconcile God's goodness with human suffering tend to be insulting to both God and the people who are suffering. The only Godly response to suffering is compassion.

Still, there is more that needs to be said. We must remember that God Himself has compassion on those who suffer. We must also remember that God has made a promise to humanity. He has promised to set right everything that is wrong with the world and to comfort everyone who suffers.

This is not an answer to the problem of evil. It doesn't take away the very real pain and suffering that the people of Haiti are experiencing right now. This is only a reminder that, as bad as this earthquake is, it is not the end of the world and it is not the end of the people of Haiti.

For now, many people will need to ask, "Why has God forsaken me?" and it is all right for them to ask. This earthquake in Haiti will not be the last word on the matter. It might take a long time, but God's love and mercy will triumph over evil. That is the last word on the matter.

Irregular Webcomic

2010-01-22T15:39:00.000-08:00

I think it's time for another mid week post, don't you?

Today I'm going to talk about one of the geekiest web comics out there (no, not xkcd). It's Irregular Webcomic. The comic consists of pictures of lego figures and sets, with real photos used as backdrops. The comic includes a variety of different themes. The humor is about equal parts affectionate parody and geeky puns.

One of the reasons I really enjoy the comic is whenever the author makes an especially obscure pun he has a note providing information about the subject in question. These educational annotations can be very fun to read (in some cases more fun than the strips themselves. This note explaining how Maxwell discovered that light is actually an electromagnetic wave is my favorite.

The strip has been updating daily since 2003, so the archive is incredibly large. I'd recommend just picking one of the themes and reading through that. The fantasy theme and the Steve and Terry theme are both good. Or you could just read all the ones with annotations. You'll have a good time and you'll learn about a lot of interesting subjects.

Understanding Evil

2010-01-18T21:55:00.001-08:00

In today's post I'm going to be talking about the quake in Haiti. Before I begin, I'd like to encourage you to consider donating money to disaster relief efforts and to long term development in Haiti. Here's some advice for how to give money to disaster relief efforts. Here is the website of a nonprofit that does development work in Haiti and several other countries. Please check out those links and consider how much you think you should give. Thank you.

Today I would like to talk about how we try to understand and make sense of large scale tragedies like the recent earthquake in Haiti.

In one of my early posts I asked the question Is God Really Good? In that post I was looking at the book of Job, but I think similar rules apply for wide scale tragedies such as this. In that post I comment that the mistake that Job's friends make is that they try to provide a reasonable explanation to an unreasonable situation.

Evil is always unreasonable. Evil always defies comprehension. Evil is always without justification; otherwise it would not be evil.

This is a truth that Pat Robertson doesn't seem to grasp. If he did, he wouldn't have claimed that the earthquake in Haiti was the result of a pact with the devil.

Pat Robertson's claim that the earthquake is the result of a pact with Satan is troubling on a few levels. It is troubling because it reveals a gross insensitivity to the extreme pain and suffering that the people of Haiti are going through right now. What they need right now is our support and our compassion, not our condemnation.

This is made even worse because Pat Robertson is a spokesman for a large segment of the American Christian community. When he slanders a nation, he doesn't just damage his own reputation. He hurts the reputations of Christians everywhere. I suspect that more than a few people will turn away from Jesus because of what Mr. Robertson has said, and I can't say that I blame them.

Finally, the most troubling thing about Pat Robertson's words is that they provide his followers with a false sense of security. Pat Robertson has often claimed that wide scale tragedies are the result of divine judgments, but those judgments are always directed at someone else. Pat Robertson's God is often angry, but never at Pat Robertson or his followers.

Jesus warns his followers not to have such an attitude. If I may paraphrase Jesus a little bit here, "Do you think that the Haitians are the worst sinners in the Western Hemisphere because they have suffered in this way?" Pat Robertson foolishly seems to believe that the answer is yes.

If we must talk about God's anger and judgment at a time like this, we should think about how God feels about us right now. We ought to consider the fact that Haiti's poverty and poor infrastructure is what allowed this quake to be so devastating. We should consider the fact that the U.S. is at least partially responsible for Haiti's current economic state.

There is a parable of Jesus that speaks to the relationship between Haiti and the United States. It is the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. In the story a poor man (Haiti) sits and begs just outside the gate of a wealthy person's home. but the wealthy man(the U.S.) does nothing to ease the poor man's suffering. I won't spoil the story except to say that it doesn't end well for the rich man.

This is the truth that Pat Robertson is concealing from his followers when he tells them that the Haitian people are responsible for their own misery. He prevents them from seeing the simple truth that we are obligated to take care of people in need. He prevents them from seeing that God's true anger is directed not at the Haitians, but at those people who see their misery and do nothing to help them.

Christian Arrogance

2010-01-11T13:33:00.000-08:00

Recently, as I was reviewing my earlier posts I realized something. I have been spending way too much time with other Christians and not enough time with my non christian family and friends. I came to this realization as I was rereading my post on the Holy Spirit and I came upon this line: without the Holy Spirit it is impossible to please God.

I wrote that without thinking about how it might sound to anyone who is not a believer. I don't know if anyone else noticed it or was bothered by it, but the phrase contains a kind of arrogance that used to bother me before I became a Christian myself. Today I'm going to take some time to correct my earlier post.

I don't think that what I said was entirely true. I think that it is possible do good deeds that are pleasing to God without the presence of the Holy Spirit. It would be more accurate to say that it is impossible to fully satisfy God without the Holy Spirit. What do I mean by that?

First of all, I'm definitely not saying that God does not love you unless you have the Holy Spirit. It is natural for people to make the leap from, "It is impossible for you to satisfy God," to "God does not love you." The truth is that God loves everyone. God even loves people who do terribly evil things. He certainly loves people don't know God but are kind to those around them.

What I am saying is that unless we are filled with the Holy Spirit, we will never be free from the evil desires of our hearts.

A corollary to that statement is that we all have evil desires. I think anyone who observes human nature will find that evil desires are, at the very least, incredibly common. I believe that even the best of us have some thoughts and desires that we're not particularly proud of.

This is the reason why Jesus gave up His life for us. He died so that we would not be punished for our evil deeds. He also died so that we could receive the Holy Spirit, which sets us free from our evil thoughts and desires as well.

Before I finish I'd like to add one last clarification. I'm not saying that Christians are morally superior to everyone else. I believe that the Holy Spirit frees us from our evil desires, but unfortunately it doesn't happen overnight. Most of the time, being set free in this way is a long and difficult process, and there are often setbacks. But we know that God is faithful and we know that He will get us through it.

I hope this post clarifies what I said earlier. In closing, I'd like to invite you to comment if you noticed anything else on my blog that bothered you or that you'd like me to clarify. I would love to answer any questions you might have about what I've said.

The Essence of Christian Unity

2010-01-04T17:00:00.000-08:00

Awhile back there was a guest blogger on internet monk who talked about Christian unity. The guest poster was a Catholic and he summarizes the Catholic position on the nature of Christian unity quite nicely. This post is one of the ones that got me thinking about Christian unity. Today I'm going to be supplying my own thoughts on what it means for Christians to be united.

In my last post on Christian unity I talked about how important it was to Jesus that His followers should be united. I also talked about the deep divisions that Christians today face, especially in America. Now I'm going to start talking about solutions.

First of all, we need to decide what it means to say that Christians are united. In the article I linked above, the author describes how the Roman Catholic Church answers that question. The author writes that Christian unity consists of three things, unity of faith, unity of sacraments and unity of government. In other words, we are united when we all share the same faith, participate in the same sacraments and are under the same church government.

It's not a bad definition. In fact, I think it represents a compelling vision for what a unified church should look like, but I don't believe that this definition captures what Christian unity is all about. I believe that Christians are united by their shared connection to God through the Holy Spirit. That is the essence of Christian unity.

We can see that this was true in the early church by looking at the book of Acts. Starting in chapter ten, the church encounters its first major division. In the beginning Christianity was exclusively a Jewish sect, but in chapter ten of Acts God calls Peter to preach to a Roman soldier named Cornelius. Cornelius becomes the first gentile to convert to Christianity, but many more soon follow.

This creates the first major conflict in church history. The first Christians are reluctant to welcome gentiles into the movement. They see it as a betrayal of their Jewish heritage to share fellowship with people who don't follow Jewish practices and customs. This debate nearly tears the church apart. In Acts chapter 15 they have a meeting in Jerusalem to discuss the issue and settle the matter.

In the end the church decides to allow gentiles to join the church. Despite the vast cultural differences that separated Jews and gentiles and despite the strong traditional beliefs that the Jews held that required them to avoid mingling with gentiles, those early Christians chose unity. The question we must ask ourselves is, why did they make that difficult choice?

The only answer is that they made that choice because of the Holy Spirit. It was the Holy Spirit that called Peter, Paul and other Christians to witness to gentiles in the first place. When they preached to the gentiles, the gentiles were filled with the Holy Spirit, just as the first Christians had been. The early Christians were persuaded to accept gentile believers despite the difficulty, because they recognized that the Holy Spirit was at work among them.

So we can see that the Holy Spirit serves as the motivation for Christian unity. We seek fellowship with others because we see that God is working in their lives just as He is working in our lives.

Additionally, the Holy Spirit is the thing which makes Christian unity possible. The Holy Spirit demolishes the barriers that divide us and gives us the ability to be patient and humble and show love to one another. In this way the Holy Spirit gives us the ability to be unified with people in even the most trying circumstances.

For a moment I want to go back to the three part definition of unity we saw at the beginning; unity of faith, unity of sacraments and unity of government. I think that the definition still holds, but only if we see that God and the Holy Spirit are at the center of it. We share the same faith because the Holy Spirit has revealed Jesus to each of us. We share the same sacraments because, through the Spirit, Jesus' forgiveness is given to each of us. We share the same government because we all submit ourselves to God with the help of the Holy Spirit.

That is what I think it means for Christians to be united.

The question remains, however, how do we live that out?

A Christian Nation

2009-12-28T18:09:00.000-08:00

One of the more bizarre arguments in American politics is the argument over whether or not America is a Christian nation. I've seen many Christians try to make this claim and many more who are willing to defend it. I find this bizarre because, as a Christian, I don't think any nation should call itself a Christian nation.

A Christian nation is one that exercises its authority in the name of Christ. Nations exercise and maintain authority by using force, but this is not how authority works in God's Kingdom. Many nations claim to exercise authority in God's name, but none of them exercise authority the way Jesus did when he came to earth.

As I have already said, no political entity can take the place of God's Kingdom. God's Kingdom is distinctly different from the nations of this world. Hence the phrase "Christian nation" is a contradiction in terms. Nations wield authority in a way that is fundamentally at odds with God's Kingdom.

As Christians our hope is not in some great Christian nation that will oppress the whole world in the name of Jesus Christ. Our hope is that the power of love and humility will one day overcome all the nations that rule by force. When we try to build a "Christian nation" we are working against God's Kingdom.

This is why I don't find it troubling when people say that America isn't a Christian nation. In fact, I find it more troubling when people try to associate political forces and institutions with Christianity. Doing so only serves to confuse the message of Jesus.

If we want to stay faithful to the message of Jesus we can't be going after political power. Jesus' message is about loving others, serving them and valuing them above ourselves. If we make it about having power over them, having the ability to control them through political means, then we're abandoning the work that God has given us to do. That's not something I'm prepared to do.

What is the Holy Spirit?

2009-12-21T09:00:00.000-08:00

I have a few ideas for posts I'd like to write in the near future. These posts have to do with the Holy Spirit. I decided that before I write these posts I aught to write a post describing exactly what the Holy Spirit is, just to make sure that everyone knows what I'm talking about.

The Holy Spirit is perhaps the least understood member of the Trinity, particularly in the West. When the it comes to the holy Trinity, most people understand that the son is Jesus, and they understand that the Father is the one who sent Jesus, but they don't always understand the role of the Holy Spirit.

This is our loss, because the presence of the Holy Spirit is essential to the Christian life.

When Jesus died for us on the cross he died so that we could have fellowship with God. That fellowship is realized when the Holy Spirit dwells in our hearts. The Holy Spirit is how God makes Himself known to everyone who believes in Him. It is no exaggeration to say that the whole point of Jesus going to the cross was so that we could be made ready to receive the Holy Spirit.

Jesus went to the cross so that we could be baptized in the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is how God makes Himself available to us. It is through Holy Spirit that God speaks to us and it is through the Holy Spirit that God lives within us.

This is why I say that the Holy Spirit is essential to the Christian life, because through the Spirit we have fellowship with God. In a sense, this is the only purpose of the Holy Spirit; to bring us close to God. There is more to the activity of the Holy Spirit, but all of it is aimed at drawing people closer to God.

For example, the Holy Spirit transforms us, allowing us to obey God's commands. Indeed, without the Holy Spirit it is impossible to please God, but with the Holy Spirit we are able to do what God asks of us. This is one practical way that the Holy Spirit helps us to draw near to God.

Additionally, the Holy Spirit empowers us to do the work that God has called us to. Through the Holy Spirit we receive God's power in various forms. We receive these gifts so that we may bless others. We receive them so that we may extend the love of God into the world around us. In this way the Holy Spirit allows God draw near to us and to those around us.

I know that for many of us, some of the gifts on that list seem a little strange. We are ignorant about the supernatural and we like to pretend that it doesn't exist. But this is a part of who God is. Part of getting to know God is learning to embrace those things that seem weird to us, the things we don't understand.

To summarize, the Holy Spirit is what allows us to have fellowship with God in the here and now. The Holy Spirit causes God to dwell in our heart. The Holy Spirit transforms our character so that we can obey God. And the Holy Spirit gives us the ability to experience God's supernatural power here on earth.

Television Tropes

2009-12-17T15:08:00.000-08:00

I normally update the blog on Mondays. I'm going to experiment with doing less serious mid week posts to change things up a bit. Let me know if you enjoy the post. I will continue to do the usual Monday posts.

Today I'm going to talk about a marvelous time waster. If you have anything that you need to get done today then you probably shouldn't click on any of the links below. The site I'm about to link you to can be highly addictive and incredibly entertaining.

The site is tv tropes and it's an entertaining wiki that talks about many of the common conventions of television shows, as well as books, films, comics and other forms of entertainment. It's a fun site and a great time waster.

Most people associate the term wiki with the ubiquitous wikipedia, but there are quite a few wikis out there. Wikis have a few interesting properties.

First of all, you can utilize the collaborative nature of the wiki to quickly produce a lot of content. The result is that sites like wikipedia and tv tropes have thousands of pages.

Secondly, because they are extensively cross-linked, wikis make it easy to define new terms. You just create a page describing the term and link it. If the term is popular it catches on and soon everyone on the wiki will start using it. If the wiki is possible enough the term starts to crop up in other parts of the internet as well. (I personally found tv tropes when I was reading a forum discussion about whether or not a particular character qualified as a magnificent bastard.)

For example, many of you may know that the phrase "jumping the shark" refers to the moment when a good show begins to decline in quality. But do you know a phrase that describes that moment when an initially poor show starts getting better? On tv tropes it's called "growing the beard".

The end result, at least in the case of tv tropes, is that once you start reading you'll spend hours following all of the links and learning about all of the strange tropes and conventions used in fiction of various types. Which is why I told you not to click any of the links if you have stuff that you need to do today.

I'm sorry about that.

Science and the Supernatural

2009-12-14T12:32:00.000-08:00

Today's essay is going to be about scientific knowledge and how it relates to God. First I'm going to talk about how scientific knowledge works. Then I'm going to talk about how that relates to God. I'm going to conclude by talking about knowledge that depends on faith.

Science seeks to make sense of the complex universe we live in. Science explains staggeringly complex natural phenomena in terms of relatively simple theories. The behavior of light and of electrons is explained in terms of quantum theory. The behavior of planets is explained in terms of Einstein's theory of relativity. These theories might not seem simple, but they are much simpler than the events that they seek to explain.

Because the goal of science is to simplify matters, scientific theories never explain natural events in terms of divine causes. Planetary motion is complex, but it is much simpler to understand planetary motion than it is to understand the mind of God. The Bible tells us that God's wisdom is unsearchable. For this reason, explaining something natural, like planetary motion, in terms of God's will is counterproductive. We end up with a theory that is more complex than the events that the theory explains.

Therefore God must necessarily be left out of any purely scientific explanation of the universe. This doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. It means that no scientific theory can accommodate an unsearchable being such as God. This is because science is only concerned with things that can be fully understood.

Since science is limited in this way, there are some things that can't be scientifically understood. Scientists study the universe and learn about it's history and about the laws that govern it. In the lab scientists can recreate the conditions of the early universe. But there's no way for scientists to study the creation of a new universe.

We can observe and study the universe as it currently exists, but we can't study the first steps of the process that formed it. We know a lot about our universe, but we don't know how it came about. In other words, what is known was formed by that which is unknown.

This makes it difficult for scientists to answer some basic questions about the nature of our universe. For example, why do the laws of the universe allow complex matter to form? Why was the universe initially in a low entropy state? These questions both deal with the same concern. If the universe had been significantly different from what it is now, then we would never have existed.

These facts give me confidence that God exists. The fact that the universe was formed in such a way that life could evolve suggests that it was not some random or arbitrary process. It also suggests that the universe itself is not arbitrary or meaningless, but that it has a purpose. Or, to put it another way, that God had a purpose in making it.

I think we have good reason to believe in an eternal being that created everything. Unfortunately, we can't study this being the way we study black holes or supernovas. As I said above, what is known was made by that which is unknown. Even the bible tells us that no one has seen God and that God is unknown to us.

God is unlike the rest of creation, in that he cannot be directly studied. Indeed, we would not know anything about God, except possibly that He must exist, if God had not revealed Himself to us. We cannot begin to know God unless he first reveals Himself to us. This is why I encourage people to ask God to reveal Himself to them.

I would like to conclude by clarifying the nature of faith. Some people think that faith is merely belief without evidence. I would argue that faith in God is a belief in something for which there can be no direct evidence. God is beyond our ability to understand or comprehend. Whatever we believe about God we have no choice but to believe without evidence, because there is no evidence to consider. That is what it means to have faith.

Politics and the Kingdom of God

2009-12-07T16:34:00.000-08:00

In my last post I talked about how authority works in the Kingdom of God. Today I'm going to talk about how that teaching applies to politics.

In the prior post I compared political power and authority with power and authority in God's Kingdom and I showed that there are some incredible differences. The basis for political power is force, which is used to coerce people. The basis for power in God's Kingdom is love, which is used to transform people.

If we can grasp this truth then we will realize that the Kingdom of God cannot be brought about by political means. Even if our political agenda is holy and righteous and pure and good, it can never take the place of God's own love. And no political agenda can take the place of our obligation to love others.

When Jesus came into the world He gave up His power. He allowed Himself to be killed so that we could be healed. In the same way we are asked to give up power, to lay down our agendas and love people so that they too can know the love of God and be healed.

We have two options. We can choose to follow Jesus or we can choose to pursue power. When Christians make the latter choice, several unfortunate consequences inevitably follow.

First and foremost, the message of Jesus gets obscured. The Kingdom of God is central to Jesus' teachings. If we replace God's Kingdom with a political message we lose the heart and soul of the good news that Jesus preached. The Kingdom of God isn't a nation or a system of government or a party platform. God's Kingdom is altogether different. When we let a political entity take the place of God's Kingdom, we end up with a kingdom that's not all that different from the oppressive kingdoms of the world.

As a result it becomes harder to share the message of Jesus. The message of Jesus becomes associated with a political message. Anyone who opposes the political message will usually feel some antagonism toward Jesus as well.

Of course, it isn't just outsiders who will be repelled by the political message of the church. Often times fellow Christians will find themselves at odds with "Christian" political views. This can result in groups of Christians splitting off and forming their own church. More often than not, the new church will have its own political agenda, which only makes the problem worse.

Before I finish let me just say that I don't think its wrong for Christians to be involved with politics. I just want to stress the point that God's kingdom is not a political kingdom. God's Kingdom is one of love and humility rather than political power. It is important that we remember that.

Authority and the Kingdom of God

2009-11-30T19:33:00.000-08:00

Today I'm going to talk about what the Bible says about authority. This teaching is one of the central Christian teachings. Sadly, often times Christians fail to understand and correctly apply this teaching.

Along the way, I will begin to answer a question I posed awhile back, namely, What is the Kingdom of God?

First though, let me talk about what we usually mean when we say authority. The first definition in that link is the one I have in mind. It reads "The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine or judge." In other words, authority is the power to govern.

In our screwed-up world authority is a results driven business. For every nation on the planet, their authority, their ability to govern, is backed by force or by the threat of force. Military force is used to guard the borders and prevent revolution, and police forces are used to enforce the laws. This isn't because every nation is evil, though some certainly are. This is because force is an effective means of controlling people and, as I've already said, authority is a results driven business.

Keeping that in mind, the Biblical definition of authority is strange and deeply counter intuitive. The Bible teaches us that the real way to exercise authority is by loving people selflessly. We wield authority when we take care of other people's needs without considering our own.

I'll give you a moment to let that sink in.

One reason why this definition seems so strange is because it is fundamentally backwards. Normally, the whole point of having authority is so that I can get other people to do what I want. Under this strange new definition, authority means the opposite of what we think it should.

Secondly, this definition is strange because it isn't especially results driven to say the least. You could love someone selflessly for their whole life without seeing any results. Love isn't an effective means of persuasion, because, among many other reasons, humans are terribly ungrateful.

Nevertheless this is how the Bible teaches us to rule. Love is the basis for God's authority in the Old Testament. Abraham first follows God because God promises to bless him. Later God leads his people out of Egypt because He had compassion on them. When God gives the Israelites the Law He expects them to obey because He rescued them from Egypt.

Throughout the Old Testament God is always promising to love and care for his people. We tend to assume that the God of the Old Testament is full of judgment and wrath. Indeed there are many times in the Old Testament where God does punish his people, but that is not how he typically reacts. In the Old Testament we see again and again that God is slow to anger and rich in love. God only brings judgment as a last resort.

In Jesus we see the loving kindness of God at its full measure. Jesus comes to Earth and ultimately gives up His life for our sake. In doing this, not only does Jesus give us peace with the Father, he also gives us an example to follow. He gives a model of what real authority looks like. He shows us what His Kingdom looks like.

Perhaps the passage where we see most clearly how the role of servant and king come together in John 13. In that passage we see that even though Jesus humbled Himself to serve them, He was still their king. Indeed he was a king because of his humble service, not in spite of it.

This teaching has a lot of implications for how Christians aught to live. It is one of the most important teachings in all of scripture. Indeed, this teaching helps to clarify a lot of what is said elsewhere in the Bible. It also serves as a powerful illustration of what the Christian way of life really is.

Evolution and the Beginning

2009-11-23T18:31:00.000-08:00

Today I'm going to be talking about the first three chapters of Genesis. I'll be talking about what it means and why I don't think it contradicts the theory of evolution.

The first three chapters of Genesis are about God and his relationship with nature and his relationship with humanity. The core message of these chapters is that there is only one God who created everything. He created everything that we perceive with our senses. He made people to rule the earth and they lived with God in paradise. But a deceiver tricked humanity into rebelling against God. As punishment, humanity was banished from paradise, but God promised that humanity would one day have victory over the deceiver.

The rest of the scripture follows from here. It is the story of God working through humanity to give us victory over evil and brings us back into paradise and back into relationship with Him. I know I'm only talking about Genesis 1-3, but I want to emphasize that this scripture is a vital part of God's message for humanity.

People who read this scripture often get hung up on the many details that seem implausible to us. Some people use them as an excuse to disregard the message of the bible altogether. Others insist that we must believe that creation unfolded exactly as Genesis describes, no matter how unlikely it seems. I believe that so long as we understand the core message of scripture, whether we believe that creation took seven days or several billion years isn't terribly important.

A lot of Christians will insist that it's important that we read these early chapters of Genesis literally. What most people don't realize is that ever since the beginning Christians have been interpreting these passages figuratively. For example, most Christians agree that the serpent in Genesis 3 is actually Satan in disguise (hence the reference in Revelation to "That ancient serpent".) A merely literal reading of Genesis 1-3 provides no evidence for that conclusion, yet it is a pivotal element of Christian theology. To give another example, the opening verses in the Gospel of John are a figurative reinterpretation of Genesis 1. John equates the "light" in Genesis 1 with the life of Jesus of Nazareth.

Having said that, I'd like to address the question I posed at the beginning. Can Genesis 1-3 be reconciled with the theory of evolution? The main issue, as I see it, is the claim that people, plants and animals were made by God. However, this claim is not a problem if we believe that God worked through natural means, like evolution, to form each of these things. This idea isn't contrary to scripture in any way. Indeed God tells Jeshurun that He made him and formed him in his mothers womb. Here we see that God can work through completely natural means to bring about His desired end and I personally believe that that is what he did when he made Adam and Eve.

Why do I interpret the Bible this way? There are two reasons. The first reason is because I believe that God is not a deceiver. When we try to understand the natural world we should go where the evidence takes us. If it appears as though all life has a common ancestor, then either all life has a common ancestor or God is playing a practical joke on us. I chose to believe the former.

The second reason has to do with my view on the nature of scripture. I believe that the Bible is divinely inspired, but I also believe that that divinely inspired message was written for people of a particular time and place. As such it was written in terms that they would understand and accept. All of the strange details of early Genesis that confuse us are things that made perfect sense to the people that the book was originally written for. God was gracious to give them the message in terms that they could understand, and I believe that we have the right to interpret the scriptures and apply its message in terms that we can understand.

I hope you found my explanation satisfying or at least interesting. Feel free to comment and let me know what you think. I welcome any criticism or compliments you may have.

When is the Kingdom Coming?

2009-11-16T16:50:00.000-08:00

This post is influenced by The Gospel of the Kingdom by George Ladd. If you find this post interesting and you want to know more I would recommend reading it. I don't agree with everything he says, but I definitely think that the book is worth reading.

I've already talked about what the Kingdom of God is and why the Kingdom of God is important. Today I'll be talking about an even more challenging issue. When is the Kingdom coming?

Perhaps the most common view is that God's Kingdom will come in the future. According to this view we only truly enter the Kingdom of God when Christ returns or when we die.

If we look at scripture we will find some support for this view. Jesus talks about the Kingdom of God as an inheritance which we will receive in the future. Also, the book of Revelation speaks of the day when the kingdoms of this world shall become the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ.

However, if we continue to look at scripture we will see many instances where Jesus seems to be saying that the Kingdom is about to arrive or that it is already here. He talks about people entering the Kingdom of God now and he tells people that the Kingdom of God has come upon them.

After reading all these passages it can seem a little confusing. In some it seems as though the Kingdom has already come. In others it seems as though it won't come
until Christ returns.

How do we make sense of all this? Amid the sea of seemingly contradictory statements that the Bible makes about the Kingdom of God, there are two parables that Jesus uses to describe God's Kingdom that will help us to understand what is going on.

Jesus says that the Kingdom of God is like a tiny seed or like a small bit of yeast. The tiny seed grows into a bush so big that the birds of the air can build their nests in it. The small bit of yeast is eventually works through an enormous batch of dough so that the whole thing rises.

The Bible makes it clear that the Kingdom of God is here among us right now. Jesus brought it with him when he came to earth as a small, seemingly insignificant baby. Through the ministry of Jesus and the work of the Holy Spirit God's Kingdom has come to earth.

At the same time the Kingdom of God isn't fully here. The Kingdom of God still needs to grow and expand and do its work. In the meantime we wait for the day when we can say that, at last, God's Kingdom has come.

So to answer the question I started with, the Kingdom of God has already come, it is coming right now, and it will come in the future. I hope that clears things up for you.

(Dis)Unity and the Church

2009-11-09T17:08:00.000-08:00

I wrote this post after this post on Interetmonk got me thinking about Christian unity. Today I'm going to talk about the brokenness of the American church and reflect on how we got here.

One of the major teachings in the New Testament is that Christians should be united. In John 17 Jesus prays that all who believe in Him should be one. Likewise, Christian unity is a major theme in Paul's letters. Paul's letters to the Romans, Ephesians and his first letter to the Corinthians all address the issue of unity in the church.

I want to talk about how these words are lived out. I would like to talk about how Jesus' prayer has been answered. I would like to talk about how Paul's instructions are being lived out by the church. I would like to talk about these things, but I can't, because the sad truth is that the church is very deeply divided.

I should know. I'm part of the American Evangelical church. As a group, we're some of the least united and most divisive Christians around. We might talk about unity among believers, but all too often we fail to live it out, even in our local church. Even though we may say that we value unity our actions reveal a different picture.

It's not surprising that we evangelicals have a hard time with unity when you consider our history. First of all, Evangelical churches are part of the Protestant tradition, which means that we're separated from the Roman Catholic church. And ever since the Council of Trent, when the Catholic/Protestant split became official, Protestants have tried, and failed, to present a unified front against Roman Catholicism.

Very quickly, different groups of Protestants began to separate themselves, not only from Rome, but also from each other. Over time these different groups of Protestants formed many different denominations that are still with us today.

When Protestantism came to America new groups and new denominations began to form even more rapidly. You see, unlike most of Europe, America has a long history of freedom of religion. This makes it easier for new denominations and new church groups to form because the Government isn't trying to impose a single religion on its populace.

Today not only do we have hundreds of different denominations of Christianity, but we also have an increasing number of nondenominational churches. In one sense nondenominational churches can be seen as a less divisive, since they don't make the problem worse by forming a new division. The problem is that these churches are typically independent, not only from denominations, but also from each other. As a consequence, these days the American Evangelical church is broken up into thousands of tiny pieces.

In such an environment it's easy to see why people feel apathetic about unity in the church. With American Evangelicals broken fellowships are the rule rather than the exception.

Disunity in the church is a problem we have inherited, but that doesn't mean that we have to accept it. I believe that with God's help that we can reunite the broken fellowships and bring unity back to the church. In future posts I will be talking about how unity among Christians happens and how we can pursue it.

Testing the God Hypothesis

2009-11-02T17:04:00.000-08:00

As I've said before, I believe that God works miracles. The reason why I have that belief is simple; I've seen God work miracles in my life and in the lives of my friends. I've heard arguments to convince people that God exists and that he performs miracles, but I don't find them especially convincing. I think it's something that people need to see for themselves.

To that end, I offer the following advice to anyone who may be wondering whether or not God actually exists. You should try asking God to reveal himself to you. First ask for a sign that God exists or perhaps for some small miracle. Then keep your eyes open and see what happens.

Something might happen right away, but in my experience these things often take time. If you feel like nothing's happening, you can try again. If you feel like maybe something's happening, but you're not sure, try asking God to be more clear.

Some people might think that asking God for a sign like this is putting God to the test. But, so long as you're honestly seeking God, merely asking for a sign isn't putting God to the test.

To understand why, we need to look at why that command was given. God gave Israel this command after an incident in Exodus 17. Reading the passage we see that the Israelites demanded that Moses give them water to drink. Some people jump to the conclusion that they put God to the test by demanding that God perform a sign, but that's not all that's going on here.

In the text it says that they tested God by asking, "Is God with us or not?" This passage comes after God sends plagues on Egypt. It comes after the Israelites are rescued out of Egypt. It comes after they've passed through the Red Sea. It even comes after God has sent Mana to feed them. The real reason why they're putting God to the test is that, after seeing all of that, they still doubt that God is with them. They test God because they don't believe in his goodness even after all that he has done for them.

In fact, as we look through the Bible we see that in some cases, not asking for a sign can get you in trouble. In Isaiah 7, God tells King Ahaz to ask for a sign, anything he wants. King Ahaz politely declines, saying that he doesn't want to put God to the test. Isaiah takes issue with his response, and with good reason.

The whole point of God offering King Ahaz a sign is that God knows that King Ahaz is in a tough spot and is about to make a bad decision. Two neighboring kingdoms have made an alliance against Judah (Ahaz's Kingdom) and are preparing to attack. God tells Ahaz not to worry and, since he knows that King Ahaz has little faith, he offers to give King Ahaz a sign. King Ahaz refuses God and asks Assyria to help instead.

The common thread in both of those stories is that they refuse to trust God. In the former case they refuse to trust God despite everything that God has done for them. In the later case the King refuses to trust God even though God offers to perform a great miracle for him.

The last example that I want to give comes from the Gospel of Matthew. In Matthew 4 Satan tempts Jesus by suggesting that he jump from the roof of the temple and count on God to save him. Jesus refuses to put God to the test. This is because Jesus does trust God, and he doesn't need some dramatic, supernatural rescue to prove that God is good.

That's why I think it's okay to ask God for a sign. For people who don't believe in God it can even be a good thing. It gives God an opportunity to reveal himself, and it gives you a chance to learn that God is good and that he can be trusted.

So, does anyone feel up for trying it? Leave a comment and let me know how it goes.

Science, Christianity and the Sovereignty of God

2009-10-26T12:59:00.000-07:00

As an evangelical Christian I sometimes feel like a bit of an oddity because, unlike many other evangelical Christians, I have no problem with science. I like science. I think science is useful for understanding our universe. I don't believe that any scientific theory threatens my belief system in any way.

I think most Christians, even a lot of evangelical Christians, feel the same way. The problem is that we don't express our beliefs as often or as forcefully as Christians who oppose science. Today I'm going to begin to explain my position and why I feel that it's well justified by both scripture and by experience.

The obvious thing to do would be to talk about evolution and the book of Genesis, but I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to do it, first of all, because that's a topic that deserves its own post. The second reason I'm not going to do it is because, while that's the hot button issue in our culture right now, that's not really what this debate is about.

At its heart this debate is really about the sovereignty of God.

For a Christian that's the only question that matters in this debate. Is God still in control or not? For some reason people seem to believe that every time scientists invent some new theory to explain how the universe works, God looses some of his power. As though scientists are somehow gaining mastery over the universe merely by understanding it.

The first thing we need to understand is that God is in charge of completely natural processes. The Bible says that he created everything and that he sustains everything. If the universe behaves in an orderly fashion according to scientific principles, it's because God made it that way. In fact, it shouldn't be surprising that it works that way because God is a God of order.

The other reason that people might think that science impinges on God's sovereignty is because scientific theories define what is and isn't possible. This is a more serious concern, especially if you believe that God can work miracles, which I do.

It's this second consideration that prompted me to write the post, Science as a Worldview. In that post I make the claim that, while science is a reliable source of knowledge, it isn't the only source of knowledge. Along with that I would also say that, while the universe usually conforms with known scientific theories, it doesn't always.

Some might argue that because I don't believe that science is always true I don't really believe in the scientific method. It's true that I don't hold scientific claims to be absolutely true under every circumstance. But I do believe that science does provide an explanation for how the universe typically works. I think this knowledge is still invaluable, even if it's not true in every single circumstance.

In any case, scientific knowledge doesn't require absolute belief. In fact, science wouldn't be able to progress if scientists weren't allowed to question accepted scientific theories. The fact that people are allowed to question science is possibly its greatest strength.

There is, of course, much more to be said about this topic. In future posts I'll be talking more about science and miracles. I'll also talk about evolution and the book of Genesis. Please leave a comment if you'd like to hear more about either of those two topics, or if you want to respond to what I've written so far.

The Importance of the Kingdom of God

2009-10-19T13:56:00.000-07:00

I've written a post previously asking the question, "What is the Kingdom of God?" Today's post is going to be about why that question is central to Christian theology.

First and foremost, the Kingdom of God is important because it is central to the message of Jesus. As I've already mentioned, Jesus talked about the Kingdom of God more than any other subject. When Jesus preaches good news to people, he's preaching the good news of the Kingdom of God.

(If you don't believe me, go to Bible Gateway and search for "good news". Every time the words appear on Jesus' lips he's either preaching the good news of the kingdom or he's quoting a passage from Isaiah about the Kingdom of God.)

That right there is fairly significant. Most people know that Christians are supposed to evangelize. Some people even know that evangelism means telling people the good news. In Jesus' case, good news meant good news about the Kingdom of God. We don't usually think of evangelism as telling people about the Kingdom of God, but it's pretty clear that Jesus thought of it that way.

The second reason it's important it is the first thing that Jesus tells us to pray for. When Jesus teaches his followers how to pray, he gives an example prayer that we call the Lord's Prayer. As you can see, in it, the first thing he prays for is for God's Kingdom to come. And Jesus' early followers probably prayed like this several times a day.

The third reason it's important is because Jesus tells us that our first priority should be to seek the Kingdom of God. Jesus tells his followers not to worry about food or clothing. He tells them to seek God's kingdom and let God take care of the rest. This is a bold teaching that really underlines how important the Kingdom of God really is.

The Kingdom of God is important because, as Christians we are called to tell people about the Kingdom of God, pray for God's Kingdom to come and seek God's Kingdom ahead of everything else. In other words, the whole Christian life revolves around the Kingdom of God. If we have a flawed or a deficient understanding of God's Kingdom it impacts everything we do as Christians.

That's why I think it's important for believers to think about what the Kingdom of God truly is. More than anything else, it's the one concept that shapes the whole religion.

What is Knowledge?

2009-10-12T15:47:00.000-07:00

This is a question that is easy to ask, but can be difficult to answer. In order to answer we need to understand what it means to say that we know something. This study is called Epistemology. If you're not up for reading a long Wikipedia article, this comic also offers a pretty good explanation of epistemology.

If you'd read either of the two links you would know the most common answer. Knowledge is, "Justified, true belief." When we say that we know x, we mean that we have good reason to believe that x is true. There are some problems with that answer, but it's a good start.

The nice thing about this definition is that it's simple. We all know what beliefs are, and I think we all know what truth is. The interesting question is, what counts as a justification? How do we know that our beliefs are justified? That's the question I'm interested in answering.

First of all, there are some beliefs that seem to be self evident. These beliefs don't have a clear justification. These beliefs are our basic assumptions about how the world works. Some of these beliefs can be almost invisible. They're so basic that it doesn't even occur to us that they might be questioned.

For example, most of the time we assume that our memories and our sense perceptions are accurate. We know that at times both can be deceived, but under normal circumstances we don't need to provide an explanation for why our senses and our memories can be trusted.

Another example is logic. If you've taken a logic course, then you've probably been taught that logical arguments are truth-preserving. Most people accept that that is true without the need for any further justification. Indeed, it's hard to imagine how someone would provide further justification for that belief.

The interesting thing about this first class of beliefs is, just because something seems self evident to us doesn't mean that it actually is self evident. If you and everyone around you shares a similar belief system then it is natural to assume that those beliefs are self evident. For this reason I think it's good to interact with people with radically different beliefs. They keep us honest and force us to examine our beliefs.

Of course, most of our knowledge isn't self evident. Most of our beliefs require some form of justification. Loosely speaking, these justifications can come in one of two forms.

First of all, some of our beliefs are justified logically. We start with those beliefs that we consider to be self evident and we use some form of logical reasoning to discover additional truths.

Secondly, some of our beliefs are justified by experience. Assuming that we can trust our perceptions and our memories they can be a rich source of knowledge.

In practice, most of the things we know represent a synthesis of our basic assumptions, our reasoning ability and our perceptions. All of these factors come into play when we talk about what we know.

The problem is that these are complicated issues and we don't all address them the same way. The result is that two different people can end up having very different beliefs, even if they're both very smart and they both think things through very carefully.

What about you? What assumptions do you make about the world? What roles do reason and experience play in shaping your beliefs?

The Eschatology of Star Trek

2009-10-05T19:49:00.000-07:00

Talking about the eschatology of a show like Star Trek is silly for two reasons. The first reason is that eschatology is normally a religious term and Star Trek isn't exactly religious programming. The second reason is that eschatology deals with serious beliefs about the future and Star Trek is a work of science fiction whose purpose is to entertain.

That being said, I'm going to do so anyway. The first reason is because, as I said in my post about eschatology, I think that the term can reasonably be applied to any beliefs about the future that affect how we live our lives in the present. The second reason is that, while Star Trek is a work of fiction, in many ways it represents Gene Roddenberry's vision of what life in the future would be like. The third, and most important, reason is because it's an interesting thing to think about.

I think we can talk about the eschatology of Star Trek in terms of a few major claims that the show makes about our future. The first claim I want to talk about is the claim that technology will one day solve all of our problems. This claim is common in a lot of science fiction writing. This sentiment is best expressed by the maxim, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Out in space there are still problems, but even those are often solved by the correct use of their technology. The shows and movies make it clear that on Earth, problems like violence and poverty have been solved centuries ago. The message is pretty clear. If we want to make the world a better place, we should invest our time and energy into developing new sciences and new technology.

The next claim is one that comes up less often, and they aren't always consistent with it, but it sometimes get mentioned that within the Federation they no longer use money. This is likely related to the first point. If technology has eliminated all of our problems, including scarcity, then it makes sense that traditional economic models would all be out the window.

Of course, when they say that in the future we won't be using money anymore they're making a significant statement. The implication is that Capitalism is a flawed economic system and someday we'll realize that we're better off without it. The present day implications of this belief are a little less clear, since there aren't ever any detailed discussions about economics in the twenty-fourth century. At the very least, though, it seems to suggest that our current economic system is flawed and that we should be looking for a better alternative.

The last claim I want to talk about is that in the future most people won't take religion seriously. This isn't true of the original series, but in Star Trek: The Next Generation it's pretty clear that religious beliefs like Christianity are viewed as backwards superstitions. Some people may hold on to beliefs because of tradition or to provide moral guidance, but nobody seems to believe in a God who answers prayers.

When religion comes up, the main characters will often say that the people of Earth used to be religious, but they have since outgrown such silly superstitions. The implications of this belief are pretty clear. Gods and spiritual forces don't exist, and the people who believe in such things are irrational. Furthermore, society will be better off when no one takes those kinds of beliefs seriously anymore.

It's an interesting view of the future and when I was growing up I tended to agree with it. Obviously my views have shifted quite a bit since then. Watching Star Trek these days is interesting because it shows me how much my opinions have changed over the years.

I'm interested to hear what you have to say. What do you think of Star Trek's vision of the future? How does it line up with your beliefs about humanity's future?

What is the Nature of Scripture?

2009-09-28T19:16:00.000-07:00

I've already mentioned that I believe that the Bible is divinely inspired. Today I would like to take some time to talk about what I mean by that. I want to talk about the nature of scripture and the role that God played in its creation. This is an important question to consider because how we believe divine inspiration works can have a big impact on how we interpret the Bible. Without a good understanding of what we mean by "divine inspiration" it's impossible to understand how a divinely inspired text aught to be read.

I think that most people, by default, hold a view that I like to call the stone tablet theory. The term comers from the book of Exodus, in which God gives Moses a stone tablet with the Law of God already written on it. The stone tablet theory is the assumption that the whole Bible was written this way. The idea is that the whole Bible is a message directly from God to humanity. It's truths are timeless and universal, and it's human authors are mere mouthpieces who faithfully pass the message, exactly as they heard it, to us.

I don't mean to say that the Bible isn't a message from God, or that we aren't meant to understand it. I simply want to say that the reality is somewhat more complicated. The Bible actually consists of several books written over a span of more than a thousand years. The books are written by many different authors using several different styles, and the books are written for different groups of people. Most importantly, none of the books in the Bible are written specifically for 21st century Americans.

All of these factors affect how we read and understand the books of the Bible in some way. When I say that I believe that the Bible is divinely inspired I mean that the original message and meaning of every Biblical text was given by God. The key to interpreting scripture is to understand what a text meant when it was originally written. Once we have determined the text's original meaning, to the best of our ability, we can then try to apply that meaning to our own lives. But if we skip that first step we risk missing the meaning of the text altogether.

Not only will we miss the original meaning, but our reading will be affected by all of our assumptions about what the text should mean. These assumptions will skew our reading of the text in subtle ways. In the end we will have the impression that we understood the text perfectly when, in fact, we may have completely misunderstood the text. This is a serious concern for those of us who consider the Bible a holy text. If we are committed to living our lives according to what the Bible says, then we should be just as committed to making sure that we understand it correctly.

This also means that we should be careful not to accept other people's interpretations of scripture at face value. If someone presents us with an interpretation of scripture we've never seen before, we should check their work. We should try to understand how they've arrived at their interpretation. At the very least we can screen out the more ridiculous interpretations this way.

I'll write more about how to interpret scripture in the future. For now I want to ask, what is the most obviously false interpretation of scripture you've heard?