I watched East of Eden last night, based on the book by John Steinbeck, starring James Dean. The most dominant theme that struck me was the contrast between two sides of morality. On the one hand we have people that strive to live by moral principles, but fail to have basic human compassion - Adam and Aron. On the other hand, we have people who have great compassion, but fail to place any value on moral principle - Cal and Abra. The obvious implication that God falls into the former of these categories is unfortunate. Adam and Aron are repeatedly referred to as "good", when in fact they come off quite heartless. God could not be God without compassion. And moral principle is only part of what it means to be "good".
American politics, and our wicked two party system, tend to lead us to believe that we must choose between compassion and morality. The liberals are supposed to believe in compassion, but utterly reject morality. Extreme liberals often even see the morality that most of us trust in itself as a great source of evil. The conservatives, on the other hand, are supposed to believe in morality, but completely dismiss compassion. If everyone were moral, they say, there would be no need for compassion in the political spectrum. It is "not the role of government", they say, to be kind, or to show compassion. This is also known as passing the buck.
Those of us who value both morality and compassion find ourselves alienated on both sides of American politics. We get yelled at very angrily by people on both sides. What becomes clear when you take a stand for civility and reason, and reject the singular rightness of extreme arguments is that the divide in American politics is false. It is an illusion which traps us away from truly benign governance and steals away our will to press for policy which is simply good and wise, and balanced.
Why must we believe that our law must either respect a woman's right to choose or a fetus' right to live, but not both. Isn't forcing a woman who has been violently raped by her uncle to bear his child and raise that child in abject poverty evil? And isn't granting a woman the right to murder countless unborn children for her own convenience, because she can't be bothered to be responsible with her power to create life also evil? There are other countries on this planet who have managed to write laws which walk an appropriate middle road, outlawing evil things, allowing good things, and presuming innocence in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Why can't we believe in the value of the individual as well as the value of the collective? There are some things that are better handled via individual choice, and others that affect everyone equally, and are natural public decisions. Some things are private, and it would be a violation to uncover them. Other things would be wrong to hide. Some people constantly say that they don't want the government to tell them what to do. They need to see that they are not alone on this land, and as long as what they do affects others, we have a right to formulate laws to govern each other. They are also right to be wary of tyranny. Although our country as a whole is far from tyrannical, there are occasionally individuals in government that abuse their authority unjustly. They must be stopped. It is my opinion though, that we are far wiser at the moment to be on our guard against corporate tyranny.
Often I find people very disillusioned with their government. While the two party system does very much cripple our democratic process as long as it remains firmly seated, it remains very much our choice who we elect. It's true that many of our representatives are little more than puppets. But they are our puppets. It is our responses to the polls that they pander to. What those polls consistently reveal is that nearly half of us just hate the other half of us and all of their ideas. So our puppets have their marching orders.
Existence of God: The motive for doubt.
Why do atheists cling so strongly to the idea that God does not exist? The easy explanation that many religious people might readily suggest is that they don't want to follow God's commands, that out of selfishness, they rebel against God, and dismiss His existence to excuse themselves. I think there is some truth to this explanation in many cases, but for most atheists, I don't think this plays a significant role. There is a much bigger picture.
If we believe in God, and if we believe in the scripture He provides for us, then we ought to also believe in His adversary. He has employed a lot of very clever tricks to convince the world that atheism is a reasonable, plausible perspective. Chief among these, in my opinion, is false religion. Many of the very people who find atheism so shocking, participate in a church which grooms them to act like hypocritical jerks at every turn. Or they have elected to buy into some completely laughable idea, and call it God's word. False prophecy, fake healings, glossolalia, etc., all surrounded by constant appeals for more money - these are probably the cause of more atheism than all the Richard Dawkinses that have ever lived. If I thought that's what religion had to offer, I would have serious motive to doubt the whole thing too.
Similar, in effect, to false religion, is true religion abused by weak and sinful men. There are people who take advantage of religious authority to do evil things, like embezzling tithes, or molesting children. Others don't set out to do evil, but utterly fail to walk their talk, and ultimately smear the image of God's church when their hypocrisy is exposed.
I believe this "bad religion" is far more convincing of the idea that God may not exist at all than any number of persuasive atheist philosophies. After seeing enough bad religions which you can definitively determine are not of any real God, it's easy to start thinking that if you've seen one, you've seen them all. I don't think this is an unreasonable conclusion to come to. So perhaps as believers, when we encounter devout atheists, we ought to humbly accept our own role in their confusion, and remove the beam from our own eye, before attempting to remove the mote from our brother's eye.
If we believe in God, and if we believe in the scripture He provides for us, then we ought to also believe in His adversary. He has employed a lot of very clever tricks to convince the world that atheism is a reasonable, plausible perspective. Chief among these, in my opinion, is false religion. Many of the very people who find atheism so shocking, participate in a church which grooms them to act like hypocritical jerks at every turn. Or they have elected to buy into some completely laughable idea, and call it God's word. False prophecy, fake healings, glossolalia, etc., all surrounded by constant appeals for more money - these are probably the cause of more atheism than all the Richard Dawkinses that have ever lived. If I thought that's what religion had to offer, I would have serious motive to doubt the whole thing too.
Similar, in effect, to false religion, is true religion abused by weak and sinful men. There are people who take advantage of religious authority to do evil things, like embezzling tithes, or molesting children. Others don't set out to do evil, but utterly fail to walk their talk, and ultimately smear the image of God's church when their hypocrisy is exposed.
I believe this "bad religion" is far more convincing of the idea that God may not exist at all than any number of persuasive atheist philosophies. After seeing enough bad religions which you can definitively determine are not of any real God, it's easy to start thinking that if you've seen one, you've seen them all. I don't think this is an unreasonable conclusion to come to. So perhaps as believers, when we encounter devout atheists, we ought to humbly accept our own role in their confusion, and remove the beam from our own eye, before attempting to remove the mote from our brother's eye.
Existence of God: Atheism requires tremendous faith.
Atheists tend to believe that their view is based in solid irrefutable logic. Some atheists ridicule believers in deity, because they feel such a belief is devoid of logic and reason. I've many times seen atheists argue that just because we do not know or understand how each step in evolution and abiogenesis works does not mean that it didn't happen. Our failure to completely prove the case for evolution is not evidence of a creator. This is true. Lack of proof against God's existence does not prove that He does exist. However, the reverse is also true, and atheists regularly fail to recognize this.
One blogger recently stated that he used to be an evangelical Christian until he realized that God was just something in his imagination. I have no reason to doubt his story; his entire perception and conception of God may well have been in his imagination. How similar, I wonder, was this imagined deity to the actual God I speak with regularly? My conception of George Washington is entirely imaginary. Certainly if I tried to have a conversation with him today, it would be only in my imagination. However, that does nothing to build a case against General Washington's existence. Indeed there is ample historical proof that he did live here 200 years ago. The same is true of God, but that is not, primarily, why I believe.
Similarly, I have heard many atheists state that they prayed and received no answer. From their tone, it is often obvious that their prayer was not given in faith, a well-known prerequisite for receiving an answer. God can exist and leave any number of prayers unanswered, but only one answered prayer is enough to prove His existence once and for all. Suitably, only the person offering the prayer ever knows with certainty when one is answered.
There is no proof that God does not exist. To be fair, proving the non-existence of a thing is usually quite difficult. However, what is ignored in atheist thought is the mountain of evidence for His existence. There are written histories which tell of His actions. Modern miracles occur daily. His followers, like myself, bare witness of His existence. And there are many scientific discoveries, such as the design of lifeforms, the balance of natural laws in the universe, which point strongly in the direction of a designer, even if they prove nothing conclusively, so far.
When I first sought to know God, it required a leap of faith. Now that I have received answers to prayers, witnessed miracles, and speak with Him daily, it does not require faith. It is knowledge. Atheism, on the other hand, requires a great deal of faith every day. An atheist must actively ignore and excuse countless facts pointing to the existence of God. They must maintain that many of the people they know are either dishonest or delusional. They must convince themselves that scriptural record is a vast conspiracy spanning centuries, and involving countless conspirators, generation after generation. And when faced with the strong appearance of fine engineering throughout the mechanics of lifeforms, and with the extraordinary improbability of this universe existing in a form where life could exist at all, atheists must have faith that this is a rare exception to the principles of Occam's razor. They must believe that the extraordinarily improbable explanation, accident, is the correct one. What drives such faith? What motive, or motives, drive atheists to work so hard to maintain such extraordinary faith? I think I will deal with that question in another thread.
One blogger recently stated that he used to be an evangelical Christian until he realized that God was just something in his imagination. I have no reason to doubt his story; his entire perception and conception of God may well have been in his imagination. How similar, I wonder, was this imagined deity to the actual God I speak with regularly? My conception of George Washington is entirely imaginary. Certainly if I tried to have a conversation with him today, it would be only in my imagination. However, that does nothing to build a case against General Washington's existence. Indeed there is ample historical proof that he did live here 200 years ago. The same is true of God, but that is not, primarily, why I believe.
Similarly, I have heard many atheists state that they prayed and received no answer. From their tone, it is often obvious that their prayer was not given in faith, a well-known prerequisite for receiving an answer. God can exist and leave any number of prayers unanswered, but only one answered prayer is enough to prove His existence once and for all. Suitably, only the person offering the prayer ever knows with certainty when one is answered.
There is no proof that God does not exist. To be fair, proving the non-existence of a thing is usually quite difficult. However, what is ignored in atheist thought is the mountain of evidence for His existence. There are written histories which tell of His actions. Modern miracles occur daily. His followers, like myself, bare witness of His existence. And there are many scientific discoveries, such as the design of lifeforms, the balance of natural laws in the universe, which point strongly in the direction of a designer, even if they prove nothing conclusively, so far.
When I first sought to know God, it required a leap of faith. Now that I have received answers to prayers, witnessed miracles, and speak with Him daily, it does not require faith. It is knowledge. Atheism, on the other hand, requires a great deal of faith every day. An atheist must actively ignore and excuse countless facts pointing to the existence of God. They must maintain that many of the people they know are either dishonest or delusional. They must convince themselves that scriptural record is a vast conspiracy spanning centuries, and involving countless conspirators, generation after generation. And when faced with the strong appearance of fine engineering throughout the mechanics of lifeforms, and with the extraordinary improbability of this universe existing in a form where life could exist at all, atheists must have faith that this is a rare exception to the principles of Occam's razor. They must believe that the extraordinarily improbable explanation, accident, is the correct one. What drives such faith? What motive, or motives, drive atheists to work so hard to maintain such extraordinary faith? I think I will deal with that question in another thread.
Basic Assumptions: Life Has Purpose
Whether or not life has any purpose is a profoundly important question to answer. As conscious beings, the effect we have upon the world is dependent upon the choices we make and the actions we take. If life has a purpose, and yet we operate in ignorance of it, we run the risk of frustrating that purpose.
Those who believe that life has a purpose view the whole world fundamentally different from those who do not. Those who believe that life has a purpose believe that the universe is fundmamentally ordered. Those who believe there is no purpose believe that the universe is fundamentally chaotic. Observation can be used to support either view. When we look out into the cosmos, we see a universe of discrete objects - galaxies, stars, etc. Matter obeys a consistent set of laws. Everything has order. Yet entropy is a law that seems unbreakable, insisting that chaos constantly increases in the universe, never decreasing, thus guaranteeing an eventual fall into absolute chaos. What purpose could life have in a universe doomed for absolute chaos, and lifelessness? On the other hand, how could order currently exist if entropy was the whole of the law? The existence of order in the universe implies a purposeful creation. And if the universe has order and purpose, then so must self-aware life, arguably the most significant thing in existence.
Among other reasons, I must assume that life has a purpose, because if it does not, ther is no reason for philosophy or reason, or anything at all.
Those who believe that life has a purpose view the whole world fundamentally different from those who do not. Those who believe that life has a purpose believe that the universe is fundmamentally ordered. Those who believe there is no purpose believe that the universe is fundamentally chaotic. Observation can be used to support either view. When we look out into the cosmos, we see a universe of discrete objects - galaxies, stars, etc. Matter obeys a consistent set of laws. Everything has order. Yet entropy is a law that seems unbreakable, insisting that chaos constantly increases in the universe, never decreasing, thus guaranteeing an eventual fall into absolute chaos. What purpose could life have in a universe doomed for absolute chaos, and lifelessness? On the other hand, how could order currently exist if entropy was the whole of the law? The existence of order in the universe implies a purposeful creation. And if the universe has order and purpose, then so must self-aware life, arguably the most significant thing in existence.
Among other reasons, I must assume that life has a purpose, because if it does not, ther is no reason for philosophy or reason, or anything at all.
Basic Assumptions: Good and Evil
In the presence of all relevant facts, choices can be accurately and objectively denoted as good and/or evil. Good and evil is not a matter of opinion. Assessment of good or evil is a skill that can be honed to more accurately reflect the objective reality.
All of us recognize the difference between good and evil without being taught. What must be taught is the great value of doing good over the value of serving our lower natures. Guidance is also valuable as we learn to make fine distinctions in the relative value of good choices, and the relative cost of evil ones. This is especially important when every available option is both good and evil to some degree.
Certain things are rather easy. Taking the life of another is evil. There are times when we consider it to be justified, but even so, the killing itself is understood to be evil, and some other good that may come of the death is considered to outweigh the evil. It is in measuring the weight of some good against the weight of some evil where we contend with each other. The most difficult moral decisions are those in which the ratio of good to evil in each option seems very close to one.
One area where we often disagree passionately about what is the greater good or the greater evil, is abortion policy. The most passionate pro-choice advocate recognizes the value of the life of the unborn fetus, and the evil in destroying it. The most passionate pro-life advocate recognizes the value of a woman's freedom to choose, and the evil in taking it. The disagreement begins in the evaluation of how evil each alternative is. And there are many levels of cascading consequences that result of whatever choice might be made. We might consider the quality of life or degree of happiness that child might enjoy or suffer. We might consider the effect of the potential life on other lives to which the child would be closely tied. We might consider how each policy will affect the health of women. We might consider a woman's level of competency in making such a decision under the influence of pregnancy hormones. Each of these things has a weight that affects the overall decision.
In any choice, if we knew and understood more, we could discern more clearly the values of each aspect of the choice and the weight of the good and evil that would be done. The less we understand, the less accurate will be our perceptions of the relative weights of good against evil. It stands to reason then, that if we knew everything, if we were omniscient, we could perfectly discern the weight of good and evil in each possible option. No matter how small the difference in value, we could determine with certainty which choice is best, with perfect objectivity.
Therefore, good and evil is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of knowledge and understanding. There is always one greatest moral option. If we wish to do good, our quest is to discover that correct choice, and make that choice. If we simply choose what we want, and try to justify our choice after the fact, we are playing an entirely different sort of game.
All of us recognize the difference between good and evil without being taught. What must be taught is the great value of doing good over the value of serving our lower natures. Guidance is also valuable as we learn to make fine distinctions in the relative value of good choices, and the relative cost of evil ones. This is especially important when every available option is both good and evil to some degree.
Certain things are rather easy. Taking the life of another is evil. There are times when we consider it to be justified, but even so, the killing itself is understood to be evil, and some other good that may come of the death is considered to outweigh the evil. It is in measuring the weight of some good against the weight of some evil where we contend with each other. The most difficult moral decisions are those in which the ratio of good to evil in each option seems very close to one.
One area where we often disagree passionately about what is the greater good or the greater evil, is abortion policy. The most passionate pro-choice advocate recognizes the value of the life of the unborn fetus, and the evil in destroying it. The most passionate pro-life advocate recognizes the value of a woman's freedom to choose, and the evil in taking it. The disagreement begins in the evaluation of how evil each alternative is. And there are many levels of cascading consequences that result of whatever choice might be made. We might consider the quality of life or degree of happiness that child might enjoy or suffer. We might consider the effect of the potential life on other lives to which the child would be closely tied. We might consider how each policy will affect the health of women. We might consider a woman's level of competency in making such a decision under the influence of pregnancy hormones. Each of these things has a weight that affects the overall decision.
In any choice, if we knew and understood more, we could discern more clearly the values of each aspect of the choice and the weight of the good and evil that would be done. The less we understand, the less accurate will be our perceptions of the relative weights of good against evil. It stands to reason then, that if we knew everything, if we were omniscient, we could perfectly discern the weight of good and evil in each possible option. No matter how small the difference in value, we could determine with certainty which choice is best, with perfect objectivity.
Therefore, good and evil is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of knowledge and understanding. There is always one greatest moral option. If we wish to do good, our quest is to discover that correct choice, and make that choice. If we simply choose what we want, and try to justify our choice after the fact, we are playing an entirely different sort of game.
Basic Assumptions: The Nature of Humanity
God created us in His image and sent us here to a world of imperfection. Thus, humans have a dual nature. They tend to strive for the divine, doing what is right, loving and being selfless. And they tend to be selfish, do wrong, and give in to the lower animal-like instincts of this fallen world.
Why I hold this to be true is deeply tied to my first-hand knowledge of God, and the knowledge that He has delivered to this world. But this is a belief and understanding held by many with vastly different belief systems - even purely secular ones. This concept of the dual nature of man is an archetype that even atheist philosophers recognize and embrace.
I post this here as a root assumption, because so much that is to be understood of people and society depends on understanding what their most basic motivations are. These two are primary.
Why I hold this to be true is deeply tied to my first-hand knowledge of God, and the knowledge that He has delivered to this world. But this is a belief and understanding held by many with vastly different belief systems - even purely secular ones. This concept of the dual nature of man is an archetype that even atheist philosophers recognize and embrace.
I post this here as a root assumption, because so much that is to be understood of people and society depends on understanding what their most basic motivations are. These two are primary.
Basic Assumptions: There Is a God
I cannot prove to you that there is a God. You cannot prove that there is no God. We cannot even establish one belief or the other as substantially implausible in any objective sense, although many try. I will probably, from time to time, dedicate time to debunking some of the more popular or common attempts to disprove God, but I am not likely to spend much time trying to prove that He exists.
I will say this: For myself, I know for certain that God does exist, because I relate to him directly and indirectly on a regular basis. I know that anyone who believes He does not exist is mistaken, because I have insider knowledge, but I cannot copy this knowledge into other minds.
In some ways, knowing God can be a bit like having met Big Foot out in woods. Let's say he invited you over to his den in a mountain cave, and you met his family, eventually learned his language, and know how to reach him any time you're in the neighborhood. But the thing is, Big Foot is shy. If you bring a skeptical friend, Big Foot's not going to show up. That's just the way he rolls. Well, understandably, a lot of people are going to find your story implausible. They don't think Big Foot exists. I mean, the only supposed pictures are really fuzzy, and could just as well be a guy in a big ape suit. And we can point to certain pieces of "evidence" of Big Foot, and clearly show that they were hoaxes propagated by mischievous people. And so on.
If you told me your story, I wouldn't believe you. It would only hurt your credibility with me. Even if you have a few friends that back up your story, and have been there with you, I would strongly suspect that I was being scammed, because the thing is, I know of several others who say the same sorts of things, who are clearly nut cases. The bottom line is that I have a lot of good reasons to believe that Big Foot is a hoax.
But what if it all really had happened? What if you really had experienced those things?
I know this being we call God, our Father in Heaven. If you don't believe me, call me a liar. But I try to sustain a very high level of integrity, as do many many people who make this very same claim. If you are still a doubter, I hope you will eventually see enough reason to doubt your doubts, because the truth can set you free in ways that you can't imagine.
I will say this: For myself, I know for certain that God does exist, because I relate to him directly and indirectly on a regular basis. I know that anyone who believes He does not exist is mistaken, because I have insider knowledge, but I cannot copy this knowledge into other minds.
In some ways, knowing God can be a bit like having met Big Foot out in woods. Let's say he invited you over to his den in a mountain cave, and you met his family, eventually learned his language, and know how to reach him any time you're in the neighborhood. But the thing is, Big Foot is shy. If you bring a skeptical friend, Big Foot's not going to show up. That's just the way he rolls. Well, understandably, a lot of people are going to find your story implausible. They don't think Big Foot exists. I mean, the only supposed pictures are really fuzzy, and could just as well be a guy in a big ape suit. And we can point to certain pieces of "evidence" of Big Foot, and clearly show that they were hoaxes propagated by mischievous people. And so on.
If you told me your story, I wouldn't believe you. It would only hurt your credibility with me. Even if you have a few friends that back up your story, and have been there with you, I would strongly suspect that I was being scammed, because the thing is, I know of several others who say the same sorts of things, who are clearly nut cases. The bottom line is that I have a lot of good reasons to believe that Big Foot is a hoax.
But what if it all really had happened? What if you really had experienced those things?
I know this being we call God, our Father in Heaven. If you don't believe me, call me a liar. But I try to sustain a very high level of integrity, as do many many people who make this very same claim. If you are still a doubter, I hope you will eventually see enough reason to doubt your doubts, because the truth can set you free in ways that you can't imagine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)