Noteworthy Links: April 2013

Do you remember that time last October when I was too busy to write a new blog post, so I passed along some interesting links instead? Well, I’m at it again:

1. The Adventure of the Elected Man (Dead Heroes Don’t Save)
   Mike over at Dead Heroes Don’t Save has posted a fictional encounter between Sherlock Holmes and Charles Spurgeon, in a convincing imitation of one of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s famous short stories. Written from the perspective of Dr. Watson, we’re treated to an intellectual and theological exchange when the famous preacher pays a visit to 221B Baker St. [Note: this story is being published in installments, and is currently still a work in progress.]
2. The Crusades: Wanton Religious Violence? (J.W. Wartick)
   The Crusades are often presented as an archetype of “violence in the name of religion”. My friend J.W. examines this claim in light of the larger geopolitical context of that time period, and offers some thoughtful commentary on the nature of religious and secular violence. “The Crusades have been used as a kind of polemic device against Christianity. Whenever it is argued that Christianity is reasonable, someone inevitably brings up this historical period…I have argued for the notion that these events were historically complex, involving a number of factors beyond purely war for the sake of a faith.”
3. An Open Letter to the Church from a Lesbian (Sententias)
   This one pretty much speaks for itself. “Have you been Christ-like in your relationships with us? Would you meet us at the well, or restaurant, for a cup of water, or coffee? Would you touch us even if we showed signs of leprosy, or aids? Would you call us down from our trees, as Christ did Zacchaeus, and invite yourself to be our guest? Would you allow us to sit at your table and break bread? To those of you who would change the church to accept the gay community and its lifestyle: you give us no hope at all. To those of us who know God’s word and will not dilute it to fit our desires, we ask you to read John’s letter to the church in Pergamum…”
4. What to Believe About Miracles (Nature)
   This excellent commentary appeared in the journal Nature way back in 1986. “It is not logically valid to use science as an argument against miracles…Miracles are unprecedented events. Whatever the current fashions in philosophy or the revelations of opinion polls may suggest, it is important to affirm that science (based as it is upon the observation of precedents) can have nothing to say on the subject.”

Rick Warren, Gay Marriage, and the Word “Lifestyle”

It turns out that mindless Facebook lurking can uncover some pretty fascinating blogging material. Yesterday I stumbled across a fairly innocuous Rick Warren quote posted by a friend of a friend:

“Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.”

Immediately below this quote, someone had left a scathing comment, accusing Warren and “the Religious Right” of bigotry and homophobia for wanting to ban gay marriage and deprive homosexuals of equal protection under the law. He argued that true compassion would require compromising convictions, since the convictions of people who oppose gay marriage are based in hatred and prejudice akin to that of the Ku Klux Klan.

(I should briefly interject to point out that the quote makes no mention of homosexuality, and is applicable to an enormous range of behaviors and lifestyles. But given that this was posted during the Supreme Court hearings on Proposition 8, I think the commenter can be excused for jumping to that conclusion.)

What I found particularly interesting was the problem that this individual had with the phrase “someone’s lifestyle”. He argued that this was a belittling phrase, since it failed to recognize that practicing homosexuals are unique and diverse, and shouldn’t be reduced to a single “lifestyle”.

I found his objection interesting because it’s one that I’ve encountered a couple times before, and I want to take a shot at clearing up the confusion surrounding the word “lifestyle” in the context of homosexuality.

I’ll illustrate with an analogy.

Two of my biggest hobbies are backpacking and ultrarunning. At times, my mother is convinced that I’m going to die of exposure, fall off a mountain, or get eaten by a grizzly. One might say that she disapproves of my “outdoors lifestyle”…but this clearly says nothing about her love and acceptance of me as a person. She isn’t defining me by (or reducing me to) my “outdoors lifestyle”, but she does voice her disapproval of what she regards as high-risk behavior.

In the same manner, I think most Christians who express moral disapproval of certain sexual “lifestyles” are trying to delicately affirm Scripture’s moral teachings on sexual ethics. Many Christians might even find the Bible’s teachings on sexual ethics in conflict with their own preconceived ideas, opinions, and desires…but are nonetheless willing to conform their views to Scripture (rather than twisting Scripture to conform to their own views).

Furthermore, since the Bible doesn’t condemn “homosexual orientation” (defined as “being tempted by attraction to the same sex”), it should be noted that the only moral issue at stake here is voluntary sexual thoughts and behaviors, not a person’s innate or acquired predisposition toward same-sex attraction. Ironically, it is the very people who insist on combining sexual orientation and sexual behavior into a single, legally-recognized “identity” who are guilty of pigeonholing.

[Footnote: The legal question of gay marriage goes beyond the scope of this post, but I've written on it previously.]

Jewish vs. Christian Interpretations of Isaiah 53

Christians have been citing Isaiah 53 as an example of fulfilled messianic prophecy since the first century AD (see Matthew 8:17 and Acts 8:26-40).

The passage is remarkable because it was written hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus…yet if you were to read it aloud on a street corner, most people would probably assume it was a New Testament passage describing Christ’s crucifixion after-the-fact:

Who has believed our message
   and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
   and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
   nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
He was despised and rejected by mankind,
   a man suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
   he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

Surely he took up our pain
   and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
   stricken by him, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions,
   he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
   and by his wounds we are healed.
We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
   each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
   the iniquity of us all.

He was oppressed and afflicted,
   yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
   and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
   so he did not open his mouth.
By oppression and judgement he was taken away.
   Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
   for the transgression of my people he was punished.
He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
   and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
   nor was any deceit in his mouth.

Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
   and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
   and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
After he has suffered,
   he will see the light of life and be satisfied;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
   and he will bear their iniquities.
Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
   and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
because he poured out his life unto death,
   and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
   and made intercession for the transgressors.

- Isaiah 53 (NIV)

I think it’s important to be familiar with both the Christian and Jewish interpretations of this passage. Instead of trying to be overtly persuasive, I’ll just report both perspectives with minimal commentary of my own. You can draw your own conclusions.

But first, just to give you a flavor of the controversy, I was kind of amused by the slanted terminology used on Wikipedia (and the one-sided use of citations). The following screenshot was taken on March 20, 2013…but I’m guessing it will be re-worded for neutrality sometime in the future:

The Jewish commentary that I’ve read concerning this passage isn’t always 100% in agreement, but you can check out some credible resources HERE and HERE. The following excerpt is taken from SimpleToRemember.com, an online resource for information on Judaism:

“Christianity claims that Isaiah chapter 53 refers to Jesus, as the “suffering servant.” In actuality, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews (“Israel”) are regarded as one unit. The Torah is filled with examples of the Jewish nation referred to with a singular pronoun. Ironically, Isaiah’s prophecies of persecution refer in part to the 11th century when Jews were tortured and killed by Crusaders who acted in the name of Jesus.”

You can check out some Christian resources HERE and HERE. Jonathan McLatchie writes:

“Some might point to the fact that contemporary Jews reject this passage as being messianic. However, having read the conventional views among them, I think such a view is untenable. Firstly, if the passage — as most contemporary Jews maintain — is really a personification of the nation of Israel, then the passage makes no sense when it says “…for the transgressions of my people [i.e. Israel] he was striken…though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.” The term “the servant” is also used of the messiah in other parts of the Bible, such as in Zechariah 3:8 (“I am going to bring my servant, the Branch”).”

Regardless of where one stands on the religious spectrum, I think we owe it to ourselves to investigate claims of fulfilled prophesy. When considered in light of other evidence, I find that passages like Isaiah 52-53 speak for themselves, and strongly reinforce the larger truth claims of Christianity.

Atheist Survey Results (n=23)

Last summer, I published the responses that I’d received to my “Twelve Questions to Ask an Atheist”. Since that time there have been additional answers submitted on this site, on various other blogs (here and here), on Facebook, and on Reddit.

The number of responses is now up to 23, so I’ve compiled the updated data below. It should go without saying that this is not a scientific poll. I’m sure there’s quite a bit of selection bias here, and the answers are probably more representative of “internet atheists” than they are of the general atheist population.

But I hope you find it interesting, regardless. Some of the results I found really surprising (#6), others less surprising (#3, #5, #7), and others somewhat revealing (#11, #12).

As before, my original questions will be in bold. Atheist responses will be italicized, with the # of similar responses in parentheses. If you’re interested in my own reaction to these responses, check out my original summary.

1. Does the universe have a beginning that requires a cause? 

- Yes (4)
- No (3)
- Probably
– Probably not (2)
- Don’t know (9)
- No clear response (3)
- Claims the question is a fallacy

…If so, what was this cause?

- There was no cause (3)
- It was inevitable
- We CAN’T know
- P-Branes/Special Black Hole Hypothesis/Quantum Foam/Penrose Cyclic Universe
- Don’t know, not applicable, or no clear response (17)

2. Is materialistic determinism compatible with the intrinsically probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics?

- Yes (4)
- No (5)
- Don’t know (8)
- Kind of, since laws are still reliable on the macro-level (2)
- Claims the question is a non sequitur
- “Material” is not a coherent concept in the realm of quantum mechanics
- No clear response (2)

3. How do you account for the physical parameters of the universe (the gravitational constant, the strong nuclear force, the mass and charge of a proton, etc.) being finely tuned for the existence of stars, planets, and life?

- Anthropic principle/multiple universes will produce one capable of harboring life (10)
- Conveniently fixed parameters don’t imply that they were fine-tuned…reason unspecified (6)
- The universe isn’t fine-tuned; it’s barely even compatible with life (5)
- The parameters are what they are out of necessity
- Claims this is begging the question

4. Why is the human mind naturally fluent in the language of mathematics, and how do you explain the eerie, seemingly unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in describing the laws of nature?

- Most people aren’t good at math (10)
- Math is merely explanatory (6)
- This fact isn’t unreasonable (2)
- We evolved to have adaptable brains (2)
- Math isn’t that effective
- Claims the question is circular
- No clear response

5. Do you believe that DNA repair mechanisms, catalytically perfect enzymes, and phenomena such as substrate channeling are best explained by naturalism? If so, why are rational human scientists and engineers so woefully incapable of imitating the precision and complexity of cellular machinery that (presumably) arose via strictly irrational processes?

Note: Although not explicitly stated, I infer that virtually all respondents would say “yes” to the first question. Answers to the second question:

- Science is still too young (13)*
- Evolution isn’t irrational (7)*
- Lack of knowledge doesn’t mean God is the answer (2)
- There’s no master design to understand
- Design is inferior to evolution
- Insufficient knowledge of genetics to answer the question

*Two responses included the ideas “science is still too young” as well as “evolution isn’t irrational”.

6. Do you believe free will to be illusory?

- Yes (3)
- No (11)
- Don’t know (3)
- Depends on how one defines “free will” (2)
- Sort of
- Probably not, because of quantum mechanics
- Free will is an incoherent concept
- Claims the question is pointless 

…If so, can the punishment of crimes be ethically justified (and does the word “ethical” have any real meaning)?

- Yes (9)
- No clear response, or not applicable (14)

7. Does objective morality exist?

- Yes (5)
- No (17)
- Don’t know, and it doesn’t matter

…If so, what is its source…and how do you define “objective”?

- It’s simply defined as human well-being (2)
- It’s innate and driven by self-interest
- Pluralistic moral reductionism is needed
- There are certain unarguable facts about what is moral
- Not applicable (18)

…If not, do you concede that concepts like “justice”, “fairness”, and “equality” are nothing more than social fads, and that acts of violence and oppression must be regarded merely as differences of opinion?

- No, morality is universal and selected for by evolution and/or social necessity (6)
- No, we can rely on an empathy-based system of morality (3)
- Kind of (3)
- No clear answer (5)
- Differences of opinion, yes – but not “merely”
- Not applicable (5)

8. In what terms do you define the value of human life? Is the life of a human child more or less valuable, for example, than that of an endangered species of primate?

- It’s a personal/subjective decision (7)
- Value is based on our ability to “experience” (5)
- Human value is based on empathy for our own species (4)
- No definition is completely logically consistent (2)
- Life is precious, since it’s the only one we get
- Human life transcends value
- Our value is defined as our value to others
- Human value is self-evident
- Unsure how to respond

9. Much attention has been given to alleged cognitive biases and “wishful thinking” contributing to religious belief. Do you believe that similar biases (for example, the desire for moral autonomy) play a role in religious nonbelief? 

- Yes (14)
- No, or mostly no (6)
- Unsure
- No clear response
- Claims the question commits ad hominem and tu quoque fallacies

…If not, what specifically makes atheism immune to these influences?

- Lack of belief is the default (2)
- Morality is inherently autonomous
- Can’t imagine any reason someone would wish for there not to be a God
- No clear response, or not applicable (19)

10. Do you believe religion (speaking generally) has had a net positive or a net negative effect on humanity.

- Net positive (3)
- Net negative (11)
- Depends on the religion; net negative for the Abrahamic religions
- Unsure, or neutral (8)

…If the latter, how do you explain the prevalence of religion in evolutionary terms?

- Religious belief probably isn’t genetic, so it can’t be bred out (2)
- Religion has evolutionary benefits, despite having a net negative effect on humanity
- Religion survives through the intervention of man, particularly those who benefit from religion
- In the past, religion provided a way to preserve cultural memory
- Religion hasn’t been around very long on an evolutionary scale
- Something doesn’t have to be positive to spread through a population
- No explanation offered (5)
- Not applicable (11)

11. Is it rational for you to risk your life to save a stranger?

- Yes (4)
- No (5)
- Depends on the situation and/or level of risk (10)
- It’s not a question of rationality, but of terminal values (2)
- “Depends on how good she looks”
- Unsure

12. How would you begin to follow Jesus if it became clear to you that Christianity was true?

- Would follow (5)
- Wouldn’t follow (6)
- Might follow the teachings of Jesus, but that isn’t Christianity (2)
- It would depend on how this truth was revealed (3)
- Christianity can’t be true (3)
- No answer given (4)

…What would be the hardest adjustment you would have to make to live a faithful, public Christian life?

- Adjusting wouldn’t be that difficult; would eagerly welcome knowing that Christianity was true (2)
- Praying, since it seems weird, creepy, and strange
- Trying to figure out how the Bible became so corrupted
- Trying to convince myself that the God of the Bible is deserving of worship (2)
- Don’t think it would be possible to adjust
- No clear response, or not applicable (16)

Ravi Zacharias Quotes

“What we need is not a religion that is right where we are right, but one that is right where we are wrong.”

-

“The use or abuse of Christianity in contradiction to the very message of the gospel reveals not the gospel for what it is, but the heart of man. That is why atheism is so bankrupt as a view of life, for it miserably fails to deal with the human condition as it really is.”

-

“I think the reason we sometimes have the false sense that God is so far away is because that is where we have put him. We have kept him at a distance, and then when we are in need and call on him in prayer, we wonder where he is. He is exactly where we left him.”

-

“Implicit to the secularized world-view is not just the marginalization of any religious idea but its complete eviction from public credence in forming social policy. If an idea or belief is “religiously based”, be it in a matter of sexuality or marriage or education or whatever, then by that very virtue it is deemed unsuitable for public usage.”

Ravi Zacharias

“Unless I understand the Cross, I cannot understand why my commitment to what is right must take precedence over what I prefer.”

-

“One does not get far in a conversation with a Hindu sage or an unsophisticated follower of Hinduism before one of them offers the familiar illustration of four blind people feeling an elephant in the dark and each one coming out with a different description of what it is he or she is feeling – a rope, a tree or some other object, depending on the tail or leg or whatever is being clasped. This story seems to be the best escape hatch to do away with any interpretive burden that keeps with the facts. Yet the obvious seems to escape the one giving the illustration: that smuggled into the analogy is the idea that it is an elephant that is under discussion and not any of those errant pronouncements made by the ones devoid of light and sight.”

-

“A man rejects God neither because of intellectual demands nor because of the scarcity of evidence. A man rejects God because of a moral resistance that refuses to admit his need for God.”

-

“On every university campus I visit, somebody stands up and says that God is an evil God to allow all this evil into our world. This person typically says, ‘A plane crashes: Thirty people die, and twenty people live. What kind of a God would arbitrarily choose some to live and some to die?’ I continued, ‘but when we play God and determine whether a child within a mother’s womb should live, we argue for that as a moral right. So when human beings are given the privilege of playing God, it’s called a moral right. When God plays God, we call it an immoral act. Can you justify this for me?’ That was the end of the conversation.”

-

“Spirituality with an underpinning of pantheistic beliefs is portrayed as being serene, innocuous, all-embracing, mystical, and wonderful…The world is now being constructed on reclaimed land from the sea of faith in which we seek common values without finding common reasons from which those values stem. Yet the deeper one probes into the reasoning, the more one has to wonder whether this disjunction between values and reasons will sooner or later take away from us the water of life.”

Three Reasonable Tips for Debating Rude Persons on the Internet

I read an article awhile back that resonated with me, because I think it helps explain why the majority of online debates over “deep issues” like religion, politics, and philosophy get so…nasty. (Don’t believe me? Just type the word “religion” into Youtube. Click on any video with 100,000+ views. Read the comments.)

“The problem with smart people is that they like to be right and sometimes will defend ideas to the death rather than admit they’re wrong. This is bad. Worse, if they got away with it when they were young (say, because they were smarter than their parents, their friends, and their parent’s friends) they’ve probably built an ego around being right, and will therefore defend their perfect record of invented righteousness to the death. Smart people often fall into the trap of preferring to be right even if it’s based in delusion, or results in them, or their loved ones, becoming miserable…(continue)”

This problem is particularly bad online, when the “humanness” of one’s adversary is replaced with a keyboard, a computer monitor, and a half-eaten bag of Fritos.

I see the pattern all the time in those who initiate debates with me on this blog, and elsewhere. I see it in myself, at times (though I wouldn’t call myself a “smart person”). While I’d like to think I do a decent job of obeying the first half of 1 Peter 3:15-16, I often botch the second half. (So that’s my way of admitting that I’m not 100% qualified to be writing this post.)

I give you, then, Three Reasonable Tips for Debating Rude Persons on the Internet.

1. Don’t Debate Rude Persons on the Internet. Or at the very least, know when to call it quits. If the Rude Person ignores your well-crafted, novel-length rebuttals…don’t keep writing them.

If you’re anything like me, this has probably happened to you. Someone posts an inflammatory 5-sentence comment on an obscure news article, so you respond by pouring two hours into a 50-sentence essay (complete with a half-dozen documented sources) that matter-of-factly explains the problem with his initial comment (because let’s be honest…it’s a “him”). Your adversary then responds with an even more inflammatory 5-sentence comment – one which clearly shows that he didn’t read a word of that thesis you poured your sweat and blood into.

So it’s really tempting to respond like this:

Which brings me to…

2. Be Nice to Rude Persons on the Internet. Throwing a Wonka-tantrum might feel gratifying at the time, but it does nothing for the other guy…or your cause, for that matter. And it only turns you into a bitter person, in the long run.

Instead, if you REALLY want to shake your adversary to his core, try responding like this:

Now granted, it can sometimes be difficult to pull this off without your niceness sounding like tongue-in-cheek snarkiness. But once you’ve decided to be nice, the toughest part becomes choosing your words to avoid being misunderstood.

It’s hard to go wrong by just being nice. Ridiculously nice. Nauseatingly nice. When your adversary begins unloading his vilest insults on your intelligence, your character, your religion, and your pet hamster…just think of Mr. Rogers. Which brings me to…

3. Pause to Think Before Responding to Rude Persons on the Internet. If you find yourself getting angry, go spend a few hours doing something away from the computer.

Last weekend, in response to a post I made on Facebook, an anonymous individual took a swipe at me with a crude innuendo, then claimed that my entire post was “a ginormous example of the argument from ignorance fallacy”. (That’s another thing you’ll notice with Rude Persons on the Internet. They like to remain anonymous, and they like to accuse others (falsely, in most cases) of committing logical fallacies. But by pointing this out, they’ll probably say I’m committing an ad hominem.)

Anyway, my initial reaction was something like this:

Had I responded right away, I probably would have regretted it later. So instead, I grabbed some ice cream from the freezer and spent the rest of the evening watching the Oscars. When I logged on to Facebook the next day, my blood pressure was back down to 120/60. It still ended up turning into a lengthy debate…but by taking time to cool off, I was able to avoid responding to his insults.

So there you have it then.

If God Designed Humans, How Do We Account for “Design Flaws”?

A friend posed a question to me the other day that I found interesting. I’ve copied it below:

“Given: God is good, all knowing, all powerful.

If he had designed us intelligently, then he would have known that at some point in time, many of his children would become rather prosperous, even those who are considered “the least among us” in the US are reasonably prosperous, compared to Jesus time, and truly most of the world has improved it’s standard of living to some extent, even though there are hundreds of millions if not over a billion that have poor access to water.

Given that he would know that his children would generally become this prosperous, why did he then design us so that we could become obese and diseased (in the various ways that we do) just by being averagely prosperous. Granted, many are extraordinarily or at least partially gluttonous, but many eat more or less reasonably and still become obese and diseased. Is this not, in some manner of thinking, a design flaw? I’m not per se arguing this, but the thought came to me, and I thought that you might enjoy the thought experiment if nothing else.”

Physiologically speaking, my friend raises a great point. In many ways, the human body does seem more proficient at dealing with food scarcity (for example, by utilizing ketone bodies during starvation) than with food excess (for example, its limited means of excreting cholesterol).

[Name that Pixar film]

Theologically speaking, we’re left with an apparent dilemma. It’s true that the mere presence of “design flaws” doesn’t, in itself, undermine the existence of a designer. (If a bridge or building has a structural flaw, it was probably still designed by an engineer or architect). Yet if God is a maximally great being, shouldn’t humans (being God’s highest creation, and all) be optimally designed? Shouldn’t our bodies be flawless, if God is flawless?

I don’t think so – although I do understand why one might ask the question.

My friend (a medical student) was specifically referring to metabolic diseases of the developed world…but I think we can safely lump together all examples of physical flaws. This includes everything from autoimmune disorders and birth defects to cancers and aging.

Speaking for myself, the presence of such flaws is easier to understand when I try to imagine what the absence of “design flaws” would look like. If our bodies were designed flawlessly, wouldn’t that necessarily entail immortality and perfect health? When we look at Scripture, I think the Christian has grounds for arguing that this is exactly what God originally intended for us, and still intends for us.

To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’ “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.” -Genesis 3:17-19 (NIV)

So rather than regarding our physical flaws as a problem of design, I would be more inclined to attribute them to the effects of sin. And this pattern can be found elsewhere, when we stop to examine various aspects of human psychology, sexuality, sociology, etc. The physicalist might claim that humanity’s existence has the markings of randomness, but I believe it has every appearance of a good thing that’s been tainted – a sort of “fallen paradise”, if you will. (For those who are interested, I’ve written more on this topic HERE.)

In Which I Speak Highly of My Atheist Friends

Although I’ve never been asked, I think the following would be a fair and reasonable question:

“Why do you spend so much time knocking atheism on your blog?”

For those who are new, the majority of my posts are either explicitly or implicitly “Christian” in nature. I spend a lot of time defending and articulating the Christian worldview, and it’s true that I spend a disproportionate amount of time contrasting it with the atheist’s worldview (rather than, say, that of the Hindu or the Muslim). There are a number of reasons for this, including my current position in science (a field increasingly populated by atheists), the fact that I’m not as well-read in other philosophies and religions, and the fact that I have a number of childhood friends who have “de-converted” from Christianity to atheism.

Regardless, I figured I should remedy this blog’s overabundance of atheism-related posts by…you guessed it…writing another post about atheism.

I understand your skepticism (pardon the pun), but all I ask for is a little faith (okay, I’m finished). Although I don’t really have much positive to say about atheism, I do have some kind things to say about certain atheists.

Given atheism, there is no ultimate meaning or significance to life. While it’s possible for the atheist to create for himself a personal sense of meaning (through his family, career, legacy, etc.), he lives with the conviction that – billions of years from now – all of his actions and accomplishments will have been for naught. With death comes nothingness. Humanity must eventually die out, and the universe itself will ultimately succumb to heat death. All sense of meaning is, therefore, both personally subjective and temporal.

And yet many atheists lead admirable, industrious lives in spite of this. While it’s true that some atheists become nihilists (and I know a few), it would seem that MOST atheists persist with an optimistic, humanistic outlook on life. This blows my mind, to be entirely honest. If one is convinced of the truth of atheism, it must surely require a tremendous and courageous act of will to maintain a positive outlook in spite of the crushing existential ramifications of one’s worldview. And I say that with complete sincerity. I’m convinced, based on the evidence, that the atheist’s understanding of the universe (and our role in it) is entirely false. Yet in a way, I can’t help but admire the personal attributes of those atheists who choose to live as if the universe had meaning anyway. (This is not to make light of the atheist’s rejection of God; rather, it’s a recognition of other admirable characteristics that he possesses.)

Given atheism, there are no objective moral values or duties to strive toward. This should be self-evident, since any objective moral standard would require an outside “Moral Arbiter” of some kind (or at the very least, some kind of external, impartial, authoritative standard against which to measure moral opinions). Again, it’s possible for the atheist to create for himself a personal system of morality (or even attempt to ground morality in biology), but these solutions necessarily involve some degree of subjectivity. Historically speaking, one of the great appeals of atheism (to many, at least) is its rejection of any absolute source of moral authority. Without a moral Lawgiver, man is free to define his own rules and pursue his own desires.

And yet, by human standards, many atheists lead outstanding, morally-praiseworthy lives. Granted, I’ve been personally mistreated and verbally assaulted by my fair share of atheists…and I can’t even count the number of times I’ve had atheists say to me, “I don’t NEED a magical sky-fairy threatening ME with hell to be a good person!” Yet look at that last statement more closely. If we set aside the spiteful tone, the simplistic characterization of theist belief, and the mistaken notion that anyone can truly be a “good person” (by absolute standards…not society’s standards), then there’s actually a glimmer of truth here. All of us have an innate, God-given sense of right and wrong – whether we acknowledge God as its source or not. Comparatively speaking, many of my atheist friends DO seem to possess more compassion, more selflessness, and a greater sense of purpose than some professing Christians I know. In other words: if these individuals were drawn to atheism for its promises of moral autonomy, they don’t seem intent on abusing that freedom.

I think it’s praiseworthy that many atheists strive toward optimism and moral decency – in spite of holding a belief system that is clearly incompatible with concepts like “objective meaning” or “objective morality”. When we look past the worldview, we find that many atheists possess personal qualities that would put many of us to shame.

This also provides Christians like myself with a chance for some introspection. If our atheist friends and neighbors can find purpose and optimism and compassion in the face of a cold, uncaring universe…then how much more purposeful, optimistic, and compassionate should our lives be? (Ephesians 4:32, Romans 15:13, Hebrews 10:23).

C.S. Lewis on the Efficacy of Prayer

Can the efficacy of prayer be measured scientifically?

Personally, I would be a bit skeptical of any scientific study that claimed to have found a clear relationship between prayer and “desired outcome”. I’m of the opinion that this understanding of prayer (a mere tool for getting what we desire) is fundamentally flawed.

This is the same misunderstanding that Dawkins makes with his ”God Hypothesis” paradigm (i.e. “the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other“). This viewpoint takes a very small view of God (and, by extension, of prayer). Rather than acknowledging God as the ultimate Source of all knowledge and human experience, it seeks to detect the existence of God as an entity within the physical universe - like one might detect dark matter or alpha particles. It regards God as a variable within a system rather than the Creator and Sustainer of the system itself.

In his book “Miracles” (buy it HERE, or check out my review HERE), C.S. Lewis offers the following commentary on free will, divine foreknowledge, and the efficacy of prayer. His model includes some important qualifiers and details that I’ve glossed over, but this excerpt conveys the basic idea:

“Suppose I find a piece of paper on which a black wavy line is already drawn, I can now sit down and draw other lines (say in red) so shaped as to combine with the black line into a pattern. Let us now suppose that the original black line is conscious. But it is not conscious along the whole length at once – only on each point on that length in turn.

Its consciousness in fact is travelling along that line from left to right retaining point A only as a memory when it reaches B and unable until it has left B to become conscious of C. Let us also give this black line free will. It chooses the direction it goes in. The particular wavy shape of it is the shape it wills to have. But whereas it is aware of its own chosen shape only moment by moment and does not know at point D which way it will decide to turn at point F, I can see its shape as a whole and all at once. At every moment it will find my red lines waiting for it and adapted to it. Of course: because I, in composing the total red-and-black design have the whole course of the black line in view and take it into account. It is a matter not of impossibility but merely of designer’s skill for me to devise red lines which at every point have a right relation not only to the black line but to one another so as to fill the whole paper with a satisfactory design…

It is never possible to prove empirically that a given, non-miraculous event was or was not an answer to prayer. Since it was non-miraculous the sceptic can always point to its natural causes and say, ‘Because of these it would have happened anyway,’ and the believer can always reply, ‘But because these were only links in a chain of events, hanging on other links, and the whole chain hanging upon God’s will, they may have occurred because someone prayed.’ The efficacy of prayer, therefore, cannot be either asserted or denied without an exercise of the will – the will choosing or rejecting faith in the light of a whole philosophy. Experimental evidence there can be none on either side. In the sequence M.N.O. event N, unless it is a miracle, is always caused by M and causes O; but the real question is whether the total series (say A-Z) does or does not originate in a will that can take human prayers into account.

This impossibility of empirical proof is a spiritual necessity. A man who knew empirically that an event had been caused by his prayer would feel like a magician. His head would turn and his heart would be corrupted. The Christian is not to ask whether this or that event happened because of a prayer. He is rather to believe that all events without exception are answers to prayer in the sense that whether they are grantings or refusals the prayers of all concerned and their needs have all been taken into account. All prayers are heard, though not all prayers are granted. We must not picture destiny as a film unrolling for the most part on its own, but in which our prayers are sometimes allowed to insert additional items. On the contrary; what the film displays to us as it unrolls already contains the results of our prayers and of all our other acts. There is no question whether an event has happened because of your prayer. When the event you prayed for occurs your prayer has always contributed to it. When the opposite event occurs your prayer has never been ignored; it has been considered and refused, for your ultimate good and the good of the whole universe. (For example, because it is better for you and for everyone else in the long run that other people, including wicked ones, should exercise free will than that you should be protected from cruelty or treachery by turning the human race into automata.) But this is, and must remain, a matter of faith. You will, I think, only deceive yourself by trying to find special evidence for it in some cases more than in others.”

On Raising Children Without God

I read something on CNN today that I found really unfortunate (crazy, right?). It was written by a blogger, TXBlue08, who is the mother of two teenagers. The essay is entitled, “Why I Raise My Children Without God”, and you can read it HERE.

The author begins,

“When my son was around 3 years old, he used to ask me a lot of questions about heaven. Where is it? How do people walk without a body? How will I find you? You know the questions that kids ask. For over a year, I lied to him and made up stories that I didn’t believe about heaven…One day he would know this, and he would not trust my judgment. He would know that I built an elaborate tale—not unlike the one we tell children about Santa—to explain the inconsistent and illogical legend of God.”

The parental tactic of “making up stories” is probably pretty common – even among parents who DO believe in heaven, but who take artistic liberties with the details. So I support the author’s (eventual) realization that it isn’t wise to lie about spiritual matters to our children. (Quick aside: the mention of Santa Claus raises another interesting question for Christian parents.)

Once we get past the issue of being honest with our children, the author begins listing reasons for why she now raises her children without God.

“God is a bad parent and role model. If God is our father, then he is not a good parent. Good parents don’t allow their children to inflict harm on others. Good people don’t stand by and watch horrible acts committed against innocent men, women and children. They don’t condone violence and abuse. “He has given us free will,” you say? Our children have free will, but we still step in and guide them.”

The problem of evil is one of the oldest and most common objections to the existence of God. I wrote a brief post on the issue over a year ago, but there are plenty of other great resources out there.

The author correctly provides the most common Christian response. Christians believe the existence of evil is compatible with an all-powerful, all-loving God…IF God has sufficient reason to create creatures with free will (and thus, the ability to rebel against Him by committing evil acts).

The author’s response to the “free will defense” is perplexing, however. It’s true that our children have free will, and it’s true that we still step in and guide them. But that isn’t the same as depriving them of free will! As C.S. Lewis points out, “free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata – of creatures that worked like machines – would hardly be worth creating.”

“God is not logical…”

“…If there is a good, all-knowing, all-powerful God who loves his children, does it make sense that he would allow murders, child abuse, wars, brutal beatings, torture and millions of heinous acts to be committed throughout the history of mankind? Doesn’t this go against everything Christ taught us in the New Testament?”

Not really, no. Check out what Jesus says in Mattew 24:6-9 (NIV): “You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains. Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me.”

Christ tells us – rather bluntly – that life will involve suffering.

He tells us to persevere despite these trials and tribulations. He promises that good will ultimately prevail over evil. But He doesn’t say anything about intervening, in the meantime, to actively prevent all evil by overriding man’s free will.

Continuing on:

“God is not fair…If God is fair, then why are some babies born with heart defects, autism, missing limbs or conjoined to another baby? Clearly, all men are not created equally. Why is a good man beaten senseless on the street while an evil man finds great wealth taking advantage of others? This is not fair. A game maker who allows luck to rule mankind’s existence has not created a fair game.”

The author again appeals to the problem of evil – this time citing a couple examples of natural evil (i.e. birth defects). For a quick overview of how Christians handle the question of natural evil, I recommend THIS POST from Clay Jones.

The author’s view of “fairness” completely fails to account for the existence of sin. Evil (including natural evil) exists as a product of man’s rebellion against God. If it seems “unfair” that we suffer the consequences of our sin, perhaps the problem might be that we’re failing to confront the seriousness of our own, personal rebellion against God.

“God is not present. He is not here. Telling our children to love a person they cannot see, smell, touch or hear does not make sense. It means that we teach children to love an image, an image that lives only in their imaginations. What we teach them, in effect, is to love an idea that we have created, one that is based in our fears and our hopes.”

This paragraph only makes sense if one begins with the assumption that God doesn’t exist. If He does exist, then using His physical absence as a reason for not telling our children about Him is simply preposterous. Consider the young children of soldiers serving overseas (or detained as prisoners of war). Should these children not be taught to love the missing parent, merely because they cannot “see, smell, touch or hear” him?

“God does not teach children to be good. A child should make moral choices for the right reasons. Telling him that he must behave because God is watching means that his morality will be externally focused rather than internally structured. It’s like telling a child to behave or Santa won’t bring presents.”

Here the author reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the Christian’s motivation for doing good. The idea that Christians act morally simply to avoid God’s wrath is woefully incomplete. If it’s true that Christ – the second person of the Trinity – actually entered into the world to destroy sin by sacrificing Himself on our behalf, then we have a multitude of reasons (aside from eternal punishment) to live morally.

1. Christ, being sinless, stands as our model of moral perfection. We’re specifically called to “live as Jesus did”. (I John 2:6; 1 Peter 2:21)

2. Aside from just making us “feel good”, following God’s moral commands becomes an act of love and gratitude. (John 14:15)

3. Also…yes. Acting morally comes with perks. (Psalm 55:22; Proverbs 11:8)

Furthermore, I think it’s fair to question how one can derive a meaningful system of morality in the first place if one rejects the existence of God. In the absence of an ultimate Moral Lawgiver, doesn’t “right” and “wrong” simply become a matter of social convention and/or personal preference? While attempts have been made by the likes of Sam Harris and Michael Shermer to ground moral values in “science”, they’ve failed pretty badly.

The author continues:

“God teaches narcissism…”

“…Telling kids there is a big guy in the sky who has a special path for them makes children narcissistic; it makes them think the world is at their disposal and that, no matter what happens, it doesn’t really matter because God is in control.”

That’s…no. Not what the Bible teaches.

The author closes by arguing that belief in God is illogical, and that religion should be “kept at home or in church where it belongs.” Obviously I disagree with her sharply regarding religion’s place in the public square…but that issue probably deserves its own post. Instead, I’ll close with an insightful quote from a friend of mine:

“A mind capable of forming an argument against God is itself compelling evidence of Him.”