Questions on Christianity

In the past 20 months in this blog, we have asked questions about Christianity that are centuries old but which have never been adequately resolved.  One question deals with an aspect of the human condition that Christians do not want to deal with:  We are finite.  One reason might be this issue calls into question certain aspects of our theology.  For example:

1. Being finite means we do not have the time or talent to learn everything we need to know about life, about ourselves, about God.  Being finite means we do not have access to all the information we need to make correct decisions.  Because of this fact, there are people in our world who will not believe in Christ because they either have not heard of Jesus or their culture and/or religion tell them Jesus is irrelevant.  How can God be a God of love and justice and yet condemn such people to hell?
2. Being finite means God constructed our existence so certainty in regards to historical events is not absolute.  For example, while there is substantial evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, there will always remain an element of doubt.  So how can God condemn people to hell for not believing in something for which they cannot obtain certain proof?
3. Being finite means that most of our beliefs are not under our control.  Our beliefs are mainly formed by the culture in which we were raised and by our experiences.  Another person with very different experiences and considering very different evidences could come to a very different belief system than a Christian would.  How can God condemn a person to hell because his/her life experiences are different?
4. Being finite means, as William Lane Craig says in his book Reasonable Faith, Christianity can only be shown to be probably true. [1]  As my blogs of June 20, 2012 through July 11, 2012 show, that it is true in all areas of our lives.  Even our science cannot provide us with absolute proof on any topic.  We can only have certainty for things that occur within our space and time.  The problem Christianity faces is that it teaches we must believe in Jesus Christ or we will spend eternity in hell.  On an issue a crucial as our eternal fate, it would seem that God would give us more proof than mere probability

What the above questions demonstrate is that Christianity has failed to deal with the facts of the human condition (which is the way God made us).  If we are to be intellectually honest, we must deal with these facts.  In the next few blogs we will propose a solution that will deal with the facts of the human condition and also conform to Biblical teachings.

__________________________

[1]   William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, Wheaton, IL:  Crossway, 2008, p. 55.

In the last blog, I made the comment that our beliefs are like scientific theories and I would like to expand upon that topic in this blog.

Henri Poincairé in his book The Foundations of Science notes that experiments are the source of scientific truth; they are the foundation of science. [1[  He also notes that “a collection of facts [experiments] is no more a science than a heap of stones a building”. [2]  The stones must have some order if they are to be a building and our experiments must have some order if they are to be a science.  The reason is because our experiments can only examine a very limited number of almost infinite number of events that occur in our universe.  If we are to understand something about our world and universe, we must bring order to our limited number of experiments and facts by constructing theories.  These theories take the limited number of observation we have made and make sense of, or explains them and our world.  These theories also give us ideas on how to construct additional experiments which can either refute or support the theory and further expand our knowledge.

Our beliefs are no different.  As we stated in our blog of March 6, 2012, any person observant of the world around us recognizes that our choices are infinite.  Each day we make decisions that change our lives.  Our life is different because of the school we attend, the career we choose, the marriage partner we select, the friends with whom we associate.  Many of the decisions we face involve many unknowns.  So how can we make the right choices when our ability to gain all the needed facts is so limited?  To make these decisions, we must have some theory of how our world is constructed.  Our beliefs are our theories.  When we face situations where we do not have all the facts, we depend upon our theories of how our world, our life, is constructed to help us make the right decision.

While our beliefs can help us make the decisions we need to make, how do we know our beliefs are correct?  In the past few blogs, we have seen the difficulty of answering that question.

____________________________

[1]   Henri Poincaré, The Foundations of Science (Lancaster, PA:  The Science Press, 1946), p. 127.

[2]   Poincaré, p. 127.

Our beliefs are our theories about how the world is constructed, about how life is structured.  In a way, our beliefs are like scientific theories.  Scientists take what knowledge they have about the natural world from the experiments they perform and construct theories to explain how the natural world works.  Sometimes new experiments change those theories; sometimes new experiments confirm old theories.  In the same way, our life experiences together with our rational self either confirm or refute our beliefs.

A few days ago, I watched a movie on TV entitled “Fog of War”  It was an interview with Robert McNamara and he was describing the lessons he had learned over his life time as a bombing analyst during World War II, as a business executive, and as Secretary of Defense during the Vietnam War.  One lesson he learned was that “belief and seeing are both often wrong”.  Our beliefs about how the world is constructed are not always accurate because, as we stated in the last blog, our beliefs are based upon the society in which we live and our life experiences.  McNamara’s point was that we must be willing to reevaluate our beliefs and to question what we see if we are serious about knowing what is true.

I wish God had made it simpler.  I wish he had given us indisputable proof that he exists, that the Bible is his word to us, and that Jesus rose from the dead.  But he did not.  God has structured our existence so we are limited in our knowledge of both material and spiritual matters, in our ability to know good and evil, in our capacity to know what is true.  And we must deal with that fact.

As we have learn in the past year in the discussions we have had in this blog, given the current state of our technology and knowledge we cannot have certainty with regard to matters outside our space and time.  The implication for Christianity is that we cannot have absolute proof for the existence of God, for the Bible as the word of God, and for the resurrection of Jesus.  For many, this is sufficient reason to discard belief in Christianity.  The problem with this approach is that there is not a single belief system in the world, including agnosticism and atheism, which does not face the same dilemma.  No one can prove the validity of their belief system.  That is just the human condition.

Dr. James F. Sennett observes the various belief systems of the world have rational parity which means for every problem one raises about a particular belief, there is an equal and opposite problem for the opposing beliefs. [1] If we decide to change our belief system, we might resolve a few issues but we will acquire a different set of questions.  We will simply exchange one set of problems for another.

Dr. Sennett also points out another problem with beliefs:  Most of our beliefs are not under our control.  “We simply form beliefs as a direct result of experiences we undergo and evidence we consider.” [2]  Another person with very different experiences and considering very different evidences could come to a very different belief system than I would.  For example, I am taking a class in Business Ethics.  One of our assignments was to interview someone very different that us.  I chose to interview an atheist.  The person I interviewed was raised in the Christian community and went to a Bible college just like I did.  He told me he did not want to be an atheist but he was driven to that belief by rational thought.  In some ways he sounded like a Christian in quoting various people, in describing scientific results, and in citing history to support his point of view.  However, his different life experiences led him to a very different belief system than I had.

Another example of the fact that our beliefs are not totally under our control is the question of whether we can convince ourselves that Abraham Lincoln was never the president of the United States?  Can we convince ourselves that World War II never happened?  Much of what we believe is dependant upon the culture and age in which we live.  We simply cannot and do not control much of what we believe.

Given all the problems with beliefs, do beliefs matter?  Beliefs do matter.  In my interview with the atheist, he brought up the point that if you believe the world will end in 10 years, you will not be very concerned about the environment.  If you believe Allah will send you to heaven with 72 virgins if you kill infidels, then you will kill infidels and your belief system will matter, particularly to those who you kill.  William Clifford states that our beliefs eventually become our actions; our beliefs influence others and succeeding generations. [3]

While our beliefs do matter, it is apparent they are not what is ultimately important.

__________________________

[1]   James F. Sennett, The Reluctant Disciple:  A Postmodern Apologetic (an unpublished book), chapter 3, pp. 1-2.

[2]   Sennett, chapter 3, pp. 12-13.

[3]   A. J. Berger, Editor.  The Ethics of Belief (Lexington, KY:  Self published, 2008

Isaac Asimov and Robert Silverberg note the importance of religion in the science fiction novel Nightfall. [1]  Nightfall is about a world that has six suns and has perpetual light.  All the people have a collective, instinctual fear of darkness.  An amusement park ride that placed people in darkness is shut down because so many experience such terror that they become mentally unbalanced and some die.  The dominant religion is the Apostles of Flame and they predict a coming darkness, the appearance of stars, and the world ending in fire.  Needless to say, the general population considers them to be, at best, eccentric.  But the astronomers on this world discover that every 2,049 years the five suns set, the remaining sun is eclipsed by another planet, and darkness descends on the world.  Archeology shows several previous civilizations that have ended in fire and the time between the fires is 2,049 years.  The book spends considerable time on the conflict between the scientists and religion.

The book is notable because it demonstrates that scientists have prejudices and assumptions (taking certain facts on faith) like religion does.  It also points out the problems with religion:  a tendency to be dogmatic and unwilling to change.  In the end, after the darkness and the catastrophe it brings, several scientists decide to join the Apostles of Flame because they decide it is the best way to rebuild their civilization and to prepare for the next darkness.

Nightfall asks how one should pass critical information down several centuries and suggests that religion is the best way.  This makes sense because religion codifies and preserved the values that God knows work best and previous generations have sought to preserve that knowledge.  This is why religion is sometimes seen as dogmatic and unwilling to change.  The values religion espouses should not change even though a particular generation would like to “bend the rules” for its own advantage.  The problem we face is to decide whether the values religion espouses are God’s values or if these values are simply human tradition that has been passed off as God’s commands.  However, as Nightfall shows, religion is timeless; it provides us with values that work even though at times it does not communicate those ideas well.  Each age needs people who can interpret the timeless concepts of religion for that age.  Each age need people who can express the values at the core of all of the world’s great religions:  belief in God, the golden rule, respect for life, the principles of life as set forth in the Ten Commandments.

___________________________

[1]   Isaac Isimov and Robert Silverberg, Nightfall (New York:  Doubleday, 1990).

[2]   Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy (New York:  Simon and Schuster, 1953), p. 212.

[3]   Will and Ariel Durant, The Lessons of History (New York:  Simon and Schuster, 1968), p. 51.

Given all the problems with religion we have discussed in the previous blogs, why should we take religion seriously?  There are several reasons.

First, the historians Will and Ariel Durant state:  “Even the skeptical historian develops a humble respect for religion, since he sees it functioning, and seemingly indispensable, in every land and age”. [1]  Religion has provided answers to humans about the ultimate questions of life for ages so it must offer something to humans for it to remain such an important aspect of our lives.

Second, the validity of our religious institutions is demonstrated by the experiences of people around the world.  Trueblood states “the only evidence that can stand alone, or nearly alone, is. . .empirical evidence”. [2]  Empirical evidence is defined as: “depending upon experience or observation alone”.  Our observations tell us that our religious institutions crystallize the first hand experience of millions of people over the ages and around the world who believe in the existence of God and the values he wants us to hold.  Are all these people suffering from delusions; are they mentally unbalanced? [3]  It would be absurd to make such a statement.  The truth is that religion works.

Third, C. S. Lewis in The Abolition of Man makes the argument objective values are built into the structure of our universe, just as certain physical laws such as gravity constitute the makeup of our physical universe.   The religions of the world recognize these natural values and have incorporated them into their teachings.  In the appendix Lewis lists several of these values:  Duties to parents, elders, ancestors, children, and posterity; justice, good faith, veracity, mercy, and magnanimity.  These natural laws, or the Tao as Lewis calls them, provide a common law of action that governs ruler and ruled alike.  “A dogmatic belief in objective values is necessary to the very idea of a rule which is not tyranny or an obedience which is not slavery.” [4]

Lewis maintains there is no example of a person who has acquired power and stepped outside the Tao who has used that power benevolently. [5]  The reason is because if a person steps outside the Tao, they have no basis on which to make decisions other than their own pleasure.  Any one who has studied the human condition recognizes that our tendency is to be selfish and we are not much bothered if our gain is someone else’s loss.  To combat this tendency, all religions teach us some form of the Golden Rule.

________________________

[1]   Will and Ariel Durant, The Lessons of History (New York:  Simon and Schuster, 1968), p. 43.

[2]   David Elton Trueblood, General Philosophy (New York:  Harper & Row, 1963), p. 220.

[3]   Ibid., pp. 216-217.

[4]   C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (New York:  HarperSanFrancisco, 1974), p. 73.

[5]   Lewis, p. 66.

What the errors we have discussed in the last few blogs demonstrate is that all organized religion is, to a large extent, a human construct.  Organized religion is the attempt of humans to codify a particular interpretation of God’s communication to us.  This is a worthwhile effort because as the human condition tells us we need to work with others to determine the truth of what God is saying.  What organized religion must understand is their doctrines are not the inspired word of God; they are just the feeble attempts of humans to understand an infinite God.

Catholic Church has its pronouncements from its councils and the popes that it claims are inspired by God just like the Bible.  The Jewish religion has its Mishnah and the Talmud and the Muslims have their Hadith and Sunnah.  Certain groups within these two religions also claim these books, which are interpretations of their holy book (the Torah and the Qur’an), are also inspired by God.  Claiming God endorses a particular interpretation of a holy book is the height of human arrogance.

Another example of the fact that organized religion is a human construct is the way religion reacts to threats to its existence—it reacts just like any other human institution or human being.  As Jeffrey Lockwood states:  “. . .all human organizations . . . have as their primary goal the acquisition and maintenance of power, not the search for and reporting of the truth” [1] and we find evidence of that in religion.  The Catholic Church is always criticized for its action against Galileo and the usual take is that this contest was religion against science.  That might not be the case.  The Catholic Church was in power at that time and it was very involved in the science of astronomy.  The Church did not dispute the observations made by Galileo and in fact they made the same observations.  What they disagreed about was the interpretation of those observations.  At that time the Church decided what was accepted as the truth and when this power was threatened by a young upstart called science, it reacted in very human ways to preserve its power.

Now that science has obtained a considerable amount of power in our society, we see science reacting in a similar fashion when its power is threatened.  It’s version of excommunication is to deny grants, deny scientists time on scientific instruments, deny tenure, and to prevent publishing research that is critical of its tenants such as the Big Bang theory, Darwinian evolution, and human caused global warming.  (For an example, read Seeing Red by Halton Arp.)

What all these problems and faults of religion tell us is if religion was the unadulterated message of God to us, we should see more God like actions by religious groups instead of the fallible human actions we have noted in the last few blogs.  Therefore, we can only conclude that organize religion is very human and should not represent itself as the infallible message of God.  To assert that we know exactly what God meant in his word to us is to ignore all we have learned about the human condition.  It is pride that causes religions to assert they know precisely the mind of God and to maintain they are the one and only true religion.

When Job and his friend were discussing the religious beliefs of their time (how God relates to people on earth and why Job had suffered so much calamity), God ends the discussion with the question:  “Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge?  (Job 38:2).  While God did seem to side somewhat with Job and against his friends (Job 42:7), God still took Job to task for his beliefs (Job 38:1-2).

Job and his friends are no different than us today.  Each of us believes that we know exactly how God is working with everyone on this earth but because of our human condition, can we really claim to know the mind of God?  Our response should be like Job who stated:  “. . .Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know.”  (Job 42:3).

__________________________

[1]   Jeffrey A. Lockwood, Six-Legged Soldiers (New York:  Oxford University Press, 2009), p. ix.

In the last blog, we started our discussion about the various faults and problems organized religion has.  We will address three more of those problems in this blog.

Another fault of religion is that it has used and does use coercion to obtain belief.  Religion seems not to understand the concept of human free will and that violating someone’s free will is evil.  The Inquisition by the Christian religion is one example of this violation.  The Muslims who kill those who convert to another religion is another.  If God chooses not to force us to follow his teachings, why do the religions of the world feel they must do so?  Can we trust an institution that must coerce people to believe in its tenants?

One reason why religion used coercion to obtain belief and another error of religion is that each religion, denomination, and sect believes it is the one true religion and the ultimate source of truth for humans.  In the Christian religion we have the Protestants, the Catholic Church, and the Greek Orthodox Church to mention a few.  Within the Protestant branch there are a multitude of different denominations.  These different belief systems have arisen because people interpret the Bible differently and each believes their interpretation is right and everyone else is wrong.  However, they cannot all be right because of their conflicting belief systems.  Other religions have their sects and divisions as well.  God must look with amusement at all the different religions and denominations, each claiming to speak for him.  God must look with sorrow when, in the words of Mark Twain, he observes humans making “a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother’s path to happiness and heaven”. [1]

__________________________

[1]   Mark Twain, Letters from the Earth (Greenwich, Conn.:  Fawcett Publications, 1962), p. 180.

[2]   Leonard Pitts, Jr., Wake-Up Call for Organized Religion, March 14, 2009.

[3]   Pitts.