This week, our Come Follow Me curriculum brings us to the rest of Psalms. We discuss penitence and justification, and the ethical dilemma of godlessness. Study with me!
Anchor.fm:
Soundcloud:
Youtube:
Showing posts with label #atheism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #atheism. Show all posts
Sunday, August 14, 2022
Friday, December 4, 2015
Do prayers actually help?
Recently, there has been a lot of talk decrying the thoughts and prayers offered in the wake of the tragic shooting in San Bernardino, California. Perhaps the most widely spread is the controversial cover of the NY Daily News which claims "God isn't fixing this."
Of course, these tests are completely illegitimate. Let's apply the "milk jug" logic to something else:
1. People sometimes want things that are harmful to them. Any parent of young children has probably had to deal with a child that begs not to have to go to bed, or not to have to eat their vegetables, or that the limits on dessert foods be removed. Even as we age, there are times we do and/or say things that initially seem desirable, but are afterwards regretted. I have known people who regret things from abusing drugs and alcohol or indulging in infidelity, and also people who regret watching "just one more episode" of a binge-worthy series on Netflix. Would a loving parent give their child something they new would lead to pain and regret later?
2. Prayer is not designed as a mechanism to "get stuff" from God. Most people know a person who only seems to be available when they need things. It is difficult to have genuine friendship for someone who only asks for favors, and does not seem to ever appreciate them when they are given. Why would people think this type of relationship is appropriate with God? Jesus taught that people should use prayer as a form of worship. He said, "After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." (Matthew 6:9-13) He gave thanks before he called Lazarus to come forth from his tomb. He refused to use prayer as a "test" for God (Matthew 4:1-10), and even after leading a perfect life, when he begged his Father to remove that bitter cup from him, he added " if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done." (Luke 22:42) If not even Jesus could get everything he wanted from God, why should anyone think themselves more deserving?
3. People are fickle, and sometimes ask for conflicting favors. In a moment of determination, a person might give all of their sweets to a friend. In a moment of weakness, they might return to their friend and demand their sweets back. This trope has been used in a number of comedies, and it is funny because everyone can relate to how difficult self-control can be. Whether it is quitting smoking or sticking to a diet or exercise routine, people tend to be inconsistent. Before the world was, humanity rejoiced at the opportunities that mortality would bring. God has made a huge investment giving us a world in which we could be as we are, and where we could learn for ourselves. Of course he would like to rush in and spare his children from tragedy. Of course he does not enjoy the savagery that some of his children perpetrate against others in the forms of shootings or terrorist attacks or bombings or all manner of other cruelty. That having been said, he is not going to undo the state of mortality into which he has spent so much time and energy, and because of which he allowed his only begotten son to suffer and die. That would conflict with our previous request to participate in this mortal experience. In fact, in allowing prayer, he pushes the limits of faith-based mortality. Not only that, but he sends prophets and apostles to beg people to pray more... Persistence and diligence are vital to success with prayer. This leads us to the final principle...
4. God says yes far more than people realize. Jesus taught this: "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?" (Matthew 7:7-11) Of course, some people might say "why doesn't he heal all the sick?" or "why doesn't he stop cancer?" or "why doesn't he bring back the victims of San Bernardino or Paris or Boston?" These seem like legitimate requests to offer a totally omnipotent being who loves us perfectly. So, would it be acceptable if God brought back all of the victims of these tragedies, healed every injury, and cured cancer permanently, but you had to wait two days before it would happen? Would it be acceptable if you had to wait ten days... to heal everyone, and bring back perfectly every victim of every tragedy ever? Could you wait a month? Is there a period of time that, if you had to wait, you would say "never mind, that's too long... don't heal the sick or bring back the dead or cure anyone..."? If there is a duration that is too long, then that isn't really God saying "no"... is it? And ultimately, this is the point. In the end, God will heal every wound, mend every flaw, remove every defect, and bring back everyone who has ever been lost. To all who have prayed for San Bernardino, or for Israel, or for peace on earth... to all who are praying for a child, a parent, a wife, a husband, a sibling, or a friend... the answer is YES!
Prayer may not be a replacement for helping others, and it is not an excuse for withholding service from those in need... but prayer does have power to augment the abilities of those who seek to help others, and those who are trying to serve those in need. Prayer allows people to access divine power, and ultimately, begin to perceive the relationship of humanity to the throne of Heaven. If you have felt like God is distant... pray. If you have felt like your prayers have gone unanswered... pray some more... If you have felt like your prayers aren't doing enough, pray some more, and then work to make life better. God is indeed a rewarder of those who diligently seek him.
I have seen a renewed effort among leftists and activist atheists to try and discredit prayer, and mock those who pray. One of the most recent efforts I read involved an "experiment" like this (paraphrased):
Many Christians explain that God answers prayers in one of the following ways: (1) Yes, (2) No, or (3) Not now. This type of thinking can be applied to anything though. If you pray to a milk jug for a million dollars and you get it, you could say that the milk jug answered your prayer. If you don't get it, you could say that the milk jug said no. If you get it much later, you could say that the milk jug answered your prayer by saying "not now." Rational people understand that because these types of "answers" can be assigned to anything, it shows that God is not real.Similar "tests" have been proposed such as praying to Zeus that flipping fifty coins in a row will produce all "heads" results, and comparing the observations from that test with a similar prayer to Jesus. If we conclude that Zeus is fictitious, we must therefore (to be consistent) conclude that Jesus is also fictitious.
Of course, these tests are completely illegitimate. Let's apply the "milk jug" logic to something else:
If you go to your parents and ask them for a million dollars, they might respond in the same way as the milk jug. If they are extremely affluent, they might say "yes." Probably they will say "no." If perhaps they become affluent later, and give you money in the future, you could say that the answer was "not now." Because these are the same responses that Zeus, God, or a milk jug might give, therefore, your parents are not real. They are most likely an elaborate scheme you came up with in order to explain your existence.More important than identifying flaws in the thinking of people who would tear down your faith, individuals should learn how prayer actually works. Then when the next completely invalid test of prayer appears, it can be recognized. Consider these principles:
1. People sometimes want things that are harmful to them. Any parent of young children has probably had to deal with a child that begs not to have to go to bed, or not to have to eat their vegetables, or that the limits on dessert foods be removed. Even as we age, there are times we do and/or say things that initially seem desirable, but are afterwards regretted. I have known people who regret things from abusing drugs and alcohol or indulging in infidelity, and also people who regret watching "just one more episode" of a binge-worthy series on Netflix. Would a loving parent give their child something they new would lead to pain and regret later?
2. Prayer is not designed as a mechanism to "get stuff" from God. Most people know a person who only seems to be available when they need things. It is difficult to have genuine friendship for someone who only asks for favors, and does not seem to ever appreciate them when they are given. Why would people think this type of relationship is appropriate with God? Jesus taught that people should use prayer as a form of worship. He said, "After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." (Matthew 6:9-13) He gave thanks before he called Lazarus to come forth from his tomb. He refused to use prayer as a "test" for God (Matthew 4:1-10), and even after leading a perfect life, when he begged his Father to remove that bitter cup from him, he added " if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done." (Luke 22:42) If not even Jesus could get everything he wanted from God, why should anyone think themselves more deserving?
3. People are fickle, and sometimes ask for conflicting favors. In a moment of determination, a person might give all of their sweets to a friend. In a moment of weakness, they might return to their friend and demand their sweets back. This trope has been used in a number of comedies, and it is funny because everyone can relate to how difficult self-control can be. Whether it is quitting smoking or sticking to a diet or exercise routine, people tend to be inconsistent. Before the world was, humanity rejoiced at the opportunities that mortality would bring. God has made a huge investment giving us a world in which we could be as we are, and where we could learn for ourselves. Of course he would like to rush in and spare his children from tragedy. Of course he does not enjoy the savagery that some of his children perpetrate against others in the forms of shootings or terrorist attacks or bombings or all manner of other cruelty. That having been said, he is not going to undo the state of mortality into which he has spent so much time and energy, and because of which he allowed his only begotten son to suffer and die. That would conflict with our previous request to participate in this mortal experience. In fact, in allowing prayer, he pushes the limits of faith-based mortality. Not only that, but he sends prophets and apostles to beg people to pray more... Persistence and diligence are vital to success with prayer. This leads us to the final principle...
4. God says yes far more than people realize. Jesus taught this: "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?" (Matthew 7:7-11) Of course, some people might say "why doesn't he heal all the sick?" or "why doesn't he stop cancer?" or "why doesn't he bring back the victims of San Bernardino or Paris or Boston?" These seem like legitimate requests to offer a totally omnipotent being who loves us perfectly. So, would it be acceptable if God brought back all of the victims of these tragedies, healed every injury, and cured cancer permanently, but you had to wait two days before it would happen? Would it be acceptable if you had to wait ten days... to heal everyone, and bring back perfectly every victim of every tragedy ever? Could you wait a month? Is there a period of time that, if you had to wait, you would say "never mind, that's too long... don't heal the sick or bring back the dead or cure anyone..."? If there is a duration that is too long, then that isn't really God saying "no"... is it? And ultimately, this is the point. In the end, God will heal every wound, mend every flaw, remove every defect, and bring back everyone who has ever been lost. To all who have prayed for San Bernardino, or for Israel, or for peace on earth... to all who are praying for a child, a parent, a wife, a husband, a sibling, or a friend... the answer is YES!
Prayer may not be a replacement for helping others, and it is not an excuse for withholding service from those in need... but prayer does have power to augment the abilities of those who seek to help others, and those who are trying to serve those in need. Prayer allows people to access divine power, and ultimately, begin to perceive the relationship of humanity to the throne of Heaven. If you have felt like God is distant... pray. If you have felt like your prayers have gone unanswered... pray some more... If you have felt like your prayers aren't doing enough, pray some more, and then work to make life better. God is indeed a rewarder of those who diligently seek him.
Thursday, March 26, 2015
If judging is wrong, then God won't judge... right?
Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty (a show I admittedly have never watched), has once again waded into controversy with the following statement (taken from this link):
Of course, atheists are quickly shouting that this is a "straw man" argument... that no one is advocating these practices, and that this example is outrageous and argumentative.
I know a couple atheists, and I have definitely never heard anything to make me think that they would advocate such behavior. In fact, I frequently see these people advocating for kindness and benevolence, and often for individuals who are disadvantaged... quite different from the hypothetical antagonists in Phil Robertson's example.
General advocacy for benevolence seems to be prevalent, even as religious devotion seems to wane. I have frequently seen memes and articles that decry exclusion, bullying, and the practice of judging others... many of which are quite clever. I saw a meme that said "don't judge me because I sin differently from you" (apparently President Uchtdorf saw something similar). Certainly this thought is not reserved as a slogan for agnostics; it definitely resonates with Christians. Jesus himself said "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matthew 7:1-2)
I myself have been accused of being excessively judgmental, and in spite of the irony that individuals have judged me as being so, there is certainly room for me to improve.
That having been said, all the "hold hands and sing kumbaya" sentiment can distract from legitimate problems that exist in society. While the vast majority of people would never break into a home and perform violent acts for entertainment, there exist some that would and do. The media has shared stories of people who have killed dozens in schools and theaters. Enemies in foreign lands share their own videos of brutal executions with knives or with fire. There exist areas of the world where even innocent children are exploited as slaves to slake the lust of adults. There are few people who would suggest that such deeds are "right" or that the perpetrators of such crimes should not be judged because they "sin differently."
Additionally, there exist people that believe they are justified in committing acts that society at large considers atrocious. Consider the example of Nehor from the Book of Mormon. He was a large and mighty man that preached the "judge not" brand of religion:
"And he also testified unto the people that all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life." (Alma 1:4)
This idea was popular, and Nehor boldly went preaching against the church of God, which advocated not only righteous living, but also repentance for sinners. In other words, the church taught that bad men should become good, and good men should become better. They judged unrighteousness as being bad.
In the process of "educating" these "ignorant" Christians, Nehor sought them out for argument and debate. On one such occasion, he found an elderly man named Gideon who resisted Nehor's teachings. Anger led to violence. Nehor slew Gideon.
Instead of admitting that what he had done was wrong, he actually held to his doctrine of universal salvation. He defended himself boldly, and insisted that what he had done was not wrong. Of course, the law saw it otherwise, and Nehor was executed for his crimes.
Of course, Nehor is not the first one to become confused as to what is right and what is wrong... and that is the real question that Phil Robertson was illustrating in his example... How do you know what is right and what is wrong?
Those that embrace atheism may be quick to shout "straw man," but for a group of people that claim to espouse reason, there is no consensus about how to answer this question. Without an answer to this question, how does one answer the question "why not murder, rape, and steal?" It cannot be answered by "because these practices are wrong" without the existence of universal right and wrong. I suppose it could be answered by "because these practices are illegal" but in many places, gay marriage is illegal, and most atheists I know are in favor of legalizing this practice. So if morality cannot be coupled to the law, then what? Harm? What if a society does not recognize something as harmful... or cannot currently prove that something is harmful? Who will do the study on whether intimate relationships between humans and animals is harmful? Are there some applications of eugenics that have a net positive effect on society? Who can prove otherwise?
Also, to whom must something be proven? What if someone performs an act without knowing it could be harmful (a lobotomy for example, which is now considered harmful)? And if not knowing something is harmful makes it unethical, can ignorance excuse unethical behaviors such as robbery, murder, rape, etc...?
While evolutionary biology has become popular in classrooms and creationism has fallen into controversy, the ethical implications of saying that people are "intelligent animals" are rarely considered. If evolutionary fitness is the means by which humans became the dominant species on the planet, then are we on equal moral standing as cattle? Certainly there are some humans who would like to criminalize the slaughter of pigs, cattle, chickens, and other animals for human consumption... but does that also mean we should prosecute lions, hyenas, leopards, wolves, and other predators for murder? Is there a moral difference in killing a human, a dog, a rat, or a cockroach? If so, what causes this difference?
Even though these ethical questions can be difficult to answer, there seems to be a general understanding that is common to most humans. The feeling of guilt for doing something that a parent has forbidden is present even in very young children. The sense of happiness that comes from helping another is also found in young children. There is something intangible that is present in all humans that steers us toward goodness and virtue, and repels us from evil and vice. Of course, its intangibility, as well as a number of other factors, can cause this to diminish or even disappear for some... Nehor was a clear example of this.
Ultimately, this intangible force is to help us to recognize other things beyond our immediate perception. This is precisely why Jesus taught:
"I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine." (John 10:14, emphasis added)
The ability to recognize right can also lead us to recognize our God. Honing this spiritual awareness is a fundamental purpose to the mortal experience.
While it may be popular to say "judge not," or that "judging is wrong," it is important to know that these thoughts do not remove the personal responsibility of each individual. Ignorance, popularity, available proof, empirical evidence, or evolutionary biology will not be sufficient defenses on that day when a man stands before God to be judged. This is not to say that there is no mercy... the power of Jesus Christ is available to those that have faith, repent, and live as he taught.
Yes, Jesus did condemn hypocritical judgment. Yes, Christ said "he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her..." (John 8:7) But he also said "go, and sin no more..." and "except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:20) Vital to following Christ is changing our lives to better. Vital to salvation is learning and doing good. (James 1:22)
Also, if all judgement were wrong... then Christ would not be a judge himself. Consider this passage:
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Matthew 7:21-23, emphasis added) In the end, though right and wrong are nearly impossible to comprehend alone, the man that truly follows Christ can be confident that he is doing right.
People can say what they may about Phil Robertson's example, his show, and his facial hair... but in the end there is definitely value in understanding the importance of God as a source of goodness, authority, and judgement.
“I’ll make a bet with you. Two guys break into an atheist’s home. He has a little atheist wife and two little atheist daughters. Two guys break into his home and tie him up in a chair and gag him and then they take his two daughters in front of him and rape both of ‘em and then shoot him and they take his wife and decapitate her head off in from of him. And then they can look at him and say isn’t it great that I don’t have to worry about being judged … there’s no right or wrong … and then you take a sharp knife and take his manhood and hold it in front of him and say wouldn’t it be something if this was something wrong with this, but you’re the one who says there's no God, there’s no right, there’s no wrong…. so we’re just having fun. We’re sick in the head. Have a nice day.”
Of course, atheists are quickly shouting that this is a "straw man" argument... that no one is advocating these practices, and that this example is outrageous and argumentative.
I know a couple atheists, and I have definitely never heard anything to make me think that they would advocate such behavior. In fact, I frequently see these people advocating for kindness and benevolence, and often for individuals who are disadvantaged... quite different from the hypothetical antagonists in Phil Robertson's example.
General advocacy for benevolence seems to be prevalent, even as religious devotion seems to wane. I have frequently seen memes and articles that decry exclusion, bullying, and the practice of judging others... many of which are quite clever. I saw a meme that said "don't judge me because I sin differently from you" (apparently President Uchtdorf saw something similar). Certainly this thought is not reserved as a slogan for agnostics; it definitely resonates with Christians. Jesus himself said "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matthew 7:1-2)
I myself have been accused of being excessively judgmental, and in spite of the irony that individuals have judged me as being so, there is certainly room for me to improve.
That having been said, all the "hold hands and sing kumbaya" sentiment can distract from legitimate problems that exist in society. While the vast majority of people would never break into a home and perform violent acts for entertainment, there exist some that would and do. The media has shared stories of people who have killed dozens in schools and theaters. Enemies in foreign lands share their own videos of brutal executions with knives or with fire. There exist areas of the world where even innocent children are exploited as slaves to slake the lust of adults. There are few people who would suggest that such deeds are "right" or that the perpetrators of such crimes should not be judged because they "sin differently."
Additionally, there exist people that believe they are justified in committing acts that society at large considers atrocious. Consider the example of Nehor from the Book of Mormon. He was a large and mighty man that preached the "judge not" brand of religion:
"And he also testified unto the people that all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life." (Alma 1:4)
This idea was popular, and Nehor boldly went preaching against the church of God, which advocated not only righteous living, but also repentance for sinners. In other words, the church taught that bad men should become good, and good men should become better. They judged unrighteousness as being bad.
In the process of "educating" these "ignorant" Christians, Nehor sought them out for argument and debate. On one such occasion, he found an elderly man named Gideon who resisted Nehor's teachings. Anger led to violence. Nehor slew Gideon.
Instead of admitting that what he had done was wrong, he actually held to his doctrine of universal salvation. He defended himself boldly, and insisted that what he had done was not wrong. Of course, the law saw it otherwise, and Nehor was executed for his crimes.
Of course, Nehor is not the first one to become confused as to what is right and what is wrong... and that is the real question that Phil Robertson was illustrating in his example... How do you know what is right and what is wrong?
Those that embrace atheism may be quick to shout "straw man," but for a group of people that claim to espouse reason, there is no consensus about how to answer this question. Without an answer to this question, how does one answer the question "why not murder, rape, and steal?" It cannot be answered by "because these practices are wrong" without the existence of universal right and wrong. I suppose it could be answered by "because these practices are illegal" but in many places, gay marriage is illegal, and most atheists I know are in favor of legalizing this practice. So if morality cannot be coupled to the law, then what? Harm? What if a society does not recognize something as harmful... or cannot currently prove that something is harmful? Who will do the study on whether intimate relationships between humans and animals is harmful? Are there some applications of eugenics that have a net positive effect on society? Who can prove otherwise?
Also, to whom must something be proven? What if someone performs an act without knowing it could be harmful (a lobotomy for example, which is now considered harmful)? And if not knowing something is harmful makes it unethical, can ignorance excuse unethical behaviors such as robbery, murder, rape, etc...?
While evolutionary biology has become popular in classrooms and creationism has fallen into controversy, the ethical implications of saying that people are "intelligent animals" are rarely considered. If evolutionary fitness is the means by which humans became the dominant species on the planet, then are we on equal moral standing as cattle? Certainly there are some humans who would like to criminalize the slaughter of pigs, cattle, chickens, and other animals for human consumption... but does that also mean we should prosecute lions, hyenas, leopards, wolves, and other predators for murder? Is there a moral difference in killing a human, a dog, a rat, or a cockroach? If so, what causes this difference?
Even though these ethical questions can be difficult to answer, there seems to be a general understanding that is common to most humans. The feeling of guilt for doing something that a parent has forbidden is present even in very young children. The sense of happiness that comes from helping another is also found in young children. There is something intangible that is present in all humans that steers us toward goodness and virtue, and repels us from evil and vice. Of course, its intangibility, as well as a number of other factors, can cause this to diminish or even disappear for some... Nehor was a clear example of this.
Ultimately, this intangible force is to help us to recognize other things beyond our immediate perception. This is precisely why Jesus taught:
"I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine." (John 10:14, emphasis added)
The ability to recognize right can also lead us to recognize our God. Honing this spiritual awareness is a fundamental purpose to the mortal experience.
While it may be popular to say "judge not," or that "judging is wrong," it is important to know that these thoughts do not remove the personal responsibility of each individual. Ignorance, popularity, available proof, empirical evidence, or evolutionary biology will not be sufficient defenses on that day when a man stands before God to be judged. This is not to say that there is no mercy... the power of Jesus Christ is available to those that have faith, repent, and live as he taught.
Yes, Jesus did condemn hypocritical judgment. Yes, Christ said "he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her..." (John 8:7) But he also said "go, and sin no more..." and "except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:20) Vital to following Christ is changing our lives to better. Vital to salvation is learning and doing good. (James 1:22)
Also, if all judgement were wrong... then Christ would not be a judge himself. Consider this passage:
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Matthew 7:21-23, emphasis added) In the end, though right and wrong are nearly impossible to comprehend alone, the man that truly follows Christ can be confident that he is doing right.
People can say what they may about Phil Robertson's example, his show, and his facial hair... but in the end there is definitely value in understanding the importance of God as a source of goodness, authority, and judgement.
Friday, February 7, 2014
Confessions of a Creationist
The Winter Olympic games are nearing. I look forward with anticipation to seeing talented athletes perform amazing feats, and with the hope that my country, the United States, will win many competitions. There is, however, an aspect of the winter games that I do not enjoy: the artistic competitions.
Events such as speed skating have measurable results. Though at times, special cameras and equipment is necessary to determine what racer finished first, the method for winning is always crossing the finish line first. Similarly, ice hockey rewards the team with the most goals at the end with victory.
Events such as figure skating or "ice dancing" are distasteful to me because they have arbitrary elements. The objective is not to skate faster, farther, or higher, but to skate "better" than the other competitors. Of course, this does not mean that the competitors are not impressive, or that they are not athletic... they can be both. It means that their events should not be considered competitive sports. They are artistic performances.
While it is possible for some performances to be better than others, the criteria for "better" always has an arbitrary element. Whether the competition is "American Idol" or figure skating, these types of competitions have always seemed a bit distasteful to me. To some degree, I have an affinity for the definitive, objective, and the measurable. In other words... I like science!
I was always fascinated with learning about biology, chemistry, physics, and astronomy... and while repetitive practice became tedious, the concepts of mathematics have always interested me. The names of planets, elements, dinosaurs, reptiles, amphibians, theorems, and rules were valued acquisitions even from before I started attending school.
The first time I recall learning something scientific that I disliked was in my sixth grade class when the curriculum turned to evolution. Every image of the ape-like homo habilis or homo australopithecus filled me with a distaste that was practically instinctive. I recall one of my fellow students suggesting that the pictures "looked like monkeys." The teacher expressed that they were ancestors of modern humans. Something inside me snapped, and I recall angrily saying that "my dad is not a monkey, and his dad was not a monkey." The next hour was filled with attempts to calm everyone down.
In hindsight, my outburst was not based on evidence, science, or anything measurable or definitive. It was raw and emotional. I just knew that there was something wrong about it, but I had no idea how to articulate my thoughts.
Of course, part of the reason that I found the curriculum so distasteful was my firm belief that "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) From my youth, I was taught that humanity represent the children of God, and that people are not animals.
As I have gotten older, I have learned much more about the theories that support evolution. I have learned about the processes of natural selection, and how they impact changes in allele frequency. I have learned that speciation is not as simple as some make it out to be (for example, donkeys and horses may be considered different species because they produce sterile offspring, mules... but organisms that reproduce asexually cannot be separated into species using this method).
Though my belief that God created heaven and earth has not diminished, if I am honest, I am forced to confess that I have grown to like the science behind evolution.
That having been said, I have also grown to understand more of the reason the concept was so distasteful in my youth. And although I could state that evolution is not based on observable evidence, or how it assumes that the basic characteristics of life have not changed since life began (such as reproduction and death), if I am honest, I am forced to confess that my skepticism toward evolution has little to do with science.
My beef with evolution is Godlessness. Of course I know that not all evolutionists are atheists, and I suppose it is possible that not all atheists are evolutionists, but I have known many atheists to use scientific evidence that supports evolution not as a tool of enlightenment or to express interest in fossils, genetics, or taxonomy... but rather as a weapon to mock and belittle those that believe in God.
In other words, many Christians are made to feel the argument being made is this: people who believe in God are stupid/wrong/ignorant/[other belittling adjective] because evolution.
There is no other scientific principle or theory that I have seen used the way evolution is. No one says:
people who believe in God are stupid/wrong/ignorant/[other belittling adjective] because fundamental theorem of calculus.
The implications of Godlessness are not scientific either. They are ethical and philosophical. If humans are animals, and other animals kill one another (whether for food, for mating, or for other competition), how can we say that it is wrong to kill someone? Without some higher purpose, what exactly is immoral about human cruelty?
Of course, most secularists are not interested in intellectual honesty when it comes to questioning the instability of their moral foundation... but those that are reveal the awful truth about Godlessness. For example, rabid atheist activist Richard Dawkins said this:
"I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today" (http://twitchy.com/2013/09/10/mild-pedophilia-cockroach-richard-dawkins-brazenly-defends-sexual-abuse-of-children/) He later went on to say that a former teacher that abused him and his classmates did not do any "lasting harm."
When the standards of right and wrong can shift toward what is convenient for society, there is no evil that is off limits. When life has no purpose, then there is no good reason to avoid exploiting or abusing others for personal gain. Arguments about the "good of society" being a motivating factor for moral behavior justify wrongs perpetrated against those that society dislikes and/or devalues.
Ultimately, if right and wrong are relative concepts, then crimes such as genocide or child abuse are given equal moral strength to children being forced to eat their vegetables... as they are both only "called bad".
Having said this, I certainly understand the legitimate feelings of those that do not want creation taught because it is not scientific. I would prefer that figure skating not exist in the winter Olympic Games for similar reasons. I do not however think it is appropriate to belittle those that enjoy figure skating, or who participate in the events... and if I am honest... I have to confess that sometimes the music and the skill can even be good, and that American gold medals make me smile regardless of the event.
I would suggest that persons who find creationism distasteful might similarly find value in an ethical foundation that believers aspire to build where honesty, kindness, and virtue are inseparably connected to the purpose of life. Just because it is not based on observation or hard evidence does not mean it is worthy of universal condemnation... In fact... if everyone is honest... they must confess that there is beauty and goodness that comes from faith in God.
Events such as speed skating have measurable results. Though at times, special cameras and equipment is necessary to determine what racer finished first, the method for winning is always crossing the finish line first. Similarly, ice hockey rewards the team with the most goals at the end with victory.
Events such as figure skating or "ice dancing" are distasteful to me because they have arbitrary elements. The objective is not to skate faster, farther, or higher, but to skate "better" than the other competitors. Of course, this does not mean that the competitors are not impressive, or that they are not athletic... they can be both. It means that their events should not be considered competitive sports. They are artistic performances.
While it is possible for some performances to be better than others, the criteria for "better" always has an arbitrary element. Whether the competition is "American Idol" or figure skating, these types of competitions have always seemed a bit distasteful to me. To some degree, I have an affinity for the definitive, objective, and the measurable. In other words... I like science!
I was always fascinated with learning about biology, chemistry, physics, and astronomy... and while repetitive practice became tedious, the concepts of mathematics have always interested me. The names of planets, elements, dinosaurs, reptiles, amphibians, theorems, and rules were valued acquisitions even from before I started attending school.
The first time I recall learning something scientific that I disliked was in my sixth grade class when the curriculum turned to evolution. Every image of the ape-like homo habilis or homo australopithecus filled me with a distaste that was practically instinctive. I recall one of my fellow students suggesting that the pictures "looked like monkeys." The teacher expressed that they were ancestors of modern humans. Something inside me snapped, and I recall angrily saying that "my dad is not a monkey, and his dad was not a monkey." The next hour was filled with attempts to calm everyone down.
In hindsight, my outburst was not based on evidence, science, or anything measurable or definitive. It was raw and emotional. I just knew that there was something wrong about it, but I had no idea how to articulate my thoughts.
Of course, part of the reason that I found the curriculum so distasteful was my firm belief that "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) From my youth, I was taught that humanity represent the children of God, and that people are not animals.
As I have gotten older, I have learned much more about the theories that support evolution. I have learned about the processes of natural selection, and how they impact changes in allele frequency. I have learned that speciation is not as simple as some make it out to be (for example, donkeys and horses may be considered different species because they produce sterile offspring, mules... but organisms that reproduce asexually cannot be separated into species using this method).
Though my belief that God created heaven and earth has not diminished, if I am honest, I am forced to confess that I have grown to like the science behind evolution.
That having been said, I have also grown to understand more of the reason the concept was so distasteful in my youth. And although I could state that evolution is not based on observable evidence, or how it assumes that the basic characteristics of life have not changed since life began (such as reproduction and death), if I am honest, I am forced to confess that my skepticism toward evolution has little to do with science.
My beef with evolution is Godlessness. Of course I know that not all evolutionists are atheists, and I suppose it is possible that not all atheists are evolutionists, but I have known many atheists to use scientific evidence that supports evolution not as a tool of enlightenment or to express interest in fossils, genetics, or taxonomy... but rather as a weapon to mock and belittle those that believe in God.
In other words, many Christians are made to feel the argument being made is this: people who believe in God are stupid/wrong/ignorant/[other belittling adjective] because evolution.
There is no other scientific principle or theory that I have seen used the way evolution is. No one says:
people who believe in God are stupid/wrong/ignorant/[other belittling adjective] because fundamental theorem of calculus.
The implications of Godlessness are not scientific either. They are ethical and philosophical. If humans are animals, and other animals kill one another (whether for food, for mating, or for other competition), how can we say that it is wrong to kill someone? Without some higher purpose, what exactly is immoral about human cruelty?
Of course, most secularists are not interested in intellectual honesty when it comes to questioning the instability of their moral foundation... but those that are reveal the awful truth about Godlessness. For example, rabid atheist activist Richard Dawkins said this:
"I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today" (http://twitchy.com/2013/09/10/mild-pedophilia-cockroach-richard-dawkins-brazenly-defends-sexual-abuse-of-children/) He later went on to say that a former teacher that abused him and his classmates did not do any "lasting harm."
When the standards of right and wrong can shift toward what is convenient for society, there is no evil that is off limits. When life has no purpose, then there is no good reason to avoid exploiting or abusing others for personal gain. Arguments about the "good of society" being a motivating factor for moral behavior justify wrongs perpetrated against those that society dislikes and/or devalues.
Ultimately, if right and wrong are relative concepts, then crimes such as genocide or child abuse are given equal moral strength to children being forced to eat their vegetables... as they are both only "called bad".
Having said this, I certainly understand the legitimate feelings of those that do not want creation taught because it is not scientific. I would prefer that figure skating not exist in the winter Olympic Games for similar reasons. I do not however think it is appropriate to belittle those that enjoy figure skating, or who participate in the events... and if I am honest... I have to confess that sometimes the music and the skill can even be good, and that American gold medals make me smile regardless of the event.
I would suggest that persons who find creationism distasteful might similarly find value in an ethical foundation that believers aspire to build where honesty, kindness, and virtue are inseparably connected to the purpose of life. Just because it is not based on observation or hard evidence does not mean it is worthy of universal condemnation... In fact... if everyone is honest... they must confess that there is beauty and goodness that comes from faith in God.
Monday, February 25, 2013
Wait, I thought you believed in separation of church and state...
Zack Kopplin has received attention in the past year for his efforts against creationism or intelligent design being taught in schools. This is not all that uncommon an effort among atheist activists. The thing that sets him apart is his attack of private schools that teach such concepts.
He has been among those that investigate the curriculum of private schools that accept government vouchers, particularly in Louisiana. For those unfamiliar with the basic premise behind vouchers, the basic system is that any given state will spend a certain amount of money on each student. The voucher system allows parents to take those funds and apply them toward education that meets their needs. The goal is that even those in low-income situations will have access to choice in education instead of being forced to use public education, which is arguably less efficient in providing education.
Part of Zack's efforts are based in the claim that because these schools receive government funding in the form of vouchers, they should not be permitted to use curriculum that includes creationism or intelligent design. Like many atheists, he argues that such teachings constitute a violation of the wall of separation between church and state, or an infringement on the beliefs of those that reject such theories.
Of course, being the ward preacher, you might guess that I have different views... and of course, you would be right.
Saying that a school which accepts vouchers is taking public funding is like saying a person who has had a tax refund has accepted public funding. To a degree, they have. The current progressive tax system sees to it that some people pay taxes and others receive checks in place of such taxes. People in lower income brackets that cash refund checks or approve refund deposits have accepted public funding. If the public interest in removing religion from sources with public funding is so important, perhaps the government should examine what they are teaching their kids in such homes to see if it is compatible with the current politically correct understanding.
To extend the analogy, a person that receives food stamps also has accepted public funding. Perhaps a condition of accepting this funding should include that the recipient should be disallowed to affiliate themselves with a religious organization just to ensure that no public funding can possibly aid a church. What a crime it would be if we found that food stamp recipients ever entertained (gasp) missionaries in their home... and what a greater crime it would be if said missionaries (gasp) ate a meal that such individuals had prepared.
Please do not misunderstand me, or assume that I am advocating for a state religion. While I believe firmly that I have found a church that is led by Jesus Christ himself, I do not believe that the United States should dictate to its citizens that they should become members of it, or that the government should institute fines or other penal measures against those who are not members of it.
Atheist activist efforts typically revolve around a liberal interpretation of "establishment of religion" in the first amendment. Conveniently, most activists pretend that the free exercise clause does not exist, but regardless, the pair of these clauses form a metaphorical wall of separation between church and state. (See Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists - http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html)
Having a wall of separation implies a distinct separation between the two entities. Of course, atheist activists are anxious to ensure that Christmas, Easter, or monuments to the Ten Commandments are physically separated from government property. Such steps are completely one-sided, and do not ensure the existence of a wall of separation, but instead a valve of separation where the state trumps the church in all cases.
Establishing a wall of separation means pulling the government out of roles that ought to be reserved for churches. The more obvious roles include welfare and charity. A less obvious role is education.
While the state may have an interest in having its citizens educated, it is no greater than its interest in having citizens that are charitable and benevolent. This does not make the government the appropriate source of education any more than it makes it an effective charity or rehabilitative system.
In the same sense, the church has an interest in being protected against people that want to kill them, rob them, or otherwise prevent them from accomplishing their purposes, but that does not make churches an appropriate body for defense or law enforcement.
Particularly in a society where the government consists of the public and the public cannot come to a consensus on what curriculum should be, it makes sense to allow people to pursue curriculum that is consistent with what they believe to be important on an individual basis.
A person that has no desire to study medicine should not be compelled to. A person that wishes to study a completely unmarketable skill in the humanities should be free to. Similarly, a person that wants to investigate evolutionary biology should be able to, and a person that wishes to have a biblical perspective on philosophy and life should also be able to. The government has no business telling people what they need to learn. Of course, the government can encourage people to develop specific skills that are appropriate for government applications such as law and agriculture, the same way that businesses encourage the development of specific skills such as accounting and computer science.
Even when examining only the most effective teachers and administrators in public education systems (under some of whom I have studied), there remain concerns from religious individuals on how sex is taught, and concerns from anti-religious individuals on literature that includes biblical or religious references. These concerns would not exist if education were emancipated from the restraints of the state.
Additionally, ethical questions are a natural part of education, and since ethical questions require understanding religious perspectives (http://wardpreacher.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-ethical-dilemmas-of-godlessness.html), it is a disservice to students to remove the option of exploring religious perspectives. While there may be students and parents that do not wish to use such an option, should people not be able to freely decide how to study without having to invest in a public system?
If anti-religious zealots like Zack Kopplin were truly interested in maintaining a wall of separation between church and state, they would not be fighting about what to include in a public curriculum in efforts to try and remove the church from the state; they would be fighting just as hard to remove the state from the church.
He has been among those that investigate the curriculum of private schools that accept government vouchers, particularly in Louisiana. For those unfamiliar with the basic premise behind vouchers, the basic system is that any given state will spend a certain amount of money on each student. The voucher system allows parents to take those funds and apply them toward education that meets their needs. The goal is that even those in low-income situations will have access to choice in education instead of being forced to use public education, which is arguably less efficient in providing education.
Part of Zack's efforts are based in the claim that because these schools receive government funding in the form of vouchers, they should not be permitted to use curriculum that includes creationism or intelligent design. Like many atheists, he argues that such teachings constitute a violation of the wall of separation between church and state, or an infringement on the beliefs of those that reject such theories.
Of course, being the ward preacher, you might guess that I have different views... and of course, you would be right.
Saying that a school which accepts vouchers is taking public funding is like saying a person who has had a tax refund has accepted public funding. To a degree, they have. The current progressive tax system sees to it that some people pay taxes and others receive checks in place of such taxes. People in lower income brackets that cash refund checks or approve refund deposits have accepted public funding. If the public interest in removing religion from sources with public funding is so important, perhaps the government should examine what they are teaching their kids in such homes to see if it is compatible with the current politically correct understanding.
To extend the analogy, a person that receives food stamps also has accepted public funding. Perhaps a condition of accepting this funding should include that the recipient should be disallowed to affiliate themselves with a religious organization just to ensure that no public funding can possibly aid a church. What a crime it would be if we found that food stamp recipients ever entertained (gasp) missionaries in their home... and what a greater crime it would be if said missionaries (gasp) ate a meal that such individuals had prepared.
Please do not misunderstand me, or assume that I am advocating for a state religion. While I believe firmly that I have found a church that is led by Jesus Christ himself, I do not believe that the United States should dictate to its citizens that they should become members of it, or that the government should institute fines or other penal measures against those who are not members of it.
Atheist activist efforts typically revolve around a liberal interpretation of "establishment of religion" in the first amendment. Conveniently, most activists pretend that the free exercise clause does not exist, but regardless, the pair of these clauses form a metaphorical wall of separation between church and state. (See Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists - http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html)
Having a wall of separation implies a distinct separation between the two entities. Of course, atheist activists are anxious to ensure that Christmas, Easter, or monuments to the Ten Commandments are physically separated from government property. Such steps are completely one-sided, and do not ensure the existence of a wall of separation, but instead a valve of separation where the state trumps the church in all cases.
Establishing a wall of separation means pulling the government out of roles that ought to be reserved for churches. The more obvious roles include welfare and charity. A less obvious role is education.
While the state may have an interest in having its citizens educated, it is no greater than its interest in having citizens that are charitable and benevolent. This does not make the government the appropriate source of education any more than it makes it an effective charity or rehabilitative system.
In the same sense, the church has an interest in being protected against people that want to kill them, rob them, or otherwise prevent them from accomplishing their purposes, but that does not make churches an appropriate body for defense or law enforcement.
Particularly in a society where the government consists of the public and the public cannot come to a consensus on what curriculum should be, it makes sense to allow people to pursue curriculum that is consistent with what they believe to be important on an individual basis.
A person that has no desire to study medicine should not be compelled to. A person that wishes to study a completely unmarketable skill in the humanities should be free to. Similarly, a person that wants to investigate evolutionary biology should be able to, and a person that wishes to have a biblical perspective on philosophy and life should also be able to. The government has no business telling people what they need to learn. Of course, the government can encourage people to develop specific skills that are appropriate for government applications such as law and agriculture, the same way that businesses encourage the development of specific skills such as accounting and computer science.
Even when examining only the most effective teachers and administrators in public education systems (under some of whom I have studied), there remain concerns from religious individuals on how sex is taught, and concerns from anti-religious individuals on literature that includes biblical or religious references. These concerns would not exist if education were emancipated from the restraints of the state.
Additionally, ethical questions are a natural part of education, and since ethical questions require understanding religious perspectives (http://wardpreacher.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-ethical-dilemmas-of-godlessness.html), it is a disservice to students to remove the option of exploring religious perspectives. While there may be students and parents that do not wish to use such an option, should people not be able to freely decide how to study without having to invest in a public system?
If anti-religious zealots like Zack Kopplin were truly interested in maintaining a wall of separation between church and state, they would not be fighting about what to include in a public curriculum in efforts to try and remove the church from the state; they would be fighting just as hard to remove the state from the church.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Contention may be of the Devil, but Jesus was really good at it!
Having one's views attacked can be aggravating and frustrating whether the views are political, religious, or based on the type of music/movies/shows that a person enjoys. Of course, closing in on the presidential race in the United States of America, arguments have become heated in many forums. People that normally remember to say "please" and "thank you" have in many cases been seen slinging that which is vulgar and profane. Arguments in many cases have the power to bring out the worst in humanity.
On another occasion, enemies tried to trap him by asking Jesus the source of his authority. If he were to say God, they would accuse him of blasphemy (even though it was true). If he were to say some other source, they could accuse him of being a false prophet. He took the advice that he had given in his sermon on the mount when he said:
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." (Matthew 7:6)
Instead of answering the question they posed, he posed a similar question to them:
"And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him? But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet. And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things." (Matthew 21:24-27)
Certainly it is no coincidence that Jesus taught in the Book of Mormon the following:
"For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another. Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away." (3 Nephi 11:29-30)
The passage in the Book of Mormon is quite plain and direct, and certainly in harmony with the messages that he shared famously in his sermon on the mount:
"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven..." (Matthew 5:38-45)
Jesus seemed clear that people probably should not participate in arguments or contentions. That having been said, he was himself a target of many of the Pharisees and Sadducees that dominated religious thought in Galilee and Judea during his mortal life. The gospels are filled with accounts of the various attempts that were made to argue against Jesus. The truth is, as much as he talked about the vices of pride and wrath that are so easily stimulated by arguments, Jesus was really really good at arguing.
One example was the group of Pharisees that thought they could trap Jesus by asking whether it was lawful to pay tribute to Caesar. If Jesus were to say it was lawful, they could attack his popularity because Roman occupation was despised by the Jews. If he were to say it was not lawful, they could report him to the Romans for sedition. His response was perfect:
"Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Cæsar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s." (Matthew 22:19-21)
Jesus gave the perfect answer. By asking about the image on the coin, those that had thought they could trap him were forced to portray themselves as having overlooked something obvious. Additionally, he could not be accused of sedition, nor could his piety be questioned by suggesting that people give to Caesar what is his and to God what is his.
Sadducees attempted to attack Christ's affirmation of the resurrection with a hypothetical situation:
"Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." (Matthew 22:24-32)
In this case, he showed his amazing ability by ignoring the hypothetical situation which was a distraction from the real point of whether or not there would be a resurrection of the dead. Though they had come to attack his views for something they felt was inconsistent, he was able to counter by identifying their own inconsistency.
On another occasion, enemies tried to trap him by asking Jesus the source of his authority. If he were to say God, they would accuse him of blasphemy (even though it was true). If he were to say some other source, they could accuse him of being a false prophet. He took the advice that he had given in his sermon on the mount when he said:
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." (Matthew 7:6)
Instead of answering the question they posed, he posed a similar question to them:
"And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him? But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet. And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things." (Matthew 21:24-27)
His enemies were never able to win an argument with him, so in the end, they paid Judas Iscariot to betray him so they could secretly arrange for his death. Ironically, they were not able to surprise him or beat him even with their murderous conspiracy, as Jesus raised himself from the dead.
Back to the subject of arguments, there are some that may wonder why Jesus even participated in verbal contests when he seemed so against them. The effort to understand why he debated those that tried to trap him is fundamental to understanding the responsibilities of all Christians to defend the truth, and balancing that with the need to show respect and kindness to all of God's children.
Modern prophets and apostles have encouraged participation in discussions about the church:
"There are conversations going on about the Church constantly. Those conversations will continue whether or not we choose to participate in them. But we cannot stand on the sidelines while others, including our critics, attempt to define what the Church teaches. While some conversations have audiences in the thousands or even millions, most are much, much smaller. But all conversations have an impact on those who participate in them. Perceptions of the Church are established one conversation at a time." (M. Russel Ballard http://www.lds.org/ensign/2008/07/sharing-the-gospel-using-the-internet?lang=eng)
In spite of the possibility that disagreements or contentions may arise, or the fact that the internet is crawling with trolls that, like the Pharisees of old, feel satisfaction in discrediting, angering, and bullying others, Christians have a responsibility to help others both by charitably imparting of their tangible substance, and by sharing the good news that Christ is alive and has power to save us all. That having been said, there are lessons to learn from the methods used by Christ himself for dealing with trolls.
Many people that attack Christians do so based on the idea of logical arguments. A logical argument is like a house where the roof represents a conclusion or premise that is supported by walls representing supporting evidence or reasons. The basic idea behind attacking a logical argument is that if all or many of the supporting reasons are eliminated, the conclusion falls just as if the walls of a house are knocked down or weakened, the roof falls.
This concept is important for many discussions, such as jury deliberations where the conclusion of the defendant's guilt is dismissed when reasonable doubt knocks down or weakens the evidence that supports the conclusion. As important as critical thinking techniques are in making some decisions, matters of philosophy, ethics, and faith are not always best served by such techniques.
An example of this can be seen in the following hypothetical situation:
There is a Christian that believes in God, and that the Bible represents the word of God. He has friends that are historians that have informed him about evidence that supports his belief in that ancient Biblical cities are mentioned in archaeological artifacts. A skeptical friend finds that the mention of these cities can be explained by the fact that the Bible was written centuries later and used the names of old cities to appear to be of ancient origin. Because there is no other tangible evidence of the Bible's authenticity that the Christian is able to enumerate, the skeptic explains that there is no reason for him to believe in the Bible.
Obviously, belief in God and the Bible does not need to be based on tangible evidence. It is based on faith. Consequently, when the supporting evidences of religious conclusions are attacked, their is an invisible pillar in the center that prevents the conclusion from falling. Since a person of faith does not need tangible evidence to support their conclusion, exposing reasons or evidence of belief to those that might attack it is like casting pearls before swine. Conclusions of faith such as those that God lives, that the Bible is accurate, and that prophets dispense the truths of heaven to mankind are not conclusions that require logical defense, so do not provide them.
Secular conclusions on the other hand do require logical and tangible justification. It is typically easy to discern a person who is genuinely interested in faith from one who is genuinely interested in destroying faith by asking them to defend their philosophical and ethical positions. Since such positions put them in a position of vulnerability, they will try and evade, stall, or shift the burden of proof to you. Individuals that are genuinely interested in conversation will not maneuver you into positions where you may look bad. Ending a conversation is not the same as conceding an opponent was correct. If an attacker refuses to expose their reasoning, it might be wise to do as Christ did when he was pressed on the source of his authority and follow suit.
Avoiding contention does not necessarily mean avoiding pointing out flaws in reasoning. Jesus was not afraid to tell people that they were acting hypocritical, or to condemn incorrect principles. Going back to the example where Christ countered the Sadducees regarding their misunderstanding of the resurrection, it is good to use critical thinking to examine the integrity of secular conclusions. Particularly in matters of ethics, few secularists have examined their views. In recent conversations I have had for example, secularists claimed that their ethical behavior was guided by the principles of "empathy and compassion." It does not take much critical thinking to show that these principles fall apart when administering justice. If a person does not want to be held against their will, empathy and compassion tell them that imprisoning others even if they are guilty of heinous crimes is unethical. Relativists that believe something is good only because an individual or group has labeled it good strip themselves of moral judgement entirely. If something is bad because a person does not like it, then that puts bad acts such as child molestation on equal moral ground as having to eat vegetables. The need for God in ethics is something I have previously touched on in this post.
Christianity assumes that humanity consists of more than animals with a large number of adaptations making survival easier... The assertion is that people are the children of Almighty God. From the perspective of the Mormon church, we assert that each human being lived before they came to earth with our Heavenly Father, and that after we die, we will return to face him, and be held accountable for our choices. The understanding that God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and benevolent is fundamental to our faith. With that understanding, context is added to the story of the creation of the earth. A being with tremendous power went to a lot of trouble to send us to a place where we would not remember him and where we could not typically see, hear, or tangibly perceive him. He did not completely abandon humanity though, and provided spiritual sources for learning truths. The environment created was brilliant in its design since it truly imparts free will to men. The choices and desires of every human are not compelled by the Heavens.
Another assertion made by most Christians is that all human beings are given something to help them identify and recognize good and truth. The conscience is sometimes referred to as the light of Christ in accordance with the description of the Apostle John:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." (John 1:1-9)
People have a general understanding of how to perceive good. They have an instinct that draws them toward God in some fashion. While no one follows their conscience perfectly, and while there are some that rarely use it, it is capable of being as recognizable as the image and superscription on a coin. Just as Jesus was not afraid to point out to his attackers what they should have already noticed, so should those that defend faith in Christ be willing to point out that people are already capable of recognizing truth without dependence on tangible evidence. Like recognizing a scent, people know instinctively when something is right. With regular, diligent use, anyone is capable of recognizing the truths of God and his Christ. Odds are, any individual that attacks faith knows in their heart that they are wrong. Even if they do not know it, they are still the person that will be most persuasive in convincing themselves that they should have faith.
The responsibility of Christians to invite all to come to Christ is not a policy to hunt down antagonists and attempt to humiliate them. It is a policy of spreading the good news of Jesus. Christ proclaimed the truth to all; his religion was his identity. The same should be the case for those that aspire to be called Christians.
When a discussion moves to become antagonistic, affirm the truth and end the discussion. Endless bashing between individuals is at best a waste of time, and at worst, could tragically turn a friend into an enemy. In persuading others to accept Christ, Christians must not abandon his teachings. In the end, what made Christ so good when he contended with those that sought to malign him was his ability to know when not to contend, and when to step away.
Winning a petty argument is meaningless since everyone will eventually agree. In the end, Jesus will come in triumph and glory. He will be the hero that appears in the moment of peril and despair to save his people. Every knee will bow before His Majesty. The good news is that he wants everyone on his side.
This concept is important for many discussions, such as jury deliberations where the conclusion of the defendant's guilt is dismissed when reasonable doubt knocks down or weakens the evidence that supports the conclusion. As important as critical thinking techniques are in making some decisions, matters of philosophy, ethics, and faith are not always best served by such techniques.
An example of this can be seen in the following hypothetical situation:
There is a Christian that believes in God, and that the Bible represents the word of God. He has friends that are historians that have informed him about evidence that supports his belief in that ancient Biblical cities are mentioned in archaeological artifacts. A skeptical friend finds that the mention of these cities can be explained by the fact that the Bible was written centuries later and used the names of old cities to appear to be of ancient origin. Because there is no other tangible evidence of the Bible's authenticity that the Christian is able to enumerate, the skeptic explains that there is no reason for him to believe in the Bible.
Obviously, belief in God and the Bible does not need to be based on tangible evidence. It is based on faith. Consequently, when the supporting evidences of religious conclusions are attacked, their is an invisible pillar in the center that prevents the conclusion from falling. Since a person of faith does not need tangible evidence to support their conclusion, exposing reasons or evidence of belief to those that might attack it is like casting pearls before swine. Conclusions of faith such as those that God lives, that the Bible is accurate, and that prophets dispense the truths of heaven to mankind are not conclusions that require logical defense, so do not provide them.
Secular conclusions on the other hand do require logical and tangible justification. It is typically easy to discern a person who is genuinely interested in faith from one who is genuinely interested in destroying faith by asking them to defend their philosophical and ethical positions. Since such positions put them in a position of vulnerability, they will try and evade, stall, or shift the burden of proof to you. Individuals that are genuinely interested in conversation will not maneuver you into positions where you may look bad. Ending a conversation is not the same as conceding an opponent was correct. If an attacker refuses to expose their reasoning, it might be wise to do as Christ did when he was pressed on the source of his authority and follow suit.
Avoiding contention does not necessarily mean avoiding pointing out flaws in reasoning. Jesus was not afraid to tell people that they were acting hypocritical, or to condemn incorrect principles. Going back to the example where Christ countered the Sadducees regarding their misunderstanding of the resurrection, it is good to use critical thinking to examine the integrity of secular conclusions. Particularly in matters of ethics, few secularists have examined their views. In recent conversations I have had for example, secularists claimed that their ethical behavior was guided by the principles of "empathy and compassion." It does not take much critical thinking to show that these principles fall apart when administering justice. If a person does not want to be held against their will, empathy and compassion tell them that imprisoning others even if they are guilty of heinous crimes is unethical. Relativists that believe something is good only because an individual or group has labeled it good strip themselves of moral judgement entirely. If something is bad because a person does not like it, then that puts bad acts such as child molestation on equal moral ground as having to eat vegetables. The need for God in ethics is something I have previously touched on in this post.
Christianity assumes that humanity consists of more than animals with a large number of adaptations making survival easier... The assertion is that people are the children of Almighty God. From the perspective of the Mormon church, we assert that each human being lived before they came to earth with our Heavenly Father, and that after we die, we will return to face him, and be held accountable for our choices. The understanding that God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and benevolent is fundamental to our faith. With that understanding, context is added to the story of the creation of the earth. A being with tremendous power went to a lot of trouble to send us to a place where we would not remember him and where we could not typically see, hear, or tangibly perceive him. He did not completely abandon humanity though, and provided spiritual sources for learning truths. The environment created was brilliant in its design since it truly imparts free will to men. The choices and desires of every human are not compelled by the Heavens.
Another assertion made by most Christians is that all human beings are given something to help them identify and recognize good and truth. The conscience is sometimes referred to as the light of Christ in accordance with the description of the Apostle John:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." (John 1:1-9)
People have a general understanding of how to perceive good. They have an instinct that draws them toward God in some fashion. While no one follows their conscience perfectly, and while there are some that rarely use it, it is capable of being as recognizable as the image and superscription on a coin. Just as Jesus was not afraid to point out to his attackers what they should have already noticed, so should those that defend faith in Christ be willing to point out that people are already capable of recognizing truth without dependence on tangible evidence. Like recognizing a scent, people know instinctively when something is right. With regular, diligent use, anyone is capable of recognizing the truths of God and his Christ. Odds are, any individual that attacks faith knows in their heart that they are wrong. Even if they do not know it, they are still the person that will be most persuasive in convincing themselves that they should have faith.
The responsibility of Christians to invite all to come to Christ is not a policy to hunt down antagonists and attempt to humiliate them. It is a policy of spreading the good news of Jesus. Christ proclaimed the truth to all; his religion was his identity. The same should be the case for those that aspire to be called Christians.
When a discussion moves to become antagonistic, affirm the truth and end the discussion. Endless bashing between individuals is at best a waste of time, and at worst, could tragically turn a friend into an enemy. In persuading others to accept Christ, Christians must not abandon his teachings. In the end, what made Christ so good when he contended with those that sought to malign him was his ability to know when not to contend, and when to step away.
Winning a petty argument is meaningless since everyone will eventually agree. In the end, Jesus will come in triumph and glory. He will be the hero that appears in the moment of peril and despair to save his people. Every knee will bow before His Majesty. The good news is that he wants everyone on his side.
Monday, October 8, 2012
The Ethical Dilemmas of Godlessness
I recently saw an argument presented by a group of self-proclaimed atheists indicating persuading citizens to decry the practices of some political representatives to argue about the laws of God, and that they should instead embrace "reason."
The effort to separate God from good is not a new effort. Evaluating ethics by asking whether something is good because God commands it, or was it already good with its goodness providing the reason for God's command is a frequent technique used to promote the idea that it is possible to be good without believing in God.
Atheist or agnostic persons can do good. Some individuals in these categories would even argue that atheistic moral philosophy is superior to religious philosophy because it can be questioned and examined more openly, whereas, a religious individual cannot or should not question God.
It is also easy to look at violent historic conflicts between subscribers of differing religious philosophies and conclude that these systems of ethics proved to be unethical entirely. In modern times, though witchcraft is not exactly mainstream, the Salem witch trials famously demonstrated how even well-meaning religious individuals may be mislead by faith-based moral judgement. Refuge from violence between Catholics and Protestants or Protestants and other Protestants represented the cause of many individuals that colonized the American continent.
Unfortunately, taking God out of ethical questions does not resolve them. Removing religion does not expose a universal law for making moral choices. Those that argue for reason proceed to argue about the conclusions derived from their use of reason.
There have been many attempts to create universal and general systems for making moral choices. A common rule that is found in many religions is the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This rule, or derivations of it, exist in a large number of religions. Christ himself taught "therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." (Matthew 7:12)
The problem with trusting only in the law has been highlighted by several philosophers. One weakness is the inconsistency of desires between individuals. If one individual enjoys a particular act, and another person finds the act unpleasant, then an unpleasant act can be forced on one is moral by the Golden Rule. Inversely, the pleasant act withheld from the other is moral by the same rule. This is similar to the generalization philosophy. This philosophy takes an act and then hypothetically asks if all individuals were able to do the act to all persons, including the person considering the act, and then assesses if the result would be desirable. The problem is that there is never a unanimous agreement on what is desirable.
Another weakness in the Golden Rule can be found in administering justice. For example, imagine a criminal duly convicted of crime is sentenced to imprisonment. The criminal then appeals to the judge using the Golden Rule asking if he would want someone else to imprison him. If there are exceptions to the Golden Rule, such as the punishment of criminals who have violated it, by what rule are punishments determined to be moral or immoral?
Other individuals base their actions on happiness. They try and do things that generate happiness. Another way of stating this philosophy is that there is no reason for life except the purpose we give it.
The flaw with this philosophy is the same flaw that atheists find in religion. "Happiness" is not a measurable or representative of empirical evidence. Consider the happiness that a middle-class individual might feel from obtaining one hundred dollars. Consider the unhappiness of a wealthy individual that has millions of dollars when they lose one hundred dollars. In theory, the happiness of the individual that obtains the money would be greater than the unhappiness of the wealthy individual, therefore, stealing is a moral decision in this scenario.
More complicated ethical situations arise when society is forced to "measure" happiness from individuals that make choices that are commonly viewed as immoral. What if the amount of happiness that a serial killer gets from murdering someone exceeds the unhappiness of the victim and their family... does the choice become moral? Has any attempt been made to measure the happiness of serial killers or child molesters or other violent criminals? If we examine the levels of dopamine released during particular acts, does that decide what is right and wrong?
In the end, there is only one philosophy that provides moral guidance without God: cultural relativism. The idea that society decides what is right and wrong to suit its needs and provide for the general welfare of its members cannot be attacked by individual examples, because a society could always redefine right and wrong. The flaw in this philosophy is the lack of consistency. For example, in the 1700s and early 1800s, slavery was an acceptable practice in society. Because the culture embraced it, according to cultural relativism, it was moral behavior. Only after slavery was abolished did the practice become immoral for honest subscribers of this philosophy.
Ultimately, while saying that God follows a law that determines what is good or moral may appear to allow those that reject God to be moral, it does not reveal the law. People still argue about a variety of practices as to whether they are good or evil.
The advantage of having an all-knowing God that identifies what is right and what is wrong should be clear. "God says so" suddenly becomes a valid reason. With a law that no philosopher has ever been able to define guiding right and wrong, pursuing the will of a perfect being that is able to define it makes sense. Even if the will of God is bound by law, understanding the law requires access to God.
The emphasis of many atheists with whom I have spoken is rarely on moral philosophy however. In my experience, preference is given to scientific evidence that highlights evolution and an expanding universe. Ideas presented in the Bible that point to a seven-day creation, or a planet-wide flood that destroyed all land-based animal life that was not preserved in a single ark with Noah seem particularly vulnerable to those that only embrace secular guidance.
Viewing mankind as no more than an advanced form of animal life makes sense in a biology class, but has serious and frequently under-examined ethical repercussions. Survival of the fittest is the only real guide in the natural world. Anything that increases fitness or even decreases the fitness of competitors is desirable without ethical consideration. In this train of thought, right and wrong are not as relevant as getting caught. A person that murders another, but is not detected or not convicted has not acted immorally in the survival of the fittest mindset. If there is no life after this where justice will be administered to the sinful, there is no real reason to avoid practices that are considered sinful, particularly if some form of personal fitness or satisfaction is obtained from these practices.
Embracing God means embracing a universal right and wrong. It is an expression of confidence that choices in this life have consequences in the next life. It gives purpose to concepts that everyone deep in their hearts know to be truly valuable such as benevolence, virtue, honesty, loyalty, and mercy. It gives reason to avoid vices such as pride, envy, wrath, lust, sloth, greed, or gluttony, as these sins may have permanent negative consequences.
More than just defining it, God represents the ability to become good. In the end, there is no person, entity, force, or philosophy that has the power to make bad men good and good men better like God.
While there are those that have done awful things in the name of religion or serving God, I believe that the quest to find the truth about God will in the end lead men to the same place. Ultimately, everyone will have an opportunity to find that strait and narrow path that leads to God, and they will see that choices made in this life have consequences that extend into the next. Good and evil are not abstract concepts, they are universal and general. Separating God from goodness is not necessary since in the end good will triumph over evil because of God.
The effort to separate God from good is not a new effort. Evaluating ethics by asking whether something is good because God commands it, or was it already good with its goodness providing the reason for God's command is a frequent technique used to promote the idea that it is possible to be good without believing in God.
Atheist or agnostic persons can do good. Some individuals in these categories would even argue that atheistic moral philosophy is superior to religious philosophy because it can be questioned and examined more openly, whereas, a religious individual cannot or should not question God.
It is also easy to look at violent historic conflicts between subscribers of differing religious philosophies and conclude that these systems of ethics proved to be unethical entirely. In modern times, though witchcraft is not exactly mainstream, the Salem witch trials famously demonstrated how even well-meaning religious individuals may be mislead by faith-based moral judgement. Refuge from violence between Catholics and Protestants or Protestants and other Protestants represented the cause of many individuals that colonized the American continent.
Unfortunately, taking God out of ethical questions does not resolve them. Removing religion does not expose a universal law for making moral choices. Those that argue for reason proceed to argue about the conclusions derived from their use of reason.
There have been many attempts to create universal and general systems for making moral choices. A common rule that is found in many religions is the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This rule, or derivations of it, exist in a large number of religions. Christ himself taught "therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." (Matthew 7:12)
The problem with trusting only in the law has been highlighted by several philosophers. One weakness is the inconsistency of desires between individuals. If one individual enjoys a particular act, and another person finds the act unpleasant, then an unpleasant act can be forced on one is moral by the Golden Rule. Inversely, the pleasant act withheld from the other is moral by the same rule. This is similar to the generalization philosophy. This philosophy takes an act and then hypothetically asks if all individuals were able to do the act to all persons, including the person considering the act, and then assesses if the result would be desirable. The problem is that there is never a unanimous agreement on what is desirable.
Another weakness in the Golden Rule can be found in administering justice. For example, imagine a criminal duly convicted of crime is sentenced to imprisonment. The criminal then appeals to the judge using the Golden Rule asking if he would want someone else to imprison him. If there are exceptions to the Golden Rule, such as the punishment of criminals who have violated it, by what rule are punishments determined to be moral or immoral?
Other individuals base their actions on happiness. They try and do things that generate happiness. Another way of stating this philosophy is that there is no reason for life except the purpose we give it.
The flaw with this philosophy is the same flaw that atheists find in religion. "Happiness" is not a measurable or representative of empirical evidence. Consider the happiness that a middle-class individual might feel from obtaining one hundred dollars. Consider the unhappiness of a wealthy individual that has millions of dollars when they lose one hundred dollars. In theory, the happiness of the individual that obtains the money would be greater than the unhappiness of the wealthy individual, therefore, stealing is a moral decision in this scenario.
More complicated ethical situations arise when society is forced to "measure" happiness from individuals that make choices that are commonly viewed as immoral. What if the amount of happiness that a serial killer gets from murdering someone exceeds the unhappiness of the victim and their family... does the choice become moral? Has any attempt been made to measure the happiness of serial killers or child molesters or other violent criminals? If we examine the levels of dopamine released during particular acts, does that decide what is right and wrong?
In the end, there is only one philosophy that provides moral guidance without God: cultural relativism. The idea that society decides what is right and wrong to suit its needs and provide for the general welfare of its members cannot be attacked by individual examples, because a society could always redefine right and wrong. The flaw in this philosophy is the lack of consistency. For example, in the 1700s and early 1800s, slavery was an acceptable practice in society. Because the culture embraced it, according to cultural relativism, it was moral behavior. Only after slavery was abolished did the practice become immoral for honest subscribers of this philosophy.
Ultimately, while saying that God follows a law that determines what is good or moral may appear to allow those that reject God to be moral, it does not reveal the law. People still argue about a variety of practices as to whether they are good or evil.
The advantage of having an all-knowing God that identifies what is right and what is wrong should be clear. "God says so" suddenly becomes a valid reason. With a law that no philosopher has ever been able to define guiding right and wrong, pursuing the will of a perfect being that is able to define it makes sense. Even if the will of God is bound by law, understanding the law requires access to God.
The emphasis of many atheists with whom I have spoken is rarely on moral philosophy however. In my experience, preference is given to scientific evidence that highlights evolution and an expanding universe. Ideas presented in the Bible that point to a seven-day creation, or a planet-wide flood that destroyed all land-based animal life that was not preserved in a single ark with Noah seem particularly vulnerable to those that only embrace secular guidance.
Viewing mankind as no more than an advanced form of animal life makes sense in a biology class, but has serious and frequently under-examined ethical repercussions. Survival of the fittest is the only real guide in the natural world. Anything that increases fitness or even decreases the fitness of competitors is desirable without ethical consideration. In this train of thought, right and wrong are not as relevant as getting caught. A person that murders another, but is not detected or not convicted has not acted immorally in the survival of the fittest mindset. If there is no life after this where justice will be administered to the sinful, there is no real reason to avoid practices that are considered sinful, particularly if some form of personal fitness or satisfaction is obtained from these practices.
Embracing God means embracing a universal right and wrong. It is an expression of confidence that choices in this life have consequences in the next life. It gives purpose to concepts that everyone deep in their hearts know to be truly valuable such as benevolence, virtue, honesty, loyalty, and mercy. It gives reason to avoid vices such as pride, envy, wrath, lust, sloth, greed, or gluttony, as these sins may have permanent negative consequences.
More than just defining it, God represents the ability to become good. In the end, there is no person, entity, force, or philosophy that has the power to make bad men good and good men better like God.
While there are those that have done awful things in the name of religion or serving God, I believe that the quest to find the truth about God will in the end lead men to the same place. Ultimately, everyone will have an opportunity to find that strait and narrow path that leads to God, and they will see that choices made in this life have consequences that extend into the next. Good and evil are not abstract concepts, they are universal and general. Separating God from goodness is not necessary since in the end good will triumph over evil because of God.
Monday, June 11, 2012
Why bother living if you could just die and go to heaven?
A prominent atheist, Todd Steifel responded to questions from people of faith recently. (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/blaze-exclusive-prominent-atheist-activist-answers-your-most-burning-questions-about-faith-secularism/) One of the questions he was asked was "If atheists have no faith, what is your reason for life?"
He responded in an articulate and impressive manner:
“This questions needs to be broken in two. There is the question of ‘what is your reason for life,‘ but an answer also needs to be given to the assumption of ’atheists have no faith.’ To the piece on faith, this depends on what definition of faith you use. If defined as, believing without proof, atheists reject this type of blind faith as dangerous and ignorant. This is the kind kind of faith that allows people to be convinced they will be rewarded with virgins for flying a plane into a building. On the other hand, all atheists have faith in terms of trusting other people. Atheists do not have faith in terms of, believing in gods, but personally I have no problem with people who have this kind of faith so long as they are not fundamentalists and do not try to use the government to spread or legislate their religion.
As to our reason for living, our reasons are even stronger than for those who believe in an afterlife. To atheists, we get one shot, there is no reincarnation or heaven where we get to live on after death. We have to do our best here and now. There is no reason for life, except for the purpose we give it. I am sure each atheist has different reasons they love life, but for me, my reasons for living include the joy of raising my children, the love of being with my family and friends and the fulfillment I get from helping other people. A better question may be what is the reason for living for someone who believes in heaven; why bother living if you could just die and go to heaven? What meaning can you give to this life? My guess is that the answers a religious person has to those questions are very similar to the answer I have for living.”
The question of "why bother living if you could just die and go to heaven?" may seem argumentative, but I believe Mr. Steifel submits a valid question. Why would God create mankind, go to great lengths to make his presence undetectable, and then assign a final and permanent judgement that either saves or damns them? If the choices that people make in this life are so important, and he invests so much in us, why would he not come down immediately and explain that to everyone? Why allow atheists and secularists to mock him and cast doubt on his very existence if faith is required to access his saving grace?
Perhaps other Christians have answers to these questions... I will not speak for them. I do know what answers the Mormon faith provides to these questions however.
The purpose of life is not to get to heaven. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believe that the existence of mankind did not begin on earth. It began in heaven.
Many people overlook that the Biblical account in Genesis shows two creations. The more famous is divided into six periods that are called days. The efforts in this time are shown to produce light, land, sea, plants, sun, moon, stars, fish, fowl, beasts, and mankind. After this creation, God then is said to have not made a man to till the earth, and forms a man of the dust of the earth. (Genesis 2:7) After this man is created, plants and rivers are formed in the land, including the garden of Eden. (Genesis 2:8-15) After the creation of man and the garden, God points out that the man is alone and creates animals of the dust of the earth. (Genesis 2:19-20) Finally, God creates a wife for the man, Eve. (Genesis 2:23-24) This second creation appears to differ from the first in both scope and order. Latter-Day Saints believe that this second creation represents a physical creation, and that all things, including mankind, were first created spiritually. (Moses 3:5)
These passages highlight an important point. Mankind existed before the physical earth on which we now live was created. It is not rhetorical to call God our Heavenly Father, for we lived with him as his children before we came to earth. The purpose of life cannot be to get to heaven, because we had already achieved that before birth.
Life challenges us to become something greater. Jesus taught, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:48) The word perfect in this case does not mean flawless. It is the same use of the term when describing the tense in language (i.e. saying 'I have grown' implies that the growth is complete. This is perfect tense.)
This change can be easily identified in the Apostle Peter. He that denied that he knew Jesus (Matthew 26:29-75) became one that boldly declared that he was the Christ. (Acts 4:10-12) Ultimately, his belief in Jesus made him a greater man.
There are numerous other examples of people that gain courage through faith. Faith is a catalyst for improvement. God does not want to come down and prove himself at the request of every atheist or secularist... he wants them to seek him patiently. Scientifically verifiable evidence of his power does not challenge people to become greater. The quest to seek him in the holy scriptures, in the words of prophets, in the sincerity of prayer, and in the humility of repentance, this is what challenges mankind to become something more than they now are.
God provides universal and general guiding principals. Atheism has from ancient times tried to separate God from goodness. Many prominent atheists point out that even devout evangelicals, when pressed, do not say that God is to be obeyed, they say that God is good. If goodness is not tied to God, then they can be good without believing in God.
The real flaw in this belief is the knowledge that without God there can be no justice. If life ends with death, then what does it matter if a man lies, cheats, steals, kills, and does anything he can to get gain? If a murderer can get away with it, and it benefits them, why not murder? If a liar does not get caught, then why not lie? Is it based on some abstract law that people should be good? That is incredibly weak without some method of enforcing the law.
God provides the hope that even when vile offenders get out of worldly justice on technicalities, in the end, those that do wrong will reap the consequences of their actions. In the end, those that do good, and believe in God will be saved by him.
Without God, moral judgement will always fall to culturally relativistic tendencies. If there is no purpose to life other than what we give it, does that mean those that don't do much with their lives have no purpose? If a person doesn't enjoy life as Mr. Steifel does, are they expendable? If a person derives happiness from the misery of others as opposed to helping others as Mr. Steifel does, is cruelty the purpose of their life? Is the value of a purposeful life greater than the value of a life with little or no purpose?
In the end, the answer to the question "why bother living if you could just die and go to heaven?" is probably best handled by an understanding of who we are, why we are here, and what we can become. Because of Jesus Christ, even the most humble life has purpose. Because of Jesus Christ, the poor in spirit shall inherit the kingdom of heaven, they that mourn shall be comforted, the meek shall inherit the earth, they that hunger and thirst after righteousness shall be filled, and the merciful shall obtain mercy. Because of Jesus Christ, there is a reason to live right, and a promise that good will triumph over evil in the end. He didn't come to get the simple satisfaction of teaching philosophy or point out a few benefits of kindness; he came to save us all.
He responded in an articulate and impressive manner:
“This questions needs to be broken in two. There is the question of ‘what is your reason for life,‘ but an answer also needs to be given to the assumption of ’atheists have no faith.’ To the piece on faith, this depends on what definition of faith you use. If defined as, believing without proof, atheists reject this type of blind faith as dangerous and ignorant. This is the kind kind of faith that allows people to be convinced they will be rewarded with virgins for flying a plane into a building. On the other hand, all atheists have faith in terms of trusting other people. Atheists do not have faith in terms of, believing in gods, but personally I have no problem with people who have this kind of faith so long as they are not fundamentalists and do not try to use the government to spread or legislate their religion.
As to our reason for living, our reasons are even stronger than for those who believe in an afterlife. To atheists, we get one shot, there is no reincarnation or heaven where we get to live on after death. We have to do our best here and now. There is no reason for life, except for the purpose we give it. I am sure each atheist has different reasons they love life, but for me, my reasons for living include the joy of raising my children, the love of being with my family and friends and the fulfillment I get from helping other people. A better question may be what is the reason for living for someone who believes in heaven; why bother living if you could just die and go to heaven? What meaning can you give to this life? My guess is that the answers a religious person has to those questions are very similar to the answer I have for living.”
The question of "why bother living if you could just die and go to heaven?" may seem argumentative, but I believe Mr. Steifel submits a valid question. Why would God create mankind, go to great lengths to make his presence undetectable, and then assign a final and permanent judgement that either saves or damns them? If the choices that people make in this life are so important, and he invests so much in us, why would he not come down immediately and explain that to everyone? Why allow atheists and secularists to mock him and cast doubt on his very existence if faith is required to access his saving grace?
Perhaps other Christians have answers to these questions... I will not speak for them. I do know what answers the Mormon faith provides to these questions however.
The purpose of life is not to get to heaven. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believe that the existence of mankind did not begin on earth. It began in heaven.
Many people overlook that the Biblical account in Genesis shows two creations. The more famous is divided into six periods that are called days. The efforts in this time are shown to produce light, land, sea, plants, sun, moon, stars, fish, fowl, beasts, and mankind. After this creation, God then is said to have not made a man to till the earth, and forms a man of the dust of the earth. (Genesis 2:7) After this man is created, plants and rivers are formed in the land, including the garden of Eden. (Genesis 2:8-15) After the creation of man and the garden, God points out that the man is alone and creates animals of the dust of the earth. (Genesis 2:19-20) Finally, God creates a wife for the man, Eve. (Genesis 2:23-24) This second creation appears to differ from the first in both scope and order. Latter-Day Saints believe that this second creation represents a physical creation, and that all things, including mankind, were first created spiritually. (Moses 3:5)
These passages highlight an important point. Mankind existed before the physical earth on which we now live was created. It is not rhetorical to call God our Heavenly Father, for we lived with him as his children before we came to earth. The purpose of life cannot be to get to heaven, because we had already achieved that before birth.
Life challenges us to become something greater. Jesus taught, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:48) The word perfect in this case does not mean flawless. It is the same use of the term when describing the tense in language (i.e. saying 'I have grown' implies that the growth is complete. This is perfect tense.)
This change can be easily identified in the Apostle Peter. He that denied that he knew Jesus (Matthew 26:29-75) became one that boldly declared that he was the Christ. (Acts 4:10-12) Ultimately, his belief in Jesus made him a greater man.
There are numerous other examples of people that gain courage through faith. Faith is a catalyst for improvement. God does not want to come down and prove himself at the request of every atheist or secularist... he wants them to seek him patiently. Scientifically verifiable evidence of his power does not challenge people to become greater. The quest to seek him in the holy scriptures, in the words of prophets, in the sincerity of prayer, and in the humility of repentance, this is what challenges mankind to become something more than they now are.
God provides universal and general guiding principals. Atheism has from ancient times tried to separate God from goodness. Many prominent atheists point out that even devout evangelicals, when pressed, do not say that God is to be obeyed, they say that God is good. If goodness is not tied to God, then they can be good without believing in God.
The real flaw in this belief is the knowledge that without God there can be no justice. If life ends with death, then what does it matter if a man lies, cheats, steals, kills, and does anything he can to get gain? If a murderer can get away with it, and it benefits them, why not murder? If a liar does not get caught, then why not lie? Is it based on some abstract law that people should be good? That is incredibly weak without some method of enforcing the law.
God provides the hope that even when vile offenders get out of worldly justice on technicalities, in the end, those that do wrong will reap the consequences of their actions. In the end, those that do good, and believe in God will be saved by him.
Without God, moral judgement will always fall to culturally relativistic tendencies. If there is no purpose to life other than what we give it, does that mean those that don't do much with their lives have no purpose? If a person doesn't enjoy life as Mr. Steifel does, are they expendable? If a person derives happiness from the misery of others as opposed to helping others as Mr. Steifel does, is cruelty the purpose of their life? Is the value of a purposeful life greater than the value of a life with little or no purpose?
In the end, the answer to the question "why bother living if you could just die and go to heaven?" is probably best handled by an understanding of who we are, why we are here, and what we can become. Because of Jesus Christ, even the most humble life has purpose. Because of Jesus Christ, the poor in spirit shall inherit the kingdom of heaven, they that mourn shall be comforted, the meek shall inherit the earth, they that hunger and thirst after righteousness shall be filled, and the merciful shall obtain mercy. Because of Jesus Christ, there is a reason to live right, and a promise that good will triumph over evil in the end. He didn't come to get the simple satisfaction of teaching philosophy or point out a few benefits of kindness; he came to save us all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)