Origins of Morality

Newsweek has an interesting article this week on the origins of morality. Scientists at Harvard are conducting surveys to determine how people respond to various moral dilemmas. The article says, "A new science of morality is beginning to uncover how people in different cultures judge such dilemmas, identifying the factors that influence judgment and the actions that follow. These studies suggest that nature provides a universal moral grammar, designed to generate fast, intuitive and universally held judgments of right and wrong." Regarding moral choices, it says "What is remarkable is that people with different backgrounds, including atheists and those of faith, respond in the same way."

I touched on this subject almost a year ago when an article in the New York Times noted that morality could be explained simply by evolution. At the time, I noted:

"Can we explain our morality from a strictly biological perspective? Dr. Francis Collins -- a theistic evolutionist -- dismisses the argument that humans obtained their moral reasoning from the evolutionary process. For one, evolution does not explain why humans commit acts of kindness unknown to anyone. Secondly, why do we risk our safety to help people outside of our group (as did Mother Teresa and Oskar Schindler)? The apparent existence of right and wrong, he believes, is a persuasive argument for the existence of a god. Many others who wrote before Collins (including C.S Lewis) also hold such beliefs."

The scientists at Harvard are making some fascinating findings. Morality or right/wrong is a common human trait. More importantly, our responses to moral dilemmas appears to be generally the same, regardless of religiosity and culture. This phenominon was realized close to 2,000 years ago when the Apostle Paul said, "Indeed when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law...they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them." (Romans 2:14-15, NIV)

Imagine No Religion

I don't post in several months and now two in one day...but this story was too good to pass up, given what I wrote about earlier. The Freedom From Religion Foundation is putting up five billboards across Phoenix. They range in messages from, "Imagine No Religion," "Beware of Dogma," and "Keep Religion OUT of Politics." Below is an example.

I will likely pass by at least two of them given my frequent trips to the state Capitol. Perhaps I will stop and get a picture. I don't know why the John Lennon song (blatantly ripped off for the sign above) is referred to as such an inspiring song. A few months ago, I touched on this depressing tune in a previous post (Imagine No Heaven). Obviously, countries without religion have been so successful that we need to replicate their efforts (North Korea, the U.S.S.R., etc.). While China has managed recent economic growth, I doubt the political prisoners arrested for owning a Bible would be willing to give an enthusiastic thumbs up to their country's brutal regime.

John Lennon's song conjures up a supposed utopia where there is no war and the people live for today. Removal of religion is a cornerstone to this utopia. I will be the first to say that countries founded by Christians utilizing Christian values and thought have not been perfect. But the freedom provided by these nations have provided an environment for growth in science and human dignity like the world has never seen. We will not see a utopia on this side of eternity. However, this does not mean we should stop efforts to stamp out injustices. That being said, getting rid of religion from American life is not and never will be the answer.

Offended

Borders book stores is giving away a controversial Christmas card reading “O come all ye faithless” with every copy of Richard Dawkins’ book, The God Delusion. Apparently, folks have become quite offended over the whole thing. Call me thick skinned, but I don't see this as an attack on Christianity, nor do I feel we need to boycott the store. It is an ATHEIST card given out when one purchases an ATHEIST book. It is not like the card is being given out with every purchase of a C.S. Lewis novel. I have to admit, however, that the card is rather witty on a certain level.

To call for a boycott is this circumstance undermines the integrity of this type of protest (which was used by Dr. Martin Luther King to protest racism). Some have also called for the boycott of the recently released movie, the Golden Compass. To an extent, I understand a boycott in this circumstance if folks feel movie producers are misleading movie-goers. Given the extreme comments by the author of the book that the movie was made from, it is hard to say that the whole purpose of the film or the book was anything other than to undermine belief in God. With that said, I will likely watch it on DVD to see what it being said about my faith.

Sometimes I feel that we as Christians are so quick to be offended...if not looking for ways to be offended. If we are so quick to fight, what does that say about our character or our God? It shows that He needs His creation to stand up for Him because obviously, He cannot do it on His own. We are called to give a defense for the hope that is within us...we are not called to be offended.

Maybe I am cranky this evening, but this is just my opinion and it is worth what it cost me to give it to you.

Germany vs. Scientology

Late this week, German federal and state interior ministers declared the Church of Scientology "unconstitutional." Ehrhart Koerting, Berlin's interior minister, said Germany's domestic intelligence agencies would "continue gathering information on the legality of Scientology's activities in Germany so that a decision could be made on what to do about it next year." Here is a link to the German Embassy in Washington, D.C. were they posted a background paper on Scientology to justify the Country's criticism of the organization. One interesting excerpt says, "...Germany, as well as Belgium, France, Great Britain, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Spain, Israel and Mexico, remain unconvinced that Scientology is a religion."

I am not a big fan of Scientology, to say the least. With that said, it frightens me when a government has the right to say what is and isn't a religion. It is one thing to arrest leaders of a cult or religious movement when they break the law (see the case against Warren Jeffs). It is a whole different story to declare a belief system illegal or unconstitutional. As dumb or as great as an idea may be, let it stand or fall on its own merits. Protect the followers of a so-called religion if they are being abused, but let the free-flow of ideas take place. When we start to ban ideas, as much as they might be worth hating, that takes us down a scary road.

Other equally frightening cases in Germany, like this, are also floating around. As recently as last year, a European Human Rights Court affirmed Germany's ban on homeschooling (instituted by the Nazi's in the late 1930's). Part of the court's reasoning was that society has a significant interest in preventing the development of dissent through "separate philosophical convictions." The news story I link to above ends with the following: "The problem with entrusting the education of children to the state is, of course, that instead of parents “indoctrinating” their children with their own ideological and philosophical beliefs, they will be indoctrinated with those of the state – which is exactly why Hitler banned homeschooling in Germany in 1938."

Wow is about all I can say.

The RELIGION Speech

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney addressed his Mormon faith yesterday in a speech some say was reminiscent of the one given by JFK in 1960. You be the judge.

JFK 1960: While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election; the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers 90 miles off the coast of Florida--the humiliating treatment of our President and Vice President by those who no longer respect our power--the hungry children I saw in West Virginia, the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills, the families forced to give up their farms-an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space. These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues--for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.

Romney 2007: ...America faces a new generation of challenges. Radical violent Islam seeks to destroy us. An emerging China endeavors to surpass our economic leadership. And we are troubled at home by government overspending, overuse of foreign oil, and the breakdown of the family. Over the last year, we have embarked on a national debate on how best to preserve American leadership. Today, I wish to address a topic which I believe is fundamental to America's greatness: our religious liberty. I will also offer perspectives on how my own faith would inform my Presidency, if I were elected.
------------
JFK 1960: I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote...

Romney 2007: Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.
------------
JFK 1960: ...I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith--nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.

Romney 2007: Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it.
------------
JFK 1960: ...neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test--even by indirection--for it.

Romney 2007: There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution.

There are significant differences, however, between the two speeches. Romney seemed to want Evangelical voters to feel comfortable with his candidacy. I think he succeeded on this front. He showed were there is common ground with his beliefs and those of traditional Christianity (I loved this quote: "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."

JFK, on the other hand, did not ever appear to intend to build a bridge in his speech. If the Romney speech was an act of him extending his hand to Evangelicals, one gets the impression that the JFK speech was meant to wag the proverbial index finger to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association (as one would do to a child when they did something wrong). See this quote: "For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew--or a Quaker--or a Unitarian--or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim--but tomorrow it may be you--until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril."

Both were great speeches and served their purposes well. Obviously, JFK managed to overcome the concerns of his religious critics. We will see if Romney is able to do the same in the days and months to come.

Do People Need God to be Good?

A sociologist from the University of Lethbridge conducted a nationwide survey of 1,600 Canadians, asking them, "Do people need God to be good?" The study found that Canadians who believe in God are "consistently more likely than atheists to highly value a range of characteristics that includes courtesy, concern for others, forgiveness, and patience. God-believers are also more inclined than those who don't believe in God to place high value on friendship, family life, and being loved."

The author of the study, Dr. Reginald Bibby notes, "There obviously are times when religious beliefs and religious groups do not contribute to the social good. However, if they were to disappear tomorrow, we would have to find functional equivalents in Canadian society that are equally effective in promoting good interpersonal traits...To the extent that Canadians say good-bye to God, we may find that we pay a significant social price."

The primary reason for the values differences, Bibby suggests, are as follows:

"People get their values from groups and people who believe in God are far more likely than atheists to be part of groups that work hard to instill values about being good to other people, and having good relationships. That's not to say that God-believers always translate their values into action. But they at least are inclined to hold the values. Atheists, on the other hand, do not have as many explicit support groups that are committed to intentionally promoting positive interpersonal life."

49 percent of the respondents also said they definitely believe God exists and 33 percent said they think He exists; 11 percent have doubts and don't think there is a higher power; and 7 percent say they definitely do not believe God exists.

The Christian Post ran an article on this study and highlighted a recent debate between Alister McGrath and Christopher Hitchens. The article noted, "Rebutting Hitchens' argument that knowing right from wrong is innate and doesn't come from a higher being, McGrath, who said he is a former atheist, asked how one can have a viable moral system without some sort of transcendent basis of morality. 'There are some forms of religion that are pathological, that damage people. For every one of these atrocities which must cause all of us deep concern, there are 10,000 unreported acts of kindness, generosity, and so forth arising from religious commitment,' McGrath argued."

Jesus and Cheese Sandwiches

Every couple of months, a news story is run that highlights what someone believes to be an appearance of either Jesus, Mary or another Christian figure in anything from food, to windows to clouds. For example, a few years ago, someone saw Jesus in this grilled cheese sandwich.

Well...we have another sighting. This time of Pope John Paul II. It appears that Pope JP2 was a big fan of the Fantastic Four, as his image was seen in the form of a giant flame, a la the Human Torch. Makes we wonder if we will see any future divine appearances of Mr. Fantastic, Invisible Woman or the Thing.

1 in 5 Pregnancies Worldwide Ends in Abortion

I don't usually blog on stories like these, but I felt the need. Neither of these numbers are good:

• One in five pregnancies worldwide and more than half of pregnancies in eastern Europe end in abortion.
• 70,000 women die every year from unsafe abortions.

Here is a news article on the study behind the numbers. The positive is that the number of abortions dropped from 46 million in 1995 to just under 42 million in 2003. The authors of the study note the need for contraception to reduce the chances of pregnancy and thus reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

The Vote for President of a (Christian?) Nation

Was the United States founded as a Christian nation? One of our current presidential candidates, U.S. Sen. John McCain, believes that we were. A recent poll shows that McCain is not alone in his beliefs. 55% of Americans think that the Constitution establishes America as a Christian nation. McCain received some flack for his comments, which he has since clarified, "What I do mean to say is the United States of America was founded on … Judeo-Christian values, which were translated by our founding fathers [and are] basically the rights of human dignity and human rights."

Conservative radio talk show host Michael Medved, an observant Jew, wrote a detailed article this past week on the subject and defended McCain. He concludes, "The framers may not have mentioned Christianity in the Constitution, but they clearly intended that charter of liberty to govern a society of fervent faith, freely encouraged by government for the benefit of all. Their noble and unprecedented experiment never involved a religion-free or faithless state but did indeed presuppose America’s unequivocal identity as a Christian nation."

Christianity Today, a magazine founded by Rev. Billy Graham, ran an editorial in July of 2005 that was critical of the concept (the article is no longer on their website, but can be found here). The editorial begins with strong words, "George W. Bush is not Lord. The Declaration of Independence is not an infallible guide to Christian faith and practice. Nor is the U.S. Constitution, nor the U.N. Universal Declaration on Human Rights. "Original intent" of America's founders is not the hermeneutical key that will guarantee national righteousness. The American flag is not the Cross. The Pledge of Allegiance is not the Creed. "God Bless America" is not the Doxology. Sometimes one needs to state the obvious—especially at times when it's less and less obvious." They go on to say, "The not-so-subtle equation of America's founding with biblical Christianity has been shown time and again to be historically inaccurate. The founding was a unique combination of biblical teaching and Enlightenment rationalism, and most of the founding fathers, as historian Edwin Gaustad, among many others, has noted, were not orthodox Christians, but instead were primarily products of the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment, we should recall, has never been much of a friend of biblical Christianity."

It appears the extent of the influence of Christianity on our founding fathers might be debatable. But it is undeniable that Christian morals at least played a role. With all of this said, should we base our vote for a Presidential candidate on whether or not they are a Christian? It appears important to folks like Dr. James Dobson, who is less than thrilled with the selection of Republican candidates and is threatening to put his support behind a 3rd party candidate (even if it means that his candidate will split the Republican vote and thereby guarantee a Democratic victory). Dobson has even questioned the faith of one candidate, former U.S. Senator Fred Thompson, because of his lack of church attendance.

Just because one is a devout Christian does not mean one will be a good President (Jimmy Carter). On the other hand, a lack of a church attendance does not mean one will be a poor President (Ronald Reagan never attended church during his two terms as Commander-In-Chief). We must also be careful of any candidate who wears their religion on their sleeve for political gain. All else being equal (and assuming I support their policies), I would be inclined to vote for a candidate who shared my faith. But if the qualifications of a non-Christian candidate where better than the Christian's, I would likely lean toward the non-Christian. While I love my Christian brothers and sisters, I would not select a surgeon based on their faith. We must be careful in doing the same when we look at Presidential candidates, no matter how strong an influence the Christian faith had during the formation of our country.

One Story, Two Accounts

Ben Stein (from Ferris Bueller's Day Off and Visine eye drop commercial fame) is more than an ordinary actor and is certainly no intellectual slouch. He graduated from Columbia University with honors in economics and as valedictorian of his Yale Law School class. His latest film work, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, covers the debate between evolution and intelligent design, with a special focus on educators who have been ridiculed for supporting an intelligent design model of creation.

Right from the start, one can imagine that such a film would bring about a little controversy. In fact it has done just that. While I may watch the film when it is released in February 2008, an even more interesting subject is how the media has covered the film. The title of a recent New York Times article on the movie is: "Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life’s Origin." The author focuses first on an apparent controversy as to whether or not evolution supports were tricked into being interviewed for the film. Later in the article, it touches on the subject of the film -- educators that have been criticized and lost tenure for their support of intelligent design.

When one reads another article published by the Christian Post entitled, "Ben Stein Confronts Dominance of Darwinian Thought in New Film," it creates an interesting juxtaposition. This story focuses first on the educators and second on the supposed skulduggery of the film's producers.

Reporters know most readers only read the first portion of any newspaper article. If a reporter has a bias, the information they find important or worthwhile is placed early in the piece (it might also be helpful for me to point out that the authors to not write the headlines -- this is left to another person, such as the editor). Do either of the above referenced reporters have a bias? I guess that depends on your position on evolution. Like I said...one story, two accounts.

This just goes to show that we should not get all of our news from one source (and read beyond the first paragraph). While I happen to fall more toward the conservative side in my politics and faith, I find it important to get my news and information from a wide variety of sources (including, God forbid, what some might term "liberal"). If we only hang around those who agree with us, we will find that we are never wrong.

unChristian

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Mahatma Gandhi

A new study released by the Barna Group on Monday gives new insight into young adults' perceptions of Christianity. The study shows that 16- to 29-year-olds are more skeptical of Christianity than were people of the same age just a decade ago. The issue is also covered in a new book, entitled "unChristian", by David Kinnaman, the president of the Barna Group. The findings are sad and show particular negative views of Evangelical Christians. One common theme of almost 1/4 of those interviewed (Christian and non-Christian) is that "Christianity in today’s society no longer looks like Jesus."

Some of the findings include:

• A decade ago the vast majority of Americans outside the Christian faith, including young people, felt favorably toward Christianity’s role in society. Currently, however, just 16% of non-Christians in their late teens and twenties said they have a "good impression" of Christianity.
• 3% of 16 - to 29-year-old non-Christians express favorable views of evangelicals, compared to 25% in the previous generation (Baby Boomers).
• 91% of the nation’s evangelicals believe that "Americans are becoming more hostile and negative toward Christianity." Among senior pastors, half contend that "ministry is more difficult than ever before because people are increasingly hostile and negative toward Christianity."
• The study explored twenty specific images related to Christianity, including ten favorable and ten unfavorable perceptions. Among young non-Christians, nine out of the top 12 perceptions were negative. Common negative perceptions include that present-day Christianity is judgmental (87%), hypocritical (85%), old-fashioned (78%), and too involved in politics (75%) - representing large proportions of young outsiders who attach these negative labels to Christians. The most common favorable perceptions were that Christianity teaches the same basic ideas as other religions (82%), has good values and principles (76%), is friendly (71%), and is a faith they respect (55%).
• Half of young churchgoers said they perceive Christianity to be judgmental, hypocritical, and too political. One-third said it was old-fashioned and out of touch with reality.
• Overall, 91% of young non-Christians and 80% of young churchgoers say present-day Christianity is "anti-homosexual." As the research probed this perception, non-Christians and Christians explained that beyond their recognition that Christians oppose homosexuality, they believe that Christians show excessive contempt and unloving attitudes towards gays and lesbians. One of the most frequent criticisms of young Christians was that they believe the church has made homosexuality a "bigger sin" than anything else. Moreover, they claim that the church has not helped them apply the biblical teaching on homosexuality to their friendships with gays and lesbians.

One interesting finding is the growing number of non-Christians, or "Outsiders" as the study calls them. Of those over 60-years old, less that 25% are "Outsiders." Of those between 16-29 years old, 40% are "Outsiders."

David Kinnaman noted that when his group tried to determine why young people held such beliefs, he was "surprised how much their perceptions were rooted in specific stories and personal interactions with Christians and in churches. When they labeled Christians as judgmental this was not merely spiritual defensiveness. It was frequently the result of truly ‘unChristian’ experiences."

All of this reminds me of the song by Casting Crowns called, "If We Are the Body."

It's crowded in worship today
As she slips in trying to fade into the faces
The girl's teasing laughter is carrying farther than they know
Farther than they know

But if we are the body
Why aren't His arms reaching?
Why aren't His hands healing?
Why aren't His words teaching?
And if we are the body
Why aren't His feet going?
Why is His love not showing them there is a way?
There is a way

A traveler is far away from home
He sheds his coat and quietly sinks into the back row
The weight of their judgmental glances
Tells him that his chances are better out on the road

Jesus paid much too high a price
For us to pick and choose who should come
And we are the body of Christ
Jesus is the way

God Must Have a Good Attorney

A Nebraska state senator filed a lawsuit against God last week. No, serious. He did. He was attempting to make a point to other legislators who want to limit frivolous lawsuits, stating that "anyone can sue anyone they choose, even God."

It seemed ingenious...but it now looks like God has a good attorney running around in Nebraska. According to an article from the Christian Post, "A one-page document marked "Special Appearance" mysteriously appeared at the Douglas County Courthouse in Omaha...In the paper, “God” says the suit by Sen. Ernie Chambers (D-Omaha) should be thrown out because there was “[n]o proper and sufficient service of summons” by a deputy...a longtime defense attorney, said, “It looks to me like a legitimate document that would have to be sustained by the judge," also noting that “God” has a good strategy."

The anonymous author of the document has a point. It is kind of hard to serve a summons on the Big Guy. (Has anyone seen Michael of Gabriel in Omaha lately?).

Moral Compass

The New York Times has an article today highlighting an interesting perspective on the origins of morality that is worth a read. A psychologist from the University of Virginia believes that our moral compass can be explained through evolution. The article notes, "At first glance, natural selection and the survival of the fittest may seem to reward only the most selfish values. But for animals that live in groups, selfishness must be strictly curbed or there will be no advantage to social living. Could the behaviors evolved by social animals to make societies work be the foundation from which human morality evolved?"

Can we explain our morality from a strictly biological perspective? Dr. Francis Collins -- a theistic evolutionist -- dismisses the argument that humans obtained their moral reasoning from the evolutionary process. For one, evolution does not explain why humans commit acts of kindness unknown to anyone. Secondly, why do we risk our safety to help people outside of our group (as did Mother Teresa and Oskar Schindler)? The apparent existence of right and wrong, he believes, is a persuasive argument for the existence of a god. Many others who wrote before Collins (including C.S Lewis) also hold such beliefs.

All of this begs a bigger question: If there is not a god, can there be such a thing as an objective right and wrong? Morality presupposes right and wrong -- but whose definition are we using? If we are using a human definition, then right and wrong is subjective and anything goes, as long as most people feel it is okay. In essence, morality changes with the times. An objective morality given from god does not change.

I do not want to completely dismiss the idea that morality may have some biological roots. But a strict biological explanation takes us down a slippery slope of moral relativity where we cannot truly say something is wrong or evil. Evil has reared its head in this world (sometimes in the name of religion, sometimes not), but we need to be able to call heinous acts what they are -- wrong.

May God Have Mercy on Your Soul

In today's Arizona Republic, columnist Laurie Roberts covers a story about a little known murder victim named Mabel Lopez. The 69 year old Lopez was killed in 2000 by two men in their 20's she helped off of the streets. It seemed they didn't like her telling them that they could not to drink beer in her house. They proceeded to stab her 19 times.

Roberts notes that at the trial of one of the two men was asked what Lopez was saying as she lay dying. His response, "May God have mercy on your souls." Lopez's daughter goes on to say, "With her dying breath, she was praying for her murderers. She wasn't praying for her children; she wasn't praying to have her life saved. She was praying for her murderer's souls. That's a hell of a lesson."

I could not promise that is what I would be saying after to men stabbed me 19 times and left me to die on my back patio. She certainly took the lesson of Jesus to heart -- to forgive even when someone is not asking for forgiveness. Such grace is a rarity and when it is seen, it catches my attention.

It looks like the mercy requested by Lopez was granted to both of the men, as they were spared the death penalty and given life in prison. I pray that they use the opportunity to find forgiveness from the One after which Mabel Lopez modeled her life.