Image of God

What does God look like? Does he have a nose or toes? Genesis 1:26-27 says that God created man and woman in His likeness and image. Genesis 9:6 even lays out the penalty for spilling the blood of another because we were made in His image. What does it mean to be made in his likeness or image?

This may sound like a pointless question, but the answer has significant implications. This was a major stumbling block for me when I began to consider whether or not God used evolution as the method to create the bodily form of humans. If we were made in God's image, we should be special and not descend from the same line as a monkey or an ape. But, John 1 says that through Christ, all things were made and that later Christ became "flesh" and "made his dwelling among us." There are other passages that imply the same thing -- that God does not have a bodily form. So, then, it is doubtful that He has a nose or toes or any human feature of the body.

1 John 4:16 says, "God is love." Perhaps this is a good place to begin when trying to determine how we are like God. We have the capacity to love and be loved. Do animals have this feature? I am not a horse or dog whisperer, but I have grown up around animals. They do seem to have a capacity for caring and loyalty, but not love as we see expressed by humans. And every human has this capacity -- Christians and non-Christians, theists and atheists -- because we were all made in His likeness/image.

I have also seen other explanations as to how we are similar to God: self-awareness, the ability to think and reason. These are important explanations too. But they all have one thing in common in that they are more internal than external. They help us control our fleshly instinct to only care or worry about ourselves. I think this is a primary way we are made in God's image. We have the ability to put others first and to use this divine gift to set aside our own selfish desires (whether biological or psychological).

If we look at image and likeness in this light, we still see that we are unique when it comes to other animals. But we may share more with the animals of the world than we thought before. This might be a good thing as God commanded us to "rule over" the animal kingdom and "subdue" the Earth (Genesis 1). It gives us more of an incentive to take care of our planet (as if God's commandment wasn't enough) when we learn we are part of it.

Quote of the Week

"What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a disproof of the love of, or of the existence of, God?"

- Rhetorical question posed to theists in general and Christians in particular by Antony Flew after discussing horrors such as childhood cancer.

Existence of God

I have been having an interesting conversation with an atheist on the subject of the existence of God -- specifically, if we are able to ascertain His presence from nature, the universe, and the moral law. He certainly raises some good points and has further inspired me to pick up a book or two by a few authors such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens or Sam Harris. Other authors have also written retorts to these authors, including Allister McGrath, Dinesh D'Sousa and Michael Martin.

Perhaps I will find a few of these books in my stocking come Christmas...we will see.

Why he is a Christian

It is the evening of Thanksgiving. I am recovering from a food coma and most of the family is asleep. ASU was losing to USC, so I got a little bored and decided to do a little reading. I came across this article by Stan Guthrie, who wrote a brief editorial for Christianity Today to explain why he is a Christian. Below is a chunk of the editorial. To see the full version, click here. I agree that there is no one thing that is the most overwhelming; it is the weight of all of the concepts that serve to convince me. Just like a court case, you cannot hang your hat on one piece of evidence. As it is said, the sum is worth more than the individual parts.

"...remembering Bertrand Russell's famous essay, "Why I Am Not a Christian," here is a Reader's Digest version of why I am.

Creation: The universe, far from being a howling wasteland indifferent to our existence, appears to be finely tuned through its estimated 13.7 billion years of existence to support life on this planet. Tinker with any one of scores of fundamental physical laws or the initial conditions of the universe—such as gravity or the cosmological constant—and we would not be here.

Beauty: Beethoven's Ninth, a snowflake, the sweet smell of a baby who has been sleeping, and a sunset beyond the dunes of Lake Michigan all point to a magnificent and loving Creator. And isn't it interesting that we have the capacity—unlike mere animals—to gape in awe, to be brought to tears, before them?

New Testament reliability: Compared with the handful of existing copies of seminal ancient works such as Homer's Iliad, the New Testament's provenance is far better attested. There are thousands of NT manuscripts in existence, some made within mere decades of the events they report.

Scripture: Unlike other religious texts, the Bible gives us the good, the bad, and the ugly of its heroes: Abraham, Jacob, David, and Peter among them. Further, Scripture's message rings true. It has been said that human depravity is the only religious doctrine empirically verified on a daily basis. And the Bible's gracious solution to our predicament, Christ's atoning death on the Cross, uniquely emphasizes what God has done, not what we must do, for our rescue.

Jesus: Christ's life and teachings are unparalleled in world history, as any Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim—or atheist—worth his salt will admit.

The trilemma: C.S. Lewis, commenting on Christ's claim to divinity, said: "You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

Resurrection: After the crucifixion, Jesus' tomb was found empty. His formerly despondent disciples then turned the Roman world upside down with the message that Christ had conquered death. And they were willing to die for it. The best explanation, according to N. T. Wright and other scholars, is that Christ rose from the dead.

Progress: Despite some horrific incidents perpetrated in the name of Christ, freedom and prosperity generally have followed Christianity. Testimonies: While many Christians have behaved badly, Christ specializes in turning sinners around. What other faith can boast of a Chuck Colson? A John Newton? A William Wilberforce? Then there are the innumerable soup kitchens, universities, hospitals, and orphanages founded to the glory of Christ.

My experience: Finally, as a forgiven sinner, I testify to an imperfect yet growing sense of God's peace, presence, and provision since receiving Christ more than a quarter-century ago. Despite occasional setbacks, my faith has deepened and strengthened, whatever life brings."

On Belief, Part 1: God

“There's an invisible man -- living in the sky -- who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money!” -- George Carlin

The idea of God sounds a little crazy, on the same level as a fairy tale (or a horror movie after reading the above quote by the comedian George Carlin). One of the reasons I enjoy apologetics, theology and philosophy is that is requires me to continually immerse myself in my religion beyond the cursory. Faith and belief are not easy at times. As George Hanson once said, “The difficulties of belief are great; the absurdities of unbelief are greater.” In the end, I think belief is the most reasonable position to hold, as opposed to atheism or agnosticism.

After several years of wrestling with the concept, I ultimately came to the conclusion that God was real and that He revealed Himself through Jesus Christ. On one hand, I wish coming to that conclusion were as easy as writing this sentence. On the other hand, nothing in my life that is of value is easy – my marriage, fatherhood, and, yes this includes my belief in God.

I am writing this blog post as a means to explain why I believe in the existence of a god. This is not an exhaustive explanation and will only (briefly) touch on some of concepts that have been influential to me. I will look at the Bible and Christ in a future post.

Good and Evil

Immanuel Kant once said, “Two things fill me with constantly increasing admiration and awe, the longer and more earnestly I reflect on them: the starry heavens without and the Moral Law within.” Kant makes a profound point with which I would agree. Where we part ways, however, is when we look at the origins of the awe inspiring (Kant did not believe is a god).

Witnessing an injustice brings about a profound anger inside of me. When someone is hurt, I want to protect the victim and see the perpetrator held to account for his actions. When I witness an act of kindness or bravery, it brings a smile to my face. Why is this so? There are certain actions in life that humans look upon in disgust, while there are other actions that we find admirable. The idea of right and wrong, or good and evil, just and unjust is cross-cultural. In other words, if I spend time with another culture, I would see, to some degree or another, many similar standards or norms in place. This is especially the case with the concept of “fairness.”

Is the human idea of good and evil merely genetic, handed down via the evolutionary process, or is there a different explanation? In my eyes, the evolutionary explanation fails in many areas (I touched on this is a previous post). 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)? There has to be a better explanation.

Our universe is governed by certain laws or constants, such as gravity. Could it be that the idea of good and evil is a similar law for humanity? Before we say no, read what C.S. Lewis said on the subject, “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line cooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe to when I called in unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless, from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because he is not a water animal; a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove God did not exist—in other words, that the whole reality was senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of justice—was full of sense. This atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should have never found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning.”

If there is not a god, can there be such a thing as an objective right and wrong? The idea of 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. God is not required for a person to make a moral judgment (there are many non-theists whose behavior/actions can be considered moral or good). My argument is that a higher authority is required for an action to be considered inherently moral or evil. A humanistic concept of good/evil is only temporal and thus changes.

It is important to note, that I do not believe in God simply because the alternative would mean the subjectivity of good and evil. Quite the opposite. There are things that are intrinsically wrong (mala in se). If there are acts that are wrong, in and of themselves, how can good and evil be subjective? We can never argue that evil acts by brutal people (such as Hitler or child rapists) are good. As such, evil cannot change with the times, not should it. The fact that humans have what some would call a moral compass, which biology fails miserably to explain, should raise a lot of questions about the origin of such a compass.

The Beauty of Mathematics and the Cosmos

I mentioned earlier the idea of scientific laws or constants, such as gravity. There are many constants in place on our planet and in our universe that are vital to life. Given the preciseness of the constants, some would argue that the existence of life sits on a razor’s edge.

Dr. Francis Collins notes, “Altogether there are fifteen physical constants whose values current theory in unable to predict. They are givens: they simply have the value that they have. This list includes the speed of light, the strength of the weak and strong nuclear forces, various parameters associated with electromagnetism, and the force of gravity. The chance that all of these constants would take on the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infinitesimal…In sum our universe is wildly improbable.”

Astronomer Dr. Martin Rees once said, “The expansion speed, the material content of the universe, and the strengths of basic forces, seem to have been a prerequisite for the emergence of the hospitable cosmic habitat in which we live.” He notes that if there were the slightest tweaking of the numbers, “The universe as we know it would not be here.” Further, the mere placement of our plant within our solar system and within our universe is strikingly fortuitous. Along these lines, atheist author Richard Dawkins once said, "It is such a privilege to be born at all" and that his birth was an "improbable event."

Additionally, the mathematics and formulas behind many of these scientific principles are extraordinary beautiful. Some have even called them, “elegant in their simplicity.” The more we dig into science and mathematics, the more we see beauty at the most infinitesimal levels. Nobel-prize winning physicist and atheist Steven Weinberg once said, “Sometimes nature seems more beautiful that strictly necessary.”

God in the Gaps

The fact that we are here is startling. The fact we have the ability comprehend ourselves and analyze what is going on around is also amazing. The fact that once we dig down into our environment we see a great deal or order and beauty would almost be humorous, if it wasn’t so fascinating.

There appears to something working in our universe beyond random chance. The existence of good and evil, coupled with the staggering improbabilities of life as we know it, lead me to keep my mind open about the existence of a god (there are other concepts that help me, but for relative brevity, I focused on these two).

One may look at what I have written an accuse me of using “God in the gaps” reasoning (if one can’t find a scientific answer, attribute the act to ‘God’). Collins also commented on this subject noting, “Faith that places God in the gaps of current understanding about the natural world may be headed for crisis if advances in science subsequently fill those gaps…There are good reasons to believe in God, including the existence of mathematical principles and order in creation. They are positive reasons, based on knowledge, rather than default assumptions based on (a temporary) lack of knowledge.” In short, I let the evidence lead me to my conclusion, rather than the other way around.

My subsequent post on the Bible and Christ will show how God has revealed Himself to His creation, beyond the general revelation outlined here. These general (natural) and specific (Biblical) revelations, in my opinion, are overwhelming evidence that God is real.

“At this moment, it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers.

Can Science and Philosophy Embrace God?

I read two stories this week that, while not directly related to one another, carried the same theme: atheists moving toward belief in God. That an atheist may shift to belief in a god is not unusual. However, the two individuals that were the subjects of the stories are not your ordinary persons. One is an Oxford educated philosopher and the other is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Often I hear that one cannot have a rational or reasoned belief in God. Given these individual's distinguished backgrounds in academics, it is hard to imagine either of them "blindly" believing in anything.

Dr. Rosalind Picard is director of affective computing research in the Media Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Picard was raised an atheist, but later embraced the idea of God and eventually Christianity. "Those who argue that humans are composed only from molecular biology and nothing more aren't basing their argument in science," Picard says. "Science is not capable of making such claims." Furthermore, "Scientists cannot assume that nothing exists beyond what they can measure...It's quite possible that there's still something more." Picard says she personally has faith in scientific progress, but also faith in God.

The story also notes that, "When she speaks about DNA, which is the basic ingredient that forms organisms, Picard raises the notion of there being 'a much greater mind, a much greater scientist, a much greater engineer behind who we are.' DNA, is enormously complex, she says. 'It takes a lot of faith to believe it arose from purely random processes. There's definitely the mark of intervention in that.'"

But she does not support "intelligent design" hook, line and sinker. "Picard also laments that the news media put people who are of different minds on the intelligent- design debate into just two distinct camps -- intelligent design or evolution. 'To simply put most of us in one camp or the other does the whole state of knowledge a huge disservice,' she said."

The other two stories (here and here) were written about Anthony Flew. Once a devout atheist, he has embraced Deism in his older age -- critics would argue it is his age that has caused such lapse in thought. Flew makes it abundantly clear that he is not a Christian. Flew's movement from the atheist camp to the deist camp is not new news, as an announcement was made in 2004. But more interviews have been conducted recently due to the release of his book entitled, There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.

During a recent interview, Flew states, "I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so. With every passing year, the more that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code."

Two factors were were "decisive," as it relates to his change in view. "One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source.”

Flew says to those, such as Richard Dawkins, who argue that life and existence can be attributed to chance, "If that's the best argument you have, then the game is over."

The New York Times article on Flew concludes with a startling commentary by the author, "Flew’s colleagues will wonder how he could sign a petition to the prime minister in favor of intelligent design, but it becomes more understandable if the signatory never hated religious belief the way many philosophers do and if he never hated religious people in the least." I get the sense from the New York Times article that the author questions Flew's so-called "conversion" to Deism. But I am a little miffed by his concluding remarks. The author seems to imply that atheists are driven by hate versus reason and thought.

Science, philosophy and God are not mutually exclusive concepts. One can have a reasoned faith. Even if Flew's shift can be explained by old age, there are many scientists and philosophers like Picard, Francis Collins and others to document such a fact. The claim that religious persons are ignorant (to use a milder term) is becoming tired and trite. Such a claim is a simple way of not having to engage on an issue of great importance.

What the Hell?

I haven't posted in a few days, as I have taken the time to visit and comment (here and here) on other blogs. While I recently wrote on heaven, one of the blogs got me thinking about the doctrine of hell (see the first link). After wrestling with the concept for a few days, these are my thoughts.

Theologians note that there are more important doctrines to the Christian faith than hell. However, critics hold the idea of hell up as one of the main objections to our faith. One Christian writer said, "Of all the doctrines in Christianity, hell is probably the most difficult to defend and the most burdensome to believe..." Given these issues, it is important to more fully understand what the Bible says about hell. Some of the bigger objections I have come across include:

1. Hell is contrary to the love of God -- it is hypocrisy and immoral.
2. Infinite punishment for a finite sin is contrary to justice -- it is cruel.

There are other objections, but I will focus on these two for relative brevity.

We often think of hell as a place of everlasting fire and torture, as this picture portrays (William-Adolphe Bouguereau - Dante And Virgil In Hell, 1850). But is this really what hell is like? Jesus spoke about it often and used images of fire, destruction, torment, and gnashing of teeth.

I do not believe that Hell is a place of eternal physical torture, as if we are being whipped and beaten on a daily basis while God watches in with a vengeful eye. The Bible uses analogy, allegory and figures of speech. It uses fire, gnashing of teeth, etc. as an analogy for what it is like away from God's presence, which is what hell is - separation/banishment from God's presence. As such, there is suffering because one is away from God. I am not downplaying hell, only putting it in perspective. From all accounts, it will be a nasty place. Just not in the way we might expect, like the picture. (For example, God's love may be the fire - if one hates God, then His love will feel like fire and torment. I don't know if I agree with this description, but it is one that has been put forth.)

One blogger I encountered asked a very insightful question relating to hell being separation from God: If God is omnipresent, how is it that we can be separated from His presence? I see a difference between an active and passive presence of God. Those in Hell will not receive the full benefit of His active presence as those in heaven. Further, some theologians believe that there will be degrees of isolation and separation in Hell. If God’s judgment is proportional, Hitler will be judged harsher than a person who might have been a relatively “good” person whose sin is rejection of the Gospel.

It is important to note that hell is not the analogy, only the descriptions used in the Bible. If you have never tasted beef and had to explain its taste to a person who has never even seen a cow, you would say, “Beef is like…” This is exactly what the Bible does. Hell is described as utter darkness, yet with flames. Both are obviously not possible and can be viewed as figurative language.

Hell is contrary to the love of God

Taken at face value, I would not disagree with this statement -- with the caveat that hell was not part of God's initial plan for humanity. He does not want his creation to go there anymore than we want to be there. So in that sense it is contrary. However, given our rebellion, it becomes necessary. God's love gives us freedom -- including the freedom to reject Him.

But if God is so merciful and loving, God should forgive the rebel for rejecting Him, right?. I think that this is a misunderstanding of justice. Mercy cannot contradict justice. By accepting Christ's sacrifice, we have the ability to have our sins forgiven. This is mercy and grace. It is offered to us for free, but it came at a price. By rejecting Christ and never seeking forgiveness for our actions, we are refusing to disassociate with our sins. Sin cannot enter heaven. Our sins are either excluded through Christ, or they stay part of us. Justice says that the price of sin must be paid. We have two options and the ball is in our court.

It is important to keep in mind that if God truly loves us, He will allow us to make our own decisions. As such, God would not pull someone into heaven kicking and screaming. If we are free, rejection of God is possible. Thus, Hell is possible. We have the opportunity to choose our paths. While a person may not want to go to Hell, they chose a path that leads there. God respects us so much and wants a voluntary submission to His will. We will not go to hell against our will, but because of it.

Infinite punishment for a finite sin is contrary to justice
To God, the most heinous thing a person can do, in the words of Dr. J.P. Moreland, is to, “mock and dishonor and refuse to love the person that we owe absolutely everything to, which is our Creator, God Himself.” The Bible says the greatest commandment is to love God with all of your heart, soul, mind and strength and love your neighbor as yourself. The punishment of a lifetime of refusing God will result in an eternity apart from Him (ultimate sanction for the ultimate sin). We have a lifetime to choose Him. If we were to have a second chance after death, what would be the point of this life? Who is to say that one will not reject God after the second opportunity? Is hell okay under these circumstances? Further, such a question assumes that we do not have sufficient opportunities to meet God during our lifetime. If we are to be held to account for our decisions, we must have the opportunity to make the correct one. If God is truly just, such an opportunity will occur.

When we argue against the finality of hell, we are failing to see the horror of what sin really is in God's eye. It is rejection of Him.

Morality

An interesting theme behind the critique of hell is that it is not "moral" or "just." In most accounts, the critic is disavowing God, while at the same time calling hell unjust. C.S. Lewis has this to say, "How had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust." In essence, when one denies the existence of God but refers to good and evil, it becomes a self-defeating argument. When we call something bad, we refer to a standard that is beyond ourselves. Where does that standard come from? If the standard is man-made, then it is subjective. How then can we call crimes such as those committed in Darfur and Nazi Germany truly "bad" if humans are the ones defining good and bad. Our ideas of good and bad can change. If there is not a God, what then can we defer to as the arbiter when we say something is evil?

I have yet to read an atheistic argument relating to morality that does not ultimately end in subjectivity, thus doing away with any notion of inherent human rights or inherent evil. I am not saying that God is required for a person to be "good" (there are many non-Christians whose behavior/actions can be considered moral or good). My argument is that a higher authority is required for an action to be considered inherently moral or evil. A humanistic concept of good/evil is only temporal and thus changes.

Lastly, it is very important to note that Christians (at least the ones I know) do not enjoy the thought of people going to hell. We are not "gleeful" as I have seen some say. I are saddened by the thought of hell. This is why Christians try to reach about to non-believers. Those that take joy in preaching hell should be ashamed of themselves.

While hell may play an initial part in someone becoming a Christian, our continued faith is not necessarily reliant on the fear of damnation. At least in my case, I do not stay a Christian out of fear of hell -- I stay out of love for my creator.

Evil, Plato and God

I attend a study every other Friday at a friend's house where we discuss, among other things, whether there is a rational basis for belief in God and Christ. The chapter in the book we read for this week covered the question of why there is evil in the world. This is a question that theologians have wrestled with for centuries.

The existence of evil is a prominent criticism of Christianity by non-religious persons. In short, the argument goes something like this: If God created all things, and evil exists, then God created evil. Therefore, God is either one of two things - 1) bad for allowing evil, or 2) not all powerful because He doesn't stop bad things from happening. Neither option is a good and some, in turn, find that they cannot bring themselves to believing in such a dichotomy. While the logic of if-then-this may be logical, as any philosophy professor will tell you, just because something appears logical does not mean it is correct.

So then, why evil? I wish I could say I had a simple silver-bullet answer, but I do not (I have discussed the subject here and here). If anyone claims a simple answer, run away fast. Despite the difficulty, there are many crucial observations that can come from asking this question.

C.S. Lewis once wrote, "My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust." In essence, when one denies the existence of God based on the existence of evil, it becomes a self-defeating argument. When we call something bad, we refer to a standard that is beyond ourselves. Where does that standard come from? If it is man-made, then it is subjective. Taken to its logical conclusion, crimes such as those committed in Darfur and Nazi Germany could be justified. In fact, the Holocaust was permitted by German law, although no decent person would say that such an atrocity was "good." If there is not a God, what then can we defer to as the arbiter when we say something is evil?

This does beg the question of how God communicates such standards to humans. Some would argue that humans can and do pervert the idea of divine revelation for personal gain -- if God "told" me that murder is evil, then what is to stop me from adding a few of my own pet-peeves to the list simply to control those I don't like? While humans have used the name of a religion for wrong, this is an ancillary criticism and never answers the question of where we draw our concept of right and wrong.

If God does exist, where does He come up with right and wrong? This is an interesting question offered by Plato, called the Euthyphro Dilemma. Simply put, Plato asks if an act is right because God says it's so, or does God say it's so because it's right. Some see Plato's question as a devastating objection to the concept that morality is grounded in God's commands, but it doesn't need to be. I saw one person make the following statement, "What if God had ordained murder and rape as the morally obligatory ways of treating others? If so and rights and values have moral authority merely because God ordains them, then murder and rape would be morally obligatory. You can't protest here and say that since God (who is perfectly morally good) would never ordain anything as immoral as murder and rape, murder and rape couldn't have been morally obligatory. If you say this, you'd be appealing to a moral standard independent of (not ordained by) God. So, either human rights and moral values have an authority independent of God's commands or they derive all of their authority from the fact that God has ordained them and we must accept that human rights and moral values are arbitrary: whatever God says goes - no matter how horrible."

Christian philosopher Thomas Aquinas argued that the dilemma is false (thanks Wikipedia for the following condensation of his argument): "Yes, God commands something because it is good, but the reason it is good is that good is an essential part of God's nature. So goodness is grounded in God's character and merely expressed in moral commands. Therefore whatever a good God commands will always be good." Thus, God's commands are not subject to an outside authority, nor are they arbitrary.

It is important to point out that someone does not have to be religious to do "good" things, like feed the poor (although, most outreach centers I can think of that offer such assistance are part of a larger church ministry). But as Norman Geisler says in his book Unshakable Foundations, "In order for moral evil to be present, a moral agent and a moral law must also exist." Who else can that moral agent be but God?

Nothing New Under the Sun

Atheist Christopher Hitchens posted a commentary in the "On Faith" section of the Washington Post's website yesterday. Not surprisingly, there was nothing really new that he said in his post, which railed against religion. However, it hit me while I was reading it that I also had nothing new to offer in response. King Solomon said in the book of Ecclesiastes in the Bible that there is nothing new under the sun. How true he was.

The more I read about atheist comments against religion, it often sounds like a broken record. The opposite is also true, as I have not heard many new responses/defenses to religion. Throughout my life, I have succeeded in getting my car stuck in sand and snow on many occasions. As I spin my wheels, I only managed to dig my tires in deeper. I feel like this is what we are doing when we (people of faith) go back an forth with atheists debating God and religion. I don't feel that we should not lovingly disagree in a respectful manner. But the back and forth for the sake of debate can be useless.

An older Christian once told me that there are occasions where it is wise not to continue to debate someone. When you have responded to every question they pose, and yet they still remain obstinate, it may to be time to end the conversation. I am not advocating that we should end the relationship -- just the conversation topic. The Apostle Paul in the Book of Acts did this on occasion. Several cities he visited did not want to hear the Gospel and ran him out of town. Rather than going back and continuing to debate, he obliged their wishes and moved forward.

It is important to keep an open ear, however, should our atheist friends truly have something new to say. I find that I often learn the most from those I disagree with (such as when I was listening to the Dawkins/McGrath video I previously posted. I gained a certain respect for Dawkins' when he explained why he felt so strongly about his desire to search for truth. I had never heard an atheist articulate this point). Atheists also can have important observations about faith that we on the inside may fail to see. But once we begin to spin our wheels, nothing more productive can come from the conversation -- and we as Christians can look bad in the process, limiting our ability to be an effective witness in the future.

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.

Dumb Christian

"The difficulties of belief are great; the absurdities of unbelief are greater.“ -- George Hanson.

A friend of mine emailed me a link to a video taped discussion between Richard Dawkins (a prominent author, scientist and atheist) and Alister McGrath (Christian theologian and apologist). A few days later, as I was pursuing the Stand to Reason website, I came across a link to the same interview. Not one to believe in coincidences, I took the hour or so to watch the interview. The interview was filmed for the Dawkins television documentary "Root of All Evil?" but was left out of the final version. Although it is unedited, raw footage, it proved to be a very thought-provoking and worthwhile hour. I enjoyed the intellectual give and take where the two were able to disagree without being disagreeable. McGrath gives a respected defense of Christianity. One facet of the discussion, pertaining to faith, grabbed my attention.

My last post touched on the difficulty Mother Teresa had with her faith. The Dawkins/McGrath interview brought to mind the question of the definition of faith itself. Dawkins (I am paraphrasing) looks at faith as if Christians blindly believe in God, based on nothing concrete. McGrath, on the other hand, clarifies that Christian faith is based in reason and thought.

As a young Christian, I had many questions about my religion. I became a Christian in grade school but never had a strong foundation for my beliefs. It was difficult to find answers to issues such as: the existence of evil and suffering; validity of the Bible; deity of Christ (and existence of God in general); why is Christianity the only way to God -- just to name a few. Since I did not find answers, I thought I just needed to have more "faith" to be a Christian. In fact, some older Christians even told me this. It was a depressing idea and I could not bring myself to having faith in something that did not make sense. I envied some persons who had been raised Christians from birth, for they did not seem to ask the why and how questions that I could not get out of my head. In short, I concluded that one could be a dumb and naive Christian or a smart non-believer.

When I married my wife, I began attending church again. I enjoyed my Sundays off, but going was important to her. She had been a Christian for many years. Even though I went, I kept a skeptical outlook on what was being preached.

During a bible study in 1 Peter 3:15 one evening, I came across a verse that commands us to be prepared to make a defense for our beliefs. The word that is translated in English as "defense" is the Greek word "apologia" meaning "a reasoned statement or argument." For the first time I was confronted with the concept that that the Bible equated reason and logic to belief and faith. God does not want us to have "blind faith" but a faith of substance. If this was true, then I concluded that there must be answers to the questions that I posed over the years...and there were. I found that I was not the only Christian to ever struggle. In fact, there were those that had more difficult questions that I had ever contemplated.

I went on to find that there were several Bible verses that encourage reason and thought:

• The apostle Paul wrote in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 that we should “test everything.”
• Matthew 22:37 says, among other things, that we must love God with our “minds” (or intellect).
• Hebrews 11:1 defines faith as the “substance (or assurance) of things hoped for; the evidence of things unseen.” The word for evidence in this context is the Greek word elegchos, which is a legal term dealing with the conviction of a person. A Greek lexicon notes that the word implies not merely the charge on the basis which one is convicted, but also the manifestation of the truth of the charge. In other words, early Christians believed that there is truthful evidence and substance for our faith -- and that it can stand the test of critical assessment.
• Finally, Jesus promised, as documented in John 8:32, that if we continue in His word, we will "know the truth and the truth will make you free."

Based on these writings, Christianity seems to encourage reason. Moreover, it encourages us to test its claims. Since Christ promises that truth is within our reach, it is the responsibility of all Christians to determine why they believe what they believe. Anything less is disrespecting God’s commands. Jesus called us to be “disciples” not just believers. It is not enough just to show up to Church on Sundays sing a few songs, sleep through the pastor’s sermon and go home. We are called to take up our crosses and follow Him. We cannot do this if we only half believe in the teachings of Christ.

Since I have become a father, one of my greatest hopes is that my children will grow up to believe in the teachings of Christ and dedicate their lives to serve Him. I do not, however, want my children to believe simply because mom and dad said they needed to do so -- a “blind faith.” I want them to believe because it is a choice that they make for themselves. It is vital to own your choice of submitting to God’s will (I know this starts to get into the Calvinism/Armenianism debate, but I will save that for another day). I want my kids to feel safe to ask questions, knowing that they will not be shunned or disowned by their parents. I hope I can do this because of the difficulties I went through with coming to grips with my faith, which is definitely not “blind” any longer.