The Giant Heart at the Center of the Universe

Reason, isn't so much a truth detector, but a potential falsehood detector. I say *potential*, because a falsehood may be reasonable under certain presuppositions.

You might ask, why can't we measure those presuppositions with reason? Many times you can, but there is a depth beyond reason's reach. This depth, reaches into the metaphysical. A paradigm is very difficult to evaluate if it is built upon metaphysical presuppositions. Sure, you can use reason to determine whether the paradigm is consistent, but you can't validate metaphysical presuppositions with certainty.

Let me give an example. It is probably too simplistic but generally, you can say that there are at least two assumptions that one can build a worldview upon. One says that man's most natural inclination is to do good, while the other says his natural inclination is to do evil.

A worldview built upon the former says that crime and socially malevolent behavior are caused by environmental and sociological factors. This worldview therefore emphasizes rehabilitation over punishment.

A worldview built upon the latter says that crime and socially malevolent behavior are natural to man. He therefore needs a deterrent and incentive system (the popular focus incorrectly tends to be more on deterring then incenting in my view) to 'do the right thing'.

How does one test which view on man's nature is correct? Although I do believe that induction and deduction can be used to give credibility to one over the other (as a Christian, I believe in man's sin nature), ultimately these two assumptions are metaphysical in nature because they can not ultimately be proven via a 'smoking gun' litmus test.

Unfortunately, we can't avoid building paradigms upon metaphysical presuppositions. And by metaphysical, I don't simply mean "religious", I am referring to any belief that is beyond empiricism's reach.

So how do we choose a paradigm when our only choices are metaphysical? Metaphysical choices require nothing less than faith.

Faith is volitional. In other words, we believe what we want to believe.

So why are left in such a predicament? Why are the answers to life's ultimate and most important questions left to the subjectivity of our volition instead of the meticulous scrutiny of empiricism? It seems that there is something in life that
is testing our hearts more than our minds. And since things can't ask questions, that "thing" is a being...

At the center of the universe is a giant heart...

Talk Nerdy To Me

Question: What is the largest number?
Answer: There is no such thing.
Question: How do you know?
Answer: Because no matter what number you can imagine, I can think of a number that is larger
Question: How do you KNOW this? Have you thought of every number?
Answer: Impossible

Do two infinite lines on a plane ever intersect? The answer is no, but I ask, "How do you know without examining every point on such lines?"

There is truth that can only be reached via the mind; truth that is inaccessible to empiricism. We could call this an "empiricism trap".

"Logic traps" also exist. Before the hare can pass the turtle, it must go half-way.
After all, you can't go 100% of the distance until you go half of the distance. So
let's say that the hare needed to travel 1 mile to get to the finish line. Before
traveling 1 mile, it has to go .5 miles. Before arriving at .5 miles, it has to
travel .25 miles. Before arriving at .25 miles, it has to travel .125 miles, Before
.125, it has to go .0625 miles. Before .0625 miles, .03125, etc.... At that rate, it
will never reach 1 mile.

There must be truths outside of the limitations of empiricism. Truths that only reason can touch. And, there must be truths outside of the limitations of reason
which only empiricism can touch.

"The infinite, even if it exists in reality, can only be represented through our
imagination." Marcelo Gleiser -
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/08/10/129104565/to-infinity-and-beyond#more

This is why I say that atheism is the failure of the imagination in bridging the gaps between empiricism and reality.

And notice that this whole posting uses reason. Reason necessitates its limitations. How surprising it might be to many that reason therefore births faith.

A Quest For Divine Authority

In George Barna's latest book, "Future Cast", he says that Americans share these views about the Bible:

• 84% of Americans consider it Sacred.
  
• Less than 45% strongly believe that the Bible is totally accurate in all it teaches.
  
• 26% believe in a literal interpretation.
  
• 60% believe that the Bible is accurate and without error.
  
• 18% believe the Bible is Inspired, but that it contains some factual and historical errors.
  

So what IS the Bible? Is it the very Word of God? Is it merely a book written by men? Is it even historical? Is it somehow a guide for our lives?

I always challenge people who reject the Bible's spiritual authority to give an alternative explanation of its existence. I make this challenge because I find that most skeptics have never even thought about the question.

But much of what skeptics say about religion in general can be tested against the Bible. I've heard them say that religion exists for the following reasons:

• Wishful thinking
  
• Crutch for the weak-minded
  
• Social manipulation
  

Wishful Thinking

This idea is that people believe because they want to believe. Freud espoused this idea that we all had a psychological need for a father figure so we dreamed up the greatest father of all in God.

A great theme of this blog is formed in the simple question of "Why?". Why would we have such a need? Freud would appeal to evolutionary survival reasons. In a cruel world that sometimes forces us to our knees in order to survive, we want our "Daddy" to come and save us. It is comforting to think that there might be a Divine father who cares for our best interests and looks out for us.

Although I'm skeptical of evolution (I DO believe in natural selection. You can read about my beliefs on origins in this previous post), one does not have to be an evolutionist to believe in survival. I don't argue against wishful thinking projecting a belief in God. However, there is another way of looking at this truth that flips it on its head.

St. Augustine wrote about a God-shaped hole in our hearts. That hole is so large it can only be filled by God. He suggested that this hole was a longing in our hearts. It is one that can be connected to survival but transcends it. I see it in myself simply in longing to know and love someone greater than myself. I see it when I am enraptured in a love expressed via worship for Him.

What is more is that I have experienced that love as a recipient. Sure, you can try to argue this away as psychological projection.... perhaps it is but even so, it doesn't change what I have experienced and it certainly makes my life better.

In a world where there is no God, I'm not sure truth matters any more. If there is no God, than the chief goal of man is to have a good time, a good experience. After all, in such a world, man would be the highest being, seeking no one higher to serve. So if it feels good, do it. And if a belief yields a good experience, it would no longer matter whether or not it was true or a delusion.

I am NOT suggesting that I believe that I am living in such a delusion and asking skeptics to leave me alone. If there IS a God, this experience is based upon reality and reality is a slave master exacting its own demands...

So does the psychological need to believe prove that theism is a delusion or is the need to believe actually God-given? It is funny how life presents us truths that can always be looked at in two ways by reasonable, educated and wise people on both sides...

Augustine would suggest that this God-shaped hole has been placed in our hearts as a compass... a way that points to God. Make a note of this the next time life leaves you feeling like there has to be more.... Think about this when that last drink, sexual experience, accomplishment, or big ticket item purchase just isn't enough... And suffering is this truth's megaphone...

Crutch for the weak-minded

The crutch argument is wishful thinking extended to suffering and worry. We seek security even in the good times and a refuge in life's storms. What better rock can we look to than a divine one?

Like the wishful thinking argument, I would not deny the logic of this position... I would only question being dogmatic about its reality. Once again we see life presenting us with truth that can be interpreted in two ways. Does the need for a Divine refuge exist because we are self-deceived or is it a way for God to speak to us in the midst of our anxiety and suffering to say, "HERE I am"?

Does the need disqualify theism, or does God give us the need in the first place? I am convinced that such questions can never be answered within the circle of reason. Reason isn't a truth detector. It CAN be a lie detector but only if the lie is inconsistent with its presuppositions.

Reason simply tests the consistency and coherence of a belief. This idea is expressed in science in the form of objective positivism as demonstrated by the physicist Neils Bohr:

There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature... - http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr

In other words, it is one thing to test whether or not something is logically consistent but it is quite another to say whether or not a logically consistent argument is true.

This does not invalidate reason, it just shows us that reason is not enough. So what lies beyond reason to touch truth?

I have come to learn that profundity can be described as when a complex question surprises us with a simple answer. Love is the answer.

Love rends us objective. It removes the internal biases that taint our interpretations of life, leaving us selfless enough to see the truth even when it makes us uncomfortable. I would suggest that the crutch argument applies to both sides and that truth armed with love only threatens the skeptic's crutch... After all, doesn't the skeptic need the crutch of disbelief in order to sustain a life submissive to no one higher than the worship of self?

I am still trying to unravel all that this means and can write no more about this discovery except to challenge my reader to seek the truth in love...

Social manipulation

This argument says that religion was invented as a means for the tribe, monarchies and governments to manipulate the social behavior of the masses. Since the "arm of the law" is limited by police and military power, a divine power was conjured up who never sleeps, never tires and sees all even that which is done in secret.

I won't deny that many religions might exist because of this need. However, anyone who has read the new testament, will have a hard time reconciling this explanation to its content.

We repeatedly see in the New Testament this idea that man should obey God even over the law when there is a conflict.

27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them, 28 saying, “Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man’s blood on us!” 29 But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men. - Acts 5:27-29

Why would anyone wanting to conjure up Christianity for social manipulation purposes, write such a text?

Logic has found a lie...

Concluding Thoughts

In conclusion, I'll say that in regards to the Bible, I'm not going to go any farther... I have some deeper beliefs that I have learned to only share with people who are ready. I know when a person is at such a level by their level of questioning. In other words, I have a "if you don't ask, then I don't tell" policy regarding some of my deepest beliefs.

I see Jesus purposefully withholding truths from those who weren't ready. He seemed to determine this by the level of hunger as indicated by the presence or absence of questions from the potential seeker.

Besides, God doesn't reveal all. Instead, He puts Himself just out of reach as to give us a challenge, something to seek. Seek Him with all of your heart and the truth will come.

The Delusion of Jargon

As scientific knowledge has increased, so has its verbosity. As its lexicon of explanations grows, our belief in God tends to shrink:

Since the latter part of the 18th century, deism used science to justify its stance. Scientists, like Sir Isaac Newton, were able to elaborate more and more to explain how the universe and everything around us worked. Many of the mysteries that man attributed to God, yielded simple mechanistic explanations. The increase in knowledge spurred the decline in religious faith among the intellectual elite. As a philosopher and mathematician, Descartes reduced God to a “mathematical abstraction.” Reason pushed faith off into the realm of mythology and superstition, while deism quickly deteriorated into atheism (belief in no God at all). Science seemed to engage in a centuries-old battle with religion for the mind of man. Life became a product of blind change -- a cosmic game of chance played throughout time. - http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/deism.htm

Imagine that you had never ever seen a computer before. One day, you discover one that is still operational. As you examine it, the one question that would dominate your thinking would be regarding its origin. You might start off thinking that some sentient being (a programmer) created it. Over time, you perform experiments on the computer and make discoveries. One discovery you make is that there is an underlying set of rules (software) giving the computer its logical features. Let's say one day, you even discover the binary logic and mathematical algorithms that underlie the ability of this computer.

Would this mean that you could come to the conclusion that there must not be a programmer? Would this mean that you could come to the conclusion that the computer must be the product of a chance set of random processes if given enough time?

So why do we treat the universe this way in light of modern scientific discoveries?

To use another illustration, knowing what is under the hood of an automobile, doesn't make the existence of automobile designers/engineers less believable....

GK Chesterton, in his book Orthodoxy, suggests in the "Maniac" chapter that in fairy tales, we don't think of laws, we think in terms of magic. We accept, as a premise of the story, that if Cinderella doesn't return before midnight, her carriage will turn into a pumpkin.

Yet in life, we seem to think it is some sort of law that the egg will turn into the chicken. But logically speaking, the egg is about as far apart as the carriage is to the pumpkin.

Science has replaced our narrative with propositions and our faith with technology.

I very much believe in science. I'm just not quick to accept the reductionist worldview we most quickly gravitate towards as a result of its influence.

Could it be that we really live in such a fairy land, obscured by illusions of scientific jargon? Yes, faith can fool us, propelling us into an illusory world that doesn't really exist. But could it be that science can do the same? The only distinction between the two is that if science fools us, it takes away wonder.

So, yes I think it is healthy to guard faith against wishful thinking. But it is equally healthy to guard against science's reductionist proclivity.

Words demystify. But SHOULD they? Should they steal our wonder, aging us out of childhood into crotchety old people?

Wise men hear and see as little children do. - Lao Tzu

Wisdom begins in wonder. - Socrates

If you disagree with the points suggested in this article, ask yourself this question: Do you do so because of a gap in logic or a gap in imagination?

How old is your thinking?

Heavy Exercises in Imagination on Bishop Spong

I'm in the midst of reading a book by Bishop John Shelby Spong entitled, "Why Christianity Must Change or Die".

While I don't agree with a lot of the Bishop's conclusions, I appreciate his ability to make me think.

I am only a chapter into the book, but he has already inspired a line of thinking that I felt worthy of blogging about.

In summary, I see Bishop Spong as oversimplifying counter-arguments and lacking the force of imagination in seeking answers.

An example is his argument that Christ couldn't have really ascended in light of modern scientific understandings of the universe post Copernicus. He claims that the word "up" is rendered meaningless since the Chinese on the other side of the earth, when pointing to the sky, are pointing in the opposite direction of an American doing the same.

I see this as simply the word "up" being redefined as moving away from a dominant source of gravity (i.e. the earth). It only takes a little imagination to understand that "up" is now defined as pointing away from the earth and to not "throw out the baby with the bath water."

Mr. Spong thinks that because of modern discoveries in space observation and exploration, the idea of Christ ascending to the heavens is preposterous. He says, that if Christ would have ascended as the Bible describes it, we now know that He would have simply went into orbit.

But I see this as failing to imagine many possibilities on the edges or even outside the boundaries of modern scientific understanding. Christ could have flown beyond the speed of light to a physical place beyond the edge of what we know now as a finite and expanding universe. While Einstein gave us a physics that says that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, his EPR experiments suggest that there is something that might be able to go beyond the speed of light.

And what about the possibility of wormholes in space? Perhaps Christ ascended into one?

Furthermore, modern scientific understanding has not discovered what boundary space is expanding into. Perhaps it is expanding into what we think of as "heaven".

Another possibility is that heaven isn't a material place in the sense that it is not detectable or observable by those of us in our present realm. Scientific thought even postulates such a possibility with the idea of a multiverse.

All of the above requires the exercise of imagination. Imagination, when applied to God, can only be untamed if that God is unbound. Einstein once said:

Imagination is more important than intelligence.

And this is the heart of Mr. Spong's problem. His imagination is limited by his view that perhaps God is NOT omnipotent. He questions God's omnipotence because of the existence of suffering and death.

I believe the reason we struggle with God's infinity is because we fail to see God's self-imposed limitations.

Imagine that you were omnipotent. Your first reaction might be that it would be like winning the lottery. You might say, "if I were omnipotent, I'd give myself a mansion, tons of nice cars, money, I'd never have to work again, and the list goes on and on and on...."

But if you were omnipotent, why would you NEED money or a mansion or a mode of transportation? You see, these initial "answers" are really questions in disguise. If you were omnipotent, you wouldn't need a place to rest because you wouldn't need to rest. You would also not need shelter from the elements, therefore you'd have no need for a house. You wouldn't need money, food or anything else.

So if you needed nothing, what would you do with your life? You certainly wouldn't do anything you HAD to do. You'd only do what you WANTED to do. And going further, you'd not only DO nothing outside of your will, you'd BE nothing outside of your will.

So the omnipotence of God can only be understood if we focus on His will. Everything else is fuzzy to finite minds which can only understand things with boundaries.

BTW, have you ever thought of the fact that we can only understand things with boundaries? Have you ever tried to imagine infinity and eternity?


So if this omnipotent God wants us to know Him, He will limit what He chooses to do and be. Pantheism believes in an omnipotent God. However pantheism believes in an unlimited God that is unknowable because that God EXERCISES that omnipotence.

But I believe that God has limited Himself. His ABILITY is unlimited (what we mean by calling him omnipotent). But he doesn't exercise it. This idea separates the Christian view from pantheism.

God has limited Himself not only so that we can know him, but also as an example. A good leader leads by example. He calls us to limit ourselves by first limiting Himself.

Mr. Spong questions the omnipotence of God because bad things happen to good people. In fact, I've already found more than a few places where the Bishop seems to reject ideas simply based upon their appeal to him.

But only God can decide truth on the basis of their appeal to Him. I don't have to like the existence of death and suffering to believe in them. To reject their existence because of my preferences, is to act as if I am omnipotent. This is self-idolatry.

This would be akin to me rejecting a doctor's prognosis (and perhaps treatment) of an illness because I didn't like it.

So why would God allow suffering and death? I don't have all the answers, but I do believe His chief goal is for us to enter into a loving communion with Him. Love requires volition. This choice comes with consequences. Love without volition is called "rape" and is no real love at all.

There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, "All right, then, have it your way” - C.S. Lewis

This is a heavy posting that probably leaves more questions than answers. But since HOW we think is more important than WHAT we think, I hope I have inspired you to open up your imaginations when pursuing the truth.

As Socrates once said,

Wisdom begins in wonder.

16 But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. 17 Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter.
- Luke 18:16-17

And at the same time, "anchor" your imagination with wisdom and humility.

Knowledge is knowing it's a one way street. Wisdom is looking both ways anyways.
- anonymous.

Humility is having the boldness to stare weakness in the eye without flinching.

Bad To Be Good

A local Pastor recently got charged with domestic violence. Here is what he told the Court:

“I’m the pastor of a church for almost 30 years teaching people to be good...”

And THERE is the problem. Being a Christian isn’t about being good. People can be good without believing in God. They can’t do so logically, but lack of coherence isn’t a show stopper.

Many people go to college to get a job instead of to learn. But the best students really want to learn. They have the curiosity that inspires them to study. As a result, they get good grades and tend to get the best jobs as a side effect.

Many people go into politics for money, power and prestige, but the best politicians aren’t really politicians at all. They are leaders, change agents who wanted to make a difference.

Many, many rich people (arguably most) didn’t set out to be rich. Instead, they pursued their interests, leveraging their skills, to produce a better product or service. The wealth came because they were really good at what they chose and they were in the right place at the right time.

The Government is trying to alleviate poverty with Welfare, however they are actually unintentionally supporting and expanding it. For a Government to be effective in fighting poverty, it has to get out of the way and do everything it can to empower individuals, churches and other organizations to battle it (see "Jesus Was Not A Welfarist", http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/No-Jesus-Was-Not-a-Welfarist-J-E-Dyer-04-11-2011.html)

Sailboats are adequate for transportation, but most people don’t sail merely to get from point A to B. The destination is usually just an excuse for the journey.

When I realize that I can’t be good, I begin to seek God’s grace. In finding that grace, my love for Him grows. Out of that love, goodness flows.

"The only people who get better are people who know that, if they never get better, God will love them anyway."
— Steve Brown (A Scandalous Freedom: The Radical Nature of the Gospel)

And for more great Steve Brown Quotes:

http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/52931.Steve_Brown

An Imaginative Faith For An Imaginative Reality

Could you remind me how the Trinity works? And could you explain to me again this idea of grace?" One diligent student had no problem grasping Islam. She had no problem understanding religions based on a concept of exchange—do something for a god and he'll do something for you. But she was legitimately confused about Christianity: "The Quran is simple. Why is Christianity complicated?" http://www.worldmag.com/articles/17907

Christianity is complicated because reality is complicated. Show me a simple religion, and I’ll show you one that is not real.

"Reality, in fact, is always something you couldn't have guessed. That's one of the reasons I believe Christianity. It's a religion you couldn't have guessed."
--The Case for Christianity

Christianity tells us what man-made religions like Islam or Hinduism do not: That at a specific historical moment God experienced intimately torture, abandonment, overwhelming loss, and unjust death. http://www.worldmag.com/articles/17907

Factoid: Jesus is asked 183 questions in the Gospels. He answers just three of them—and he asks 307 questions back. http://www.worldmag.com/articles/17907