The Abstract Nature of the Supernatural

Have you ever noticed how as soon as we name something, it becomes demystified?

Judeo-Christianity tells the story of Noah, building an ark for years and telling people that it was going to rain. The story says that it had never rained on the earth before and that up to this point, the earth was watered with a mist that came up from the ground.

If it had never rained before, I sincerely doubt that a word for "rain" existed in ancient times in any language. It is therefore easy to imagine Noah saying "I'm building this ark because water is going to fall from the sky and flood the world."

When you say it like this, the warning is even more unbelievable. The event becomes veiled in a wording that appears to be mystical and supernatural.

We have words for all sorts of things that otherwise look miraculous when you think about what they really mean:

The miracle of life: "fertilization"
Caterpillar turns into a butterfly: "Metamorphosis"
The rusting process: "oxidation"
The power that keeps us on terra firma: "Gravity"
A force that permeats the universe: "Radiation"
A series of colored lights forming an arc: "Rainbow"
Any repeated connection of events: "Scientific Law"
Lights in the heavens: "Stars"

G.K. Chesterton wrote:

It is the man who talks about “a law”
that he has never seen who is the mystic. Nay, the ordinary scientific man is strictly a sentimentalist.
He is a sentimentalist in this essential sense, that he is soaked and swept away by mere associations.
He has so often seen birds fly and lay eggs that he feels as if there must be some dreamy, tender
connection between the two ideas, whereas there is none. A forlorn lover might be unable to
dissociate the moon from lost love; so the materialist is unable to dissociate the moon from the
tide. In both cases there is no connection, except that one has seen them together. A sentimentalist
might shed tears at the smell of apple-blossom, because, by a dark association of his own, it reminded
him of his boyhood. So the materialist professor (though he conceals his tears) is yet a sentimentalist,
because, by a dark association of his own, apple-blossoms remind him of apples. But the cool
rationalist from fairyland does not see why, in the abstract, the apple tree should not grow crimson
tulips; it sometimes does in his country. - Orthodoxy pg 29

So what is it about our human nature that causes us to think that because we might name something, or even call it a law, that it is less mystical as a result?

As Shakespeare once said, "A rose by another name still smells the same." Is water falling from the sky any less miraculous if it is simply called "rain"? Is a meteriologist's explanation of the conditions which produce rain any different than the fairy godmother's explanation of the existence of Cinderella's glass slippers?

Is a scientist's explanation of why the earth has a gravitational force pulling us down, any less miraculous than the theologian's explanation of why faith in Christ's resurrection will raise us up?

As a Christian, I believe that the Bible is the Word of God. I also agree with Martin Luther who said that the Bible is God's "baby talk" to us. In the course of Him communicating to us in a way that we can understand, the Word is demystified to the degree that it becomes more propositional.

This demystified Word presents Jesus Christ as the son of God, who lived like no man has ever lived before or since, who offered Himself as a sacrifice for mankind, and did the ultimate thing in coming back from the dead. That sacrifice and resurrection gives Christians hope to share in the crucifiction of sin in our lives via grace and the promise of new life in being "born again" here and after our physical deaths.

But when I say it like this, the story sounds more like a formula than the miracle that it is.

But as I meditate upon these truths, the abstractions that naturally accompany the meditation process seem to melt the propositional nature of this revelation away.

What I'm left with is the story of God reaching down to man in his despair and need, pulling us out with the ultimate expression of love, giving us the freedom that all of us long for, but few find.

I don't believe it is coincidental that Jesus Christ is called the Word of God and is described as being humble.

The irony of this coincidence is that as the Word is humbled, its power increases, the story unfolds and transcends the mind, also reaching the heart.

The World Screams FAITH!!!

Nature abhors certainty.

For theists such as myself, if the cosmos were created in such a way as to place the earth at its center, perhaps in a universe where the earth was the only planet in existence, it would be more difficult to be an atheist.

Atheism is no walk in the park either though. The fact that the earth exists at the precise distance from the sun to allow for life as we know it to exist, screams intelligent design. The odds of the earth's precarious position coming about by random processes and chance are astronomical.

As a result, neither theists or atheists can hold on to their worldviews with certainty. BOTH viewpoints require faith.

And as I've stated in a previous blog, faith is volitional. Faith says more about our hearts and what we want the world to be, then it does about how the world might actually be.

This is why two people can look at the same world and interpret it in totally different ways, and both have equally logical and strong arguments to support their positions. Debate victories usually go to the best debater, not necessarily to the person who is right.

It is as if the world was designed to force us to have faith. And if faith is volitional, tied to our wills, then it is as if something, or better yet someone, is testing our hearts, asking us to choose....

Boldly seek, Boldly find

Boldness of thinking is tied to critical thinking. This is why men tend to be more analytical.

I know that I speak with the bias of a man. If you are a female reader, please don't let your bias keep you from seeing things are they are. I promise to try and do the same, starting by exposing the weaknesses of the analytical mind.

Oscar Wilde wrote that a cynic understands the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Analytical people are often cynics. In a purely analytical world, we have the world of Star Trek's Spock, a cold world where things are understood, but not enjoyed. Everything is in a box, but nothing is in our hearts.

The analytical mind can understand, discover and build things. But it takes the visceral/experiential mind (i.e. the heart) to enjoy them.

The heart is our safe place. It is the place we can call home. But don't get too comfortable with that snake in the bed, or those termites eating at your home's foundation. The rhythm of that dripping faucet isn't meant to provide the same comfort as the rhythm of a mother's heart. A person who is lead by their emotions and throws out their mind is blind. Having no discernment and lacking the boldness to ask questions, they have no answers and inevitably fall into a ditch.

There is value in the yin and the yang, the analytical and the visceral, the male and the female.

It is with my mind that I can ask questions and it is with my heart that I can receive their answers no matter what they may be.

Prepare your mind by boldly asking and prepare your heart by boldly receiving.

The Silence of God

Let's face it, if God exists, He is silent.

What makes us question better than a mystery?

And what brings an answer better than a question?

And what allows us to think about those answers better than silence?

God's silence asks us to question, telling us a mystery and whispers the questions that are more important than the answers.

Bold Thinking

Truth requires bold thinking.

How many times have you, or someone you have observed, failed to learn a software program (or computers in general) because it appeared to be too complex? Does it not take a boldness of thinking to ignore such perceptions and to trod on?

As a musician, if I tell someone that a chord is a G7#5b9, the name itself can intimidate many musicians. I've met musicians and songwriters who claim to want to get better at their crafts, but as soon as they hear concepts expressed that sound complex, their tendency is to ignore or downplay them.

But isn't anything that is difficult or complex, merely a concatenation of a bunch of simpler things? When you break down computer codes to their simplest forms, they are merely 1's and 0's.

I'm not in love with the imagery of this aphorism, but it has been said that the way a snake swallows a pig is one inch at a time. I've found that nothing is so complex that it can't be broken down into simpler elements. It takes boldness to do the breakdowns. It takes questioning to make the complex understandable.

Complexity is an illusion. The illusion is shattered by breaking things down. The questioning process breaks the complex down into the "bite sized chunks" we need. Have the boldness to question and a bias towards truth and nothing less. Be willing to surrender all that you believe if the process threatens it. Have the boldness to be willing to surrender it all.

Coexist. An Imposed Delusion

I see cars with the above bumper sticker all the time. I believe in peaceful coexistence and totally agree with the idea that religions should not let disagreements turn into violence. While the thoughts behind the bumper sticker are well-intentioned, I think some of them are also shallow and disrespectful of the distinct qualities of religion.

First of all, it is as if the person with the bumper sticker thinks that all they have to do is tell religious people to coexist and wha-la, peace will magically happen. And no wonder they believe this. Most people seem to believe that religion is nothing more than a self-imposed delusion meant to help people get through life, feel better about themselves and provide guidance. They see religion as something that serves the religious.

But what the bumper sticker misses is that many religious adherents actually believe their faith conforms to reality. We actually believe that it is TRUE. Imagine that!

There is a funny thing about truth. You can't pick and choose it. Have you ever noticed how the world is probably nothing like you would have designed it? In my foolish logical mind, if I could have designed the world, it would be so utilitarian as to have nothing but 90 degree angles, human beings would have wheels instead of being legs to walk, and the cosmos would not exist in its vast emptiness. The Earth would be flat but never ending and there would be no other planets or worlds beyond it. People wouldn't differ in heights, abilities, or privileges of any kind. I don't think I would have had the creativity or the wisdom to have created beauty, not seeing any practical value in such a thing....

Doesn't this alien world we live in scream "You don't get to choose truth"? Our very genetics reverberate this sentiment.

Then why do we think that when it comes to religion, things are different?

The reason that I'm a Christian is because I have found no better explanation of its stories than the one that says, "they must be true". Believe me, I've tried thinking that it was made up by the authors of the Bible, or by the church, or that Jesus was merely a man who has been mythologized over time, etc.... Every alternative that I've considered took MORE faith than simply believing as a Christian.

I believe Christianity is true, NOT simply MY truth. For instance, when Christianity says that humanity has a fallen nature, I believe that applies to everyone, even non-christians!

The fall of man (and creation itself) might not be absolutely proven, but it still can be tested. I've found no test that disqualifies it but no smoking gun to absolutely prove it 100% without a doubt either. The greatest proof I've found of this and other Christian truths is simply that by living my life as if these claims are true, I have found the best way to live. One popular Christian teacher (Steve Brown of www.stevebrownetc.com) says that Christians are beggars who having found bread, are simply pointing the way for others to do the same.

Good religious people can disagree and argue their points. Not only would I say that the debate needs to continue, but we don't do enough debate. Critical thinking should prevail. We don't talk enough about religion, treating it as a taboo subject. But how can a system of belief that addresses the most fundamental questions of life, such as what is its very purpose and what happens after death, be ignored? Isn't that the height of insanity?

As a Christian, I reject reincarnation. I can't prove that this is the only time we go around any more than the Hindu or Buddhist can prove reincarnation. But I can demonstrate how the Christian belief in only one life on earth causes one's life to be better for it.

I sense that "coexist" means "live and let live" by not even debating or discussing our differences. I see it as affirming relativism when it comes to matters of faith. I have to reject such an affirmation. And anyone proponent who expresses disagreement with me, is certainly no relativist. How can someone who believes all truth is relative and one's perception is truth argue with someone else's perception?

I believe in the dialectics of Hegel. It says that truth is to be found by forming a thesis, an antithesis and a synthesis. In other words, you start with a belief, you test that belief against its opposite and you let that testing process flesh out what is and isn't true until you find the truth.

If your faith is true, it can not be threatened by debate. If it is false, why would you want to nurture and protect it from debate?

Finally, I want to say that the best thing that a "coexist" proponent can do to encourage peace among religious people is to encourage Christians to follow Christ. By truly following Christ, there is no room for imposing my faith through coercion or violence. The same is true of many other religions. Unfortunately, I can't say this is true of every religion....

Does everything have to have a beginning?

Pascal once wrote that belief in God is incomprehensible and disbelief in God is inconceivable.

The same can be said about the infinite/eternal, but I think of it in different wording. Imagining something or someone to not have a beginning is difficult to comprehend, but not as difficult to imagine.

Imagining something to not have a beginning or end, might be difficult because of our finite point of reference. Everything we humans observe in this world has a beginning, even the universe (see below). However just because everything we know has a beginning doesn't mean that everything HAS to have one.

Science has confirmed that the universe has a beginning. The logic goes that because of the doppler effect found in cosmic background radiation, we know that space is expanding. If space is expanding, then it must had a starting expansion point.

Science has also confirmed that the universe has an end. Our telescopes find dying stars all the time. Our sun has a very definite lifespan. When the sun goes, life on earth as we know it will cease as well.

This confirmation of the finiteness of the known universe begs the question: "What caused it all?" After all, if the universe were eternal, such a question wouldn't be necessary. But we know that finite things have causes/sources.

I only know of two possibilities. Either an eternal process caused it, or an eternal being.

Belief in an eternal being is a simpler explanation than belief in an eternal process. After all, belief in an eternal being also explains the order found in the universe. Order always comes from intelligence. No exceptions have ever been found.

Something else that Pascal observes is that God has revealed Himself with enough clues in creation to know of His existence, but He also hides Himself enough so that we may sense our unworthiness of Him.

If Creation testifies of this, then this begs the question: What can save us from this condition?