God Outside The Box

Do atheists disbelieve in God because of a lack of evidence, or simply because the evidence suggests a God that doesn't fit within our natural human expectations?

I suspect the latter, more than the former.

I was in awe of the eastern sky this morning. As the sun set low in the sky, it was hidden behind a mist of clouds exuding hues of blues, pinks and yellows. The imagery inspired a sense of mystery and awe.

My scientific mind would expect a God who can be detected, hence placed under a microscope and observed, measured, predicted and reduced to a set of laws.

This world we live in with its suffering and death, coupled with its beauty and order, suggests that if a God exists, God transcends our imaginations...

Are you willing to believe in a God who is outside of your box?

Why do we ask questions?

A coworker of mine pulled up www.google.com one morning and noticed today Google had their logo branded as a crop circle. His first reaction was to put up his hands and ask if today was national crop circle day.

Everyone asks questions about life. Why do we ask questions? Is it not because we are driven by coherence? Are we not wired to make sense of the world? Why would this be? Why are we so hungry for meaning and purpose in life?

WHO's purpose are we hungry for? Maybe you've never thought of this question before, but how can purpose exist independent of a being that actually has a will?

We can speak about the purpose of a chair being for people to sit in. As a result, even though practically a chair can function as a table or as a step ladder, we all seem to know that anyone who uses a chair in such a manner is not making the most of the chair's ultimate purpose. This is certainly not the intention of chair designer/manufacturers.

OTOH, some art is created with a different philosophical approach. We've all seen the type of art that causes us to ask, "What is it supposed to be?" The artist's answer can usually be summed up to be "It is what it is. It is supposed to be what you see and nothing more." I believe such artists are trying to escape this questioning process that is inherent within our very human nature. The artist might try this because so many of life's questions are unanswerable. But they won't be able to escape the average observer from asking such questions. Why is this?

Standing at the crossroads of life

In a post entitled, "The Power Of Volition" borrowing from Ravi Zacharias, I wrote about 4 tests for truth:

1. The establishment of objectivity
2. The test of empirical adequacy
3. The test of logical consistency
4. The test of experiential relevance

An astute animal rights activist can defend vegetarianism and meet all of the above criteria with the same skill that a meat eater can.

The vegetarian, believing that we evolved from monkeys as their presupposition, demonstrates a logically consistent argument in concluding that we shouldn't eat meat as a result. They even draw a sense of higher purpose as a result of practicing vegetarianism.

As for empirical adequacy, they might point to the facts as they interpret them in the forms of fossils, carbon dating, etc...

The meat eater can make just as valid of an argument, also meeting the above criteria. Pointing to the fact that humans have teeth that are naturally designed for tearing out flesh, they can logically conclude that the human species was designed to eat meat. By advocating a form of creationism that concludes that there is a separation between the Creator and creation, they logically conclude that man has been specially set apart from the animals.

They also point to thefacts in the forms of fossils, carbon dating, etc., but interpret them in a way that supports THEIR arguments.

I once heard a young earth creationist state that both an evolutionist and a creationist look at the same facts of the Grand Canyon, one saying, "A lot of time and a little water", while the other says, "A lot of water (Noah's flood) and a little time" formed it.

In the end, life seems to present to us forks in the road. In our scientific age, we seem to believe that all of these forks are answered via the empirical process, however empiricism only answers the surface questions.

The deepest questions of life are never answered, they are chosen. Life forces us to choose. It as if life is testing our hearts.

Why would the universe care? It doesn't? But there is a God behind the universe that does care?

Love is a choice. What do you choose when standing at the crossroads?

The universe posed as one giant question

The universe is a mystery. We look up at the cosmos and see balls of energy in the form of stars and planets, swirling around in what seems to be ordered chaos (not unlike jazz music).

Many people see this to be evidence that life as we know it came about by random chance processes. In such a world where chaos is natural, why is it that our human nature tries to see the order in life?

"If you are really a product of a materialistic universe, how is it that you don't feel at home there?"
--C.S. Lewis, "Encounter with Light"

If nature has produced us by random processes and chance, then why does this bother us?

Is the universe really silent because we live in a cold and impersonal world, or is it the silence of a library which allows one to best study its contents?

Faith Directions: To have faith, believe here.

I have made the case for faith in "The World Screams Faith" as well as other blogs. But this just begs the question, "What shall I have faith in?"

This world that screams faith, imposes faith decisions on us every day. Whenever we get into a car to drive to a destination, do we absolutely know with 100% certainty that we will arrive at our destination safely? I just passed a fatal car accident yesterday where thd driver's van was turned upside down.

Like that driver, we cannot absolutely KNOW anything, much less whether or not we will arrive safely at a destination. Now, would you get in the passenger seat of a car, put your seat belt on and let a totally inebriated driver take the wheel for the next 30 minutes on a busy interstate?

What's the difference between these two scenarios? Is it not found in the probability of you reaching your destination safely? Is it not found in the amount of reasoning you are able to apply given each scenario? Since theoretically your fate could swing either way, your choice is based ultimately on faith.

I advocate a rational faith. A faith that takes in the facts and boldly asks all the possible questions, willing to go wherever those questions might lead.

Someone has said that capitalism is the worst economic system in the world except when compared to all other economic systems in the world.

It is a fantastic leap of faith for me to believe in all that Christianity stands for, but it is a ludicrous leap of faith for me to reject it.

I believe in the testimony of the 40 authors who wrote the 66 books of the Bible, spanning over 1000's of years and crossing many cultural boundaries. I don't hold this faith because I can prove it. I hold this fantastic faith because rejecting it is impossible when considering the facts.

Skeptics who claim that its claims are fictious fail to give an alternative explanation that requires less faith than the Christian faith to which I hold.

The strongest and most common criticism they levy is the claim that the New Testament (N.T.) was written by people in high powers of Government throughout history in order to control the masses, gaining money and power through belief.

We believers stand in awe of common themes that exist between the O.T. and N.T.

My favorite one is to simply compare John 3:16 with Genesis 22:

John 3:16, the most famous verse in the Bible, says, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only son so that whoever believes in Him will have eternal life."

This scripture is a one verse summary not only of the Gospels as they unfold their story in the N.T., but also of the O.T. story of Abraham offering His only son Isaac as a sacrifice in Genesis 22.

But the skeptic believes this coherence was manufactured. They believe that the four Gospel writers collaborated and wrote their accounts to purposefully mirror the O.T.

These same skeptics will point out the differences in various Gospel accounts. Yet, if the four Gospels are the result of a collaborative scheme, why would the authors give varying accounts of some stories? Why would they disagree on some details?

And none of this explains the motives and veracity of the O.T.

A plausible alternative explanation has not been offered by the skeptic. It takes great faith to accept Christianity, and a greater faith to reject it.

Given the volitional nature of faith established in previous blog postings in the Pendulum Effect, life (or as I believe God) asks us the question, "What do you WANT to believe?" Such a question tests our heart's desire and tells us what WE are, not what this world is. The telescope that we try to aim outwardly, has turned inward becoming a microscope. What starts out as an attempt to search outer space, becomes a discovery of "inner space".

What were you made for? Does your heart scream "ME, ME, ME!", or does is beg to serve someone greater?

No Useless Truths

Expounding on the previous post of "The Experience of Serving Truth", I ask, in the course of man's empirical discovery of the universe, would we ever throw away truth discovered that we might render to be useless?"

I tried to formulate an illustration of this question, but discovered something else. The very foundations of this question are flawed. Is there even such a thing as useless truth?

Imagine for example that our telescopes, penetrating depths of the universe never before uncovered, reveal unique random flashes of light particles. Despite the subsequent years of research, we can discover these light particles to have no other effect other than our ability to see them and we can find no cause for them.

Just because we haven't discovered something, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, but leaving this truth aside, wouldn't such knowledge still be useful, if nothing else simply because it would stimulate our curiosity?

So if there is no such thing as useless knowledge, then does this mean that at least the empirically known universe is full of knowledge that is meant to be processed by mankind? If so, then who designed it for such a purpose and why?

The Experience of Serving Truth

Imagine someone living their entire life in a virtual reality. In the future, it may be possible to simply put on a set of glasses that provide a completely alternative sensory experience of sights and sounds. In this new virtual world, the person might experience virtual people that they relate to.... people who practically worship the participant, giving them all their hearts desires, making them the center of this virtual world.

The scenario is not so far-fetched. We already have first person video games that are played in similar ways. Or imagine a person who might choose to medicate their lives away into a virtual reality created by the euphoria of drugs administered via a perpetual IV.

In both of these scenarios, the person has chosen their reality. In both cases, the participants aren't hurting anyone. So what is it about these possibilities that bothers us? Why do we feel like these virtual players are wasting a life that has been given to them? After all, the life they would have lived in this world would have paled in comparison to the life they get fed to them via technology or meds.

What is it about our experiences that demands to serve truth? If God is truth, what does this say about how we might be wired?