Exploring Boundaries: Faith & Reason

I believe in the integration of faith and reason. Even many of my Christian brothers & sisters disagree with me here, I am not alone. Pascal, Edmund Burke, Augustine, Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, Ravi Zacharias and many many others would echo this affirmation.

When we put on seatbelts to ride in a car, we do so because logic says that the seatbelts make us safer. However because we cannot absolutely know whether or not we will arrive at our destination safely, our decision to ride in the car is based upon faith. Furthermore, if the driver of the car was inebriated, reason would dictate that such faith would be even less founded, if not unfounded.

I believe in Christ but not without reason. But because my reasons can not absolutely prove Him to be true, I still have faith. There is a reason that the Bible says that the Christ who could walk through walls in his resurrected body rolled away the stone from His tomb. It wasn't so that He could get out. It was so that we could see in.

I have blogged on the reasons for my faith in other posts and will not reiterate them again. But now that I have established this nexus of reason and faith, let's explore their limitations.

The limitations of reason are less obvious to many. Maybe you've read about the philosopher who asks questions like "How do I know I exist?" and "How do I know that I'm not really asleep living in a dream?" Go without food and drink for a while and you'll know that you are alive even if you can't explain how or why via reason. We somehow know that we exist but we can't explain how.

The limitations of faith are obvious. I can have faith that the world is flat, that I am the king of Narnia, that I am going to be healthy, wealthy, famous and wise, but reality does not always conform to our faith.

I can have faith that the oil currently spewing into the gulf of Mexico will miraculously stop but I cannot presume my faith upon God's will. It is only when I know the will of God that my faith can have traction.

What is at the boundary of reason if it is not faith? And what is at the boundary of faith if it is not God?

Hijacked Christianity

Pat Robertson recently said this about the recent Haitian Earthquake:

"They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon the third, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil,"

Christianity has been hijacked by people like Pat. If you're not a Christian, you could easily dismiss its claims by thinking that people like Pat are accurately representing what it means to follow Christ.

Pat is speaking this way because he is assuming that he is a prophet. Jesus also claimed Divine authority. In Matthew 9, He tells a sick man lying on a mat that his sins are forgiven him. The religious leaders of His day were skeptical even believing that Jesus was blasphemy.

Now Jesus didn't simply tell them to have blind faith and believe He was a prophet. Instead here is His response:

5Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'? 6But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...." Then he said to the paralytic, "Get up, take your mat and go home." 7And the man got up and went home. 8When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.

If Pat is REALLY speaking for God, he needs to authenticate such authority. I'm a computer geek. Working in IT, I am often challenged to authenticate who I am before gaining access to computers, networks, files, resources. In computers, you authenticate yourself via a username and password.

If Pat speaks for God, then we are NOT simply asked to believe it via a blind faith. Pat needs to authenticate his claims via some miraculous work that can only come from God. Mr. Robertson will NOT do this.

While it IS true that the Haitians practice voodoo and that Christianity condemns such practices, it would be presumptuous for anyone except a true prophet, to say that they knew that this earthquake was a judgment from God.

I can't tell you how many times I've debated with non-christians and had to deal with the distractions of the caricatures that they mistook Christianity to be.

G.K. Chesterton once said, "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried."

So I implore both non-christians AND Christians, don't believe that these claims represent the teachings and example of Christ. I also challenge other Christians to take back our faith from the hijackers.

Questions that Shake Us All

The earthquake in Haiti should remind us of old questions, not new. Why does evil exist? Why do people suffer? Why do bad things happen? I often hear this last question phrased as "Why do bad things happen to good people?"

Jesus was approached by a man who predicated a question by addressing Jesus as "Good teacher". Jesus asked him in Mark 10:18, "Why do you call me good? No one is good—except God alone."

If we really want to know about suffering and evil, we also need to know about goodness. What does it mean for something to be good? I realize that not everyone reading this posting even believes in the existence of good and evil. Some people believe that these definitions are imaginary and arbitrary in the sense that what we call "good" and "evil" is merely what we like. We might call something pleasurable good and something associated with suffering evil. Of course many people call sex outside of marriage evil, or a drug-induced high to be at least a bad thing.

These are just two examples of things that might bring short-term pleasure for long-term loss or suffering. Let me suggest that these things bring pleasure within the "smaller picture", but there is a "larger picture", a "greater purpose" to serve. If we serve that "greater purpose", if we are driven by it, we inevitably will be drawn to what we commonly call "good".

My favorite Christian teacher, Steve Brown (www.stevebrownetc.com) says, "Everyone needs a metanarrative." We all need a larger story to explain the small stories of our lives.

My heart goes out to the Haitian people. I don't understand the smaller story. I can't dogmatically say why this has happened, but I can respond with love, prayers and giving because my life is driven by a larger story, His story.

Christmas: Truth was born. Did anyone notice?

I'm writing this blog on Christmas morning, having already spent Christmas with one side of the family and getting ready to spend it with the other side. One side of the family is Christian and the other is not. One side is conservative and the other side liberal.

But what is most interesting to me is that on both sides, truth has died. There are at least three tests for truth (I get this from Ravi Zacharias (visit www.rzim.org).

For something to be true, it should be:
1. Logically Consistent
2. Empirically Adaquate
3. Existentially Relevant

I'm not going to unpack these points in this morning's blog because my larger point is that there are tests for truth however they don't matter if you don't believe in the very concept of it.

The family time I get around the holidays reminds me of this as I get to see it first hand. On Christmas Eve, we were sitting around watching family videos of Christmases past. In one, my wife is found singing Amazing Grace. One family member says something about her "singing religious music".

Simply calling it "religious music" is a fantastic way to ignore the contents of the message. It's a great way to be the ostrich. I've seen lots of people simply dismiss things as being "religious", which seems to allow them to never question whether or not it may be true. In their minds, religion is simply something you believe in to get through life. It is something that can't be tested, hence the tests above never get applied.

Truth has died in this nonchristian family.

But the same can be said for another side of my family that IS Christian. They will also never use the three tests I listed above (or any test) against their faith. They HAVE the religion that keeps the other side of our family from ever changing their ways.

They have beliefs but don't ask them WHY. They've never taken it that far. I disagree with a significant portion of their denominational interpretations, but because they don't test the truths of their faith critically, they are not open to change, thus the dialog is cut-off.

What is most strange to me is that neither side would apply such thinking to non-religious worldviews. Neither side would for instance, when faced with crossing a busy street corner, simply think that the belief in whether or not a car is crossing their path is simply someone's opinion or experience and should NOT be tested.

You might also say that religion is different in that it makes claims that are not testable. I agree that many religions make such claims, but Christmas should remind us that Christianity goes much farther. This Christmas day presents to us the intersection of God with humanity, the transcendence of God as He crossed the line of the supernatural and traveled into the natural, taking on flesh and being born a human baby, one that could be touched and seen and heard. Will you ignore the baby in the manger?

Truth Will Not Bend To Our Wishes

Imagine a world where the truth of reality was only that which we liked. In such a world, what would keep us from thinking that we were God? After all, only an omnipotent being can choose what is true based upon His desires.

Perhaps this is why so much of life has truths that are not pleasant to the human mind. What is the most certain truth of life? Is it not death?

And to think that some people claim that perception is reality. Just try and perceive death away. It nags like a mother-in-law's scorn.

We can try to choose our faith and make life conform to our wishes, but there is something about reality that will not bow to anyone else but its maker and we are not He.

Excavating Heads from the Sand

Be open minded, not so much that your brains fall out. When it comes to religion, so many so called "open minded" people seem to assume that religions only make claims that can NOT be tested. As a result of such thinking, they don't analyze religious claims, testing them to see if they might be true. Can you get more narrow-minded than that?

Sure, I can't claim every belief proclaimed by every religion is testable. For instance, when Islam claims that that the Koran is its only miracle in that it is divinely inspired, how do you test such a claim?

But on the other hand, when a religious worldview makes a claim on human nature, or makes a specific prediction of an event that has already passed, or on the nature of the universe, where such claims are testable, why should we bury our heads in the sand in the name of being "open-minded"?

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel gave us a system known as the dialectic that can basically be summarized as, postulate a thesis, test it against it's antithesis and come up with a synthesis. An example is in order:

Some worldviews claim that the universe is eternal. This is now testable. The Hubble satellite has found a red shift in the universe that indicates that the space is expanding. This is further confirmed by the fact that the farther we look out in space with a telescope, the closer stars and galaxies are clustered. If space is expanding, then it must have had a beginning.

Before the 1500's, the common worldview was that the heavens were unchanging. In 1572, supernovae were discovered. It would NOT be open-minded to say all worldviews are true therefore both sides of the space is or isn't changing are right. It would not be discerning to ignore the evidence that points in one direction. So why do many people treat religious claims differently?

Occam's razor is validated through the dialectic process. Occam's razor says do not multiply entities unnecessarily. In other words, Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS method). When Copernicus theorized that the celestial bodies were not orbiting around the Earth, it wasn't because of observation, but because of the simplicity of the model.

Later observation has confirmed Copernicus, further validating Occam's razor as a result.

Using the dialectic process, I can't believe in Hinduism because it claims the existence of millions of Deities, thus violating Occam's razor of not multiplying entities (Deities) unnecessarily.

Although, I have the most respect for it, I reject Buddhism because it's answer to man's suffering is to make man essentially numb by prescribing that we rid of ourselves of all attachments. Medical science can do this by medicating someone into a vegetative state. If you think that is too extreme of an example, I have watched a close family member medicated with antipsychotic medications that took away this person's "attachments" and made them lethargic and carefree.

I reject Islam because it says kill infidel. Faith can never be coerced or imposed. BTW, I don't claim every Muslim to be such an extremist, but I would suggest that a moderate Muslim is contradicting the Koran which they try to live by.

However Judeo-Christianity makes some testable claims that I can't find a fault in. It has been saying that the universe is "spread like a tent" in over ten places within the Bible.

Judeo-Christianity teaches that there is one God, although I admit that the concept of the trinity is a threat to complying to Occam's razor.

Despite the historical exceptions where people in the name of Christ have killed others in crusades and inquisitions, the actual teachings of Christ are clear that the Gospel is to be spread through persuasion (preaching) and NEVER through such means.

And what Judeo-Christianity says about human nature is probably most profound and easiest to validate. It claims that man's nature is bent towards selfishness. Among so many other things, it also validates our human right to own possessions thru one of the ten commandments stating "Thou shall not steal."

The success of nations with capitalist economies validates this combination. Capitalism. Unlike other economic systems, which either try to make everyone equal in what they own, or where the Government owns everything, modern history gives us an undeniable truth that an economic system that capitalizes on man's selfishness, turning it into a means for him to serve others for gain, yields the most success. BTW, I don't claim capitalism is perfect.

It has been said that the world would be perfect if it weren't for people. 90% of the evil that occurs in the world is not the result of natural disasters or sickness. Most of the suffering that occurs in the world the result of the selfishness and lack of restraint of others.

This lack of restraint can sometimes only be justified by altruism. Altruism only makes sense if there's a God who is always looking even when others are not. When we CAN get away with committing a selfish act, dishonest gain, etc., the only reason we can come up with to walk the straight and narrow is if there is a God who keeps score.

I've quoted it before, but it bears repeating. Cardinal Emmanuel Suhard once said:

"To be a witness does not consist in engaging in propaganda, nor even in
stirring people up, but in being a living mystery. It means to live in
such a way that one s life would not make sense if God did not exist."

Life without altruistic behavior would be unlivable, so why wouldn't a life lived without God be the same?

Lambert Controversy is about purpose NOT expression

The latest Adam Lambert controversy at the AMA music awards (see http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/11/23/2009-11-23__adam_lambert_delivers_raunchy_ama_performance_filled_with_hip_thrusts_crotch_gr.html) gives the illusion of being about censorship, but make no mistake, this is really about purpose and meaning.

After the show, Lambert hailed his shocking performance as freedom of expression. But if one were to ask Lambert if it would have been acceptable to have paraded children in provacative poses, I'm not so sure he would have defended such expression. And I'm certain that if a Christian entertainer would have performed at the awards and made explicit expressions of worship, statements on the sanctity of unborn life, or statements about God making a man for a woman, he wouldn't have defended these in the name of expression.

As I proceed, please don't get me wrong. Except for the expressions of worship, I don't think the Christian entertainer in my hypothetical would be wise in going this route. I'm only pointing out that this is NOT about freedom of expression. This is about what people call "values".

With that said, I don't like to use the term values, because I feel that it is a term that has been hijacked. It is a term that people say without really thinking about what it might mean. I will therefore frame the concept differently.

One more disclaimer. I'm not one of those Christians who acts like homosexuality is underlined and highlighted in Christian teaching as the greatest sin. Furthermore, I believe in treating such people with compassion and would NEVER advocate violence or even a judgmental attitude expressed towards them.

I can't speak on the specifics of Lambert's worldview, but he obviously doesn't believe that homosexuality is immoral, nor does he seem to hold a high standard for heterosexual expressions.

On the other side, to simply object to Lambert's antics as being immoral fails to get to the heart of the issue. I believe that life has a purpose. That purpose is given by a God. That God has an intention for our relationships. Lust in any form violates that purpose. This is akin to someone desecrating a cemetery (see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31832393/). Should such actions be defended as freedom of expression?

Why would this appall us? In the story, the employees desecrated the cemetery to free up plots so that they could resell them. They were out to make a $. This is where their "values" lie.

The reason a cemetery desecration appalls us is because inherently, we know that life has a purpose.

I'm not mad at people like Lambert. I feel sorry for them. They live the same purposeless lives we've seen Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson, and others live before them. They aren't happy people because they have been willing to sacrifice purpose for their own lusts. They have exchanged the joy of life for a bed. Unfortunately, they will have to lie in it.