Planeseatreclineology

Obviously I haven't had time to blog on this subject lately, but I couldn't pass this one up. Your comments, please?

Another View of the Cave by Brian Kirk

While Plato's allegory of the cave caused me to think about things deeper,
I have also begun to ponder what may be considered the converse.

Say that, there were a bunch of free men, examining the perfect world
around them. One day, because of a horrible choice to commit a crime,
they were forced into a cave, and into bondage, shackles around the
neck and legs, much like Plato's cave.

Would not these men try to explain everything they saw in the cave as
a comparison to what they saw in the perfect world? And wouldn't they,
for a period of time at least, long for the world which they had been
cast out of?

Would they not attempt to make discoveries about this cave, all the
while coming to false conclusions because all they have known is the
perfection of the world above?

Would a few generations pass and the discoveries of the world around
would be even further from the truth just like the children's game of
telephone? The meanings of the objects would be blurred and distorted.

Perhaps not though. Perhaps they will begin to adjust to the light of
the fire and "figure out" all that there is to know. But all the
while, the memory of the perfect world would slowly fade.

The children's children of the original few men placed into bondage
might even find the "theory" or the idea of a perfect world to be
ridiculous, and dismiss it as a myth. Of course, it wouldn't be a
myth, but they might believe it was.

More and more, those who still believe in such a world would be the
outcasts of the society, viewed as weak and ignorant. However, in
truth, they would be the only ones that had an inkling of what life
really was.

And it would be these people, the ones that had faith, that the
keepers of the cave and the world in which it is contained would find
a redeemable quality.

Eventually, they would be allowed out of the cave into the perfect
world that they spent their entire life preparing for.

Placebo Effect and Mesmer by Bernardo

Recently I listened to an interesting radio show, which added some substance to my views on people's religious experiences. I thought I should share this with you and get your impression. Randy, if you would like to publish the text below as a guest post on your God Vs No God blog, feel free.

New York's NPR station, WNYC, produces an excellent weekly show called "Radio Lab". The two hosts chat with each other, and with diverse experts (typically scientists and historians and doctors and psychologists, but sometimes people who just have unusual jobs or experiences), about interesting topics such as what time is, where the sense of self comes from, how memories are formed and recalled (or forgotten), how stress works, morality, mortality, etc. You can listen to it online and I strongly recommend it.

Anyways, they had one episode about the placebo effect. The show was introduced with the real-life story of a Native American who became skeptical of the healing powers claimed by the tribe's shaman. The young man simply could not believe that all that chanting and ritual had any effect on disease. So he "went undercover" and asked to become an apprentice shaman. As well as how to make certain remedies using plants and other substances, he learned many theatrical "tricks", such as putting some feathers in his mouth, biting the inside of his cheek to draw blood, then pretending to "suck" out the disease from the patient and then spitting out the bloody feathers. Knowing that the theatrics involved were just that, he started his shaman work, faking it just like the shaman who taught him. But, to his amazement, the "tricks" worked, even though sometimes he wasn't really doing anything (as far as giving them substances that might help them).

From there, the first half of the show is spent talking with scientists about how the placebo effect works. In case you're curious: Say you take a substance, be it aspirin or caffeine or ecstasy or an antidepressant, and it has some effect on you. The fact that it had an effect indicates that your cells have receptors for this substance (or for one very much like it), molecular "locks" that are triggered when a certain kind of "key" molecule snaps into them. But if your cell already has those receptors, then human cells have always had those receptors, and this means that your body can already manufacture that substance (or one very much like it). Somewhere in your body - maybe in one specific gland, maybe in every cell - you have the power to manufacture most of the kinds of "medicines" and "mind-altering substances" you need. The hard part is triggering that production. Mysteriously, thinking that you have ingested a substance that has a certain effect, can often somehow trigger the production of whatever substance the body can make which comes closest to having that effect, at least for a little while. Yes, this is an incomplete explanation but it contains some elegant and powerful insights I did not have until I heard it.

The second half of that show is what I really want to talk about. It talked about faith healers, and about a German guy in the 1700s named Mesmer (from whom we get the word "mesmerized") who claimed to "magnetize" things and to cure diseases using "animal magnetism", a ether-like substance that connects all living things. For example, he would rub magnetized iron rods against a tree, and claim that the tree now channeled "animal magnetism". His patients would then touch the tree, start shaking and moaning and convulsing and screaming... and after a while, many of them got better. But real doctors were losing patients to this, and scientists were understanding magnetism well enough at the time to know that this Mesmer was probably making this stuff up. So a commission of scientists (including Ben Franklin, the US's ambassador to France at the time) was formed, not to investigate whether Mesmer's magnetism worked (because, in many cases, it did) but to investigate whether it involved any real phenomenon external to the people treated by it, any kind of fluid or field that had real effects on the world. They performed a simple test: One of five trees was "magnetized" by Mesmer (or one of his followers, since he franchised this practice), and a patient being treated this way was asked to identify which of the 5 trees was "magnetized". As you may guess, few patients got it right. Still, the effects of mesmerism could not be denied, since a lot of people got better from what ailed them. The commission concluded that the effects of Mesmer's "Animal Magnetism" were not caused by any real ether-like fluid or field, but by the imaginations of the patients.

Many people today claim to have religious experiences, to see lights and speak in tongues, to be taken over by the Holy Spirit, etc. This is most noticeable in Pentecostals who are famous for this kind of stuff, and in Christian Scientists who claim that all disease is really just problems in one's relationship with God, but most Christians will claim to have perceived ( i.e. been affected by) the divine supernatural in some way. Listening to the story about mesmerism, about what it was like and the effects it had, made me think that these things can be easily explained as being induced by the person experiencing it, a kind of placebo effect, which makes sense since these people are the ones who believe that the Holy Spirit could actually come and make itself felt.

So, I ask: What is the difference between the Holy Spirit and Animal Magnetism?

Both have real observable effects. Neither can be shown to be triggered by anything outside the mind of the person experiencing it. I think that experiencing the divine is either a placebo effect, or the assigning of supernatural causes to phenomena that are naturally caused (like they used to with the weather, disease, etc).

Here is the MP3 of this show I am talking about. The part about mesmerism is from 42:35 to 50:20.

http://feeds.wnyc.org/~r/radiolab/~5/118525705/radiolab051807pod.mp3

And some more links for reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesmer#The_advent_of_animal_magnetism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_magnetism

What do you think?

- Bernardo

A Few Personal Notes

I know that I have been well short of prolific in these spaces lately. One could hope that the content has been of greater quality while declining in quantity. I actually have been concentrating a bit more on my writing and style. Did anyone notice?

The last few months have been filled with substantial turmoil. My partner and I started a business over 26 years which grew to be very substantial. However, due to conditions within and outside of our control, we were forced to sell the business to the highest bidder last month. This process has been extremely time consuming and draining. It has made it very hard to be "up" for blogging or any other creative endeavor.

To make matters even more interesting (to me at least), I am now in the process of deciding what to do for a living. Part of the sale includes continuing on as an employee for the next 8 months, but there is no guarantee of work beyond that. So I am currently flexing my writing skills, and attempting to sell three book ideas, several freelance column ideas, a couple of freelance articles, check into adjunct professoring, consulting, and expert witnessing.

If anyone has any thoughts on any of those career paths or can be of any help, please comment or email.

The good news is that now that the deal is closed, and the day-to-day management of the company is behind me, I am full of creative vigor and am writing 1000's of words per day. Some for the job. Lots for publication.

Alas, it is unclear to me how much time I can devote to this blog, in that I need to be writing for dollars. However, it is my intent to do at least a post or two per week and stay up with the comments. I could sure use some guest posts. (I admit that Bernardo sent me a good one that I haven't even had time to make ready, but I will.)

Thanks to all who visit and contribute here. I do intend to keep trying to be a good host.

Odds of No Catastrophic End to Life

Much has been written, even a well argued post here, about the question of the precise aspects needed to sustain life on this planet. More to the point, I have argued here that it is beyond comprehension that this status has been maintained for billions of years without intelligent intervention to keep the systems within a life-sustaining range.

Those arguing against such a proposition say that it is just so. Others suggest that this is flawed logic. One commentor said that we have had a least 4 near wipe-outs of life, but life came back.

Call the following a falacy if you like. However:

1. With so many mindless species having lived and gone extinct, how is it that none has ever been so successful at destroying other life that all but its own species was destroyed, leaving it with no food supply?

2. How is it that nature has such balance that even in the most inhospitable places, life finds a way?

3. How is it that life did recover from the 4 great catastrophes that we believe may have destroyed up to 96% of life?

4. Why life at all? Doesn't it appear that there is something about life which has a huge drive to survive? What is that about? In humans, we have self awareness that might cause us to want to keep living for the things we desire, even in the face of great difficulty. But why does a cockroach have that built into him? What is the source of that drive?

If I was playing serious money poker with you, and you were dealt two straight flushes in a row with no draw, I would want to find out what "magic" you possessed. You could tell me until the end of time that you just got lucky, but I'd never quite believe it, no matter how much evidence there was to back up your claim.

Free Will and Indoctrination

Re: My earlier post about the LA Times religious editor who lost his faith. My last thought in the post elicited the most comments. Do we need indoctrination to hold onto closely held beliefs. Add to this stew the issue of free will vs some form of cause-and-effect only thinking, and it would at least seem to offer new opportunities for contemplation of the human condition.

If "I" and "my actions" are but the sum total of various data inputs, then, he who controls the inputs should be able to finally claim the crown of Emperor of the World. Hitler and Osama think information and oppression alone will do it, but what with chemicals and other biomethods, surely we could turn humans into robots.

Then we will be faced with the question I think I posted about here a while back regarding folks who are mentally imbalanced: "How will we know?" Has it already happened? Enter the Matrix.

The "First Cause" Concept

Picture the three of us (my son-in-law with his Masters in apologetics from Biola, working on a second Masters in spirituality; my son, currently reading John McArthur (the leading US proponent of Calvinism; and me working on this issue around the pool overlooking the Pacific in Hawaii. We tend to agree with the conclusions of the previous post:

Most concepts of a Christian God make the concept of free will pretty hard to consistently consider.

In general, it is hard to imagine any effect, including any human decision that is not informed 100% by previous causality.

Defining Free Will is fraught with peril.

In the midst of this brainstorming session, an original thought (whatever that is) presented itself. There had to be at least one first cause in history. Why only one? Thus humans (and who knows who else) might have the capacity to being completely creative and generate first causes. This doesn't require a spiritual side or a soul. However, it does go to the matter as first presented, who am "I" if I'm not capable of free will decisions. Now it is proposed that I am an agent of first causes.

Free Will Fantasy

I just needed some time to think it through. Now what was so confusing has become simple at last. I just need to pretend that I actually can make choices. After all, up until now I have been pretending that there is a God and that Jesus is His Son. With all that practice, it should be a no brainer to pretend like the decisions I make have consequences over which I need to concern myself.

Come to think of it, I have been pretending just that all my life. Since I have never considered seriously such contentions from philosophy like "everything being in my head" as being something to seriously ponder, the pile of such discards has included no free will.

I really need to pretend these things, because our entire Western way of thinking is based on volition. The jurisprudence system is based on intent and reasonable man. Our constitution set out the idea of the peons ruling the rulers by making and informed decision. Our commerce is based on consumer choice.

Wonder if there are other aspects of what we think we know scientifically that will require us to pretend to accept the unscientific? First God. Then free will. What next?

Free Will, or at least Cheap Will

Got up this morning, and I am sooooo confused. I don't want to do what God preordained me to do. Even if it is the absolute best thing for me to do, I don't want to do it, just because. Call me a child of the '60's. A real rebel.

Moreover, I certainly don't want to do anything that is simply the result of random occurrences in my genetics, experiences, and bodily chemical reactions. Yuk. So, my first thought was to do the opposite of what I was going to do. Unfortunately, that would be exactly what my predispositions would cause me to do. I considered doing the opposite of the opposite. I put my options into a random generator. Surely God knew I would do that. Besides, my reading of an article on a new random number generator last week surely caused me to think of that option.

Now my thoughts turned diabolical. If I can't make any real choices about my actions, then I really need to consider why I fret so much over making choices. I have read many places, including the Bible, that we should take care of today, and let tomorrow take care of itself. Coooool! In the case of the Bible, this had to do with not worrying or being anxious. But many, many self help books and pundits seem to mean something far more nihilistic.

So, if I choose not to believe in God, this is because I wasn't intended to anyway. If I choose to maximize my own power, wealth, consumption, and personal enjoyment, regardless of how it effects others, this would merely be the result of previous causes in my life. I can disregard the little voice in my head telling me to be unselfish, kind, loving, and such, since that voice is not the Holy Spirit, and the part of my make-up that can turn off that voice is just as much a part of me that turns it on.

Sure, I have to weigh consequences of my actions. But, lets face it, I'm 59. If I could get in 10 years of living large, there won't be that much time left for paying those consequences. And that's assuming I ever get caught or drive away the friendship of someone who really matters to me.

Need to think a bit more about all this. I'm off to church. Not because I choose to go in the face of all this, but because my Great, great, great grandparents went to church every week.

Calvinists vs Arminians

It might seem strange that I would offer up an internecine squabble on these pages, but the Kirk house is currently debating the issue, and it gave rise to a couple of appropriate thoughts regarding the debate herein.

Calvinists and Arminians disagree on several things, but the meaty part is over predestination vs free will. "Did God decide 'in the beginning' which of us humans would be saved and which condemned to hell." If he made such a decision, and there is plenty of solid scripture to back up that POV, then how can there be such a thing as free will. If no free will, then how can we ascribe personal responsibility to any act or person. If no free will, why even contemplate the issues of good vs evil or God vs no God? Last element of the set up: Both sides of the C vs A debate pretty much agree that there is no way to resolve the scriptural conflict this side of heaven. You pretty much select free to choose or God already chose by faith.

By now you are probably miles ahead of me in thinking how this applies more broadly to question posed here. Hopefully, however, I will surprise at least 10% of the faithful readers of this blog with my main epiphany. The Bible stands alone among all resources produced by humans in that it claims to provide us with Truth. Other religious texts might come close, but none make the audacious claims about being a depository of all Truth that the Bible does. As a result, the OT has proclaimed Truth for 4000 or so years with the NT now adding to (but not subtracting from) OT Truth for over 2000 years.

One of my other blogs is humbly titled "The Truth About Everything." I intended that to be audacious, over the top, intentionally rediculous, etc. Having named the blog thus, it would be fair for everyone and anyone who visits there to challenge every assertion, including the name. Some might say that I have created a lightening rod. If I had entitled it "Randy's Musings," it wouldn't have been such a direct challenge to visitors.

Fast forward 1 year or 20 years or 50 years, my postings of the Truth would likely seem silly, off kilter, or even have proven to be the opposite of truth. If I were still writing Truth, readers would and should point to my past error in evaluating my current assertions.

Back to the Bible. It is an easy mark for those who wish to comment on its postings. There are so many postings written by so many people that many deem it remarkable that there are no contradictions (or at least none that can't be overcome by sometimes tortuous means.) But on the whole, I think a fair jurist would say that the lack of (whoops) significant contradictions is rare for a work of this magnitude, scope, authorship, etc.

When compared to any other source of truth claims, the Bible is the only one who doesn't have the option of changing its words or statements. We humans may change our interpretation, and like any observable thing, humans will have different takes on what they see, hear, read, smell, taste, etc.

Which brings us back to Calvin and Armin, and to free will and predestination (insert also omniscience and determinism.) We either choose one or the other by faith, or we have been predisposed to our destiny regarding these issues by God or by wiring. And if this isn't the most complex philosophical question facing humans that has real consequences for living, I don't know what would be more so.

Religion Editor Dumps Religion

Trying to be fair and balanced here, so I report on the LA Times religion editor, who as a self-described "serious Christian," lost his faith while writing about religion in Southern California. He seems to have been most troubled by the Priest scandals and the excesses of the leadership at Trinity Broadcasting Network.

At the time, I never imagined Catholic leaders would engage in a widespread practice that protected alleged child molesters and belittled the victims. I latched onto the explanation that was least damaging to my belief in the Catholic Church — that this was an isolated case of a morally corrupt administration.

and

I understood that I was witnessing the failure of humans, not God. But in a way, that was the point. I didn't see these institutions drenched in God's spirit. Shouldn't religious organizations, if they were God-inspired and -driven, reflect higher standards than government, corporations and other groups in society?

and regarding TBN

I tried unsuccessfully to get several prominent mainstream pastors who appeared on TBN to comment on the prosperity gospel, Hinn's "faith healing" or the Crouches' lifestyle. Like the Catholic bishops, I assumed, they didn't want to risk what they had. AS the stories piled up, I began to pray with renewed vigor, but it felt like I wasn't connecting to God. I started to feel silly even trying.

You will recognize the major issues that William Lobdell struggled against

The questions that I thought I had come to peace with started to bubble up again. Why do bad things happen to good people? Why does God get credit for answered prayers but no blame for unanswered ones? Why do we believe in the miraculous healing power of God when he's never been able to regenerate a limb or heal a severed spinal chord?

In one e-mail, I asked John, who had lost a daughter to cancer, why an atheist businessman prospers and the child of devout Christian parents dies. Why would a loving God make this impossible for us to understand?

One can only suspect that there were many among his peers at the Times who were only too happy to encourage his steps away from faith. Without the balance of a Christian fellowship, scripture reading, or prayer, it was easy to slip away.

My soul, for lack of a better term, had lost faith long ago — probably around the time I stopped going to church. My brain, which had been in denial, had finally caught up. Clearly, I saw now that belief in God, no matter how grounded, requires at some point a leap of faith. Either you have the gift of faith or you don't. It's not a choice. It can't be willed into existence. And there's no faking it if you're honest about the state of your soul.

Many questions for both sides of the debate. Was he ever saved? Did his lack of centering in one doctrinal area get in the way of establishing a set of core beliefs (Catholic, presbyterian, TBN, Mormon?) Do we, as humans, need continuous indoctrination to maintain our core beliefs, whether Christian, Jew, Muslim, humanist, or atheist?

Read the entire article here

Seeing Beyond the Big Bang

A few weeks ago, I wondered aloud whether or not we would be able to see beyond the Big Bang. It would appear that at least some scientists think it is possible.

It may be possible to glimpse before the supposed beginning of time into the universe prior to the Big Bang, researchers now say.

Unfortunately, any such picture will always be fuzzy at best due to a kind of "cosmic forgetfulness."

The Big Bang is often thought as the start of everything, including time, making any questions about what happened during it or beforehand nonsensical. Recently scientists have instead suggested the Big Bang might have just been the explosive beginning of the current era of the universe, hinting at a mysterious past.

To see how far into history one might gaze, theoretical physicist Martin Bojowald at Pennsylvania State University ran calculations based on loop quantum gravity, one of a number of competing theories seeking to explain how the underlying structure of the universe works.

Past research suggested the Big Bang was preceded by infinite energies and space-time warping where existing scientific theories break down, making it impossible to peer beforehand. The new findings suggest that although the levels of energy and space-time warping before the Big Bang were both incredibly high, they were finite.

Scientists could spot clues in the present day of what the cosmos looked like previously. If evidence of the past persisted after the Big Bang, its influence could be spotted in astronomical observations and computational models, Bojowald explained.

However, Bojowald also figures some knowledge of the past was irrevocably lost. For instance, the sheer size of the present universe would suppress precise knowledge of how the universe changed in size before the Big Bang, he said.

Why Not Nothing?

Chief skeptic, Michael Shermer, says this might be the most important article ever to appear in Skeptic Mag.

DOWNLOAD Why This Universe article by Robert Kuhn (PDF)

I agree that it is a nice single source for almost every permutation of believe about what is and how it might have come to be.

Next From Apple

Surely, Steve and his pals must be busy working on this new item. If you'd like to see more zany ideas of what the MacMakers might be up to, go here.

Hugh Hewitt Takes Up This Debate

Hugh Hewitt, syndicated radio talk show host, political pundit, and one of the fathers of blogging, has a 15 week debate taking place on his radio show. Titled "the Great God Debate" with authors Christopher Hitchens and Mark D. Roberts, you can find the audio here for part one. I intend to provide links to the rest later.

In addition, Mark D. Roberts is critiquing specific facts and assumptions of Hitchens' new book, "god Is Not Great," in his blog.

A commentor bring up a variation on a theme long debated:

Hitchens would have us believe that the first century church not only followed a man who never existed, but they constructed from the hearts of fishermen and tax collectors a collection of proverbs and stories that turned the world upside down. If so, then Jesus’ disciples are more clever in death than they were in life and the greatest miracle of all is that those common people not only corporately imagined Jesus’ life, but they went to their deaths by the tens of thousands for their collective dream; for a man who never lived. Hitchens’ contribution to history is his claim that the fire which consumed the Roman Empire was never struck…

Your thoughts?

An Elemental Impulse: Religion Is So Powerful That Even Soviet Antireligious Policy Failed..... by Paul Gabel

The featured article in this week’s eSkeptic is on the Soviet attempt to eradicate religion by fiat out of the Russian people. The attempt failed utterly. The historical experiment carries an important lesson for those who study belief systems in general and religion in particular: you cannot legislate beliefs and faith. Today’s atheists who are emboldened by Richard Dawkins’ Lennonesque clarion call to “imagine no religion” should read this article (and the book on which it is based) carefully, and then try to imagine another solution to the problems caused by religious extremists, for as another evolutionary biologist — Edward O. Wilson — cautioned us in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book, On Human Nature:

Skeptics continue to nourish the belief that science and learning will banish religion, which they consider to be no more than a tissue of illusions… Today, scientists and other scholars, organized into learned groups such as the American Humanist Society and Institute on Religion in an Age of Science, support little magazines distributed by subscription and organize campaigns to discredit Christian fundamentalism, astrology, and Immanuel Velikovsky. Their crisply logical salvos, endorsed by whole arrogances of Nobel Laureates, pass like steel-jacketed bullets through fog.

There is, indeed, something deeply elemental about the power of belief.

— Michael Shermer

The article is reprinted in its entirety here It would be nice to have all the comments back here, rather than under the article, itself.

What Do YOU Fear?

One might criticize me for going a bit afield on this post, but I do think it ties into the debate. However, my purpose has a wider scope, so I would appreciate as many comments on this one as possible. You might even want to post the question on your blogs and get me some additional thoughts on the subject.

The list of possible fears is long and varied, everything from public speaking to spiders and such. However, for the purpose of this survey, I'm looking for the big picture. I will list 10 that I can think of that should set the tone. If these are big for you, let me know. If there are other similar things that are bigger for you, add them.

1. The US devolving into a dictatorship
2. The rapture and God's judgment on earth
   
3. Hell
4. Global Warming
5. Islamic extremism creating global conflict
6. Nuclear holocaust
7. Depletion of critical natural resources
8. The US devolving into a socialist government
9. Overpopulation
10. Underpopulation
11. Too few culturally "Western Civilization" in the population
12. Pollution
13. Nuclear power plant catastrophe - or nuclear waste catastrophe
14. Aliens (from outer space)
    
15. Avian flu or similar disease
16. Scientific advance out of control (e.g. genetic engineering, nanobots, robots with AI)

Mouth's of Babes Department

I regret that I cannot link the source on this quote, but it is reported third hand to me that a book of letters written by kids around ten included this idea: "God why do kill things just so you can make more of them."

Could the question of evil be put any more succinctly. Sure, we humans have divided up killing into all kinds of levels of acceptability and cruelty. But a death is a death. Pain is pain. I've been told by countless women that childbirth is like pulling your bottom lip over your head (that might actually have been Bill Cosby.) So God allows evil, torture, lots of pain, horrific bad things happening to children and cute little animals. But the child above may have whittled the issue down to its essential. What say you?

In The Beginning

Like a good lawyer at trial, I would like to give and ask for a few stipulations:

1. Matter exists.
2. Energy exists.
3. Information exists
4. Rules exist
5. Each of these exist at this moment as a result of cause and effect that stretches back either to some point, or to infinity.
6. It is unlikely that we will ever know whether these first causes of each of these exist or if they are infinite.
7. The human mind is incapable of grasping the idea that any of these came from nothing.
8. The human mind is incapable of grasping the idea that the causes of these things are infinite.

Up until this point in this series of observations/stipulations, there is no advantage to either the God or no God side of the debate.

I suspect that one reason folks tend towards theism is that it is easier to imagine a spiritual world as infinite, and the finite world as being created by the spiritual. Some who have blogged on the no God side here have suggested that time began with the big bang, and that prior to this there was no time. This fits perfectly with the concept that in the spiritual realm there is no time, and thus infinity is no longer impossible to consider.

Also, state elsewhere but repeated here as appropriate to this post, it is impossible for us to grasp matter or energy as have a first cause without a spiritual dimension to "create" it, but it is even harder to imagine how information or rules were included in a godless explosion of matter and energy.

Induced Happiness

Several weeks ago I posted on Happiness vs Joy. It didn't result in much discussion (Ok. No one commented.) This was a bit surprising in a blog where 20 comments is the average. At some level the issues of happiness, joy, contentment, anxiety, angst, fear are at the very heart of the human condition. Wired magazine has a brief essay this month which adds a bit of flavor to the issue from the pharm side of things. I recommend this 3 minute read. But here's an excerpt:

From a distance, pleasure without fear or desire sounds pretty good. But in your grasp, it starts to feel less like paradise and more like soma. A species that shuts out adversity does not survive very long in a Darwinian universe. In the short term, humans with happy-making neural implants would cease to be interesting. Quenching feelings of hardship also means never feeling desire or want. Unpleasant as those emotions can be, they're also the basis for ambition and creativity. "Happy people are not ambitious," Greenfield says. "They do not build civilizations."

One could argue that there is no inherent goodness in building civilization, and I have had some commenters on this and other blogs who feel all this need to grow and build is not the best for human kind. The Jesus People certainly would contend that the constant grasping for material improvement is not of God. Many environmentalists clearly would like to see a return to simpler times.

Now enters the age of Pharma. The article points out that we may be on our way to being able to use various drugs or other tools to completely control our moods. We certainly have taken a number of very large steps down that path with various anti-depressants, anti-anxiety products, ADD and ADHD solutions, and "muscle relaxents." On the surface and case-by-case one has a hard time saying to the chronically depressed person, "You'll get over it," when a couple of tiny pills will give them so much peace. But as a species, is this approach wise?

Taking it directly into the God realm, there is a small and shrinking percentage of the Christian community who proclaim the sufficiency of Christ. This is similar to the Christian Scientist Claim of no medical intervention. However, do we begin to see their point as we move down the slippery slope. (Or should we say slippery slopes...eg. designer babies, gene alteration, or enhancement drugs.) Should we draw a line? Where?

The article concludes with this interesting thought:

Maybe it's no coincidence that some of the happy-making stuff is manufactured in those countries. It's reminiscent of the scenario laid out by another prescient thinker, H. G. Wells. In his book The Time Machine, Wells wrote about a world where the happy, indolent elite — the Eloi — are served by industrious outsiders called Morlocks. The Eloi are also the hardworking Morlocks' food. Grim stuff. And also the exact opposite of what Jefferson was trying to tee up for Americans. Maybe he knew that if you have too much happiness, you don't get life and liberty.

The Question of Evil Takes Center Stage

What is the source of evil in the human condition? Can we ever understand it? Is it possible to eliminate it? Can humans even make a dent in the amount and degree of evil in the world? Many words have been spoken and written on this subject in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech incident. A new book is out on the subject by Phillip Zimbardo, who is famous for his work on the Stanford Prison Experiment, titled "The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil." Allow me a few random scribbles. Then it's your turn.

1. Every single human has done evil things. Christians claim one exception, Jesus.

2. Zimbardo believes that we are almost all capable of significant evil given opportunity, peer pressure, and an certain conditions conducive to the dehumanization of the victims. He also believes there will be some "heroes" that will attempt to undermine such evil, but doubts that they are necessarily endowed with some special "character" that causes this.

3. Some amount of evil seems to be at the hands of individuals who are chemically, hormonally, psychologically, or socially imbalanced. Are we all at least somewhat damaged in this way, and thus inclined to evil?

4. Some evil seems to grow out of the "frog in the kettle" syndrome. This is where the frog is put in a kettle of cold water and the heat is slowly turned up. The incremental increase is such that the frog adjusts and doesn't try to get out. Eventually it kills him. (I've heard that his cannot be proved experimentally.) However it has become a metaphor for the idea of becoming desensitized to messages or images that would have earlier caused revulsion.

5. Desperation can create inappropriate acts. Sometimes we are more inclined to give folks a pass if they seem to be acting out of fear of great loss. However, I think we can find cases where what may have started out as a response to desperation may mature into something more evil or even abjectly evil.

6. A quest for seemingly appropriate ends can provide justification for evil acts...the ends justify the means.

7. Then there is normal human drives that probably produce the most evil on a day-to-day basis. The desire to be liked or loved, admired or even revered; the desire to accumulate wealth, power, or prestige; the fear of loneliness, deprivation, or pain. The evils may start out small in type or degree, but then increase in small steps like drips in a basin. Or the type of evil may be of the type that always needs a newer or greater dose.

OK, enough from me. Add to the list. Challenge the ones listed. Apply it to the blog subject. Offer solutions.

Einstein - Relativity

In reading a review of two new books on Einstein this morning, I had this odd thought. Under the theory of relativity we are able to study the light coming to our planet which bears images of billions of years past. Currently some scientists claim that we are able to see to approximately 500,000 years after the big bang. So with that set up, here is the question: If the entire universe was compacted into this little ball of matter and energy prior to the big bang, at some point there will be no light for the telescopes to see. If there was something prior to the big bang, and it gave off light, will we be able to see past the point of no light to the place where there was light?

Practical Advantages - Health and Well Being

One subject regarding the question of how belief effects daily living has received a fair amount of scientific scrutiny, health and well being. The LA Times has an article in the religion section of today's paper that discusses a newly published study. Here is an excerpt:

A nationwide study released earlier this month found that 85% of 1,144 physicians surveyed believe that religion and spirituality have a positive influence on a patient's health.

"They believe they will do better if God is on their side," said Robertson, chief heart surgeon at St. John's Health Center in Santa Monica.

The study, published in Archives of Internal Medicine, found that only 1% of the respondents said religion can have a negative effect on health. Two percent said that religion had no effect, and 12% said positive and negative effects were equal.

The study, which touched on a variety of subjects, also asked whether doctors believed that God or another supernatural being "ever intervenes in patients' health." Fifty-four percent said yes. Twenty-eight percent said no, and 18% were undecided.

Once again, I don't propose that this proves there is a God, and the study appears to be pretty much type-of-god-neutral. And I wouldn't suggest to a non-believer: "Wanna be healthier and have more people show up when your in the hospital? Well, choose Jesus!" It is just one more thing. Maybe 1% of how the decision process might work, keeping believers in the fold. In most cases, it might not even be a conscious idea, merely an underlying understanding.

Practical Advantage of Belief - Unconditional Love of God

From the earliest age we teach the song "Jesus Loves Me" to our kids. Later, it is "Jesus Loves the Little Children." God knows that he has built into each one of us a need to be loved. But when that love is based on conditions, it turns into something that drives us to behave in ways that we think will cause others to love us. These “ways” can be very distructive. Maybe I feel that my Mom will only love me if I perform well in school. That would seem like a good thing. Until I fail, that is. Or until I fail to meet what I believe are her expectations. Now I’m living my life for her, not for me.

Lets say that I believe that God’s love is conditional. How better to live my life than to be constantly comparing what I do to what Ithink God wants me to do? Then I fail, and I will. I think that God’s love is withdrawn. How do I recover from that? Strive harder? Work harder? Or give up in despair? The Biblical God doesn’t intend that. He definitely wants us to work hard and do as he has so instructed us for our own good, not His good. He wants to be there to lift us up when we fail, not abandon us. The knowledge that God will be there, NO MATTER WHAT, even if everyone else has forsaken us, is a phenomenal comfort. If we truly trust in that one thing, it will carry us through much that we might otherwise become self destructive over.

The Golden Rule vs The 2nd Greatest Commandment

My son hates to use the pooper scooper. He says it makes him gag. Under the golden rule, since I wouldn't want someone to make me do a chore that makes me gag, I should find another way to get this done. Under the "Kit" variation of the golden rule, do unto others as you believe they would have you do unto them (I hope I got that right), it would be real obvious that I should not have him pick up the poop.

Under the 2nd greatest commandment, love others as you love yourself, I will take into consideration the need to teach my son to be disciplined (as explained elsewhere in the Bible), and to handle adversity and to not be anxious about it. He would not have any issue with doing the chore, because he would know that he is to obey me out of love and respect.

I bring all of this up, because some who comment here and elsewhere from the non-believer point of view believe that the golden rule covers it all, and that since this concept is found in other religions that predate Christianity, then the Bible isn't special. The 2nd greatest commandment is not the same, by a longshot, as the golden rule.

Let's Take A Poll - All Who Believe Say, "Amen"

A while back, we spent some time on the issue of consensus, and I made it clear that I am not terribly persuaded by the fact that most or many scientists say this or that. However, the folks who create the news, politicians, lawyers, and others can hardly speak without inserting the latest poll. We are supposed to be especially impressed if 100 Nobel Peace Prize winners agree on something. (Like, when was the last person who ever voted Republican given a Nobel?)

This issue has been coming up fairly frequently in this blog, and I wanted to try and get some kind of understanding on the issue.

We use polling in the US to determine a lot of things. Who will make the best POTUS, Senator, Judge, whether a new law is a good idea or not, whether I will get big $$$$ because you broke my car or my arm, and whether or not you go to jail. Then there are the Public Opinion Polls which give us the truth on any number of subjects.

As we search for the "truth" of any proposition we can never be certain of our own perceptions. We might be color blind, tone deaf, or soulless. We can't be totally positive about our experimental results, because we can't be totally certain whether we have considered every variable. We can't be absolutists with regard to our experience, because too frequently my wife remembers it differently. Thus, we poll.

My wife asks three friends about their recollection to prove her point. We ask the others at the table whether the wine was excellent to them. We try and find more witnesses to an event. We get more experts to weigh in with their opinion about where the economy is going, or what happened in Dallas 25 years ago. We do more experiments and we do papers on what the total of all the experiments seem to say. Then we get a panel of scientists to say that this is now the consensus.

Does any of this change the objective truth. No, in my opinion. A well run experiment that seems to point to the truth does not tell us what is true, except for that experiment at that time with what we know in that moment. And we have a laundry list of experiments that seemed to show "truth" that are now overridden by later experiment. The truth is what it is regardless of our experimental attempts to find it.

Just because every human on earth says something is true doesn't change anything. If the truth is something else, all that opinion won't make it different.

But we need some system to try and find truth, even as elusive as truth seems to be. Thus we have various kinds of evidence and ways to measure the usefulness of that evidence. Some of the ways are very strict rules (e.g. hearsay.) Some are more loosely understood to be superior (eye witness v. circumstantial.)

Taking a poll of laypeople or experts is a kind of evidence which helps us to move toward the truth of any subject, in this layperson's opinion. I think if we took a poll, most people would agree with me on this.

Dawkins Can Run, But He Can't Hide

While "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins has been racking up a cool million or so unit sales over the past 30 years (respectable, but not that huge), he has clearly caused more than a million souls to accept some or all of his basic premise: Genes might be the fundamental building blocks of life, and they use various life forms as vehicles to maximize their own future replication. Dawkins goes to great lengths to assure us that this is a mindless pursuit by the genes, but that the genes quite naturally always do that which will accomplish the end of helping them make more little copies of themselves.

In Dawkins' attempt to sell his theory he admitted to needing a very clever title to his book/idea. The selfish gene implies self-awareness and intent, but Dawkins wants us all to be clear that he intends no such implication. Rather the approach is used by him to help us all understand the process, then he wants us to forget the method of teaching, while accepting the ultimate theory or premise. This is all well and good, except for a couple of troubling problems.

#1. Since he uses the anthropomorphising of the gene as his teaching method, he clearly implies that the "vehicles (life forms, including humans)" act in the way that his genes only appear to act. In particular, there is no escaping the conclusion that the self-aware human species which can manifest intent would act in the ways he suggests. If not, then the metaphors would not work as teaching vehicles.

#2. Looking at things through the "eyes of the genes," as he puts it, creates a clear picture for how the vehicles (called "survival machines) they create must act in order to maximize the duplication of the organisms which therefore maximizes the duplication of the genes. That is, short term strategies that are selfish work best.

Dawkins tries very hard in the book to run away from these conclusions, especially since he makes it clear where his politics lie. As a progressive or liberal he has to be in favor of "getting along," or as he stresses "altruistic" behavior. However, he seems to never actually say any act is altruistic, but rather explains that those acts that appear to be so are generally due to ulterior motives. One example includes helping a close kin, so that the genes of the closely related individual can replicate.

In the years following publication, he has tried to stress that many people who read him are just confused by the implications of his work. My sense is that he is too close to it, and just doesn't get it. Whether seen through the eyes of the gene or the survival machines, the best strategy for maximizing lots of children and grandchildren is selfish behavior.

A year after "The Selfish Gene" was published Robert Ringer sold more copies in the first year of his instant hit "Looking Out For #1," than Dawkins has sold to date. Ringer was offering a Dawkins' approach to sales and life in general. Ringer's idea was that we are all self-interested, and we should be, but that commonly our self interest is best expressed by looking out for others.

Ringer was roundly criticized for his title, and very few "got" his message, just like Dawkins. The may both be about how humans act. The question is: what will this message combined with materialistic and naturalistic explanations for life leave us with. I suggest that it leaves not other plan of action than pure selfishness or altruism that is cynical and manipulative.

The final effort by Dawkins to run away from the logical extension of his premise is the use of the prisoner's dilemma. I did original research using this game in my undergraduate work in pscyh, so I'm very familiar with it benefits and shortcomings. This is not a proper forum for explaining the game, if you wish a short primer, go here.

Dawkins uses the game to try and prove mathematically that over many iterations, the biggest winners are those who consistently co-operate and are forgiving. It would take another massive post to show all the holes in this analysis regarding the application to Dawkin's premise, but just consider a few.

1. The prisoner's dilemma is a zero sum game. Life is not.
2. The P/D has only two players, both with intent. Life does not.
3. There is no chance occurrences in P/D. In life, there are many.

Most importantly, the prisoner's dilemma only pays off in money. Dawkins only pays off in replication. We can only hope that your and my neighbors have found more to life than those two issues.

Dawkins - Gene as Demigod

I have received much criticism from forum debaters and blog commenters when arguing science that, "I am out of my league." The idea seems to be that their vastly superior scholarship in the sciences, particularly biology, rend my arguments sophomoric at least. Therefore, I was most pleased to receive a birthday gift from an unexpected source a few weeks ago. Bernardo sent me a copy of Dawkin's, "The Selfish Gene."

The book has been praised by many for being lively and compelling. I am a voracious reader, and my wife will tell you that I almost never fail to complete a book, even if I'm not very impressed. With "Gene" I was pretty excited for about 4 chapters, but had to force myself to continue on, commonly falling asleep mid-sentence.

As I read and reread certain sections, I kept trying to fully form the impression that I was taking out of this work. After completing the book, I Googled reviews and criticisms to see if I could get my arms around my sense of the book. To my surprise I found that my feelings were shared by none other than Stephen Jay Gould. In this essay, John Alcock put it nicely:

Rejecting the usefulness or even coherency of the selfish gene concept, Gould and Lewontin have proposed that the adaptationist programme and sociobiology generates little more than untestable and unfalsifiable speculations about the origins of organismal adaptations, which after Rudyard Kipling’s tale of how the elephant got its trunk they have labelled Just So stories. If this charge where true, then sociobiology would indeed be the pseudo-scientific discipline its critics claim it is.

It seemed to me that Dawkins, having rejected the Biblical God, needed to find some way to explain the complexity and apparent design all around us, in particular within living creatures. He decided the the gene was the creator of complexity by virtue of its desire to self-replicate, and because from time-to-time the self-replication mechanism creates bad copies. The bad copies, under this theory, sometimes were more successful than their producers, thus they became the more dominant replicators, sometimes causing the extinction of the parent gene.

Some scientists believe that the Dawkins approach is simpler than Goddidit. The constant bouncing by Dawkins from examples in nature to "it could have happened this way," to analogies requiring genes to have self awareness and intent, made it absolutely impossible to be believed. I can understand how some, like Dawkins, who are predisposed to naturalism would find this idea compelling. I am not surprised that some, like Gould, have found this approach to be "just so stories."

Sin As Evidence of God

On this Saturday between Good Friday and Resurrection Sunday it seems only to appropriate to raised the issue of sin and redemption as evidence of God. Do all men sin? What is sin? Can believers and those who don't believe agree on the what constitutes sin? We could start with 7 of the 10 commandments

1. Don't kill. This is taken to mean don't intentionally kill another human except in some well defined exceptions: Self defense, war, state sanctioned executions of criminals, etc. Jesus later added that the OT definition was to narrow and broadened it to include character assassination.

2. Don't steal. Taking something that doesn't belong to you assumes property rights. Once again this concept requires intention. It is likely that this sin is almost universal in that it would include time, office supplies, and sick days from one's employer. These seem so petty to us today, but should they?

3. Don't bear false witness. Widely misinterpreted to mean don't lie, this commandment has to do with lies that intentionally harm another. Clearly this would not include lying to your wife about whether or not she "looks fat in this outfit." Once again, there are very few of us who can claim to have never gossiped or participated in gossip with the intent to build our self up or tear another down.

4. No adultery. If you are married, you shouldn't have sexual intercourse with another person. Whether married or not you should not have sexual intercourse with a person who is married. The broadest definition would include that no one should have sexual intercourse with someone who is not their spouse.

5. Don't covet. Potentially the most widely forgotten and ignored of the ten commandments, this has to do with envy and materialistic desires. The OT may have intended this to only cover coveting specific things that were owned by your neighbor, but NT broadened the concept. I would suspect that almost every human has even coveted in the OT sense.

6. Don't worship idols. God laid down this commandment in terms of worshipping things (the sun, moon, little wooden statues) ahead of him. The NT has broadened this to deal with the worship of money, people (American idol?), things (1967 red Corvette). Worship might mean such things as bowing down to, singing praises to, making sacrifices to, being enslaved to.

7. Honor father and mother. This one is called the commandment with promise, because it includes a phrase suggesting that if you obey it, your life will be better and longer. I propose that this may have been stated here specifically because of how hard it was and is to obey if the parents seem unworthy of honor. I state this because throughout the first five books of the Bible, God makes clear that all of his commands and rules are designed to increase life's benefits.

I have left out the Sabbath day of rest, since very few have an literal or even figurative tribute to this commandment anymore. It seems like a very, very good idea.

I have left out use of the Lord's name as a curse word. Certainly if one worships something, the use of the worshipped one's name in the form of a curse would seem like sin. For those who didn't worship god "A" using god A's name as a vulgarity might shorten one's life or happiness considerably.

Finally, I have not included the first commandment dealing with worshipping God. However, if God is who He says He is, and we fail to worship Him, this would seem to be a pretty significant sin.

The Bible goes on to say that EVERYONE has sinned. If we were to agree that everyone sins by these or almost any imaginable definition, would this then be evidence that the creator knew of this sin nature, wanted to tell man about how to deal with it, and then offer a redemptive strategy for sin?

Practical Advantage Of Belief - Origins

The issue of where we came from is called origins. Like the other two big questions (purpose of existence and afterlife), it does effect how we conduct ourselves now. If we are just another animal, and the result of relentless biological evolution, where purposeless nature has driven one species to an advantage over others, then we should expect to act in ways that will advance our own gene pool. This might be at the expense of other gene pools, or it might be in cooperation depending on one’s practical view of things. However, we would certainly always be looking over our shoulder at those in other gene pools who may have come to the conclusion that, like a reality TV show, they need to come out on top of our group.

While it would be nice if we could all get along, if our understanding is that it is about natural selection, there will always be those who will ruthlessly pursue an advantage in that game. If we care about our kids and grandkids, should that be our approach to life?

If we were created by the God of eternity, and then he breathed a special spirit into us, we are dramatically differentiated from the other animals. It isn’t about a frontal lobe, an opposing thumb, or self-awareness. It is about having a spiritual dimension, because we were made in the image of God. He created us for a purpose. He wanted to love us, and to be an object of worship by us. Not because he needed to love or be worshipped. However, he wanted to have a relationship with us. And he wanted us to love others, not try and find a gene pool advantage over them.

Evangelism by Atheists and by Christians

One definition of evangelise is to "cause to adopt a new or different faith." In the broadest terms I would propose that this would mean that an unbeliever who encourages a believer to leave the Christian faith in favor of faith in a purposeless, naturalist world is evangelising. I know that this last could be seen as bordering on fighting words, but I don't mean it to be. It is just one more case of trying to take an evenhanded look at the issue. I suggest that in general there is no difference between my effort to convert someone to faith, and an atheist's effort to convert someone to no faith.

On the other hand, I would argue that there are consequential differences. Some of these might even have ethical implications.

I think it can be fairly argued that, at least in America, there are huge benefits to being a Christian. In fact, atheists seem to commonly feel that they are victimized by their minority status in this country: Can't be president, money says God, etc. So, to the extent that being a part of the majority has advantage, being a Christian has at least that one.

In addition, joining something usually has great benefits for humans. It might be Rotary, the PTA, or a book club, but getting together with others who share common ideas, goals, and such is generally good. Joining a church can be said to offer some additional benefits with regard to care and nurture, community sharing of resources, accountability, and a steady flow of teaching on subjects almost 100% of the population would agree are good: love, forgiveness, peace, golden rule, helping the poor. Excellent evidence that church going has benefits is that so many do it.

There are some pretty clear other health and well being aspects to belief in the Christian faith. I won't detail them here, but most of us know what the claims are.

To the extent that an atheist or unbeliever of any kind intentionally attempts to persuade a believer to stop believing and quit his church, these benefits all stop. They might be able, in some cases, to be replaced by Rotary, classes on love, etc., but there is great risk that the end of a person's involvement in church can be detrimental.

Of course, since no one knows or is likely to find out if there really is a Heaven or Hell, the evangelistic atheist also strips that person of his hope of heaven and of heaven itself (if there is one.)

The Christian evangelist, on the other hand, is pretty clear that bringing a person into the fold will imbue them with all the above benefits, plus heaven. If there turns out to be a black void instead of heaven, no one gets hurt.

I almost hate to use the analogy, but it kind of reminds me of the teacher or aunt who decides to take the initiative in telling a 4 year-old that there is no Santa, while the parents were planning on doing so at 8. My fear of using this analogy is obvious, but in the case of Santa, no one suggests there is a real being. In the case of God, many believe He exists, and no one can prove he doesn't. So the person who takes the intiative to destroy faith does so only because, like the teacher or aunt, he thinks it is important to expose the truth (as he or she understands it.)

Whadya think?

My Own Personal Miracle

A major issue that divides believers and those who don't is the issue of miracles. Bernardo has mentioned somewhere here that a miracle to him would be seeing a severed limb miraculously regrow before his eyes. The amazing Randi has offered $1,000,000 to anyone who can prove that a miracle happened (subject to a fair number of restrictions.) What is a miracle? The definition is a bit elusive. Following is a glimpse at something that may not rise to Bernardo's, Randi's, or even the Catholic Church standards, but it strays way outside the bounds of the likely or the expected.

I have an undergrad degree in psych with a specialization in human sexual response. In fact, I almost wrote a book with my professor to debunk "Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Sex." But instead it was off to law school, then into business. I stayed up on sexuality issues, but only as a hobby. : )

23 years later I'm having a little tiff with my wife. I pray for God to show me how to resolve the dispute. Out of the absolute blue, I feel an urging to write a book on teen sexuality. My sense it that this is a directive from God. It is Sept 1992. I have written 3 bicycle industry books, and just finished my first national book on business. It is counterproductive to the writing side of my career to do this book. More business books would be smarter. And importantly, I have had no inclination, thought, or intention to write a book on this subject before that moment.
My credentials were not really substantial enough to expect anyone to publish such a book.

Part of the prayer suggests an urgency to have this book to market by the next Summer. This means research, write, find a publisher, and go through the normal one year lag from completing the manuscript to the actual publication in less than 10 months.

I begin the research and writing while running by business, taking care of my family, and flogging the other books already on the market. The manuscript is almost complete in March, but Warner Books (my publisher) isn't interested. My agent isn't interested either.

I'm very close to self-publishing the book when I do a live and in-person interview on a local Christian talk radio show for my business book. The host would not normally have even talked about a business book, but did so because he wanted to help out with the future sex book. Most of these interviews are done by phone, and this one could have been, but it was only 40 minutes from my office, so I go.

After my interview, I go to my car and turn the radio to the show so I can hear the next guest. This guest spends the first five minutes of the show explaining that his publisher took his completed manuscript to market in 3 months. This information would have been totally useless and boring to anyone on the planet except me. It is hard to imagine one other person in that audience having any knowledge or interest in how long it takes a manuscript to get to market after it is in galleys.

I called the publisher that afternoon. The receptionist was out, so the phone was answered by none other than the editor-in-chief. We discussed the project. I overnighted a manuscript. The next day he overnighted a contract. This just doesn't happen - ever.

In September the book was published. Sales were very poor. However, I did over 200 radio interviews and three television interviews from that book. One of the TV events was with Geraldo on his old daytime show. I was the expert against bisexuality. That show was repeated 7 times, and likely seen by 15,000,000 or so people. Total number of people who probably heard my main premise about promiscuity through TV, radio, seminars, and reviews - Over 20,000,000.

Just a whole bunch of crazy coincidences? A fluke? Or God intended?

The Reason We Don't Have Miracles on a Regular Basis

A guest post from a comment. See her blog.

I would argue that if something is of value (like a miracle - ed) it is valuable because it is not easy to obtain. Precious jewels would be one example. It takes effort and sometimes costs a life to search for some gems or jewels.

Why would people risk thier life to dive deep in the sea to find a particular pearl in a particular cave that is known to be a trap if the silt is stirred by even a ripple of water? That is beyond me...my husband is the diver not me! Anyway.. there is some payoff at the end, something in the experience that makes it worth it.

I believe that God knows the heart of man. He doesn't jump through hoops. How many miracles would it take? How many supernatural acts would convince the world? Using Israel as an example..even though you gentlemen may not agree that the Exodus and other biblical accounts happened... they were the recipients of many supernatural events and still doubted continually. I do the same thing.

In human relationships, in mine anyway, I don't give very much energy to people who are wanting something from me w/o desiring to give much in return. I will help people if they need it but as far as investing time and energy, I save that for people who I can have fellowship with.

The best way for God to reveal himself, in my opinion, is to wait for a person to truly seek to know him, not what he can do - but his being. After a person is in that place they are ready to really listen and hear. Then he can reveal himself. Like the experience of Moses, God was in the quiet, not the obvious. The real transformation of a person's being is the best revelation of God in the world that I have found.

I did have an experience very similar to Saul's on the road to Damascus but it wasn't quick and I was not seeking for answers, just the being I hoped existed and was about to give up on. Christianity came later.

Path to Personal Perception of Truth

An individual person cannot know what is absolutely true. Yikes! Who would think I would make such a claim? While we must act as if the apple we are about to eat is an apple and edible and full of good things, we can't possibly know that for absolutely certain. Rather, we arrive at these conclusions by the sum of all the evidence that we have at that moment. We have personally eaten items in the past that look, feel, and appear in every way to be similar enough to that which is in front of us to conclude that it is an apple.

We have purchased these items from the same store as these were purchased, and have not become sick or died in the past. The store has a good reputation, as does the little label on the apple. We hope that no one sadist has adulterated the apple, switched the label, or otherwise tampered with it.

We were told by our parents, teachers, and things we have read that apples are good for you, and that in fact we should eat one every day.

This combination of sensory evidence, experience evidence, brand evidence, and trusted opinion of others evidence is enough for us to reach a conclusion about the truth of the above proposition. It may be patently untrue for dozens of obvious reasons. It is a very good wax replica. It has a massive worm inside. Science has not yet discovered the link between apples and brain tumors. Etc.

If new evidence enters the picture (think Alar), we may change our opinion quite quickly from what has seemed to be clear truth to either questioning or downright rejection of the old belief. The new evidence may be some startling new discovery, or it may just be the process of gaining greater and greater amounts of information about a subject. It should be obvious to folks on both sides that more knowledge may actually lead a person further from objective truth, in that lots of highly educated folks on very narrow subjects have vastly different views.

As anon said in a comment below, emotions can enter into the equation, also, but the stronger the evidence the more difficult it is to allow emotion to control the perception of truth. Of course, we all know people who are at the extreme edge of this curve in either direction.

But this is why I continue to insist that an atheist, agnostic, Christian, or Muslim reaches their personal perception of truth by the same method, even if unique personalities may give more weight to one kind of evidence or emotion than another. If I understand Bernardo correctly, he would add in that we may have developed a general world view as a result of our nature or nurture that may substantially color how we reach these conclusions. But bottom line, the personal perception of truth is fluid on all subjects including God, and comes down to the sum total of a person's response to the evidence that they have at that moment.

The Tipping Point Revisited

Here, earlier, and at an atheist blog, I exposed my own experience of going through tipping points. First was my initial clear personal decision to accept Christ at age 17. Then my decision to leave the church at 21. Later, I tipped to being an agnostic about agnosticism, but was clearly a Darwinist. Finally at age 35, I tipped back to fully embracing Christianity.

In both of these places where I exposed my own journey, I continued by offering what I imagined might tip me back to Naturalism or away from belief in God. Then I suggested self-examination by visitors with the goal that they might be able to imagine what would tip them in one direction or another. Through either failure of imagination, lack of interest in transparency, or concern about giving aid and comfort to the enemy, very few stepped up to the plate.

Here is a short list of what I believe are the primary tipping points that draw people to Jesus. Future posts will elaborate on some of these.

1. Parents believed in God. With no big obstacles to making that belief personal, so at some age around 17, most kids brought up in the church make personal/mature decisions to believe.
2. A major life crisis occurs and the individual is unable to find a solution to end the pain or fear or hurt. Someone suggests God or they know enough already to reach out to God.
3. A love interest is a believer. The individual desires to know all about their lover, so goes to church, listens to preaching, empathizes with love interest, makes decision to draw close to love interest by making decision for God.
4. An influential person in the life of the individual is a believer. The individual is sold on the benefits or the "truth" of the gospel.
5. The individual is merely invited by friends to church or an event and through exposure to the church, makes a decision.
6. The individual has personal interaction with a believer or observes believers who he then admires. He asks for information or they provide him with information about God.
7. Similarly, the individual is provided with some kind of help from a Christian organization, and through this contact gains information or relationship values that create a tipping point.

In most of the above cases, it is assumed the individual has some or even a lot of knowledge about God prior to the influence which "tips" them.

Is your experience different? What might a similar list look like for tipping one out of the faith? I will post that second list in a few days, but would like to see your ideas first.

Debate? - What Debate? by Bernardo

Different people have different requirements for what the universe is supposed to be like. If I present someone a certain interpretation of the universe, then this person might reject my interpretation because my interpretation does not meet the requirements for that person's universe. A person's requirements might include "The universe is naturalistic", "If the supernatural exists, we cannot know it", "The universe was deliberately created by a divine being with a plan", "God loves us", "People have souls", and "The Bible is true in a way other texts are not", just to give a handful of possible examples. Sometimes I refer to these requirements as "axioms" or "assumptions" – they are the starting point, the foundation onto which a structure of belief (a world view) can be built. These axioms may appear to be supported by evidence, but in truth people believe them because they "feel" true in the first place.

Obviously, atheists have certain axioms they like. Not all atheists like the same axioms, but they tend to be pretty similar axioms, when it comes to the purpose (if any) and nature of the universe and of the intelligent species in it. Christians also tend to like certain axioms. These axioms are not all the same (just think of the differences between the beliefs of a liberal Christian in the Northwest and a fundamentalist Christian in the South), but they do tend to include related axioms, and they do tend to not include many of the axioms shared by most atheists.

Here's where the fun starts: Many Christians seem to be convinced that their axioms are right, that their axioms are "truth". Similarly, many atheists seem to be convinced that the Christians' axioms are utter foolishness, and that any "reasonable, logical, educated" person would prefer the typical atheist axioms over the typical Christian axioms.

I believe that this approach leaves plenty of room for discrimination and prejudice and bigotry, but little room for empathy or real understanding. Besides, this approach is incorrect. It is incorrect because it seems to forget the fact (a fact that Christians AND atheists admit) that neither set of axioms is provable or testable. A reasonable person can look at the world we live in, study many things about it, and decide to be a Christian. The things we see in the world around us can fit into the conclusions one draws from the Christian axioms. Also, a reasonable person can look at the world we live in, study many things about it, and decide to be an atheist. The things we see in the world around us can fit into the conclusions one draws from the atheist axioms.

What Debate - Part 2

Both sides of the God vs nogod debate love to point out the "evidence" that supports their beliefs. This is BS, whether it's Behe doing it or Dawkins doing it. Sure, some things may seem hard to explain if you restrict yourself to a naturalist world view (such as the human mind, and the origins of many complex but effective biological structures and systems), and some things may seem hard to explain if you restrict yourself to a "The Bible is true" / "God loves us" point of view (such as all the injustice and unnecessary suffering in the world, the self-contradictory nature of Jesus, or the discrepancies between history (and natural history) as told in the Bible and as deduced from archaeological/scientific observations). But the fact is, all those things CAN be explained/rationalized into the axiomatic system of your choice. So yes, I strongly belief that the axioms you pick are a matter of personal preference. Neither set of axioms can be disproven. Both atheism and Christianity are self-consistent and can explain all the things we see in the world around us. It is impossible to prove that one set is "right" and the other is "wrong". These axioms are simply not testable. You choose whichever ones work for you.

Why do some people prefer the atheist axioms and other people prefer the Christian axioms? I don't know. You'd have to ask them. Many factors are probably involved, like upbringing, education (physics/math/engineering vs art/history/literature), maybe even genetics. But one thing is for sure: To some people, the atheist axioms seem more elegant, more satisfying, more believable, and make for a preferable world. And to some other people, the Christian axioms seem more elegant, more satisfying, more believable, and make for a preferable world. I really don't think there's a way to say that one of those groups is right and the other is wrong.

(Some atheists say that the preference for those foolish religious axioms is a byproduct of evolution, as are most things about the brain. On top of that, the persistence of these axioms over time is a result of the evolution and "aggressive marketing" of churches, of the memetic engineering that churches are so good at. Personally I think these atheists have excellent points. Still, I don't think that these points will make the religious axioms seem any less true to religious people, despite the optimism shown in the title of the most famous book about this topic ).

What Debate - Part 3

But fans of one set of axioms often point out that a conclusion or model derived from the opposite set of axioms fails to explain something about the world we observe. This brings me to the last point I want to make in this post. Remember that these axioms correspond to requirements. So different people have different requirements for what a satisfactory explanation of the universe must be. This means that a Christian "God did it"-style explanation will not satisfy an atheist – an atheist will claim that this is no explanation at all. And an atheist's "it just happened naturally via mechanisms described by math and physical law"-style explanation will not satisfy a Christian – a Christian will claim that this is no explanation at all.

For example, how did life come from non-life?

An atheist would probably give an explanation that goes along the lines of Dawkins' "survival machines" idea, best explained in his essay "The Replicators", which is the third chapter of "The Selfish Gene". To try and summarize that entire chapter into one sentence gives us something like the following: Once self-replicating molecules came around (and, of course, this only needs to have happened once), they competed for resources until the necessary building blocks were used up, and then some random mutations enabled them to "eat" each other, and then some random mutations allowed for self-preserving defense mechanisms, and so on, leading to the prokaryotic cell… or something along these lines. In other words, given that we live in a world where chemistry is possible, it is almost inevitable that life would form.

A Christian would probably focus his explanation on the idea that God created the universe as an environment where life could form, and then set things up (or miraculously acted) in such a way that life did form. (I do apologize if I don't do the Christian view justice. Please believe me when I say I am trying to be as fair as I can).

The Christian may not be satisfied with the atheist's idea that life appeared, and then evolved, through "accidents", without a purpose, for no reason. The atheist may not be satisfied with the Christian's idea that life was deliberately made by a Creator for some reason - because, then, the problem shifts to the origin of the Creator, which could not even be speculated about. To the Christian, the development of the world could not have been an accident. To the atheist, the natural world was all accidents until intelligence (decision-making with foresight) came along sometime in the last million years.

(In fact, I think that what anchors most people to theism is the thought that the world as a whole would have no meaning if it were not deliberately created as part of a plan, and so the atheist world view simply cannot be correct, because the world must have meaning).

To the atheist, one preferred axiom might be "Intelligence is nothing more than a certain pattern of stuff" - a certain very complex kind of chemistry that embodies within itself a model of the world around it and of itself. To the Christian, one preferred axiom might be "Stuff can only exist if it is deliberately created by an intelligence". Surely you can see the incompatibility between those axioms, and the fact that neither axiom can be proven or disproven.

I hope you can see why I think we would all benefit from understanding that the other side is not "wrong", that they are just working on a different set of assumptions, and that there is no way to say that one set of assumptions is better than the other. You may say that the evidence is more elegantly explained by your assumptions, but that's because you have different requirements for what a satisfying explanation is - Christian explanations must address "why" things are the way they are (for what possible purpose), and atheist explanations must address "how" things got the way they are (through what possible naturalistic processes). The Christian vs atheist "debate" focuses on things that the opponent's world view has a little more trouble explaining, and ignores the fact that different people have different expectations for the explanations they find satisfying, and that neither side can be disproven - so in the end, you just believe what works for you, but you can't expect it to work for everyone. Each side should be aiming to convince the other of the validity of their axioms, not of the truth of the consequences of those axioms. It's quite frustrating, really.

Happiness vs Joy

While this topic is not specific to the debate of God vs No God, it is such a fundamental part of the Christian story that I think it should at least be on the table, clearly stated.

What difference does it make, really, whether God exists or not? How are our lives impacted by the question of whether we are merely an advanced animal or children of God implanted with a spiritual something called soul? Should we care whether there is any purpose to our existence, or if there is a purpose, whether a Maker has anything to say about that purpose? And in some kind of overarching way, how does any of this effect what seem to be fundamental things humans seek: food, shelter, clothing, avoidance of pain, love, significance, understanding, knowledge, etc.

Our American forefathers included the pursuit of happiness in the top three things we should be guaranteed as a people. Happiness is a good thing, and worth seeking and protecting, at least it seems so on the surface. But it can turn into the famous bumper sticker, "He who dies with the most toys, wins."

I don't pretend to be an expert at this from either a secular psychology pov or a theological one. And I find myself conflicted at times with certain aspects of the issue. But since it's my blog, allow me to indulge myself a bit.

Happiness is primarily self seeking, aimed at satisfying our own need to feel good. We might be happy when eating a favorite food, shopping for clothes or a new boat, working in our garden, or helping a charity. It is the kind of feeling that lasts for as long as it takes with a potential afterglow and a good memory. We help somebody out. We may feel happy while we are doing the work, still have good feelings about what we have done later that day or for a few days after. At some point, the happiness from that effort fades away. Months or even years later we might have reason to reflect back on that moment and get some of the feeling back.

Happiness, however, can be very fleeting, and can easily be defeated by other events, disappointment, our emotional state, fatigue, overindulgence, etc.

Now comes joy. Best stated by Paul in the NT when he said that he had been rich, poor, large and in charge, in prison, and gone through a whole bunch of other trials, but that through everything he was content in his circumstances (intentionally loose paraphrasing.) It is my belief that this is the ultimate best bet for humans, and that it has always been what the Bible has been proposing. Do this, this, and this. Avoid this, this, and this, and you will have great joy.

That would seem to be less anxiety about such things as acquiring money, things, applause, even professional success. Less drama in the raising of kids and comparing achievements with other adoring parents. Less interest in overconsumption of foods, sex, television, gossip, power, or other methods we use to lessen pain or avoid dealing with stuff. No interest in mind-deadening substances. No enticement to join cults.

Why am I conflicted about any of this? A certain level of anxiety (broadest definition of the term) should produce better results in anything we do; competition in the marketplace, for instance, or in sports, or even in this blog. Some level of pain generates a certain amount of empathy that is useful in helping others. Things like that. Enough from me.