Life is Short - Do Good While You're Here

I just learned that my sister died last night.  In January, my nice died - this was my sisters oldest daughter.  A little later, my Uncle died.  Last week, a friend of my daughter - a teenager - died of cancer.  Back in October, a young lady that lived with my family for about a year also died of cancer - she was only 24 years old! Even last night and today at Maryland Day at the University of Maryland, I learned about the death of a young man named Andrew Reisse who was hit by a car 3 years ago in California, I believe. (A very kind woman named Anne, a friend of Reisse's family was sharing this with me as we talked about life and other things.)

Death is a constant!  As my mother told me today on the phone when talking about all of this, the one thing we know after a person is born is that they will one day die - including, off course, ourselves.

I don't like death.  I don't like the idea that my loved ones will die.  I don't like the idea that I will die.  I don't like funerals.  I don't like hearing about terminal diseases, hospice care for the dying, terrible accidents that end in death, and other related tragedies.  I hate the death toll given in the news every day regarding terrorist attacks, military battles in Iraq, Sierra or Afghanistan.  I hate it.  My friend Sean shared with me about a guy I knew in college we called Mo who lost his mother.  And, I get notifications as work on an almost bi-monthly basis hearing about someone who just died; you know, a former employee or the the parent/child/sibling/spouse of a current employee.  I hate it.

Yet, it is inevitable.  When my niece died, my nephew, her brother, put on facebook "F-CK CANCER".  A friend once told me that sometimes profanity is the only appropriate word - I disagreed, but I understand his point.  But I get it. I GET IT - death is painful, terrible, unwelcome, undesirable!  But  it is inevitable.

So then, knowing that you will die, what should you be doing now?  You think we would understand this and strive to live life to the fullest.  We would care about others, do good, love and help our fellow human beings.  But no - we don't.  Instead, we fight, divorce, selfishly use people in all kinds of ways.  We seek our own comfort and pleasure at the expense of others - that is, we really don't think about or care about others as we seek pleasure, peace, and comfort.  Sure, we don't necessarily want anyone to get hurt, but for many human being, it's primarily a selfish passion that drives us to act and live and do the things we do in life..

What if God is real?  What if eternal life is real and we are aware of an afterlife after we die?  What if there really is an eternal, transcendent ethical system based on some concept of TRUTH that lives on after we die and we remain conscious of it after we die?  The realm of faith, religion, and ideas around metaphysical  and truth are uncomfortable at best and scary beyond reason at it's worst,

If there is a God, we better find out which god is God and then try to live in a way to honor what this God has created: life in abundance and ultimately (from our perspective) mankind!  So I say, do good while you're here.  Help others.  Give generously.  Don't be selfish.  Yet, to be sure we define "good" and all the actions, mindsets, and emotions that go with it, we had better strive to find and know the God who established "good".  Otherwise, we simply make it up, which will ultimately keep us at war, with millions living in poverty, addicted to drugs, selling their bodies, buying their bodies, exploiting and using people for their own selfish passions, and all other sorts of stuff. Why?  Because one mans "good" is different from another.  Yet - both men will die!

Something to think about as I grieve the loss of yet another family member.

Same Love

If you read this – please read the entire thing! Examine my argument, not my character!

A powerful voice for Christianity in the 21^st Century is Ravi Zacharias.  Mr. Zacharias often explains how music, the performing arts, and the entertainment industry have the biggest impact on the beliefs and values of a society.  He summarizes a quote from Andrew Fletcher’s about what really influences society.  Fletcher writes, “I said I knew a very wise man so much of Sir Christopher's sentiment, that he believed if a man were permitted to make all the ballads he need not care who should make the laws of a nation, and we find that most of the ancient legislators thought that they could not well reform the manners of any city without the help of a lyric, and sometimes of a dramatic poet.”  This quote is shortened by Zacharias and others into a convenient quip that says, “Let me write the songs of a nation – I don’t care who writes its laws”. 

I heard a fascinating song on the radio yesterday.  The song is entitled, “Same Love” and is performed by artists Ben Haggerty (Macklemore), Ryan Lewis, and apparently includes a young lady named Mary Lambert (not the film director).  The song was release in 2012 and was nominated for a Grammy for song of the year.  This song has a powerful influential message which includes both truths and falsehoods.  The song may even have helped influence the sentiment and support for same-sex marriage which emerged in July 2015 as the law of the land in the United Stated.

The song declares that God loves everyone (a truth – but unverified) and even quotes parts of 1^st Corinthians 13 (As a Christian, this is an authoritative source for me).  The song also affirms that human beings all feel and need to be loved (true but not verified) and that many people desire a romantic, committed life long relationship. However the song has two major flaws:  (1) a lack of knowledge; and (2) emotional and not logical conclusions.  In general, a lack of knowledge and flaws in logic and reason can lead to many falsehoods being promoted as a truth.  When philosophies are built and acted upon in masse and on large populations and societies that are built on something false, the result can be terrible. Thus, we really need to be careful regarding what we accept as truth!

Regarding the song, the major declaration which is wrong (lack of knowledge) states that people cannot change.  In the context of the song, the implication is that people cannot change their sexual orientation.  This is not true in either case.  Our minds are plastic, malleable, and changeable.  I can learn to love or hate people; to salivate at the ringing of a bell; or even to have a sexual reaction to a smell.  These things are verifiable and true. I am NOT a psychologist but I am reasonably educated and any basic college level psychology course presents this information.

So then, the examples of human beings changing fundamental dislikes, desires, etc, is well documented throughout history.  Ravi Zacharias quotes Adolf Hitler as saying, “I want to raise a generation of young people devoid of conscience - imperious, relentless and cruel”.  Assuming this quote has validity; such “change” can be developed in the masses for evil – as evident by the terrible results of Nazi Germany regarding the Jews.  If such deep and passionate characteristics can be changed in large groups for evil, how much more so can such change occur in one individual for good, or at least for something that some may consider neutral (not good or evil) and based on an individual’s uniqueness. 

The song, “Same Love” emphatically states that such change is impossible.  However, if a person can change something as fundamental as the deeply passionate values that support attempted genocide, I can surely change my sexual desires.  Most reasonable people would agree that I should attempt to change abusive, inappropriate, or out of control sexual desires such as pedophilia, being a serial rapist, or having a sexual addition whereby I attempt to have intercourse with several different people a day, serveral times a day, including with strangers!  Most reasonable people would agree that we CAN change such problematic sexual desires and actions into something more acceptable, healthy, and safe in a civil society.  (I say most because I’m sure there are a few people who would disagree).  For example, if a 35 year old man has a sincere and deeply heart-felt desire to love and have an on-going sexual relationship with a 7 year old child, we all agree that they cannot act on their sincere and deeply heart-felt desire.  Hopefully we also compassionately want to help this 35 year old man CHANGE and get this desire under control if not eliminate it completely.  Another example; if a person has sincere and heart-felt desire for ongoing romantic and sexual relationships with multiple partners at the same time, and all the adults in such a group agree to have such ongoing romantic and poly-amorous relationships, we would allow it as long as all the people are adults and consenting of their own free volitional will, BUT we don’t embrace it as a cultural value or practice to be promoted and celebrated as the goal of adult romantic relationships!

My point isn’t to condemn same-sex relationships, although I am against such sexual / romantic relationships.  My point is the flaws in the song and the claim it makes that sexual orientation cannot be changed. I am convinced that a straight person can change and learn to personally be involved in a same-sex relationship, embracing and loving their partner with the deepest love any two people can have for each other.  Thus, I clearly believe the opposite is also true – a gay or lesbian can change and learn to love and be loved by a person of the opposite biological sex.  My belief is built on the history of mankind being able to change very deep and personal desires, passions, wants and various behaviors driven by such longings.

We are human, we are not dogs, however Ivan Pavlov’s learning process, known as Classical Conditioning, Pavlovian conditioning or Respondent conditioning is a well-known idea.  There are limitations both academically and in practice to Classical Conditioning because human beings are exceedingly complex.  We cannot be reduced to deterministic machines and all the aspects of our wants, desires, and behaviors can’t be reduced into scientific/psychological units of stimulus and response. Yet, with these well documented caveats carefully and appropriately considered, sexual orientation along with many other deeply ingrained and internal drives within a human being, can be changed.  Some of these changes are neutral, some are evil, and many can be good (as addressed above regarding aberrant sexual attractions and behaviors we would all agree to be inappropriate or – might I say – wrong.)

I’ve spent a great deal speaking to the first problem with the song – the lack of knowledge, aka, their declarative proclamation that is weaved into the fabric of the song’s philosophical foundation, that sexual orientation cannot be changed.  The second and more pronounced flaw in the song is building an argument based on feelings and emotions as opposed to logic and solid reasoning.  A little boy crying because he was worried he was gay is terrible reasoning to be for or against same-sex relationships.  Illogical associations such as all boys play baseball and all girls play with dolls - the “illogical association” is also a terrible foundation for being for or against same-sex relationships.  People misunderstanding the thirty-five-hundred year old ancient text of Law, Prophets and Writings (Torah, Nevi'im, and Ketuvim – i.e. the Tanakh or the Jewish Bible) – the fact that “people misunderstand the Tenakh” is a terrible foundation for being for or against same-sex relationships.  The fact that people in the United States, “America the brave”, fear what they do not know - this “fear” is also bad reasoning for deciding for or against the legitimacy of same-sex romantic relationships.

The statement that “God loves all his children” is a declarative prescriptive statement that pulls on the emotions and desires of the listener.  There is no logic because there is no verifiable antecedent. Which God?  What transcendent theological parameters can we use to identify this God and their children?  We can’t just make up our own god – then there would be 7 billion god’s, all made up by each individual human being!  The song’s author needs to at least give some reference so we can all agree or disagree with the statement that “God loves all his children”.   Also, many people are against name-calling and hate, but such things do not give logical reasons for why same-sex relationships are valid or not. Oppression, abusive or non-abusive churches, and the comfort of a homogeneous religious community does not aid in assessing the validity of same-sex relationships. 

Most people don’t realize when music, poetry, movies, and the like are prescribing a philosophical framework that promotes ideas and values that are not validated.  One could argue that values can be different and valid – this is a type of truth and we can see it in differing cultures between communities, regions, nations, and people-groups.  Carried too far it becomes moral relativism.  However, we know there are values – cannibalistic societies of the past that would eat the flesh of the defeated tribe – that have powerful moral implications. Sexual values that are supported by a society fall into this category because of the sheer impact of human sexuality on our lives and our existence.  Thus changing these values as we have certainly done between 1985 and 2015 has powerful implications for the future.  I do hope we realize that our music teaches ideas and ideas have consequences. The American experiment of the late 16^th century has proven its staying power and cultural prowess in the world for the past 230 years or so.  This current wave of changes in sexual values and morals is also having an impact. Radical religious movements and radical sexual norms all have an impact and time will tell us if they were helpful or harmful.  I wish I could be here in 200 years to look back and see what it all means.

Limitations of Power and Reputation

Power - it's really bad when not checked with love and compassion for people!  (Which, by the way, He Man did have love and compassion for people).

Every October The Lord's Church in Greenbelt (now defunct, merged into the Bowie Church of Christ) used to have our fall retreat at an awesome facility called Camp Eder, a beautiful Church of the Brethren camp  in Fairfield PA, just outside of Gettysburg. We would drive up from the DC area, through the Catoctin Mountains of northern Maryland, into Southern PA.  It was a beautiful drive - if we could get the family together and leave in enough time to beat the Washington DC friday rush-hour exodus and get there before it got dark!

We would always pass this quaint little college called St. Mary's University, right off of   US 15, traveling north.  I didn't know anything about this college - that it was the 2nd oldest Catholic University in the United States and that they would soon be pursuing and inviting my daughter to visit who currently attends a Catholic high school in Washington DC.

The school is now in the news and the center of controversy involving the real heart and attitude of their new president, Simon Newman.  Newman came with the vision to "raise a lot of capital and start a lot of programs and start the university on a more aggressive growth trajectory" (Baltimore Sun, Dec 8, 2014).  I don't know this man, but I do know my own desire for power and reputation.  I also know, that as a man, I want to succeed professionally and in some sense, gain a little human-centric esteem!  I want the skills and ability to raise a lot of capital and to have an aggressive professional and even spiritual growth trajectory.  What's wrong with this desire?

The problem is that desire and plans and strategies like this must be ultimately for the benefit of others - not just a select group of others, but others, period.  For Newman, he may have wanted to raise the reputation of The Mount and improve the institutions academic standing, but to do so at the expense of students already matriculated is a bad idea.  To further expose his heart, apparently in a private conversation or in a private email note he explained that sacrifices need to be made to achieve the goals of growing the institution.  Newman referred to students who were likely to fail out academically as "cuddly bunnies". The imagery then turned dark!  He said, "You just have to drown the bunnies … put a Glock to their heads".  WOW!!  His heart, in secret, is revealed.

The limitation of our human desire for power, success, reputation, achievement, and the like are evident throughout history.  It's true on a national and global scale, corporate scale, within a family and it's true on a personal level.  The "win at all cost" philosophy just doesn't work.  Even a confessed atheist such as Sir. Richard Branson knows this and he's very successful.  He is actually considered a very kind man by the people who know him and work close with him.

To have the skills to bring about change and growth BUT not have an overtly altruistic and benevolent spirit will eventually limit the effectiveness of ones power.  Sure, such skills may be effective when you don't have to deal with people as much - which was proven by Mr. Newman's reputation as evidenced by his background.  He had 30 years' experience in business and finance, was the managing director of JP Capital Partners, a private equity firm, and CEO of Cornerstone Management Group, had successful started four businesses, and has raised more than $3 billion in equity funding.  HOWEVER, in role of a University President at a Catholic institution, it is imperative to show compassion, virtue, faith, and love - grace, mercy, benevolence, and concern for others should probably be internal character traits shown, in some way, by any candidate for such a job.  I'm not saying Mr. Newman doesn't care for others - but what we say in private does reflect our heart.  I'm certain he cares for his wife, children, friends and others - but the drive to accomplish a goal, a mission will sometimes make us forget what life is really all about.

I pray that Newman and Mount Saint Mary's University will make it through this difficult time - and I'm sure they will, even if Simon Newman steps down as a result of this.  I'm certain that the beauty of this campus on US 15 north, right there in the Catoctin Mountains, will continue to do what they've done since the very beginning, in 1808.   

Gonna Do it Anyway,

I just had a discussion with my daughter about a really stupid movie she wanted to go see - it's called, "The Boy".  It's a silly horror movie and teenagers love this stuff.  It only got ONE star by RottonTomatoes.  To humor her, I went and watched the trailer on youtube.  It is, indeed, a ridiculous premise, a ridiculous plot, and a ridiculous movie.  However, it really isn't supernatural - real people are doing the evil stuff when the babysitter is not looking.

Regardless, I took the discussion in the direction of the supernatural and the idea of seeing the devil face to face.  If you saw any kind of supernatural being that you could validate beyond the shadow of a doubt - I mean, in absolute certainty, you have experienced an encounter with the unseen, supernatural realm... if you saw or experience such an entity even from Satan's domain, what would it mean?  In short, it would mean that this realm actually does exists, albeit, inappreciable with tools and instruments from our 3-dimensional world. Sorry Ghosbusters - there is no way to invent and use a P.K.E. Meter i.e. Psychokinetic Energy Meter, or Proton Packs, or any other psychic or metaphysical detection device .

By the very definition of supernatural spiritual, no such tool can be created that can reach into this realm to detect anything there.  However, also by definition, things from that realm can enter into our world.  From a Christian point-of-view, this would include angels, demons, heavenly beings, satanic beings, and of course God himself (itself?) as well as Satan.

So, the discussion went something like this - if we saw the devil, what would that mean?  It would mean that he is real, thus God is real, thus there really is a supernatural realm. However, I went on to explain that unfortunately, even the solid, proven belief with evidence of the existence of such a realm would NOT cause many people - if not most people - to actually change and strive to live for God.  Why?  BECAUSE WE DON'T REALLY CARE!  You see, many non-believers say that if they saw real miracle, a certifiable, authentic, real-life miracle, they would then believe in God. However, this is simply not true.

You see, we have free will, and thus, we will ultimately do whatever we really want to do.  Most of us, if speeding, will slow down when we see the police car just ahead - unless it is an emergency and the priority, for example, of saving a child's life who is dying in the back-seat, become higher than getting a speeding ticket.  However, there are a few people who simply just don't care!  Aside from psychological or emotional dysfunction or damage, some people - and we can all probably think of someone in our past if we have lived long enough - will simply do whatever they want, regardless of the expected undesirable outcome OR the anticipated joyful and wonderful outcome.

You see, we have the uncanny ability to hold in our heads ideas that are logically mutually exclusive, and function as if both ideas are absolutely true.  Young people do this more.  Old people tend to become cynical as they discover that certain realities exists and what we want or wish for cannot change such things.

We see this in the Bible with real people - they will witness the miracle and do something stupid anyway.  David sins with Bathsheba (2 Samuel chapters 11-12), Peter is prejudice against the gentile Christians (Galatians 2:11-14), Elijah runs for his life (1 Kings 19:1-18), and the list goes on and on and on.  The obvious is during the exodus from Egypt, these people saw the power of God and yet, they still rejected God, especially the Golden Calf incident as recorded in Exodus 32.  However, mankind isn't the only beings susceptible to such idiocy.  As James so clearly points out, even the demons believe in God but it does them no good! (James 2:18-19).

I'm not sure how to overcome this tendency.  I succumb to this in my thinking more so than in my actions.  Logic and wisdom says one thing, but my passions and desires say something different.  As Woody Allen is purported to have said about marrying Soon-Yi Previn (Soon-Yi was 21, Woody was 56 and she was his girlfriends adopted daughter), "the heart want's what the heart want's".  Yet, it seems that, outside of mental illness or major hormonal imbalances, we DO have some control over our emotions, including all forms of love - family, friendship, and romantic based love.  The sad part is that most people don't know this or don't believe it so they don't try.  As a result, regardless of the consequences, we are going to do what we want to do!  Our brains are driven by our unbridled emotions and say to our bodies, "I'm gonna do it anyway".

The Bible does teach that we have some control over this tendency and change what we want emotionally.  We are told to "train ourselves to be godly" (1 Timothy 4:7).  The following ideas are ways we can do this:

1. Col 3:1-4, “set your minds (and hearts) on things above…”, - a volitional command.
2. Phil 4:8, “…whatever is true, right, noble… think about such things.” – a volitional command
3. 2 Cor 4:18, “So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen…”, - what to think about/focus on.
4. 2 Peter 1:5-8, “add to your faith goodness… knowledge… self-control… theses qualities…will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ”. - character values to develop on purpose.
5. Romans 12:2, “be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will” - modifying the mind so that it is "renewed", i.e. naturally godly

With that said, we really don't have to "do it anyway".  I fact, I think we can even change what we think about and dream about based on what we read, watch, listen to, people we hang out with, etc, etc, etc.  As Christians - if you are a Christian, then if you and I devote ourselves to changing in this way, we will minimize our hypocritical tendencies and literally change from the inside out to become the saints and sages this world needs as a moral compass AND to authentically reflect the God of the universe to a loss world. 

Cancer and Hope

I just learned about a young boy who is dying of cancer named Dorian Murray.  You can google the name or go to his Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/PrayingForDorian/) to learn more. Dorian is only 8 years old and will not likely be here much longer. 

I read about the boy in a special China insert in the Washington Post.  Because of the snow storm from this past weekend, I received like 4 or 5 days of the paper at one time!  Anyway, the boy's parents posted a note about Dorians wish to be famous all over the world, in particular China, and guess what -he is now famous all over the world!

The story is painful, sad, yet encouraging.  You can see how people actually care.  People who have different value systems, who may not even believe in God, who are capitalist, communist, and citizens of kingdoms all care.  People who submit to warlords and live in prosperous as well as struggling empires actually care about another human being they don’t even know! Many people can indeed show signs of being a changed and reformed Ebeneezer Scrooge – and they don’t even have to be warned by the spirit of a dead colleague into doing it!

This is the stuff that makes us think utopia is possible and that people are inherently good.  But it's not true!  Utopia is not possible and people are actually inherently evil as evidenced by 10,000 years or so of human history.  It’s all in how you define evil – or might I add, who defines evil. My atheist friends think removing religion will fix the problem.  Certain extreme Muslim friends of mine may think building one world-wide caliphate will bring peace.  Certain extreme "Christian" friends of mine think that if we legislate Christian doctrine we can have peace.  Yet, they are all wrong.  We are really no different than our ancestors and 10,000 years of recorded human history does not lie. Analyze it any way you want to, the historical conclusion is the same: we are an inherently evil species.  This is reality, no matter what we feel or think about it, and clearly most people reject this fact on all kinds of levels!

Now, the only faith system I have found that affirms this reality, and yet gives real hope for the "here and now" as well as in some kind of afterlife is authentic Christianity.  Someone may say that this hope is encased in mythology - that God created the heavens and the earth, that He cares about individuals now, and that He will redeem creation at some point in our future; some may say that this is all a myth thought up in antiquity.  But what if it is not a fairy-tale? What if it is true? If the "fairy-tale" is true, how then should one conduct their life? As it is written about the destruction & redemption of the world and the return of Christ, "Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives". (2 Peter 3:11).

What do you think? What if it's true?  I am ecstatic that the world is responding to Dorian Murray's wish.  My prayers are with his family because no amount of the worlds out-pouring of love in prayers, pictures, or kind and supportive words can replace the love this family has for their little boy. Albeit, I’m sure it helps.  Yet, what does it mean if the Christian faith is, in every sense of the phrase, the "absolute truth"?

As a final thought....My niece Marie Young died of cancer in December - she was only 48 and eleven years ago my father died of cancer - he was 70.  Cancer, war, death, greed, human trafficking, arrogance, pain, loneliness, crime - especially violent crime, hatred of each other, racism, false belief systems that promote (consciously or unconsciously) evil, fits of unbridled rage, alcohol and drug addiction, ignorant children making terrible decisions - especially if they are my children, and a host of other ills make me long for the return of Christ.  Sure, I can enjoy life while I have it, but anyone who closes their eyes and hides from the realities that are in this world are deceiving themselves.

World View, Life Stance and God's Existance

I recently learned that a poll in Iceland revealed that no young person - NONE, ZERO - actually believed that God created the universe.  That is, every young that participated in this poll had a 100% naturalistic world view.  They do NOT believe in the supernatural, and thus they live life based on their own individualized life stance.
     What is a world view and what is a life stance?  They are related concepts that define reality for a person.
     A world view is more comprehensive - how do you see world - what makes life work?  Where did we come from?  Who makes the rules?  What is your fundamental view of reality; a framework for viewing reality that encompasses the entirety of space, time, knowledge and truth.
     A life stance is more about how the individual relates to others and the world around them in light of their view of reality.  It deals more with values, ethics, and ones commitment to aligning oneself with and holding on to what is important within their view of reality.  A life stance defines ones commitment to living and even dying for what they believe.
     As a Christian, I have a world view that accepts as fact that God created the heavens and the earth based on philosophical, historical, and theological evidence, (I could not accept this view without evidence).  My life stance, says that I am committed to the observable and existential functional ethics, morals and values that are derived from such a world view.  These ethics, morals, values and truths are revealed in the Christian sacred text, specifically the New Testament as the teachings of Jesus Christ and his hand-picked apostles,
     According to a recent Washington Post article, Iceland is moving toward a completely atheistic, 100% naturalistic world view - a view of reality that says there is absolutely no God.  The idea of a God, then would be mythology, in the same category as Zeus, Hera and Poseidon. In fact, on January 15, my friend Jerry Coyne (I don't know him personally, but I get his blog report and on rare occasion, I will comment on it.  Once, he actually referenced my comments and I think we exchanged email, but I don't remember), a Biology professor from the University of Chicago, stated that the research behind this article shows that Iceland "to be on its way to complete atheism".
     The research is solid and the transition in Iceland to becoming primarily an atheist country is clear.  The Icelandic Ethical Humanist Association (IEHA) is doing a phenomenal job of teaching an ethical and moral framework to the youth without the need for the supernatural historically or in the present.   IEHA provides training as coming of age programs that effectively teach young people how to be contributing members to society, appropriately adhering to laws, rules, and cultural values  and changing them when needed by practicing critical thinking and appropriate skepticism. They also provide officiates for weddings, funerals, and special family dedications!  It's a spirituality that celebrates the human spirit without acknowledging the existence of God!  It's brilliant, awesome and the approach is definitely working.  I am impressed and I mean it.
     Yet, when you strip away the scientific jargon, the data, the statistics, and the derived value system used to teach ethics without a transcendent and personal creator of the Universe, what do you really have?  I am certain that Coyne, Dawkins, Shermer and many others will tell you that ethics and morals are invented by mankind - a necessary derivative of evolution by natural selection, and thus, have no value in determining right from wrong or good from evil in any absolute or transcendent sense.  I'm sure this is oversimplified and men smarter than I am, including Coyne, can add clarity to this idea, but at the end of the day, if we evolved,then  moral relativistic cultures, values, laws and norms are the only way human beings can create a cooperative (i.e. civil) society.  Even so, from my specific world view, what IEHA has accomplished in Iceland falls in line with what is implied in 2 Corinthians 2:11 and Colossians 2:4,8.
     What is your world view?  What is your life stance?   I have followed the arguments and my current conclusion is solid.  Yet, I am a skeptic by nature and always trying to learn more.  I am convinced that the teachings of Jesus Christ and his hand-picked apostles are the best and, existentially, most logically livable framework on which to build ones life.  But more than that, I am convinced that it is true and what is recorded in the Christian sacred text reflect what actually happened in history and what is, in actually, the ultimate reality.

The Belief Instinct

I just read the introduction to a book by Jesse Bering's entitled, “The Belief Instinct: The Psychology of Souls, Destiny, and the Meaning of Life”.  Dr. Bering writes the book within the framework of a purely naturalistic universe where God does not exist, there is no such thing as the supernatural, life began by chance; life came about naturally and evolved into all the diversity we see today.  From his perspective, the fact that the vast majority of humanity believes in God, souls, an afterlife and meaning must have a purely naturalistic explanation.

Dr. Bering coined the phrase, “theory of mind” to explain such belief as an evolutionary flaw; a necessary error that aided in mankind’s survival by giving us empathy.  The “theory of mind” also gives us the tendency to attribute consciousness and intelligence to an unknown cause that influences non-living things and natural phenomenon. Thus, this “theory of mind” causes us to see messages from the divine in natural occurrences. 

In a 2012 interview about this book with Anouk Vleugels, a Journalist from United Academics, Bering says that we are influenced by “cognitive biases that are difficult to override” and that “we easily fall under the impression that we are in a moralistic social relationship with God”.   Thus, it is instinctively burned-in and thus, very difficult to remove the belief or need for a "moralistic social relationship" with this non-existent God from our collective psyche.

Bering’s naturalistic approach to our collective belief in God is the only viable and reasonable approach, if indeed there is no God.  But I would add that even if there is a God (and I am a Theist) human beings easily accept all kinds of foolish beliefs that fall outside the realm of reasonable faith.  From crystals power, ouija boards, astrology, witchcraft, ghost, angel worship and the myth-based ideas of the afterlife, human societies have easily incorporated such things into our cultures and societies from the very dawn of time.  So even if there is an entity that is self-existent and is indeed the one true creator of the universe, Bering's ideas still have merit because most belief systems do seem to come from some instinctive drive that pushes us to accept almost anything that claims to be in the supernatural realm.

I am a theist – I definitely believe in God.  Yet, my belief is not driven by my need to explain the universe nor the desire to have a moralistic framework for right and wrong, for good and evil.  I accept easily enough that without God, good and evil can be defined from many different perspectives.  For example, moral and ethical systems can be developed built on the perpetuation of OUR species. Another approach could be to build an ethical system based on helping our society grow and increase in size and biological and reproductive health.  I also am very skeptical of most religious claims, both theologically and pragmatically, especially from charismatic circles.

However, the real question isn’t about survival or existence which is part of Bering’s model.  No, the real question is about TRUTH.  The issue at hand is what is true in the absolute sense of the word true, within an appropriate context and within a proper domain.   Please don’t ignore the idea of appropriate context and appropriate domain.  It’s easy to oversimplify survival, existence, ethics, morals, and truth.  I don’t have enough time to explore all of this, so let me go back to the ideas expressed by Bering’s thoughts.

In the summary of the book, it says that “the instinct to believe in God and other unknowable forces gave early humans an evolutionary advantage.”  This is fine; belief in God gave us an advantage over other animals. However, Bering also admits that that God’s existence is “unknowable” using absolute factual verifiable, testable repeatable evidence.  It’s unknowable, yet, he writes this entire book based on the absolute fact that there is no God. 

Bering, and I’m sure many others, would like to remove belief in the supernatural from mankind’s psyche.  The book summary states that belief in God and other superstitions are “psychological illusions” and these ideas “have outlasted their evolutionary purpose”.  The question that remains, from Bering’s perspective is how do we take on a “whole new challenge: escaping them” – them being “psychological illusions” such as believing in God.  Thus, Bering is saying in essence that we need to “fix” this universal human tendency to believe and break free of it all.

My question is this:  what if God really does exist?  What if there really is another realm, imperceptible by the tools, instruments and gadgets we can build?  Bering and many other atheists dismiss off-hand that possibility.  Sure, we can’t measure, test for, prove or otherwise validate God’s existence – it’s “unknowable”.  Yet, it is a categorical logical fallacy to put orthodox religious systems such as Christianity, Islam, or Judaism in the same grouping as ancient Greek or Roman mythology, ancestor worship, ancient tribal religions, unicorns, fairies or even the infamous flying spaghetti monster!  Bering makes a semantic ontological error in doing so.  It’s a type of fallacy of composition!

The real problem with Bering and many other atheists is their own unshakable adherence to philosophical naturalism.  The introduction and summary of the book should start off by clearly stating this adherence, especially when entering into a topic that generally calls most of humanity – conservatively about 89% –  immature at best and idiotic at worst for believing in the supernatural.  I’m not bothered by such prejudice, just the arrogance that says that the burden of proof is on me, the theist. While I admit that the proposition has not been proved to be true, unknowable is just that – unknowable.  It’s a basic proof of impossibility and I’m sure Mr. Bering knows this.

Being reasonable and even demanding evidence does not preclude the existence of another realm.  It simply means we can’t use the tools, ideas and principle of philosophical naturalism to discuss them.  It doesn’t invalidate these tools (e.g. the naturalistic empirically based scientific method) it just uses them in the proper context and domain.  If a proposition is true, such as “my wife love me”, and cannot be proved using empirical evidence, it doesn’t mean I’m an idiot.  I think my non-believing friends, including Dr. Bering, should be more careful.