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.

On My Honor as a Student

Many may know that I was a Boy Scout many years ago  I love the part of the Scout Oath that says that I will do my best to do my duty to God and my County. Then, there is the Scout Law that says, among many other things, that a scout is reverent. I hope that Christian college students and young adults can take these ideas from scouting and incorporate them in their own lives.

You see the semester has begun all across the United States, including right here in our community.  Students at the University of Maryland have begun taking classes and doing assignments, buying books, and interacting with each other socially.  The Bowie Church of Christ, where I attend and serve, is sponsoring an unofficial Bible Study on campus where students can come, learn about faith and truth and ask real questions.  The students involved that attend Bowie have their own set of questions.  My prayer is that all the students and young adults that get involved in any ministry activities sponsored or supported by Bowie Church of Christ will grow spiritually, be encouraged to work hard academically, and continue to develop into adults that not just contribute to society, but to do so in overtly but respectful Christian ways.

It is written, "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves." (Romans 13:1-2)  A natural corollary to this principle is to not only be giving and loving members of society, but to do so in ways that honor God.  I hope that students and young adults can learn to stand firm in Christ, to stand on their faith, and yet do so in ways that bring honor to God.  I will do everything I can to encourage such growth in faith and character development, to the best of my ability.

A Question About Noah

I occasionally comment on videos on YouTube that touch on elements of faith.   As a result, others will comment on my comments and I may get the privilege of having ongoing conversations with both believers and non-believers alike.  On one such occasion, a really kind and respectful gentleman asked about Noah's Ark and Noah's flood.  Of course, there was the recent movie "Noah" staring  Russell Crowe.  I like the way the the Wikipedia entry introduces the movie by saying it is "based loosely on the story of Noah's Ark from the Book of Genesis...".  Thus, I want to make a few general comments on Noah.

My first point is that Noah existed.  Please forget the wall paper, children's stories, and picture books.  Noah, like many people from the ancient world, cannot easily be documented outside of singular ancient narratives. With Noah, it is the Jewish ancient text. But this is true regarding many ancient people from other ancient cultures, not just the Jews.  One of the most famous would be an ancient Mesopotamian king named Gilgamesh. Outside of some very mystical and very ancient collection of stories entitled, "The Epic of Gilgamesh", there is simply no evidence for the existence of this man.  However, it doesn't mean he didn't exists. Thus, my first main point is this:  Noah was a historic person.  He existed in time and space.

Secondly, there was some kind of flood.  In addition, the Epic of Gilgamesh, along with many other very old stories from different cultures around the glob, include a flood narrative.  All of these narratives are mutually exclusive - that is, the stories conflict with one another at many points.  There are not only ancient Mesopotamian stories, but Hindu, Greek, and even Mesoamareican flood stories. If humanity came from the descendants of the survivors of a cataclysmic "natural" disaster such as a regional or even world wide flood, then  - like the telephone game - the story would exist everywhere but be different between people groups, and sometimes radically different.  Yet, the intersections of such stores does imply that something happened.  I choose to accept the biblical narrative for many reasons which I don't have time to discuss here.

Now, two easy questions that I was asked about Noah are:  (1) What did the carnivores eat on Noah’s Ark and (2) how long were they aboard the wooden ship?  These questions are answered by the biblical narrative.  First, Noah was told by God to take 7 pairs not just a single pair, of every clean animal.  As the text says, "Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate" (Genesis 7:2).  So, they ate the clean animals.  Secondly, how long was Noah on the Ark?  A little over a year - 360 or 370 days.  It is written, "Noah entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah. And after the seven days the floodwaters came on the earth. In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month--on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth..." (Genesis 7:10-11).  He left the ark about a year later.  As it is written, "By the first day of the first month of Noah's six hundred and first year, the water had dried up from the earth. Noah then removed the covering from the ark and saw that the surface of the ground was dry. By the twenty-seventh day of the second month the earth was completely dry.  (Genesis 8:14-15)

Finally, a question that many of my atheist and non-believing friends have is - was it really a global flood.  To this, I say "maybe".  First, the biblical narrative, both the Hebrew and Christian writings, use language much like we do - there are hyperbolic exaggerations to make a point (eg. "If I speak in the tongues of men and angels but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal...., 1 Cor 13:1) The main message is the universality of the wickedness of mankind at that time, not the universality of the flood. Since mankind's (human beings, not other hominids that may or may not have been in existence and not already extinct) population would have been local, all of mankind could have been destroyed in a relatively local flood event.  Both believing and non-believing geologist agree that canyons, mountains, valleys, etc. formed throughout Earth’s 4.5 billion year history via both catastrophic events (such floods) and more gradual processes - and I agree with science AND truth - honest science that is, science without an agenda aside from understanding what is and what was.

Even so, there is evidence of sea creature fossils on mountain tops.  Geological strata in odd locations do contained marine fossils.  The fact that most of the earth is covered with water also gives credence to the possibility of a global flood.  The flood in Genesis has water coming from the sky and from spings in the ground, so having a water covered planet would be needed to create such a world wide flood.  The fact that many cultures have a flood myth (yes, I did say myth) can also imply a common real event. Thus, I take the narrative as written and strive to fully understand the genre of each type of text.  Genesis is judicial, theological and historical from an ancient worlds perspective.  I strive to read it that way in light of our modern world.

Finally, I must admit that my faith in God and my trust in the biblical narratives do require a certain spiritual framework which actually comes from God.  As it is written, we should think of our selves with sober judgement "in accordance with the faith God has distributed ..." (Romans 12:3).  Thus, faith comes from God and many cannot accept certain spiritual truths because it makes no sense to them.  As it is written, "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14).  Even though this is true, it does not invalidate the facts of history or honest science.  Any believer who refuses to explore the evidence is just as spiritually blind as the nonbeliever who cannot see it.  But the non-believer is actually in a better position before God!

Theology, Convictions and Evil

This is an in-house entry…. To the “faithful” I write…

Throughout history, there have been plenty of evil done in the name of God by those who supposedly call on the name of Christ.  Why is that?  One answer that jumps out of the pages of the Bible is clear:  human beings are naturally evil.  As one text says, our natural behavior is obvious and includes things like idolatry, hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, and envy. There is also a number of sexual behavior that we naturally desire but is not healthy nor good and as Christians we should not practice including sex outside of marriage, using or producing pornography, orgies, and even lustful thoughts (See Galatians 5:19-21).  

One translation calls our tendency to desire and give into such desire for these things our “sinful nature” but the actual biblical writers simply call it our flesh - the Greek word is “sarx” - and it includes (a) the physical body; (b) the body’s natural desires, appetites and cravings that go against God’s design; and (c) the tendency to give into these desires.  There is a word strictly used for the “physical body” and it is not “sarx” but “soma”. This word primarily means the physical body alone.

Why the mini theology lesson?  Because Christians (if they happen to stumble onto my blog) need to be aware that the internal battles and fights we have over supposed theological issues such as the role of women, leadership in the church, what is heretical, eternal condemnation, and the like – when we have deep convictions about such things and our emotions flare up or our heels dig in, it is likely that the flesh is peeking it’s ugly head.  The Bible makes it clear what is of first importance – Christ Jesus and Him Crucified.  This does NOT mean such things (women’s roles, leaderships, heresy, etc) are not important – it just means we should not and must not destroy the church or worse, literally kill people over such things!  In fact, we should not kill people ever and we should never resort to coercive force, violence, hatred, fits of rage, yelling and screaming, and other such things. There is no Christian theological foundation for such behavior NONE – note even against those who reject or are antagonistic against our faith.

As it is written, we preach Christ and Him crucified; and he was raised to life.  This alone is the core of the gospel, the “crux of the matter”.  Get it? “crux”… out of the cross!   We preach Christ and him crucified, a stumbling block for those who consider themselves good religious people and foolishness to those who are nontheistic and/or secular humanist in their view of the world.  Out of this core comes love – love for God and love for others.  The core message implies a view of the universe that is ultimately supernatural – a sinless man rose from the dead!  It implies that we are inherently evil which NOBODY likes to accept.  But this message gives us the ONE way out of these natural desires and tendencies that go against God’s design:  forgiveness through the blood of Christ.  Ugly, illogical from a human perspective, yet this is the message.

If Christians who FIGHT over the role of women or contemporary Christian music verses traditional hymns, or other such things would step back and examine their own selves, they would see that they may NOT be representing the absolute truth of scripture but instead, defending something that may be important, but is not essential.  It may even be the traditions of men verses the will of God (Matt 15:3).  I struggle with the more "weightier matters of the law" in my life, specifically true conviction and faithfulness, resisting sin to the point of death. (Matt 23:23, Heb 12:4) Where is our commitment?  Are we 100% engaged and involved in serving the risen savior by practicing the two fundamental commands Jesus gave us:  love God with everything and love our neighbor?  Do we fully practice the fruit of the spirit to show love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control?  And by the way, these things should be practiced Monday through Saturday, not just Sunday in a one or two hour worship service.

I encourage you, if you happened to find this article and you call yourself a Christian, I encourage you to examine what I have written carefully and the implication for Christian unity and solidarity implied by this.  The core message is essential.  The one biblical idea we don’t like – that we ourselves are sinful – is very real, and we know it to be true.  Certain values that spring from the teachings of Christ and the apostles PRIMARILY impact the bulk of our lives – Monday through Saturday, not the 1 or 2 hours on Sunday.  Come on people, what’s the real deal?  Will you stand before Jesus and defend your bold adherence to theological purity about issues that cannot be clearly explained in the biblical text and that only impact ONE HOUR a week? Please hear me.... I am not saying we shouldn’t have standards or define healthy, biblical practices for our churches, but I am saying, let’s keep the main thing the main thing and not let theology we can’t fully and clearly prove and our blind convictions about such theology dictate the practices of our faith or the things that ultimately cause division due to our sinful nature.

Honest Faith

Right now I am in the mountains southern Pennsylvania.  It’s absolutely beautiful.  I’m at a camp run by the Church of the Brethren called “Camp Eder” and the facilities are excellent.  They take very good care of this camp and I am truly impressed with the immaculate care and detail they obviously put into keeping this place up-to-date.

I also get to relax and read – I love to do this.  In reading a book I have stopped and started multiple times, I ran across a thought that triggered another thought, which triggered another thought. (This trait of mine… to drift fluidly between thoughts that seem unconnected drives my wife crazy!).  I recentely learned of a book written by Peter Boghossian entiled, “A Manual for Creating Atheist” or something like that.  I do plan to buy and read it although I am a theist – open minded, yes, but currently convinced that the metaphysical framework I accept as true is indeed true.

I had not known the name Peter Boghossian until I recently ran across this title.  He has a number of Youtube videos (I love the 21^st century where we can instantly learn about people and things).  There was one I viewed entitled something like “The Best of Peter Boghossian, which caused me to somewhat respect what I think to be his message. Of course, I have a long way to go to really get to “know” this man and what he is really all about, but he seems to promote certain principles that I also hold: seeking truth, looking for evidence, respecting others, using your mind, being reasonable, and a few others ideas.  Now, I am certain the semantics we pour into such principals are slightly skewed from each other – me being a theist and he trying to convert me - yet I am also certain that we would agree to the fundamental or primary meanings applied to such concepts.

With that said, even though I enjoyed Boghossian’s video clips, I am strongly opposed to how he defined faith in his “manual”.  He writes that faith is “pretending to know things that you don’t know”.  For the sake of argument, let’s “pretend” (pun intended) there are no religions on the earth.  Let’s pretend that all people on the entire planet are pure naturalist and base everything on empirical data, evidence, and repeatable and verifiable proof.  If this was the way the world was today, would the word “faith” exist in the lexicon of at least our shared language – American English?  If it did exist, how would it be defined?  If I said, in such a world, when verbally making a business deal, “I have faith that you will honor your agreement”, what would I mean?  If I said, in such a world, “I have faith that my wife is faithful and I will remain faithful to her”, I ask, what would I mean?  Language is not that complicated, nor is t dogmatically ridged, nor sterile.  With or without the supernatural, the fundamental meaning of faith still holds – a type of belief mixed with trust.  It has to do with confidence to act on what one anticipates will occur based on another person’s integrity, reputation, or proven track-record.  When applied to religion, the difference is only in the acceptance that a supernatural being (or realm) actually exists and can be trusted based on what another person, an ancient text, or trusted cleric has said.

My his definition of faith, Mr. Boghossian betrays a prejudice. We all have biases and we all have agendas – that I can easily accept.  Yet, to abuse language like this by making up a definition that is illogical, unfounded, and disingenuous is terrible.  I don’t know this man, but from the little I have gathered, he values and promotes honesty and facts.  Minimally, he should replace the ideas implied in his definition, the idea of “pretending”, with something like “accepting as true what you cannot prove empirically.”  Instead, he creates unnecessarily an antagonistic relationship with more than 90% of the human race.  His definition is intentionally provocative.  I must conclude then, based on reason that he is being is disingenuous by devising and using such a definition to convince theist to become non-theist or atheist.  Such rhetoric amongst those who are trying to persuade me or convince me that my theistic world-view is built on mythology, falsehoods, and made-up superstition is not a good place to start.  As I said, I am open minded, but those that approach me must be honest, reasonable, and  - like me – open to change themselves.

I can easily admit that there are many aspects of my view of reality, built on a theistic foundation, can not be proven empirically.  I can confidently embrace that various foundational components of my “faith system” require the somewhat blind acceptance of what I cannot prove.  However, I am not pretending anything.  Mr. Boghossian, just like the rest of us, lives his life without being able to prove many, many things but he is not pretending.  Does he “pretend” to care for his family, even though a child, a relative, or even one’s own spouse could turn on you and even take your life!  This happens all the time, just as Adam Lanza killed his own mother before shooting a bunch of children.  Granted, mental illness was involved, but I’m pretty confident this mother didn’t “pretend” to trust her son.  She may have been unwise and even self-deceived, but she was not pretending.  Mr. Boghossian should be more honest IF he really wants to convince those of us with religious faith to give it up for a greater truth!