The slippery slope

I know many people talk about a "slippery slope" in all kinds of contexts. For me, the slippery slope went like this:

- I went to Bible to find answers to troubling questions.
- Instead of finding answers, I found contradictions, both internally and with the physical world.
- This led to more troubling questions.
- I concluded that the Bible could not logically be 100% accurate.

OK, most liberal Christians admit to this; and most conservative Christians reject much of the teaching and the historical accounts in the Bible even if they don't admit this. But:

- How are we supposed to figure out which parts are true and which ones aren't?
- If God is supposed to inspire us to know, why do so many groups view different parts of the Bible differently? This leads to completely different worship systems and bitterly divides Christians internally.
- If God is supposed to inspire us to know, why do so many parts of the Bible seem to contradict each other?
- I can't answer these questions in any way that makes sense, so I concluded that maybe God isn't supposed to inspire us to know.
- Well, if God isn't supposed to inspire us, how do we know he inspired the writings to begin with?
- Why did God inspire writings with apparent contradictions? If he is all-powerful, how could he allow this to happen? (Forget natural disasters and evil in the world -- why didn't any original documents survive? Why do the earliest and best writings conflict with each other in ways that totally change the Christian worldview? (e.g., the earliest writings leave out the verses that the Trinity is based on).
- I can't answer these questions in any way that makes sense. Natural disasters and evil might be part of God's plan, but creating such chaos around The Word of God makes no sense and there is no reasonable explanation that I have found. So I concluded that maybe God isn't omnipotent.
- If God isn't omnipotent, and he didn't inspire the Bible, then what, exactly, does the real God have to do with the God in the Bible?

There's nothing that proves any of this conjecture, of course, but the physical evidence (including the words of the Bible itself) support the idea that the Bible is not infallible. And if the Bible is erroneous in places, how can anyone conclude that God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent? How can anyone conclude that God is revealed to us accurately in the Bible? How can anyone conclude that the Real God is the same God of the Bible?

I could have stronger faith, I guess, but that would be ignoring evidence of the physical world. Ignoring evidence of the physical world, in my opinion, is admitting that God is trying to trick us. (Kind of like he did with Job.) I guess that could be the case, but if that is so, then God is mean and unjust and not loving. (Well, that would be the OT God, I guess.)

And whether or not God is real, I have no interest in following an unjust, cruel, unloving God, just to get to heaven. A God that delights in pain and suffering does not have morals that line up with what I believe is right. I don't know how I have determined what I think is right, but delighting in pain and suffering ain't it.

The thing that really makes me mad is that many Christians call me "misled" or "ignorant" or "stupid" for thinking like this. "Read the Bible," they'll say. Uh--yeah, that's what got me into this mess in the first place.

Now I know why the old Catholic church said that laymen weren't allowed to read the Bible -- that only clerics could. Yeah: all it takes is an open mind to realize that the Bible is conflicting and inconsistent. It takes a very intelligent person with a gift for persuasion and rhetoric to resolve those conflicts and inconsistencies in any way that makes sense. (And often these intelligent people use fallicious reasoning and circular arguments to reach their conclusions.)

In this context, how can I be Christian?

And: Are any of these questions and problems even important, or do they attempt to put the concept of God into a box that can never fit? Does spirituality exist outside the realm of reason and logic? If so, how does anyone ever be confident in a spiritual path?

Oy. My brain hurts.

Like the time I ran away...

I just read an interview on the Christianity Today site with Mike Yaconelli, author of Messy Spirituality.

He talks about his relationship with God as having to deal with "annoying love," where God grabs on, and just won't let go. Much like my 4-year-old who must give me a hug and tell me that he'll love me forever, especially when I'm in a bad mood and don't want to talk to anyone.

Actually, the interviewer, Dick Staub, does a lot of good interviews--John Loftus (Debunking Christianity) even talks about one of Stuab's latest interviewees, Dr. Ruth Tucker, on the DC blog.

A lot of the interviewees have the same points:
- Yep, it's messy.
- Yep, there's suffering.
- Nope, it doesn't make sense.
- Yep, I believe in Jesus anyway.

Yaconelli talks about apologists and others putting God in a neat little box that conforms to 10 Points About God. Tucker talks about the fact that the Bible was written by fallible people who were wrong a lot of the time. They agree that God doesn't make sense. Suffering doesn't make sense. And the Bible is probably wrong in a lot of places.

But they believe anyway.

I know that, in my recent conversations with Sandalstraps (and others), he's made a similar point. God is too big for rationality. God is too big for human understanding. So learning about God with your heart or your soul or your emotions is more important than learning with reason and logic. (I'm paraphrasing, and probably oversimplifying his message to me...)

After my last series of posts, I felt like I was drifting way into AtheismLand. But I believe there are many things we don't know, and I don't think our current understanding of the physical world can explain everything. (Not even most things.)

My favorite song is an 18 minute tune by Yes called Awaken. It is a song that I have an emotional reaction to every time I listen to it. And the last line is:

"Like the time I ran away/Turned around and you were standing close to me"

Yes isn't a Christian band by any stretch of the imagination, but there may be something to this. I'd say it was food for thought, but it's food for something different than thought.

Spiritual questions: Part 4

On the Dar Alluding blog, Tichius commented: "Science cannot and will never answer the larger questions of life, such as: Why are we here? Where are we going? How did we get here?" Part 1 discussed underlying assumptions of that statement; Part 2 outlined the scientific answers; Part 3 discussed Christian answers.

When comparing the scientific answers to the Christian answers, many things start bubbling to the top, and I find it very revealing to my struggle with faith.

1) Christianity's answers are much simpler and much more comforting. Science's current answers--at least the way I understand them--hold very little comfort. No one is taking care of me. No one is looking out for me. I am it. I am totally responsible for not only me, not only the human race, but for this planet. And there's no Omnipotent Being with a Master Plan to help me. Global warming? I'm responsible for doing something about it. Hate my life? I'm responsible for doing something about it. Those problems are complicated. I'm not sure I'm that smart or that powerful. Those problems are really, really scary.

2) Christianity's answers make it easy to turn off your brain and to abdicate responsibility. Don't want to worry about global warming? It's in God's plan; let's go buy a Hummer H2. Why are we here? Just serve God and everything will fall into place. Hate your life? Don't worry, you'll go to Heaven if you believe. Push the anger down. Squash the hurt feelings. Put it on Jesus. There ya go. Doesn't that feel better? (And yes, having done that before--it does feel better.)

Oh, how I (sometimes) wish I could just turn my brain off and believe. But it's not that simple. And all the contradictions in religious texts, and all the physical evidence against the "facts" of the Bible, and all the weird ways everything needs to be interpreted in order to not contradict itself -- it's not that simple. In fact, if the Bible were rewritten so that it was simple, I'd find it much easier to believe. Many people tell me that I think too much in the physical world and not enough in the spiritual world. But I don't even know what that means. In fact, I don't even know where to start.

One thing I've done, therefore, is to live my life in a way that I believe is moral. I want to do everything I can to save our fellow humans and help my brothers and sisters. That means solarizing my house. That means donating to Heifer International and the One Campaign. I need to live right now as if there is no reward for me at the end, that there is no meaning to this life beyond what I have and what I am and what I can do.

Perhaps I will find God at the end of that tunnel. As always, I have my doubts.

Spiritual questions: Part 3

On the Dar Alluding blog, Tichius commented: "Science cannot and will never answer the larger questions of life, such as: Why are we here? Where are we going? How did we get here?"

Part 1 said that Tichius implied that only Christianity could adequately answer these questions; Part 2 answered these questions from a scientific perspective (as I understand it).

Now, here is my understanding of the Christian answers to these questions (evangelical, conservative, mainline, and some liberal denominations):

1) Why are we here? To serve God and to love Jesus.

2) Where are we going? When we die, and if we accept Christ, we'll go to Heaven. If not, we go to Hell.

3) How did we get here? God created everything. (He may or may not have used evolution and/or the Big Bang to accomplish these tasks.) How did God come into existence? God has always existed.

How do we know all this? Because the Bible says so. The Bible says a lot of stuff that Christians (of all types) choose to ignore, but many Christians agree on the parts that should be ignored and the parts that are, um, true.

Now, this sounds oversimplified, but I really don't think it is. There are many, many, many schools of thought on the right way to serve God and love Jesus; there are differing schools of thought on Heaven and Hell, and how we might get there; but this is Christianity. There's more to it than that (just like there's more to science than what I wrote in Part 2), but I don't think any Christian will argue with those three answers (at least #1 and #3).

Spiritual questions: Part 2

On the Dar Alluding blog, Tichius commented: "Science cannot and will never answer the larger questions of life, such as: Why are we here? Where are we going? How did we get here?"

I think science has answered these questions.

1) Why are we here? The evidence leads us to theorize that life exists for its own sake; that life will exist anywhere it can; and that our purpose as humans is to further our species.

2) Where are we going? As a species, the evidence leads us to theorize that humankind will end of our own doing. It is also theorized that there may be a natural disaster that may wipe out humankind (though probably not all life on the planet).

3) How did we get here? The evidence leads us to theorize that some combination of evolution and natural selection led to species on this planet as they are today. In terms of how the universe began, we don't know--the Big Bang is one theory; however, science is uncovering new answers every year that may help us uncover evidence to develop a new theory on this.

How did we get to our answers? Much of the evidence is based on what we can see and what we believe follows logically, based on repeatable experiments (aka the scientific method).

Now, I'm no scientist, and a lot of what I've read is from Bill Bryson books, or Carl Sagan, or Stephen Hawking, and the above is based on my limited capability to analyze stuff I barely grasp. But part of the beauty of science is: It's OK to be wrong. If we never theorized anything, we wouldn't test anything. If the tests didn't disprove our theories, we'd never learn. So if I'm off base with current scientific thought -- that's OK. I'm just wrong.

Spiritual questions: Part 1

On the Dar Alluding blog, a comment by Tichius said, in part:

"Science cannot and will never answer the larger questions of life, such as: Why are we here? Where are we going? How did we get here?"

The first part of this post will address the assumption behind this statement.

First of all, if one concedes that science cannot currently answer some of these questions, it is still folly to conclude that it will never get there. True, many of science's answers have led to a bazillion more questions, but science has revealed truths that a mere 100 years ago we would have thought impossible. (Never mind 2,000 years ago.) In 100 more years--assuming we don't kill ourselves off as a species before that--who knows what questions will be answered?

Secondly, science's answer always begins with, "The evidence leads us to theorize that..." because our learning is not yet done. (And the evidence leads us to theorize that it is unlikely to ever be done.)

Thirdly, each religion in this world answers those three questions in a different way. There is no way to prove or disprove any of those religions. Further, there is little or no evidence (outside of religious texts) that supports the conclusions that religions provide for these answers. Tichius's statement (in context) implies that only Christianity can adequately answer these questions.

Idiotic e-mail forward

I received the following e-mail from a former co-worker, asking me to "KEEP IT GOING."

A United States Marine was attending some college courses between assignments. He had completed missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of the courses had a professor who was a vowed atheist and a member of the ACLU.

One day the professor shocked the class when he came in. He looked to the ceiling and flatly stated, "God, if you are real, then I want you to knock me off this platform. I'll give you exactly 15 minutes."

The lecture room fell silent. You could hear a pin drop. Ten minutes went by and the professor proclaimed, "Here I am God. I'm still waiting." It got down to the last couple of minutes when the Marine got out of his Chair, went up to the professor, and cold-cocked him; knocking him off the platform. The professor was out cold.

The Marine went back to his seat and sat there, silently. The other students were shocked and stunned and sat there looking on in silence. The professor eventually came to, noticeably shaken, looked at the Marine and asked, "What the hell is the matter with you? Why did you do that?" The Marine calmly replied, "God was too busy today protecting America's soldiers who are protecting your right to say stupid shit and act like an asshole. So, He sent me."

I wanted to "reply to all" and respond, somehow, that this is one of the most asinine e-mails I've ever received.

First possible response: "I'm glad the Marine is Christian enough to follow Jesus's words in Matthew 5:38-39 ("You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.") Way to make Christians look like hypocrites!"

Second possible response: "Who would Jesus assault?" (This is my wife's favorite.)

Third possible response: "Good thing the professor was a grown-up atheist and not a 14-year-old Muslim girl; the Marine would have raped her and killed her family instead of just going with a sucker punch! Ha ha! Go America!"

If anyone has any better response, I'd be happy to hear it.

Current mood: LIVID.