On Morality

In early life, Lewis tended to believe there was no God because, if there were an all-powerful God, surely he wouldn't let such bad things happen in the world. But this did not make logical sense. Claiming things as "good" or "bad" indicates a moral law. And this morality goes beyond simply doing what is best for an individual or a group of people.

Following this logic, Lewis concluded that there must be some force or entity that underscores our morality. The real kicker seems to be that this sense of morality lies within ourselves, the one piece of evidence for which we have "inside information".

On Atheism and Agnosticism

Lewis says that it takes great faith to be a "hard" atheist, believing there is no God. Religious people have the freedom to believe that most people on earth are partially correct, but atheists have to believe that most people on earth are completely wrong. This indeed takes great faith.

There are also "soft" atheists (or agnostics), who believe the existence of God to be unlikely, and ultimately irrelevant to their daily lives. But the existence of God is hugely important for the daily life of man, particularly if that God created our moral code. It boils down to wishful thinking for many… life is just easier if one assumes there is no God.

Others might disbelieve in a God, as Lewis once did, because "a good God wouldn't let bad things happen." This is a sort of attempted proof by contradiction that does not explain where good and bad come from, hence Lewis's dilemma.

On Christianity

As far as Christianity goes, most people see day-to-day a watered-down, simplified version of Christianity. They might see the caricatures of the 24-hour news cycle. They might see a bunch of rules and regulations to follow. But they don't see the real thing.

Lewis arguments for the truth of Christianity are as follows:

• Huge explanatory power for the existence of good and evil in the world today.
• Has a "ring of truth": anything that unexpected/unpredictable is too much to just make up.

His response to counter-arguments against Christianity:

• "It's too complex": life is complex, so a simple religion wouldn't make sense!

by elishapeterson

In the talk, Smolin says that the notion of an external God or Creator is incompatible with our current understanding of the universe as fundamentally "relational" or "relativistic". It seems to me that his arguments do just the opposite… point to and validate the nature of God with respect to the universe.

The Argument

To summarize, the talk discusses three ways in which we (the human race) have understood the universe over time:

• Heirarchical universe: the earth is at the center, everything has a natural place, and the "heavens" are the celestial sphere on the outside where God looks down on our universe;
• Newtonian universe: stuff moves around to a "fixed absolute framework of space and time", and God is on the outside… according to Smolin, Newton believed God to be that frame of reference;
• Relativistic (or relational) universe: the universe is simply a network of relationships, with nothing fixed or absolute.

Says Smolin regarding the third model:

"There is no meaning to say absolutely where something is. There's only where it is relative to everything else that is. And this network of relations is ever-evolving, so we call it a relational universe. All properties of things are about these kinds of relationships. And also, if you're embedded inside this network of relationships, your view of the world has to do with what information comes to you through the network of relations, and there's no place for an omniscient observer or an outside intelligence knowing everything and making everything… So the main slogan here is that there's nothing outside the universe, so there's no place to put an explanation for something outside, so in such a relational universe, if you come upon something that's ordered and structured… in a relational universe the only possible explanation was somehow it made itself. There must be mechanisms of self-organization inside the universe that make things, because there's no place to put a maker outside, as there was in the Aristotelian and Newtonian universe."

The Flaws in the Argument

Smolin seems to be fairly sure that there is no God out there. But a few other explanations come to mind:

First, the statements appearing in the paragraph above are (A) all information comes to you through the network, (B) there is nothing outside the network, and (C) there is no maker and order is self-generated. Since (B) implies (A) and (C), but the reverse is not necessarily true, at the very least (B) must be a fundamental assumption that is being made. And there simply is no grounds for making that assumption, any more than one could make that assumption about the Newtonian universe. And one can definitely not assume (A) and infer (B), as seems to be the case above.

Yet even assuming that (B) is true, one cannot reason that there is no maker. In order to be compatible with Smolin's worldview, God or the Creator would have to be a part of our "universe". Taking the definition of the universe as a network of relationships, that simply means that He is connected to something in our universe. To borrow a topological term, the universe consists of our "connected component". Considering that "Enoch walked with God", this certainly fits with the God of Christianity… in fact the story of the Bible is the story of how God connects and relates to people. The universe would be defined to be the "connected component" in which we reside, to borrow a term from topology.

A third possibility is that our universe consists of more than just a single physical network, that God exists within another kind of network that is more than just particles and energy.

Who First Understood the Universe as Relational?

The Christian Bible describes a very similar transition from a hierarchical structure to a relational structure. In the Old Testament, the Law is handed down from above, and access to God is restricted to the priests. In the Old Testament, the coming new covenant is described as follows:

" 'This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,' declares the LORD. 'I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,' declares the LORD." (Jeremiah 31:33-34)

In the New Testament, Jesus comes to "fulfill the law" and brings a new relational covenant. To me, this seems to make the argument for God even more potent. Consider that thousands of years before we came to understand the world in terms of networks, Jesus Christ said the following to his disciples:

"I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit… Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing." (John 15:1-2,4-5)

Jesus uses a vine with branches as a metaphor for His relationship with His followers, and describes the relationships themselves as a mutual "abiding". So the "vine" is simply a relational network! He also describes the Father and the Holy Spirit thus:

"Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works." (John 14:10)

"I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you." (John 14:16-17)

So Jesus is connected to His followers; he in turn is connected to God, who is part of the network and also oversees the network as the "vinedresser". The Holy Spirit's role is to provide a further connection between the believers and God. In this relational/network view, the Trinity is a special set of three nodes within the network.

Final Thoughts

Most of those who believe that there is a God do so because of their relationship with Him: their "observation" of His (usually non-physical) presence and His actions upon the world. And to this group of people (which includes me) the presence of God is observable, although not in any physical or scientific sense.

If we assume that there is nothing outside of our network (universe), we will try and try and try to find an explanation that does not require something outside the network. Perhaps this is a reasonable assumption for someone who cannot measure an external presence. In my view, this is the only argument that can be made against an external presence. Perhaps the relational universe theory should begin with something like the following "no scientific study has validated the existence of an external God, so we will assume that either none exists or one exists that does not influence the observed laws of nature". Otherwise put, the existence of God is not a matter for science to decide.

My personal viewpoint is that quantum physics leaves ample room for God to interact with the world in a way that can't be measured. The relationships in the relativistic universe change in a way that is fundamentally "random". Average outcomes are predictable, but specific outcomes are not (on a small scale). So in theory a higher being could interact with the world by influencing the outcome of these small-scale events. Just like one toss of a pair of dice won't tell you whether or not they are weighted, so one change by a higher being wouldn't be detectable in our current model of the physical world. In a Newtonian universe, God could only play the blind watchmaker; in the quantum universe, there is far more room in our physical laws for a God to interact with our world.

by elishapeterson

Two Groups

I see two groups facing each other. On the right, zealous believers provide "incontrovertible proofs" of the existence of God, the kind most scientists would dismiss, and make those of us who are both Christians and scientists groan. They claim the Bible has no contradictions, that God is a rational being, and so can't "create a rock too big for him to lift."

On the left stand some who argue that belief in God is mere superstition, that no concrete evidence has ever been mounted in support of his existence. They either argue that such belief is irrational and antiquated, or that the world can be explained without him, ergo he doesn't exist. Some may not go so far, but merely state that if there is a God, he is irrelevant to their own lives.

I have come to believe that both groups are mistaken. Indeed, without contradiction, there could be no God! No logical argument can ever prove or disprove the existence of God.

Contradictions and Human Thinking

To the second group, those who claim irrelevance have no excuse, for they are relying merely on the convenience of a world without God. Imagine playing "Deal or no Deal" with a $10 billion prize. Who would walk away with $100,000 if the case with the big prize had not been opened? This is Pascal's wager. It's simply too big to ignore!

For the more logically inclined, mathematicians know that human logic itself is inconsistent, and they use logic to prove it! "This sentence is false." Modern physics has shown that even fundamental physical properties such as position and velocity cannot be simultaneously known! The very scientific method which set out to draw everything within the limits of human knowledge discovered that the task is doomed! And here is the most fundamental limitation, according to Pascal: mankind has achieved magnificent feats in engineering, arts, mathematics, imagination, and science. Yet is utterly helpless when it comes to taming its own heart. In modern terms, who can keep a New Year's Resolution? We believe we control so much of the environment around us, and yet can control so little of ourselves. We ignore this fact until it is too big to ignore. And what then, when science can provide no answers?

Contradictions and Christianity

What would I say to the first group? If they claim to have proven that God exists, their argument cannot be based on human logic, and therefore not convincing to those who believe in logical reasoning. To those who say that God is rational, I would argue that God can create a rock too big for him to lift. Is there a contradiction here? Absolutely! But if we could explain everything about God, would he be worthy of worship? The whole point is that the statement is completely beyond our understanding.

Biblical teachings are filled with contradictions. Paul writes in Romans 7, "If I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it." He is pointing out the inherent contradictions in our own nature. How can we both do something and not do something? We have free will, yet God knows the future. Paul also argues in Romans that we are saved through faith, yet James claims that "faith without works is dead." So which is it, faith or works that provides salvation?

The Biggest Contradiction

And what bigger contradiction is there than Jesus Christ, the son of God and son of man, fully God and fully man? The man who came to fulfill the law and the prophets, and yet was rejected by the people to whom that law was entrusted. Who said "the first will be last, and the last will be first" and "whoever wants to be first must be your slave" and "whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it" and "he who believes in me will live, even though he dies". The prince of peace who came "not to bring peace, but division." The immortal man who was killed. The man who proved that God is not rational… for Jesus as a man could not lift the earth, and yet he could!

When we try to explain faith rationally, we are denying that we hold the proof in our own hearts. I am a Christian, I believe in God, not for what my mind tells me but for the ways in which God has changed my life. Unless I believed in my heart, I would not truly believe! Wow… I just realized that any doubts I have had are birthed in my head. We should never entrust our faith to our human knowledge! And so I hear "your heart of hearts is true, and always has been" when I doubt the most…

Finding God

What about those who believe the world can be explained without God? I don't believe they can be disproved. At some point, they will face a situation which cannot be explained by human logic, by their understanding of the world, and they know this. The question at this point is… will they ignore the tug in their heart that says something isn't right? or will they see if maybe, just maybe, there is a way to make sense of the contradictions.

Some might argue that contradictions are merely illusory, that they are provided merely to give us something to grapple with and in so doing come closer to God. And indeed they serve that purpose, but to call them illusory is to change the meaning of contradiction.

Others might argue that contradictions disprove the Christian faith. Indeed, they prove that the Christian faith is not human wisdom. We find God in the contradictions of life. We just have to accept that contradictions exist!

If you want to understand the world, you must understand your own self. If you want to resolve the contradictions in your heart, seek God. If you want to find God, seek him with all of your heart.

"You will find me when you seek me with all your heart."

"I will call those my people who are not my people."

by elishapeterson

for in my inner being i delight in God's law; but i see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. [rom 7.22:23]

for if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. [rom 8.13:14]

Huh?

That's always my reaction when I read Romans 7. How can you do what you don't want to do? How can "sin" be making the choice for you? Doesn't that take away personal responsibility? I feel like I've come to a new understanding of this passage in the past few weeks. For me, here is the key, in the words of a wise man: we are not physical beings with a spiritual dimension; rather, we are spiritual beings with a physical dimension.

Here's my interpretation: we usually use "I" for our physical and spiritual selves interchangeably, and Paul is distinguishing between the two. Most live entirely for their physical selves and many live for their physical nature while acknowledging a spiritual dimension. Every physical being is sinful. The key is recognizing that we don't have to live for our physical selves; by surrendering ourselves to God we may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in this world caused by evil desires [ii.pet.1.4].

Living within our physical selves is like staying in a cage when the door is wide open. It means living incompletely when there is so much more to life. By entering into God's family, we have the opportunity to live for our full, spiritual selves, and to recognize that living for our physical selves is a choice. Sin is not a choice for the physical self, but it is for the spiritual self.

For me, every time I sin I am refusing this choice, refusing to acknowledge the truth of my spiritual self. Jesus took the blindfold off, and I'm trying to put it back on. i do not understand what I do. for what i want to do i do not do, but what i hate i do [rom.7.15].

I am trying to live for the reality of my spiritual self. In this light, my body is a gift from God that I can use for Him. It is a property of my existence, but not the definition of my existence. Paul says:

therefore, i urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God- this is your spiritual act of worship. do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but 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. [rom.12.1:2]

by elishapeterson

cast your bread upon the waters, for after many days you will find it again. [ecc.11.1]

When I was 10 I thought this meant you'd get soggy bread, but I think God has shown me what this really means… and I count myself very blessed.

by elishapeterson

How many times does Jesus ask, what do you want? [luk.18.41] How many of us take the time to truly answer that question, beyond the superficial level? Maybe I want a new house, maybe I want to get published, maybe I just want to get out of grad school, but that's not the deepest answer to the question. I have to look underneath that to my underlying fears, uncertainties, and beliefs.

I still haven't answered the question. Maybe I'm afraid to discover the answer. Maybe there is no answer to the question, or maybe the answer continually changes. So today, I'm sufficient with this: I want to hear and believe God's truth. I want assurance on the right path to follow. I want to fellowship with other believers. I want to pray with someone else. I want to hunger and thirst for righteousness. I want to desire.

by elishapeterson

for i am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. [rom.8.38:39]

This is why I run:

of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body. [ecc.12.14]

This is why I do math:

there is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. [psa.19.3]

by elishapeterson

by elishapeterson