Religious ramble

Inspiration hit this weekend and I let it out... very rough, but I feared what would happen if I let myself edit too much on this one.  Hopefully more to come soon regarding my writing, both the experience with the novel and the direction I would like to head in next.  Also debating a brief, non-partisan discussion of certain terms and concepts, but it might be better if I have another four years to get that one together.

My Unique Message

The story of my faith, like that of any aspect of my life, is a long, and sometimes incoherent, ramble. Much like the scripture I hold dear, each part reflects important truths that can be used to instruct, encourage, assure or guide or, conversely, be taken out of context from the entirety to portray something completely different. Given my love of writing and passion for sharing those things most dear to me (from NASCAR to politics, Christian faith to charitable causes, once I get going, it is difficult to control the volume of voice and magnitude of hand movement until I have exhausted all I have to day), it has been a frustration to me that I have a message, a desire to share it and the capability to write with a love of doing so, and yet, I have no idea where to start. I have blogged on the errancy of the church in how they pretend to “love the sinner and hate the sin” and shared some of my own experience and views on faith in my novel, but both are only sound bites whose motivations were more based on life events demanding they be written than what was inside of me.

So I find myself asking, what is the message I am supposed to start with? Is it one of tolerance, like the blog post? This is something important to me and needed today, but I have done that and believe the next step is action more than additional words. Is it a message of forgiveness, endurance or compassion? I certainly can speak from experience on these subjects, but there are many who are more gifted in the methods of encouraging and motivating on these fronts. How about unity? One of the biggest problems I have seen today is division within the church on things that matter little and lack of focus on the important points we all agree on. But again, that is far from my area of expertise and thus, probably not where I am supposed to start.

This is where the major revelation comes in and I have the answer. Except that really it is where I come up with something that is not obviously wrong. The place that seems to me the best starting point is that which is unique to me. Because anyone who knows me, knows I AM unique; some call me “Sheldon”, after the uber-genius, socially inept character from Big Bang Theory (while I must point out that I am more creative and romantic than Sheldon, I must also concede the unconventional thought processes and autistic tendencies that make those things the exceptions that prove the rule); more often than not, I miss non-verbal cues that everyone else gets, am oblivious to subtleties in flirting and tend to take things far too literally. Given that, some part of me feels that any message too personal and specific to me might be totally irrelevant to most people. But it is that very thing that makes it a message I am uniquely qualified to share and I can only hope and pray it has application to someone else.

The Skeptical Approach

I have a tendency to accept nothing as truth until I have checked it out for myself and to question all motives (others' and my own) for the conclusions we reach. This has led me to change political and economic philosophies, move much closer to the Calvinist end of the spectrum and become convinced that I am never to be too certain of being right (as well as being fully convinced that those most convinced of being right are least likely to be so). It is not an easy trait to live with, as any change of religious or political philosophy is akin to treason from the perspective of those who still maintain those perspectives and at the same time, there is a certain comfort in a consistent identity with an ideology that a constant search for truth preempts. It also means a greater need to always be credible and certain that natural biases are dealt with and conclusions can be backed up with confidence.

One of the best examples of this for me is the Armenian-ism - Calvinism debate (I bring it up here not to convince the reader of my own conclusion, but to illustrate how I approach these kinds of questions). I was raised to believe in a Free Will dogma, that God did not create us to be robots and that He would not force us to come to Him any more than He would predestine someone to be lost; I not only was indoctrinated from childhood to believe this, I found it fit well with my sense of “fairness” and self-determination that so fit with the conservative American principles I knew and valued. My problem with it was that many intelligent Christians disagreed with it. I had to find out for myself and decided the best way was to read the Bible with the intent of discerning what each author believed.

I expected the end of my research to come down to a weighing of evidence, where my interpretations of each author put them at various points along the spectrum; what I found was that I could not find a single New Testament author who did not at least come close to the absolute extreme position in favor of Calvin; they all seemed to believe that those who were saved came to that salvation by being predestined, called and saved by God's grace – none who was lost had it in them to even seek God on their own or accept His word upon hearing it without intervention on His part; Old Testament readings fed into this in some instances and none went beyond neutral on the subject. My lifelong belief was shot down and despite my need to believe otherwise in the name of what I thought was right or fair, I could not object to those who knew Christ firsthand and whose messages, when approached without agenda, seemed to indicate the opposite of what I believed. And eventually, I gained new perspective on all of it by opening myself up to truth that was at odds to what I wanted to believe (one insight I gained was that if we were all truly free to choose, the only logical choice would be the one that leads to life, but since all do not choose that, we must be without free will in our bondage to sin and thus can only be free to choose otherwise through some action on God's part that has nothing to do with our own will or action).

I will stop there before I get too far down the rabbit trail and forget where I am supposed to be going.

In the search for truth, I have studied scripture and science, commentary and text, academic and lay/pop targeted writings. I can not call myself an expert on either front, but neither am I a slouch. I have read various translations and tried to learn a little about the original texts on the biblical front; in science, I start easy and dig deep, then start on something over my head and do the background research to be able to grasp it. Before I get to the final intellectual conclusion of this search (“conclusion” being a word used very loosely), I must diverge into what I have seen of my own basis for faith and the rationales I have heard from others.

Neil de Grasse Tyson once wrote of a concept he calls “God of the gaps” (a concept I do not believe he invented, but one he expresses very well); while I do not agree with him on the subject of religion and see in him an illogical animosity toward the God he claims to doubt the existence of, he makes a valid point on the way in which we erroneously conclude a need for God. In short, he says that our need for God begins where our understanding of science ends. Before we understood the way orbits worked, we proclaimed that God must hold the planets in place (something with a Biblical basis, depending on how literally you apply certain verses); once we had gravity down, we found it to be unstable enough to need help... until we learned that the orbit of the planets were elliptical; once we got that down, we needed God to intervene where the gravitational forces of the various bodies caused problems... until we figured out how to solve the three-body problem. And that is just three steps along the way in figuring out one tiny sliver of how our universe worked. I heard (and still hear) people exclaiming how they know God exists because they see a tree and know someone created it or they know God exists because he put the Earth in a perfect place with perfect conditions for life, without understanding that life exists in volcanic ocean vents that are dark and hot and exists in arctic cold, dry and wet, all extremes found on our planet; wherever life springs forth, it does so in a way suited to its environment, not because it had an environment suited to bringing life.

Why does any of this matter? There are two reasons.

First, such teaching is a stumbling block to those who are educated, or at least intellectually inclined toward understanding science. Though most of us (science nerds) excuse a non-scientist thinking that the big bang was supposed to have happened when two Higgs Bosons collided as a harmless inaccuracy from one trying to keep up, some of the inaccurate claims and straw man arguments from Christians send a message that the Christian faith is only suited to those with limited knowledge (especially those that ridicule complex science from an oversimplified perspective); if the proof of God's existence or the flaw in contrary theories is based in a false premise, what use is Christianity other than as a myth to placate the uneducated?

Some in the church might care little for this consequence of their statements, as many in the upper reaches of scientific work will not be reached regardless of our sensitivities in the public discourse. Some might say just as well, as they would just as well not have to associate with “Sheldon” in church (though I do not claim these people are the majority, I know for a fact they exist in not-so-small numbers). For such people, I throw out the second problem in God of the gaps theology, which applies as well to taking too hard a stand on whatever the current scripture vs science debate is.

For Galileo and Copernicus, evidence that all the bodies of the heavens did not orbit the Earth went contrary to church teaching and could mean punishment as severe as death. In the latter case, he kept his mouth shut, in the former, he went on trial. In both cases, what they believed went against contemporary interpretation of scripture and in favor of scientific inquiry; that belief is one that science has held firm on and Biblical interpretation has shifted to accept (and yes, I know that the interpretation of that time did not agree with earlier interpretations; we easily accept our current interpretation as the only one, while wondering how stupid people must have been to take “it [the Earth] shall never be moved” as a literal declaration that the universe revolved around us, without considering what future generations will think of us). Today, there are debates over the age of the Earth, evolution, cosmology and even environmental issues that pit the Bible against science (sadly, some will argue for a 6000 year old planet without knowing where that number came from or any arguments for or against its accuracy; some will even insist that the Bible says it is so; but again I diverge...). Beyond what these debates say to the intellectual seeker, they also place the faith of believers on shaky ground (a subject I undertake without reference to the previously mentioned Armenian-Calvinist debate); if belief in God depended on the Earth being flat or the Sun and planets orbiting it, then when that debate is done away with and the opposite is shown to be true, what happens to the reason, need or argument for God? If belief in God depends on Him making the Earth in the perfect location for life, then what happens if we discover life on Mars or Europa or some less “perfect” place? Do we really want the faith of our children to be based on an absolute stand on shaky science after so many centuries of Biblical interpretation shifting to accept new discoveries? I would argue that at a minimum, we should admit our uncertainties on these points and take the unyielding positions on such things as God's omnipotence, the free gift of salvation and who wins in the end.

God of the Gaps Revisited

Hopefully, the science vs religion rant has not set so much of a negative tone as to miss its original intent, but it is part of “my” story and provides background to the conclusion, because now that I have shot holes all in the God of the gaps approach to religion, I hope to patch a few of them (but not so many as to excuse that form of apologetics altogether).

I hate to use tired cliches (more than the reader can know), but when it comes to the issue of proof and God, you can no more disprove Him than disprove unicorns. No matter how many places you show a unicorn not to be, there are always more places to look; no matter how many things science explains a method for that does not require a deity, the lack of need for one does not demand that one not exist and just because the planets orbit the sun in accordance with Newtonian physics (with the adjustments made by Einstein) does not mean that God does not have His hand on them, moving them in a way that looks like physics, or (more to my liking, which means nothing) that He did not create the Universe to act in accordance with physical laws He created. Either way works.

And so, my short answer comes out here: intellectually, I find the odds of God to be 50/50. No matter how far down I go through Newton and Einstein, into quantum physics and string theory, I find that at any point, God has just as good a chance of being in the mix as not. Having no knowledge that takes us around the next bend at any given point, it is just as likely that two m-branes coming in contact sparked the big bang as it is that God set it off (I know that giving God a 50/50 chance of having intervened at any point along the line actually gives him an extremely high likelihood of having intervened at some point, 1 – (0.5)^n, to be exact, but I will no more get into that than I will enter into the semantic argument over chance being the nothing that something supposedly came from). There is just no way of knowing and at some point, we are so far out of our own reality for causation that all bets are off. The only point I want to make from this intellectual conclusion is that I am very suspect of so-called scientists who are open minded on most subjects being so militant and angry in their objection to God's existence (as in the case of NdGT, mentioned earlier).

So with even odds using only logical means, do we just flip a coin or take Pascal's wager (which in itself is flawed, since it does not address who God is if He does exist and therefore has no answer for whether Judaism or Islam, protestant Christian or Catholic or any of the polytheistic religions are correct)?

In my case, since it takes little to tip the scales when started at an even balance between God and no God, all I need is anything, no matter how insignificant. But I find so much more, though I must admit upfront, that much of what I find is imperfect and personal in nature. I make no apology for this.

Beauty is Truth

Where a look at two or three failures in God of the gaps theology might convince one of a pattern of that line of thinking failing and thus lead them to abandon any call for God to fill in the blanks, I find something else. I find beauty in the way it all plays out. But even more, I find opportunities for science to illustrate His work.

I just heard a sermon that used the weaving metaphor for God's creation and find it fitting in relation to the development of scientific knowledge and belief in God. Where we might have had a simple rough weave of creation that left us with a choice between a simple scientific theory and a simple creationist theology, what we find is increasingly intricate detail at each level with reflections of God manifesting at each; while the threads become ever more fine and higher in count, His filaments are always present if you look close enough. For instance, if Newtonian physics worked all the time and atoms were the basic building block of everything, it would be easier to settle on science, as all the answers would be there and lack nothing for God to fill in; at the same time, the arguments against faith would be fewer – it would only take crediting God for atoms and simple physical laws to get there. Of course, if Newtonian physics did not work and improvement on the math was deemed impossible, the opposite would hold true.

Einstein, when faced with the probabilistic nature of quantum physics is said to have proclaimed, “God does not play dice” and I commented earlier on arguments I have heard about the “chance” that is supposed to be the nothing that everything came from being logically inconsistent. But both play out well and seem to be proven time and again in scientific experiments (as well as such inconsistencies as wave-particle duality and the ability of quantum particles to be in two places or two states simultaneously); both also throw a wrench in the deterministic argument that classical physics sought, while leaving the door wide open for divine intervention; what if the “chance” or “probability” that science says rules all is actually the hand/will of God (I do not propose that it is, as this leaves open the same false basis for faith that I eschewed earlier; I put this forth as a small part of a bigger picture that I find necessary to move from the agnostic fulcrum that our knowledge leaves us with)? As another example, go a couple steps beyond the atomic level and you find that the subatomic particles many of us were taught as being the basic building blocks for all (specifically protons and neutrons) are made up of quarks; it takes three of these quarks (two of one kind and one of another) to make one of these particles, which have specific and similar masses. But these quarks, by themselves, have no mass; they appear to be just bundles of energy that can not exist outside of these special combinations; to me, this sounds like something coming from nothing, that concept both offensive to those who don't believe in chance and yet key to the Genesis creation. All of this energy, force without mass, combining in ways that create mass, making up the universe (in my imperfect understanding of current physical models, this is where the Higgs Fields, of which the famous Boson is a less than critical component, comes into play, with the interaction of particles and field creating mass), it has echoes of God speaking the universe into existence, the breath He used to bring us into existence the energy, His words the field that brings it all together and the fact that there is no end to it all appears to me as the fingerprint of the Creator who spoke to Job of how lacking he was in understanding the great mysteries to which God was privy.

Following this line of thought one step further into the building blocks of the universe, if everything is made up of different frequencies of vibrating “strings”, then once again, we have a singular building block (breath of a single God?) operating in different ways (words of that God) manifesting in every trace of mass (omniscient) and every force (omnipotent).

Must it be this way because it fits? No. All of these theories are secular in nature and exist independent of God. But my heart says when centuries of scientific investigation show a universe that winks at me with the fulfillment of Biblical truth at every level of inquiry, it can not be ignored. Science does not disagree, either. John Archibald Wheeler, the scientist credited with the discovery of black holes, believed that they must exist because they can. He theorized their existence, proved the math and only later was shown to be correct; in fact, we can't see black holes and must conclude their existence and location by the observed effects (which were theorized, also), but still, these exotic entities, which break most of the laws of classical physics, were believed to be true because of the elegant truths that came along with them and were accepted as proved because the predicted effects have been observed and shown to fit the model (Wheeler also tells of the possibility of particles moving back and forth in time throughout the universe, which means you can add eternal to the adjectives for God's word and breath to the list given in the last paragraph). The Higgs Boson was important for the same reason: its existence at a certain energy level fit perfectly with a beautiful model of physics that called for a Higgs Field that included such a boson; string theory, too, is ardently supported by a group of mathematicians and physicists because of the way it so perfectly fits and explains all, despite the fact that many think it is an impossible theory to test (putting it squarely in the same boat with God... except that God actually has personal implications). Ian Stewart (in the book from which I stole the title as the heading for this section) also comments on the beauty of patterns in nature and the way certain numbers and symmetries occur.

So, I do not place my faith in any of the things I have said, but I have found the beauty of God's character, His hand, His work, in all I have learned. There is nothing to disprove, as I don't care if something new is discovered to explain quarks; in fact, I believe that whatever it is will show some piece of God in how it works. It is fine with me if strings do not exist or if they are made up of yet another particle, wave or whatever. God is in the gaps and has created endless levels to the physical world that we might never get to the bottom of it all.

Beyond the Science

Many use their personal experience as their primary evidence for God. Internally, I can do the same, but again, my intellect and understanding of cause and effect leave me skeptical enough of others' perceptions and anecdotal evidence to do the same. I know that human emotion can be shaped by belief in something that does not exist. I know that these emotions can have effects on behavior and attitude that can bring about positive changes in both attitude and life outcomes. Even having experienced manifestations of a pentecostal (or holy-roller) nature, I know that we can cause ourselves to pass out, our hearts to race, our eyes to tear, our minds to become confused and even medical science has proven a placebo effect that can not be explained by current biological, chemical and physical knowledge (whether with or without a religious belief).

But I still do not do justice to the work of God in my life if I ignore the personal aspect completely.

I have seen healings and I have seen unanswered prayers whose purposes were only later revealed; these have helped my faith, if they neither proved it nor were necessary to it. There have been relationships restored, forgiveness brought about and emotional healings delivered, all of which count as more to me than the physical prayers and border on being sufficient for me, whether they mean anything to anyone else or not; still they are not necessary to my faith, nor do these miracles sustain my faith long enough to make a lifelong difference. I have even seen events that I (with a graduate certificate in statistics and skeptical approach to the use of coincidence as evidence for the supernatural) can not allow credit for to go anywhere but God; these really help to keep me believing, but given time enough without them, they fade. I have to admit that the anger of many atheists (and the fact that so many supposedly intelligent and rational people prefer that title to the agnostic label that they finally concede when backed into a corner) also serves to build my faith; there must be something or someone there for that anger to be focused on; but still, that is a weak premise for such a significant conclusion.

No, after I finish with the logical inquiry and proceed with the more liberal intellectual inquiries into what fits and what seems right and review all the evidence in my life's story, I still struggle and feel that God would not have me pretend that I do not. He created me, He knows me and He is no fan of hypocrites. Perhaps my struggles have been a “thorn in the side” such as Paul had, either to keep me humble (very possible) or to keep me sympathetic to others who struggle – maybe both.

Finally, as much as I would like to ignore the bedrock of my faith here and know that it is the hardest of all to explain, I know I must go there.

When, at my lowest points, when I least feel the presence of God and am least convinced that He even exists, I know that He forgives my doubts. It sounds ironic that a God whose existence is called into question can forgive, but it is the most real of all to me and the most rational. In the end, it brings me back around to Him. Faith is a gift of the Spirit, given by God; if faith lacks, then it is reason to ask to be granted more; if faith is a weakness, it is more evidence of His love and faithfulness that it is not precondition to His acceptance of us.

Maybe no one will understand, but it is the message I have and am most qualified to give.