A few months ago, my wife and I attended a seminar at Duke University featuring John Lennox, a noted mathematician and philosopher from Oxford. For about two hours, he laid out the reasoning behind his Christian faith and how his science and logic are only validated through a Christian worldview. Ironically, his most compelling story had nothing to do with math or philosophy at all, but was rather a portrait of the gospel told through marriage. Just in time for Christmas, here is a loose paraphrase of his personal take on the gospel offered by Jesus:
Imagine if, when you had first met the woman you desired to marry, you said to her: "If you cook all of my meals for the next fifty years, and do all of the cleaning and raise our kids, and love me perfectly, then after all of that I will decide that you are worthy to get married to me." Any self-respecting woman would likely slap you in the face if you had such stringent and life-long requirements before you even deemed her worthy of marriage!
And yet, how many of us seem to view a relationship with God in this way? Too many people, often even self-proclaimed Christians, seem to think that God requires us to live a righteous life before He could ever accept us. Nearly every religion raises a standard we have to live up to before we are seen as righteous in the eyes of God or others. And yet our very hearts seem to cry out for the opposite. Going back to the marriage example, John Lennox pointed out that it was BECAUSE he decided to marry his wife up front and love her unconditionally that she feels the desire to love him and serve him back.
It is the same way with God, thanks to the grace offered to us through Christ. Through Christ's perfect life and sacrifice for our sins, we are seen as righteous in the eyes of God regardless of our past, present, or future sin. It is a gift of unconditional love and acceptance. And it is BECAUSE we are already loved and accepted by God that we feel a sincere and joyful desire to love Him and our neighbors with our whole hearts.
Merry Christmas Eve!
Monday, December 24, 2012
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Some thoughts about why school shootings happen
Yesterday 26 people, including 20 young children, were shot to death at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Connecticut. In addition to being the second worst school shooting in American history, behind only the massacre at Virginia Tech, the shooter's choice of an elementary school (as opposed to the more typical high school or college setting) was particularly shocking and saddening.
Already a common theme in both the media and the general public is the question of "how could somebody do this?!" Indeed, whenever an American citizen performs an unspeakably horrific act to his peers, I have noticed a general trend to immediately dismiss the perpetrator as insane because they cannot think of a single answer to this question. This conclusion would make sense if every shooter had a clinical history of schizophrenia or severe psychological impairment, and perhaps it will come to light that the current shooter did indeed have a medical condition. But from previous shootings, for example Columbine in 1999 and Aurora in 2012, we know that very often the perpetrators came from normal two-parent families, were very intelligent academically, and had no mental condition whatsoever (in the clinical sense).
Therefore it seems very dangerous to me to dismiss all shooters as clinically insane. It may be a comforting thought to many that no sane person could ever shoot innocent people, but I believe we have very clear historical evidence to the contrary. To pass off these perpetrators as merely crazy is to ignore the underlying societal problems and worldviews that cause some people to act like this in the first place. A somewhat related example I can think of is the tendency for many to similarly dismiss Hitler and the terrorists behind 9/11 as insane, when in reality those people were very intelligent and in control of their faculties and simply operating under a very different set of values and worldviews.
If insanity is out of the question for many of these cases, it brings us back full circle to the question: "what could cause somebody to do this?" In this post, I argue that there are 3 things that modern American culture has forgotten about our society and human nature, and only by relearning them can we truly confront the underlying problem.
1) Humans are not intrinsically good beings
I have noticed a recent trend, particularly among secular humanists, to consider all humans as inherently good. To me, this is not only a dangerous worldview to hold, it is laughably out of touch with the reality of the world. Consider just a smattering of evidence. Every civilization in the world, until the past two hundred years, has endorsed slavery. Most superpowers in world history have felt entitled to pillage, kill, and rape indiscriminately upon conquering a new nation. An estimated 1.6 million children are currently being sex trafficked right here in America. I could literally go on for hours, but honestly I think you all get the point. I mean just read the news every day and it gets pretty obvious that we have a selfish and twisted nature. To those who still think that humans are fundamentally good in nature, let me ask you this: if America's entire police force announced it would stand down for a single day, and no laws were enforced, what do you think the American people would do to each other? We need to confront our sinful and selfish nature before we can successfully restrain it. And on that note...
2) Humans need accountability
Because humans have evil tendencies, we need accountability from our family and communities to help restrain our wickedness. An excellent example is pedophiles such as Jerry Sandusky. What many fail to understand is that nobody becomes a pedophile, or even a more conventional adulterer, overnight. It takes years for a person's moral state to gradually decline to the point where even an affair or molestation can be self-rationalized to gratify selfish desires. What is crucial to note here is that this self-rationalization typically only makes sense to the perpetrator when they are able to isolate their thoughts and actions from society. This is why Tiger Woods was so careful to keep all of his affairs secret from absolutely everyone, he instinctively knew that isolation was the only way he could ever continue to justify his actions. As long as everything remained personal and a secret, he continued to act in increasingly debauched ways, it was only when things came to light that he was able to self-acknowledge and confront his demons. The point here is that if people valued openness and accountability from their family, friends, and church, I think we would find a lot less people on a long-slippery slope. I know that I personally have benefited enormously from the accountability given by my wife, my friends, and my church, and seeking out and welcoming this accountability has fought back a lot of personal demons created by my selfishness and sinful nature.
3) Humans need to worship something
I am not just referring to religious people! My point here is that no matter what your worldview is, everybody chooses to worship something in their lives as the ultimate or most important thing(s). The Christian argument, which I firmly believe, is that even good things, when elevated to "God" things, become bad things. Besides the lack of accountability, a major problem in American culture right now is we are worshiping a lot of things that were never meant to be worshiped. For example, many teenagers idolize social popularity and acceptance, to the point where it feels like their life is over if they are socially marginalized. This was likely a key point related to the Columbine shootings, in which the shooters were bullied and social outcasts. If your entire purpose depends on this popularity, then why not end your life if you cannot achieve it? Why not kill those who have socially shunned you? If sexual gratification is the ultimate goal in life, then why not have affairs or engage in prostitution? My point here is that if you idolize worldly things such as popularity, money, power, or sexual gratification, this can actually lead you to horrific acts such as school shootings or sex trafficking even if you are a clinically rational person. It is not insanity that has led people here, it's their idolatrous worldview! We were not designed to worship worldly things: they are not only inherently unstable (how easy it is to lose power, money, and popularity!), but also unable to lastingly fill the God-hole that is in all of our hearts. For that we need Jesus, and I will post a series on the need for grace over the Christmas season.
Already a common theme in both the media and the general public is the question of "how could somebody do this?!" Indeed, whenever an American citizen performs an unspeakably horrific act to his peers, I have noticed a general trend to immediately dismiss the perpetrator as insane because they cannot think of a single answer to this question. This conclusion would make sense if every shooter had a clinical history of schizophrenia or severe psychological impairment, and perhaps it will come to light that the current shooter did indeed have a medical condition. But from previous shootings, for example Columbine in 1999 and Aurora in 2012, we know that very often the perpetrators came from normal two-parent families, were very intelligent academically, and had no mental condition whatsoever (in the clinical sense).
Therefore it seems very dangerous to me to dismiss all shooters as clinically insane. It may be a comforting thought to many that no sane person could ever shoot innocent people, but I believe we have very clear historical evidence to the contrary. To pass off these perpetrators as merely crazy is to ignore the underlying societal problems and worldviews that cause some people to act like this in the first place. A somewhat related example I can think of is the tendency for many to similarly dismiss Hitler and the terrorists behind 9/11 as insane, when in reality those people were very intelligent and in control of their faculties and simply operating under a very different set of values and worldviews.
If insanity is out of the question for many of these cases, it brings us back full circle to the question: "what could cause somebody to do this?" In this post, I argue that there are 3 things that modern American culture has forgotten about our society and human nature, and only by relearning them can we truly confront the underlying problem.
1) Humans are not intrinsically good beings
I have noticed a recent trend, particularly among secular humanists, to consider all humans as inherently good. To me, this is not only a dangerous worldview to hold, it is laughably out of touch with the reality of the world. Consider just a smattering of evidence. Every civilization in the world, until the past two hundred years, has endorsed slavery. Most superpowers in world history have felt entitled to pillage, kill, and rape indiscriminately upon conquering a new nation. An estimated 1.6 million children are currently being sex trafficked right here in America. I could literally go on for hours, but honestly I think you all get the point. I mean just read the news every day and it gets pretty obvious that we have a selfish and twisted nature. To those who still think that humans are fundamentally good in nature, let me ask you this: if America's entire police force announced it would stand down for a single day, and no laws were enforced, what do you think the American people would do to each other? We need to confront our sinful and selfish nature before we can successfully restrain it. And on that note...
2) Humans need accountability
Because humans have evil tendencies, we need accountability from our family and communities to help restrain our wickedness. An excellent example is pedophiles such as Jerry Sandusky. What many fail to understand is that nobody becomes a pedophile, or even a more conventional adulterer, overnight. It takes years for a person's moral state to gradually decline to the point where even an affair or molestation can be self-rationalized to gratify selfish desires. What is crucial to note here is that this self-rationalization typically only makes sense to the perpetrator when they are able to isolate their thoughts and actions from society. This is why Tiger Woods was so careful to keep all of his affairs secret from absolutely everyone, he instinctively knew that isolation was the only way he could ever continue to justify his actions. As long as everything remained personal and a secret, he continued to act in increasingly debauched ways, it was only when things came to light that he was able to self-acknowledge and confront his demons. The point here is that if people valued openness and accountability from their family, friends, and church, I think we would find a lot less people on a long-slippery slope. I know that I personally have benefited enormously from the accountability given by my wife, my friends, and my church, and seeking out and welcoming this accountability has fought back a lot of personal demons created by my selfishness and sinful nature.
3) Humans need to worship something
I am not just referring to religious people! My point here is that no matter what your worldview is, everybody chooses to worship something in their lives as the ultimate or most important thing(s). The Christian argument, which I firmly believe, is that even good things, when elevated to "God" things, become bad things. Besides the lack of accountability, a major problem in American culture right now is we are worshiping a lot of things that were never meant to be worshiped. For example, many teenagers idolize social popularity and acceptance, to the point where it feels like their life is over if they are socially marginalized. This was likely a key point related to the Columbine shootings, in which the shooters were bullied and social outcasts. If your entire purpose depends on this popularity, then why not end your life if you cannot achieve it? Why not kill those who have socially shunned you? If sexual gratification is the ultimate goal in life, then why not have affairs or engage in prostitution? My point here is that if you idolize worldly things such as popularity, money, power, or sexual gratification, this can actually lead you to horrific acts such as school shootings or sex trafficking even if you are a clinically rational person. It is not insanity that has led people here, it's their idolatrous worldview! We were not designed to worship worldly things: they are not only inherently unstable (how easy it is to lose power, money, and popularity!), but also unable to lastingly fill the God-hole that is in all of our hearts. For that we need Jesus, and I will post a series on the need for grace over the Christmas season.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
The practicality of sexual morality
I know that including the word "practicality" in a post about sexual purity is somewhat ironic. Waiting until marriage to have sex can feel like anything but practical from the point of view of a young and single person. So when I talk about the practicality of sexual morality, I am not referring to the ease of demonstrating this virtue, but rather the broad and important impacts that it has on society.
First things first, what exactly is meant by sexual morality? As CS Lewis puts it in his book Mere Christianity:
"There is no getting away from it: the Christian rule is, 'Either marriage, with complete faithfulness to your partner, or else total abstinence.'"
A 2002 survey found that about 95% of people in America had premarital sex. Interestingly, 73% of Americans identify as Christians. Clearly, there is an apparent contradiction here. I believe that part of the underlying problem here is that for too long, many churches have painted sexual morality as a purely spiritual matter. This is a problem because it creates the illusion that waiting until marriage does not have any actual benefits besides promoting your own spiritual well-being. This will not be a convincing enough reason for most young people to endure sexual repression for years on end.
In this post, I argue that the Christian call to sexual morality was not solely due to spiritual well-being, but equally motivated by Christ's call to love others and to combat suffering. To illustrate my point, I will briefly summarize all of the changes that would occur if everyone only pursued sex in the context of a loving marriage. Please keep in mind that I am NOT saying that we will ever live in a world where everyone actually does this, I know that is impossible. I am just giving the reasons why sexual morality is a loving thing for people to strive for, as it would greatly reduce human suffering and misery.
1) No more unwanted children - If everyone waited until they were in a loving and stable marriage to have sex and have children, there would not be any unwanted children. This would completely eliminate abortions, kids living in foster homes, and children living with parents who don't really want them. I don't have to explain any further how this would significantly reduce the amount of suffering and problems in the world.
2) No more children born out of wedlock - For the first time in American history, more than half of all births are out of wedlock. This means that it you were to go into a maternity ward and point to a newborn baby at random, there are better odds that this baby does not have a married mother and father. As the husband of an elementary school teacher, I can personally attest that children that don't have the stability of married parents have more emotional issues, lower self-esteem, and poorer academic performance compared to children in traditional family units. Obviously children would not be born out of wedlock if there was no sex out of wedlock, solving this problem that is crippling the education system and America's social stability.
3) No more prostitution, sex trafficking, and pornography - There are untold millions of people who are currently in sex trafficking and prostitution, many of them children. What is driving the demand for all of these industries is the immense market for sexual gratification and exploitation outside of the context of marriage.
4) No more STDs and AIDs - At least 30 million people currently are infected with HIV. Roughly 1 in 3 adults in America have an STD and shockingly 1 in 4 teenagers. Many high schools and even middle schools are reporting large outbreaks of herpes and gonorrhea amongst the children. It is impossible to obtain or spread an STD if people waited until marriage to have sex, this is the best and only surefire way to prevent STDs and their vicious spread.
In conclusion, try to imagine a world that had no abortions, foster homes, kids born out of wedlock, prostitution, sex trafficking, pornography, or STDs. All of these are impossible when the only context for sex is marriage. The difference this would make in people's overall quality of lives is so large as to stagger the imagination. I would even go so far as to say that this would completely remove at least one half of all human suffering and poverty on the globe. This is why I argue that sexual morality is far more than just an emotional or spiritual good (although it is that too). Everyone who strives to live by it will do their part to love their neighbor and eradicate human suffering. We cannot force others to follow sexual morality, but the responsibility is on each of us to live it out in our own lives and to encourage it in our communities.
First things first, what exactly is meant by sexual morality? As CS Lewis puts it in his book Mere Christianity:
"There is no getting away from it: the Christian rule is, 'Either marriage, with complete faithfulness to your partner, or else total abstinence.'"
A 2002 survey found that about 95% of people in America had premarital sex. Interestingly, 73% of Americans identify as Christians. Clearly, there is an apparent contradiction here. I believe that part of the underlying problem here is that for too long, many churches have painted sexual morality as a purely spiritual matter. This is a problem because it creates the illusion that waiting until marriage does not have any actual benefits besides promoting your own spiritual well-being. This will not be a convincing enough reason for most young people to endure sexual repression for years on end.
In this post, I argue that the Christian call to sexual morality was not solely due to spiritual well-being, but equally motivated by Christ's call to love others and to combat suffering. To illustrate my point, I will briefly summarize all of the changes that would occur if everyone only pursued sex in the context of a loving marriage. Please keep in mind that I am NOT saying that we will ever live in a world where everyone actually does this, I know that is impossible. I am just giving the reasons why sexual morality is a loving thing for people to strive for, as it would greatly reduce human suffering and misery.
1) No more unwanted children - If everyone waited until they were in a loving and stable marriage to have sex and have children, there would not be any unwanted children. This would completely eliminate abortions, kids living in foster homes, and children living with parents who don't really want them. I don't have to explain any further how this would significantly reduce the amount of suffering and problems in the world.
2) No more children born out of wedlock - For the first time in American history, more than half of all births are out of wedlock. This means that it you were to go into a maternity ward and point to a newborn baby at random, there are better odds that this baby does not have a married mother and father. As the husband of an elementary school teacher, I can personally attest that children that don't have the stability of married parents have more emotional issues, lower self-esteem, and poorer academic performance compared to children in traditional family units. Obviously children would not be born out of wedlock if there was no sex out of wedlock, solving this problem that is crippling the education system and America's social stability.
3) No more prostitution, sex trafficking, and pornography - There are untold millions of people who are currently in sex trafficking and prostitution, many of them children. What is driving the demand for all of these industries is the immense market for sexual gratification and exploitation outside of the context of marriage.
4) No more STDs and AIDs - At least 30 million people currently are infected with HIV. Roughly 1 in 3 adults in America have an STD and shockingly 1 in 4 teenagers. Many high schools and even middle schools are reporting large outbreaks of herpes and gonorrhea amongst the children. It is impossible to obtain or spread an STD if people waited until marriage to have sex, this is the best and only surefire way to prevent STDs and their vicious spread.
In conclusion, try to imagine a world that had no abortions, foster homes, kids born out of wedlock, prostitution, sex trafficking, pornography, or STDs. All of these are impossible when the only context for sex is marriage. The difference this would make in people's overall quality of lives is so large as to stagger the imagination. I would even go so far as to say that this would completely remove at least one half of all human suffering and poverty on the globe. This is why I argue that sexual morality is far more than just an emotional or spiritual good (although it is that too). Everyone who strives to live by it will do their part to love their neighbor and eradicate human suffering. We cannot force others to follow sexual morality, but the responsibility is on each of us to live it out in our own lives and to encourage it in our communities.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
3 fun facts about Beethoven
For my birthday this year, my parents got me a Beethoven biography written by renowned Beethoven scholar Maynard Solomon. What was great about this book was it combined stories from him life with an analysis of his music at the time, a very interesting read! Much of it was academic to the non-musician, but here are three interesting facts I learned that you may not know!
1) Beethoven's deafness was not a sudden event, as widely believed, but was rather an extremely gradual process. In his twenties, he developed tinnitus, which is a constant ringing or buzzing of the ears, but apart from this his hearing was still fine. Through his thirties and forties, this gradually worsened, to the point where he had trouble hearing most notes on the piano and stopped performing in public. However, he kept this a secret from all but his closest friends, terrified of what would become of his career if people found out he was going deaf! It was not until his the last decade of his life, however, where he finally became completely deaf. During this final period of his life, he could only communicate with his peers through writing in journals with them, which became an invaluable resource to historians. The exact cause of Beethoven's progressive deafness remains unknown.
2) Beethoven never married, but he had a habit of falling desperately in love with unavailable women. Typically, he fell in love with one of his students or a daughter of one of his benefactors, all of which were aristocrats and outside of his social standing. However, Beethoven's perennial bachelorhood cannot be completely blamed on the social hierarchy of the times, as a part of him was always afraid to get married. He was so enraptured by his art that he knew he would not be willing to compromise his time, which could explain why he was never able to make a relationship work. In fact, the love letters he wrote to his "Immortal Beloved" (now believed to be Antonie Brentano, a married woman) were actually reciprocated by her, but in the end he decided to reject her rather than risk all for love. From that moment on, he abandoned all hope of marriage and was even involved with prostitutes at the local brothel, whom he mysteriously referred to as "fortresses" in his letters. It was likely that Beethoven felt great shame over his debauchery, as he championed virtue more than any other quality.
3) Beethoven had an older brother who died in infancy. Interestingly, Beethoven refused to accept his own certificate of baptism (which in those days also served as a birth certificate) as legitimate, and instead assumed the birth date and identity of his deceased brother, claiming that he was the firstborn son. Indeed, for his entire life, Beethoven steadfastly insisted that his birthday was a couple of years older than it really was, and even claimed to have noble ancestry when that was not the case. Many historians think that this conspiratorial thinking arose in Beethoven due to his hatred for his father, who was a drunk and an incompetent parasite to their family. Beethoven's mother was reputed to have gotten her first pregnancy through adultery with another man, so perhaps Beethoven fancied his older brother's identity to avoid being related to his father!
1) Beethoven's deafness was not a sudden event, as widely believed, but was rather an extremely gradual process. In his twenties, he developed tinnitus, which is a constant ringing or buzzing of the ears, but apart from this his hearing was still fine. Through his thirties and forties, this gradually worsened, to the point where he had trouble hearing most notes on the piano and stopped performing in public. However, he kept this a secret from all but his closest friends, terrified of what would become of his career if people found out he was going deaf! It was not until his the last decade of his life, however, where he finally became completely deaf. During this final period of his life, he could only communicate with his peers through writing in journals with them, which became an invaluable resource to historians. The exact cause of Beethoven's progressive deafness remains unknown.
2) Beethoven never married, but he had a habit of falling desperately in love with unavailable women. Typically, he fell in love with one of his students or a daughter of one of his benefactors, all of which were aristocrats and outside of his social standing. However, Beethoven's perennial bachelorhood cannot be completely blamed on the social hierarchy of the times, as a part of him was always afraid to get married. He was so enraptured by his art that he knew he would not be willing to compromise his time, which could explain why he was never able to make a relationship work. In fact, the love letters he wrote to his "Immortal Beloved" (now believed to be Antonie Brentano, a married woman) were actually reciprocated by her, but in the end he decided to reject her rather than risk all for love. From that moment on, he abandoned all hope of marriage and was even involved with prostitutes at the local brothel, whom he mysteriously referred to as "fortresses" in his letters. It was likely that Beethoven felt great shame over his debauchery, as he championed virtue more than any other quality.
3) Beethoven had an older brother who died in infancy. Interestingly, Beethoven refused to accept his own certificate of baptism (which in those days also served as a birth certificate) as legitimate, and instead assumed the birth date and identity of his deceased brother, claiming that he was the firstborn son. Indeed, for his entire life, Beethoven steadfastly insisted that his birthday was a couple of years older than it really was, and even claimed to have noble ancestry when that was not the case. Many historians think that this conspiratorial thinking arose in Beethoven due to his hatred for his father, who was a drunk and an incompetent parasite to their family. Beethoven's mother was reputed to have gotten her first pregnancy through adultery with another man, so perhaps Beethoven fancied his older brother's identity to avoid being related to his father!
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Opium of the people?
Karl Marx is perhaps most famous for his quote that: "Religion is the opium of the people."
Now unfortunately, I have not yet read up on Karl Marx myself, so I cannot comment on his politics or philosophy as a whole. However, my general understanding of this quote is that religion is invented by people to give them emotional/spiritual comfort in life, much like opium (which contains morphine) can give comfort to somebody in physical pain.
Here, I thought it would be interesting to reflect on how not only religion (namely, Christianity) but also atheism can give comfort to people's lives. I did not become a Christian until college and have read several manifestos by atheists and humanists, so I have a reasonable understanding of both a secular and a Christian worldview. Please note that this blog post is not concerned with which worldview is actually correct, it is only examining the comforts and challenges of each worldview's claims. Let's start with Christianity:
Comforts of Christianity:
1) Heaven - "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away" (Revelation 21:4). It is fairly obvious how the Christian belief of heaven can give comfort to people living challenging and fragile lives. The Christian concept of heaven offers not only life after death, but even the end of suffering and mourning. It also provides the hope of seeing loved ones who have already passed away.
2) Purpose - The idea that humans are made in God's own image gives people the comfort of being special and having purpose in life. It means that we all have the divine nature of God living inside of us, our very soul and consciousness is a testament to God's goodness and purpose. It also means that the love we feel for life and for others is not merely a chemical feeling, but an objective reality that reflects the loving nature of God Himself. This is undeniably a more comforting worldview than that of naturalism, which posits that we are an accidental byproduct of blind and indifferent natural causes, with no objective truth or purpose.
3) Justice and grace - Christians believe that God will judge every human soul with fairness and grace. Every sinner who remains unrepentant of their actions will be eternally separated from God and His kingdom, never again able to inflict injustice on his/her victims. This promise of divine justice is crucial, as it frees Christians from a need to obtain their own justice/vengeance in their lives, and leaves it up to God in the next life. This is perhaps the only comfort possible when your life (or the life of somebody you love) is maliciously wounded by the sins of another. Trusting in God's justice for all is the only sure-fire antidote to hatred. After all, if there is no God, then hatred is completely justified, as only your own hatred and revenge can punish the wrongdoer. The grace offered to all by Jesus Christ is also an enormous comfort, as it means that you have not lost hope for salvation and righteousness even if you have made mistakes in life.
Comforts of atheism (or secular humanism):
1) Freedom - In the New Testament, the evangelist Paul often refers to himself as "a prisoner of Christ," which clearly indicates the amount of servility and sacrifice necessary for Christians. Many atheists, however, freely admit that they strongly prefer a life where they are free to do whatever they please (Christopher Hitchens, for example). In other words, they want to drink when they want, have sex when they want, act how they want, and don't want to be told what they can and can't do. God is seen as an oppressive straight-jacket, Hitchens even went so far as to label this biblical God a "celestial dictator." Clearly, not believing in this restrictive God provides an enormous comfort to many unbelievers, as they can revel in their freedom without being subjected to accountability or judgment from God.
2) Personal Authority - This is closely related to freedom, but has some subtle differences. Unlike Christians, who must humbly defer to biblical authority to define their morality and guide their life goals, an unbeliever has the authority to use their own personal compass through life. They get to define for themselves what is right and what is wrong. They get to decide what they would like to do with their time. In other words, an unbeliever not only gets freedom to do what they want, they even have the authority to proclaim that their own desires and morality are perfectly fine. This allowance for personal authority is highly desirable to secular humanism, which heavily promotes moral and cultural relativism and detests submission to authority, particular to a divine authority.
3) Capability - If there is no God, then humans are the pinnacle of all of existence. We are the most highly evolved form of life, there is nothing above us. This allows us the pleasure of reveling in our own intelligence and capability. In fact, many atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, elevate the capability of the human brain to a God-like status. The ability to do science and to think critically is seen as the ultimate form of being. A coworker of mine once even commented that "science is my God." This grandiose perception of our capability can be quite comforting, as it is often difficult as a Christian to acknowledge that we are nothing compared to God and His love and His power. By atheism, our brain power is the best the world has to offer, and there is no need for humility.
In conclusion, I would suggest that both Christianity AND secularism can serve as an "opium of the people." Therefore, this argument does not seem convincing for debunking either side's worldview. It would seem to be a draw. There may even be a slight advantage to Christianity, because I have never met an unbeliever (if any exist, I would love to talk to you!) who strongly desires for God to be real, but I know many Christians (myself included) who often struggle with the difficulty and inconvenience of living for God and sometimes wish He were not real.
Now unfortunately, I have not yet read up on Karl Marx myself, so I cannot comment on his politics or philosophy as a whole. However, my general understanding of this quote is that religion is invented by people to give them emotional/spiritual comfort in life, much like opium (which contains morphine) can give comfort to somebody in physical pain.
Here, I thought it would be interesting to reflect on how not only religion (namely, Christianity) but also atheism can give comfort to people's lives. I did not become a Christian until college and have read several manifestos by atheists and humanists, so I have a reasonable understanding of both a secular and a Christian worldview. Please note that this blog post is not concerned with which worldview is actually correct, it is only examining the comforts and challenges of each worldview's claims. Let's start with Christianity:
Comforts of Christianity:
1) Heaven - "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away" (Revelation 21:4). It is fairly obvious how the Christian belief of heaven can give comfort to people living challenging and fragile lives. The Christian concept of heaven offers not only life after death, but even the end of suffering and mourning. It also provides the hope of seeing loved ones who have already passed away.
2) Purpose - The idea that humans are made in God's own image gives people the comfort of being special and having purpose in life. It means that we all have the divine nature of God living inside of us, our very soul and consciousness is a testament to God's goodness and purpose. It also means that the love we feel for life and for others is not merely a chemical feeling, but an objective reality that reflects the loving nature of God Himself. This is undeniably a more comforting worldview than that of naturalism, which posits that we are an accidental byproduct of blind and indifferent natural causes, with no objective truth or purpose.
3) Justice and grace - Christians believe that God will judge every human soul with fairness and grace. Every sinner who remains unrepentant of their actions will be eternally separated from God and His kingdom, never again able to inflict injustice on his/her victims. This promise of divine justice is crucial, as it frees Christians from a need to obtain their own justice/vengeance in their lives, and leaves it up to God in the next life. This is perhaps the only comfort possible when your life (or the life of somebody you love) is maliciously wounded by the sins of another. Trusting in God's justice for all is the only sure-fire antidote to hatred. After all, if there is no God, then hatred is completely justified, as only your own hatred and revenge can punish the wrongdoer. The grace offered to all by Jesus Christ is also an enormous comfort, as it means that you have not lost hope for salvation and righteousness even if you have made mistakes in life.
Comforts of atheism (or secular humanism):
1) Freedom - In the New Testament, the evangelist Paul often refers to himself as "a prisoner of Christ," which clearly indicates the amount of servility and sacrifice necessary for Christians. Many atheists, however, freely admit that they strongly prefer a life where they are free to do whatever they please (Christopher Hitchens, for example). In other words, they want to drink when they want, have sex when they want, act how they want, and don't want to be told what they can and can't do. God is seen as an oppressive straight-jacket, Hitchens even went so far as to label this biblical God a "celestial dictator." Clearly, not believing in this restrictive God provides an enormous comfort to many unbelievers, as they can revel in their freedom without being subjected to accountability or judgment from God.
2) Personal Authority - This is closely related to freedom, but has some subtle differences. Unlike Christians, who must humbly defer to biblical authority to define their morality and guide their life goals, an unbeliever has the authority to use their own personal compass through life. They get to define for themselves what is right and what is wrong. They get to decide what they would like to do with their time. In other words, an unbeliever not only gets freedom to do what they want, they even have the authority to proclaim that their own desires and morality are perfectly fine. This allowance for personal authority is highly desirable to secular humanism, which heavily promotes moral and cultural relativism and detests submission to authority, particular to a divine authority.
3) Capability - If there is no God, then humans are the pinnacle of all of existence. We are the most highly evolved form of life, there is nothing above us. This allows us the pleasure of reveling in our own intelligence and capability. In fact, many atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, elevate the capability of the human brain to a God-like status. The ability to do science and to think critically is seen as the ultimate form of being. A coworker of mine once even commented that "science is my God." This grandiose perception of our capability can be quite comforting, as it is often difficult as a Christian to acknowledge that we are nothing compared to God and His love and His power. By atheism, our brain power is the best the world has to offer, and there is no need for humility.
In conclusion, I would suggest that both Christianity AND secularism can serve as an "opium of the people." Therefore, this argument does not seem convincing for debunking either side's worldview. It would seem to be a draw. There may even be a slight advantage to Christianity, because I have never met an unbeliever (if any exist, I would love to talk to you!) who strongly desires for God to be real, but I know many Christians (myself included) who often struggle with the difficulty and inconvenience of living for God and sometimes wish He were not real.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Master morality vs. slave morality
In my previous post, I talked about how the alpha animals desire to crush and oppress the weak animals, for the sake of the domination of their genes. These natural instincts go beyond mere survival, as many alpha males use their power to forcibly take as many females, food, and land as possible even when their basic comfort and survival are already secured.
Clearly, we see similar tendencies among humans. Dictators with absolute power are notorious for hoarding power, sex, and wealth beyond any practical necessity and at the great expense of their subjects. Until very recently, every civilization in human history has utilized slavery to enable the powerful to profit at the expense of the weak. Dynastic empires feel entitled to invading weaker countries, often even pillaging their resources and brutally abusing the people of the conquered nations. Aristocrats and businessmen are often exclusively concerned with their accumulation of resources, often content to completely ignore or even exploit the needs of the less fortunate. Criminals feel entitled to using brute force to steal goods from others and even to traffic human beings into sex slavery.
Willfully engaging in this sort of behavior, which is primal and selfish in essence and clearly mirrors the way of the animal kingdom, is what Nietzsche coined as "master morality". In short, master morality values pride, strength, nobility, and self-indulgence.
To modern Western civilization, master morality seems barbaric and completely inhuman. Yet it is essential to look back at history and realize that until the rise of Christianity, the mantra of master morality was widely adopted by nearly every civilization on the globe. This should not be surprising, because master morality is a very natural and instinctive worldview for people (like any animal) to possess. It took something supernatural, something that cared more about mere survival or selfish domination, to subvert the mantra of master morality.
The notion that weak, poor, and unlikable people should be selflessly and unconditionally loved and provided for is a key tenant of Jesus' teachings and is what Nietzsche termed "slave morality". Slave morality cherishes Christian values, such as kindness, charity, forgiveness, and compassion. It is called slave morality because it actually benefits the powerless, rather than the powerful. It is an inversion of the natural order.
Modern Western civilization has assumed the morality of slave morality, as evidenced by the widespread existence of churches, hospitals, non-profits, aid to disadvantaged nations, and government programs for the poor and handicapped. Indeed, Christianity has been so successful in spreading slave morality that it is easy to to forget that this way of thinking didn't even exist to most cultures before the revolutionary Jesus diffused his radical teachings around the world.
The most epic battle between "slave morality" and "master morality" culminated in World War 2. Hitler believed in the natural order of things, in the survival of the fittest and the removal of the weak. Hitler once said to his inner-circle that “The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle, by allowing the survival of the fittest. Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.” Thankfully, the "slave morality" of the Christian nations in Europe and North America won over the Nazi party, and for the better part of a century has remained the de facto standard of ethics.
But will slave morality last forever? Over the past few decades, Europe and now North America have become increasingly secular. For the most part, secular humanists and atheists have clung to the Christian notions behind slave morality, but can these values survive divorced of their Christian inspiration? Nietzsche, among many other philosophers, believed that once nations moved past the influence of Christianity, their compassion for the weak would also perish. I challenge people who do not believe in Jesus but value compassion and charity, do these values derive from the natural world, or do they transcend nature? I would assert that atheism and naturalism must lead inevitably back toward the "master morality" cherished by Nietzsche, Hitler, and the animal kingdom. Only Christianity seems to provide the logical framework and divine nature that justifies the "slave morality" that even many non-believers hold so dear.
Clearly, we see similar tendencies among humans. Dictators with absolute power are notorious for hoarding power, sex, and wealth beyond any practical necessity and at the great expense of their subjects. Until very recently, every civilization in human history has utilized slavery to enable the powerful to profit at the expense of the weak. Dynastic empires feel entitled to invading weaker countries, often even pillaging their resources and brutally abusing the people of the conquered nations. Aristocrats and businessmen are often exclusively concerned with their accumulation of resources, often content to completely ignore or even exploit the needs of the less fortunate. Criminals feel entitled to using brute force to steal goods from others and even to traffic human beings into sex slavery.
Willfully engaging in this sort of behavior, which is primal and selfish in essence and clearly mirrors the way of the animal kingdom, is what Nietzsche coined as "master morality". In short, master morality values pride, strength, nobility, and self-indulgence.
To modern Western civilization, master morality seems barbaric and completely inhuman. Yet it is essential to look back at history and realize that until the rise of Christianity, the mantra of master morality was widely adopted by nearly every civilization on the globe. This should not be surprising, because master morality is a very natural and instinctive worldview for people (like any animal) to possess. It took something supernatural, something that cared more about mere survival or selfish domination, to subvert the mantra of master morality.
The notion that weak, poor, and unlikable people should be selflessly and unconditionally loved and provided for is a key tenant of Jesus' teachings and is what Nietzsche termed "slave morality". Slave morality cherishes Christian values, such as kindness, charity, forgiveness, and compassion. It is called slave morality because it actually benefits the powerless, rather than the powerful. It is an inversion of the natural order.
Modern Western civilization has assumed the morality of slave morality, as evidenced by the widespread existence of churches, hospitals, non-profits, aid to disadvantaged nations, and government programs for the poor and handicapped. Indeed, Christianity has been so successful in spreading slave morality that it is easy to to forget that this way of thinking didn't even exist to most cultures before the revolutionary Jesus diffused his radical teachings around the world.
The most epic battle between "slave morality" and "master morality" culminated in World War 2. Hitler believed in the natural order of things, in the survival of the fittest and the removal of the weak. Hitler once said to his inner-circle that “The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle, by allowing the survival of the fittest. Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.” Thankfully, the "slave morality" of the Christian nations in Europe and North America won over the Nazi party, and for the better part of a century has remained the de facto standard of ethics.
But will slave morality last forever? Over the past few decades, Europe and now North America have become increasingly secular. For the most part, secular humanists and atheists have clung to the Christian notions behind slave morality, but can these values survive divorced of their Christian inspiration? Nietzsche, among many other philosophers, believed that once nations moved past the influence of Christianity, their compassion for the weak would also perish. I challenge people who do not believe in Jesus but value compassion and charity, do these values derive from the natural world, or do they transcend nature? I would assert that atheism and naturalism must lead inevitably back toward the "master morality" cherished by Nietzsche, Hitler, and the animal kingdom. Only Christianity seems to provide the logical framework and divine nature that justifies the "slave morality" that even many non-believers hold so dear.
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Beyond survival
In my previous post on nature and free will, it was commented that much of the "cruelty" we witness in nature is necessary to the animal's survival. This is an excellent point, and in many cases is certainly true! Recently, however, I have been watching a plethora of nature documentaries by the BBC (Planet Earth, Life, Frozen Planet), and have been fascinated to learn that often this type of behavior goes beyond survival! Let me give a couple of examples, and then draw an important conclusion from this:
1) Gorillas in the Congo jungle live in tribal colonies. Each colony stakes a claim to a certain territory in the jungle, and the territory of a rival clan must be taken by force. There are several interesting aspects to this behavior. First of all, gorillas go out of their way to overtake a rival's camp even when they already have enough territory of their own. In other words, it's not that they necessarily NEED this land, they just want MORE land at the expense of their peers. Secondly, when a rival's camp is successfully taken over, they do not stop at merely chasing off or killing the rival gorillas. They actually EAT their captives raw, often while they are still alive.
2) Many animals, such as bears and seals, are not satisfied with simply winning the affections of a single female. The alpha males are prone to claiming the entire harem of females entirely to themselves, even at the expense of any other male having any other mate. Clearly, this goes far beyond mere survival, as a single female would certainly suffice if one's goal was mere survival and procreation.
3) There are baboons that live in a very harsh arctic mountain environment. There are precious hot springs in these mountains that provide much needed warmth. While these springs are large enough to fit the entire clan of baboons, only the alpha male and his wives and children are allowed in the spring. Other baboons are violently beat out of the spring, even though they could easily fit.
Here are the conclusions I draw from this:
1) Most male animals do not desire to merely survive, they desire to utterly dominate. They desire as much power and authority as possible, as many female mates as possible, and as much offspring as possible. In many cases, this could even mean the entire local population of females, even if this means that no other male gets a chance. In short, alpha males want to be gluttons when it comes to their authority and their genes.
2) The desire to have your genes dominate is only half the story. Animals also want their weaker rivals to suffer and die. Let me explain: it is not enough for an alpha male to simply win as much land and females as possible. They actually want to remove opportunities for their weaker peers to survive and reproduce. Going back to the hot spring example: the alpha male has already won the respect of his peers and the affections of all of the females, none of this would be threatened by allowing the beta males to join him in the hot spring. However, he actively desires for the beta males to sit out in the cold and suffer, possibly even to their deaths. He would also go to almost any length to ensure that they will not reproduce.
This sounds incredibly cruel, but it also seems to be the simple truth. In short, the strong and fit in the animal kingdom instinctively desire for their genes to dominate and for the genes of the weak to perish. In my next post, I will try to explain why this is, and to what extent this behavior should be tolerated in humans.
1) Gorillas in the Congo jungle live in tribal colonies. Each colony stakes a claim to a certain territory in the jungle, and the territory of a rival clan must be taken by force. There are several interesting aspects to this behavior. First of all, gorillas go out of their way to overtake a rival's camp even when they already have enough territory of their own. In other words, it's not that they necessarily NEED this land, they just want MORE land at the expense of their peers. Secondly, when a rival's camp is successfully taken over, they do not stop at merely chasing off or killing the rival gorillas. They actually EAT their captives raw, often while they are still alive.
2) Many animals, such as bears and seals, are not satisfied with simply winning the affections of a single female. The alpha males are prone to claiming the entire harem of females entirely to themselves, even at the expense of any other male having any other mate. Clearly, this goes far beyond mere survival, as a single female would certainly suffice if one's goal was mere survival and procreation.
3) There are baboons that live in a very harsh arctic mountain environment. There are precious hot springs in these mountains that provide much needed warmth. While these springs are large enough to fit the entire clan of baboons, only the alpha male and his wives and children are allowed in the spring. Other baboons are violently beat out of the spring, even though they could easily fit.
Here are the conclusions I draw from this:
1) Most male animals do not desire to merely survive, they desire to utterly dominate. They desire as much power and authority as possible, as many female mates as possible, and as much offspring as possible. In many cases, this could even mean the entire local population of females, even if this means that no other male gets a chance. In short, alpha males want to be gluttons when it comes to their authority and their genes.
2) The desire to have your genes dominate is only half the story. Animals also want their weaker rivals to suffer and die. Let me explain: it is not enough for an alpha male to simply win as much land and females as possible. They actually want to remove opportunities for their weaker peers to survive and reproduce. Going back to the hot spring example: the alpha male has already won the respect of his peers and the affections of all of the females, none of this would be threatened by allowing the beta males to join him in the hot spring. However, he actively desires for the beta males to sit out in the cold and suffer, possibly even to their deaths. He would also go to almost any length to ensure that they will not reproduce.
This sounds incredibly cruel, but it also seems to be the simple truth. In short, the strong and fit in the animal kingdom instinctively desire for their genes to dominate and for the genes of the weak to perish. In my next post, I will try to explain why this is, and to what extent this behavior should be tolerated in humans.
Top 5 in Tennessee
Thanks to those who posted some interesting comments on my last post, it has already given me some new ideas for future topics of discussion. However, I thought it might be nice to take off my philosopher cap for a while and catch friends and family up on what's been happening in Tennessee. Here are my top 5 moments so far, in no particular order!
1) Frisbee golf: there is a gorgeous frisbee golf course in Oak Ridge. What differentiates this course from the one I played in North Carolina is the sheer expanse of the area: nothing but rolling hills as far as the eye can see. The fields are populated with majestic willows and oaks that are common enough to provide some challenge, but sparse enough to enable uninterrupted views. So far I have played with Shanda, with our friends Andrew and Holly, and also with my dad. There is something very relaxing about the whole experience, perhaps I finally understand the appeal of golf after all! That being said, I think I will stick with the frisbee variation, as it seems to be much easier on the wallet and on the time. Funny story: one day I threw an errant frisbee over a fence, only to discover this was no ordinary fence but a security perimeter for the Y12 nuclear storage facility! Being older and wiser than I once was, I decided not to risk climbing it.
2) Dollywood: Shanda's sister Mandy and her husband Kevin visited us near the end of summer, and we had an awesome time at the Splash Country water park in Dollywood. Apparently, Dolly Parton is so popular around here that she has her own theme park! This was most likely the best waterpark I have ever been to, and we managed to go down just about every slide in the park. My favorite was a fierce tube slide that was so intense that your back got a little raw by the end of it!
3) Shanda surprised me by taking me to the Museum of Science and Engineering in Oak Ridge. We learned a lot about the history behind the Manhatten Project, which of course took place primarily in Oak Ridge during World War II. Interesting fact: most of the workers operating the equipment that was enriching the uranium were in fact women. Since this project was so sensitive and confidential, most of them didn't even know what the levers and buttons they were pressing were actually doing! They only knew that the numbers on the gauges shouldn't pass a certain value, and to control the numbers by pushing certain buttons.
4) I have finally finished my last paper from graduate school at Duke! As some may know, I have been working two jobs for the better part of the last few months, so it was a huge relief to finally be finished with my Duke paper! I have already felt a lot more rested and balanced and am excited to finally be done with school and part of the real world!
5) The Lost Sea: when our friends Andrew and Holly were here, the four of us went to the Lost Sea in Sweetwater, Tennessee. This is the largest underwater lake in all of North America! First, the tour guide walked us through the trails of the largest, most expansive cave I have ever seen. Then, near the bottom of the cave, we got to take a boat ride around the lake! There were some trout in the water that were artificially introduced, it was actually quite unsettling since they seemed so out of place there. Fun fact: during Prohibition there were Speakeasy parties held in this cave. People didn't realize that the change in pressure would make it harder to feel the effects of alcohol, so they often drank past their capacity, and several hours later the alcohol would finally hit them so hard they had to get rolled out of the cave. I would definitely be up for a party and live music in a cave sometime!
Thanks to everyone who has visited us so far and helped us get settled in Tennessee! Thanks to Mary Clare for helping us move in and unpack, and thanks to everyone else for visiting and making it easier to forget that it takes time to make new friends after a move!
1) Frisbee golf: there is a gorgeous frisbee golf course in Oak Ridge. What differentiates this course from the one I played in North Carolina is the sheer expanse of the area: nothing but rolling hills as far as the eye can see. The fields are populated with majestic willows and oaks that are common enough to provide some challenge, but sparse enough to enable uninterrupted views. So far I have played with Shanda, with our friends Andrew and Holly, and also with my dad. There is something very relaxing about the whole experience, perhaps I finally understand the appeal of golf after all! That being said, I think I will stick with the frisbee variation, as it seems to be much easier on the wallet and on the time. Funny story: one day I threw an errant frisbee over a fence, only to discover this was no ordinary fence but a security perimeter for the Y12 nuclear storage facility! Being older and wiser than I once was, I decided not to risk climbing it.
2) Dollywood: Shanda's sister Mandy and her husband Kevin visited us near the end of summer, and we had an awesome time at the Splash Country water park in Dollywood. Apparently, Dolly Parton is so popular around here that she has her own theme park! This was most likely the best waterpark I have ever been to, and we managed to go down just about every slide in the park. My favorite was a fierce tube slide that was so intense that your back got a little raw by the end of it!
3) Shanda surprised me by taking me to the Museum of Science and Engineering in Oak Ridge. We learned a lot about the history behind the Manhatten Project, which of course took place primarily in Oak Ridge during World War II. Interesting fact: most of the workers operating the equipment that was enriching the uranium were in fact women. Since this project was so sensitive and confidential, most of them didn't even know what the levers and buttons they were pressing were actually doing! They only knew that the numbers on the gauges shouldn't pass a certain value, and to control the numbers by pushing certain buttons.
4) I have finally finished my last paper from graduate school at Duke! As some may know, I have been working two jobs for the better part of the last few months, so it was a huge relief to finally be finished with my Duke paper! I have already felt a lot more rested and balanced and am excited to finally be done with school and part of the real world!
5) The Lost Sea: when our friends Andrew and Holly were here, the four of us went to the Lost Sea in Sweetwater, Tennessee. This is the largest underwater lake in all of North America! First, the tour guide walked us through the trails of the largest, most expansive cave I have ever seen. Then, near the bottom of the cave, we got to take a boat ride around the lake! There were some trout in the water that were artificially introduced, it was actually quite unsettling since they seemed so out of place there. Fun fact: during Prohibition there were Speakeasy parties held in this cave. People didn't realize that the change in pressure would make it harder to feel the effects of alcohol, so they often drank past their capacity, and several hours later the alcohol would finally hit them so hard they had to get rolled out of the cave. I would definitely be up for a party and live music in a cave sometime!
Thanks to everyone who has visited us so far and helped us get settled in Tennessee! Thanks to Mary Clare for helping us move in and unpack, and thanks to everyone else for visiting and making it easier to forget that it takes time to make new friends after a move!
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Free will (part 2)
In my last post, I defined free will as having the freedom to make choices that are not 100% controlled by your DNA and environment. I also explained that the Christian basis for free will is that God has created humans in His image, meaning we have a supernatural consciousness and knowledge of good and evil that allows us to control and even transcend our natural state.
But what about those who don't believe in God? Interestingly, most of my friends who are atheist or agnostic still believe in free will and in some notion of right and wrong. But is there a basis for this?
First, let's examine the evidence for the existence of free will in a naturalistic worldview. Naturalism is the belief that there is nothing outside of the natural order. There is no God, nothing supernatural, and nothing outside of the space-time continuum and the natural universe. By this worldview, it logically follows that there can only be two things governing human behavior: our natural composition (DNA, the chemicals in our brain, etc.), and our environment.
But are we really in control of either of these things? We certainly have the perception that we are choosing our actions, but I am not sure this is possible under naturalism. Without any possibility of a soul or a supernatural consciousness, the human body is reduced to a biochemical machine. Any action we make is merely the inevitable outcome of the biological functionality of our body. In other words, we are controlled by the same laws of nature that govern a rock falling off a cliff, or a robot following its computer code. Granted, our "code" is much more complex than any robot humans can currently make, but it would be code nonetheless.
And as for our environment, we are hardly in control of that either! And even when we make any decisions to change our environment (moving, changing jobs or friends, etc.), it could be argued that all of these decisions are only being made because of our DNA and environment in the first place! In short, it would seem like a purely naturalistic worldview cedes any possibility of autonomous control over any aspect of our life. As Richard Dawkins, a naturalist, wrote in his book 'The Selfish Gene': "We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment."
Yet even atheists have a severe problem actually viewing humans as mere machines. In fact, most of my friends and family who do not believe in God have a very heightened passion for social justice and equality. When I hear their anger over things like unjust wars, unfair political policies, and corporate greed, it is very clear that they believe that people are responsible for their actions and that the strong should care for the weak. Yet why all this anger, why this cry for justice and mercy, if we are all biochemical machines who can't control our selfish actions? Clearly, the desire for free will and right and wrong seem universal. But the only logical source for these needs would seem to lie outside of nature. After all, nature is all about the strong crushing the weak, compassion and justice are alien concepts to the animal kingdom. As is free will, as previously explained with the polar bear, animals do not seem to have any conscious control or responsibility for their actions.
This is why, to me, it comes down to a choice. If you reject God and accept naturalism, it follows that you should take this worldview to its natural (no pun intended) conclusion. Under naturalism, we are nothing but a biochemical machine, blindly programmed by evolution to selfishly propagate our own DNA at the expense of weaker beings. There is no free will, no choice, no higher purpose, no right, and no wrong.
Yet I have never met a person who can honestly accept these things. Therefore, I would challenge people who do not currently believe in God to investigate why they believe so strongly in their morals and in their free will. Perhaps they will find, as I have, that the only logical explanation is a supernatural source, such as God and the presence of a soul in each and every one of us.
But what about those who don't believe in God? Interestingly, most of my friends who are atheist or agnostic still believe in free will and in some notion of right and wrong. But is there a basis for this?
First, let's examine the evidence for the existence of free will in a naturalistic worldview. Naturalism is the belief that there is nothing outside of the natural order. There is no God, nothing supernatural, and nothing outside of the space-time continuum and the natural universe. By this worldview, it logically follows that there can only be two things governing human behavior: our natural composition (DNA, the chemicals in our brain, etc.), and our environment.
But are we really in control of either of these things? We certainly have the perception that we are choosing our actions, but I am not sure this is possible under naturalism. Without any possibility of a soul or a supernatural consciousness, the human body is reduced to a biochemical machine. Any action we make is merely the inevitable outcome of the biological functionality of our body. In other words, we are controlled by the same laws of nature that govern a rock falling off a cliff, or a robot following its computer code. Granted, our "code" is much more complex than any robot humans can currently make, but it would be code nonetheless.
And as for our environment, we are hardly in control of that either! And even when we make any decisions to change our environment (moving, changing jobs or friends, etc.), it could be argued that all of these decisions are only being made because of our DNA and environment in the first place! In short, it would seem like a purely naturalistic worldview cedes any possibility of autonomous control over any aspect of our life. As Richard Dawkins, a naturalist, wrote in his book 'The Selfish Gene': "We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment."
Yet even atheists have a severe problem actually viewing humans as mere machines. In fact, most of my friends and family who do not believe in God have a very heightened passion for social justice and equality. When I hear their anger over things like unjust wars, unfair political policies, and corporate greed, it is very clear that they believe that people are responsible for their actions and that the strong should care for the weak. Yet why all this anger, why this cry for justice and mercy, if we are all biochemical machines who can't control our selfish actions? Clearly, the desire for free will and right and wrong seem universal. But the only logical source for these needs would seem to lie outside of nature. After all, nature is all about the strong crushing the weak, compassion and justice are alien concepts to the animal kingdom. As is free will, as previously explained with the polar bear, animals do not seem to have any conscious control or responsibility for their actions.
This is why, to me, it comes down to a choice. If you reject God and accept naturalism, it follows that you should take this worldview to its natural (no pun intended) conclusion. Under naturalism, we are nothing but a biochemical machine, blindly programmed by evolution to selfishly propagate our own DNA at the expense of weaker beings. There is no free will, no choice, no higher purpose, no right, and no wrong.
Yet I have never met a person who can honestly accept these things. Therefore, I would challenge people who do not currently believe in God to investigate why they believe so strongly in their morals and in their free will. Perhaps they will find, as I have, that the only logical explanation is a supernatural source, such as God and the presence of a soul in each and every one of us.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Free will (part 1)
Something I have been thinking about a lot recently is free will. I have been reading a lot of books and watching a lot of debates between Christians and atheists concerning whether or not God exists, and something that has been striking to me is that even atheists tend to believe in free will and morality. To explain why this is strange to me, I will have to back up and first define free will and the Christian basis for it.
To me, free will is the belief that humans have the ability to choose their actions in a manner that is not entirely controlled by their genes and environment. In other words, humans have the ability to consciously rebel against and transcend their natural desires. This is why humans are uniquely capable of both good and evil, because we are in conscious control of our actions and their repercussions in a way that other animals are incapable of.
I was recently watching a BBC nature show, where male polar bears were viciously fighting each other to see who would be the alpha male (this behavior is of course not unique to bears but rather ubiquitous in the animal kingdom). The winner had the freedom to mate with any female he chose (regardless of whether she consents), and would continue to violently maul and even murder any nearby males to prevent them from mating with anybody. The crucial point here is that nobody I know would consider such behavior between polar bears as immoral: nobody is saying that the polar bears are evil. The male bear is simply acting according to his instincts (the desire to mate with as many females as possible) and his environment (there are competitors that must be crushed). It's simply the way polar bears work, morality has nothing to do with it!
Here's the twist: now what if humans did this exact same thing? For example, let's say that I was walking down the street and noticed a very attractive female holding hands with her boyfriend. If I allowed myself to operate solely by my biological instincts (which I have just like the polar bear), I could clobber her boyfriend with a baseball bat and forcibly take her away as my conquest. But of course, like most humans, I transcend any primal instincts I have in such situations out of respect for the well-being of others. Now it's true that some people avoid bad behavior primarily to avoid legal/social repercussions, but it should be emphasized that I would assuredly avoid such behavior even if I could be assured there would be no punishment for my actions. In other words, I have chosen to consciously repress my natural instincts for the sake of morality and the greater good. This is an example of free will, every one of us exercises it every day, and the entire legal system of our country depends on its existence. After all, why punish people for anything if they didn't have a choice?
The Biblical explanation of free will is rather simple. Christians believe that God uniquely created humans in His image, meaning that we all have a supernatural knowledge of good and evil (a.k.a. our soul). This is where our conscious and consciousness comes from. By conscious, I mean knowing right from wrong, and by consciousness, I mean having the rational faculty to suppress and transcend biological urges for the sake of loving others and doing the right thing, even at our own personal cost. Until very recently, the vast majority of western civilization has believed in this supernatural source and justification for free will, and this has been the primary cause of the modern laws and social norms which have shaped modern civilization.
In my next post, I will talk about my perceived difficulty with reconciling naturalism with free will. Until next time!
To me, free will is the belief that humans have the ability to choose their actions in a manner that is not entirely controlled by their genes and environment. In other words, humans have the ability to consciously rebel against and transcend their natural desires. This is why humans are uniquely capable of both good and evil, because we are in conscious control of our actions and their repercussions in a way that other animals are incapable of.
I was recently watching a BBC nature show, where male polar bears were viciously fighting each other to see who would be the alpha male (this behavior is of course not unique to bears but rather ubiquitous in the animal kingdom). The winner had the freedom to mate with any female he chose (regardless of whether she consents), and would continue to violently maul and even murder any nearby males to prevent them from mating with anybody. The crucial point here is that nobody I know would consider such behavior between polar bears as immoral: nobody is saying that the polar bears are evil. The male bear is simply acting according to his instincts (the desire to mate with as many females as possible) and his environment (there are competitors that must be crushed). It's simply the way polar bears work, morality has nothing to do with it!
Here's the twist: now what if humans did this exact same thing? For example, let's say that I was walking down the street and noticed a very attractive female holding hands with her boyfriend. If I allowed myself to operate solely by my biological instincts (which I have just like the polar bear), I could clobber her boyfriend with a baseball bat and forcibly take her away as my conquest. But of course, like most humans, I transcend any primal instincts I have in such situations out of respect for the well-being of others. Now it's true that some people avoid bad behavior primarily to avoid legal/social repercussions, but it should be emphasized that I would assuredly avoid such behavior even if I could be assured there would be no punishment for my actions. In other words, I have chosen to consciously repress my natural instincts for the sake of morality and the greater good. This is an example of free will, every one of us exercises it every day, and the entire legal system of our country depends on its existence. After all, why punish people for anything if they didn't have a choice?
The Biblical explanation of free will is rather simple. Christians believe that God uniquely created humans in His image, meaning that we all have a supernatural knowledge of good and evil (a.k.a. our soul). This is where our conscious and consciousness comes from. By conscious, I mean knowing right from wrong, and by consciousness, I mean having the rational faculty to suppress and transcend biological urges for the sake of loving others and doing the right thing, even at our own personal cost. Until very recently, the vast majority of western civilization has believed in this supernatural source and justification for free will, and this has been the primary cause of the modern laws and social norms which have shaped modern civilization.
In my next post, I will talk about my perceived difficulty with reconciling naturalism with free will. Until next time!
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Welcome!
Hey all,
Despite the somewhat tepid response to my proposition on Facebook, I have decided to start a blog anyway! For those who don't know, my wife and I have just moved to Knoxville, Tennessee, and we thought that we would each start a blog to help keep friends and family in the loop.
On a more selfish note, I thought this would also be a good way to get back into non-scientific writing, as I am now in the process of trying to write my own novel and need all the practice I can get! Otherwise, I just fall back to old habits and start writing equations everywhere, which might be okay if you know Greek but otherwise wouldn't make for the best reading.
Something that has been a constant struggle for me over the past few years is feeling like I am a Renaissance man trapped in an era of specialization. As our technology and spheres of knowledge accelerate at ever-increasing rates, it often seems like any given person can only truly excel in a very specialized niche. For example, I just read an interesting article about how smart phones are getting so complex that no one person can fully understand how every component works anymore, even the people who designed them! Which begs the obvious question: if we are getting so specialized that an engineer cannot even fully understand the cell phone that he helped design, how could we ever truly excel in any field outside of our job?
Now I do know a lot of people who don't particularly care to invest excessive effort into any discipline outside of their line of work, which is perfectly fine, but for some reason I don't seem to function that way. This is more than mere escapism too: I actually really like my job and find it engaging! Yet I am constantly thinking and learning about other disciplines: namely theology, apologetics, philosophy, sociology, classical piano literature, music theory, literature, movies, and of course writing.
And for this reason, perhaps this blog is the perfect outlet for my extracurricular musings! In addition to Shanda and I talking about marriage and our Tennessee adventures, which will perhaps be more concentrated in her blog than mine, I am planning on using this blog to discuss all of the non sequiturs rumbling inside of my head! I know that sometimes my thoughts venture into politically and theologically sensitive waters, so how about this: I will do my best to discuss issues in a sensitive and careful manner, and for your part it would be great if any comments could also be calm and rational.
That being said, I can't emphasize enough how much I am looking forward to hearing thoughts and comments from all of my family and friends, I am in sore need of more sounding boards to bounce back ideas at me, particularly as I try to mold many of my thoughts into my upcoming novel!
And finally, perhaps a brief explanation for the title of this blog. Actually, Shanda chose it for me, but I think it's an apt choice. I tend to "branch" out into many different interests, but just like a tree these branches would be dead without the roots. "I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5).
Despite the somewhat tepid response to my proposition on Facebook, I have decided to start a blog anyway! For those who don't know, my wife and I have just moved to Knoxville, Tennessee, and we thought that we would each start a blog to help keep friends and family in the loop.
On a more selfish note, I thought this would also be a good way to get back into non-scientific writing, as I am now in the process of trying to write my own novel and need all the practice I can get! Otherwise, I just fall back to old habits and start writing equations everywhere, which might be okay if you know Greek but otherwise wouldn't make for the best reading.
Something that has been a constant struggle for me over the past few years is feeling like I am a Renaissance man trapped in an era of specialization. As our technology and spheres of knowledge accelerate at ever-increasing rates, it often seems like any given person can only truly excel in a very specialized niche. For example, I just read an interesting article about how smart phones are getting so complex that no one person can fully understand how every component works anymore, even the people who designed them! Which begs the obvious question: if we are getting so specialized that an engineer cannot even fully understand the cell phone that he helped design, how could we ever truly excel in any field outside of our job?
Now I do know a lot of people who don't particularly care to invest excessive effort into any discipline outside of their line of work, which is perfectly fine, but for some reason I don't seem to function that way. This is more than mere escapism too: I actually really like my job and find it engaging! Yet I am constantly thinking and learning about other disciplines: namely theology, apologetics, philosophy, sociology, classical piano literature, music theory, literature, movies, and of course writing.
And for this reason, perhaps this blog is the perfect outlet for my extracurricular musings! In addition to Shanda and I talking about marriage and our Tennessee adventures, which will perhaps be more concentrated in her blog than mine, I am planning on using this blog to discuss all of the non sequiturs rumbling inside of my head! I know that sometimes my thoughts venture into politically and theologically sensitive waters, so how about this: I will do my best to discuss issues in a sensitive and careful manner, and for your part it would be great if any comments could also be calm and rational.
That being said, I can't emphasize enough how much I am looking forward to hearing thoughts and comments from all of my family and friends, I am in sore need of more sounding boards to bounce back ideas at me, particularly as I try to mold many of my thoughts into my upcoming novel!
And finally, perhaps a brief explanation for the title of this blog. Actually, Shanda chose it for me, but I think it's an apt choice. I tend to "branch" out into many different interests, but just like a tree these branches would be dead without the roots. "I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)