Examined Christian Faith 'The Final Frontier' Part 1.4 - What is Christianity

Just to set the record straight, I am a fan of science.  I am frequently amazed at some of what science 'discovers', and thankful for some of the benefits of science to humankind.  The field of science is made of some of  the most intelligent and observant people on earth, because that is what science is 'observation'.  Which takes us to considering the universe.  Ever since men have been able to think for themselves, we have been wondering about this universe and how it came to be.  Before I delve into the two different camps, do not fool yourself into thinking that one viewpoint was held long ago, and the other has gradually over a period of recent time taken its position.  No, men have always held two viewpoints on this.  Everyone who has ever thought about it has fallen into one of two camps.  

There are those of the materialist viewpoint or more precisely those who think that it all just happens to exist, that it has always existed.  No one really knows why, it just happened.  Moreover, that this matter, by one in a million chance happened to collide to form our galaxy, and then another something happened to form our sun, and still another to form the planets.  Yet by another fluke, our planet just happened to have the right temperature, and chemical makeup to support life, and then some of this matter on earth that had been floating around forever, just happened to come alive.  Then by another incredibly long chain of events leaving creatures developed into creatures like us, who could think and reason, and have emotions, creatures that also just happened to have an inner voice telling directing each of them to believe in the same concept of right verses wrong. 

Then there is the religious view.  According to those who hold this viewpoint, what is behind the universe, what created the universe is more like a mind then anything else we can describe it as.  It has a purpose and prefers one thing over another.  In addition, it was with this view that it made the universe, for reasons we do not know, but one of the reasons was to create beings like us, who like itself have minds. 

You will also notice that science cannot answer the question, because all science works by experiments, no matter how complicated it is, in the end science is simply a matter of observing what happens when x and y interact.  It does not explain the why it happens to, just that it does.  If like in the “Wizard of Oz” there is, anything behind the curtain is a different question, one that science can never answer.  If you suppose as some do, that some day we will know everything in the universe (I personally do not adhere to that), but I would argue that the questions that we have always asked would still be left unanswered “Why is there a universe?”  “Why does it go on and on as it does?”  “What is the meaning of this?”

However, to understand the answers to that, perhaps we should examine the one thing in the entire universe that we know more about than we can learn by science (the art external observations).  This is my point, anyone who was studying humans from the outside as we do the stars, animals, plants, rocks, etc...  would never guess that we have this law of human nature, this moral law.  He would be observing what we do, so his observations would merely be a reflection of what we did, and the law of human nature is about what we should do. 

The point of this is that in our quest to know if there is a power behind the universe, it would not be one of the things we could observe.  There is only one instant in the entire universe, which we can know weather there is anything more than what can be observed.  Namely our own case, or specifically as it pertains to me, in my case.  As C.S. Lewis said “If there is a controlling power outside of the universe, it would not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe – no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase in that house.”    

The only way in which we should expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way.  As troublesome as it is, that is precisely what we do find inside ourselves, we find that moral law.  In the only case where we can get an answer, the answer turns out to be yes.  

Therefore, in the only instant where I can peek behind the curtain, I find that I do not exist on my own, as any external observation would deduce, but rather that I am under a law, that somebody or something wants me to behave in a certain manner.  Therefore, I can logically reason that as I am under an unseen law, all other matter in the universe is under unseen laws as well (as we can observe) but more importantly I should expect to find that there is a power behind those facts, those laws as well.

So the origin of the universe is either matter or something with a mind.  I personally have a difficult time trying to envision a clump of matter giving instructions, or laws.  You know where I am headed with this, but do not jump ahead of me, I am not talking about the God of Christian theology.  All we have been able to conclude so far, by observing the universe and examining what is unseen within each of us, is that there is in fact a ‘Something’ which is directing the universe, and which it shows itself in me, by giving me a law urging me to do the right thing, and making me feel uncomfortable and responsible when I fail to do so.  

Do not deceive yourself into believing that I am going to propose that the ‘Something’ is cuddly like the puppy dog modern American Christian churches are purporting, Quite the opposite, that ‘Something’ should be feared, as the universe while beautiful is not especially a hospitable place for humans, and the moral law that has been placed inside each of us is as hard as nails.  But I get ahead of myself.  It is time for you to decide which view you hold of the universe, but to me, to propose that all of this is just a matter of chance, a one in a billion long-shot, on top another one in a billion long shot, on top of another one and then to suppose that a clump of matter would instill in me a moral code is simply delusional, and denying what your own moral code tells you.  

If you have never read   THE SHACK  is a great place to begin to realize that not everything can be seen.  Desiring to truly understand 'What is Christianity' is not always easy. .

Examined Christian Faith 'Benedict Arnold' 1.3

So it would seem to be two really strange things about the human race, 1^st that we are haunted by the idea of a behavior that we should practice (you can call it whatever you like, morality, fair play, law of human nature, or just being a decent human being)  and 2^nd that we fail miserably at the 1^st.  It is strange because what we call the laws of nature are really in fact simply observations of what always happens.  As Isaac Newton observed, if I cut an apple loose from it’s tree, it will fall, it is not because the apple just remembered that it that it should fall, it just happens.  

However, the law of morality is a different matter entirely, it does not mean that this is what humans do; in fact, many humans choose to ignore the law completely, and none of us follows it all of the time.  The law of gravity tells you what an apple will do if you cut it loose from its tree, but the law of human nature tells you what humans should and should not do.  It is the only law that seems to have something outside of it beyond the actual facts and there is no explaining it away.

I was having this very conversation with a friend of mine, and it occurred to me that his example is one we have all shared.  If I am in a parking lot looking for a place to park my car (picture Black Friday at a busy shopping mall) I respond completely different to the person who is parked in a stall because they got there before me, and the person who cuts me off to sneak into the parking spot I had been waiting for.  They are both an inconvenience to me; however, while I am not angry with the first man, I am furious with the second.  

Or perhaps this explains it better, if once I am inside the shopping mall and I accidentally trip over another shopper and hurt my arm, I may be upset for a second, before I realize it was a mistake, however I would be really ticked off at a teenager who stuck out his leg in an attempt to trip me (which I nimbly jumped over).  That’s the strange thing, because the person who actually hurt me, I am not angry with, yet I am boiling at the one who actually did me no harm.

Alternatively, from the American viewpoint, think back to our own Revolutionary War and Benedict Arnold.  He was handsomely rewarded by the British for his betrayal of this fledgling country, yet once he was in England, he was treated like the jackal that he was; because while they paid him for his service, even they were repulsed by his behavior. 

Therefore, it would seem that decent behavior is not behavior that is useful to us or that does not cause us harm, and it is certainly not behavior that pays.  What is it?  It is being content with what you are paid for a job, when you might have made three times the amount, taking a test honestly when you have a chance to cheat, respecting a woman when she says no, when you want to make love to her, keeping promises that you would rather not, and telling the truth even it the truth may hurt you.  The law of morality does not concern itself with what is best for society, because really why should I care what is best for society except when it pays me personally? 

That is what we are left with.  The law of human nature, the law of morality is that ‘you should be unselfish.  Not that you are unselfish, or even that you like being unselfish, just that you should be’.  In fact, it is an idea that we cannot get out of our minds.  It is not a statement about how we want others to behave for our own convenience, for actions that we call  unfair are not the same as that which we find inconvenient, frequently they are the exact opposite.  We are left with no option other then to conclude that in regards to the law of right and wrong, good and evil, that there is something beyond the normal facts of our behavior, none of us made it, but it is definitely a real law that presses on us constantly to obey.

For a really good book that can explain all of this in manner far beyond my humble skills, I again recommend Timothy Keller's  The Reason For God

You will have noticed that I have not yet addressed the issue of ‘God’, especially not in the Christian context (I will get there). What I am concerned with at this point is understanding what we can observe as evidence for what we can not.   Think about the law of human nature and what it tells you about the universe we live in.  

Which is where we will head next.

Examined Christian Faith 'Buts' 1.2 - What is Christianity

Well that didn’t take long.  I have received several emails’ raising a couple of questions to my previous post.  Please keep in mind that this is not a book, rather it is a lack of a better analogy a series of letters to myself.  Nevertheless, I appreciate the correspondence, and it has made me a ware of the fact as I have stated  that all clear thinking is based on the two points mentioned in my prior post , I need to  assure myself that before I move forward that the foundation that those two point’s build is in fact solid.  Therefore, I must address a couple questions that were raised.  The objections came in two basic areas, which I have summarized as follows.  ‘Isn’t what I call the Law of Human Nature (Moral Law) simple a herd instinct that has developed just like our other instincts over the years?  ‘ And ‘Isn’t what I call the Law of Human Nature (Moral Law) something that is taught to us by our parents, family, society, etc.?’  Let’s take a look at those ‘Buts’

I will begin by responding to the first inquiry ‘Isn’t what I call the Law of Human Nature (Moral Law) simple a herd instinct that has developed just like our other instincts over the years?’  I would be a complete fool to deny that we as humans have a herd instinct, but that is not what I meant by the Moral Law.  I as well as you know what it is feels like to feel prompted by instinct for food, shade, sexual instinct, motherly love, and on occasions sometimes we even feel a desire to help another.  There is no doubt that all of those desires are due to herd instinct.  However, feeling a desire to help is quite different then feeling that you should help, weather you want to or not.  

It is actually fairly simple to visualize.

If you do not know, I live in Hawaii.  Oahu is a small island surround by a massive ocean. Needless to say, if you live here, you spend a fair amount of time at the beach.  Imagine that I am at the beach and I hear someone caught in a riptide crying for help.  At that moment I will feel two desires, the first the desire to help (due to the herd instinct) the second a very strong desire to keep out of danger (self-preservation).  Interestingly, I will also discover inside myself a third ‘thing’, which tells me that I should follow my impulse to attempt a rescue, and to ignore or suppress my self-preservation desire.  It does not take much thought to realize that that third ‘thing’ that decides which of the two desires should be encouraged, cannot be either of the two desires, as they are opposing desires.

Another way to look at the fact that Moral law is not just one of our instincts is that if two instincts are in conflict, and there is nothing else in the creatures mind except for those two impulses, then obviously the stronger of the two must always win.  Nevertheless, at preciously those moments when we are most aware of ‘Moral Law’ it always instructs us to chose the weaker of the two instincts.  In the above example, if you are like me, you probably want to be safe, much more than you want to go swimming into a riptide to save a drowning man.  However, the Moral Law tells you to do it anyway.  It is that third ‘thing’ that drives us to chose to act to make the weaker of the two instincts stronger than it really is. 

Now on to the second general objection ‘Isn’t what I call the Law of Human Nature (Moral Law) something that is taught to us by our parents, family, society, etc.?’  We of course learn a great many things as we are growing up, language, math, writing and even the rule of decent behavior.  But while most of these are merely conventions (what language do I speak,  do I drive on the right or left hand side of the road, do I shake your hand  or bow, what type of clothes do I wear) some like mathematics are real truths.  The question then becomes which class does the ‘Law of Human’ nature belong?

The are two obvious reasons why it belongs to the same class as mathematics (Real Truths).  The first I addressed in my previous post, that though there are differences between the moral ideas of one time and another, or from one country to another; the differences are not nearly as significant as most people want to imagine.  In fact, when you look closely at them you will see the same law running through all of them.  However, those mere conventions can and do vary greatly from one time and one country to another. 

The other reason is this.  When you consider the morality of one people (country, time, culture) to another, do you believe that the morality of one is better or worst than the other?  Now stop and think about that for a second; because if no set of moral ideas were more real, or better than the other, there would be no reason to compare say the civilized morality to a savage morality or Christian morality to a terrorist morality.  If decent behavior simply meant that every nation, every person could do what he or she approves of, there would be no sense in saying that any nation or any one person had ever been more correct in their approval than any other person.  But we do not hold that to be true, in fact, all of us do believe that some moralities are better than others are.  Now here’s the rub, the moment you say that one set of moral ideas is better than another; you are, in fact, measuring them both against a standard.  Saying that one of them conforms to that standard better than the other.  However, the standard that measures the two is something different from either of them.   

Like it or not, you are comparing them both with some ‘Real Morality’.  

 Max Lucado's examination of the Beatitudes may just be the inspiration you need The Applause of Heaven