A Response to Mr. Tom Harpur - Part II

I am saddened see that Mr. Harpur is among the liberal theologians of our day who submit to the inconsistancies, incoherency and existentially unlivable claims of popularized secularist and humanistic thought.

FIrst and foremost, Mr. Harpur misses the inconsistancy with pure evolution and theism. There are those who claim to be Thestic Evolutionists, but the position is logically inconsistant simply because Darwinian Evolution teaches that evolution is a blind process, based purely on natural actions and reactions whereas theism teaches that God created life. A Creator and life coming about on its own are mutually exclusive ideas.

He goes on to say that "The idea that we must leave this task to God... is in reality an abrogation of both our own potential and our responsibility... believing that the 'mind of the universe regards us as children to be dragged willy-nilly along,' is a formula for disaster."

Harpur is proposing a reverse God-of-the-gaps theory by claiming that when human agents are at work, then Gd is not; and when Gd is at work then human agents are not. This is a false dichotomy that runs contrary to the claims of Christian theism, in which God commands that people are to help the widows, look out for the orphans, clothe the naked, feed the hungry, etc. The Christian view of doing good things ought to be that, in light of the grace God has shown us, we ought to show that grace to the world. Therefore, believing in God is not detrimental to our "owning up" to "our end of the bargain," as it were in taking care of one another or our environment. Indeed, Mr. Harpur has forgotten that many Christian saints are saints because they do those things that he says believing in God prevents us from doing!

Inasmuch as God regarding us as children, this is true only as to say that a true, mature love of God will be that like a child for his or her parent; guileless, simple, strong. God does not intellectual children or people who do not take responsibility like children.

"...some progress is being made. We are evolving steadily..." Progress? If there is one constant in all of history, it is that humanity has not "progressed" at all. In his heyday, I believe it was Camut who said that the fundamental question in life was meaning, anything else was secondary, and untilt hat fundamental issue of meaning was resolved he didn't care for the answers to the other queries.

If we have progressed, why are we still asking the same questions?

If we have progressed, why has human behavior not changed? For all of our innovations in science and various other inventions, and so on, we may have improved the quality of life for some. But we have also used that technology for rather poor means as well - the casualties of WWI and WWII, along with the organized attempt at the mass extinction of the Jewish race, just for starters. Harpur may go on about how we have to "seize control of our own evolution," but the inevitable result of whenever mankind does such is never, ever a good thing.

"We do not trust our time. And the reason we do not trust our time is that it is we who have made the time. We have played the hero's part, mastered the villain's, and become gods. And we do not trust ourselves as gods, because deep inside we know who we really are. In the old days the gods did not frighten us; there were Furies to pursue the Hitlers, and Athenas to restore the truth. But now that we are gods ourselves, we bear the knowledge for ourselves - like that old Greek hero who, having accomplished the labors, learned that it was he himself who had killed his sons." - Archibald Macleish

In fact, Harpur's constant rallying cry of controlling our own evolution reminds me of nothing so much as Nietzsche's superman, which reminds me of nothing so much as Hitler's militarization of that idea, of a superman (a super race of the super people - the Aryan people) who would control his own fate, and determine for himself what was right and wrong. Harpur says that we need to be "constantly confronted with the truth that we are the bearers of the divine presence of the living God within our hearts and minds." Much like Conrad's Mr. Kurtz, who, like Nietzsche's and Hitler's superman, had "shaken himself free from the dust of the earth."

Harpur here misunderstands an obvious Biblical truth. People are made in God's image and because of that, all possess essential dignity. He is correct there. But God never says that He is within us, as Harpur claims, a very New Age sense of us being deities in a temporary state of amnesia "...to have grasped that the secret of our humanity lies in our potential for divinity...". Rather, for the CHristian, Jesus Christ dwells within the believer in virtue of the Holy SPirit, who then goes about the process of sanctification - that is, of making that person more and more into the image of Jesus Christ.

If humanity is not just made in the image of God (with which the Bible agrees) but we carry this "Spark of the divine," in that we, are somehow also divine, then you can be sure that not all of us will be as god, nor will that Harpur's idea of mankind becoming God remain in such an abstract form; some actual men will become God. As Malcolm Muggeridge put it, ..."it will either be the megalomaniac or the erotomaniac, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallis; Hitler of Hugh Heffner."

And somehow, this basic foudnation of us recognizing that we are divine and becoming that divinity is "essential for any lasting world peace" even though all of history cries out that when man becomes god, some actual men become god, and people always suffer. That mankind should strive to be divine is, in fact, the basic foundation for all sin. What did Satan say in the Garden of Eden? The reason God told you not to eat of the fruit is because, on the day that you do, you will become as God. And why should you let God be God? Why don't you be God? Or certainly, at least the God of yourself!

Harpur is correct in one thing, at least. "The result is not a boring homogeneity or sameness." No, the result is conflict, suffering, pain, alienation and death.

Finally, for a theologian to claim that all religions are fundamentally the same is rather astonishing. Harpur's bold assertion that "The more I study other faiths the more I am impressed with the universality of the central belief in each..." is obviously false. Especially since all religions, by definition, are different religions because they disagree about fundamental truths. It is not possible that God be limited and infinite. It is not possible that one God and many gods exist. I am reminded of the article "The Creed for the Modern Thinker" by Steve Turner, when he wrote: "We believe that all religions are the same, at least the ones that we read were. They all believe in love and goodness, and only differ on matters of Heaven, Hell, sin, God and salvation."

A Response to Mr. Tom Harpur - Part One

Copyright 2005 Toronto Star Newspapers, Ltd.The Toronto Star
Today's column will be followed by a welcome summer break, so I'd like to sumup the core message of the last nine months of writing in this space.

As I mature (get older!), I see the need for us, as humans, to boldly takeour own evolution in hand as more and more urgent.

The idea that we must leave this task to God or to mechanistic forces beyondour control is in reality an abrogation of both our own potential and ourresponsibility. Such thinking, in effect, believing that the "mind of theuniverse regards us as children to be dragged willy-nilly along," is a formulafor disaster.

As the recent Live 8 concerts around the world have shown, some progress isbeing made. We are evolving steadily. The question still is how and in whatdirection? It's time to wake up and realize our lives are about much more thanthe pursuit of happiness or simply killing time until sunset manor looms.

This is where religious leaders have an incredible opportunity and aninescapable duty. Their crucial task as one looks at the contemporary scene isto hammer night and day on one fundamental theme. That theme is not about"saving souls" or "pastoring the feeble" or even "social action." Their firstand foremost call from God is to drum the truth into people about who theyreally are.

What time is wasted in Sunday sermons preaching a pedestrian kind of moralitythat is put across far more cogently in the average Rotary or Lions Club everyweek! Think of how many thousands of people go home every Sunday from churchwith only the most meagre pickings to chew on for spiritual fare. It's all wellmeaning and perhaps harmless in itself but hardly the way to nourish a vibrantand vigorous new approach to personal, social and global problems.

Each of us needs to be constantly confronted with the truth that we are thebearers of the divine presence of the living God within our hearts and minds. Weare illumined and sustained by the true light that "gives light to every humanbeing who comes into the world." We are children of the King of Kings and yet goabout half awake.

The early religions of the Greco-Roman world all had sacred mysteries attheir centre.

Those initiated into their ranks came to prize these mysteries beyond allelse because they were believed to lead to life abundant here and life eternalin the age to come. Well, the mystery we have been privileged to share has beendescribed by the apostle Paul in these glowing terms: "And this is the Mystery,the Christ is in you, the basis of your hope of glory."

The Christ within denotes the divine presence spoken of above and it can't bestated too often that examination of every major faith in the world reveals thatthey bear at their centre this same teaching however differently they choose todescribe or name it. The more I study other faiths the more I am impressed withthe universality of the central belief in each - in each of us possessing atouch or spark of divinity within.

Once this is grasped and fully applied to ourselves and our relationshipswith others, everything begins to change. Gone are the old labels, the olddivisions based on creeds or rituals or the vagaries of religious dress.

Gone, too, are the harsh judgments of those who worship differently, lovedifferently or who fail to jump through the hoops of our particular beliefsystems.

The recognition of what it really means to be completely human, i.e. to havegrasped that the secret of our humanity lies in our potential for divinity,reaches beyond all that separates the various blocs and factions around the globe.

The result is not a boring homogeneity or sameness. It is a basic, commonsubstratum - a metaphysical or spiritual core upon which genuine planetaryunity, justice and harmony can build - beneath the colour and richness of thefull, kaleidoscopic, human tapestry of beliefs, customs and mores.

This foundation is essential for any lasting world peace. Justice flows fromthe recognition that every single person on the face of the Earth is made in God's image and carries the worth and dignity that attend every child of the Creator.

The moral imperative "in a nuclear world" of total non-violence then remainsno longer a pious ideal but the logical and necessary outcome of consciouslyclaiming and being what we already are.

Note: For provocative summer reading, I suggest Jesus the Egyptian, by the prolific author, Professor Richard Gabriel (iUniverse Press), Can We Trust theNew Testament? by Professor G.A.Wells (Open Court Chicago), and The LaughingJesus, by Timothy Freke (Harmony Books).Tom Harpur is a theologian whose focus is on cosmic spirituality. His website is at www.tomharpur.com.

The Problem of Evil

There is hardly a man clever enough to recognize the full extent of the evil he does.

- Francois De La Rochefoucauld

We have spoken of it before on this blog, and it has been mentioned in passing and deliberately, but the "Problem of Evil," yet remains one of the largest objections to Christianity. If God is all-good, all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful - why is there yet evil in the world? As I read recently from a website www.calvaryphx.com in their Q&A section, the problem of evil exists because God is good.

God is not an annihilator; He has never completely destroyed both someone's body and soul so that it is as if that person, or those people, have never been. Even those in the Old Testament, that God told the Israelites to make war upon, were not utterly annihilated. Why?

Because God does, despite what many rabid PC'ers claim, respect the views of other people. He allows people to be wrong. He allows for freedom. Love without freedom is slavery, and is therefore also not love. "...Freely you have received, freely give (Matthew 10:8)." Part of the reason why God loves a cheerful giver is because the giver does so freely and willfully, knowing that the giver has lost something, time if nothing else, and cannot get that time back. Imagine if on your wedding day your wife, or husband, to-be said "I do" not because that person desperately loved you, but because it was not possible for that person to answer otherwise! You wouldn't have a spouse, but a mere servant; a slave. We are made in the image of God, and God is no slave; part of being made in that image is self-determination i.e. free will.

Aha! some might say. If God is all-powerful, then surely He can create people who would always freely choose to do good!

But that is not possible. To which you might reply - if God is all-powerful, then nothing is impossible! But that is not true either. Consider the following (somewhat childish) philosophical argument:

1) God is all-powerful.
2) If (1), then God can do anything.
3) If (1) and (2), then God can create a rock so big that He himself cannot lift it.
4) But God can do anything (2)
- We are left with a contradiction. If God is all-powerful, can He make a rock so big He Himself cannot lift it?

Similarly, let us address the question of evil in a more philosophically rigorous fashion:

1) God is all-powerful
2) God is all-good
3) God is all-knowing
4) That which is good seeks to maximixe good and minimize evil.
5) If (1) (2) then God is powerful enough to fully maximize good and fully minimize evil (make only a good universe)
6) If (3) God knows how to make only a good universe.
7) If (1) (2) and (3) then God can create people who always freely choose to do good.
8) Evil exists
9) People sometimes do evil
- We are left with another contradiction. But before anyone gets too excited, let us revisit the summary of the first argument:

If God is all-powerful, He can make a rock so big that He Himself cannot lift it. Substitute whatever term you feel is best appropriate for "big," whether it be size, mass, density, or whatever. The statement still stands until one realizes something: If God is all-powerful, and infinite (by definition), then it is not possible for there to be any such rock! If God is unlimited in His power, and He is, then there can never be a rock which He cannot lift. Thus premise (3), in the first argument, is unsound because it supposes the existence of something that is logically contradictory. There cannot be any such rock of sufficient size, mass, or whatever, that cannot be overcome by an infinitely all-powerful being.

We have the exact same problem in premise (7) of the second argument. Just as God cannot create a rock so big that He himself cannot lift it (because God can, by definition lift anything because of His being all-powerful and infinite), He cannot create a being that always freely chooses to do good because then there is no freedom. Even the best Christians do not always do the morally best thing in any given situation, regardless of how big or small that situation is - that is why God tells believers to regularly confess their sins - because they will, in fact, continue sinning. But the presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer will ensure that the believer sins less and less, a process called sanctification, whereby God begins to make the believer more like Jesus Christ.

Freedom is a mutually exclusive term. Either you are free to choose (a) or you are not free to choose (a). Freedom, too, is bound by the law of non-contradiction. For those of you interested in reading more about God's attributes and logical possibility, I refer you to the works of Saint Thomas Aquinas.

To end, I will refer once again to www.calvaryphx.com in that site's final paragraph concerning dealing with the problem of evil.

"The real question that needs to be answered by those who blame God for evil is “how much suffering is too much suffering? Who is able to make that determination? Isn’t a certain level of pain a good thing since it warns me of danger? The removal of suffering would cripple our growth as individuals. This fact was even the basis of the Hollywood movie “The Matrix.” The ruling machines found that a “perfect world” did not work for humans and they had to scrap it for what our current reality holds. If Hollywood recognizes that suffering is essential to the human character, and the Bible states that it is inevitable, and if Jesus bore the suffering for the weight of sin, then what sort of folly begs for a world with no suffering?"

"Apart from the gospel message, I know of no other hope for mankind."
- Konrad Adenauer, German Chancellor following WWII

A Response to Mr. George H Smith - Part III

Smith contends that faith is also diametrically opposed to reason. He quotes various people in history who have believed in the CHristian claims because they are so unbelievable. As Smith himself writes, "Insofar as faith is possible, it is irrational; insofar as faith is rational, it is impossible... Belief cannot be based on both reason and faith."

I do not know where contemporary philsophers and scientists have come up with the idea of faith and reason being mutually exclusive, but it is sheer and utter nonsense. Faith is simply trust, not blind ignorance; which it has been used to mean due to misconception. Indeed, it even sounds as if Mr. Smith is putting a lot of "faith" in reason, so to speak. I won't belabor the point of fath vs. reason here, as I have done it before (See earlier post by same name "Faith vs. Reason") except to say that faith, that is trust, should only be given when one realizes that it is rational and reasonable to trust a certain person, or in a certain fact. Thus, reason can indeed produce faith, in which case belief is based on both.

Finally, Smith's final philosophical contention is that God's divine attributes are themselves unintelligble. These attributes are classical theological attributes: that God is necessary, an immaterial being (invisible)(, infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent. I am also not going to belabor the consistancy of God being all-good, and all-powerful against the problem of the existence of evil because I have also written already at length about that in earlier posts. But I am going to respond to SMith's contention that it is impossible for God to exist because God is an incorporeal being. His backing for that particular objection is that a being that exists, and a being that is incorporeal, are mutually exclusive definitions - there are no such things as beings, that exist, that do not have physical form.

This is an absurd argument. Actually, it is not an argument at all but rather a presupposition that sounds to me like naturalism, or physicalism, or both. Simply meaning that Smith contends that an incorporeal being cannot exist because he has a prior philosophical committment to naturalism and/or physicalism, which states that everything that exists is a physical entity. It is like a Darwinian biologist claiming that miracles cannot occur because they violate the laws of nature (to which all things are bound to obey) when a miracle is, by definition, something that violates the laws of nature! The miracle is not discounted because of any evidence for or against it, it is dismissed out-of-hand, because of prior intellectual, personal and philosophical committments. All I have to say about that is this: if we allow our biases, and not information and facts, to lead us to discover any truth about anything - then we will never learn any truth at all. We will, instead, be viewing the world through rose-tinted glasses.

A Response to Mr. George H Smith - Part II

As Smith's book unfolds, he moves on to certain irrational beliefs held by the Christian (Judeo-Christian) concerning the nature of God. THe first is the challenge of the "Unlimited Attribute," which we find in pronouncements such as "God is infinite." That is, God lasts forever, God's mercy is unending, God's love is eternal, etc. Here he raises a challenge that is very Eastern in its predeliction, and the objection goes something like this: how can you define an infinite being? If you can define an infinte being totally (that is that the definition is fully comprehensive) then this God is not infinite. We are left with a contradiction.

There is more to this objection than meets the eye - it is a worthwhile objection. However, this objection is true of anything noble or transcendant, such as love for a fellow human being. I can quote the definition of love from the dictionary, but we all know and experience love as something more than mere words on a page. Still that definition is meaningful. Similarly, any definition of God that theists give will not be total (because you cannot totally define an infinite being by definition) but that does not mean that any definition or description cannot be significant and meaningful. Smith presupposes that by defining God that we are defining Him in His entirety - I agree that the theists cannot do this, but we can still define God in such a way that is meaningful, significant, and correct as to what the definition speaks about. For example, I can define water without calling it H2O and someone will still know what I am talking about.

Smith then moves on to what he calls the problem of the Limited Attributes. This is a problem he believes that theists face when describing God's character. For instance, we say that "God is alive," but Smith claims we can only understand that in the human sense of alive which also means that, therefore, God must be alive in the same sense as natural organisms and can die. Or that "God is wise, loving, etc." with these characteristics, because we can only understand them in a human and fallible way, which means that God is also fallible in his love although we claim that he isn't - Smith's point is that Theists is once again contradictory. But I see this problem as being easily solved if we remember the first attribute of God - infinity. Now I have never experienced anything infinite, but I understand intellectually that anything which is infinite will never cease to exist. In the case of God's attributes, this also means that those attributes will never cease; God will never be unloving, or unwise, etc. even though human beings are often unloving or unwise. In the case of infinity, just because I have never experienced it does not mean that I have no idea what it is. I have never experienced an electron in any tangible way either, but no one really doubts that they exist. And there is a meaning and significance to the word electron when I use it even though I have never directly experienced one. We also talk about wood having "memory" in that, if it has warped under certain circumstances, it may yet return to its original shape - but wood does not actually possess the faculty of memory that you or I do. Still we can speak of it as if it did, and the meaning is made clearer to us that wood has such-and-such a property that is analagous to our memory. We talk about proteins "knowing" how to combine themselves to create amino acids, but proteins do not have actual knowledge in the same sense that you and I do. Therefore, I contend that we can attribute characteristics that are at least like human characteristics to non-human things, and have those attributes be meaningful.

A Response to Mr. George H. Smith - Part I

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, & the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."
- Karl Marx

There is a book written by George H. Smith that he has simply entitled: "The Case Against God," that I would like to respond to here. In his book, Smith contends that religious belief is entirely irrational, and that religious teaching is psychologically dangerous. I am far more concerned with his first assertion than with the second, but I will eventually move on to his second point as well.

Let me be absolutely clear here - I am not attacking Smith himself. I do not wish to come across as if I were attacking him, either. Now, this book was published in 1989, so it is not exactly cutting edge. But I was surprised to find that, upon reading it, I found nothing new at all since atheists (and simple critics) of CHristianity began their arguments against it.

In his foreward, Smith makes it quite obvious what his agenda is:
I) He is "...amazed at the credence given to religious claims in the intellectual community" and seeks to eliminate that credence.
II) Furthermore, Smith is "...appalled by the psychological damage of religious teaching."
III) And his ultimate purpose in writing this book is "...not to convert people to atheism... but to demonstrate that belief in God is irrational to the point of absurdity."

So, dear readers, Smith is not going to try and compell us to become atheists - but he does want us to know that if we don't then we are pedantic, irrational and ignorant people who enjoy psychologically damaging ourselves. Religion is, as ever, the greatest evil ever foistered upon mankind. Evidently, the bloodiest and most brutal wars are ever fought in the name of religion.

That assertion, although Smith himself does not make it, is a very common one among atheists. It is also obviously false. The bloodiest, most brutal wars have all been fought in the twentieth century, and they were all started by atheistic regimes, or for atheistic/ secular purposes. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Dong, Moussilini - all atheists. Now not all atheists are immoral or psychologically damaged people (although, according to Smith, all religious people may very well be) but the simple fact of the matter is that the atheist (or agnostic for that matter) cannot justify any one type of behavior over and against another type of moral behavior.

The crux of SMith's argument is, much like Kai Nielson's assertions in his debate with J.P. Moreland, that the concept of God is itself incomprehensible. THat is, that one cannot define God without contradicting some attribute of God or that self-same definition. For starters, dictionary.com provides this definition of God taken from the American Heritage Dictionary:

1 a) A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

b) The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.

All the other definitions which follow are generalities based off of the first definitions provided here, or pertain to more venacular uses of the term which simply do not apply.

Not to blithely dismiss Smith's objection, but the fact that the dictionary gives a definition, and the fact that theologians have been discussing the concept for thousands of years, seems to point to the fact that people do have an idea, which they generally agree upon and mutually understand, when they speak of God.

Smith does however elaborate his objection, pointing out that various theists mean different things whent hey use the word "god." Some equate god with nature, existence, the universe, etc. - such people would be called pantheists who believe, essentially, that god (whatever it is) is physically manifest in the world. Now, in the Judeo-Christian (and even Islamic) traditions, this is obviously not that which is meant.

There are also those that identify god with "reality" or even "ultimate reality," with the effect of strong-arming atheists into the theist camp because atheists also exist in reality; although this forced maneuvering of their position is the product of mere linguistic games and does not answer any questions.

Furthermore, some theists claim that God is unknowable or incomprehensible by the finite human mind. Smith gets into this objection more later on, and so will I, but let me first say that I do not hold the position that God is totally unknowable. To do so would be contradictory; if God is unknowable, and I believe God exists, how can I believe something exists that I can have no knowledge of? Similarly, if God is completely incomprehensible to the human mind, that is that I can know of God but cannot understand God in any sense, then my belief is also worthless. Smith's previous three charges, if they are part and parcel of the definition of God, would render theism irrational - and I agree that if a theist holds those assertions to be true, then said theist is in a lot of trouble.