Dear Michael:
Thank you again for this exchange, Michael; I am grateful that you took the time to teach me with such patience and tolerance.
In all honesty, I can't follow your subtle discussion of the relationship between natural laws and Divine Providence. The fault is mine. I think you are saying that miracles and divine intervention are consistent with the laws of nature. In any case, I am perfectly happy to grant you miracles for the sake of argument. The question I have been trying to pursue is rather an epistemological one: How do we tell a true act of God from a false one? Do you, Michael, approach the claims of other faiths with the same expectation of plausibility as you would a non-religious claim?
I take it that you don't, that you reject other unusual or supernatural claims on the basis of religious orthodoxy, not because they are patently preposterous. Christians reject astrology and witchcraft, you say, because they "are told that such things are sinful." But someone standing outside a faith has no such priesthood guiding him. Thus my question, again: how would you counsel the nonbeliever to approach the claim, for example, that a resident of upstate New York in 1827 decoded a buried runic gospel with the assistance of magic stones from Old Testament breastplates. How much proof or basic concordance with science and common sense may a disinterested observer rightly demand of such a claim?
In your latest post, you punt on whether God intervened on behalf of the Americans in the Revolutionary War; in No One Sees God, however, you seem to agree with George Washington that God did so interpose himself, thus bringing America "into line with God's purposes" (73). Most Brits, presumably, despite possessing an equally deep familiarity with Christianity as the colonists, did not see things the same way. How could they have been so mistaken? You will have noticed that victors in war tend to claim divine approbation. This July, signs on a Lebanese highway read: "God's Achievement Through our Hands. A Sign for Freedom, Victory from God." These banners commemorated Israel's release of five Hezbollah prisoners in exchange for the bodies of two Israeli soldiers. You will say that it is patently obvious that God could not possibly have affirmed such an outcome, but it's not so obvious to millions of people in the world. I'm sure that skeptics strike you as frustratingly and pettily materialistic, demanding proof for God's will in ways that misunderstand divinity and that limit the human spirit. But if it matters whether religious claims are true or not, and not simply a matter of taste or prior commitment, the not-yet-committed need some way to distinguish among them short of going to war or making a blind leap of faith.
I have more objects of gratitude for the unmerited benefits of my life than I can possibly contemplate. Thousands of human geniuses and entrepreneurs figured out how to conquer the disease and famine that is our natural lot by creating bridges, calculus, antibiotics, computers, clean water, and sanitation, among the millions of wonders that daily pervade our lives. Thousands of other human geniuses--Mozart, Sargent, Chopin, Van Dyck, the list is endless--created beauty that crushes us beneath its grandeur. I give thanks to all those human beings who have striven so hard to improve and to grace the human condition.
What I cannot do, however, is to attribute my privileged life to God's solicitude for me. Doing so would require me to explain why I deserved in God's eyes to receive every possible benefit while some other child was born with a genetic defect that will painfully consume her nervous system before she is ten. I am not narcissistic enough to even contemplate such a grotesque exercise. Don't tell me that both children are equally blessed. No human father would wish on his daughter the second fate. I prefer to attribute my extraordinary fortune to the loving efforts of my parents to shower on me every advantage that human ingenuity has devised and to sheer dumb luck.
There is no suffering so unmerited and agonizing, however, that will ever convince the bulk of Christians that they are not superintended by an all-powerful, all-knowing "loving Friend," as you term him, Michael. Skeptics are amazed at this, but also grateful that such remarkable double standards do not apply in the main to human judges and caregivers.
The multiplicity of meanings that pervade our lives emanate from the fecundity of the human spirit, in my view, they do not proceed from a single divine source. If I see the good as God's creation, I would also have to see undeserved pain and catastrophic natural cataclysms as his creation--unless I become Manichean, which I take it you would view as heresy. This August, a seven-year-old girl was swept to her death in a flash flood at a New Hampshire campground. Her human father tried desperately to rescue her. Her purported divine father either did not care to save her or could not do so.
As for what started the universe, I don't have a clue, and neither, in my view, do you, Michael. God is a placeholder for ignorance. Perhaps one day we will penetrate that mystery with verifiable knowledge, but it just may lie outside the limits of our intelligence. I am willing, however, to stipulate that God is that first cause which we feel compelled to posit as a logical matter but that we have otherwise been unable to verify empirically. The qualities that attach to that placeholder God, however, would be quite minimalist; they would certainly not include personal love and justice.
I do not spend much time wondering about things that I have no hope of answering; I will wait for others with a greater capacity than I to do so. This may be a point at which, Michael, we can distinguish where believers and nonbelievers start to diverge. Perhaps if I had more of a metaphysical bent, I would be closer to your position. But in any case, we do agree that the world is a wonderful place of strange beauty that human beings will always try to make better. Thank you again for our discussion.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Everyone should get a copy of this book.
http://faithlikeamustardseed.com
How can we tell a true act of God from a false one if there's question of His existence in the first place? To first try to determine if an act was done by God or not, you have to believe there's the possibility that He exists in the first place and seeing how God's existence is arguable, that makes this question entirely subjectable. It's a bit like debating whether or not Santa Claus wears boxers or briefs. Unless you're assuming Santa Claus exists, the discussion is closed.
If we assume God exists and that he created the world and everything in it, technically everything which happens is an act of god whether it be directly from his hand or indirectly though the course of events which lead to it.
In either case, it's a moot point.
As I read through these posts, an exhortation from Jesus to become childlike in our approach to faith. A child asks many questions, but questions few of the answers they are given. They accept on faith. I think there is a reason Jesus tried to get his followers to approach faith in this way. Sometimes we think too much, and ask too many questions.
My comment should have said:
As I read through these posts, an exhortation from Jesus to become childlike in our approach to faith comes to mind.
Lots of interesting comments. Thank you to Heather and Michael, and all the responses. My thoughts on the matter possibly bear more relation to the point about establishing common points of reference.
Science has always interested me, especially because of its relationship to the real world. Surprise at a good father and family dying in a plane crash is not starting with the basics, I think. Mother Theresa didn't die in a plane crash. Neither did Ronald Reagan or Jimmy Carter. Are the three equatable in moral terms or in God's eyes? Just where do we start to get grounded? Who doesn't want to be good, or appear good? How good are we if we don't practice meditation and reflect on the long-term and widespread negative consequences of our behavior?
Moreover, who is willing to succeed without getting as much as they possibly can out of it? How much are other people being deprived, and really benefiting in the process? A 1930's film, My Man Godrey, examines the question in an entertaining way, as does Steve Martin's 1980's film, The Jerk. These questions will get us into the combined dynamics of the blessings developed by modern humans, their relationship to an evolving created universe, and to the history of that culture through Christian education, which originates with a man teaching anything but greed and cold-blooded profit-maximization.
One starting point is mind-body healing. Is it real? From Freud to Carl and Stephanie Simonton, to Louise Hay's curing her own cancer, and helping others heal from other conditions, including AIDS. Without pharmeceutical medicine in many cases. The techniques involve nurturing forms of thought, otherwise known as love.
That's nice. You know, Jesus is said to have healed. Let's take some time to think about it.
Then again, do we have all the time in the world? A second point of concern for us is the environment. Love Canal, NY in the 1970's showed how toxic waste poisons and kills people, trichloroethylene or some such poison. Even Eskimos by now have chemicals in their bodies, and that means we all do. Where are the factories? Mostly out of site of people with most of the money.
This raises the question of economic inequality and injustice. Who has paid for the advertisements against climate change concerns? People interested in investing in clean energy technology? Not exactly. People focussed on economic activity that has been making money for them, with dollar signs from their current bank accounts in their eyes. The movie, "Who Killed the Electric Car?" shows very well how the Electric Car was not eliminated by an "invisible hand." "Market forces" were not so objective in their economic abuse of power.
"Good" people dying in plane crashes avoids addressing some manageable questions. Many things have become possible in a world of science and technology, whether Jimmy Carter's putting solar panels on the White House, or Ronald Reagan's increasing defense spending and decreasing EPA funding. Scientists and economists engage in lots of debates and take lots of credit. However, the environment is being degraded willfully by business and its mentality, and people deprived of economic control by investors are struggling to regain and retain that control worldwide. United Air Lines, for example.
Moreover, what is the origin of science and economic philosophy in the modern world? Aristotle didn't survive, neither did Plato's academies. In fact, their teachings lay in the Arabic world for some time. Was it the barbarian tribes who diplomatically contacted the Arabic scholars? Or stealthy Greeks? Then why was it St. Thomas of Aquinas who took Aristotle's Greek logic and turned it into the proofs of God? Newton, as did DesCartes, Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler, all still referred to God in their work.
Moving forward to the industrial revolution, how can we reconcile the rise of mechanization in factories of the wealthy and the elimination of skilled craftsmen? Advertising later came to dominate the culture, actually targeting social mores to change cultural perceptions in favor of mass consumption of cheap machine production.
Most of us non-hippies and country-folk have to re-emerge from this psychocultural mind-set, perhaps not unlike the computer HAL who controls the spaceship in 2001:A Space Odyssey. Look at the story of Interface Carpets and Ray Anderson, or the Evangelical Creation Care movement. We have been given enormous power to understand a created and evolved world, thanks to Church-based education with the efforts of the Dominican St. Thomas. The consequences of the differences between the likes of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan occur at different levels and scales. The destruction of the environment has reached 60% by count of the 2005 World Bank-UNEP-WRI study, but it is still hard to see. The fall of Wall St. in 2008 cost trillions, but who can tell? Executives can still steal bonus money from the government.
Nevertheless, can you cheat an honest man? I have European and Latin American roots that I have explored, and have been to Africa and studied Asian arts. A non-profit like Green America promotes green business, and the NCBA promotes socially responsible business partnerships. Contrasting the pollution and employee-benefits from industrial hog farms and from farmer-owned business like Organic Valley, and businesses that sell Fair Trade certified coffee begins to help specify conditions and choices involved in distinguishing between "good people." Who doesn't want to be good, or appear good?
Then again, who is willing to succeed without getting as much as they possibly can out of it? How much are other people being deprived, and really benefiting in the process? A 1930's film, My Man Godrey, examines the question in an entertaining way, as does Steve Martin's 1980's film, The Jerk. These questions will get us into the combined dynamics of the blessings developed by modern humans, their relationship to an evolving created universe, and to the history of that culture through Christian education, which originates with a man teaching anything but greed and cold-blooded profit-maximization.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.