God, Science and Genesis 1:1a.

I have found that most of those who call Christians stupid for believing the Bible, know very little about it, and may never even have read it. Either that, or they will take their own interpretation of this or that verse and then slam us for believing that interpretation. Its called setting up a straw man, you know those who are easy to tear down! And I have seen this perpetrated on the very first phrase of the very first verse of the very first book of the Bible. Well I guess it saves having to read it :).

Genesis 1:1(a) says “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, .....” An atheistic “sermon” I heard from one of the militant atheists started by interpreting this to be saying that the heavens and the earth were created at the same time. And (the sermon continues) since Science tells us that the earth was formed way after the heavens were formed, way, way after, then whole thing should be thrown out from the very beginning. But surely we need to ask if this reading of the text is correct, if this what was intended to be communicated, if this is the point and focus of what is being said.

If you ask a man wearing yellow tinted glasses what colour a zebra is (assuming he has never seen one before) you are likely to be told 'yellow and black', or if the glasses were red tinted, the observed colours would likely be pink and black. The point I am making is that if we are to understand Scripture correctly there are a number of things we need to take into account. In particular we must be careful that we do not read the text with our 21st Century glasses (which can easily distort what is being said), and with our presuppositions firmly in place (i.e. we all know that God does not exist, right?). There are many many difficulties in understanding and interpreting Scripture. For instance, the distance between us and the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures is enormous in both time and culture. And while this is not the place to go into this in detail we do, we need in the first instance to understand how the early readers would have understood the text. If our interpretation is correct, it would need to have made sense to those to whom it was first written.

So let's come back to our phrase “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, ...” How would this have been understood by the first readers of this phrase? Let me suggest several things, firstly they would understand that there was a beginning, that the heavens and the earth were not always there. It is surely interesting to note that for a long time many Scientists were saying that the cosmos was indeed always there, and at that time such people laughed at the Biblical statement that there was a beginning. These days virtually nobody believes this (various forms of the Big Bang theory hold the day). Secondly this phrase states that there is a being, identified here as “God,” who is outside of space, time and matter, and who created the said space, time and matter out of nothing. As I have said elsewhere, once you admit a beginning, the logical options are very few, in fact there are only two. Either “In the beginning someone or something outside of space time and matter created everything that is out of nothing,” or “In the beginning nothing created everything that is out of nothing.” If we are to be consistent with the Scientific principle of cause and effect, and if there was beginning, then one or the other of these two options has to be true. To me the first option is much more believable (though this is not how I came to believe). And I have to say that it seems to me to be more than a tad ridiculous to laugh at those of us who believe the first view, since the second view can only be held by faith, and that by a faith that is not only without a scrap of empirical evidence to support it, but a faith that contradicts the law of cause and effect!

I want to be clear that at this point of the argument, the logic does not necessarily point to the Judeo Christian God as the only option for the creator. That is an entirely separate argument. Along these lines, it is interesting to me to note the case of the famous (almost life long) atheist Anthony Flew. Flew, though he became a theist towards the end of his life, did not become a Christian. Among other things what lead him to the conclusion that some form of god existed, was the incredible complexity of life. Life is so complex that he could no longer believe that it all happened by chance. He became a theist, but got no further than that!

So to recap, the phrase we are discussing here is saying that there was a beginning, there is a creator and this creator created everything that is out of nothing. In relation to our skeptics interpretation, we can (hypothetically) ask our ancient reader if he understood this to be also saying that the heavens and the earth were created at the same time. But I am not sure it is a valid question to ask him (or her). If you stand at the bottom of a mountain range looking up, the question of whether the peek you see over the the top of the first rise is the same mountain, is in many ways an unfair question. You do not have enough information to answer it. With respect to the skeptics question, I want to say firstly that I don't think it is a question that would have occurred to our first reader. He would have no frame of reference to ask it, and in any case he would not have had enough information from this phrase alone to answer the question. On the other hand the rest of Genesis 1 clearly points to their being stages of the earth's development. And in Genesis 2:4 the entire period that encompassed the stages in Genesis 1 is telescoped into a single period there. So why would it be unreasonable to think that the stages of the creation of the heavens and the earth would not similarly be telescope in Genesis 1:1. What I am saying is that to insist that Genesis 1:1 precludes stages of development is to read a lot more into the text than is really there.

Unfortunately many Christians do similar types of exposition of texts when they want to prove a point that the text may not support. It is called Eisegesis, which is reading into the text (Greek “eis” means “into”), as opposed to exegesis which means "to lead out" of the text. Eisegesis is defined as the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that it introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, and/or biases into and onto the text. When people complain to me that “You can make the Bible say anything you want.” I usually answer “Yes, and using exactly the same rules you need to use to do this, I can make the dictionary say the very same thing. And since I realized this, I have stopped using the dictionary” :-). Thank the Lord for spellchecker!

So where am I going with this? What I am saying is that things may not be as black and white as some (on both sides of the divide) would have us believe. Nobody has all the truth, not one of us has arrived. We will not arrive at the truth by calling one another names. When we label one another as stupid or hieratic, we shut down communication. For the Christian we are to be Ambassadors for Christ, we are to be eager to preserve unity, we are to respect all who are made in the image of God and that means everyone. It seems to me that we have a ways to go!

Is religion the root of all evil?

It is not hard to figure out which side of the fence the late Christopher Hitchens was on in this question. The title of his book “God is not great: how religion poisons everything,” makes it quite clear. To take his side for a moment, one would have to be blind or ignorant or both, not to see that far too many wars have been fought over religion, and far too many atrocities perpetrated in the name of God. And this is not to even consider the number of friends who have become enemies or families that have been split over religious issues. So Hitchens' thesis is not without merit, but is it just religion that poisons things, and is it always poison, does it never bring the good?”

Hitchens would have been the last to say that all religion was fanatical, but his point seems to be that if you do away with religion, you do away with fanatical religion. It's hard fault his logic there. And we can deal with pollution and the need for toxic waste disposal the very same way. I mean if there were no people there would be a lot less pollution, right? So let's get rid of the human race! It would solve a lot of problems, including the one Hitchens sees. As I said, Hitchens would be the last to say that all religion is fanatical, and I would be the last to say that religion has not been poisonous. But is religion the only “ism” that poisons us? We need to ask what was the philosophy that brought with it the most atrocities and the most destruction in the last Century? I am thinking of Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, Pol Pot and others with their multimillions slain. Hitchens would argue that it was not atheism per se that was the cause of these atrocities, but we can't have it both ways. Perhaps, just perhaps it is not religion in and of itself that is the cause of all the poisoning. Perhaps there is a better explanation.

It was not that long ago that I was complaining to the God that I felt misunderstood. The response I got boiled down to “You think that you are misunderstood. Buddy you ain't seen nothing yet. What about all those religious types who say they represent me, but don't? What about all the self righteous hypocrites who speak for me, but don't even know me? What about all the blame, all the bad mouthing, all the false accusations, all the nasty things people say and think about Me? You think you have a problem. My son, you ain't seen nothing.”

What I am saying is that God gets a lot of blame that belongs elsewhere. Religion too gets a bad name, and some of it is deserved, and some of it is not. The Scriptures themselves distinguish between true and false religion. “Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world” (James 1:27). Who is going to condemn visiting orphans? If I could have had a conversation with Christopher Hitchens I would have asked him what were the things about religion that he had so much trouble with? I am pretty sure that we would have been in substantial agreement. And if he were to have asked me about the things about atheism that I have trouble with, I think again we would be in substantial agreement. So is all religion, are all Christians evil? No. Do I believe that everything atheists says is wrong and that all atheists are inherently evil? Well no, many times no more than the rest of us! The bigger question is "Is what we believe helping us to become better people?" I know those on "both" sides of the theist/atheist divide who are getting better and those who are getting worse!

So perhaps it is not religion in and of itself that is at the root of the problem. But if it's not, then what exactly is it? As always the Scriptures have the best explanation. In condemning that form of religion that was concerned only with image, Jesus told his disciples that “out of the heart come evil thoughts - murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander” (Matthew 15:19). True religion is all about having my heart changed through ongoing relationship with Him as we surrender to His Lordship of our lives. So does religion poison everything? No it is our hearts, our judgemental unforgiveness, our greed and self seeking that poisons everything. And what about my other question "Is there never anything good?" Well the fruit true religion is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness gentleness and self-control (Galatians 5:22,23). These things don't poison us they make the World go round. I am not perfect by a long shot, but I am in process of getting better. Ask those who know me best!

If you want to pray: Lord I need more of You in my life, more of the fruit of Your Spirit. Forgive me for the many times I fall short of Your glory. Let Your kingdom come in my life right here, right now. In Jesus name Amen.

Creation or Science or Creation and Science?

Perhaps the biggest stumbling blocks for thinking non-Christian are the faith Science issues, and perhaps the biggest of these has to do with the Genesis creation story. In particular it has to do with the age of the earth. Among Christians the interpretation of the creation story is surely the most divisive. There are many points of view and we cannot go into them all here. But the biggest controversy seem to center around the interpretation of the Hebrew word "yom" translated "day" in most English versions. Perhaps because of the controversial nature of these things the subject is often avoided altogether, but this is not a good way to deal with difficulties. In particular if there are viable explanations that allow for a convincing defensible rational position for a Biblical world view, we need to contend for them. For this and other reasons I want to address the Creation issues head on. I am aware that not everyone will agree.

Genesis 1 tells us that there were just six “days” of creation, during which the world is turned from being a dark, inhospitable water world without life or light, into the world substantially as we see it today. But it gets worse, because according to the chronology of Genesis 1, the sun and the moon do not appear until “day” three, the “day” after vegetation appeared. At first glance it all seem very naive and unbelievable to modern man.

But let's start looking at this in more detail by considering Genesis 1:2 which says “The earth was without form, and void; darkness was on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.” So according to this verse the initial state of the created earth was dark, void of life, and water covered its whole surface (dry land does not appear until “day” three). This is a remarkable description for “naive primitive mankind” being as it is, entirely consistent with modern Scientific models of the earth's development. For example astrophysicist Hugh Ross in his book 'Why the universe is the way it is' says “During Earth's infancy, its atmosphere was opaque to light.” In other words light could simply not get through the dense atmosphere and so it was indeed dark. Ross continues “Earth started off as a water world – a planet with water covering the whole of its surface” (pages 52,53). If nothing else such consistency of the records should prompt us to look a little deeper into the subject rather than engaging in ridicule and dismissing the whole thing our of hand.

As I already said, the focal point of the controversy among Christians who want to hold to the integrity of the Scriptures centres around the meaning of the Hebrew word “yom” translated as “day” in many (but not all) places in the Hebrew Scriptures. Now “yom” can certainly mean a 24 hour day, but it can also mean a finite duration of time. There are shades of this even in English, since the word “day” in such phrases as “the day of the Jackal” does not mean a literal 24 hour period. I am told that in the Hebrew one of the alternative literal meanings of “yom” is eon, or age. So the controversy among Christians is whether to interpret “yom” in Genesis 1 as a 24 hour period or to think of "yom" as an age or eon.

One of the basic principles of a Biblical interpretation is that of comparison of Scripture with Scripture. The point is to bring clarification of the various possible meanings of the text. In this case the word “yom” appears in the alternative description of creation in Genesis 2 (there are in fact several accounts of creation in Scripture). The NIV translates Genesis 2:4 as “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.”

It is important to understand that every translation is an interpretation, and the NIV is no exception. I happen to think it is the right interpretation, but it is an interpretation. It is not obvious from the NIV that the word “yom” appears in the original Hebrew of this verse, but it does. It is more obvious from the NKJV which reads “This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” The NIV is interpreting “yom” in this verse to mean the whole period (i.e. six “days”) of creation. And it is surely a correct interpretation because “yom” cannot mean a literal 24 hour day here. Of course this does not automatically mean that the word does not mean 24 hours in Genesis 1, because in other places it does mean a 24 hour period. But it should at least be a cause to carefully research the meaning. On the other hand if in one creation account it does not mean a 24 hour period, surly it is not too much of a stretch to understand that it is not meant to be understood as a 24 hour period in another account. Ross' book goes into this in a lot and detail, more than is appropriate here, and I want to refer the reader to it or other sources to check this out. In my view the day age understanding of "yom" in Genesis 1 is the correct interpretation of the text. This is not just because of what Hebrew scholars say about it. It seems to me to be no coincidence that this interpretation of the narrative is highly consistent and even insightful in terms of what we currently understand from Science.

Coming back to Genesis 1:2 the description of the earth as dark, void and covered with water, is given from the vantage point of one who might have been there on the surface of the earth observing it all. It is hard to imagine the original readers as taking any other point of view that that of an observer on the surface of the earth. So it seems reasonable to assume that this is the vantage point of the narrator throughout the entire creation narrative. This is important for a resolution of issue of the sun and the moon not appearing until the fourth day. It should be noted that light had already appeared on creation “day” one (“Let there be light and there was light"). So there was light on day 1, but the sun and the moon had not yet appeared. How are we to understand this?

We get a clue from from the Science. After saying that infant Earth's atmosphere was opaque to light Ross, in his book, continues “In its youth, the planet's atmosphere was translucent. Only when what astronomers and physicists call 'middle age' (an age of over 4 billion years) did its atmosphere become transparent enough to enable its inhabitants to observe the most distant object in the Universe.” (p 53). With the day- age understanding of Genesis 1, the two changes in earth's development (from dark to translucent and from translucent to transparent) fit in well with the Biblical record of light appearing on day one and the sun and the moon appearing on day four. But how does this jive with the text? Confirmation of this as the correct understanding of the passage comes when you look at the Hebrew verbs in verse 1 (God created the heavens and the earth) and verse 16 (God made two great lights). I am told that the word translated “made” in verse 16 has the implication their creation had happened some time in the past. Atheists have ridiculed the Genesis account of the sun and the moon not appearing until day four (even with a day age understanding of the text), but this would make perfect sense from the vantage point of our hypothetical observer. The point is that it was during this "day" that for the first time the sun, moon and stars would be visible from the surface of the earth. This understanding of the text not only avoids an apparent contradiction of light appearing both on day one and day four, but makes sense of the progression from a scientific point of view. It was on “day” three that vegetation appeared. The text tells us that some form of light had appeared on day one, and translucent light is enough for photosynthesis to take place, a process that we now know to be necessary for the further development of life.

There is a further point to make about the sun and the moon appearing on day four, and this has to do with the necessary preparation for the higher life forms created on “day” five. We are told that the appearance of the sun moon and stars on day four was for “signs and seasons, and for days and years” (verse 14). On “day” five God would create "great sea creatures, every living thing that moves, and every winged bird." The point I am wanting to make is that many of the “kinds” of creature created on day five would need signs and seasons to set their biological clocks, and in the case of birds for migrational purposes.

So part of what I am saying here is that if if one understands "yom" to mean eon or age rather than a literal 24 hour day (an interpretation consistent with other parts of Scripture) then many of the so called contradictions of this passage with Science disappear. Since the formations of the mountains and the like via plate tectonics takes time, it makes sense that the dry land did not appear until "day" three. Also it does not seem to be too much of a stretch to see “day” five as at least overlapping with the so called Cambrian period. It is interesting to me (though I am not at this point drawing firm conclusions from it) that from the beginning Darwin conceded that the theory of evolution failed to account for the Cambrian explosion. An internet search on the subject produced the following quotation from (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_02.html):

For most of the nearly 4 billion years that life has existed on Earth, evolution produced little beyond bacteria, plankton, and multi-celled algae. But beginning about 600 million years ago in the Precambrian, the fossil record speaks of more rapid change.

According to his own writings the biggest problem for Darwin with his theory of evolution was the absence, in the fossil record, of transitional forms in the Precambrian period. He hypothesized that it would be just a matter of time before transitional forms were discovered. However in spite of the explosion of knowledge in all areas, a century and a half later this challenge remains. But in any case the command to “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures,” and the the Biblical description of the creation of “great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, ...., and every winged bird according to its kind” (verses 20, 21) seems to me to be very far from incompatible with the sudden appearance of these forms of life at this stage of the development of our World.

Coming to day six, the same webpage quoted above records:

Then, between about 570 and 530 million years ago, another burst of diversification occurred, with the eventual appearance of the lineages of almost all animals living today. This stunning and unique evolutionary flowering is termed the "Cambrian explosion," taking the name of the geological age in whose early part it occurred.

And all of this seems to me to be totally consistent with the Biblical record which on “day” six records that “God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.” Finally towards the end of this busy day the Bible tells us “Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image ...'” (verses 25 and 26).

What I have tried to do in these brief paragraphs is to defuse just one of the so called Science faith issues. These issues are not as black and white as some of our more militant atheists would have us believe. Part of the problem is that neither science nor our understanding of the Bible are complete. Science progresses by two steps forward and one step back. The assured results even of recent decades can look silly today. For example it was not that long ago that we were being told that the earth was trillions if not quadrillions of years old. This was said to be necessary in order for there to be enough time for macro evolution (inter-species change among the more advanced animals) to take place. Today is it widely accepted that the earth Earth’s age is between 4.5 and 4.7 billion years old. This precise estimate comes to us from independent branches of Science. For example one estimate is based on evidence from meteorites and molecular decay rates. Other evidence is based on the observed expansion of the universe and Einstein's theory of relativity.

But if Science has not arrived, neither have we, because we are all biased at some level. The fact is that many of the so called science faith contradictions come from the interpretation of the data rather than the data itself. This of course happens on both sides of the “Faith – Science” divide. My position is that what is true in Science cannot contradict the Bible correctly interpreted. In terms of this post, my view is that what is true in Science describes how God created. A description of the evolution of the automobile engine in no way contradicts the fact that that evolution was guided by intelligent beings. On the other side of the fence our understanding Scripture is far from complete. The difficulties of fully understanding the ancient texts are enormous, and we all bring our biases with us when we read. "Sola Scripture" (Scripture and nothing else) is correct, but no one comes to the Bible without his or her bias. In particular it is always Scripture plus (even if nothing else) my bias. So what I am saying is that we have arrived neither in Science nor our understanding of the Bible! Perhaps a little more humility on both sides is in order!

You really don't want moral relativism to be true

In last day's post I was suggesting that only in a Judeo Christian culture would you even dream of pushing the idea of moral relativism (wrong for you but right for me). Today I want to ask the question why anyone would want it in the first place. I think the answer is clear from those who advocate it. Let me quote from Faye Wattleton's articulate defense of the position. Wattleton, a former President of Planned Parenthood, says “We must resist any attempt by others to sell, push, or otherwise force their own pet values on the rest of us,” and “teaching morality doesn't mean imposing my moral values on others. It means sharing wisdom, giving reasons for believing as I do--and then trusting others to think and judge for themselves.” I want you to trust me to judge for myself, but (and here is the biggie) do you want to trust me to make up my mind for myself? What if I am a member of the pedophile organization NAMBLA (North American man love boy association). If this were me (it's not) would you want to trust me to be alone with your 8 year old son?

Do you want to trust all politicians to do what they think is right? Should we live and let live, refuse to “interfere” and not “push our values” on those in power who are corrupt, or who are wanting to push through legislation that is not to our liking. Should we resist or not resist those who are less well off than we are if they justify taking what belongs to us because in their eyes that is only fair? What I am suggesting is that we may well be for moral relativism when it works to our advantage, but if were adopted wholesale by our culture it would not do that. Moral relativism gives us no rational basis for law and order. Make no mistake about it we are heading more and more in the direction of lawlessness as perpetrators of crime increasingly receive more consideration than their victims.

We can't have it both ways. We cannot demand the freedom to do exactly what we want without giving others the right to do exactly what they want. And this would be alright if we were all trustworthy, but we are not! So do you want moral relativity to be true? Moral relativity if practiced consistently has to lead to anarchy. You do not want to live in a lawless society (as ours is increasingly becoming)! Trust me, you do not really want moral relativism to be true!

Moral relativism? Only in a Judeo Christian culture

I want to suggest that it is only in a culture heavily influenced in the long haul by Judeo Christian (i.e. Biblical) values, where the basic tenants of its morality were firmly established, that would one even dream of spouting the nonsense of moral relativism. I am referring not only to the Judeo Christian basis of law and order (no murder, no stealing etc.), but also to the the strong teaching to love your neighbour (anyone in need), and to exhibit the Christian virtues of kindness, sensitivity and tolerance, as well as its emphasis on the value and equality of all humankind. It seems to me that those who do advocate moral relativism have either forgotten, taken for granted, or never realized in the first place the foundational positive influence of Christianity on our Western values.

There are three components of a culture that I believe would need to be in place, and to essentially be taken for granted (and thus hidden), before moral relativism would not be laughed out of court. The first is that there would need to be strongly enforced (if not always successful) laws that prohibited the sort of morality enshrined for example in the 10 commandments. The second component is that there would have to have been a widely held strong rational basis for the kind of morality described above. Thirdly because in the real world even such a basis is fragile, not only would it need to have been held by a large percentage of the population, this would have to have been held over an extended period of time.

With regard to the first condition there would need to be in place strongly enforced laws that prohibit murder, rape, assault and the like. In making the case for moral relativism I quoted Faye Wattleton as saying “teaching morality … means sharing wisdom, giving reasons for believing as I do--and then trusting others to think and judge for themselves,” and of course this also means giving them the freedom to do what we may not want them to do. But you would want to give me the right to “judge for myself” if murder or theft was right or wrong for me, especially if my actions were likely to affected you personally. Nobody in their right mind is going to do this with issues such as murder or rape or theft. No certain laws would have to be firmly in place and essentially unchallengeable. The moral relativist might answer “well we are not referring to things like that!” But you can't have it both ways, either there is such a thing as right and wrong or there is not. Moral relativism says “not” and needs the type of law I am referring to to be firmly in place and taken for granted (so the contradictions are not so obvious!) before you would even dream of advocating it.

Secondly there would have to have been a widely held, strong rational basis for the values of charity justice and the essential worth, dignity and equality of all human existence. I am not just saying these values would need to be held, I am saying there would need to be a strong basis for these things. These values stand or fall together, for a rational basis for equality without a strong motivation to charity would not give the necessary impetus to do something about the plight of others. It is surly undeniable that we humans can too easily hold in theory that the practice of virtue is a good thing, while at the same time being unwilling to do anything about it. Talk is cheap, and there can be much opposition to putting these values into practice, especially if it costs to do so. One of the strongest and most enduring arguments against the abolition of slavery in Wilberforce's Britain, was the economic argument. It was argued that the economy would collapse if Wilberforce had his way. It is surly only when there is a strong basis for these values that there would be any possibility of moving from mere talk to action.

Moral relativism in and of itself does not have such a basis. If that is not apparent, we only need to ask why moral relativism finds itself unable to live up to its own moral imperative “we must not impose our values on others ….” If moral relativists were consistent in applying their own imperative, they would not impose the values of moral relativity on those of us who do not (fully) agree. In fact if moral relativists were consistent, moral relativity would self destruct. The point is that in order not to impose its own values on others, moral relativity would need to refrain from criticizing anything and everything. It would need to remain forever silent, even in the face of things it saw as hateful. Should moral relativists be allowed to say “We must live and let live, and strenuously resist any attempt by others to sell, push, or otherwise force their own pet values on the rest of us,” and then turn round and “sell, push, and otherwise force” the own pet values of moral relativism on the rest of us? To do so would surely be hypocritical!

It get's worse actually, because moral relativists do not even have a rational basis for saying that all human beings are of equal value, and therefore to be treated as such. Please do not misunderstand me, I am not saying that moral relativists are wrong to believe that. I hope it is obvious that that is my position too. What I am saying is that they don't have a rational basis for believing what all truly moral beings believe, and that is in the equality of humankind. It is however only within Judeo -Christian morality that we find the necessary powerful motivation and basis to do more than just talk.

There is another point I need to make about the “strong rational basis” for this morality. Many question the rationality of the Judeo Christian position? I showed earlier that all World views (including atheistic views) can only be held by faith. With this understanding you can choose to say either (parts of) atheism and Christianity are both rational or that they are both irrational. Though this is not well understood, it is not logical to say for example that the Christian faith is irrational but that atheism is not (see specifically 'the faith of the atheist'). What we need to do is to examine the underlying assumptions in the face of observed reality, and that is (part of) what this blog and my coming book is all about.

So then what I am saying in this second point is that the culture would have to have been a strong rational basis based on a prevailing world view for the position that all humans are of equal value and thus to be treated as such. The view that we are all Darwinian primates and nothing more does not, for example give such a rational position, and could not have created the atmosphere I am claiming is necessary for moral relativity to be even begin to be heard. The point is that without such a strong rational basis there is not sufficient motivation for society to engage in the tremendous sacrifice necessary to defend the rights of those whose emancipation has no evolutionary benefit. On the other hand a strongly held belief that there is a God; that God has proclaimed that there is no difference between male and female or slave and freeman or between Jew and Gentile (Galatians 3:28); that we must all stand before Him one day to receive rewards or punishment for what we have done in this life (Romans 14:12). And such a belief if strongly held does indeed furnish a strong rational basis for such a sacrifice. Again, I am not saying that these values do not exist outside of Christendom, I am saying (a) that there is no strong rational basis of them, and (b) that only in a Judeo Christian culture is it (has it been) widely held and practiced.

I want to make clear what I am not saying here. I am not saying that atheists cannot be moral, or that atheists cannot display outstanding compassion, charity and humanity. Of course atheists can have these qualities, and have at time even shamed those of us who name the name of Christ who have not followed His teaching. What I am saying is that when they do such things, they do them in spite of not having a strong rational basis to do so. It also seems to me likely that such views are stimulated by the Judeo Christian influence on the culture in which such atheists often live. In my view, even when we deny God, we still need Him, and our hearts inherently know goodness when we see it, even if there is a disconnect with our mind! If this is true we would expect more charity from the religious than the nonreligious in the North American context. Arthur Brooks in his book “Who really cares,” lays out evidence for that this is indeed the case. The results of his research surprised Brooks who says “the evidence leaves no room to doubt: Religious people are far more charitable than nonreligious people” (p 34). He is of course talking about the North American context. In a quote from Harvey Mansfield on the back cover of the book we read “He (Brooks) has stern words, based on quantitative proof, for liberals who boast of compassion for others but never actually give to them.” The strong basis of which I speak would need to have done more than produce mere talk!

So I am saying that the rational basis has to be strongly held, strong enough to have found its way into the practical behaviour of the culture, and to be held by sufficient numbers, so that it characterized the culture itself. In particular the rational basis has to be strong enough and broad enough so that individuals could successfully change the culture, even if it meant they needed to spend their lives working towards change. I am thinking again of the campaign in (then) Christian England to abolition of slavery. You do not go to war to establish the rights of the underprivileged (thinking for example of the American Civil war) unless you have a very strong reason to do so! America had such a strong rational basis in it's widespread belief in the God of the Bible. Look and see, you do not find these things in cultures that have not been strongly influenced in the long haul by Judeo Christian morality. And this brings me to the third point that “because in the real world even such a basis is fragile, not only would it need to have been held by a large percentage of the population, this would have to have been held over an extended period of time.”

The history of mankind is not encouraging. It is not hard to see that the virtues we are discussing here are not the default. We also see this in our nature, in that good habits are hard to get into and easy to get out of, while bad habits are easy to get into and hard to get out of! Cultures that once had the above mentioned virtues seem to be able to loose them at the drop of a hat (or at the instigation of powerful forces determined on their overthrow). Russia and Germany in the last Century are prime examples of this. It seems to me that Western society is likewise in grave danger of this too, but I digress (again)! My point is that Judeo Christian cultures are fragile. If further evidence is needed, one only needs to read the history of ancient Israel as revealed in the Bible!

So why do I say it needs to have been there in the long haul? There are three things here. The first is that the basis of law and order would need to have been in place long enough be essentially taken for granted, so that it was no longer an issue. The second is that in the absence of the desperate need to establish the basis for such laws (as opposed to the implementation of them) it would take time for the all the grievances that the law was not addressing to come to the surface. The rights of women to vote is not (and would not be) the most pressing issue where the law was not even attempting to deal with widespread murder or rape. The third thing is that it seems to be the nature of mankind that he (she) does not seem to easily want to accept reform of that will end up costing him dearly, so that only when these values are held in the long term will thy likely be put into practice.

Jesus teaching is significant here. He taught that the nature of the kingdom was like leaven that slowly makes its way through the whole lump. His teaching and example about women and slavery illustrate what I am wanting to say here. Jesus attitude towards and treatment of women, non Jews, and non-Jewish women in particular was revolutionary, but His “revolution” was non-violent. Only in an atmosphere where law and order could be taken for granted, could attention then be given to the issues these “less urgent issues” His attitude and example strongly advocate. I think you will find there this is no strong basis for this sort of thing in any system not strongly influenced by New Testament teachings. The word “Christian” means little Christ, and the Christian was impelled to follow his master, even in the way he dealt with the underprivileged, the marginalized and the oppressed in society. The Judeo Christian God is a God of Justice, and His people are commanded to be people of justice too.

To say it again "Only in a culture heavily influenced in the long haul by Judeo Christian values, where the basic tenants of its morality were firmly established, that would one even dream of spouting the nonsense of moral relativism."

Trash, treasure and Western culture

Nobody is right all the time, and probably nobody is wrong all the time either. But you wouldn't know it by the way people talk. The subtitle of a book by Christopher Hitchens “How religion poisons everything” illustrates my point. I mean “everything”? I could (and do) buy “Religion poisons some things,” even “many things,” but “everything”? Similarly with haters of all that is Western (many of whom seem to live in our midst), there seems to be this need to trash the whole kit and caboodle. Please don't misunderstand me, there are many things that do need to be trashed. Cooperate greed is one of them, capitalism has been confused with Christianity, as has the mix of politics and Christianity. This seems to poison both of them. So I am not by any means saying that Hitchens does not have a point in some of the things that he is saying, but is absolutely everything wrong? Do we not rather need to learn to “separate the precious from the vile,” the trash from the treasure? In the end we may not be able to agree about what is trash and what is treasure, but we do need to see the good as well as the bad. Do we not need to think and consider and to debate these things, and do we not we need to listen to each other?

It seems to be a quirk of human nature that we do not seem to really appreciate what we have until we no longer have it. Since we are all a mixture of truth and error, right and wrong, we can be pretty sure that any view that completely trashes a culture or people group, or religion is not balanced. To be sure when we have been deeply hurt it is hard to see the good, we can't see the treasure for seeing the trash. But when we operate out of bitterness, we are not always seeing things clearly, and tolerance surly dictates that we should try. Last day we were discussing the total nonintervention that some anthropologists advocate. Let me reiterate that cultural anthropology does have a point about our need for humility. But surely we should not willingly turn a blind eye to oppression wherever it occurs. What to do about such things is another question.

I realize that it is not politically correct to compare cultures, and we do indeed need to display humility cultural sensitivity and appropriate tolerance, but surely we go too far! Taken to the extreme we would have to condemn all war. Is there is no such thing as a just war, have there never been megalomaniacs who some how or other manged to finish up in power? Moral relativism, if it were consistent would exclude not only war, but reform of any kind. This is because we would not be able to say anything was wrong. But not one of us can live consistently with this. We all want to affirm that murder and a lot of other things are wrong (especially when they are close to home!).

The other thing that happens when under the pressure of political correctness we refuse to discern right and wrong, is that we fail to see what is good both outside and closer to home. So then in order to more fully appreciate the treasure (among the trash) that we have been handed down in Western culture, I want us to look, see and understand what is missing from cultures that have not been heavily influenced (or have turned their back on) Judeo Christian values. In this post I will not be able to do anything more than scratch the surface of what I want to say, and in any case most of what I say will be anecdotal. In fact in order to fully see the point I am wanting to make you probably would need to have been born and raised in one of those cultures. What I am saying is that looking at other cultures from inside our own, we may be better able to see the good other cultures have to offer. And this is why the omission of the perspective of indigenous leaders from the Nightline report, mentioned in my August 24th post was so very very wrong! But I digress (slightly).

This point about the positive opinions of our culture from those born outside is important, and if you are willing to have your eyes opened, I can thoroughly recommend a book by Vishal Mangalwadi entitled “The Book that Made Your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization.” Mangalwadi's hails originally from India, and his book is eyeopening for me, even after spending 10 months in Africa with my family in the early 90's. That experience was eye opening in and of itself! I was arrested three times during that period. Each time the point was to persuade me to bribe the police. One of those times the whole police station was involved in the attempt. As I said to my wife at the time, we would be shocked and disappointed if this had happened in Canada, but having lived in Africa for that ten months we would almost have been surprised if it had not happened.

There is a phrase that is used frequently over there, it is T.I.A. “this is Africa.” It is spoken as though nothing more need to be said by way of explanation. Nothing should surprise you T.I.A. Uganda had earlier been devastated under the terror of Idi Amin. At the time of our visit (relative) law and order had been restored under Museveni. In any case I had been assured that this was so (or we would not have gone). I was spending most of my sabbatical year at the University in Kampala in Uganda. I went in one morning parked my car, and went to the administration building. The place was deserted and I felt a tension in the air. I learned later that 10 minutes before I had arrived, the police had gone in and shot three students to death, then carted them off. Well I mean they were striking against the government, so what did they expect? T.I.A!

I immediately contacted friends and relatives back home because I “knew” that they would be worried. But nobody had even heard of the incident. Imagine the reaction to this sort of thing happening in North America (or recall the Kent State massacre)! I learned later that this way of dealing with student unrest was standard practice in neighbouring Kenya. You know Kenya, the African country that was held up as a model for how successful the post colonization of Africa could be, that Kenya. What I am saying is that this sort of thing was widely ignored by the Western media. It's not really news, not in Africa (T.I.A!).

I came back home realizing that democracy would not work in Africa, in particular it would not work in Uganda. I am convinced that what would happen is that the majority tribe there would gain power and then simply wipe out the other tribes. If you think I am exaggerating, witness what happened later in neighbouring Rwanda! It's all part of the culture. For hundred's perhaps thousands of years, one of the northern Ugandan tribes had the tradition of raiding other tribes. They would steal a cow or two from each other, and the raids would go on back and forth. It was “relatively harmless,” not too many people lost their lives! Now introduce AK 47's into the game! Not that anybody would do that, right? We would have heard about it right? What can I say? T.I.A!

No doubt some will explain away what I am saying as exaggeration, or at the very least not widespread. Sitting home in relatively safe environments (yes I know many part of the States are far from being safe) it is hard to imagine that such things exist or things that are as bad or worse being widespread and continuing to exist in our modern world. But we need to open our eyes. As I said even knowing what I knew, I found Mangalwadi's book eye opening. As bad as things are at times in the West, we still have very little idea what it would be like not to be able to take all sorts of positive traditional Western values for granted. I am thinking of such things as right of appeal, right to due process of Law, the possibility of blowing the whistle on corruption, basic human rights, freedom of speech etc. etc. All these things are in place as a direct result of our Judeo Christian heritage. So what is being used here is an integral part of the very things that are being trashed. On top of this, when moral relativists say things like “We must not impose our values on others, because to do so is to be repressive, insensitive and intolerant,” they are calling upon the virtues of sensitivity, tolerance and freedom which are in fact unique to the very Judeo Christian teachings the are seeking to dismiss!

I am not saying Western culture is perfect, it is not, and it is less and less so as time goes on. As I said above there are many places that are not safe as gangs run more and more amok in our cities, and prison populations grow and grow. But is this not a direct result of our having turned, and continuing to turn, our backs on the high value our ancestors placed on integrity, faithfulness, marriage and the family? As I blogged in July in “Harmless, wholesome and healthy?” there are traceable relationships between relaxing the divorce laws and fatherlessness, and between fatherlessness and crime, in other words between our increasing malaise and our increasing acceptance of moral relativism.

These things should be telling us something, but the big question is “are we listening?” The story of the camel and the Sheik is well known. Starting with the tip of it's nose, the camel inch by inch got it's whole body into the tent, then kicked out the Sheik. In the same way the well documented, militant, in your face, highly organized, well funded liberal agenda is content with nothing less than the total demise of traditional values. But as Mangalwadi argues very eloquently in his book, to do this is to undermine the very things that made Western Civilization great. Indeed, the ideas and the behaviours that flow from this militant liberalism are lemming like. Author James Burnham put this well even in the title of his book “Suicide of the West.” In other words by all of this we are slowly but surely heading towards our own demise, as we increasingly choose to trash everything, including our treasure!

It doesn't matter what you believe as long as you are sincere

This is another of the very common sayings associated with moral relativity that I hear floating around. But it really does not bear up under scrutiny. Suppose I believe that cyanide is harmless, does it matter? Well if I believe that, I might try to see if it tastes good or give it to someone else to try. Does that matter? It could be objected that we are talking here about religious beliefs and morality, about opinions not about facts. So the question morphs into “does it matter what we believe in terms of religious beliefs or morality?”

Perhaps the biggest problem with all of this, is our uncanny ability to rationalize what we want to do. I was not sure if I was being hit on, but some time ago now, I had this young woman tell me “I don't think adultery is wrong.” I looked her in the eye and told her gently “That is because you want to do it.” Her hand came up not quite quick enough to hide her “guilty as charged” smile. I believe she was sincere, that she sincerely wanted to commit adultery (if she was not already doing it). Did it matter? I am sure of this, it would matter very much to the wife of her (actual or perspective) lover.

Or what about the organization that exists to promote what is euphemistically called the North American man love boy association which is dedicated to “end the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships.” One of their slogans by the way is “eight is too late.” There is a reason statuary rape is called rape, it is because it is well understood that underage children are far too vulnerable to persistent smiling and gentle persuasion to commit acts that will affect them for the rest of their lives. Children are too young to make such life changing decisions. But if you believe theses advocates of “man boy love” (and I believe at least some of them) they are sincere. So yes with our (my) ability to fool ourselves (myself) I do believe that some of them are sincere, sincerely wrong, but wrong nevertheless! Does it matter? Would you leave such a man alone with your eight year old?

I argued earlier that all World views are in the end opinions, and that all such opinions can only be held by faith. So does it matter if you believe that there is no such thing as truth, or right and wrong, or that good and evil are illusions, and that atheists are right in their faith position that God does not exist? Well what if as Christians say it is, it is true that our main task here on earth is to choose our eternal destiny, and that that is determined by whether or not we accept God's forgiveness by turning to Him in repentance? Would it matter then? If what Christians says is wrong, and you can consistently live out your life in atheistic faith positions, and if such views reflects reality, and if there are no consequences to throwing out traditional morality, then perhaps it does not matter. In fact if orthodox Christian teachings are wrong, it probably doesn't matter even if you are not sincere.

If this life is all there is, and if you can get away with it, why not rape and murder pillage and get and stay drunk, and take and steal and kill off all your enemies? What does it matter if you can get away with it? If you die and that's it, what does it matter indeed? But if you are wrong, and you have fallen for lies, and you do have to stand before God and give an account of every idle word, then it does matter. As I say I believe that we can be sincerely wrong, but sincerely wrong is still wrong. In the world that I live in, there is such a thing as reality, and the reality is that choices have consequences, and wrong choices have unwanted consequences! Even if I did not believe what I believe about God, I do not think I would have enough faith to believe that it does not matter! To me it sounds far too much like a rationalization to do what I want to do and to heck with the consequences. But these things are surely too important not to thoroughly check them out!

Some will ask “Are you trying to scare me into heaven.” And if this is you, I understand that this can feel like a huge guilt trip is being laid on you. Unfortunately I don't doubt that some of it is, as not everything that calls itself Christian is Christian. But for those of us who have found a tangible reality and peace and joy and hope in our relationship with God through Christ, is it a passion to share what is too good to keep to ourselves even in the here and now, let alone what is promised in eternity (pleasures for evermore!).