Real Life Spirit

Category: Faith and Spirituality

  • God is, God seeks, God rejoices – Stories about the real God

    God is, God seeks, God rejoices – Stories about the real God

    By Art Ross*

    The sermon today is on God.  As I begin, I remember the child in church school, drawing a picture. Her tongue between her lips, a furrow in her brow; she was working hard.  The teacher asked, “What are you drawing?”

    “A picture of God,” she replied.

    “No one has ever seen God,” responded the teacher. “No one knows exactly what God looks like.

    The little girl looked up; her eyes bright. “They will when I finish!”

    I can well imagine that you read the sermon title and asked yourself – “Who does Art Ross think he is, presuming he can preach a significant sermon on God?”  Fair question.  I will tell you that I am presumptuous enough to think that not only I can, but that it is my calling to do so.  I call this a significant sermon – because God is significant to me. I leave it to the listener to decide if the sermon is significant for you.

    In the gospel lesson for today, certain people who thought they knew God were grumbling about Jesus. Jesus, who comes from God; Jesus, who is the incarnation of God, tells them stories, stories about God. Listen:

    2 I am grateful to Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because he judged me faithful and appointed me to his service, 13 even though I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and a man of violence. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, 14 and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. 15 The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the foremost. 16 But for that very reason I received mercy, so that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display the utmost patience, making me an example to those who would come to believe in him for eternal life. 17 To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever.[a] Amen. I Timothy 1: 12-17

    Now all the tax collectors and sinners were coming near to listen to him. 2 And the Pharisees and the scribes were grumbling and saying, “This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them.” 3 So he told them this parable: 4 “Which one of you, having a hundred sheep and losing one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness and go after the one that is lost until he finds it? 5 When he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders and rejoices. 6 And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and neighbors, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep that was lost.’ 7 Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance. 8 “Or what woman having ten silver coins,[a] if she loses one of them, does not light a lamp, sweep the house, and search carefully until she finds it? 9 When she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbors, saying, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin that I had lost.’ 10 Just so, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.” Luke 15: 1-10.

    Listen to the stories and remember three things about God:

    God is.  God seeks. God rejoices.

    God is

    First, God is. The Bible does not try to prove God; the Bible reveals God. The great 13th century Christian philosopher, Thomas Aquinas, put forth five proofs for the existence of God.  His proofs are impressive, but they are not persuasive. The existence of God cannot be proven – unless one believes the rising of the sun to be proof enough!

    In the 16th century, Martin Luther declared that agnostics may be among God’s most beloved children, because agnostics take God seriously enough to doubt God’s existence.  I suppose Luther meant something similar to what Frederick Buechner wrote a decade or so ago, “Doubt is the ants in the pants of faith.”

    There are many reasons to doubt the existence of God.  Inexplicable suffering tops my list. Hurricanes may make us question God; so do Chechen rebels murdering school children. I can find many reasons to doubt the existence of God.  But ultimately, at the core of my being, I believe God is. Significant faith starts with that conviction.

    Jesus did not come to prove God.  Jesus came to reveal God. When religious leaders grumbled about Jesus’ actions and about his friends, Jesus did not argue.  He told stories, stories called parables, parables about God. Parables are not proof; parables are revelation. Parables challenge human reason and logic.  Parables push the human mind to perceive new truth. Some call revelation the “ah-ha” moments of life – moments when new truth becomes very clear – truth that we cannot fully explain or prove, but we trust. Trust is at the heart of faith. As Paul says, faith begins when we see with the “eyes of our heart.”

    Jesus wants people to see God with their hearts as well as know God with their heads.

    God seeks

    The God we see with our hearts is a God who seeks. God is and God seeks. The God of the Bible seeks people, people who are lost to themselves and lost to God. God seeks Adam and Eve after they have eaten forbidden fruit.  God seeks Abraham and Sari when they are childless.  God seeks Hagar and Ishmael when they have been cast into the wilderness. God seeks Moses after he killed a man and fled. God seeks David and confronts him after his affair with Bathsheba.  The God we know in Jesus Christ is revealed in the rising of the sun – and in the rising of son –s-o-n.

    After betrayal and denial, after crucifixion, Jesus rose from the dead and came back to seek out the very ones who had shared in his death.  He made them the church, the body of Christ. Church is the only real proof that Jesus lived and died and rose again. All other witness is mere hearsay – hearsay that has resulted in great good and unspeakable evil for more 2,000 years. Unless we worship the God who seeks, the God Jesus reveals, we worship a false god.

    Here is what I believe. The most important question of faith is not, “Do you believe in God?’  The most important question of faith is, “Who is the God you trust?” Is God our friend, or is God our enemy?  Is the creator of heaven and earth on our side, or against us?

    In the early days of faith, some people thought God required human sacrifice. The story of Abraham and Isaac wrestles with the question – and answers it, “No.”  The prophet Micah wrestled with the question of God.  Micah gave us the wonderful words. “And what does the Lord require of thee, but to do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with your God?”  God seeks justice. God seeks kindness.  God seeks humility.

    When Paul writes his young friend Timothy, Paul writes as one who knows that God seeks. Paul had always believed in God.  But the God in whom Paul believed was not the God Jesus revealed. Paul had been a blasphemer, a persecutor, a man of violence.  Paul knew what it meant to seek out and destroy those whom he thought to be the enemy of God.  On the Damascus Road, Paul met the God who seeks.

    Let me ask you a question.  What is your favorite Bible verse about God?  For some people, their favorite verse in the Bible is John 3:16. “For God so loved the world, that God gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes on him might not perish but receive eternal life.”  I love those words, but they are not my favorite. If I had to pick a favorite verse, I might pick the next verse, John 3:17, “For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.”

    God sends Jesus to be like the good shepherd who seeks out the lost sheep. God sends Jesus to be like the woman who lost a coin and turned the house upside down to find it.  When she had found the coin, she gave a party that cost more that the coin was worth. God seeks.

    For the past several years, since the tragedy of 9/11, we have heard great debate as to whether the God Muslims worship is the same God Christians worship. In one way the answer is clearly, “Yes.”  Muslim faith, like Jewish and Christian faith, centers on the God of Abraham. God seeks Abraham and makes a promise. When Abraham and Sarah fail to trust God’s promise and choose to have a child by Hagar, God seeks Hagar and her son Ishmael in the wilderness. God preserves their life. God leaves the ninety-nine and seeks the one. Muslims trace their faith in God to Abraham, and to Ishmael.

    The God of Muslim faith, the God of Jewish and Christian faith, is the same God. But that is not to say all Muslims actually worship that God – or that all Christians worship that God.  The God who seeks is the God who commands that we love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. Unless we honor that God, we are worshipping a false God.  The God who seeks is the God who commands that we forgive others as we ask for forgiveness in our own lives. Unless we obey that God, we are worshipping a false God. The God Jesus reveals loves and cares for all people.

    Jesus told his parables to people who believed in God, but those same people grumbled because Jesus was seeking tax collectors and sinners and eating with them. Pharisees and scribes had forgotten that God seeks.

    When Muslims bomb buildings sending thousands to their death, they do not honor or worship the God who seeks and forgives.  When Muslims take school children hostage, and children end up dead or maimed for life, they are not honoring the God who seeks.

    And, when people who call themselves by the name of Christ wear white sheets and lynch black people, they are not honoring the God we know through Christ – no matter how many crosses they might wear. When Nazis invoke the name of God and of Christ as they slaughter millions of Jews, they are blasphemers and persecutors.  When people who call upon the name of God fail to care for the poor, refuse to forgive their enemies, or love wealth more than charity, we do not worship the God who seeks; we worship some false God – a God made in our own image.  The God of the Bible, the God and father of Jesus the Christ, seeks and saves. That God rebukes, but does not condemn.

    God is.  God seeks. And, God rejoices.

    God rejoices

    Joy is a sign of deep faith.  The shepherd returns with the lost sheep, calls his neighbors and friends, and says, “Rejoice with me.”

    The woman finds the lost coin, then calls friends and neighbors, saying, “Rejoice with me.”

    Hatred of people never honors God; rejoicing with people does.

    So, how would I draw a picture of God?  The God I draw would be a shepherd with a sheep on his shoulder, and a woman with a lost coin in her hand. The God I draw will have a twinkle in the eye, a smile on the face, yet also a tear in the eye. One hand will be stretched out in welcome, the other hand will be next to the mouth, as God calls us to turn away from every act of blasphemy, and persecution, and violence – whether verbal or physical – and invites us to rejoice, to rejoice in love and mercy, to rejoice in grace and forgiveness, to rejoice in service and sharing, in healing and in hope.

    Significant sermon: Significant God.  Amen

    #  #  #

    Art Ross is a native of North Carolina; he served in the army as in infantry officer and served churches in Brooklyn, NY, Charlotte, NC, Jacksonville, FL, Morehead City, NC and St. Petersburg, FL.  From 1994 until 2009, he was pastor of White Memorial Presbyterian Church in Raleigh, where he now lives.

    Currently he is a trustee of the Biblical Theological Seminary in Wroclaw, Poland, a member of the StepUp North Carolina Board, Chairs a Commission for New Hope Presbytery, works with congregations, businesses and individuals as a Pastoral Resource, and is involved in community racial reconciliation efforts. He has served as trustee of four Presbyterian-related institutions: Queens University, Columbia Theological Seminary, Davidson College, and Union Presbyterian Seminary, where he chaired the Board for five years.

    Ross is the co-author of Romans (Interpretation Bible Studies), John Knox Press, with Martha Stevenson, 1998; and made 3 contributions to Feasting on the Word: Preaching the Revised Common Lectionary, 2008.  In 2010, he authored a paper, Wise Leadership for the Church.  In 2012 and again in 2013, he was an invited contributor to the Feasting on the Gospels series.

     

  • Faith and the Miracle of DNA – Revelation of God through Science

    Faith and the Miracle of DNA – Revelation of God through Science

     

    By James G. Martin, author of
    Revelation through Science

    Is DNA and its relationship to RNA and other organic molecules a miracle? This article explores a compelling example from organic chemistry based on the three-dimensional structures of certain sugars, proteins, and DNA and RNA; and how each of these depends on all the others. Could any of these exist without the others? Could this happen by unguided chance, even in 4.5 billion years?

    Four hundred years ago, the theological academies and hierarchies were rocked by Galileo’s findings that Venus orbited the Sun, the Moon’s visage was pock-marked, and Jupiter had four moons. Peaceful accommodation slowly settled in, only to be wracked again 250 years later by Darwin’s evolutionary explanation of “The Origin of Species.” When atheists seized upon Darwin’s theory as a rejection of God, fundamentalist Christians countered by rejecting evolution. Following the famous 1925 Scopes “Monkey Trial” in Dayton, Tennessee, US Courts have steadily blocked any requirement to teach religious tenets against science in public schools.

    These and related historic episodes are recounted in Revelation through Science, along with various dodges, such as the curious planetary concept of Tycho Brahe that the Sun and Moon orbit around the stationary Earth, while all other planets revolve around the Sun. Many theologians and scientists attempted to resolve matters with a duality principle: that science and religion are non-overlapping domains with separate but equal access to truth.

    Scientists Point to Creation by Powers that Transcend Nature

    In recent decades, however, a group of theistic astronomers, physicists, paleontologists and physicians have raised a fascinating theme that many fundamental concepts of science point to creation by powers that transcend and predate nature. Among these are the “Big Bang” origin of the universe, with highly precise values for the physical constants for (a) gravity, (b) the strong nuclear force, (c) the weak nuclear force, and (d) the electromagnetic force. Together, these comprise a coordinated set of fine-tuned, “anthropic coincidences” leading to the conclusion that life is either highly conditional upon a foreordained purpose ─ or it is extremely lucky. This modern reconciliation between science and religion flourished with the publication of The Language of God, by N.I.H. Director Francis Collins, MD, former head of the “Human Genome Project.” Its title is an obvious and intentional metaphor for the built-in growth and control of our bodies and lives by the enormous yet explicit code within our DNA. This supports both a mechanistic proof of evolution and a belief that evolution had to be purposeful.

    Believing that similar “evidence for belief” abounds in other fields of science, I have a series of chapters about astronomy, physics, geology, biology, chemistry and biochemistry, each with its own anthropic coincidences. The earlier sections are to some extent reflections of similar accounts from previous authors, but Revelation Through Science is the first with provocative examples from my field of organic chemistry, and they are numerous and compelling.  There are a number of extremely complex naturally occurring compounds like hemoglobin that defy laboratory synthesis, or chlorophyll, which has been synthesized in five years by Nobel laureate Robert Woodward and his large team of Harvard chemists. Of course, ordinary leaves can do this any sunny day, not only routinely, but far more proficiently, albeit by incredibly sophisticated processes.

    Could DNA, RNA and other Complex Molecules Evolve only by Chance?

    My most compelling example from organic chemistry is based on the three-dimensional structures of certain sugars, proteins, and DNA and RNA; and how each of these depends on all the others. Could any of these exist without the others? Could this happen by unguided chance, even in 4.5 billion years? What you think about this enigma and choose to believe is up to you. But consider this.

    All natural proteins consist of long polymeric chains of the same set of 20 amino acids. Much has been made of the fact that many amino acids have been found in meteorites, and can even be formed by lightning discharges in an atmosphere that probably existed when Earth was sterile ─ before the first living organisms 3.5 billion years ago. It was typically implied that these amino acids could somehow self-assemble into complex proteins. These would coalesce into clusters, which would evolve into living cells. Knowing today how proteins are biosynthesized in cells, we can see that it is far more complicated than that. First of all, let me introduce you to a phenomenal relationship, between two small but essential sugars, the proteins that catalyze their biosynthesis, and the peculiar structures of DNA and RNA. We can then unfold and examine an extraordinary structural co-dependence between them, just as unfamiliar to most readers as it is miraculous in its improbability ─ leaving us to wonder how nature ever got it precisely correct. Think of it as the most profound three-way “chicken and egg” conundrum: which came first?

    The simple sugar known as ribose is a vital part of the helical backbone of ribonucleic acid (RNA). Its cousin deoxy-ribose is a vital part of the backbone of the double helix of deoxy-ribonucleic acid (DNA). Both of these simple sugars are biosynthesized in cells by certain proteins. To complete this puzzle, all proteins are biosynthesized in cells. For each of some 23,000 distinct human proteins, the defining sequence of amino acids is predetermined by the genetic code carried by its unique RNA. The RNA that is specific for one protein gets its code directly from one of 23,000 genes in the vast catalog of codes built into DNA.

    Among the structural components of every molecule of RNA and DNA is the particular sugar, ribose or deoxy-ribose respectively. Human DNA has thousands of genes, 23,000 of which carry the codes for each of 23,000 vital proteins, Each gene code is transcribed to a particular RNA molecule. It translates this code into the sequential selection of 20 different amino acids (by the hundreds) for its particular protein. Among these proteins are some that facilitate replication of DNA code prior to cell division, so that each new cell has the same code. Other proteins guide the biosynthesis of ribose and deoxy-ribose. Without these two sugars, there could be no DNA or RNA. Without RNA having the code from protein-coding genes of DNA, there could be no functioning proteins. Without carbohydrate-synthesizing proteins, there could be no sugars. They are mutually and existentially interrelated.

    Each Life-Giving Compound is Wholly Interdependent with Each and All the Others

    You see, each of these life-giving compounds is wholly interdependent with each and all of the others. Which came first? It seems to me that all had to be present in the very first living cell, or it could never reproduce its replica living cell.

    This next cartoon tries to simplify the mental image of this, without getting lost in the elaborate actual molecular structures of the  various compounds. The protein factory, called a ribosome, is represented by a blob of a giant protein with suggestions of smoke stacks to help you accept that however complex it is, it is basically a kind of factory. Little machines called transfer-RNA are running around inside the cell with a short code that allows each t-RNA to select one specific amino acid. Finally, there is a chain of codes representing messenger-RNA, riding across the bottom of the ribosome, with the entire chemical code for this one protein. Each three-part sequence of its code can only match one specific t-RNA, thus keeping absolute control of the intended sequence of amino acids being connected by the ribosome as it constructs the new protein.

    You will notice that I slipped in the adjective, “intended,” because I believe this process is far beyond anything that could just happen by trial-and-error collisions of lifeless molecules. In all the annals of evolutionary biology, none of this works if there is no DNA with its thousands of specifically coded genes. Nothing like it works if there is no biosynthesis of not only these two sugars, but also the thousands of diverse, biologically active proteins. You are free to reach your own conclusion and belief as to whether life with this kind of complexity could ever occur by unguided chance, or was intended.

    Nature has a Mysterious Preference for Left-Handed Molecules

    Would you allow me to introduce an even more amazing “miracle,” if I may call it that? Again, you will be free to see if it fits your personal belief system when I finish. You may want to rest your mind a bit before proceeding. Take a moment for a few deep breaths. Relax your jaw. Massage your forehead. When you are ready, consider this.

    Most biologically active organic compounds are asymmetrical in three-dimensional space. Because of their asymmetry, they could possibly exist as two hypothetical forms that are ”nonsuperimposable” mirror images of each other. Like your hands (and feet) they may be what chemists have classified as right-handed molecules, or they may be left-handed. Look at the accompanying illustration below. (Like the others, it was created by our son, Jim Martin Jr. He even added the clever metaphor of a gloved hand just to help you keep track.) Each amino acid has one key carbon atom to which are attached an amino group (-NH2), an acid group (-COOH), a hydrogen atom (-H), and an -R group. This generic R represents any one of 20 different attachments. There are hundreds of known amino acids, but only 20 that get built into proteins, and -R differentiates each of these 20, depending upon the molecular structure of -R. In the smallest amino acid, glycine, R is a second hydrogen atom, which causes it to have a plane of symmetry between the two H atoms.

    If you can imagine rotating the upper right molecule (labeled “right handed”) 1800 about its vertical axis, it becomes the sketch at the bottom. The gloved hand initially had its palm toward us, but because of this rotation, has gone around to where it has its palm pointing away from us. Nothing has changed. The geometry of the lower drawing is still identical to the upper right version, and both are “nonsuperimposable” mirror images of the one at upper left. (Remember, the amino acid does not really have a gloved hand ─ this is just a figment of artistic license to help keep track.)

    In the laboratory, when we synthesize an amino acid from symmetrical reagents, the product is always a 50:50 mixture of right-handed and left-handed forms. In living cells, however, only the left-handed amino acids get selected in each and every turn. Does that not seem to imply some geometrical preference? In the laboratory, when we synthesize any sugar, we always get a 50:50 mixture of its two mirror image forms. Yet, when sugars are biosynthesized in plants, no left-handed sugars are formed, only right-handed sugars.

    This has to be a consequence of the 3-D geometry of the sugar-forming proteins in the cell having been assembled exclusively from left-handed amino acids. One more piece of this puzzle: DNA and RNA are also asymmetrical. Watson and Crick made their model of DNA using right-handed deoxy-ribose in its helical backbone, and found that this could only form a stable double helix that was right-handed.

    Compare the last statement with what we see in every hardware store when we need to buy wood screws or nuts and bolts. Since early in the Industrial Revolution, stores agreed never to have left-handed screws, nuts, and bolts in the building, only “righty-tighty” threads. If both kinds were present, imagine the confusion as left-handed types got mixed with right-handed. You rarely encounter any mechanical parts with left-handed threads. When you do, there is a special reason for it. The bolt for the rotor blade of a gas-powered lawn mower is left-handed to ensure that the cutting action tightens the bolt, and does not loosen it. Even stranger, the coupling for attaching a propane gas tank to its hose is always left-handed ─ probably to save you from connecting a garden hose if the original hose is lost!

    For our purposes, we have just covered one of the most difficult, yet fascinating, lessons from organic chemistry.

    • As if the enormous code of DNA, with almost infinite odds against its correct life-defining code ever dialing up by chance, weren’t remotely improbable enough, and
    • As if the three-way “chicken-egg” conundrum surrounding DNA, RNA, proteins and sugars weren’t too complex to have resulted from random reactions,
    • We now see that there is this miraculous three-dimensional requirement that DNA and RNA have right-handed helices ─ so that proteins are biosynthesized exclusively from left-handed amino acids, and now, after all that,
    • Only right-handed ribose can properly align RNA in a right-handed helix, to ensure that only left-handed amino acids get selected.

    I cannot tell you what you must believe about these relationships. If I tried, you would properly reject the attempt. Only you can make your own decisions about what you fundamentally believe. You may already have a religious faith, or you may be working your way through doubt, based perhaps on science. What I ask you to think about, based on my subject field of organic chemistry, is this. With arguments based on the comparative anatomies that led Darwin to his evolution theory, powerful objections could be raised against any belief in a theistic God, by whatever name the ancients perceived our Creator. Now that we have this molecular evidence about the architectural structure and reactivity of DNA and RNA, and their mutual interdependence with sugars and proteins, we have practically absolute proof of the mechanism for Darwin’s descent with modification. That is good for a belief in evolution, but not so much for atheism. It seems the deeper we go into the incredible complexity of this molecular basis for evolution, the more difficult it becomes to use it as an argument for atheistic belief in a purposeless origin of life.

    It is your choice. What you believe is entirely up to you. You are free to conclude that there is no God, and choose instead to believe that complex life is the product of awesome chance. Or you may choose to belief that there is a First Cause for life. We cannot look to science to prove the existence, the power, or the nature of God. Science has no means to approach this question experimentally. But what science can do is reveal to us that life is indeed miraculous in being based upon the elaborate relationships of thousands of chemical substances, so infinitely complex that life is unlikely to have arisen and evolved by unguided chance.

    #   #   #

    James G. Martin, Ph.D., was an associate professor of chemistry at his alma mater, Davidson College, from 1960 to 1972. While serving at Davidson, in 1966, he was elected to the Mecklenburg County Board of Commissioners. He served for six years, chairing the body four 4 1/2 years. He was a president of the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners. He then served in the U.S. House of Representatives 1973-1985 and was governor of North Carolina 1985-1993. In 1993 he retired from political life and became chairman of the board of the James Cannon Research Center of Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte, NC. He is the author of Revelation Through Science, and provided this article and illustraionts as excerpts from that book.

    #   #   #

    See related article on the reality of order as evidence of God on this page.

    Top image of DNA by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

  • What Did Jesus Really Look Like?

    What Did Jesus Really Look Like?

    By Joan Taylor*
    Originally published on BBC.com (Edited by Real God staff)

    Everyone thinks they know what Jesus looks like. He is the most painted figure in all of Western art, recognized everywhere as having long hair and a beard, a long robe with long sleeves (often white) and a mantle (often blue).

    Jesus is so familiar that he can be recognized on pancakes or pieces of toast.

    But did he really look like this? Probably not.

    In fact this familiar image of Jesus actually comes from the Byzantine era, from the 4th Century onwards, and Byzantine representations of Jesus were symbolic – they were all about meaning, not historical accuracy. They were based on the image of an enthroned emperor, as we see in the altar mosaic of the Santa Pudenziana church in Rome (shown above).**

    The halo also comes from classical art – it was originally a feature of the sun god (Apollo, or Sol Invictus) but was added to Jesus’s head to show his heavenly nature. Jesus is dressed in a gold toga. He is the heavenly ruler of all the world, familiar from the famous statue of long-haired and bearded Olympian Zeus on a throne – a statue so well-known that the Roman Emperor Augustus had a copy of himself made in the same style (without the godly long hair and beard).

    Byzantine artists, looking to show Christ’s heavenly rule as cosmic King, invented him as a younger version of Zeus. What has happened over time is that this visualisation of heavenly Christ – today sometimes remade along hippie lines – has become our standard model of the early Jesus.

    So what did Jesus really look like? Let’s go from head to toe.

    1. Hair and beard

    When early Christians were not showing Christ as heavenly ruler, they showed Jesus as an actual man like any other: beardless and short-haired. The earliest surviving paintings of Jesus, from the church at the ruined city of Dura-Europos on the Euphrates (dating from first half of the 3rd Century AD), looks like this:


    But perhaps, as a kind of wandering sage, Jesus would have had a beard, for the simple reason that he did not go to barbers. General scruffiness and a beard were thought to differentiate a philosopher (who was thinking of higher things) from everyone else. The Stoic philosopher Epictetus considered it “appropriate according to Nature”.

    Otherwise, in the 1st Century Graeco-Roman world, being clean-shaven and short-haired was considered absolutely essential. A great mane of luxuriant hair and a beard was a godly feature, not replicated in male fashion. Even a philosopher kept his hair fairly short.

    A beard was not distinctive of being a Jew in antiquity. In fact, one of the problems for oppressors of Jews at different times was identifying them when they looked like everyone else (a point made in the book of Maccabees). However, images of Jewish men on Judaea Capta coins, issued by Rome after the capture of Jerusalem in 70AD, indicate captive men who are bearded. So Jesus, as a philosopher with the “natural” look, might well have had a short beard, but his hair was probably not very long.

    If he had had even slightly long hair, we would expect some reaction. Jewish men who had unkempt beards and were slightly long-haired were immediately identifiable as men who had taken a Nazirite vow. This meant they would dedicate themselves to God for a period of time, not drink wine or cut their hair – and at the end of this period they would shave their heads in a special ceremony in the temple in Jerusalem (as described in Acts chapter 21, verse 24).

    But Jesus did not keep a Nazirite vow, because he is often found drinking wine – his critics accuse him of drinking far, far too much of it (Matthew chapter 11, verse 19). If he had had long hair, and looked like a Nazirite, we would expect some comment on the discrepancy between how he appeared and what he was doing – the problem would be that he was drinking wine at all.

    2. Clothing

    At the time of Jesus, wealthy men donned long robes for special occasions, to show off their high status in public. In one of Jesus’s teachings, he says, “Beware of the scribes, who desire to walk in long robes (stolai), and to have salutations in the marketplaces, and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honour at banquets” (Mark chapter 12, verses 38-39).

    The sayings of Jesus are generally considered the more accurate parts of the Gospels, so from this we can assume that Jesus really did not wear such robes.

    Overall a man in Jesus’s world would wear a knee-length tunic, a chiton, and a woman an ankle-length one, and if you swapped these around it was a statement. Thus, in the 2nd Century Acts of Paul and Thecla, when Thecla, a woman, dons a short (male) tunic it is a bit of a shock. These tunics would often have coloured bands running from the shoulder to the hem and could be woven as one piece.
    On top of the tunic you would wear a mantle, a himation, and we know that Jesus wore one of these because this is what a woman touched when she wanted to be healed by him (see, for example, Mark chapter 5, verse 27). A mantle was a large piece of woollen material, though it was not very thick and for warmth you would want to wear two.

    A himation, which could be worn in various ways, like a wrap, would hang down past the knees and could completely cover the short tunic. (Certain ascetic philosophers even wore a large himation without the tunic, leaving their upper right torso bare, but that is another story.) The image at right depicts Jesus and a woman touching his mantle (Image courtesy of WIKI COMMONS).

    Power and prestige were indicated by the quality, size and colour of these mantles. Purple and certain types of blue indicated grandeur and esteem. These were royal colours because the dyes used to make them were very rare and expensive.

    But colours could also indicate something else. The historian Josephus describes the Zealots (a Jewish group who wanted to push the Romans out of Judaea) as a bunch of murderous transvestites who donned “dyed mantles” – chlanidia – indicating that they were women’s wear. This suggests that real men, unless they were of the highest status, should wear undyed clothing.

    Jesus did not wear white, however. This was distinctive, requiring bleaching or chalking, and in Judaea it was associated with a group called the Essenes – who followed a strict interpretation of Jewish law. The difference between Jesus’s clothing and bright, white clothing, is described in Mark chapter 9, when three apostles accompany Jesus to a mountain to pray and he begins to radiate light. Mark recounts that Jesus’s himatia (in the plural the word may mean “clothing” or “clothes” rather than specifically “mantles”) began “glistening, intensely white, as no fuller on earth could bleach them”. Before his transfiguration, therefore, Jesus is presented by Mark as an ordinary man, wearing ordinary clothes, in this case undyed wool.

    We are told more about Jesus’s clothing during his execution, when the Roman soldiers divide his himatia (in this case the word probably refers to two mantles) into four shares (see John chapter 19, verse 23). One of these was probably a tallith, or Jewish prayer shawl. This mantle with tassels (tzitzith) is specifically referred to by Jesus in Matthew chapter 23, verse 5. This was a lightweight himation, traditionally made of undyed creamy-coloured woollen material, and it probably had some kind of an indigo stripe or threading.

    3. Feet

    On his feet, Jesus would have worn sandals. Everyone wore sandals. In the desert caves close to the Dead Sea and Masada, sandals from the time of Jesus have come to light, so we can see exactly what they were like. They were very simple, with the soles made of thick pieces of leather sewn together, and the upper parts made of straps of leather going through the toes.

    4. Features

    And what about Jesus’s facial features? They were Jewish. That Jesus was a Jew (or Judaean) is certain in that it is found repeated in diverse literature, including in the letters of Paul. And, as the Letter to the Hebrews states: “It is clear that our Lord was descended from Judah.” So how do we imagine a Jew at this time, a man “about 30 years of age when he began,” according to Luke chapter 3?

    In 2001 forensic anthropologist Richard Neave created a model of a Galilean man for a BBC documentary, Son of God, working on the basis of an actual skull found in the region (image at right). He did not claim it was Jesus’s face. It was simply meant to prompt people to consider Jesus as being a man of his time and place, since we are never told he looked distinctive.

    Whatever some artists may imagine, Jesus is unlikely to have had blue eyes. He would have had brown eyes and black hair, and olive-brown skin like other Jews of the Middle East.

    For all that may be done with modelling on ancient bones, I think the closest correspondence to what Jesus really looked like is found in the depiction of Moses on the walls of the 3rd Century synagogue of Dura-Europos, since it shows how a Jewish sage was imagined in the Graeco-Roman world. Moses is imagined in undyed clothing, and in fact his one mantle is a tallith, since in the Dura image of Moses parting the Red Sea one can see tassels (tzitzith) at the corners. At any rate, this image is far more correct as a basis for imagining the historical Jesus than the adaptations of the Byzantine Jesus that have become standard: he’s short-haired and with a slight beard, and he’s wearing a short tunic, with short sleeves, and a himation.

    Moses appears to be wearing a tunic with blue bands, as well as a tallith (as a mantle) with blue decoration – in both cases the blue would probably have been created by dying with indigo. Here is the image most likely representative of what Jesus really looked like:

    Jesus looks like

    #  #  #

    Joan Taylor is the author of “What Did Jesus Look Like?”, available on amazon.com. In 1995 she won an Irene Levi-Sala Award in Israel’s archaeology, for the book version of her PhD thesis, Christians and the Holy Places (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993, rev. 2003). In 1996-7 she was Visiting Lecturer and Research Associate in Women’s Studies in New Testament at Harvard Divinity School, a position she held in association with a Fulbright Award. She has also been Honorary Research Fellow in the Departments of History and Jewish Studies at University College London. She has taught at King’s College London since 2009.

    **Photo by Sixtus, digitally enhanced, from Wikipedia

  • God Is Real – Arguments for the Existence of God

    arguments for the existence of God

    Arguments for the existence of God go back hundreds of years, and even 2,000 years ago the ancient Greeks debated the subject and offered “proofs”. Practically speaking, it is not possible to “prove” that God is real without first accepting, implicitly or explicitly, that a Supreme Being or God is even a possibility. Some have said that the fact that so many people have an instinctive notion or awareness of God is evidence itself that God is real.

    In philosophy and logic, there are two kinds of proof: those based on experience, also called empirical, inductive or a posteriori arguments; and those based on logic, also called deductive or a priori arguments. Logical arguments are based on the acceptance of initial facts or statements, from which one may logically deduce certain conclusions. A third category, called subjective arguments, focuses on mankind’s subjective experience of God in history and in personal experience. “Arguments” are similar to “proofs” of the existence of God; they are efforts to argue that God is real, and if they are convincing, can be considered “proofs.”

    Most agree, however, that the reality of God cannot be proved by either experience or logic, but rather it is up to each individual to accept the reality of God by a “leap of faith.” The Apostle Paul wrote in Hebrews 11, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Basically faith is belief in the reality of the invisible, although many believe that the visible world, the beauties of creation etc., are powerful evidence of a designer, creator God.

    Much of the following content is based in part on this Wikipedia page. For a drill-down on the “miracle of DNA” and how it could not have evolved by accident, read this article on our site.

    Empirical arguments for the existence of God

    Argument from beauty

    One form of the argument from beauty is that the elegance of the laws of physics, which have been empirically discovered, or the elegant laws of mathematics, which are abstract but which have empirically proven to be useful, is evidence of a creator deity who has arranged these things to be beautiful and not ugly. But even more relevant for most people is the beauty of the natural world – magnificent sunsets, gorgeous flowers, the ocean, waterfalls, birds, other animals, the face of a loved one, and so much more. The world is more beautiful than it has to be because God made it so.

    Argument from consciousness

    The argument from consciousness claims that human consciousness cannot be explained by the physical mechanisms of the human body and brain, therefore, asserting that there must be non-physical aspects to human consciousness. This is held as indirect evidence of God, given that notions about souls and the afterlife in Christianity and Islam would be consistent with such a claim.

    The notion of the soul was created before modern understanding of neural networks and the physiology of the brain. Decades of experimentation led cognitive science to consider thought and emotion as physical processes, although the experience of consciousness still remains poorly understood. The hard problem of consciousness remains as to whether different people subjectively experience the world in the same way — for example, that the color blue looks the same inside the minds of different people, though this is a philosophical problem with both physical and non-physical explanations, and is ultimately unanswerable.

    Argument from design

    The teleological argument, or the argument from design, asserts that certain features of the universe and of living things must be the product of an intelligent cause.[38] Its proponents are mainly Christians.[39] 

    Another version of this is the argument based on order, the orderliness of the universe, which could not be accidental. This is explained in this article on this website.

    Rational warrant

    Philosopher Stephen Toulmin is notable for his work in the history of ideas[40] that features the (rational) warrant: a statement that connects the premises to a conclusion.

    Joseph Hinman applied Toulmin’s approach in his argument for the existence of God, particularly in Hinman’s book The Trace of God: A Rational Warrant for Belief.[41] Instead of attempting to prove the existence of God, Hinman argues you can “demonstrate the rationally-warranted nature of belief”.[42]

    Hinman uses a wide range of studies, including ones by Robert Wuthnow, Andrew Greeley, Mathes and Kathleen Nobel to establish that mystical experiences are life-transformative in a way that is significant, positive and lasting.[43] He draws on additional work to add several additional major points to his argument. First, the people who have these experiences not only do not exhibit traditional signs of mental illness but often are in better mental and physical health than the general population due to the experience.[44] Second, the experiences work. In other words, they provide a framework for navigating life that is useful and effective.[45] All of the evidence of the positive effects of the experience upon people’s lives he, adapting a term from Derrida, terms “the trace of God”: the footprints left behind that point to the impact.

    Finally, he discusses how both religious experience and belief in God is, and has always been, normative among humans:[46] people do not need to prove the existence of God. If there is no need to prove, Hinman argues, and the Trace of God (for instance, the impact of mystical experiences on them), belief in God is rationally warranted.

    Inductive arguments

    Some have put forward arguments for the existence of God based on inductive reasoning. For example, one class of philosophers asserts that the proofs for the existence of God present a fairly high probability, though not absolute certainty. A number of obscure points, they say, always remain; an act of faith is required to dismiss these difficulties. This view is maintained, among others, by the Scottish statesman Arthur Balfour in his book The Foundations of Belief (1895). The opinions set forth in this work were adopted in France by Ferdinand Brunetière, the editor of the Revue des deux Mondes. Many orthodox Protestants express themselves in the same manner, as, for instance, Dr. E. Dennert, President of the Kepler Society, in his work Ist Gott tot?[47]

    Logical arguments for the existence of God

    Aquinas’ Five Ways (Arguments) 

    Main article: Five Ways (Aquinas)

    In article 3, question 2, first part of his Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas developed his five arguments for God’s existence. These arguments are grounded in an Aristotelian ontology and make use of the infinite regression argument.[48][49] Aquinas did not intend to fully prove the existence of God as he is orthodoxly conceived (with all of his traditional attributes), but proposed his Five Ways as a first stage, which he built upon later in his work.[50] Aquinas’ Five Ways argued from the unmoved mover, first cause, necessary being, argument from degree, and the argument from final cause.

    • The unmoved mover argument asserts that, from our experience of motion in the universe (motion being the transition from potentiality to actuality) we can see that there must have been an initial mover. Aquinas argued that whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another thing, so there must be an unmoved mover.[48]
    • Aquinas’ argument from first cause started with the premise that it is impossible for a being to cause itself (because it would have to exist before it caused itself) and that it is impossible for there to be an infinite chain of causes, which would result in infinite regress. Therefore, there must be a first cause, itself uncaused.[48]
    • The argument from necessary being asserts that all beings are contingent, meaning that it is possible for them not to exist. Aquinas argued that if everything can possibly not exist, there must have been a time when nothing existed; as things exist now, there must exist a being with necessary existence, regarded as God.[48]
    • He also argued from degree, considering the occurrence of degrees of goodness. He believed that things which are called good, must be called good in relation to a standard of good—a maximum. There must be a maximum goodness that which causes all goodness.[48]
    • The argument from final cause asserts the view that non-intelligent objects are ordered towards a purpose. Aquinas argued that these objects cannot be ordered unless they are done so by an intelligent being, which means that there must be an intelligent being to move objects to their ends: God.[48]

    Cosmological argument

    The cosmological argument, or “first cause” argument asserts that since everything that begins to exist has a cause, and since the universe began to exist, the universe must have had a cause which was itself not caused. This ultimate first cause is identified with God. Christian apologist William Lane Craig gives a version of this argument in the following form:[51]

    1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
    2. The Universe began to exist.
    3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

    Ontological argument

    The ontological argument has been formulated by philosophers including St. Anselm and René Descartes. The argument proposes that God’s existence is self-evident. The logic, depending on the formulation, reads roughly as follows:[52]

    Whatever is contained in a clear and distinct idea of a thing must be predicated of that thing; but a clear and distinct idea of an absolutely perfect Being contains the idea of actual existence; therefore since we have the idea of an absolutely perfect Being such a Being must really exist.[52]

    Thomas Aquinas criticized the argument for proposing a definition of God which, if God is transcendent, should be impossible for humans to understand.[53] Immanuel Kant criticized the proof from a logical standpoint: he stated that the term “God” really signifies two different terms: both idea of God, and the reality of God. Kant concluded that the proof is equivocation, based on the ambiguity of the word God.[54] Kant also challenged the argument’s assumption that existence is a predicate (of perfection) because it does not add anything to the essence of a being. If existence is not a predicate, then it is not necessarily true that the greatest possible being exists.[55] A common rebuttal to Kant’s critique is that, although “existence” does add something to both the concept and the reality of God, the concept would be vastly different if its referent is an unreal Being. Another response to Kant is attributed to Alvin Plantinga, who says that even if one were to grant that existence is not a real predicate, necessary existence, which is the correct formulation of an understanding of God, is a real predicate.

    Subjective arguments for the existence of God

    Arguments from historical events or personages

    Arguments from testimony

    Arguments from testimony rely on the testimony or experience of witnesses, possibly embodying the propositions of a specific revealed religion. Richard Swinburne argues that it is a principle of rationality that one should accept testimony unless there are strong reasons for not doing so.[63]

    • The witness argument gives credibility to personal witnesses, contemporary and throughout the ages. A variation of this is the argument from miracles (also referred to as “the priest stories”) which relies on testimony of supernatural events to establish the existence of God.
    • The majority argument argues that the theism of people throughout most of recorded history and in many different places provides prima facie demonstration of God’s existence.
    Arguments grounded in personal experiences
    • The Argument from a proper basis argues that belief in God is “properly basic”; that it is similar to statements like “I see a chair” or “I feel pain”. Such beliefs are non-falsifiable and, thus, neither provable nor disprovable; they concern perceptual beliefs or indisputable mental states.
    • In Germany, the School of Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi taught that human reason is able to perceive the suprasensible. Jacobi distinguished three faculties: sense, reason, and understanding. Just as sense has immediate perception of the material so has reason immediate perception of the immaterial, while the understanding brings these perceptions to a person’s consciousness and unites them to one another.[64] God’s existence, then, cannot be proven (Jacobi, like Immanuel Kant, rejected the absolute value of the principle of causality), it must be felt by the mind.
    • The same theory was advocated in Germany by Friedrich Schleiermacher, who assumed an inner religious sense by means of which people feel religious truths. According to Schleiermacher, religion consists solely in this inner perception, and dogmatic doctrines are inessential.[65]

    #  #  #

    Top photo by Davide Cantelli on Unsplash

  • What Is God Really Like?

    What Is God Really Like?

    By Pastor Rick Warren

    “For the Lord is always good. He is always loving and kind, and his faithfulness goes on and on to each succeeding generation.” – Psalm 100:5 (TLB)

    If knowing who God is shapes the way we pray, then what is God really like? Well, God has many characteristics. He is all-knowing (omniscient), he is all-powerful (omnipotent), and he can be everywhere at the same time (omnipresent). The Bible tells us God is holy, just, kind, loving, and faithful.And God is good. In fact, trust in his goodness is the basis for all prayer. If God is not a good God, then why would we expect him to answer our prayers? Why would we be motivated to pray to him at all?The only reason there’s any good in the world is because God is the Creator of the world, and he is a good God. His goodness is in the universe. You can’t spell “good” without “God.” If there’s no God, then there is no right and wrong or good and bad.People often ask, “Why is there evil in the world?” It’s simple: God doesn’t force us to do good. Evil exists because God gave us a free choice and we choose not to do good a lot of the time. Evil is really easy to explain. The hard thing to explain is why there is is any good in the world. In a world of brutal competition and so-called tough luck, the only reason there is good is because God is a good God.

    Because God is always good, we can know certain things about prayer. When you understand these things because you understand how good God really is, you’re going to enjoy prayer. It won’t be a duty anymore. It will be a delight!

    Talk It Over

    • Why is God’s goodness a key motivation to pray?
    • Is prayer a duty or a delight for you? Why?
    • How has God’s goodness affected the way you pray to him?

    #  #   #

    This devotional was first published in Pastor Rick Warren’s daily email called Daily Hope. Rick Warren is the world-renown pastor of Saddleback Church in California. He is an innovative pastor, author of numerous books including the international best-seller “The Purpose-Driven Life,” and a global influencer. The various ministries Pastor Rick has created are a multi-faceted expression of his heart to bring the whole Gospel to the whole world. Learn more at https://pastorrick.com. Used by permission from his staff.

    Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

  • Decision-Making and the Real Will of God

    Decision-Making and the Real Will of God

    (“Decision Making and the Will of God” has sold more than 250,000 copies since first published by Garry Friesen with J. Robin Maxson. Dr. Friesen has kindly provided us with this concise summary of his 525-page book so that we might share it with you. The full book is available on amazon.com here, and we recommend it highly.)

    Principles for Decision Making and the Will of God

    There is a very old, now classic, joke that goes like this:

    Patient: “Doctor, I can’t seem to make up my mind about what I should do.”
    Psychiatrist: “Have you always had trouble making decisions?”
    Patient: “Well, yes and no.”

    At best, the joke is a grinner. But it touches a responsive chord in most of us because, on any given day, the guy on the couch could be yours truly.

    And yet we must decide. And how we decide matters, for all of our choices shape our lives to some extent. Dr. Haddon Robinson expresses our sentiments well when he says: “We want to make right decisions, for we realize that the decisions we make turn around and make us. As we choose one end of the road we choose the other. “

    Everyone wants to make decisions that turn out well. But conscientious Christians have an additional, ultimate objective: “. . . we have as our ambition … to be pleasing to [the Lord]” (2 Corinthians 5:9).

    The prerequisite for God-pleasing decisions is act forth by the Apostle Paul In Colossians 1:9-10: “. . . that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will. In all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so that you may walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please Him in all respects. . . .” The principal task in decision making for the Christian is to learn what God wants him to do, and then do it.

    So far so good. The obvious question is, how is the Christian to learn what God wants him to do as he is confronted with life’s decisions?

    “God Has Spoken”

    Throughout history, the ways that God has communicated His will to men have varied. Before there was any Scripture, God revealed His will through direct revelation. Usually the message was received by a single individual who would pass along to others whatever content God would instruct. The means of revelation included visions, angels, theophanies (manifestations of God in human form), or simply the audible voice of God (see Genesis 28:12-16; 32:1-2. 24-30; 35: 1).

    As God’s special revelation was committed to paper (Exodus 17:14; 24:4; 34:27-28), His people had two sources of knowledge of His will – the Book (referenced in Joshua 1:8) and the additional instruction that God gave by further direct revelation (Joshua 1:1-9).

    Over a period of some 1500 years, God’s will was written down (2 Peter 1: 19-21). Finally, after God had revealed Himself fully in the human person of His Son, Jesus Christ (John 1: 14, 18), the Book we call the Bible was completed (Revelation 22:18-20). Since God’s special revelation culminated in His Son, believers in this age possess In Scripture the full disclosure of God’s will until the Second Coming of that same Son.

    Accordingly, God has provided for us all that we need in order to make decisions that are pleasing to Him! (2 Peter 1:3).

    The purpose of this article is to summarize the teaching of God’s Word on how we can make decisions according to God’s will.

    The Principle of Obedience to God

    When the Bible speaks of God’s will, it does so in one of two senses. The first of these we will call the “moral” will of God. It may be defined as the commands and principles which God has revealed in the Bible to teach how men ought to believe and live.

    For example, Paul wrote that even unbelieving Jews “… know [God’s] will, and approve the things that are essential, being instructed out of the Law. . .” (Romans 2:18). He was saying that since they study the Scripture, they understand God’s moral will. Therefore, they know right from wrong, truth from error. Their fault is not ignorance, but disobedience.

    Accordingly, the Principle of Obedience may be stated: In those areas specifically addressed by the Bible, the revealed commands and principles of God (His moral will) are to be obeyed.
    The ramifications of this principle are more fully recognized when four crucial characteristics of God’s moral will are brought into focus.

    1. The moral will of God is fully revealed in the Bible. One hundred per cent of what God wants us to know about believing and living to please Him He has already told us. The Bible is our final and complete authority for faith and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17; Hebrews 1: 1-2).

    2. The moral will of God is the expression of the character of God (Romans 7:12). Because God’s moral will reflects His character, it helps to produce that same character in the life of the one who obeys it (Luke 6.35-36) and leads to fullness of life (Psalm 19:7-11).

    3. The moral will of God touches every aspect and moment of life. That is true because God’s will encompasses more than overt behavior. For God is not concerned simply with what we do; He cares equally about why we do what we do, as well as how we do it. To put it differently, God’s moral will prescribes the believer’s goals and attitudes, as well as his actions. Furthermore, it shapes his perspective of reality which serves as the context in which his decisions are made.

    This point is so important that it merits further consideration. Goals, by their nature, are more general than behavioral commands. The Christian’s goals should reflect God’s stated purposes for his life. Here are a few of the major ones:

    • to glorify God in all things (1 Corinthians 10:31);
    • to minister to others (Romans 14:19);
    • to fulfill God-given responsibilities (1 Peter 4: 10-11);
    • to evangelize lost people (2 Peter 3:9);
    • to do good works (Titus 3:8);
    • to produce spiritual fruit (Colossians 1: 10).

    Our decisions should not only conform to God-given goals, they should reflect right attitudes. A partial listing of God’s will for this area of our lives would include: love (Mark 12:28-31), reliance (Proverbs 3:5-6), humility (Philippians 2:5-8), gratitude (Colossians 3:17), integrity (Colossians 3:22), diligence (Colossians 3:23), eagerness (1 Peter 5:2), generosity (1 Timothy 6:17-19), courage (John 16:33), submission (Ephesians 5:21), contentment (Hebrews 13:5), and joy (James 1:2).

    Of course God is concerned about our behavior, for the end does not justify just any means. With proper goals in view, and right attitudes at heart, our actions must be lawful (i.e., they must not be outside of the revealed will of God. Ephesians 5:1-14). and they must be wise (i.e., the believer may not make a decision he knows to be foolish (Ephesians 5: 15-17, Luke 14:28-32).

    Since no decision is made in a vacuum, the degree to which we pursue godly goals with righteous attitudes and wise actions will be largely determined by our perspective on life. In particular, the Christian whose world-view is shaped by Scripture will have a much different sense of self-identity. Knowing that he is loved by God with a love which he did nothing to earn (and which, therefore, he can do nothing to forfeit, Romans 8:31-39), he will face life with a deep sense of security. Being aware that God has specifically equipped him to participate meaningfully in the outworking of the eternal purposes of God (Ephesians 2: 10, 1 Peter 4: 10-11), he has a clear grasp of his personal worth. A strong sense of security and significance in Christ frees the Christian from self-promoting motivations in decision making, releasing him to focus more on the needs of others (Philippians 2:1-5).

    Other passages would remind the Christian that he is on assignment for God in enemy territory (Ephesians 6:12), that physical life on this earth is preparatory for “real life” in heaven, that what he invests for God now will be repaid with interest later (Matthew 6:19-21; Romans 8:18; 2 Corinthians 4:17). And he will recognize that the unseen forces and resources of heaven are involved in his behalf as he seeks to carry out God’s will on earth (Hebrews 1:14; 11:1, 2 Kings 6:16-17).

    It is God’s moral will that we resist having our viewpoint molded by the world (Romans 12:2). Instead, we are to “walk by faith” (2 Corinthians 5:7) seeing our lives, and therefore our decisions, through the “glasses” of God’s Word.

    To sum up: It is because God’s moral will prescribes our goals, attitudes, actions, and perspective that it touches every aspect and moment of life.

    4. Since the moral will of God contains His complete revelation for faith and life, expresses God’s own character, and touches every aspect and moment of life, it is fully able to equip believers for every good work. “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

    Our response to such abundant guidance from God should be obvious. First, we need to learn what God has said (Joshua 1:8).

    Second, we need to do what God has said (John 13:17). As one observes the decision-making practices of people, one is forced to the sobering conclusion that the greatest impediments to making good decisions are ignorance of God’s Word and stubborn resistance to God’s will (Proverbs 16:25; Acts 7: 51).

    The Principle of Freedom

    It is obvious to the student of the Bible that God’s moral will does not specifically address every decision we make. That would be impossible. For not only are there too many decisions to prescribe, there are choices that are required in our modern setting that were unknown in the biblical world-which car to buy, what television program to watch, etc. It is those kinds of decisions that are governed by the next two principles of decision making.

    The Principle of Freedom may be expressed as follows: In those areas where the Bible gives no command or principle (non-commanded decisions), the believer is free and responsible to choose his course of action. Any decision made within the moral will of god is acceptable to God.

    This principle asserts three things: 1) There are some decisions which have multiple options, any number of which may be acceptable to God; 2) the final decision made must not be in violation of God’s moral will (in purpose, attitude, or execution); and 3) God will not dictate to the believer what he must do – the individual is free to make the decision.

    (It should be noted in passing that God certainly could reveal His will for a particular decision not directly addressed in Scripture. He has done that in the past, as Scripture records, and His ability to do so now remains unchanged. So if His purposes warranted, God could directly communicate specific guidance today. If He were to do so, it could be expected that the revelation would be crystal clear – and that the means would be on the order of an angelic visit, super-natural vision, or audible voice. However, what we are about to see is that biblical decision making does not anticipate such divine intervention. True, it does not rule it out. It just assumes that the Word we already have is adequate for all our decisions. And if it is not enough in some situations, it is up to God to provide what we need.)

    The principle of freedom of choice within revealed limits was clearly part of the Creator”s design from the very beginning. The parable which follows, paraphrased from Genesis 2, highlights the reality of freedom in God’s first specific commandment to man.

    “The First Supper”

    Adam was hungry. He had had a long, challenging day naming animals. His afternoon nap had been refreshing, and his post-siesta introduction to Eve was exhilarating, to say the least. But as the sun began to set on their first day, Adam discovered that he had worked up an appetite.

    “I think we should eat,” he said to Eve. “Let’s call the evening meal ‘supper.’”

    “Oh, you’re so decisive, Adam,” replied Eve in admiration. “I like that in a man. I guess all the excitement of being created has made me hungry too.”

    As they discussed how they should proceed, they decided that Adam would gather fruit from the garden, and Eve would prepare it for their meal. Adam set about his task and soon returned with a basket full of ripe fruit. He gave it to Eve, and went to soak his feet in the soothing current of the Pishon River until supper was ready. He had been reviewing the animals” names for about five minutes when he heard his wife’s troubled voice.

    “Adam, could you help me for a moment?”
    “What seems to be the problem, dear?” he replied.
    “I’m not sure which of these lovely fruits I should prepare for supper. I certainly want to be obedient to the Lord’s will. But I’m just not sure what He wants me to do. Would you go ask Him what I should do about supper?”

    Adam understood Eve’s dilemma. So he left her to go speak with the Lord. Shortly he returned, looking perplexed. “He didn’t really answer your question,” he announced.
    “What do you mean? Didn’t He say anything?”

    “Oh yes,” replied Adam. “But He just repeated what He said earlier today during the garden tour: “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat.” I assure you, Eve, I steered clear of the forbidden tree.”

    “Well, we still have to make a decision about supper,” she observed. “What should I prepare for tonight?”

    Adam shrugged. “I’ve never seen such crisp, juicy apples. I think it would be OK to have them.”

    Eve agreed, and Adam headed back to his easy-bank.

    He was only halfway to the river when he heard Eve’s call. He was so hungry that he jogged back to the clearing where she was working. But his anticipation evaporated when he saw her face.

    “More problems?” he asked.

    “Adam, I just can’t decide what I should do with these apples. I could slice them, dice them, mash them, bake them in a pie, a cobbler, fritters, or dumplings. Or we could just polish them and eat them raw. But I don’t want to do anything that would be displeasing to the Lord. Would you be a dear and go just one more time to the Lord with my problem?”

    Not having any better solution himself, Adam did as Eve requested. When he returned, he said, “I get the same answer as before: “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat.” You know, Eve, the Lord made that statement as though it ought to fully answer my question. I’m sure He could have told me what to eat and how to eat it; but I think He wants us to make those decisions. It was the same way with the animals today. He just left their names up to me.”

    Eve was incredulous. “Do you mean that I can’t miss God’s will in this decision?”

    Adam explained: “The only way you could do that is to pick some fruit from the forbidden tree. But all of these fruits are all right. Why, I suppose we could eat all of them.” Adam snapped his fingers and exclaimed, “Say, that’s a great idea! Let’s have fruit salad for supper.”

    Eve was hesitant. “What’s a salad?”

    When we speak of freedom within the moral will of God, our terminology suggests a diagram. God’s moral will can be represented by a circle. Whatever is commanded by God lies within the circle; whatever is forbidden by God is outside that perimeter. Within the larger circle of God’s moral will is a smaller circle signifying an area of freedom.

    Freedom and Gods Will

    Now, in the first command quoted above, the tree of knowledge of good and evil would be outside of the circle of God’s will – forbidden. The rest of the trees of Eden would not only be inside the larger circle, they would be within the area of freedom.

    This same principle is taught in the New Testament as well. For the sake of brevity, we will simply cite three passages that teach freedom of choice with regard to dinner invitations from unbelievers, giving to the church, and marriage partners.

    “If one of the unbelievers invites you, and you wish to go, eat anything that is set before you, without asking questions for conscience’ sake” (1 Corinthians 10:27).

    “Let each one [give] just as he has purposed in his heart; not grudgingly or under compulsion; for God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Corinthians 9:7).

    “A wife is bound as long as her husband lives, but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 7:39).

    In each of these cases, there is a clear line marking off the circle of God’s moral will. The reality of an area of freedom is equally clear in each case. In the last passage, for instance, the moral will of God forbids marriage of a Christian to a non-Christian. But the choice of whether to marry and which particular believer to marry falls within the area of freedom. It is up to the individuals involved to make the decision and follow through on the commitment with the Spirit’s strength.

    The Principle of Wisdom

    The other side of the coin is that freedom entails responsibility. If God is not going to dictate every choice we make, the believer is not only free to choose – he is required to choose.

    That raises a critical question: On what basis is the Christian to make his decisions in freedom areas?

    It is fruitful, when reflecting on this question, to observe the decision-making practices of the apostles as well as their explanations for the reasons behind their actions. For instance, some weeks after Paul and his companions were forced to leave the newly founded church at Thessalonica, they agreed on a plan, explained in 1 Thessalonians 3:1-2, whereby the fledgling church could receive further help: “Therefore when we could endure it no longer, we thought it best to be left behind at Athens alone, and we sent Timothy … to strengthen and encourage you as to your faith.”

    How was their decision made? “We thought it best.”

    As one reads of other apostolic decisions in the New Testament, one encounters similar terminology: “I thought it necessary” (Philippians 2:25-26); “if it is fitting” (1 Corinthians 16:3-4); “it is not desirable” (Acts 6:2-4); “I have decided” (Titus 3:12).

    When it came to instruction in decision making, the apostles’ exhortations were consistent with their practice. Some choices were commanded on grounds of being “good,” while others were “better” (1 Corinthians 7:1, 9, 26. 38).

    All of the decisions referred to have two things in common: 1) since they were not determined by God’s moral will, they each qualified as a matter of freedom, and 2) the terms utilized in the explanations (“good,” “better.” “best.” “fitting,” etc.) imply some standard.

    That standard, in a word, is wisdom. And the principle of wisdom is: In noncommanded decisions, the goal of the believer is to make wise decisions on the basis of spiritual advantage.

    In this principle, some definitions are important.

    “Spiritual” indicates that the ends in view, as well as the means to those ends, are governed by the moral will of God.

    “Advantage” means what works best to get the job done – within God’s moral will, of course.

    And “wisdom” is accurately defined as “the power to see, and the inclination to choose, the best and highest goal, together with the surest means of attaining it.” Wisdom is the ability to recognize what is spiritually expedient in a given situation.

    The importance of wisdom in decision making is emphasized by Paul in Ephesians 5:15-16: “Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men, but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil.”

    And where does one find the kind of wisdom necessary for decision-making? Ultimately, of course, “. . . the LORD gives wisdom, From His mouth come knowledge and understanding” (Proverbs 2:6). For “wise” is what God is in His essence (Job 9:4, 12:13). In Him alone can wisdom be found in its fullness (Romans 11:33; 16:27).

    But godly wisdom is not imparted to just anyone. It is granted only to those who value it enough to pursue it.

    “If you seek [wisdom] as silver,
    And search for her as for hidden treasures;
    Then you will discern the fear of the LORD,
    And discover the knowledge of God” (Proverbs 2:4-5; see 8:17).

    If one is going to find “hidden treasure,” it is important to know where to look. For God’s wisdom is mediated through a number of sources.

    The most obvious of these sources is the Bible itself. For in its pages, God has spoken. His gift of wisdom has, in large measure, been given (Psalm 119:97- 100). Even though not all of decisions are determined by God’s moral will, they are all regulated by it.

    Still, God in His grace has provided other valuable and legitimate sources of wisdom. The principal ones include outside research (Luke 14:28-32), wise counselors (Proverbs 15:22) and the lessons of life itself (Hebrews 5:12-14)

    Even though the search for wisdom is objective, it is not impersonal. For God is involved throughout the process in granting wisdom to those who ask in faith (James 1:5-6) and who seek the attitudes of reverence, humility, teachableness, diligence, and uprightness (Proverbs 2:4-7. 9:9-10; 15:31-33).

    The Principle of Humility

    Most of the biblical teaching concerning decision making relates the believer’s choices to the moral will of God. God’s moral will not only dictates what men must and must not do, but it also defines the sphere within which Christians have freedom and responsibility of choice. And it explains how that freedom and responsibility are to be exercised according to wisdom.

    There is, however, another aspect of God’s will that is found In the Bible and affects our decisions. We will call this category God’s “sovereign” will. Ephesians 1: 11, for example, uses the term in this sense when it says that God “. . . works things after the counsel of His will.” God’s sovereign will may be defined as God’s secret plan that determines everything that happens in the universe.

    To see how God’s sovereign will affects our decisions, there are at least four things we need to understand about it.

    1. God’s sovereign will is exhaustive. It is the ultimate determiner of all things (Ephesians 1: 11), including which of our plans finds fulfillment (James 4:13-15).

    2. God’s sovereign will is certain. It will not be frustrated by men, angels, or anything else (Daniel 4:35). To Paul’s challenging question, “Who resists His will?” (Romans 9:19), we are humbly compelled to agree, “No one!” (Romans 9:6-29).

    3. God’s sovereign will is secret. Man can only learn what it is after it happens (Deuteronomy 29:29). The only exceptions to this are statements of prophecy in which events are foretold (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18), and explanations of the destinies of the saved (John 3:16) and the lost (John 3:36).

    4. God’s sovereign will is perfect. It is perfect in the sense that it will ultimately lead to God’s greatest glory. There never was another plan (Ephesians 1:4). Though sin is contrary to God’s moral will, its presence is permitted in God’s plan partly because His conquest of it reveals His grace and power. God will be glorified for His holiness, for His defeat of Satan, for His righteous judgment, and for His grace to redeemed sinners (Revelation 5, see also John 12:32-33; Romans 5:20, 8:28-30; 11: 15, 30-33).

    Without a doubt, the teaching concerning God’s sovereign will confronts us with one of the greatest mysteries in the Bible. For Scripture is equally emphatic that while God ultimately determines all things, He does so without being the author of sin (James 1: 13), without violating the will of man (Luke 22:22), and without destroying the reality of decision making (Acts 2:23; 4:27-28).

    Theologians have not unraveled this mystery (Romans 9:14-21), and God has not yet completely explained the outworking of divine sovereignty and human responsibility (see Habakkuk 1-3). But both are asserted to be true, often in the same verse (Luke 22:22).

    The equal truth of these twin realities is in no place more clearly seen than in the provision of our salvation. For the most wicked act ever committed – the willful murder of God’s Son, Israel’s Messiah – actually accomplished the central requirement in God’s glorious plan of redemption! Accordingly, Peter declared to the men of Israel, “this Man, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death” (Acts 2:23; see 4:27-28).

    While it is always appropriate to seek to understand God’s revelation to the fullest possible extent, there are limits to the ability of finite minds to comprehend the infinite God. Those who, through the study of God’s Word, gain humble appreciation for the wonder of God’s sovereign will, find themselves echoing in their hearts the doxology of the apostle Paul: “Oh. the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!” (Romans 11:33).

    It remains for us to see how God’s sovereign will relates to our decision-making. Perhaps the clearest biblical commentary is provided by James 4:13-16:

    Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow, we shall go to such and such a city, and spend a year there and engage in business and make a profit.” Yet you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow. You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away. Instead, you ought to say, “if the Lord wills, we shall live and also do this or that.” But as it is, you boast in your arrogance; all such boasting is evil.

    This paragraph is essentially a rebuke of arrogant, self-sufficient planning which does not acknowledge God or His sovereignty. The proud merchants are guilty of making two presumptions: 1) that they will live beyond tomorrow; and 2) that they control their own destinies. “All such boasting is evil.”

    Significantly, James does not condemn the practice of planning. His corrective does not call for a repeal of their plans, but for a proper recognition of God’s overruling purposes – “If the Lord wills …” (v. 15). The whole paragraph is apparently an illustration of the principle stated in verse 6: “God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”

    In short, the proper response to the sovereign will of God is what we are calling the Principle of Humility: In all decisions, the believer should humbly accept, in advance, the outworking of God’s sovereign will as it touches each decision. (See Acts 18:21; 19:21. 20:16; 1 Corinthians 4:19; 16:5-7.)

    Since the sovereign will of God cannot be known in advance (it is secret), it has no direct bearing on the activity of decision-making. On the other hand, since the sovereign will of God ultimately determines whether and/or when our plans are accomplished, its reality should govern our attitude in decision making. Humble planning is the proper response to the sovereign will of God.

    A Case History: Paul’s Plans to Visit Rome

    What James advocated, Paul practiced. In Romans 1:8-13 and 15:20-29, Paul explained the travel plans by which he hoped to visit Rome. Careful study of these verses reveals the steps in Paul’s decision-making process:

    1. PURPOSES: Paul adopted spiritual goals that were based on God’s moral will (1: 11-13; 15:20).

    2. PRIORITIES: Since he did not know how much time he had, he arranged his goals into wise priorities, determining what should be done first, second, third, etc. (15:23-28).

    3. PLANS: Next, he devised plans that gave him a strategy for accomplishing his purposes (1: 13; 15:23-28).

    4. PRAYER: Through prayer, he submitted himself and his plans to the sovereign will of God (1:8-10).

    5. PERSEVERANCE: When providentially hindered from accomplishing his plans, he assumed that the delay was God’s sovereign will. This conviction freed him from discouragement. Since his plans were sound, the only thing he adjusted was the timetable (1:10, 13; 15:22-24).

    6. PRESENTATION: Paul explained his decisions on the basis of God’s moral will and his own personal application of wisdom (1:8-13; 15:20-29).

    The postscript to this discussion is that Paul did eventually make it to Jerusalem, Rome, and possibly even Spain – in that order. He did have to modify his plans somewhat along the way, for the two-year stopover in the Caesarean jail and the shipwreck at Malta had not been included in Paul’s original projections. Nor did Paul just visit the Romans “in passing.” His confinement under house arrest delayed his plans for westward advancement for at least two years.

    On the plus side, Paul’s transportation from Palestine to Rome was provided courtesy of Caesar, who also furnished a military escort for his protection. And the period of imprisonment was used by Paul to pen a major portion of what was to become the New Testament.

    Because he responded properly to God’s guidance in its various forms, Paul became a model of one who engaged in long-range planning on the one hand, and snatched up present opportunities on the other. Interruptions became occasions for personal growth and ministry. It is just such a balance that believers today should seek to maintain.

    And in Conclusion – Decision-Making and the  Will of God

    At the beginning of this article, we established that the goal of the Christian is to make decisions that are pleasing to God. What we have seen is that His Word establishes four principles for decision making according to God’s will:

    1. The Principle of OBEDIENCE: In those areas specifically addressed by the Bible, the revealed commands and principles of God (His moral will) are to be obeyed.

    2. The Principle of FREEDOM: In those areas where the Bible gives no command or principle, the believer is free and responsible to choose his course of action. Any decision made within the moral will of God is acceptable to God.

    3. The Principle of WISDOM: In noncommanded decisions, the goal of the believer is to make wise decisions on the basis of spiritual advantage.

    4. The Principle of HUMILITY: In all decisions, the believer should humbly accept, in advance, the outworking of God’s sovereign will as it touches each decision.

    This summary is stated slightly shorter in the new edition of Decision Making and the Will of God:

    1. Where God commands, we must obey.

    2. Where there is no command, God gives us freedom (and responsibility) to choose

    3. Where there is no command, God gives us wisdom to choose.

    4. When we have chosen what is moral and wise, we must trust the sovereign God to work all the details together for good.

     
Top Image by Barbara Jackson from Pixabay
  • Arguments Why God (Very Probably) Exists

    Arguments Why God (Very Probably) Exists

    By Robert H. Nelson, University of Maryland.*

    The question of whether a god exists is heating up in the 21st century. According to a Pew survey, the percent of Americans having no religious affiliation reached 23 percent in 2014. Among such “nones,” 33 percent said that they do not believe in God – an 11 percent increase since only 2007.

    Such trends have ironically been taking place even as, I would argue, the probability for the existence of a supernatural god have been rising. In my 2015 book, “God? Very Probably: Five Rational Ways to Think about the Question of a God,” I look at physics, the philosophy of human consciousness, evolutionary biology, mathematics, the history of religion and theology to explore whether such a god exists. I should say that I am trained originally as an economist, but have been working at the intersection of economics, environmentalism and theology since the 1990s.

    Laws of math

    In 1960 the Princeton physicist – and subsequent Nobel Prize winner – Eugene Wigner raised a fundamental question: Why did the natural world always – so far as we know – obey laws of mathematics?

    As argued by scholars such as Philip Davis and Reuben Hersh, mathematics exists independent of physical reality. It is the job of mathematicians to discover the realities of this separate world of mathematical laws and concepts. Physicists then put the mathematics to use according to the rules of prediction and confirmed observation of the scientific method.

    But modern mathematics generally is formulated before any natural observations are made, and many mathematical laws today have no known existing physical analogues.

    Einstein Memorial, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.
    Wally Gobetz, CC BY-ND

    Einstein’s 1915 general theory of relativity, for example, was based on theoretical mathematics developed 50 years earlier by the great German mathematician Bernhard Riemann that did not have any known practical applications at the time of its intellectual creation.

    In some cases the physicist also discovers the mathematics. Isaac Newton was considered among the greatest mathematicians as well as physicists of the 17th century. Other physicists sought his help in finding a mathematics that would predict the workings of the solar system. He found it in the mathematical law of gravity, based in part on his discovery of calculus.

    At the time, however, many people initially resisted Newton’s conclusions because they seemed to be “occult.” How could two distant objects in the solar system be drawn toward one another, acting according to a precise mathematical law? Indeed, Newton made strenuous efforts over his lifetime to find a natural explanation, but in the end he could say only that it is the will of God.

    Despite the many other enormous advances of modern physics, little has changed in this regard. As Wigner wrote, “the enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious and there is no rational explanation for it.”

    In other words, as I argue in my book, it takes the existence of some kind of a god to make the mathematical underpinnings of the universe comprehensible.

    Math and other worlds

    In 2004 the great British physicist Roger Penrose put forward a vision of a universe composed of three independently existing worlds – mathematics, the material world and human consciousness. As Penrose acknowledged, it was a complete puzzle to him how the three interacted with one another outside the ability of any scientific or other conventionally rational model.

    How can physical atoms and molecules, for example, create something that exists in a separate domain that has no physical existence: human consciousness?

    It is a mystery that lies beyond science.

    Plato. image by Elizabethe, CC BY-NC-ND

    This mystery is the same one that existed in the Greek worldview of Plato, who believed that abstract ideas (above all mathematical) first existed outside any physical reality. The material world that we experience as part of our human existence is an imperfect reflection of these prior formal ideals. As the scholar of ancient Greek philosophy, Ian Mueller, writes in “Mathematics And The Divine,” the realm of such ideals is that of God.

    Indeed, in 2014 the MIT physicist Max Tegmark argues in “Our Mathematical Universe” that mathematics is the fundamental world reality that drives the universe. As I would say, mathematics is operating in a god-like fashion.

    The mystery of human consciousness

    The workings of human consciousness are similarly miraculous. Like the laws of mathematics, consciousness has no physical presence in the world; the images and thoughts in our consciousness have no measurable dimensions.

    Yet, our nonphysical thoughts somehow mysteriously guide the actions of our physical human bodies. This is no more scientifically explicable than the mysterious ability of nonphysical mathematical constructions to determine the workings of a separate physical world.

    Until recently, the scientifically unfathomable quality of human consciousness inhibited the very scholarly discussion of the subject. Since the 1970s, however, it has become a leading area of inquiry among philosophers.

    Recognizing that he could not reconcile his own scientific materialism with the existence of a nonphysical world of human consciousness, a leading atheist, Daniel Dennett, in 1991 took the radical step of denying that consciousness even exists.

    Finding this altogether implausible, as most people do, another leading philosopher, Thomas Nagel, wrote in 2012 that, given the scientifically inexplicable – the “intractable” – character of human consciousness, “we will have to leave [scientific] materialism behind” as a complete basis for understanding the world of human existence.

    As an atheist, Nagel does not offer religious belief as an alternative, but I would argue that the supernatural character of the workings of human consciousness adds grounds for raising the probability of the existence of a supernatural god.

    Evolution and faith

    Evolution is a contentious subject in American public life. According to Pew, 98 percent of scientists connected to the American Association for the Advancement of Science “believe humans evolved over time” while only a minority of Americans “fully accept evolution through natural selection.”

    As I say in my book, I should emphasize that I am not questioning the reality of natural biological evolution. What is interesting to me, however, are the fierce arguments that have taken place between professional evolutionary biologists. A number of developments in evolutionary theory have challenged traditional Darwinist – and later neo-Darwinist – views that emphasize random genetic mutations and gradual evolutionary selection by the process of survival of the fittest.

    From the 1970s onwards, the Harvard evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould created controversy by positing a different view, “punctuated equilibrium,” to the slow and gradual evolution of species as theorized by Darwin.

    In 2011, the University of Chicago evolutionary biologist James Shapiro argued that, remarkably enough, many micro-evolutionary processes worked as though guided by a purposeful “sentience” of the evolving plant and animal organisms themselves. “The capacity of living organisms to alter their own heredity is undeniable,” he wrote. “Our current ideas about evolution have to incorporate this basic fact of life.”

    A number of scientists, such as Francis Collins, director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, “see no conflict between believing in God and accepting the contemporary theory of evolution,” as the American Association for the Advancement of Science points out.

    For my part, the most recent developments in evolutionary biology have increased the probability of a god.

    Miraculous ideas at the same time?

    For the past 10,000 years at a minimum, the most important changes in human existence have been driven by cultural developments occurring in the realm of human ideas.

    In the Axial Age (commonly dated from 800 to 200 B.C.), world-transforming ideas such as Buddhism, Confucianism, the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle, and the Hebrew Old Testament almost miraculously appeared at about the same time in India, China, ancient Greece and among the Jews in the Middle East, groups having little interaction with one another.

    Many world-transforming ideas, such as Buddhism, appeared in the world around the same time. Karyn Christner, CC BY

    The development of the scientific method in the 17th century in Europe and its modern further advances have had at least as great a set of world-transforming consequences. There have been many historical theories, but none capable, I would argue, of explaining as fundamentally transformational a set of events as the rise of the modern world. It was a revolution in human thought, operating outside any explanations grounded in scientific materialism, that drove the process.

    That all these astonishing things happened within the conscious workings of human minds, functioning outside physical reality, offers further rational evidence, in my view, for the conclusion that human beings may well be made “in the image of [a] God.”

    Different forms of worship

    In his commencement address to Kenyon College in 2005, the American novelist and essayist David Foster Wallace said that: “Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship.”

    Even though Karl Marx, for example, condemned the illusion of religion, his followers, ironically, worshiped Marxism. The American philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre thus wrote that for much of the 20th century, Marxism was the “historical successor of Christianity,” claiming to show the faithful the one correct path to a new heaven on Earth.

    In several of my books, I have explored how Marxism and other such “economic religions” were characteristic of much of the modern age. So Christianity, I would argue, did not disappear as much as it reappeared in many such disguised forms of “secular religion.”

    That the Christian essence, as arose out of Judaism, showed such great staying power amidst the extraordinary political, economic, intellectual and other radical changes of the modern age is another reason I offer for thinking that the existence of a god is very probable.The Conversation

    #  #  #

    Robert H. Nelson, was a professor at the University of Maryland. He is now deceased.

    Note from Editor of The Conversation US: This is a revised version of the original piece. We have done so to make explicit the author’s expertise with regard to the subject of this article. We have also incorporated important context that was missing in the original version. Republished under a Creative Commons license.

    Top image by Michael Peligro, CC BY-ND

  • Isaiah Reminds Us of God’s Reality, Loyalty and Steadfast Love

    Isaiah Reminds Us of God’s Reality, Loyalty and Steadfast Love

    By The Rev. Dr. Craven Williams

    Isaiah 55:10-13 (NRSV) states:

    “For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return there until they have watered the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,  11 so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and succeed in the thing for which I sent it. 

    “12 For you shall go out in joy, and be led back in peace; the mountains and the hills before you shall burst into song, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands. 13 Instead of the thorn shall come up the cypress; instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle; and it shall be to the Lord for a memorial,  for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off.”

    “A difficult task can be done immediately; an impossible task requires a bit more time.” (George Santayana)

    Isaiah’s job description could have been written by the Spanish poet George Santayana. He speaks a word of hope when all else is negative. Isaiah conjures up a world where the impossible seems possible again. The prophet helps others look at their broken world with optimistic eyes.

    Isaiah is sure of what he is saying. He all but bursts out in song. He uses imaginative words that conjure up a world where the mountains and the hills are alive in song and the trees of the fields clap their hands in joy. He envisions a world where the thorn trees and briers, usually symbols of judgment, will be transformed into luscious green myrtles and cypresses. This transformation serves as a symbol for the new life that lies ahead for the exiles after the devastation of the Babylonian exile.

    The word of God will be an eternal sign that shall not be cut off. Isaiah reminds us of God’s reality, loyalty and steadfast love. With that love and support, maybe we can accomplish the impossible and bring our nation and world back together.  Gracias Senor Santayana and thank you Mr. Isaiah.

    #  #  #

    Dr. Craven E. Williams was a College/University President for 27 years, before retiring in June 2009. He holds a Master of Divinity degree from Southeastern Theological Seminary and a Doctor of Ministry degree from Union Theological Seminary. In 1996 he was a Visiting Scholar at Oxford University, England, under the sponsorship of Duke Divinity School. He wrote bi-weekly columns for Methodist publications in several states.  He is the author of three books on the life and times of John and Charles Wesley.  

    Image by My pictures are CC0. When doing composings: from Pixabay

     

  • Can Science Prove The Existence Of God?

    Can Science Prove The Existence Of God?

    By Ethan Siegel*
    There’s an argument that many people make: that the natural world, and humanity’s existence in the Universe, point towards a divine creator that brought forth all of this into existence. To the best of our knowledge, Earth exists with a plethora of conditions that allowed for our existence, and does so in a way that no other world can match.

    The Earth at night from the International Space Station. Image credit: ISS expedition 25 / NASA.

    We live in a particularly privileged place. We live on a planet that has all the right ingredients for life, including:

      • We’re at the right distance from our Sun so that temperatures are conducive to life.
      • We have the right atmospheric pressure for liquid water at our surface.
      • We have the right ingredients — the right balance of heavy elements and organic molecules — for life to arise.
      • We have the right amount of water so that our world has both oceans and continents.
      • And life started on our world very early, sustained itself for our planet’s entire history, and gave rise to us: sentient, self-aware creatures.

    If you look at the other worlds we know of, the difference is striking.

    The terrain of, for example, Mars, is woefully inhospitable to life as we recognize it. Image credit: Mars Spirit Rover, NASA/JPL/Cornell.

    The claim that’s often made isn’t merely that Earth is unlikely; it’s that our planet, with the confluence of circumstances that gave rise to us, is statistically impossible, even given all the stars and galaxies in the Universe. The emergence of intelligent life is so outlandishly unexpected, given all the factors that needed to occur in just the right particular order, that our Universe must have been designed specifically to give rise to us. Otherwise, the argument goes, the odds of us coming to be would be so infinitesimally small that it’s unreasonable to believe it could have happened by chance.

    This is a very compelling argument for many people, but it’s important to ask ourselves three questions to make sure we’re approaching this honestly. We’ll go through them one at a time, but here are the three, so we know what we’re getting into.

    1. What are, scientifically, the conditions that we need for life to arise?
    2. How rare or common are these conditions elsewhere in the Universe?
    3. And finally, if we don’t find life in the places and under the conditions where we expect it, can that prove the existence of God?

    These are all big questions, so let’s give them the care they deserve.

    Deep under the sea, around hydrothermal vents, where no sunlight reaches, life still thrives on Earth. Image credit: NOAA/PMEL Vents Program, via http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/eoi/.

    1.) What are, scientifically, the conditions that we need for life to arise?

    In other words, things did occur in a very specific way here on Earth, but how many of them does life-as-we-know-it require, versus how many of them happened in a particular way here, but could have easily happened under different conditions elsewhere?

    The things I listed earlier are based on the assumption that any life that’s out there is going to be like us in the sense that it will be based on the chemistry of atoms and molecules, occur with liquid water as a basic requirement of its functioning, and won’t be in an environment that we know to be toxic to all terrestrial life. For those criteria alone, we already know there are billions of planets in our galaxy alone that fit the bill.

    Kepler 186f is one of a great many candidates for a very Earth-like planet. Image credit: NASA/Ames/JPL-Caltech.

    Our studies of exoplanets — of worlds around stars beyond our own — have shown us that there’s a huge variety of rocky planets orbiting at the right distance from their central stars to have liquid water on their surfaces if they have anything akin to atmospheres like our own. We are starting to approach the technological capabilities of detecting exo-atmospheres and their compositions around worlds as small as our own; currently, we can get down to about Neptune-sized worlds, although the James Webb Space Telescope will advance that further in under a decade.

    But aren’t there other things we need to worry about? What if we were too close to the galactic center; wouldn’t the high rate of supernovae fry us, and sterilize life? What if we didn’t have a planet like Jupiter to clear out the asteroid belt; wouldn’t the sheer number of asteroids flying our way wipe any life that manages to form out? And what about the fact that we’re here now, when the Universe is relatively young? Many stars will live for trillions of years, but we’ve only got about another billion or two before our Sun gets hot enough to boil our oceans. When the Universe was too young, there weren’t enough heavy elements. Did we come along at just the right time, to not only make it in our Universe, but to witness all the galaxies before dark energy pushes them away?

    A primarily ultraviolet view of the galactic center reveals a complex, intricate view of stars that visible light won't allow us to see. Image credit: Midcourse Space Experiment (MSX) composite, via http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/image_galleries/MSX/galactic_center.html.

    Probably not, to all of these questions! If we were closer to the galactic center, yes: the star formation rate is higher and the rate of supernovae is higher. But the main thing that means is that large numbers of heavy elements are created faster there, giving complex life an opportunity starting from earlier times. Here in the outskirts, we have to wait longer! And as for sterilizing a planet, you’d have to be very close to a supernova for that to happen — far closer than stars typically are to one another near the galactic center — or else in the direct path of a hypernova beam. But even in this latter case, which would still be incredibly rare, you’re likely to only sterilize half your world at once, because these beams are short-lived!

    Even a focus, ultra-energetic, nearby supernova might not be enough to extinguish life on a thoroughly inhabited planet. Image credit: NASA / JPL.

    Their atmospheres wouldn’t be blown off entirely, deep-ocean life should still survive, and there’s every reason to believe that no matter how bad it got, the conditions would be ripe for complex life to make a comeback. Once life takes hold on a world, or gets “under its skin” as some biologists say, it’s very hard to annihilate it entirely. And this simply won’t do.

    Multiple scenarios for the asteroid belt may each have advantages for life evolving on the inner worlds. Perhaps none of them are prohibitive to the evolution of intelligent life. Image credit: NASA/ESA/A. Feild, STScI.

    Same deal for asteroids. Yes, a solar system without a Jupiter-like planet would have many more asteroids, but without a Jupiter-like planet, would their orbits ever get perturbed to fling them into the inner solar system? Would it make extinction events more common, or rarer? Moreover, even if there were increased impacts, would that even make complex/intelligent life less likely, or would the larger number of extinction events accelerate the differentiation of life, making intelligence more likely? The evidence that we need a Jupiter for life is specious at best, just like the evidence that we need to be at this location in our galaxy is also sparse. But even if those things were true, we’d still have huge numbers of worlds — literally tens-to-hundreds of millions — that met those criteria in our galaxy alone.

    And finally, we did come along relatively early, but the ingredients for stars and solar systems like our own were present in large abundances in galaxies many billions of years before our own star system formed. We’re even finding potentially habitable worlds where life may be 7-to-9-billion-years-old! So no, we’re probably not first. The conditions that we need for life to arise, to the best we can measure, seem to exist all over the galaxy, and hence probably all over the Universe as well.

    Potentially habitable worlds may be possible around a large variety of stars. Image credit: © Lisa Kaltenegger (MPIA).

    2.) How rare or common are these conditions elsewhere in the Universe?

    Scientists didn’t help themselves with overly optimistic estimates of the Drake equation: the equation that is most commonly used to estimate the number of intelligent civilizations in our galaxy. Of all the science presented in Carl Sagan’s original Cosmos series, his estimates of the Drake equation represented possibly the worst science in the series. So let’s run through the actual numbers to the best that science knows — complete with realistic uncertainties — and see what we come up with.

    As best as we can tell — extrapolating what we’ve discovered to what we haven’t yet looked at or been able to see — there ought to be around 1-to-10 trillion planets in our galaxy that orbit stars, and somewhere around 40-to-80 billion of them are candidates for having all three of the following properties:

    • being rocky planets,
    • located where they’ll consistently have Earth-like temperatures,
    • and that ought to support and sustain liquid water on their surfaces!

    So the worlds are there, around stars, in the right places! In addition to that, we need them to have the right ingredients to bring about complex life. What about those building blocks; how likely are they to be there?

    Organic molecules are found in star forming regions, stellar remnants and interstellar gas, all throughout the Milky Way. Image credit: NASA / ESA and R. Humphreys (University of Minnesota).

    Believe it or not, these heavy elements — assembled into complex molecules — are unavoidable by this point in the Universe. Enough stars have lived and died that all the elements of the periodic table exist in fairly high abundances all throughout the galaxy. But are they assembled correctly? Taking a look towards the heart of our own galaxy is molecular cloud Sagittarius B, shown at the top of this page. In addition to water, sugars, benzene rings and other organic molecules that just “exist” in interstellar space, we find surprisingly complex ones.

    Organic molecules found throughout the Universe, particularly towards the galactic center. Image credit: Oliver Baum, University of Cologne.

    Like ethyl formate (left) and n-propyl cyanide (right), the former of which is responsible for the smell of raspberries! Molecules just as complex as these are literally in every molecular cloud, protoplanetary disk and stellar outflow that we’ve measured. So with tens of billions of chances in our galaxy alone, and the building blocks already in place, you might think — as Fermi did — that the odds of intelligent life arising many times in our own galaxy is inevitable.

    But first, we need to make life from non-life. This is no small feat, and is one of the greatest puzzles around for natural scientists in all disciplines: the problem of abiogenesis. At some point, this happened for us, whether it happened in space, in the oceans, or in the atmosphere, it happened, as evidenced by our very planet, and its distinctive diversity of life. But thus far, we’ve been unable to create life from non-life in the lab. So it’s not yet possible to say how likely it is, although we’ve taken some amazing steps in recent decades. It could be something that happens on as many as 10–25% of the possible worlds, which means up to 20 billion planets in our galaxy could have life on them. (Including — past or present — others in our own Solar System, like Mars, Europa, Titan or Enceladus.) That’s our optimistic estimate.

    A young planet with the potential conditions for life could grow into an Earth-like world, or could remain devoid of life forever. Image credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech.

    But it could be far fewer than that as well. Was life on Earth likely? In other words, if we performed the chemistry experiment of forming our Solar System over and over again, would it take hundreds, thousands or even millions of chances to get life out once? Conservatively, let’s say it’s only one-in-a-million, which still means, given the pessimistic end of 40 billion planets with the right temperature, there are still at least 40,000 planets out there in our galaxy alone with life on them.

    But we want something even more than that; we’re looking for large, specialized, multicellular, tool-using creatures. So while, by many measures, there are plenty of intelligent animals, we are interested in a very particular type of intelligence. Specifically, a type of intelligence that can communicate with us, despite the vast distances between the stars! So how common is that? From the first, self-replicating organic molecule to something as specialized and differentiated as a human being, we know we need billions of years of (roughly) constant temperatures, the right evolutionary steps, and a whole lot of luck. What are the odds that such a thing would have happened? One-in-a-hundred? Well, optimistically, maybe. That might be how many of these planets stay at constant temperatures, avoid 100% extinction catastrophes, evolve multicellularity, gender, become differentiated and encephalized enough to eventually learn to use tools.

    Once intelligence, tool use and curiosity combine in a single species, perhaps interstellar ambitions become inevitable. Image credit: Original source Dennis Davidson for http://www.nss.org/, retrieved from Brian Shiro at Astronaut For Hire.

    But it could be far fewer; we are not an inevitable consequence of evolution so much as a happy accident of it. Even one-in-a-million seems like it might be too optimistic for the odds of human-like animals evolving on an Earth-like world with the right ingredients for life; I could easily imagine that it would take a billion Earths (or more) to get something like human beings out just once.

    If we take the optimistic estimate of the optimistic estimate above, perhaps 200 million worlds are out there capable of communicating with us, in our galaxy alone. But if we take the pessimistic estimate about both life arising and the odds of it achieving intelligence, there’s only a one-in-25,000 chance that our galaxy would have even one such civilization. In other words, life is a fantastic bet, but intelligent life may not be. And that’s according to reasonable scientific estimates, but it assumes we’re being honest about our uncertainties here, too. So the conditions for life are definitely everywhere, but life itself could be common or rare, and what we consider intelligent life could be common, rare or practically non-existent in our galaxy. As science finds out more, we’ll learn more about that.

    And finally…

    Reaching, broadcasting and listening for the evidence of others has so far returned an empty, lonely result. Image credit: Victor Bobbett.

    3.) If we don’t find life in the places and under the conditions where we expect it, can that prove the existence of God? Certainly, there are people that will argue that it does. But to me, that’s a terrible way to place your faith. Consider this:

    Do you want or need your belief in a divine or supernatural origin to the Universe to be based in something that could be scientifically disproven?

    I am very open about not being a man of faith myself, but of having tremendous respect for those who are believers. The wonderful thing about science is that it is for everybody who’s willing to look to the Universe itself to find out more information about it. Why would your belief in God require that science give a specific answer to this question that we don’t yet know the answer to? Will your faith be shaken if we find that, hey, guess what, chemistry works to form life on other worlds the same way it worked in the past on this one? Will you feel like you’ve achieved some sort of spiritual victory if we scour the galaxy and find that human beings are the most intelligent species on all the worlds of the Milky Way?

    The Milky Way as seen at La Silla Observatory. Image credit: ESO / Håkon Dahle.

    Or, can your beliefs — whatever they are — stand up to whatever scientific truths the Universe reveals about itself, regardless of what they are? In the professional opinion of practically all scientists who study the Universe, it is very likely that there is life on other worlds, and that there’s a very good chance — if we invest in looking for it — that we’ll be able to find the first biological signatures on other worlds within a single generation. Whether there’s intelligent life beyond Earth, or more specifically, intelligent life beyond Earth in our galaxy that’s still alive right now, is a more dubious proposition, but the outcome of this scientific question in no way favors or disfavors the existence of God, any more than the order of whether fish or birds evolved first on Earth favors or disfavors a deity’s existence.

    There may or may not be other worlds very, very similar to our own out there, but neither result is necessarily an indicator of a divine presence. Image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Lucianomendez.

    The truths of the Universe are written out there, on the Universe itself, and are accessible to us all through the process of inquiry. To allow an uncertain faith to stand in as an answer where scientific knowledge is required does us all a disservice; the illusion of knowledge — or reaching a conclusion before obtaining the evidence — is a poor substitute for what we might actually come to learn, if only we ask the right questions. Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God, but if we use our beliefs as an excuse to draw conclusions that scientifically, we’re not ready for, we run the grave risk of depriving ourselves of what we might have come to truly learn.

    So as Obama’s presidency draws to a close and a Trump presidency begins, I implore you: don’t let your faith, whatever it may be, close you off to the joys and wonders of the natural world. The joys of knowing — of figuring out the answers to questions for ourselves — is one that none of us should be cheated out of. May your faith, if you have one, only serve to enhance and enrich you, not take the wonder of science away!

    *Reprinted from Forbes magazine by permission of the author. Follow Ethan Siegel  on Twitter. Check out his website or some of his other work here.
    He is  a Ph.D. astrophysicist, author, and science communicator, who professes physics and astronomy at various colleges. He has won numerous awards for science writing since 2008 for his blog, Starts With A Bang, including the award for best science blog by the Institute of Physics. His two books, Treknology: The Science of Star Trek from Tricorders to Warp Drive, Beyond the Galaxy: How humanity looked beyond our Milky Way and discovered the entire Universe, are available for purchase at Amazon.

Powered by CookieAdmin