What Has God Done for Me?

Many people have questioned my walk with God, especially as my posts have become more and more controversial in the past several years. I know I have lost many supporters as I have developed in my relationship with God. Many people wonder quietly, or blatantly out loud whether I am even a Christian anymore, some wonder if I am even religious. Most people have a real hard time grasping how I can hold the views I have and yet still have a vibrant walk with God. My faith doesn't look like the majority of Christians, especially when compared to how I used to be in my early and late teens. My faith then and my faith now are so diametrically opposite that many people assume I have lost my way and turned my back on Christ. I just wanted to answer some of these questions and post my personal testimony of what God has done to change my life.

I was a very zealous person growing up. Constantly worried about where I stood with God. I knew that God accepted me where I was at, but having the knowledge and actively living that knowledge are two different things. I was childish in my thinking, I thought that if I did the wrong thing I separated myself from the blessing of God. When something bad happened I assumed that I had inadvertently pulled away from God, it must have been that movie I watched, or that game I played, or maybe that pride I felt. My faith was a constant struggle of ups and downs, reaching into valleys and climbing on top of mountains. I was told that was normal, every Christian felt those periods of doubt where God appeared to be absent, but if we just had faith and refused to give in to the questions we were faced with, God would bring us to the mountain top experience again. 

Then something happened that changed the way I thought about my faith forever. My nephew drowned in my family pool while I was just 100 feet away, oblivious to the fact he had fallen in. I was the one who found him and pulled him out of the water. I was too late. The memory of that day haunts me. I cannot begin to describe the horror and sinking loss I felt. I found myself laying in the grass starring up at the sky after a long and brutal argument with God. I had given God an ultimatum, "Either you bring Lucas back to life, or I will never serve you again." Laying in that field looking up at the overcast sky I heard a voice in my mind, "Timothy, I loved Lucas too. Do you think I did this? Are you mad at me for a mistake you made?" I suddenly felt like Job, and I realized something I had never noticed about that story before, Job was wrong. Job had assumed that God was responsible for all the afflictions laid upon him. In his steadfast defense of God he had actually blamed God for the circumstances of his life. At this point my mind began to repeat a verse I had memorized and read often, "Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom. Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice. Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities. Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me. Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit." (Psalms 51:6-12) 

Somehow I knew my faith would never be the same after that day. And it wasn't. I spent the next summer going door to door selling Christian literature. The pervasive theology in the canvassing community was that God would bless you if you lived a holy life, if you didn't eat meat or cheese, didn't listen to rock music, didn't watch movies, didn't eat at restaurants that cooked with lard. The list goes on. I began to see that had been me all along. I had thought God was with those who did right, but as I had learned that summer there was something else going on, something that was beyond simply doing what is right and receiving what is good. 

I began to study the book of John extensively and I began to realize that apart from God we can do nothing. From the stories of the gospel I became convinced that God is not simply with those who do good, but is in fact with everyone regardless of circumstances. This led me to the belief that God cares for everyone equally, he does not play favorites. The blessings he gives to the righteous he also gives to the wicked. To everyone God gives the gift of life, free will, and the ability to find happiness. Yet I still greatly struggled with how to reconcile suffering and God. Why would God choose to spare some people's lives and not others? Why did God allow my nephew to die but spared the life of other random people, some of them even wicked people. The answer that "God has a plan that we may not understand." no longer worked for me. 

Around this time I went to college and began to study the God of science. I was introduced to more complex physics and I realized that there was more to reality than meets the eye. Our universe is not simply a three dimensional plane with a three dimensional God ruling over the affairs of mankind. Science explained chance, quantum physics and relativity. Finally I had an understanding of why things happen. I could see the relationships things had with each other. 

I began to study philosophy, I read dozens of books on science, philosophy and religion and I began to tare down the walls of my faith and build up on a new foundation using the tools of reason, science, and philosophy. My answer for everything was no longer based on the fact that God said so, but rather what we could know through observation and reason, which I believed to be divinely given tools to be used to discover truth. 

God became so much bigger to me. I no longer saw him as a "him" at all, but rather as a force larger than the universe itself. My entire life began to change toward the end of my college experience. The depression I had struggled with throughout my religious life began to melt away. I no longer felt condemned by my faith. My mind had been opened to a universe vastly larger than the one I had been in previously. I began to see morality differently, not as God ordained statuettes that must be followed, but as a universal principle of love, not just love for people, but a love for existence itself. 

I began to truly rejoice in life. Just stepping outside was exciting as I realized what it really meant to live, move, and have my being. My attitude toward nature and preservation changed. I began to love the planet I lived on, I no longer scoffed at "tree huggers" and conversationalists. My reason for being vegetarian changed from the fact that I wanted to honor God, to the fact that I desired to have as much respect for life as possible.

Something else happened, I developed an abiding relationship with God, one in which I actually felt a part of God. I no longer fear for my salvation. I do not feel guilty for my past wrongs and do not dwell on my current ones. I began to value the Bible differently. I recognized that its historical details, or its claims on truth did not matter, the whole purpose of scripture is a revelation of the character of the one who sustains the universe itself. It is a record book of man's development and relationship with God. 

I began to see scripture for what it was, a progression of knowledge to an intended purpose, which is to know more of God. I was no longer content to stop where scripture ended, I desired to learn more and carry truth beyond where the Bible left off. Everything I study now is deepening my understanding of God, even my study of dentistry. I jump at the opportunity to learn more, that is why I am taking a masters in bioethics. God is everywhere for me, in science, in nature, in philosophy. Everywhere can be found revelations of God.

I realized that Jesus did not die to satisfy the wrath of God, but in fact died to reveal the character of God. I took Jesus literally when He said in John that He and His father were one in the same and that His father loved Him because He was willing to lay down His life in order to reveal to humanity something of the character of God. Jesus was not dodging in front of the fiery wrath of His father, but was in fact there as a revelation of God. He was there to reveal the true love and justice of God, which is that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 

This changed my life forever. It changed how I related to people. No longer was I interested in conforming people to my religion, I was interested in changing people's lives. No longer was I antagonistic toward gay people, I began to love all people as living human beings. No longer did I condemn people for the type of music they enjoyed in church, I recognized people's desires to use their talents and their love of music to praise God. I no longer looked at atheists as lost and angry individuals, but as people searching for the truth. I no longer looked at people who believe in evolution as deceived by the devil, but merely people seeking to explain the world as best they could with the tools at hand. 

What grew out of my new religion was tolerance, no, more than tolerance, acceptance and love for other people. I am not perfect by any means, I don't want to be seen as making that claim. What I can say though is that God has changed my life. I can truly and honestly say that I cannot imagine a better God than the one I serve now. I cannot image a more inclusive, more loving, and more merciful God than I know now. What is your God like? Can you honestly sit back at the end of the day and say that if you were to imagine a more merciful God, He would be no different than what you believe in now? If you can imagine something better, then you are worshiping something else besides God. 

So in answer to those who think I've lost my faith, you are wrong, I've found my faith. In answer to those who think I'm none religious, you are wrong, I've discovered my religion, and it's broader, more inclusive, more scientific, more explainable, more exciting, and more universal than I could ever have imagined before. I discovered a God who is so intimately connected to creation that He sustains every aspect of it, and to study the universe is synonymous with studying God. I now know exactly what I believe and why I believe it. I do not have to use cop out answers such as "faith" to explain my understanding of God. Everything has an answer, just as God designed it. There is nothing God has hidden, all things he has made known and given us the tools to find and I praise "Him" for it. 

What has your religion done for you? Are you a better person for believing in God? Does it drive you to love those who are different than yourself? How does it make you feel about gays? What does it make you feel toward teachers of evolution? How do you perceive progressive church services? How do you view the equality of men and women? What do you think about people who are not of your religion? Do you see others as simply souls who need to be baptized into your church in order to be saved? The answers to these questions are extremely important because it reveals what is at the heart of your faith. Is your faith defined by who you can and cannot accept as a brother or a sister in the church? Is your faith defined by what you can and cannot listen to or what science you can and cannot believe in? I think it's high time that we allowed God to become a part of our religion. 

I Am Resistance: Carson’s Joseph

3rd dynasty Egypt, his name was Imhotep, one of histories first truly great engineers. He is attributed for not only building the very first pyramid, but also inventing the column, which was the backbone of architecture until the invention of steel construction in the Industrial Age. His name means "One who comes in peace." He was second to the Pharaoh Djoser. Among the list of his titles were, Chancellor of the King of Egypt, Doctor, First in line after the King of Upper Egypt, Administrator of the Great Palace, Hereditary nobleman, High Priest of Heliopolis, Builder, Chief Carpenter, Chief Sculptor, and Maker of Vases in Chief.

To say he was an impressive and gifted individual would be a huge understatement. The pharaoh at the time put a huge amount of trust in this man, and it is likely that without him Pharaoh would never have been able to hold as much power and control as he did. Imhotep was also an interpreter of dreams. He had a dream from Ra that the world was about to experience a famine lasting 7 years, so Imhotep built granaries and stored up massive amounts of food, thus he saved Egypt from a huge catastrophe.

Imhotep is considered one of the first physicians and he diagnosed and treated dozens of diseases. He was a poet, and considered one of the greatest scholars and philosophers of the time. What is even more remarkable about this Egyptian is that he was not of noble birth; he was a commoner who built and reasoned his way to the top of an oppressive society. He represented the hopes and desires of all the lowly and poor. It is no wonder that he was deified and worshiped as a god upon his death.

So that's all very interesting history, but what does it have to do with the Bible. With Dr. Ben Carson's recently spotlighted belief that the pyramids were used to store grain, I think the reason I bring Imhotep up is obvious. Imhotep and the Joseph of biblical fame have striking similarities. The question has often been raised, are Imhotep and Joseph the same person. Joseph was also chancellor to pharaoh, second in command, he built buildings, married the daughter of the high priest of Ra, ministered under Potiphar, the chief physician, and interpreted dreams and saved Egypt from a 7 year famine. Imhotep had 11 brothers, Joseph had 11 brothers, the similarities could go on.

That being said, what is most striking is not their similarities, but their differences. Primary among them is that Imhotep was the high priest of Ra. The Bible describes Joseph as unwavering in his steadfast trust in Jehovah, so much so in fact that Joseph is one of only a handful of people in the Bible that are never mentioned as having any faults or making any mistakes. The differences could go on, Joseph is never attributed to building any sort of pyramid, and no mention of Imhotep's Canaanite family is ever made. I think Christians have been asking the entirely wrong question when it comes to Imhotep. We should not be asking if Joseph and Imhotep are the same person, we should be asking, "why are they so similar?"

The distinction between the two questions might seem negligible, but they are indeed different. Conservative Christians, such as Dr. Carson automatically assume that the Bible is 100% accurate in every detail, thus they wrongfully assume that history must be wrong in order to fit their bible into the spot that history resides. The problem is, as one post one twitter read, "The Egyptians could write." Much of Egyptian history is quite accurate. The Bible was written at least hundreds of years after Joseph's story actually occurred,  Imhotep's story was written at the same time it was being lived. One of Imhotep's inventions is the use of papyrus to record contracts and history, so to assume that the Bible got it right and history got it wrong is a huge stretch.

As I have stated multiple times in the past, the Bible is not written like History, it is written as story. It is a compilation of gathered stories that were then pieced together by editors and redactors over time. So if Imhotep and Joseph are not exactly the same person why are their stories so similar? Let me ask you a question first, if you are writing down the lost history of an enslaved people what will you write about? The commoner looked to Imhotep for hope and the chance of obtaining what was out of reach for all but the pharaoh himself. Imhotep represented freedom, resistance, and victory. When looking at the past history of Egypt is it any wonder that the writer would lay claim to the story of such a man as Imhotep? Moses knew the history of Egypt; he was educated by Egyptian scholars and he chose to mold the story of Imhotep into the history of Israel.

Joseph represents freedom to the people of Israel. Joseph chose to rise from every situation he found himself. Sold into slavery he became the very best slave, put into prison he became the best prisoner, given the opportunity to interpret dreams, he came up with the wisest plan, put into pharaoh's court, he became as an equal to Pharaoh himself. Can you imagine the hope that sprang into the hearts of a beaten people when they heard the recounting of such a story from their past Egyptian history?

I don't really care whether or not Joseph was a real character or an amalgamation of a couple different characters from Egyptian and Canaanite history, what I care about is why the story is there. The story of Joseph is not placed in scripture as a historical landmark, it is placed there to tell us something distinct about God. God is on the side of the resistance. That is the entire point of the story. God is with those who resist the pyramid scheme of Egypt. God is with those who stand up for what is right and work to be their best right where they are at, but who are not content to stay there and use every opportunity given them to establish a kingdom of love and Justice for all. With this broad view in mind, whether or not Joseph was a real historical figure or not makes no difference whatsoever to its historical and spiritual significance.

Ezekiel the Heretic

"And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver, and the garment, and the wedge of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had: and they brought them unto the valley of Achor. And Joshua said, Why have you troubled us? the LORD will trouble you this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones." (Joshua 7:24-25)

What a terrible and fascinating story. What on earth could it possibly have to do with Ezekiel? Let me explain the background to this story first. Achen was a soldier of Israel and was there with Joshua at the slaughter of Jericho. Before going into battle with Jericho Joshua had commanded that all of the treasures of Jericho belonged to the Lord and no one was to take what belonged to God. Needless to say, Achen did take from the city and buried it under his tent. When the Children of Israel went up to attack Ai they lost the battle badly. Joshua saw this as a sign that God was not with Israel and he complained to God. It is reported that God told him that one person in the camp had sinned against God and stolen from Jericho and so all of Israel was being punished for the sin of one man. No mention was made on the fact that Israel had become so confident that instead of attacking Ai with the entire army they only sent three thousand men, because Ai was a small city. Instead of an easy victory, however, Israel was defeated and chased from the city. Rather than assigning the cause to Israel’s over confidence, they assigned the entire blame to the sin of one man.

There is one thing that is worth mentioning before moving on. This idea that the sin of one person would inflict punishment upon everyone was very common and, if the record can be believed, God set this precedent Himself. This cultural practice was upheld by verses such as the following, “…and will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.” (Exodus 34:7) Multiple times in the Old Testament the sin of one person caused the death of multiple people, it didn’t just happen in this story. The converse is also true, the righteousness of one person often spared the lives of all those around. In fact, In the previous chapter of Joshua all of Rehab’s family was saved, not because of their righteous deeds, but because of the actions of Rehab. Multiple times God spares the life of a king for the sake of the righteousness of his father.

So obviously Achen is discovered and Joshua asks him, “My son, give, I pray thee, glory to the Lord God of Israel, and make confession unto him; and tell me now what tyou have done; hide it not from me.” Achen confesses his sin and tells Joshua what he did, and by the command of god himself, Joshua takes Achen’s entire family and all his animals and the entire camp of Israel throws large stones at them until they all die by blunt force trauma and internal bleeding. Then the camp took their bodies and all their possessions and burned them with fire as a kind of twisted offering to god, and “…the Lord turned from the fierceness of his anger.”

So what does Ezekiel have to do with all of this? Quite simply stated, Ezekiel so pointedly contradicts scripture that if he were to preach today he would be labeled as a liberal heretic who was purposefully attacking the gospel of God and is deserving of hell fire for leading God’s people astray. To really understand what I am about to say you really need to read Ezekiel chapter 18 in its entirety. The chapter starts out with God questioning a common proverb in Israel. The proverb is, “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.” The meaning of the proverb is clear after reading the story of Achen. The fathers ate the grapes, but the children also feel the effects of the stinging sourness. God reacts strongly to this saying, stating the following, “As I live, saith the Lord God, you shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.” At this point I become very confused. Why does God contradict himself here? Didn’t he command Joshua to not only kill Achen, but also his sons, his daughters, his wife, and all his animals?

Is this even the same God that Ezekiel is presenting? It is not just us who asks this question; all of Israel asks this question of Ezekiel. They accuse him of presenting a God contrary to the word, yet Ezekiel continues on in his argument. Ezekiel goes through verse after verse describing in extreme detail all the wicked deeds and good deeds people can do. He finishes this back and forth between the wicked father and the righteous son with this statement, ”The soul that sins, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.” Further more what is even more unbelievable is that Ezekiel begins to paint a picture of God that is so fantastically more compassionate and forgiving than any other picture painted in the history of Biblical literature up to this point. “If the wicked will turn from all his sins that he has committed, and keeps all my statutes, and does that which is lawful and right, he shall not die.” Are you guys getting as excited about this verse as I am? I wish you could feel my excitement as I write this, this verse is fantastic! “All his transgressions that he has committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he has done he shall live!”

What comes next in the passage so contradicts the actions of Joshua that you almost have to ask the question, “was Joshua worshiping the same God?” “Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? Saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?” Ezekiel is essentially saying this, “Listen people, the death of the wicked does not appease God!” The people’s response to Ezekiel is surprising to me, they tell him “The way of the Lord is not equal!” God responds to the people by saying, “Hear now, oh House of Israel; is not my way equal? Are not your ways unequal?...For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dies saith the Lord God: wherefore turn yourselves, and live!”

What I find most fascinating about Ezekiel’s presentation about God is that even up to the time of Jesus' Ezekiel's message had still not been accepted as gospel by the religious leaders or the general public. Ezekiel simply walked to close to the line of heresy. Thus when the disciples asked Jesus, “Master, who sinned, this man or his parents…?” (John 9:2) The answer was shocking to everyone around, as if they had never heard of Ezekiel before, “Neither has this man sinned, nor his parents…” The same exact thing happened with the man with palsy, the first thing Jesus says to the man when he is lowered in from the roof is, “Son, be of good cheer; your sins are forgiven.” (Matthew 9:2)

These kinds of teachings are what got Jesus killed. Jesus contradicted the Scriptures. Jesus preached the message of a heretic. Is it any wonder why Ezekiel is one of those books that no one wants to touch? Even today people do not know what to do with Ezekiel. He has been portrayed as a mental case, an eccentric, a fraud, and a source for conspiracy and theory. What is missed in a study of Ezekiel is that Ezekiel is all about a revelation of the character of God. Ezekiel was building up a new foundation off which to base theology. His writings are a revelation of Jesus, but in order to reveal Jesus accurately He had to tear down the foundations that were built in the past in order to pave the way for the revelation that was soon to come. When people say that the Bible never contradicts itself I simply point to Ezekiel and Joshua, two polar opposites preaching extremely different messages about the same God.

This is where I proudly place myself squarely among the company of the heretics with a simple statement: In reading scripture, you must read it with a filter. All scripture is profitable, but not all scripture is equal. As is clearly seen with Ezekiel and Joshua, the Bible reveals a progression of understanding. It reveals a God in motion who is constantly leading people to greater understanding. God is not stagnant. If there is one thing that should be taken from this comparison of two different people in opposites sides of the Old Testament, it is this, God is on the move in scripture. You should not believe that God was not leading Joshua, rather God was not willing to leave humanity at the story of Joshua. God is constantly leading us on to something better. God does not exist only where the Bible ends, God is still moving, and He will continue to move us toward deeper and deeper understanding of His character. As long as God is moving there will always be prophets speaking the heresy of God.

What Makes You a Christian?

What makes you a Christian? The answer to that question may vary widely based on what denomination of Christian you ask. Christianity is such a diverse group of people, most of whom think very differently from each other. There are some sects of Christianity who claim that unless you believe and think like them you are not truly a Christian, yet I think, for the most part, people are ok with other denominations labeling themselves as Christian. 

What does being a Christian mean though? Is it the belief that Jesus is the son of God sent from heaven to pay for our sins? Many Christians may readily jump up and shout "Amen!" Yet not all Christians believe that. I myself have questioned that one, yet I am still a Christian. There were some in my own denomination, even James White, who did not believe that Jesus was God, yet they still lived according to His teachings and preached His message. 

I think the answer to this question of what makes one a Christian is becoming increasingly important in the massively converging world we live in. We need unity in this world,  as the current Pope has been strongly noting in his campaigns recently. Christianity needs unity in order to create a society that is better than our past. That doesn't mean we all have to think or believe the same way, it means we must find common ground on which we can stand in opposition to the oppressive and backwards societies of our past. 

I believe that being a Christian goes far beyond belief and doctrine, as was manifested in the life and teachings of Jesus. What does doctrine profit if it does not manifest in a life committed to helping those around us? If your doctrine and your beliefs do not cause you to be a better person and do not cause you to love all those around regardless of their religious ideals, political party, economic standing, or sexual orientation, then you have become just a sounding brass, or clanging symbol. Does your faith drive you to reach those who need your help, or does it cause you to turn your back on those you deem unfit for your help and friendship? We need to change how we identify as Christians. We as Christians should be distinguished how Christ was distinguished not so much by what we believe, but by how we live.

A New Ethic

It is Time for A New Ethic

Timothy Prewitt

Loma Linda University School of Religion

August 30, 2015

            There have been many philosophies off which human society has based ethical and moral code over the course of our 30,000 odd year history. They range from religious and cultic codes of conduct down to simple duties inside small communities. The debates and arguments about which philosophy is the most accurate and serves society the best could go on endlessly. I would wager to say that for each individual the moral code varies even among proponents of the same ethic. No one has gotten it right. This is obvious just by the very fact that we have so many different interpretations of what a moral life looks like. If morality were simple there would be only one philosophy and everyone would agree on it. The fact that humanity has missed the mark time and time again is even more evident when you take a quick survey of human history and comprehend all the dark places human morality has led us. Genocide, crusades, the Holocaust, jihad, and innumerable atrocities have been the result of very different philosophies.

            How do we solve the problems faced by a growing society that is ever at war over seemingly limited resources? It is clear that the answer is not religion. If the answer were truly religion then the most influential religion of human history would have solved the problem long ago, yet as we have seen time and time again, the Bible fails to give humanity a solid, unified framework off which to base absolute morals. This is evidenced in the debates we see in different Christian denominations just within the United States. The Seventh-day Adventist denomination has just ruled that unions cannot choose to ordain women to ministry, and at least half the church believes women should never be ordained simply because they interpret the Bible to say that God does not want women to minister to men. They believe God to be sexist and arbitrary. In the same denomination you have people excommunicating members of their society simply because they believe the Bible says that all homosexuals will burn in hell in the last days, thus they carry out the justice of God and do whatever the law allows in order to remind these people that they are sinners deserving of death.

The Bible cannot answer the issues that society is faced with, at least not coherently enough to provide a unified voice that causes love to pervade our dealings with people. We must discover a new ethic, one that is universal to all human society, one that is free of individual interpretation, manipulation, and human bias. One might rightly argue that such an ethic does not exist and will never exist, and this may be true, but there is one ethic that comes close to addressing human behavior and interaction in an unbiased way. That philosophy is Naturalism.

There are many forms of Naturalism, thus Naturalism is not entirely free of human interpretation and manipulation. Evolutionary Naturalism has been used to justify eugenics and the mass murder of people, yet Naturalism rightly understood will avoid this danger. The correct form of Naturalism does not base its foundation off of human desires and tendencies - it is a science, it simply observes what is. The reason this is advantageous is because most philosophies deal solely with what ought to be, and that is the problem, because what ought to be is often subject to each individual’s ideals and desires for their own survival. Naturalism is the study of the natural world and the concretes of reality. It focuses on what is actually observable.  Naturalism is free from the whims of a fickle god and the dictates of a stubborn people.

The father of Agnosticism, Thomas Huxley wrote, “As a natural process, of the same character as the development of a tree from its seed, or a fowl from its egg, evolution excludes creation and all other kinds of supernatural intervention.”[1]  He then goes on to explain that if it turns out that indeed a supernatural being did create the universe, then everything inside of it, including its processes, are created by the supernatural agent and are not interfered upon by the creator because the universe has been created to operate by these fixed laws. Not that a god could not interfere but that the god wouldn’t, simply because he or she would not need to. This argument comes from the idea that God has created the universe to run a certain way. Had God desired it to run differently he or she would have created it that way in the first place. Thus Naturalism does not simply cater to the atheist and the agnostic, but can include the religious as well. Naturalism does not exclude the possibility of a God who interacts with reality; rather it shows a God whose interaction is actually built into reality itself. In other words, the study of nature is the revelation of God.

Naturalism is not fully without use of “ought” when describing societies morals. Ethical Naturalism is not simply the study of human behavior, rather it is the study of what human behavior ought to be in the face of what is. Naturalism acknowledges the observation of nature’s tendency to compete and to create a “survival of the fittest” reality. What ethical Naturalism does is review what the human response is to this competitive world and thus builds a moral code off of what is concrete. Humans do not simply follow the progression of evolution; rather we fight it at every turn. Humanity creates order out of disorder. We plant vineyards in desserts where vineyards should not grow, we weed gardens allowing plants to survive that are not the most fit for survival in that given environment.

Huxley states, “As I have already urged, the practice of that which is ethically best—what we call goodness or virtue—involves a course of conduct which, in all respects, is opposed to that which leads to success in the cosmic struggle for existence.”[2] Huxley points out that how society is constructed is not the survival of the fittest but rather the fitting of as many as possible to survive. Society’s hope is not in giving into the natural processes or from trying to run away from them, but rather in combating them. Thus is created a more solid understanding of the value of human life out of the observations of nature.

Ethical Naturalism is not subject to the whims of a god, nor the whims of individual ideals, neither is it a slave to the dictates of evolution. Rather, it is a recognition of what is and a deliberate determination to do that which brings order to the processes of an unordered system. Ethical Naturalism does not call for the self-assertion of individuals, it calls for self-restraint, it does not call for competition over resources, it calls for the cooperation of society in furthering the survival of each other. Thus, inside human society, we should not be promoting the survival of those who are most fit to survive. We should be holding up the survival of those who are, what Huxley would call, “ethically best.”

This is not a call for radical socialism and the support of all humans simply because they are human, it is the call for the support of those who are combating the natural process of equilibrium. This again is where the “ought” comes into Ethical Naturalism. We ought to combat the processes of evolution and put into practice our God-given ability to afford a change in the natural process. We ought not to support a system that allows for the survival of the fittest, but rather create one that rewards those who are ethically grounded in their desire to create a society that is in opposition to the natural drive to be better than one’s fellow beings.

If society, including Christianity, adopted Ethical Naturalism in place of their previously held moral and ethical framework, we would have a system that allowed for human diversity, desire, ambition, and progress and yet opposed the unmoral segregation of humans who are considered less then everyone else simply because of things such as their gender or sexual orientation. A complete and detailed discussion of how Ethical Naturalism deals with subjects such as gender differences and sexuality is beyond the reach of this paper, but it does answer those questions in a way that gives personhood to the individuals and acknowledges their worth.

Ethical Naturalism is relatively simple when it comes to normally complex topics on human behavior. Ethical Naturalism asks two simple questions: “Is it natural?” and “Does it cause harm to others?” You can almost always find what the moral standard should be based off of these two questions. For instance, Naturalism can be played out inside a discussion on homosexuality. Is it natural? This question is normally difficult because it goes into questions on nature verses nurture, etc. but naturalism isn’t concerned with those facts, it just looks at what is the natural behavior. Is it natural for two people of the same sex to be sexually involved with each other? The answer is obviously no. Two males or two females are not physically or biologically compatible, their sexuality serves no useful purpose. Yet is love of one individual for another natural? The answer is obviously yes. So then the attraction is not natural but the love that flows out of that attraction is.

At this point the second question can be introduced, “Does it harm others?” Does one person loving someone else of the same sex harm other people? Other than potential emotional harm done to the families who follow a strict religious ethic, or emotional damage done to the homosexual individual whose family disowns him or her, the answer is no. So why would we try to push homosexuals out of our society just because their attraction is not biologically accurate?

Religious ethics are almost always based on exclusion. They seek to determine a standard that is set to include only like-minded individuals. Organized religions are by their very nature exclusive and thus any ethic or moral standard that comes out of such religious belief will be exclusive and rigid in its interpretations of what is and isn’t ethical or moral. Ethical Naturalism avoids arbitrary standards of morality. It is unbiased toward religions or cultures. It is based on observational facts and not simply on the theorizing of a few men or women. The era of Biblical ethics must come to an end if society is ever to progress beyond the narrow and oppressive culture of our past. That isn’t to say the Bible is useless - nothing is useless that reveals human behavior and progress especially one as old and extensive as the Bible. That being said, morality must progress to something universal if we are truly going to realize a more perfect society in an ever mixing and converging world.

---

[1] Huxley, T., (2009) Evolution and Ethics. In M. Ruse (Ed.), Evolution and Ethics (p. 6). Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

[2] Huxley, T., (2009) Evolution and Ethics. In M. Ruse (Ed.), Evolution and Ethics (p. 82). Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.