The Cosmic Constant and the End of God

The Cosmic Constant and the End of God

The modern era, now that was the time. Everything was so certain. We were discovering things we never thought available to mankind. Many a modernist bemoaned the arrival of postmodernism and its uncertainty and skepticism. Churches in western countries have progressively lost membership and attendance since the death of modernism, which at first glance doesn't make sense. Postmodernism should give rise to more spirituality since it admits unashamedly that we just can't know, whereas Modernism states unequivocally that we can know everything. 

The reason we see such a decline in religion is possibly because not only did modernism give rise to extreme faith in science, it also gave rise to extreme absolutism in religion. Einstein's organized universe just made so much sense to religious thinkers. It was obvious that God created everything, after all everything fit where it was supposed to and did what it was designed to do. 

The discovery of quantum physics really destroyed this certainty. The fact that electrons and photons behaved differently based simply on whether or not we were observing them really threw people for a loop. You have a piece of energy that was a wave or a particle depending on what you happened to be measuring at the time. This meant that we could no longer trust our observations. Everything became suspect because nearly everything is based on the human's ability to experience and observe it. You see, although modernism gave new authority to science and made people less likely to claim all things to be divine interactions, it also gave people a sense of stability in absolutes. The world of postmodernism destroyed all this. 

For instance, in 1917 Einstein theorized that our universe was held together by a force that negated the actions of gravity. This force would unify the universe and stop it from tearing itself apart. It was known as the cosmological constant and Einstein assumed this constant to have a value of exactly zero in order to hold the universe in static equilibrium. However, astrologists discovered that the universe was in fact expanding and speeding up. Every galaxy in our universe is moving away from every other one. Which can only mean one thing, not only are galaxies traveling further distances, but in fact the space between galaxies is expanding as well. You can picture it like a rubber band with several points on it, as the rubber band is pulled tight, every point moves away from the other while still expanding outward, and from any given point it appears as though it is standing still and everything else is moving away. 

So what did this mean? Well, a great deal. It just so happens that this cosmic constant is set at just the perfect ratio in order for life to exist. Any greater and the universe would expand too quickly for any matter to coalesce at all. Any smaller and the universe would never have expanded at all. The discovery of the cosmic constant was an incredible leap in our understanding. Before this we had no answer for why the universe was the size it is. The best we could come up with was, "Because God knew it would be most conducive to life." The cosmic constant proved this to be a simplistic and foolish answer. The universe is this size because it is a fundamental aspect of reality itself.

It could still be argued that because the cosmic constant is such a specific non-zero number the universe had to be created by a truly awesome and loving God who fine tuned absolutely everything in order to create a system that could perfectly sustain life. However with the discovery of particle theory this perfect system was also called into question. 

It all has to do with the Higgs Boson particle which is the central part of particle theory. Without going into too much boring detail that I don't actually understand, just suffice it to say that the Higgs particle gave rise to two separate theories of the universe. One theory claimed the Higgs had a mass of 115 GeV (giga electron volts) in size, which meant that there had to be other particles yet to be discovered that would unify our universe. This theory is known as Super Symmetry. The other theory proposed that the Higgs was actually 140 GeV which essentially meant that the Higgs Boson was the very last particle ever to be discovered inside our universe. What's more is that because the Higgs would be the last particle in our universe it had no particle inside this universe with which to balance it. This means it is fundamentally unstable and the only thing balancing it and keeping our universe from collapsing are other universes very close to our own with their own randomly assigned values for this cosmological constant. 

This last theory is known today as the multiverse theory. It essentially states that our universe is in fact finite and temporary, that there are millions of other universes out there all with their own laws of physics and without the perfection of our own system. You see if the cosmological constant is off by just a hair you would have a break down of the entire system, thus nothing would exist at all. That means that our universe is an accident of chance. It is reality playing with the numbers and arriving at one perfectly ordered universe surrounded by potentially endless universes that are nothing but chaos. This doesn't speak of a God of love and purpose. If it pointed to a god at all, it would be pointing to a god of indifference, a deistic god who set the universe in motion with no care as to its end. 

So which theory is correct? The elegant and potentially designed universe of Super Symmetry, or the chaotic and accidental universe of Multiverse? Well, it just so happens that we think we know the beginning to the answer. In 2012 CERN announced that they had finally found experimental evidence of the Higgs particle using their underground large hydron collider(LHC). Can you guess what size they found the particle to be? The answer baffled many because physics yet again refused to be stuffed into the boxes we so wish to create for it. The particle was found to be 125 GeV, right smack in the middle of two opposing theories.

What is more is that although the number is closer to the predictions of super symmetry, the LHC has not revealed any twin particles to balance the Higgs particle. This leaves us with an unstable field many times larger than gravity but yet at the same time coexisting with gravity in a way that shouldn't be possible. This leaves us with the implication that perhaps multiverse theory is correct and our universe is but a pencil standing on its tip balanced by the accidental equilibrium of random variables that could just as easily bring the pencil crashing down. 

So what are the philosophical implications in the fact that neither theory adequately represents reality? Why isn't God the absolutist of modernism that so many religious institutions are desperately trying to make "him" into? At the same time why doesn't the universe simply make sense in the terms of an accidental multiverse? Why does there have to be so much dichotomy? 

I won't pretend to have all the answers, but I will propose an alternative view. What if the study of physics and science in general is not simply the study of God's creation, but rather is the study of God Himself? What if we are not simply studying the properties of experiential reality, but in fact studying what religious persons would refer to as God. If this is the case than we should expect never to find the answers we seek, and to never come to the end of all that there is to know. How does something created understand that which created it? 

I propose that science will forever continue to baffle our small minds as we attempt to make sense of our existence. Religious persons solve this perplexing problem by simply putting our understanding off into the distant future by saying, "one day, in heaven, all things will be revealed." While the non-religious continue to struggle with a universe that seems to defy reason, but all the while attempting to force it to our brain power. Both approaches are foolish. Heaven is a pipe dream created by individuals who cannot handle the reality of our world, but at the same time, attempting to force our understanding on reality is an effort in futility. Can we not recognize the beauty and elegance of creation while embracing it's mystery, exploring it's theories, and standing in humbled reverence at its revelations? 

Heaven is hear and now. Reality is the revelation of God, we will never have a more complete picture than what has already been given through the universe itself. Science hopes that the Higgs Boson, known as the god particle by some, will give us the answers as to why we exist and what our purpose is, yet I suspect it will tell us no more than what we should already know by now, it is nothing but a piece in the giant cosmic puzzle that is so infinite it will never be solved. 

The Emergent Truth

It is possible that I am a little late on this subject. I have had many people ask me what I think of the emergent church movement that is sweeping across Christianity. Part of the reason I haven't jumped at the opportunity to write about something so controversial is that I didn't really understand it. Despite my love for controversial subjects I generally don't like writing about things that I don't understand.

I'd argue that my confusion is not unique to me. I think it's likely that even the emergent church's staunchest adversaries don't really understand. What they see is people leaving structured belief, and for most people that is enough to label it as heresy and condemn it as an invention of Satan. The emerging church is a threat precisely because of its unconformity to rite and ritual. It has no stated fundamental beliefs, no structured church government, and no denominational affiliation, there is absolutely no way for someone to point at a specific church, group of people, or a specific practice and definitively state it is the emerging church.

The emerging church is not spiritual formation, it is not contemplative prayer, it is not spiritualism, it is not pantheism, and it is not emotionalism. It seems to me that antagonists of the emergent church movement are frantically struggling to put a label on what they perceive to be the greatest threat to their religious system in the modern era. Once something has a label, real or not, it becomes easier to vilify it and label people you don't like. I have noticed a trend in certain religious circles, if there is something going on that they don’t like all they have to do is label it as the emerging church and it is enough to shut it down, in their minds, forever. The emerging church accusation is the go-to argument against anything that fundamentalists do not like. And just as an aside, it should be noted that if fundamentalist religion doesn’t like it you better take a close look because it is likely that God is leading it.

In reality the emerging church is not a unified group of people. It is not composed of a bunch of religious leaders gathering in secret rooms with a plot to destroy fundamentalist Christianity. The emerging church is merely the next step in the evolution of religion. It is an outcry against stagnant and restrictive religion. It is a rebellion against a system that cares more about its bottom line than it does the people it steam rolls over.

The emerging church movement is alive and active. Rather than attempting to exclude and contain, the movement is constantly pushing the boundaries, cutting holes in the boxes of religious idealism. The fundamentalist's cry rings out,  "conserve, conserve!" While those emerging from fundamentalism are crying out for change. One thing that is true for humanity, no matter what group or institution you are addressing, is that if you are not constantly adapting, changing, developing, and learning, you are stagnant, on your way to becoming irrelevant, and no longer a leader in the community.  

One thing that was pointed out to me by my pastor is that the church is not emerging, it has emerged. The emerging church is represented by all those who refuse to give in to mediocrity. It is full of young people who are fed up with the theological politicking and meaningless banter of our leadership. It is led by those with a true desire to know God more. Most importantly it is led by people who are advocating for social change and awareness. They will not stand by while the church oppresses and passes by those whom it deems unredeemable. While the church is arguing about women in leadership, the emerging church is fighting for equality and unity for all.

The emerging church cares more about unity and equality than it does about religious ideology. It cares more about unity and equality than it does about religious correctness. While the churches sling insults at each other, declaring themselves more righteous than all others, the emergent church seeks common ground on which to meet people in love, understanding and with an ear to listen. It is acceptance and love. It does not sit by advocating complacency as some would claim, it is active in forging the tools to use to advocate for social change and equality. Rather than worrying about condemning and correcting the sins of others, it seeks to advocate for those in need who suffer persecution and pain from the very institutions that claim to be followers of Jesus. The emerging church grasps a hold of the mission of Jesus in all its glory, "...go and learn what that means, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance (Mat 9:13)."

In short the emerging church is plain and simply emerging truth. In fact I wouldn't even call it emerging, I should call it just plain truth. It is the message of Jesus carried forward as it should have been long ago. It is a recognition that Jesus came to seek and save those who are lost, not establish new doctrine with which to use to exclude those we feel are unworthy of everlasting life. Truth recognizes that the one true church is the church where people gather in community to strengthen, encourage, and uplift one another. It recognizes that God Works through all alike, regardless of gender, religious affiliation, age, race, or sexual orientation. It recognizes that God is just as likely to spread the gospel using the voice of a homosexual couple, as he is the voice of a ministerial graduate. Unlike humanity, God plays no favorites. God will use the atheist who does not even believe before he chooses to use the churches that slander his character.

If you are not a part of the emerging church, then you are a part of a church that has lost its mission and purpose. I for one intend to forge a new faith, one founded on the principles of God, and they are to know and love more. Christianity will change; it must if we are to see the fulfillment of the mission of Jesus. In the churches current state that mission will not and cannot succeed. Let the truth emerge!

Doubt is Divine

            Recently I have started reading a book by Peter Rollins. The premise of the book is that to truly be an authentic and relevant Christian doubt must become a part of your belief system. This concept has really struck me, especially in recent years as I have begun to re-examine my faith and my beliefs. Belief is natural. To believe is to be human. It could be argued that belief is simply a human evolution used to cope with existence. We use God as a means to an end. God is simply there to be used to solve a fault in our reasoning; God is there to span the gaps and to give meaning to the emptiness that we feel. Dietrich Bonheoffer referred to this as Deus Ex Machina. Which, simply stated, means something that is interjected into the narrative in order to solve a seemingly hopeless problem.

So you believe, good for you, you are following in the footsteps of billions of humans before you who all strove to add meaning to a seemingly hopeless situation. Your belief could be described as nothing more than an evolutionary response to the absurdity of existence.

            What happens when a person doubts that belief? Suddenly you are thrust into the great unknown, the void in which you previous filled with your comfortable theology and Religious dogma. You are instantly faced with the hopeless emptiness of nothingness. The water begins to poor through the holes you previously stopped up with bits and pieces of your standardized belief system. What happens now? Peter Rollins argues that this is where divinity truly meets humanity. This is where religion becomes alive. No longer is your belief simply an evolutionary response; suddenly you are required to think. Rollin’s describes this in one sentence that should shake the foundations of your mind. “To believe is human, to doubt is divine.”

            No longer is God simply there to solve the gaps in your imagination or the emptiness of existence. God becomes alive. God becomes experienced day by day. Your belief system becomes something you live, not simply something you believe. Doubt drives growth. Doubt has the ability to alter your life, change the way you interact with people, change how you view reality, and how much you respect what we refer to as creation. When tragedy strikes, no longer are you left feeling as though the God of the gaps was not there to interject, you expect it, you question and wrestle, and you come out with the wisdom and clarity that only suffering can possibly bring.

           Doubt drives you to become a part of the process. You become an active participant in the narrative of God's story. No longer are you a bystander watching as the story of your life is written.  Restating Rollin’s sentence I would say, “Believing is programed humanism; doubt requires the thoughts of God.” Are you ready to join in the authorship of faith? 

Christianity's Only Salvation

Christianity's Only Savior 

As we leave the Holiday season in which we celebrated the birth of Jesus, I am reminded of those families who lost loved ones  to terrorism and celebrated this Christmas without them. Our country has been spun for a loop, terrorism is back and it's worse then ever. It seems as though our efforts in the Middle East in the last 15 years has only made it worse. America is torn between a desire not to stereotype people and be accepting of all faiths and a recognition of the Muslim faith as the one behind these awful attacks. It has severely tampered with the psyche of the American population and threatens to bring with it a prejudice equal to that Judaism experienced in the distant past. 

This Christmas season we celebrate the birth of Christ and indeed the birth of Christianity. We look down upon all others and their faiths while praising our own as the only way, truth, and light. Yet if Christianity is examined with even slight scrutiny something is revealed, something dark that no one else wants to recognize or even give acknowledgement to, and that is the fact that Christianity and Islam are very very similar. 

Christianity has a history of murder, deception, and genocide. Christianity's god, if the bible is taken as absolute truth, has commanded the destruction of entire people groups, nations, and hundreds of thousands of men women and children. This god has been equally as busy as Allah in death and torture. Christianity promotes sexism, racism, ageism, and countless abuses of power and position. 

Christianity believes women to be inferior to men and teaches in its theology that god placed the man as head of the woman. In fact some believe it is heresy and rebellion for a woman to be placed in leadership. Christianity teaches that homosexuals cannot inherent internal life. Much of Christianity does not even allow homosexuals into a community of faith and constantly seeks to drive them from the church and make them aware that god does not accept them. Christianity winks at sexual molestation and rape. Entire Christian institutions have covered up countless sexual abuses by clergy and other church members. 

Yes Christianity is dark and disgusting, it is just as despicable a religion as Islam. You see it is not Islam that is the problem, the problem is conservative fundamentalist belief. The problem is the belief in a human writing as a divine and infallible work. The problem is "plain reading" of holy scriptures. The problem is blindly following other human writers without thought and personal reason. You see, radical Islam believes the Quran to be infallible and directly word inspired by God. Everything in the Quran is god's spoken word. The wars, the rape, the slaughter of the infidels was god ordained. 

So why are Muslims blowing themselves up and not Christians? Well, there is Christian terrorism going on in the world to be certain, but it isn't as prevalent; why is that? Well, you see there was this man named Jesus. Jesus is Christianity's only salvation. Nothing else in Christianity is worthy of note but this one man. You see, deep down every Christian knows that Jesus was not sexist, Jesus was not racist, Jesus was not exclusive, and Jesus did not shun those on the outside. Jesus was not a conquering general, Jesus did not kill, he was not violent, and He did not desire to destroy those who persecuted him. Jesus revolutionized religion. Jesus is Christianity's only salvation. Without this man, whose birthday we just celebrated, Christianity is a meaningless, violent, dark, and disgusting religion. 

As we enter this next year let's strive to make this world a better place, not by converting Muslims and shunning homosexuals, not by standing for the "right" though the heavens fall, and not by barring women from spiritual leadership. Let's make a difference by living the gospel of Jesus, which is to love others, to esteem others as better than ourselves, to love creation, to protect the widow, the homeless, and the needy. Let's care for our environment and strive to impact nature in a positive way, reduce your carbon footprint, ride a bike, plant a tree, stand for peace. How you live out your religion will determine whether or not you worship the true God of heaven and earth, or whether you are simply worshiping the god of your religion. 

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. 

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.