MESSAGES FROM BEYOND

We are surrounded by the creations of God – those on the outside but also on the inside. We experience a taste of God when we apologize for having caused pain and then are forgiven. We also sense His presence in other ways. In “Making Sense of God: An Invitation to the Skeptical,” Timothy Keller wrote:

·       Leonard Bernstein famously admitted that when he heard great music and great beauty he sensed “Heaven,” some order behind things. “[Beethoven] has the real goods, the stuff from Heaven, the power to make you feel at the finish: something is right in the world. There is something that checks throughout, that follows its own law consistently: something we can trust, that will never let us down.”

For me, it was Rachmaninoff. Having struggled for years with depression and self-loathing, the type that drives us to the highest bridge, Rachmaninoff’s Second Symphony preached to my aching mind a sermon of hope, peace, and love. It actually reassured me that there was something beyond the pain, a place of love and warmth, a place where I’d be cared for.

At that time, I was not ready to hear a sermon about God, but this piece of music preached a sermon I needed to hear.  Somewhere, there was a rest, and I believed in what it preached. It encouraged me to hold on.

How did this work. It wasn’t just a matter of a set of beautiful melodies, which touched my heart. It was more than that. It communicated to my heart that there was another reality, a place that guaranteed me relief.

But aren’t these just feelings? Can they be trusted? Sometimes they cannot be trusted. They sometimes are merely the product of dreams or fears. They are not constructed grammatically with coherent sentences. However, my experiences came to me with the completeness and authority of chapter and verse.

Perhaps Bernstein failed to embrace the content of the message that Beethoven had passed on to him. However, by the grace of God, I had no other options. Even though I had little understanding of the hope that had been communicated to me, my burdens wouldn’t allow me to forget about it. It was only later that the nature of this hope was revealed:

·       “All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” (Matthew 11:27-30)

Ethics, Equality, and Human Exceptionalism

It seems that the success of the West has depended on the presupposition of human exceptionalism and human equality. However, this idea is now under serious attack. We are having difficulty defending it against numerous vigorous challenges. For instance:

• What makes humans exceptional? Why shouldn’t we kill and eat humans as we do chickens and pigs? 

Some will argue that we are more valuable than chickens, but to whom? Certainly we are not more valuable to other chickens. Who then can authoritatively assign relative value? Is our value then determined by other humans? Why?

Besides, do we want our value to be culturally or governmentally determined? Instead, we would prefer that our value be based on an objective intrinsic basis – on who we are as human beings rather than chickens.

However, this opens the door to another problem. What intrinsically makes us more valued? Some will argue that we are more intelligent, sensitive, or creative. Well, this is true. However, why should our superiority over the chicken make us more valuable or important? Also, the chicken can do things that we can’t do. She can lay eggs and raise many more young than we can. They are also fearless mothers!

Besides, this kind of reasoning opens the door to many ethical problems. If intelligence makes us more valuable and extends to us more legal protections and rights, then we should be placing greater value on those who are more intelligent, educated, and sensitive, right? Consequently, we would also have to degrade the value of the less intelligent – children, the mentally ill, uneducated, and the elderly. Therefore, to assign value based on human characteristics is to undermine the concept of equality.

Also, if our legal system is to operate in a manner consistent with this criterion of intelligence, then it should extend more rights and protections to the intelligent. Clearly, this kind of thinking will undermine the fabric of our society.

Some postmodernists avoids this problem by asserting that all life is of equal value. However, this assertion is loaded with its own set of problems:

1. What endows life with value? Is this no more than an arbitrary assertion?

2. How can any legal system accommodate the need to criminalize human murder along with cockroach murder? It would seem that the legal system would crash under the weight of its broadened responsibilities.

3. Such a morality would not be humanly livable. It would mean that we couldn’t swat mosquitoes, exterminate termites, and even take anti-biotics. 

Just as problematic as these three problems is the problem of “equal value.” Where does this notion of equality come from? Instead, we observe inequality wherever we look. There is nothing equal between a termite and a cow. They are different in every respect. Upon what then can equality be based?

Even in regards to humanity, we observe little in the way of equality. Some are old, others young. Some are productive, others not. Some contribute to the welfare of society; others do not. 

Nevertheless, we intuitively know that what we value in the West cannot be preserved without the belief articulated in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” – an ascertain that transcends the observable and must find its justification in another realm where true equality exists.

What is the basis for equality? The Declaration claims that equality is found in the mind of an immutable God:

• We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Perhaps “unalienable” human Rights” are not “self-evident.” However, what is evident is that these rights cannot be founded on human decisions. Such decisions are always in flux. If the government grants a human right, the government can also rescind that right. However, if it depends on God, then these rights are “unalienable” and unchangeable.

Are we truly more valued than the sparrow before God? Yes, according to Jesus:

• “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not, therefore; you are of MORE VALUE THAN MANY SPARROWS.” (Matthew 10:29-31)  

Why? We alone are created in the likeness of God Himself:

• Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” (Genesis 1:26)

Consequently, once we reject God, we reject the only rational and sufficient basis for human equality. God help us!

A Proof of God from Reason

I enjoy taking snapshots of the glorious work of God. The one below is a snapshot of reason/logic. (All of these snapshots point back to the existence of their Creator.) Here’s how:

1. REASON EXISTS.
2. REASON REQUIRES A TRANSCENDENT INTELLIGENCE.

Conclusion: A TRANSCENDENT INTELLIGENCE MUST EXIST.

1.     REASON EXISTS.

This hardly requires any support. In fact, any argument against the existence of reason requires reason.

2.     REASON REQUIRES A TRANSCENDENT INTELLIGENCE.

There are several reasons for this. Reason is absolute, universal, and immutable. It must be immutable. If it isn’t, it would be like measuring with maple syrup. It must also be universal or it should change from state to country.

These qualities cannot be accounted for by a universe of molecules-in-motion. They can only be accounted for by an immutable and universal Cause – something that transcends this universe.

Reason is like the operating systems of a computer, all of which had to be intelligently created. While humans created operating systems, humans could not have created reason, since reason predates humanity. Also, the operating system must be intelligently fine-tuned to the computer if it is to be functional. Amazingly, reason seems to have also been intelligently fine-tuned to this world.

Besides, the humanly created systems are always being improved, while reason remains as is and yet is adequate for all of our enterprises, whether in China or Alaska.

Conclusion: A TRANSCENDENT INTELLIGENCE MUST EXIST.

Praise His glory, all you His creations!

This same proof can be constructed for every law of science. All are elegant, immutable, and universal. All reflect a Supreme Intelligence!

Proof of God from the First Cause

Sometimes, less is best. This is a brief proof, among many, for the existence of God. It is sometimes called the Cosmological Argument:

1.     All things that have come into existence are caused to exist by other things.

2.     If there is no eternal uncaused Causer, then nothing can exist.

3.     Therefore, there must be an eternal uncaused Causer - God.

PREMISE #1: To deny this is absurd. To illustrate, if I tell you that my cup of coffee just appeared without any cause, you would think me crazy. This is because we never see uncaused things materialize out of nothing.

We reasonably assume that there are causes for any phenomena. That’s why we do science – to discover the causal relationships. Therefore, to deny that phenomena require causes is to reject science.

PREMISE #2: It follows that something or Someone must be uncaused and therefore eternal to explain the existence of everything else.

However, eternal can’t be a something – the universe or some part of it. Matter and space cannot exist apart from time, but time could not have been eternal. This would have required that an infinite number of years to have already passed for us to be here in the present – a logical impossibility. Big Bang cosmology also rules this out.

Besides, the law of entropy argues against an eternal universe, since by now, everything would have dissipated.

CONCLUSION: This leaves us face-to-face with a Being who transcends time, space, and materiality.

An Atheist Admires the Contributions of Religion

Atheist Alain de Botton believes that atheists and secularists can learn and borrow a lot of good things from religion:

• Religions merit our attention for their sheer conceptual ambition; for changing the world in a way that few secular institutions ever have. They have managed to combine theories about ethics and metaphysics with a practical involvement in education, fashion, politics, travel, hostelry, initiation, ceremonies, publishing, art and architecture -  a range of interests which puts to shame the scope of achievements of even the greatest and most influential secular movements and individuals in history. (Religion for Atheists: A Non-Believer’s Guide to the Uses of Religion, 18)

Truly, there are many reasons why the religious combination of “ethics and metaphysics” is productive. Most basically, monotheistic religions maintain that there are unchanging and transcendent Ideals and Truths (metaphysics) that trump even our immediate welfare.

There are many benefits buried in this understanding. For one thing, this understanding (faith) frees us up from the tyranny of our emotions. We no longer are enslaved to their passing whims and demands, knowing that something greater awaits us in the next life.

This faith – knowing that God is taking care of us - also frees us up to be other-centered. We certainly do not like everyone in our church, but we understand that love shouldn’t depend on our likes and dislikes, but on a higher calling. Interestingly, we find that as we love the unlikable, we might also grow to like them!

This faith also frees us up from self-absorption. There comes into our lives something greater with which to be absorbed. Our performance, popularity, and worthiness no longer matter to us as it once did. We know that we are forgiven and beloved and find growing joy in serving our Master.

This, of course, leads us to de Botton’s expectation that the secularist can borrow useful traits and behaviors from the Christian. He recognizes that:

• We continue to need exhortations to be sympathetic and just, even if we do not believe that there is a God who has a hand in wishing to make us so (80).

However, looking longingly through the car dealership window at a Ferrari is one thing; appropriating it for oneself is another. We might admire its fuel-injection system and the energy it imparts. However, we will be very disappointed if we try to swallow it in the hope that we will be similarly energized.

It is precisely the same predicament that the atheist will face by trying to incorporate the things of God without God.

While I am glad that de Botton recognizes the “need [for] exhortations to be sympathetic and just,” the atheist has no adequate reason to heed such exhortations. De Botton correctly argues that such exhortations will produce a better world, but the human being is more interested in what will produce the better life for himself and those in his own household, and why shouldn’t he be!

De Botton bases his case on pragmatism – what will yield positive results. However, if our exhortations are pragmatically based, then pragmatism alone will tend towards self-centeredness and our immediate comforts. These considerations provide maximal benefits.

While it is easy to stage a concert to benefit a worthy cause – and in the short-run, this makes us feel very good about ourselves – it is unsustainable in the long-run. The personal pay-offs dry up as human history ubiquitously testifies. The benefit concert was exciting at first, but over time, it fails to provide high-octane, self-esteem building fuel.

Can the secularist live for the high moral principle itself? This brings us back to the basic flaw of atheism/secularism. There are simply no “higher” moral principles! In the atheistic world, there is nothing higher than his own feelings and opinions – no higher truth to which he will submit or even recognize. Secular Humanist, Max Hocutt, stated the problem this way:

• “To me [the non-existence of God] means that there is no absolute morality, that moralities are sets of social conventions devised by humans to satisfy their needs…If there were a morality written up in the sky somewhere but no God to enforce it, I see no good reason why anyone should pay it any heed.” (Understanding the Times)

However, the atheist doesn’t even believe that there is a “morality written up in the sky.” Instead, morality is something we merely create. Hence, morality serves us; we don’t serve morality, and there is a monumental difference between the two!

This difference means that our cherished principles lack any unchanging basis. Therefore, they are relative to our changing thoughts, feelings and cultures.

De Botton wishes to borrow Christian principles and behaviors. However, he will find that secularism is even unable to retain the Christian principles that Western Civilization already enjoys. Let’s name a few:

1. Mutual and Equal Respect. In the counseling world, this has been translated into “Unconditional Positive Regard” (UPR) for all people.
2. Equal Protection under the Law (The Bill of Rights)

However, these rest upon a transcendent, biblical foundation, as our Declaration of Independence affirms:

• That all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.

However, this affirmation is not within the grasp of secularism/atheism, which is materialistic and naturalistic. In other words, reality is exclusively comprised from the ingredients of this material universe – no transcendent spiritual realities allowed here! But without the transcendent spiritual, there is no basis whatsoever for equal rights, respect and UPR.

Just imagine a secular psychotherapist who values UPR as a necessary psychotherapeutic tool – and it is! One problem – he has no rational basis to regard all his clients with UPR! From a materialistic perspective, some have positive value and some negative. Some are costly to people and society; others make positive contributions. Therefore, they do not merit equal respect, protection under the law or UPR! Why then extend UPR if reality doesn’t warrant it? From a materialistic perspective, some people merit nothing more than contempt.

This understanding might not stop the therapist from extending UPR, even though he ceases to believe in truth of UPR. However, he will soon realize that he is being manipulative and hypocritical. Eventually, this cognitive dissonance will undermine UPR and any concept of equal respect.

As a probation officer, I always treated my probationers with UPR, even while I was firm with them. However, they sensed the respect I had for them, and I think that this made a difference. However, this is unsustainable for the atheist.

I pray that de Botton will come to realize that he cannot separate the gift of religion from the gift-Giver.