THE QUESTION OF HUMAN THRIVING

If we are really interested in the question of human prospering, we should also be interested in the question of faith in God. Here are some thoughts about things identified for human prospering:

1.     GRATITUDE/THANKFULNESS – Only the promise of an afterlife can make us feel grateful in a life of cancer, rejection, and depression. Besides, how can we be grateful if humans have hurt us so?

2.     MORALITY – While living morally is related to well-being, we will not be able to get excited about a morality that is relative, man-created, and always evolving.

3.     FORGIVENESS – How can we rationally be forgiving to someone who has destroyed our family, if life ends with death?

4.     INTEGRITY – Why should we live with integrity if morality is just relative? Instead, rational pragmatic considerations would argue in favor of compromise.

5.     OTHER-CENTEREDNESS – We cannot be truly and coherently other-centered if our rationale is based on pragmatic returns. Instead, other-centeredness becomes more coherent when it results from faith that God has been other-centered towards us.

Rather than continuing on with this list, let’s take a look at what surveys have revealed about human thriving. Professor of philosophy, Michael Rota, has written:

Harvard’s Robert Putnam…and Chaeyoon Lim note that “the association between religion [it is assumed that the vast majority of subjects surveyed are Christian] and subjective well-being is substantial”:

·       “28:2 percent of people who attend a service weekly are predicted to be ‘extremely satisfied’ with their lives, compared with only 19.6 percent of those who never attend services. This result is roughly comparable to the difference between someone in ‘good’ health and another in ‘very good’ health.” (Christianity Today, May 2016)

These findings are reflective of many similar studies. In “God: The Evidence,” former atheist, Patrick Gynn, investigated many lines of evidence in favor of the notion of Christian prospering. As a result, he reports having become a Christian.

Why don’t people consider God? Many have confessed that they don’t want to consider Him:

• We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. (Lewontin, Richard, Review of The Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.)

• Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. (Todd, Scott C., "A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates," Nature (vol. 401. September 30, 1999), p. 423.)

• We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions. (Bowler, Peter J., Review of In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999, American Scientist; vol. 88, March/April 2000, p. 169.)

THE WAY UP TO PEACE IS THE WAY DOWN

Much of what Augustine had written in his Confessions does not resonate with a generation convinced that they have to learn how to believe in and to like themselves:

• By confessing our own miserable state and acknowledging your mercy towards us, we open our hearts to you, so that you may free us wholly, as you have already begun to do. Then we shall no longer be miserable in ourselves but will find true happiness in you (Book XI:1).

Augustine represents what is pejoratively called “dirty rotten sinner” religion. Instead of building himself up so that he could feel good about himself, it seems that Augustine was doing the very opposite thing – groveling in his “miserable state.”

However, according to Augustine, the way down was really the way up to finding “true happiness.”

How can this be? When we humble ourselves to make a complete confession of our sins, it is like lancing a festering sore, squeezing out the puss, and exposing it to the light, The festering sore cannot simply be covered with some positive affirmations like, “I am not going to worry about it. It will go away on its own.” Instead, it must be cleansed.

Our relationship with our Savior must also be regularly cleansed, or it too will fester and possibly poison our entire spirit. The Psalmist wrote about this cleansing:

·       For when I kept silent, my bones wasted away through my groaning all day long. For day and night your hand was heavy upon me; my strength was dried up as by the heat of summer. I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not cover my iniquity; I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the LORD,” and you forgave the iniquity of my sin. (Psalm 32:3-5; ESV)

Any form of healing must address the underlying problem. In the case of our relationship with God, it always begins by going to the root of our alienation from our Healer by confessing our sins.

Pragmatism Alone cannot Serve as the Basis for Morality

Atheists argue that they can be good without God, and therefore, He is unnecessary. How then do they even justify acting morally? In terms of the benefits to themselves and to others – purely pragmatic considerations! Austin Cline,

“Agnosticism/Atheism Expert,” argues that God-given moral absolutes are totally unnecessary:

• It need not be accepted that for anything to "matter," then there must be some outside force or entity [God] to make it "matter." … Why should getting along matter? It matters if you value your own happiness and the happiness of others. The question is, do you really need some being (like a god) to require that you take the happiness of others into consideration?... If a person is to be lauded for their behavior, it should be because they choose the right path, not because they simply followed [divine] instructions correctly…[but] because they reduce suffering. 

Cline argues that the benefits we derive from treating others well are enough incentive to act morally. However, there are many problems with this claim:

Some don’t derive benefits from acting morally.

Pragmatism can just as easily be invoked to justify selfish and immoral behavior. If we are ultimately concerned about what works for us, we will find many good reasons to cheat and steal.

Although Cline does not acknowledge this, he requires and uses moral absolutes to get his ethical system off the ground. He injects concepts that can only come from above, like the “right path,” as if there is an absolutely right path, not just one that works subjectively for a particular individual, culture, or period.

Cline invokes the concepts of the “happiness of others” and the reduction of “suffering” without trying to prove that these are unassailable truths upon which an ethical system should be based. Well, what makes these concepts right if they do not represent unchanging, universal moral absolutes? And how can they be the “right path” where our morality is changing and relative to our culture? To further illustrate the problems of this inadequate moral foundation, here are some other questions that Cline’s pragmatism cannot address:

1. Why is happiness better than suffering? Some philosophies emphasize the need for suffering. What makes Cline’s formulation more valid?

2. Some people live in a totally self-centered way. Perhaps that works for them. Pragmatism can offer no argument against them. Nor against a Hitler and genetic engineering! After all, can’t they simply respond that they are merely doing what works for them and their society?

3. And why not live like the animal world – survival of the fittest?

4. Cline’s suggestions are man-centered. Why shouldn’t his pragmatic recommendation for happiness include all life, for example?

These problems all point to a more serious problem. Any pragmatic solution must answer the question, “Pragmatic or useful for what?” Without a “what,” all of the subsequent reasoning to answer the “what” is irrelevant. However, the “what” is a value – something valuable apart from our own changing ideas, but how can we first validate its value, if there are no values intrinsic to reality? If our concept of human thriving is just something that we invented and has no existence independent of our own thinking, pragmatic morality is built on a foundation of hot air alone.

Reasoning serves our values. If health is our value, we look at the studies that inform us what foods promote heath. If instead, the value of good health is merely a value we invented, then these studies have no objective or permanent relevance.

In contrast to this, the Judeo-Christian understanding has been that human thriving is central to God’s design and purpose. Therefore, it must be central to ours! Consequently, health policy decisions had been based upon unchanging, universal and God-derived values. If instead, our values are culturally derived, they will change as soon as the culture changes. Why then bother instituting policies that will prolong human life if the next generation (or even the next day) deems that the human lifespan should be shortened? Or the culture around the corner already values a shortened life? Who’s right? Without values from above, there is no way to decide.

Consequently, atheists/agnostics who invoke pragmatism as a basis for morality do so illegitimately. They must secretly smuggle in religious absolutes like human thriving, happiness, or the relief of suffering, ideas they normally can only support by virtue of their changing feelings, in order to make their formulation coherent. Even their language gives them away. To make any sense out of their ideas, lives and behavior, they inevitably appeal to religious absolute terminology like “right,” “just,” “good,” or even “benefit.” They illegitimately absolutize what they believe to be subjective and changing.

Cline writes about the virtue of reducing suffering. However, why bother? If cows could vote, they might in favor of increasing human suffering. Would they be wrong?

Finding Happiness

“How do I find happiness?” Because this question is of such interest, the philosophers have long sought to answer it. Many have recognized a connection between happiness (sometimes referred to as “eudaimonia”) and the virtuous life:

• Plato argues that virtues are states of the soul, and that the just person is someone whose soul is ordered and harmonious, with all its parts functioning properly to the person’s benefit. In contrast, Plato argues that the unjust man’s soul, without the virtues, is chaotic and at war with itself, so that even if he were able to satisfy most of his desires, his lack of inner harmony and unity thwart any chance he has of achieving eudaimonia. Plato’s ethical theory is eudaimonistic because it maintains that eudaimonia depends on virtue. (Virtue is necessary for eudaimonia.) On Plato’s version of the relationship, virtue is depicted as the most crucial and the dominant constituent of eudaimonia. (Wikipedia)

Indeed, disharmony creates peace-depriving conflict. I think that this is one of the reasons that we obsess. Obsession is a healthy attempt to harmonize our thinking with the rest of our lives. When these are in disharmony, peace is replaced by an endless running of obsessive mental tapes, seeking a way out – a place of peace.

Gautama Buddha provided an eightfold strategy to avoid suffering and to restore peace known as the “middle way,” sandwiched between the extremes of self-denial and self-indulgence:

• "This is the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering: it is the Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration."

As with Plato, he recognized that peace – the avoidance of suffering – was a product of moral thinking and behaving. If we hurt another, feel guilty, and then try to rationalize away our behavior, we intensify the inner conflict. Our excuses are seldom sufficient to address what we know to be a wrong. Peace is then replaced by turbulence. What then is the right answer? Right thinking and living!

As the twelve-step programs teach, we have to stop excuse-making and take full responsibility for our wrongdoing, making restitution where we can, at least, apologizing for what we’ve done wrong.

This is right thinking and living! However, people from these programs have informed me that it’s not enough just to go through the motions. They really have to sincerely and thoughtfully embrace these principles.

To put it in Buddha’s language, right speech, action, and effort are not enough if not accompanied by right views, intentions, mindfulness, and concentration. The heart and mind have to support our efforts. Without this association, our actions are superficial and hypocritical. It’s like saying “I am sorry,” when you really aren’t sorry and are just performing an empty exercise.

Of course, we need to truly be sorry for our wrongs, but how can we truly be sorry if we don’t believe that we are truly responsible? What if instead we believe that we don’t have freewill or that we are merely the result of our genes and upbringing? Then, we will not regard ourselves as blameworthy.

Meanwhile, our feelings of guilt and shame tell us that we are blameworthy. Result – inner conflict! Instead, the ancient religions instruct us to go to the source of the problem – our own wrongdoing – and confess it.

However, this is very painful and sometimes even off of our radar, resulting from years of the suppression of our culpability. Consequently, our denial reassures us, “It’s the other person’s fault!” How then do we engage our culpability, which we have long ago repressed? How do we put the pieces of our lives in alignment to find peace? (I have now shifted the focus from happiness to peace. Happiness is far more elusive than peace – the absence of internal conflict.)

While the major religions and therapies might illuminate the problem, they offer little more than the assurances that “You have the answers within you.” However, after years of such assurances, we find that we don’t have the answers. Instead, we find that our failures continue to laugh in our face, that is, if we can even face our failures.

The Bible offers a radically different solution. It informs us that we cannot rise up to God through our efforts or moral rectitude. Instead, He must come down to us with assurances of His love and forgiveness. He informs us what we have always known, but hidden – that we are not okay, but instead guilty and worthy of condemnation. However, because of His great love, He has died for us, paying the price for our sins. And if we will simply embrace the gift that He wants to give us, we will have His life and forgiveness for all eternity.

For those of us who are skeptical:

• Jesus answered, “My teaching is not my own. It comes from the one who sent me.  Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.” (John 7:17)

“Living a More Satisfying Life”

(photo credit: Dave Singer)

Certain beliefs help us live a more satisfying life. Drawing upon research, University of California psychologist, Sonja Lyubomirsky, has listed several cognitive-behavioral strategies. Let’s just look at one of them:

• Developing strategies for coping with stress and hardships. There is no avoiding hard times. Religious faith has been shown to help people cope, but so do the secular beliefs enshrined in axioms like “This too shall pass” and “That which doesn’t kill me makes me stronger.” The trick is that you have to believe them. (Time, Jan. 17, 2005)

Yes, believing in these axioms is “the trick.” We are all aware of the powerful connection between thinking and stress (feeling). If you think that the flower delivery-boy is really a terrorist, you will probably experience some degree of terror. Therefore, our thinking and believing are critical. However, believing something like “This too shall pass” might require more than a “trick” but rather first-rate acrobatics.

Why? Because experience tells us that some things just don’t “pass.” Death is certainly a reality and so are chronic diseases. In fact, life slams us with many serves we just can’t return.- depression, defeat, desertion and finally death. Yes, it will pass, but often, it passes in a way that leaves us grieving.

Likewise, the belief, “That which doesn’t kill me makes me stronger,” contradicts the reality of our experiences and perceptions. For the average person, maintaining such beliefs isn’t a possibility. While they might be comfortable to believe, it requires major cognitive gymnastics. These can be accomplished only with psychological cost –dissociation and the rejection of reality.

Must life then remain threatening and stressful? Although we might rationally be convinced that the delivery boy is not a terrorist, life is still serves up real terrors, some of which transcend our coping skills.

I had my own home-grown coping strategies. As a 14-year-old, I would look in the mirror, flex my now-long-departed muscles and tell myself that I was a wonderful person and could get through anything that life threw at me. And I believed the pep-talk. Consequently, it made me feel heady and gave me the courage to face the treats of the school-yard.

However, I couldn’t see the pricey payments I had signed-up to pay. For one thing, I soon began to find that I couldn’t derive the same high with the same pep-talk. I now had to advance to even more grandiose thinking, and I had to believe it. However, I wasn’t aware that these “leaps of faith” were gradually driving a wedge between me and reality. Besides, this new faith was actually in conflict with reality – a costly conflict.

I was no longer the person that I believed myself to be. The person I was projecting wasn’t the real me, and I think that everyone could sense this uncomfortable and alienating dissonance.

Since then, I have learned other “coping strategies.” The Bible has taught me that “when I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Cor. 12:10). The Apostle Paul explained that this is actually worth celebrating! Why? Because in our weakness, our Lord stoops to our rescue and even renewal!

This belief has helped me immeasurably. Now, when confronted by stresses, fears and insecurities, I anticipate something wonderful that will emerge from them.

You might regard this as just another flight from reality. However, I’ve repeatedly been shown that this belief fully accords with reality. In my weaknesses, I’ve learned so much that has allowed me to navigate life and relationships successfully. I’ve observed how my Savior has not only brought me through decades of debilitating depression and also panic attacks, but I’ve also seen how He used the scorching flames of these afflictions to burn away the bonds of the falsehoods that had kept me captive.

Faith is powerful. However, belief (faith) requires an evidential foundation if it is to persist. My God has provided this foundation. Perhaps it wasn’t built according to my planning or timing, but it is solid, supported by a God who answers prayer and grants wisdom.

Please don’t envy me. He promises the same for all who seek Him:

• But if from there you seek the Lord your God, you will find him if you look for him with all your heart and with all your soul. (Deut. 4:29)