A Response to “Is God Man-made?”

A post by Chris in response to Kelsey’s post.

     It may seem odd that I, a theist, will agree in large part with Kelsey’s post– but I do and for a very good reason.  St. Thomas Aquinas (pictured left) was a middle ages Catholic Theologian who spent countless days contemplating how to explain the existence of God, how He operated in the world, how to explain complicated issues like free will, grace, forgiveness, sacraments, basically EVERYTHING Christian or Catholic.  At the end of his massive explaination (Summa Theologica, or Summary of Theology) he wrote “all that I have written seems like straw compared to what has been revealed to me.”

Curious, that a saint who was seen as the “Dumb Ox” by his contemporaries and not the wisest of persons writes what can been seen as an exhaustive work on Theology, a work which is a bedrock work even up till this very day for people wanting to study Catholic Theology… so important in fact that the next major evolution in Theology kept the name, from Thomism came neo-Thomism.  Yet, the thoughts in his mind were so much more clear than what language allowed.  Anyone who has read in whole or part the Summa would likely agree the language is difficult to understand.  There is numerous instances of “this, but not this…” and “that, except here then that becomes this with an understanding of that.”

So why do I respond to Kelsey’s post with someone who believed so who heartily?  Because I believe at the core, the same seeking heart and mind exists.  Aquinas didn’t just accept what he was taught, he internalized his faith, asked tough questions about how grace could work– what the fallen aspect of our nature does to our relationship, what happens to a soul at death, etc.  Kelsey seems to take the same approach, rather than doubt he questions.

So often, atheist or agnostic friends of mine approach faith as if something must be proven to them– doubt until verified.  This is, in my opinion a very paranoid and sad position to take.  When approaching faith, we should approach it as a relationship.  No, this isn’t the part where I get all Joel Olstein and talk about a personal relationship with my Lord and Savior… but we should approach it along the lines of trust until there is a reason not to trust.  When I met someone, I try not to assume they are out to get me.  I will certainly keep some guards up until I know someone better, but I’ll talk to them, listen, converse, and maybe one day loan them money or let them in my house.  Faith is similar, how can anyone honestly say they are open minded without having an honest conversation where they are not seeking to undermine or destroy the other.  Often in religious conversations (believer on believer, or believer on atheist) that is exactly what happens, it immediately becomes a debate and the two become locked in a pointless attempt to convert the other.  Rather than getting to know the other person as a human being and working from common ground, like humanity.  I’ve found that comparing views of human nature and our role in this world is a good starting point.  While many people have different paradigms of morality or ethics, we all pretty well agree that it is better to be altruistic and do good things instead of cause pain and suffering.

So, there it is… seek understanding first– try to an honest conversation, who knows maybe you learn something.  If your ultimate goal is to convert the other person to your view, then by seeking understanding and having that conversation you demonstrate that you are interested in him or her as a person and are not simply out to convert another solider to your cause.

Is God Man-Made?

The Mind is it’s own place; And in itself, Can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven. -John Milton (Paradise Lost)

The idea of a supreme being has been around for ages. Regardless of which god/gods you choose to follow, an idea that always remains on the back of our mind is: Is this a man-made concept? Well, I can’t speak for everyone; but it’s always been on the back of my mind.

Humans are born with the need for attachment; this is scientific fact. If you disagree with this, find any child under the age of 10. Most males desire to marry their mother. This, of course, is before the child comprehends and understands the concept of a sexual relationship. He desires to marry her because he feels an unshakeable attachment to her.

In this instance, with the child and the mother, the child also has only formed a bond that is mental and emotional. This clearly proves that there is far more to companionship than physical attachment. I state this because there are many, many studies that claim that sexual relations are ninety percent of the human bonding experience. I do not personally agree with this, simply because of things such as “emotional” affairs and attachments. The idea of being attached to a deity in the same manner that a child is attached to his mother is foreign to me. Nonetheless, you see it every day. The first instance that comes to mind was on a trip to Wat Phra Dhammakaya in Bangkok, Thailand. It is the largest Buddhist temple in the world. I spent a few days here observing and even speaking with the monks (the ones that would speak). I asked the monks many questions as well. I did so in a cordial manner of course, and only inquired appropriate questions subsequent to developing a rapport. The last thing I wanted to do was offend them. One question that sticks out in my mind was:

Q: How did you know that Buddhism was “right” for you?

A: When I was little, I went out into my back yard. I was having a very bad day. I asked Buddha what to do, and he appeared to me and told me that I didn’t have to “do” anything. If I live a life for him, I will find my path.

This always fascinated me. It particularly fascinated me because this monk was applying a concept to Buddha that is fairly uncommon among Buddhism. Most Buddhists, from what I understand, do not see Buddha as a being that exists other than within the minds of his followers. It wasn’t the case for this monk, however. When the monk told me this, I could tell that he believed his own story. I could tell by the look in his eyes that he did not question whether or not he actually saw Buddha. I have discussed this with quite a few friends. Some chalk this instance up to medical or scientific error such as schizophrenia or personality disorders. I do not particularly agree with the schizophrenia theory, simply because I hate explaining away mystical happenstance with science. This instance is, possibly, and I stress possibly, one of the instances where man has created a god. I am not sure of his religious background (parents, grandparents, etc…) but I promise you that this monk will live a zealous life for the rest of his days due to that experience.

Experiences like this are also very common in modern day America. So many people claim to have a personal relationship with Jesus. In my experience, I notice that individuals with less than perfect relationships with their parents tend to have stronger relationships with God. This is likely a result of that human need for attachment manifesting in a being that they know they can trust. However, I personally cannot disregard their feelings, because it is impossible for me to know what is going on outside of my own brain.

I tend to think that sometimes, we need a form of validation for things. It seems that prayer gives us this validation. As stated, I am no scientist and have no medical background. But I have always observed prayer as something that manifests our true desires when we seek an answer. The concept is not far removed from flipping a coin and desiring heads or tails, simply because you know your desired outcome before heads or tails appears. The idea of praying to a deity is paradoxical in a sense. If two individuals pray for opposing outcomes, but BOTH instances are advantageous to humanity, which prayer gets “answered.” Marx wrote a great deal on religion in his Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, and insinuates that ideas like prayer (religion/religious feelings) truly give the individual more of a sense of well-being and an “illusory” happiness. A form of control in a sense. If this is in fact the case, then it is possible that somewhere in our brain we have conjured up the need for a being that can solve the problems that we believe are beyond us.

Why I choose to believe

A post by Chris

Like many religious, I was reared in the faith I practice as an adult.  Some chalk that up to a lack of desire to challenge my beliefs– when I say I have tried to leave them, believe me I have.

I never suffered any major religious trauma.  I’ve had a number of friends who weren’t Catholic, who in fact were atheists or agnostics.  Where exactly to begin to explain my choice to belief is a little difficult.  I guess the first time I ever really questioned God’s goodness (existence was tied to that, in my opinion) was around 5th grade.  We had a border collie named Kelly.  I don’t remember how we got Kelly, or how long we had her.  I do remember she had a litter of puppies though… and that all but one of them either died or were put down.  Kelly’s breast milk essentially was poison.  Most of the puppies died before they could even really get around.  Two survived, Porter and Shana.  Porter made it a few months, eventually was put down when we realized he was blind and had brittle bones as a result of Kelly’s milk.  Shana, well she was not very bright.  Eventually, a few years later my dad and I collected her from the side of the road near our house (she dug her way under our fenced yard).  Eventually, Kelly just disappeared one stormy day (thunder frightened her greatly).  We looked and looked for her, but never found her.  What saddened me so greatly and made me really wonder about God was the life of those puppies, such a beautiful and joy filled event– marred with a horrible reality, the very gift of a mother to her puppies was a curse and a instrument of death.  One particular vivid memory, is after we knew why so many puppies were dead when my parents told us that two more would have to be killed as the digestive systems were not working, they were unable to push any waste from their bodies.  The puppies were plump little balls of thin fur, not even able to stand yet.  I went to my room, crawled under my bed and cried– what was the point of this, what kind of God would do this.  I didn’t want those puppies to die, I didn’t even want a dog anymore.  Silly I guess, I know of people who handled much more as a 5th grader.  Some with far more dignity and grace than I did.  I was a bit of an emotional kid back then, oh well.  Eventually, I came to terms with it.  ”That’s life, sometimes it sucks.” was basically my reasoning.  As I moved on, my religious habits kicked in and the sting of losing so many pets passed.

The next time I really struggled was 7th or 8th grade.  Having two older sisters I knew their friends pretty well.  One of my sisters had a friend whose brother recently graduated our high school.  He went off to school with his older brother.  Coming home one evening, they were in an car crash, the younger of the two was badly injured.  Being a recent graduate it was being news at the school.  Updates were given over the PA as many students knew this guy.  I knew him more than most of my class.  The memory I have is when it was particularly grim and part of me knew he was going to die.  During our PE class they came on the PA to make an announcement, it wasn’t his death, but it was an update on his situation.  A few of my classmates were joking and talking so loud I couldn’t even hear it.  Our coach did nothing to silence them– enraged, I began yelling at them to shut up.  They turned, likely in disbelief (I wasn’t known to get mad or be violent), didn’t look like coach could believe it either.  Who does that?  Where is the reverence for life?  Even if you don’t know the guy, it’s a human being.  It’s like the old tradition of pulling over for a funeral procession, HAVE SOME FREAKING RESPECT.  This experience really shook my faith in the goodness of people and by extension the God who created them.  I was taught that people were made in the image and likeness of God… if that is the case, what kind of God makes people who do this.

A cousin along with 3 friends die going to see a movie, the surviving two people in the van are in hospital for weeks.  The trauma of seeing their son endure the medical care wounds the immediate family irreparably.  One daughter changes faith, the other leaves religion completely.

Later, I dealt with an alcoholic grandfather, his death, and half a family in denial of his alcoholism.  To this day it is a subject avoided at gatherings.

At this point it isn’t much of a surprise that I was treated for depression.  I was 20 at this point.  Moved 6 times that I can remember, had a troubled relationship with my mom (we are great now), endured repeated attacks on my faith by “Christians” and was seriously deceived by the first girl I ever really thought I loved… so yeah, I had some issues to work through.

Shortly after that I entered Catholic Seminary and began discerning the priesthood.  I want to preface this section with two things: first, I am not going into much detail as I don’t find it necessary or helpful, I knew a great many people, priests, and bishops from across the country during that time.  My encounters are not necessarily involving people from my own diocese.  Second, my choice to leave had nothing to do with these problems.  During my time discerning, I knew gay men discerning as well as ordained.  These men did their best to hide their orientation.  The most startling discovery was finding a stack of homosexual porn DVDs.  Second to that was a priest trying to bribe me to remain in seminary when I announced to him I was leaving.  I saw how the Church was wounded by those who claim to serve her, dragged down by the willful immorality of some, and held hostage by the ignorance and cowardice of others.  Here, in my questioning the answer was immediate– despite the personal wounds of the people who comprise the Church, it remains God’s vessel.  I saw the good of the Church, how the Mother Theresa’s outweigh the pedophiles; how the Truth will never be covered by darkness, how the gates of Hell will never prevail.

Later in life, I was employed by another diocese as a teacher.  I made the mistake of writing something online in a conversation that was inflammatory regarding the bishop of that diocese.  For this mistake (the only thing I ever did wrong according to my file at the diocese and the school) I lost my job.  Clearly, to me and a select few people near the situation (speaking in private) this was an over-reaction.  To be honest, it shook me to my core pretty hard.  I never doubted God’s existence, or his goodness, but I did question his judgement– rather, the election of this man to be the bishop and if that was His will or not.  In time, I was able to forgive the bishop (not in person, doubt he even knows who I am).

What some of my friends (atheist and theist alike) don’t understand is that faith isn’t something that happens to you.  It isn’t some mystical blinding light that you simply can’t disregard.  In truth, you can leave it at any point. During my life, I spent a time period of 4 months without even stepping foot in a Church– why?  I became stagnate in my faith, I freely walked away from it, and freely returned.  Faith IS freedom, God won’t hold you captive… the devil will, sin captivates us, enslaves us, binds us to it.

Looking back at my life, I see the wisdom of God.  Shortly after the puppies were born, my family moved.  Shortly after Shana died, we lived on a boat for a few months.  This may have been possible with puppies, but would have been most difficult.  My experiences in high school made me who I am.  They taught me tough lessons of emotional restraint and self control.  Later, I learned how to process and express emotions in a healthy way through counseling and the issues of my extended family.  I learned that often times, while people are broken and wounded the institution they comprise can surpass that and be something wonderful.

Lastly, the error of posting my comment regarding a bishop (and why I don’t list my last name on here) led me to my girlfriend– a woman who I cannot compliment enough.  While my departure from the school was unfortunate and certainly I wish it occurred under different circumstances, it was in part that very departure which made our relationship possible.  I love her dearly and hope to one day make her as happy as she has made me.

See readers, and fellow authors, my believe isn’t because I was reared in the Catholic Church– it isn’t because God has somehow blessed me with great things (I’m currently in debt and struggling to get out of it), it certainly isn’t because I’ve gotten what I want.  I  CHOOSE to believe because God has demonstrated in my life, that good can (and often does) through what I initially see as evil.  I CHOOSE to believe, simply because I want to.  I’ve made arguments for the existence of God, as well as for the non-existence.  I’ve argued for and against morality and applied ethics.

At some point a human person places his or her flag on a hill and dares another to come take it.  For me, that happened while I studied philosophy.  I came to know my faith, the Catholic Church in such a deep way, I can’t consider it ever being shaken loose.  At the core of that faith, is a choice to believe.  The one time I’ve had a conversation with an atheist that stuck around until I brought him to that point– he simply laughed, “You could have saved me the time and said that at the start.”  I just smiled and replied, “The end isn’t the education, it is the journey by which we learn.”

I choose to believe in God as taught by the Roman Catholic Church, what do you choose believe in?

Catholic Utilitarianism

A post by Chris 

One thing I’ve quietly held to myself since my days studying philosophy in college is a hybrid form of utilitarianism.  Chalk it up to my male genes, my German background, or my simple-minded devotion to simplicity– I like Utilitarian ethics.  In my ethics class, I wrote a term paper on an episode of Battlestar Galactica using a modern version (hybrid with Kantian ethics) of Utilitarian ethics.  It was a bold move, the general feel I have from my class mates was the this form of ethics was similar to that of the stone age technology, simply outdated.  Many of my friends opted for Thomistic ethical systems or Kant’s own system.  For someone attending a small (my graduating class was 12 people) Catholic college, doing something like this wasn’t exactly the norm.

So what’s the big deal you might wonder.  Well, Utilitarianism reduces everything to a simple formula: Cost vs. Benefit.  In its purest form, it reduces a human person to nothing more than the matter he or she is comprised of, or the benefit that person can impact on the agent, you.  It is inherently selfish, this is why the system has undergone repeated changes since it’s inception.

The first major change was to shift from micro to macro.  The question of benefit shifts from a single person to a community, or group that can be as small as a family or as large as a planet.  Now the question becomes, what is best for us all– very socialist in nature.  The next change, possibly a western reaction against communism, was to bring in the Kantian “universal” principle.  What happens here is instead of asking what the benefit is for everyone, instead the question becomes “what is the benefit if everyone did this?”  This draws a line avoiding unwilling sacrifice of life, property, and rights.

Enter my twisted mind.  At the heart of Catholic Theology is God.  God, in the Christian tradition, operates in a community (Trinity).  This community is mutually supported by Love.  We, humanity, are created in the image and likeness of God– we are created to Love.  At this point, there is a critical question (which can be resolved on another entry) as to what Love is.  For now, simply put, Love is the free choice to place the need of another over one’s own interest– the greater the sacrifice, the greater the love.  In Christianity, this perfect love is exemplified by Christ sacrificing himself in place of all of humanity.  At the same time, there is the sacrifice of the Father in offering His only son.

What this means in combining Catholicism with Utilitarianism is that at the heart of this new ethical system is that the central question has shifted yet again.  Now the question has become, “Is this good for me?”  Not to be confused with the original question of benefit.  Here “good” is void of pleasure, or some simple “benefit.”  Instead, the question cuts to the core and questions if this action will offer some REAL benefit: health, balance, spiritual gain, does it encourage good ethics of others? This first question is followed by the Kantian, “What if everyone responded this way?” Here we pick up the question of effecting desirable behavior of others, if the answer is yes to the first– then what happens if everyone in this situation made this choice.  For instance, what if everyone lied to a police force to protect someone known to be innocent (think Jews in Nazi Germany) OR what if everyone carried a concealed weapon after proper training and were willing to use that weapon to defend others against criminals seeking to take advantage of unarmed persons.  Finally, the last and in my opinion the most important question– “what does this change about the dignity of a human person?”  This last one can be vague and so in depth it might not be answerable.  Essentially, this last question is a safeguard.  At the core of Catholic ethics is the dignity of a human person, a person created in the image and likeness of love.  The only proper and just actions of one human person toward another human person is that of love– anything other than some version of love is unacceptable.

That does it for me.  This is what I have, a work in progress– a personal ethical system that  has served me well over the years.  I am sure it isn’t perfect and I welcome any feedback.

Problem of Evil (a response)

First, I want to thank Kelsey for the opportunity to post with him and Jeff. Kelsey and I have had many discussions on various topics, yet I haven’t had much discussion with Jeff, but I certainly look forward to it.  As a warning, I have a bad habit of being longwinded and tangential… so be warned J

This post is in response to a recent post by Kelsey.

In his post my good friend Kelsey brought up the problem often titled or referred to as a “problem of evil and a benevolent god.” Rightly so, he pointed out that this seemingly glaring contradiction is not limited to Christianity. At one point he mentions that some people see disasters as a way of God punishing people—I would direct anyone who says this to the book of Job in the Bible. It has been my experience that this explanation of evil is generally very fundamentalist or puritan in nature. It lacks the “loving Father” imagery we see in the New Testament and discounts much of how Jesus spoke about “God the Father.” Now, while I am a Roman Catholic, I’ve had this discussion with many friends of mine ranging from Southern Baptists, Mormons, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, and a few I am not sure what religion or lack of religion they practice. I won’t pretend to know the depths of the various arguments, instead I will present my understanding of the Roman Catholic view which to my knowledge is held by Judaism as well as some of the more “orthodox” or “traditional” Christian religions.

The summary of this problem is best stated as “Evil exists as a lack of Good.” Basically, evil exists much like darkness or cold exists, in that it is a lack of something else. Darkness isn’t a thing in itself, it is a lack of light. Much the same, cold is a lack of heat. In Science, we measure light (photons) and heat (calories). There is a floor to both (absolute zero, total darkness) in which there exists a know position where no more of a quantifiable substance exists, that substance is responsible for the opposing reality (light or heat). Evil is treated in much the same regard, it isn’t hatred or jealously, it is a lack of good. At this point there is a division in “evil.” Namely, “natural” and “supernatural” evil. This is not to be confused as saying that a natural evil is something to just deal with, or that the devil exists in nature and is doing this to harm you, or anything to that effect. Instead, this is referring to the modes or ways evil exists. Evil exists in the natural world (think a tornado) as well as the supernatural world (think demons).

As stated above, evil is the absence of a good: It is important to note that at this point there is really no necessity to ascribe to a faith as you will see. No, I am not pitching a global warming case here. What are some natural “goods”? Rain, wind, light, and temperature variation are some that leap to my mind—obviously, all in moderation. In reality, the “good” of weather is a balance. Some rain, with dry periods allowing for growth. Wind to spread pollen allowing for plants to reproduce. Temperature variation for the seasons allowing for a cyclical life of plants. If any of these fall out of balance, the good fades and evil (a lack of that good) rises. It is here that natural disasters occur. In meteorology , storms are explained as the atmosphere regaining a balance, that is returning to the good. Similarly, consider someone born blind. Obviously, the sense of sight is a good thing… so any lack of ‘normal’ sight would then be a natural evil. Does this mean that Joe somehow is punished for something before he was ever born? No, that argument is akin to a dog chasing his tail—is he chasing the tail or is the tail chasing him?! Did Joe choose to spew hatred against a religious pastor because God made him blind or did God make him blind because he was going to do that? Clearly, the argument that God would punish someone in this way makes no sense. As for God punishing someone or a group for their sins with a storm… again, read Job. “Ah, but what about this ‘God’ fellow that is supposed to be all loving, good, and such… couldn’t he just stop these evils from happening?” Well yes, He could. Consider again the story of Job. It wasn’t just a temptation of Job, it was bringing Job even closer to God—showing him the weakness of his wife who suggested he curse God. After Hurricane Katrina, I often heard people say, “it is in emergencies and disasters that our true selves are revealed.” How true, I never really examined my priorities until the days following Katrina, it was a turning point for me in my discernment. I know from stories of other people it was a turning point for many, could it be that God allows and uses disasters and natural evils to teach humanity something? The crisis on the African continent is horrific and if nothing else provides humanity the opportunity to realize what hatred can do to a community, society, and our species as a whole. It serves as a point for everyone, a global community, to join together to assist as people (not governments) in the care for those harmed by the hatred and crimes of others. This brings us to the supernatural aspect of evil.

Discussing supernatural good and evil is far different than the natural, but they are related. First, you must understand freewill (BIG topic). For the purpose of posting this sometime before the summer… I will assume the readers are okay with leaving that topic for another day. For now understand it as this: Freewill is the concept that a person has the choice to do or not do any particular action; forces may entice one choice or even lessen the reality of this freedom (there is more on this as I continue). In truth, TRUE free will rarely exists. Free will is important because without freedom, there can be no supernatural evil. Some people have the idea that God created Satan. However, Christian Tradition holds that he, Lucifer, was once the greatest angel. His name, Lucifer, actually means “bearer of light.” Which, in Christian theology, God is light. So Lucifer’s job was to bear, or represent, God. Pretty big job—so what happened. Basically, there are two opinions. Lucifer has a disagreement with God’s plan, either he said the incarnation was stupid, or that God shouldn’t invest so much effort into a species that turns away from Him so readily. Either way, Lucifer is banished from God’s presence (Heaven) and with him falls 1/3 of the angels, these become known as demons. Lucifer was FREE to follow God or not to, he chose, to not follow. Likewise, Adam and Even in the garden chose to not follow… resulting in Original Sin. Essentially, every time a being chooses to not follow God, they take a philosophical step away from God, toward evil. That is supernatural evil, sin. Satan, isn’t evil incarnate—Satan is the first sinner, borrowing from the opening paragraph, the first to choose darkness over light, cold over warmth (forget the imagery in the Bible of a furnace… it’s imagery for pain, not a reality).

So, if cold is the lack of heat… and darkness is the lack of light… what is evil the lack of, good? No, actually evil is simply the lack of God, in the supernatural order of this contrast. But you can’t quantify God, you can’t define God except by using broad terms like omniscient and omnipotent or saying what He isn’t like, infinity. As Pope Benedict XVI wrote, “God is love.” Evil, is the privation of love. In choosing evil, or sin—one chooses to not be loved. At this point the theological reality of Hell departs from the fiery images of the Bible and becomes a wholly different prison, a lonely place of true pain and suffering. A place void of love, so what is there? Hate? To an extent, hatred is a perversion of love and thereby an extension of it, so it can’t be there as Hell is the total absence of God (as much as possible while maintaining existence). It is a place of total apathy. Now, don’t get me wrong… this isn’t to say the firey images of the Bible is wrong, imagine for a moment, your life without love… without love in ANY degree, no joy, not pleasure, not motivation, no sensation… just some grayish, luke warm existence. Boredom, complete and total mind numbing boredom—now consider, the realization of the Garden of Eden… that rejection of all the good things, rejection of perfect love, total fulfillment… traded for what? Nothingness, at this point the guilt becomes the fire described. The Catholic understanding of Hell isn’t one where God condemns us to blazing torments, rather it is one which we condemn ourselves to. An eternity of regret and guilt, an unending fire which doesn’t consume us, but rather burns us from the inside and can never be extinguished. Truly, it would be better to simply not exist. However, we choose this and God being the loving creator He is will not deny us our choice… and so allows some to suffer this torment, as for true freedom to exist a choice is required.

Natural Disasters and the Theoretical Glory of God

There were recently a slew of tornadoes that pummeled my old hometown of Hattiesburg, MS. This, of course, brought loads of panic as any disaster does. Twenty-four hour news reporting, storm-chasing, and radio reporting have been rampant since the incident. That is understandable, considering people want a little excitement amongst the monotony of every day life. However, after watching a newscast on youtube of a church that got hit, I had somewhat of an epiphany while in my extreme state of inebriation. Before I share with you this epiphany, let me paraphrase the newscast: It basically showed a pastor giving God the glory for saving him from this disastrous happenstance. I have no problem with this whatsoever. I do have a problem with the theological principle behind it, however.

Let us take into consideration this atrocious statistic: two children die every day in Africa¹. This is a sad but true fact. Human life, according to most people (particularly Christians) is equal. Furthermore, most Christians would place a certain importance on those in third world countries over your typical American citizen. I state this simply because there are thousands of mission trips each year, outside of this country. Trips with wishes and desire to save souls and feed these hungry people. Considering the idea that human life is equal, these same individuals could travel to the downtown area of their given city and save lives, but they don’t. I state this fact because I am curious, why is a pastor’s life, regardless of his message, ideologies, or thought process, worth more than the two African children that died? At least five have died since you began reading this post.

This is yet another paradox found within Christianity. The family of four that sits and thanks God for their food every night may as well be thanking him for not allowing them to be born in a third world country². This makes no sense. Most would state that the reason behind this is that the United States was founded on Godly principles. This statement, although true, does not change that fact that children that die in their infancy have no choice. I see no logic behind assigning blame to the country when the entity (the African in this case) has no control over what happens.

Oppositely, you have individuals of the same faith that claim that natural disasters are God’s form of punishment. This is not proprietary to Christianity. This rings true to most religions. This too is contradictory, assuming that the mentioned religion defines all humans as equal. I realize that this isn’t always the case, but it IS the case for well over half of all religions. If you think that this argument is invalid, do a simple Google search about “hurricane Katrina” and read through the articles claiming that God had intentions of destroying New Orleans as he did Sodom and Gomorrah. You will then fully comprehend my point.

This post in no way is an intent to bash followers of the Christian faith, it is simply a problem that exists within most first world countries. To most of us, those people don’t exist. Although this sounds harsh, it is true. Most individuals do not see those African children as a true human being. The amount of food that is gorged by your average every day American could feed most of these children for a month, yet nothing is done about it. This is also not an attempt to solve the world’s hunger problems. The purpose is to present yet another paradox found within the Christian faith, particularly that of modern day America.

1 – Heatherly, Leonard. “3000 Children Die Daily.” Christian News Wire. N.p.. Web. 11 Feb 2013.

2 - Vargas, Jeffrey. Internet Chat Interview. 03 Feb 2013.

Allowing Contradiction

A post by Jeff Vargas

This is a response to this recent post by Kelsey.

Like most people, the idea of hypocrisy bothers me.  Just saying the word leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  This is probably because hypocrisy is one of the most grievous charges one can level against  another.  Often, bundled up in a claim of hypocrisy are claims of intentional deceit and a compromise of morals.  Perhaps the worst implication is that the hypocrite is not only lying to others, but also to themselves.

There is a tendency to label as a hypocrite anyone who doesn’t “practice what he preaches.”  I think this is incorrect for a couple of reasons.  The first reason can be found in the way that we perceive motives for the actions of others.  We normally assume that people have a reason for acting the way that they do.  If this perceived motive for action contradicts one of their statements of belief there is the tendency to pounce with accusations of hypocrisy.

In my experience most actions are not driven by careful reasoning or logic, but by emotion.  That is not to disparage acting emotionally, merely to point out that it is our nature.  We see the world not through a cold objective logic but instead via a richly colored subjective lens which varies its focus in response to myriad hidden variables.  This emotional coloring is unavoidable; even a reaction against it is likely driven by that ‘feeling’ deep in your gut.  People respond to situations and arguments based largely upon their emotional response to the perceived consequences rather than analysis of fact or consistency.  We all live in the moment and are simultaneously owned by it.  I think that attempting to make an excuse for behaving like this is futile.  It’s how we are and likely will not change.  The most we can do is periodically examine our own thoughts and actions and try to hold ourselves accountable for improper responses to others.  The only ones who can change our own cognitions are ourselves.

Secondly, in a much more pedantic vein, is the issue of a whether action in itself is enough to level a charge of hypocrisy.  Just because a person does not act in a manner consistent with their professed belief does not, to me, imply a contradiction in thought.  One may, for example, be totally convinced of the benefits of living a ‘Christ-like’ life or whatever…  They may preach the virtues of truthfulness, love, charity, and compassion.  This same person may also lie to their friends, contrive against them, and behave in a generally selfish manner.  Is this friend a hypocrite?  In my view, not necessarily.  As long as they are truly convinced of the virtues of their doctrines and hold them up as an example for correct action, then the failure to live up to those standards does not, to me, make them a hypocrite; it makes them human.  Of course if one never attempts to correct their action then we may be inclined to label them as having serious moral or anti-social problems, but this is very different from hypocrisy.

And now we come to issue of contradiction in doctrine itself.  I find it much more difficult to adopt a forgiving stance in this arena but recognize that my lack willingness to overlook contradiction is more reactionary than anything else.  I believe that systems of thought supposedly based upon reason and logic should be internally consistent.  I also believe that most practitioners of religion believe their system to be sound with respect to this type of logic.  I believe that it is blatantly obvious that this is not the case and anyone who makes an honest appraisal of the situation will also conclude that innumerable contradictions, fabrications, and unsupported assertions can be found lurking in the depths of religious doctrine.  I think that pointing out these issues is a valuable pursuit and that study of the ‘true’ history of religion illuminates much about human nature.  In future posts I will likely spend hours doing just this.

All that being said, do these hypocrisies (I prefer the term ‘contradictions’) negate the basis of the faith?  I honestly don’t think so.  This is a rather peculiar answer and most people will accuse me of a bait-and-switch when I explain myself, but hopefully I will be able to set forth the merits of this view in future posts.  For now, though, I ask you to think back to my first discussion of hypocrisy and emotion in the paragraphs above.  The human craving is not for ‘facts’ and ‘logic’; it is for ‘experience’ and ‘emotion’.  Its not just one way we perceive the world but the only way.  To me, choosing to adopt a spiritual position is a lot like falling in love… reason and logic have very little to do with it.  You don’t (hopefully) only choose a life partner based only upon outward appearance or how well they can financially provide for you in the future and so on.  You have a deep and inexplicable emotional connection to them.  If someone asked you to explain why you love them you wouldn’t (hopefully) give a lot of facts about financial security or genetic compatibility, etc.  You wouldn’t construct elaborate explanations about how their natural flaws and shortcomings are actually illusions and that your partner is literally a perfect individual.  Surely such attempts could only devalue what you share with that person.  Logic has an extremely important place in the world; but so does love … I don’t want to live in a world without raw, untamed love.