Reason or superstition?

If this never happened, what did happen on Dec. 25-26, 1776?

From Atheist Professor to Catholic: An Interview with Dr. Holly Ordway

There were many pieces of evidence that all fit together to make a convincing case for the Resurrection [of Jesus]; I’ll mention just a couple here. One of them is the behavior of the disciples before and after the Resurrection. The Gospel accounts do not portray their behavior after the Crucifixion in a particularly flattering light. Even though Jesus had predicted his own resurrection, the disciples gave up and went away, assuming that Jesus was a failed messiah. If the disciples had made up the Resurrection story afterwards, why would they have included details that made them look disloyal and cowardly? My academic studies in literature allowed me to recognize that the Gospels were written as history, not myth or parable, and that there hadn’t been enough time for a legend to form. It began to seem like the best explanation for all these events being recounted this way, was that they really happened.

Then, after the Resurrection, there’s a complete turn-around in their behavior, and they become bold proclaimers of the Risen Lord. There were plenty of words that people in ancient times could have used to describe visions or sightings of ghosts, and indeed, such language would have gotten them in much less trouble! But they spoke of a Jesus who was alive, bodily resurrected, and in short order were willing to die for that claim.

Perhaps the most convincing evidence for the Resurrection, though, was the Church itself. If I supposed that the Church had invented the Resurrection to explain its own worship of Jesus, I had to ask, how did that worship arise in the first place? If the Church was not the result of a miracle, it was itself a miracle.

The last point is actually much stronger than people give credit. Skeptics and some self-described atheists (including some I have talked with) dismiss the historical fact of Jesus, claiming Jesus was invented by the Church or was, perhaps, a real man but one who was nothing like the Jesus described in the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament.

The problem is, as Prof. Ordway points out, that none of those alternative theories of Jesus explain the rapid rise of the apostolic missions and the sudden appearance, at a definite time of history and place, of the Church, which has from its inception declared it was founded solely on the life death and resurrection of one Jesus of Nazareth.

So if not those things, which an atheist must deny, then on what was the Church really founded? The Church undeniably began in the middle third of the first century C.E. It did not exist before then. How then to account for its founding apart from Jesus and the apostolic proclamation?

An analogy I have often used is this: The US Marine Corps was founded at Tun Tavern, Philadelphia, on Nov. 10, 1775. On that day, so the story goes, the first USMC recruiter enlisted the first USMC recruits (in a bar, of course, they being Marines after all).

Now to treat the founding of the Marine Corps as do skeptics treat Christianity, a skeptic would say something like this: "The USMC was not founded on Nov. 10, 1775, in Tun Tavern, but much later, perhaps as late as 1840. It probably was still in Philadelphia, though."

But on what basis could he make such a claim? Like the founding of the Church, there is no alternative story of the founding of the USMC that can be imagined to account for all the facts of the Corps' history. There is exactly zero evidence to support the contention that the USMC was founded other than what the histories say, and there is no evidence, either, to support the idea that the Church was founded either (A) at a time or place other than when claimed, or (B) for any reason other than what is claimed, namely, the resurrection of Jesus.

Or another way, if a skeptic were to claim that Washington never actually crossed the Delaware that night to attack the Hessians at Trenton, NJ, then he would have to also provide an historically-grounded  explanation of why and how the Hessians were defeated, killed, captured and plundered that day. Absent such, we will have to continue to adhere that Washington did indeed cross the Delaware as claimed.

My experience with such skeptics (who often call themselves "rationalists") is that as soon as you challenge them to produce actual historical evidence that the Church was not founded on the resurrection and its immediately-following apostolic proclamation, but on something else, and would they explain what that something else was and what is its documented, historical grounding, they change the subject and start talking about who will win the Super Bowl come February.

Dr. Ordway again:

It’s important to say that there was no single, knock-out piece of evidence that convinced me; I was convinced by the cumulative claim, the way it all fit together. Historical events can’t be proved like a math problem or tested like a scientific hypothesis, and there’s always a way to form an alternate explanation. But just because an alternative exists doesn’t mean it’s is equally reasonable or likely. Speaking within my own field of literature, there are people who claim that William Shakespeare didn’t really write his plays. There are even a few legitimately fuzzy areas: for instance, a few of his plays were co-authored, and it seems likely to me that at least one passage in Macbeth (Hecate’s speech) was a later interpolation. Nonetheless, the evidence taken as whole points to Shakespearean authorship!

This is another key point. Frequently (well, almost always), the skeptics or atheists I have talked with have invariably claimed that science rejects the resurrection and indeed, God himself. But they do not seem to grasp that the founding of the Church was an historical event, not a scientific experiment, and the resurrection of Jesus was a historical event, too, not a scientific experiment. Science can't validate or invalidate historical events: you can neither prove nor disprove, scientifically, that Gen. George Washington led his army across the Delaware River on Christmas night, 1776, to attack Hessian forces at Trenton, NJ.

Human reason and intellect is much more than mere scientific knowledge. The question is not, I think, is there ironclad, "scientific" proof of God or the Resurrection, but is this: based on the weight of evidence, is Christian belief reasonable? For 2,000 years, reasonable has garnered the votes.

And that is most reasonable, too, as Blaise Pascal explained.

Update: "Why the Ancient Christian Record About Jesus Is the Most Reliable"

How we are committing cultural suicide

 From American Digest. The entire essay is here.

What is the conext? Among other things, this:

Today, though, sexual intercourse is delinked from procreation. Since the invention of the Pill some 40 years ago, human beings have for the first time been able to control reproduction with a very high degree of assurance. That led to what our grandparents would have called rampant promiscuity. The causal relationships between sex, pregnancy and marriage were severed in a fundamental way. The impulse toward premarital chastity for women was always the fear of bearing a child alone. The Pill removed this fear. Along with it went the need of men to commit themselves exclusively to one woman in order to enjoy sexual relations at all. Over the past four decades, women have trained men that marriage is no longer necessary for sex. But women have also sadly discovered that they can't reliably gain men's sexual and emotional commitment to them by giving them sex before marriage.

That's how we committed (and continue to commit) cultural suicide, but it doesn't say why. As for that question, here is one clue:

In particular, sexual sin seems to be the largest single factor driving disbelief in our culture. Brant Hanson calls sex “The Big But” because he so often hears this from unbelievers: “’I like Jesus, BUT…’ and the ‘but’ is usually followed, one way or the other, with an objection about the Bible and… sex. People think something’s deeply messed-up with a belief system that says two consenting, unmarried adults should refrain from sex.” In other words, people simply do not want to follow the Christian teaching that sexual intercourse should take place only between and man and woman who are married, so they throw the whole religion out.

But I maintain that after 50 years of this "liberation," it is empirically provable that this is the way that leads to death.

Left Behind gets left behind

Thankfully, American movie goers seem to have enough sense not to waste their time or money with religious escapism nonsense. Left Behind, the new thriller based on the best-selling books of the same name, and starring Nic Cage, basically bombed at the box office by pulling in less than $7 million its opening weekend, ranking it the sixth in box office gross.

The Rapture is not biblical and was not taught by the apostles or their successors. The whole thing was simply made up whole cloth by members of a small sect called the Plymouth Brethren in the 1820s. (The Plymouth Brethren are still around, btw.)

Here's a short video to get up to speed on how it came to be: Where Did Rapture Theology Come From? by leading Bible scholar Ben Witherington.

 

Topics too tough to preach

I call the list below by that name because they usually not suitable for a Sunday sermon because they have one or more of these characteristics:

• They are too complex to cover well in 15-20 minutes
• They are topics for which faithful answers can be found on multiple sides
• They press to close emotionally to some people
• They may be important and faith related, but they are not necessarily “worshipful” for inclusion in a worship service.
• They may have political overtones.

For these reasons, I think a sermon delivery is too one-way and non-interactive to effectively address them.

With that said, here is my list of such topics. Please feel free to add your own in a comment. 

·        Sexuality, cohabitation, weddings, marriage and the Church in the age of the Pill

·        Immigration, compassion and justice

·        Divorce

·        Homosexuality and same-sex marriage

·        Terminal care and end of life for parents or other loved ones

·        The death penalty

·        Violence done to or by Christians

·        What does the Bible really say happens when you die?

·        The Rapture and being "Left Behind"

·        Islam

·        Just War Theory and the new war against ISIS

·        Others? 

Wish fulfillment or the smart bet?

Blaise Pascal was one of the most important mathematicians of the modern era and a devout Christian. In the 17th century he wrote,

Men despise religion. They hate it and are afraid it may be true.

Compare with the 20th-century's Aldous Huxley, author of the classic work on dystopia, Brave New World, who explained in "Ends and Means" (1937) that his reasons for rejecting Christian teachings were neither rationalistic nor philosophical. They were purely selfish.

I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. The supporters of this system claimed that it embodied the meaning - the Christian meaning, they insisted - of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and justifying ourselves in our erotic revolt: we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever.

Here's the whole Pascal quote:

Men despise religion. They hate it and are afraid it may be true. The cure for this is first to show that religion is not contrary to reason, but worthy of reverence and respect. Next make it attractive, make good men wish it were true, and then show that it is. 

Sure, Christianity would be great if only it was true. But it isn't. What a shame!

But what happens when a Harvard-educated atheist confronts the dilemmas of her own belief and starts to examine not whether Christian faith is provably true or provably untrue, but whether it makes sense to profess?

By Valentine's Day, I began to believe in God. There was no intellectual shame in being a deist, after all, as I joined the respectable ranks of Thomas Jefferson and other Founding Fathers.

I wouldn't stay a deist for long. A Catholic friend gave me J. Budziszewski's book Ask Me Anything, which included the Christian teaching that "love is a commitment of the will to the true good of the other person." This theme—of love as sacrifice for true good—struck me. The Cross no longer seemed a grotesque symbol of divine sadism, but a remarkable act of love. And Christianity began to look less strangely mythical and more cosmically beautiful.

At the same time, I had begun to read through the Bible and was confronted by my sin. I was painfully arrogant and prone to fits of rage. I was unforgiving and unwaveringly selfish. I passed sexual boundaries that I'd promised I wouldn't. The fact that I had failed to adhere to my own ethical standards filled me with deep regret. Yet I could do nothing to right these wrongs. The Cross no longer looked merely like a symbol of love, but like the answer to an incurable need. When I read the Crucifixion scene in the Book of John for the first time, I wept.

(The Atheist's Dilemma)

I keep coming back to Pascal again, here to his famous wager. Many people, including philosophers or theologians, mischaracterize Pascal's Wager as one of the weakest philosophical arguments in favor of God existence. In fact it is not really much of an argument for God's existence at all but an assessment of the rationality of believing in God.

Suppose you hear reports that your house is on fire and your children are inside. You do not know whether the reports are true or false. What is the reasonable thing to do—to ignore them or to take the time to run home or at least phone home just in case the reports are true?

Suppose a winning sweepstakes ticket is worth a million dollars, and there are only two tickets left. You know that one of them is the winning ticket, while the other is worth nothing, and you are allowed to buy only one of the two tickets, at random. Would it be a good investment to spend a dollar on the good chance of winning a million?

No reasonable person can be or ever is in doubt in such cases. But deciding whether to believe in God is a case like these, argues Pascal. It is therefore the height of folly not to "bet" on God, even if you have no certainty, no proof, no guarantee that your bet will win.

Life, says Pascal, is a coin toss in which all bets are called in at death. One bet is atheism and the other is Christian faith. At death the coin falls over - heads is God and tails is atheism. Reason alone, says Pascal, cannot decide which is true. So which way to bet is smarter? That is what Pascal is getting at, the smart move.

Agnosticism, he says, is actually impossible. An agnostic simply thinks he declines to bet. But you can't decline to bet because you can't decline to die. Agnosticism when the coin falls over is indistinguishable from atheism. So everyone is wagering whether he likes it or not, whether he even realizes it or not.

Once it is decided that we must wager; once it is decided that there are only two options, theism and atheism, not three, theism, atheism, and agnosticism; then the rest of the argument is simple. Atheism is a terrible bet. It gives you no chance of winning the red prize. Pascal states the argument this way:

You have two things to lose: the true and the good; and two things to stake: your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to avoid: error and wretchedness. Since you must necessarily choose, your reason is no more affronted by choosing one rather than the other. That is one point cleared up. But your happiness? Let us weigh up the gain and the loss involved in calling heads that God exists. Let us assess the two cases: if you win, you win everything: if you lose, you lose nothing. Do not hesitate then: wager that he does exist.

If God does not exist, it does not matter how you wager, for there is nothing to win after death and nothing to lose after death. But if God does exist, your only chance of winning eternal happiness is to believe, and your only chance of losing it is to refuse to believe. As Pascal says, "I should be much more afraid of being mistaken and then finding out that Christianity is true than of being mistaken in believing it to be true." If you believe too much, you neither win nor lose eternal happiness. But if you believe too little, you risk losing everything.

But there is a more practical side, too. I live my life (imperfectly) according to my deep conviction that "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again." Suppose I am wrong, that the entire of Christian faith is nothing but wind, that at my death the coin will fall to tails, but I won't even know it because there is no heaven, no hell, no nothing after life.

Is what way have I been deprived? How might I have lived my life better? How might I have better found meaning, purpose, mission and worth? Put simply, in what way was I worse off believing than I would have been not believing? And how can any of that compare with the incomparable payoff if the coin had fallen heads, and I could not know for sure in advance?

You have already made the bet. The coin is now spinning. What is your bet?

Cops are not soldiers

And should neither be equipped nor uniformed to look like them. Law Prof. Glenn Reynolds hit the nail so precisely:

CHANGE: Congress under pressure from left and right to ‘demilitarize’ police. If you want to do that, you need not only to get rid of the Defense Department’s surplus weapons program, but also the HHS and Justice Department grants that let police buy military type weapons. A simple rule would be to provide that police can have only weapons that a civilian could lawfully possess, since they’re civilians themselves.

Absolutely. Then there's this from the WaPo: "The Pentagon gave nearly half a billion dollars of military gear to local law enforcement last year"

The events in Ferguson, Missouri this week are an uncomfortable reminder of the militarization of America's small town law enforcement agencies. The photos coming out of the town--of heavily armed officers in full combat gear squaring off against unarmed protesters--look like images we're used to seeing from places like Gaza, Turkey, or Egypt, not from a midwestern suburb of 21,000 people.

One of the ways police departments have armed themselves in recent years is through the Defense Department's excess property program, known as the 1033 Program. It "permits the Secretary of Defense to transfer, without charge, excess U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) personal property (supplies and equipment) to state and local law enforcement agencies (LEAs)," according to the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center.

The 1033 program has transferred more than $4.3 billion in equipment since its inception in 1997. In 2013 alone it gave nearly half a billion dollars worth of military equipment to local law enforcement agencies, according to the program's website.

We are adopting the Middle East Model, and it's not Islam

The Nile could not be managed by independent satrapies

In his book, Cannibals and Kings, anthropologist Marvin Harris explains the difference in the development of nation-state governments in the "hydraulic kingdoms" of the Middle East and the "rainfall economies" of northern Europe. In both cases the issue affecting formation of government was water and the creation of wealth. These were agricultural economies, with agricultural production being the foundation of all wealth. In the Middle East, water meant rivers since there was little rainfall, and management of rivers required a strong central-planning agency.

In the case of Egypt's Nile, that led to an all-powerful pharoahite government, a pattern mostly duplicated elsewhere in the ancient Middle East. Therefore, wealth became concentrated in the central government because the rulers controlled the means of production and the water resources production required.

In northern Europe, rivers were hardly necessary to agriculture because of reliable, year-round precipitation. Because wealth creation was therefore dispersed, so was political power. Nowhere in the hydraulic kingdoms was there the equivalent of European systems of kings, dukes, barons, counts or marquis, all of whom did not depend on the king or the king's government to till the land and grow its wealth. They therefore had the means to resist the near-total centralization of power found in the Middle East. When such centralization did occur, it was an aberration and short-lived.

When the means to create wealth is dispersed, political power is dispersed along with it. Wealth gains political power, but political power is not needed just to create wealth. In the Middle East, however, wealth came from political power because there was no means to create wealth of significance apart of political power. So for centuries, nay millennia, the way to become wealthy there was first to gain political power.

This pattern survives to this day. Saddam Hussein, for example, was a nobody of limited material means until he literally murdered his way into power in Iraq in 1979. It was after gaining control of Iraq's government that Saddam became wealthy beyond all avarice.

Now the point of this little history lesson is this: In the United States, the means to create wealth and the exercise of political power in public office are being steadily unified. We are already well along to adopting a Middle East model. Since the Obama administration came into being, the wealthiest counties of America and the most politically-powerful counties of America have for the first time become the one and same - all concentrated in and around Washington, D.C. Through minute regulation of economic activity, America's political class is deliberately suppressing wealth creation over the broad expanse of the country, while funneling tax dollars to favored cronies. Remember, for example, Solyndra?

At the same time, the political figures are using their offices to gain personal wealth. Consider Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader and hence one of the most powerful figures in Washington. He was born into poverty, growing up in a home that had no running hot water or indoor toilet. His first job in D.C. was working the night shift as one of the Capitol Hill Police. Yet after entering national office, his personal wealth has arisen to as much as $10 million.

But what sent me into writing this post was today's report that the champion rent seekers of all time, Bill and Hillary Clinton, "turned the State Department into a racket to line their own pockets" while she was secretary of state.

“These documents are a bombshell and show how the Clintons turned the State Department into a racket to line their own pockets,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. Judicial Watch and the Washington Examiner teamed to seek and publish those documents today. “How the Obama State Department waived hundreds of ethical conflicts that allowed the Clintons and their businesses to accept money from foreign entities and corporations seeking influence boggles the mind,” said Fitton, adding, “That former President Clinton trotted the globe collecting huge speaking fees while his wife presided over U.S. foreign policy is an outrage." The Examiner reported that the former president gave 215 speeches and earned $48 million while Hillary Clinton was at State.

Welcome to the potentate kingdom of the United States.

Update, Dec. 2017: And the beat goes on: "Census Bureau: 5 Richest Counties Are D.C. Suburbs"

Update, April 2025: 

The Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency has turned its eyes on just how have so many members of Congress become very or even fabulously wealthy while drawing a salary that is not particularly high, considering D.C.'s cost of living and having to maintain as well a residence in their home states. 

Members of Congress may currently purchase and trade stocks and cryptocurrency, provided they report all transactions. The base salary for Senators and Representatives is $174,000 per year. Some exceptions include the Speaker of the House ($223,500), the President pro tempore of the Senate, and the majority and minority leaders in the House and Senate ($193,400). 

Yet some members of Congress have net worths that put them in elite standing—well over $100-$200 million.

Consider these charts:

SPY is an S&P 500 index fund, tracking the performance of the S&P 500. The vast majority of equity funds underperform the S&P 500. That is why Warren Buffet has said for many years that ordinary Americans saving for retirement should just buy S&P 500 index funds (there are others than SPY) and that's it. So note how investments of members of Congress have done relative to the S&P 500 in the left chart, released by the investment firm Unusual Whales.

The second chart shows the return comparison of two of Unusual Whales' ETFs. NANC duplicates the investments of Democrat members and GOP that of Republican members. Until the recent market downturns, NANC was doing so well that I invested in it for quite some time. (Just try to imagine why the fund is called NANC.)

Both Democrats and Republicans have long been invested - literally - in the Middle East model, that the way to wealth is gaining political office and using it for self aggrandizement and advantage. And that is the reason DOGE is being so strongly opposed, because it is also exposing how the Ruling Class has used tax dollars to line their own pockets.

Source: ZeroHedge

Remember: when our politicians denounce "wealth inequality," it means only that ordinary Americans have too much money and the Ruling Class does not have enough.

Christian clergy's fantasy theology

Quick Thoughts On Today’s Non-Violent Witness:

July 31, 2014

We are safe. We are healthy. All is well.

Today’s action went incredibly well, any way you choose to look at it. More than 100 faith leaders (Many clergy. Even Bishops) chose to be arrested at the White House, as a witness against our nation’s treatment of immigrants, calling the President and Congress to act.

The DC Park Police treated us with the utmost respect and dignity. They treated us fairly and, dare I say: kindly.

The witness was peaceful and powerful. At a certain point, the police backed away all other bystanders and media from a very large perimeter…about half a football field. That was a sobering moment…to realize that we had been separated out, and were now standing alone, in front of the White House itself.

After three “warnings,” they then moved in and, one by one, took us into custody.

What you have to understand is that being arrested was the entire point of the exercise. In an FB post about the day, the author wrote, "Our non-violent witness at the White House Thursday was a powerful experience."

Powerful for whom? Not for Obama nor for any of his administration. It was powerful for him. And that in fact was the entire point.

This "Arrest me!" drill is a perfect example of what Lee Harris called "fantasy theology," though he wrote of it in a different context.

MY FIRST ENCOUNTER with this particular kind of fantasy occurred when I was in college in the late sixties. A friend of mine and I got into a heated argument. Although we were both opposed to the Vietnam War, we discovered that we differed considerably on what counted as permissible forms of anti-war protest. To me the point of such protest was simple — to turn people against the war. Hence anything that was counterproductive to this purpose was politically irresponsible and should be severely censured. My friend thought otherwise; in fact, he was planning to join what by all accounts was to be a massively disruptive demonstration in Washington, and which in fact became one.

My friend did not disagree with me as to the likely counterproductive effects of such a demonstration. Instead, he argued that this simply did not matter. His answer was that even if it was counterproductive, even if it turned people against war protesters, indeed even if it made them more likely to support the continuation of the war, he would still participate in the demonstration and he would do so for one simple reason — because it was, in his words, good for his soul.

What I saw as a political act was not, for my friend, any such thing. It was not aimed at altering the minds of other people or persuading them to act differently. Its whole point was what it did for him.

And what it did for him was to provide him with a fantasy — a fantasy, namely, of taking part in the revolutionary struggle of the oppressed against their oppressors. By participating in a violent anti-war demonstration, he was in no sense aiming at coercing conformity with his view — for that would still have been a political objective. Instead, he took his part in order to confirm his ideological fantasy of marching on the right side of history, of feeling himself among the elect few who stood with the angels of historical inevitability. Thus, when he lay down in front of hapless commuters on the bridges over the Potomac, he had no interest in changing the minds of these commuters, no concern over whether they became angry at the protesters or not. They were there merely as props, as so many supernumeraries in his private psychodrama. The protest for him was not politics, but theater; and the significance of his role lay not in the political ends his actions might achieve, but rather in their symbolic value as ritual. In short, he was acting out a fantasy.

It was not your garden-variety fantasy of life as a sexual athlete or a racecar driver, but in it, he nonetheless made himself out as a hero — a hero of the revolutionary struggle. ...

 For want of a better term, call the phenomenon in question a fantasy ideology — by which I mean, political and ideological symbols and tropes used not for political purposes, but entirely for the benefit of furthering a specific personal or collective fantasy. 

And that is the preferred theology of the ordained Left in America: purely symbolic acts by which they prove to one another that they are on the side of the angels. That nothing actually changes concerning the protested situations is entirely beside the point.

It's equations all the way down.

A couple of car-fulls of us went to see the movie, "God's Not Dead" last Sunday. The main plot line follows a college freshman Christian who is bullied by his atheist philosophy professor into debating him in class on the existence of God. At one point, Prof. Radisson cites with great emphasis what physicist Stephen Hawking wrote in his latest book, The Grand Design, in which Hawking asserts that the laws of physics make God unnecessary to explain the beginning of the universe. So a few thoughts on what Hawking and co-author (and actual main writer) Leonard Mlodinow said in the book. 

Stephen Hawking is probably the best-known physicist of our day. He is the author of a number of mass-media books about science, including A Brief History of Time, which begins this way:

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever", said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"

The premise of Hawking's latest book, The Grand Design, co-authored with physicist Leonard Mlodinow, strikes me as not much of an improvement of the turtles thesis. Instead of turtles, Hawking has equations.

When the Marquis de Laplace presented his work,Mecanique celeste, to Napoleon, the conqueror complained that LaPlace had not mentioned of God in the text. Laplace replied,"Emperor, I have no need for that hypothesis."

That is the specific premise - nay, the very objective - of The Grand Design, in which Hawking claims that God is not needed to explain the beginning of the universe. "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," writes Hawking. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

It's striking how much this kind of science is coming to resemble science fiction with its own religious overtones. As Mlodinow is quoted:

We don't have a laboratory where we can control what's going on. We can't repeat the experiment and take the data. Also, the universe — since we believe in quantum theory now — is a quantum system.

What Hawking et al have done is written a form of science fiction using equations rather than prose. All their equations may work out, but that doesn't mean they actually know more than before or that reality has been discerned to a greater degree. Hawking admitted that postulating a universe of three or four dimension did not resolve mathematically. In fact, using up to 10 dimensions didn't work. So they tried 11 and presto! X = 0. Or something. To paraphrase Groucho Marx, "These are our equations. If they don’t work, we have others."

It's equations all the way down.

In a sense, of course, all mathematical constructs are fictional, that is, creations of the mind. However, some math is purely theoretical in ways that other math is not. Negative numbers for example, have no real-world referent like positive numbers do. You cannot point to a fruit basket and say meaningfully, "That basket contains minus four apples." Mathematicians themselves even refer to "imaginary numbers."

"All text has intention" is the basic premise of post-modern, linguistic deconstructionism (that basically, there is no such thing as objective truth, that all statements are only opinions). And so it is with Hawking's work. I've no doubt that he is impelled by a childlike curiosity about the universe that is so crucial to scientific work. But Hawking has been trying for years to establish in the popular mind his world view, which is not really a scientific one, but scientistic, a non-confirmable belief that science describes reality exhaustively and absolutely. But the scientific method cannot even demonstrate this, much less subject it to empirical verification. Scientism is a religious-type belief in science. As Mlodinow says, "We believe in quantum theory."

This is really a work of fiction, using numbers rather than prose.

And so Hawking now claims that the universe simply popped into existence from nothing whatsoever, resting his claim purely upon mathematical constructs that are no less fictional than seventh-grade quadratic equations.

Yet Hawking may have shored up Genesis’ account as much as attacked it. Theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss says, "Empirically, we can actually have evidence that the universe came from nothing. One of the key things is that the total energy of the universe is zero, which is only possible if the universe came from nothing. It could have been otherwise. It could have been not zero."

So it would seem that science has confirmed what the Church has claimed since earliest days, creatio ex nihilo, the idea that the universe’s antecedent was nothing at all. (One professor told me that the only reason the Jews didn't write creatio ex nihilo was that they didn't speak Latin.) That being so, a cynic might ask why a fiction of physicists’ equations should be preferred to the  fiction of ancient priests' prose, since they both claim basically the same thing. Or perhaps the two accounts are not so separate as we think. Richard Feynman, after all, said that calculus, the basic math of physics, was, "the language God talks."

I prefer the priestly account of creation to Hawking's, since, as Mlodinow pretty much admitted, Hawking's and his concept of the universe's "grand design" is at bottom conjecture. Scientists may be able to describe how I got here, but not why. They can say what we can do, but not what we should do. Mlodinow said that there is no laboratory to research the universe’s beginning. But we live in a real-world lab with certain consequences. So we are better off heeding the wisdom of the prose than the conjecture of equations, even if they are equally false, or true.

Closing thought: Why is Hawking so willing to assume that the universe simply "big banged" itself into existence when we deny that anything else does so? And if the universe simply appeared, just popped into being, why do other such appearances not happen routinely? Why, for example, don't spherical balls (or whatever) just pop up in my front yard or yours from time to time?

But they don't. In fact, the entire universe itself consists only of contingent events that bring forth only contingent entities. But somehow, Hawking is nonetheless willing to say that the universe as a whole is a self-existing, self-created entity, but none of its components are. Ah, how creative is the atheist mind!

See also, "Stephen Hawking Should Stick to Physics" at RealClearScience.

Dr. Hawking essentially believes that the laws of physics can replace God. Apparently, in his mind, it is somehow more scientific to believe in "spontaneous creation" rather than divine creation. However, his statement is nothing more than philosophy masquerading as science. Because his hypothesis is just as untestable as any religious belief, it is well beyond the scope of science.

Indeed.

See also "Why God must exist."

My wedding tips for engaged couples

Here are my hints and tips for engaged couples about weddings. These points are only advisory. I have based them on my years of experience in officiating at weddings.

• A wedding service is a worship service which includes your wedding. Because your wedding is taking place inside our church’s sanctuary, sanctified to the worship of God, please keep in mind that music, decorations, vows, dress and everything else needs to evoke a worshipful spirit. This doesn’t mean the service need be dull! But it does mean that it must be respectful of the context and place at which it takes place.
• Less is more; simplicity is a virtue. Keep decorations and flowers simple, especially candles. By the time the wedding day arrives, a high level of the fatigue factor has set in. Often, fancy or elaborate  wedding settings that seemed so wonderful when envisioned three months earlier become burdensome by the wedding day.
• Take at least some photos first. More and more wedding couples are having the wedding photography completed before the wedding rather than after. There are a number reasons this idea is a good one:

> The bride’s and her attendants’ makeup is fresh and hasn’t been cried on yet. Same for the mothers of the bride and groom. 

> Couples often find that the end of the ceremony finds them emotionally drained. This is no state to be in to pose for good photos. 

>The quality of the photographs is almost always much higher. Photos taken after the service are inevitably more rushed compared to those before. 

>The guests won't cool their heels waiting for the bride and groom to arrive. When guests must wait, it is a very awkward time for them. You will always keep them waiting longer than you planned for – usually much longer. Increasingly, guests these days believe that keeping them waiting like that is simply rude. Personally, I think they are correct. 

>But it is your call!

Play or have sung your “special song” at the reception rather than the service. Many couples want the service to include someone singing or a CD-playing of their special song. Most of the time, there’s no problem with the song itself being included in the service, but there is no natural place in the order of the service to insert a musical interlude. The song becomes a disjunction in a carefully assembled worship service. Also, remember that “your song” really is not meaningful to anyone but, well, you. The guests will not “get it.” That doesn’t mean you mustn’t play it (it’s your wedding, not theirs!), but my experience is that the bride and groom actually become uncomfortable about halfway through the music as they realize the song doesn’t really fit the service. However, if you really do want a special song included, I am agreeable to it as long as the song is suitable for a worship service.

Select your music carefully. Video recording weddings is common these days, so you may be listening to your music for decades to come. Pop music, contemporary religious and most current gospel music won’t age gracefully. Classical religious music by Bach, Mozart and others has been played at weddings for centuries and will be played for centuries to come. If you use their music you will never cringe when you hear your wedding, and you will never wonder why you wanted their music played.

Select your wedding apparel carefully. Certain styles and colors have endured for decades. Bridesmaids’ gowns with simple lines and classic design never lose their appeal. Cutaway tuxedos in gray and black for men have been worn since the 1700s. If you wear this kind of clothing, your grandchildren won’t think you look funny when you show them your pictures – and more importantly, neither will you.

About alcohol. While it surely goes without saying that alcohol may not be brought onto the church’s premises, the wedding party, especially the bride and groom, should avoid it altogether the night before. Sobriety is mandatory during the wedding service! Believe it or not, a wedding conducted when either the bride or groom is still under the influence of alcohol or "hung over" from the night before is not a legal wedding! Why? A wedding is not only a spiritual union but also a legal contract between bride and groom. Valid legal contracts require consent and vows freely given and received, which civil case law has historically said is nullified by influence of alcohol. I have never had to refuse to officiate a wedding for this reason, so please do not be the first! As for attendants, their condition does not affect the legality of the wedding, but it sure makes for a bad ceremony if they are not in prime condition for the sanctity of the wedding.

“Top Ten” Rules for Weddings 

1. This is your marriage, but it is not only your wedding. The wedding service should be the way you want it to be, within the bounds of Christian worship, our church’s tradition, our denomination’s guidelines and the dictates of good taste. Expectations of family and friends are not necessarily the most important ones. Remember that a wedding service at our church is primarily a worship service where two people get married.

2. The only things necessary for a wedding in Tennessee are a bride, a groom, a license, someone authorized to perform the service and one witness. Anything else (dresses, flowers, etc.) is really ornamental and not essential for a beautiful and moving wedding ceremony.

3. Relationships are more important than ceremonies. A wedding lasts 20 minutes. A marriage lasts a lifetime. My primary concern is with your relationship with each other under God. Hence, if all you really want is someone to lead the vows and sign the license, I am probably not your guy. That would be much more appropriate role for a civil official.

4. A Christian wedding is supposed to transform two individuals, not merely into a couple, but into a church. A Christian wedding service is done under the grace of Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all of life, including the households of married couples. Christian commitment cannot be realized without a mutual commitment to holiness of life.

5. Couples must worship together to maintain a mutual spiritual foundation. Participating in the life and work of a church makes marriage stronger. Attendance at worship is necessary for the vitality of a relationship both before and after a wedding. Couples who wait until they have children to become active in a church wind up with “kiddie” religion.

6. Weddings should be fun. If you are not enjoying the process of planning your wedding, you are doing something wrong. If you and your spouse-to-be are frequently disputing about the wedding, then there is almost certainly a problem in your relationship!

7. Something may go wrong at your wedding. Something usually does. Don’t let it bother you. You’ll still get married. It will give you something to talk about for years.

8. Many couples miss their own wedding. The swirl of emotion and excitement tends to obscure a couple’s ability to enjoy the wedding. Take great care to work on calm centering before the ceremony so that you may enjoy it fully.

9. Everyone gets the jitters. But feelings of dread, regret, remorse, or depression may indicate a deeper problem. Call me and we’ll talk about it.

10. Alcohol and weddings don’t mix. See above!

Will There Be a Rapture?

Will There Be a Rapture? - AU United Methodist Community

No.
Not tomorrow, but, you know, eventually?
No.
Never?
Never.
Wait, why not?
Allow me to explain.

 

Why the "Easter Conspiracy" theory fails

Nothing to see here! Move along!

Charles Colson served Richard Nixon as "Special Counsel to the President" and was a key player in the Watergate conspiracy that finally led to Nixon's resignation. Colson was in fact one of the "Watergate Seven," the core conspirators (but not the only ones) and he was the first Watergate conspirator to be sent to federal prison.

During this time, Colson became a devout Christian; after release from prison he spent the rest of his life in evangelism, especially prison ministries.

Here is what he once said about the idea that Jesus was not really raised from the dead, that the whole resurrection story came from collusion by the disciples:

I know the resurrection is a fact, and Watergate proved it to me. How? Because 12 men testified they had seen Jesus raised from the dead, then they proclaimed that truth for 40 years, never once denying it. Every one was beaten, tortured, stoned and put in prison. They would not have endured that if it weren't true. Watergate embroiled 12 of the most powerful men in the world - and they couldn't keep a lie for three weeks. You're telling me 12 apostles could keep a lie for 40 years? Absolutely impossible.

As well, the question, "Cui bono?" (who benefits?) strikes to the point. Certainly the apostles never did, not in this life anyway.

So: The apostles made up a story about a resurrected savior who actually had stayed dead (assuming, of course, that Jesus ever actually lived in the first place). They never profited from the story, accruing neither riches nor regard while they lived. They endured incredible hardships to spread their lie but somehow kept it consistent across time and distance and then they all but one finally died painful, even gruesome deaths rather than simply recant their lie. And the one exception died in imprisoned exile. 

Yeah, right. 

It takes more faith to believe that than it does to believe Jesus rose from the dead.

He is risen! He is risen, indeed!

The two most profound events in the Bible are Christmas and Easter, the birth and resurrection of Christ. I find it odd that we have so much made them child centered, and use childish rituals to celebrate them. I think it is the way adults avoid facing the soul-shattering seriousness of them. M. Craig Barnes, pastor of National Presbyterian Church in Washington, D.C., wrote, 

We think of Easter as a time for bunnies and little chicks, colorful eggs, and little girls in cute new dresses. But we ought to be thinking about grown women, with their dresses hiked up to their knees, running with terror out of a cemetery. . . . Easter is not about renewal, [not about] new beginnings, [not about] the perseverance of the human spirit... .

... and it is certainly not about daffodils pushing blooms up through the soil or chicks hatching from eggs! None of that sentimental drivel can comfort the next of kin of the Terror War dead or the Syrian Christians being killed or exiled at the hands of al Qaeda.  

What Easter is, is that “Christ has died, Christ has risen.” Jesus’ resurrection means that the worst thing that happens to us is not the last thing that happens to us. Christ’s resurrection reveals that we do not die, “period”; we die, “comma.” On Easter God turns pain to power; God transforms tragedy to triumph and pushes through crucifixion to resurrection.

If Christian faith is about nothing but the here and now, then the Apostle Paul admits it isn't worth the time we spend on it. That is why the cross and the empty tomb stand at the center of our relationship with God and one another. On the cross is where the proclamation that Jesus was “God with us,” was made completely true, for Jesus died as we do. Easter's empty tomb beckons us to trust in a gracious God who provides throughout both our life and our death.  Yet our deepest horror is not death itself, said philosopher John Locke. It is “perpetual perishing” - the fact that nothing lasts. Everything we are and all we love fade alike into nothingness. As Ecclesiastes mourns, “The dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten” (Eccl 9:5b). The destruction of even the memory of the past is perpetual perishing.  The apostle Paul was under no illusions about the facts of human life. He observed in Romans that human beings "are accounted as sheep to be slaughtered.” But Paul denied that human destiny is to disappear into nothingness. No matter what happens in our lives, Paul knew one thing is certain: 

Neither death, nor life, ... nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. 

You can bet your life on it!

"In war, everything is simple . . .

"... but even the simplest things are difficult." 

So observed Carl von Clausewitz, one of the foremost theoreticians of war the West has ever produced. That came to my mind when I read former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld's annual letter to the IRS saying that tax codes and forms are so complex that even after paying for accountants to prepare his tax return, "I do not know whether or not my tax returns are accurate."

My tax return is quite simple, I assure you - except for having a college daughter who has received scholarships, which grotesquely complicates it - and I find completing even my return maddening.

As Carl von C. said about war, so in taxes: even the simplest return is difficult.

Donald Rumsfeld sends IRS letter every year as he has 'no idea' if tax returns are accurate | Mail Online

Original debt

What a newborn child owes the moment it is born.

Anyone who does not understand the Christian theological concept of original sin need only to consider the equally real "original debt." For according to a Harvard University study, an infant born today emerges into the world already in financial debt to the amount of $106,000.

American workers would have to cough up a one-time “debt reduction fee” of $106,000 to pay off the nation's debt that has grown 58 percent under President Obama, according to Harvard University's Institute of Politics annual report on the USA.

The 91-page report provided to Secrets pegged the nation’s debt at $16.7 trillion, up from the $10.6 trillion inherited by Obama. “The debt has grown so quickly because of large and repeated annual deficits in federal spending,” said the report. (Harvard study: Your share of the federal debt is $106,000)

Did that baby sign one promissory note? Nope. Take out a single loan? Nope. Did that newly-born infant do anything at all to be indebted to the tune of 106 large? Yes: it was born.

Original debt is real. Likewise original sin.

Syrian Islamists video ritual murder of Christians

At Westview UMC we have been praying for Christians under persecution throughout the world, especially Syria. Here is why.

Think religious human sacrifice is not being practiced any more? You don't know Islam.

 

A new angle of the brutal execution-style murders of Christians by Muslims in Syria is being discovered. Walid Shoebat reports that they have now begun conducting “ritual human sacrifices” by firing a bullet to the head or slitting the throat of their intended victims. 

Shoebat is a former member of the terrorist Palestine Liberation Organization who converted to Christianity. 

In the video the speaker uses the word Qurban just before firing one by one at a row of men lined up on the floor. That term, according to Shoebat, “can only signify a sacrifice, which indicates that the filmed slaughter is nothing but a ritual human sacrifice.” Shoebat says, “Christians are being killed in these very rituals every day, and the bloodshed will not stop. We must work together to rescue them.” 

He is working with a Syrian Orthodox nun, Sister Hatune Dogan, to help Christians in Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Turkey who are victims of religious persecutions.

Be aware before you watch the video (link at bottom): It is very graphic video of actual murders of a dozen or so men by shooting them in the back of the head. There is no cut away because these Satanic killers want the world to know what they are doing. They are proud of it. They say that God demands it.

Allah is not God! Allah in fact is an invented idol, no more real than the pagan gods represented by figurines and statues in the ancient world. Islam is idolatry.

The number one threat to freedom, liberty, human dignity and flourishing in the 21st century is not climate change. It is Islam. Islam itself is irretrievably corrupt and irredeemable. Islam is a religion of death and murder, and nothing but.

I looked up in Muslim sources what "Qurban" means, just to be sure. Here is a grab of its definition from rasoulallah.net.

The video is here: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ae0_1394505392 

Prayer of St Patrick

This prayer is said to have been written by Saint Patrick himself, who lived from 387 – 493. St. Patrick evangelized Ireland.

As the story goes, he suspected an ambush while he was on the way to meet King Laoghaire. He said the prayer, known today as St. Patrick’s Breastplate, or the Deer’s Cry. As the soldiers sent to kill him lay in wait, Patrick and his companions passed by but all the soldiers saw were deer. Whether or not St. Patrick actually wrote the prayer, it is an eloquent expression of Christian faith, especially in crisis.

The Prayer of St. Patrick.

We bind unto ourselves today
the strong Name of the Trinity.
by invocation of the same,
the Three in One and One in Three.

We bind this today to us forever,
by power of faith, Christ’s incarnation;
his baptism in Jordan river,
his death on Cross for our salvation;
his bursting from the spiced tomb,
his riding up the heavenly way,
his coming at the day of doom.
We bind unto ourselves today.

We bind unto ourselves the power
of the great love of cherubim;
the sweet “Well done” in judgment hour,
the service of the seraphim,
confessors’ faith, Apostles’ word,
the Patriarchs’ prayers, the prophets’ scrolls,
all good deeds done unto the Lord
and purity of God-saved souls.

We bind unto ourselves today
the virtues of the star lit heaven,
the glorious sun’s life giving ray,
the whiteness of the moon at evening,
the flashing of the lightning free,
the whirling wind’s tempestuous shocks,
the stable earth, the deep salt sea
around the old eternal rocks.

We bind unto ourselves the power
of God to hold and lead,
his eye to watch, His might to stay,
his ear to hearken to our need;
the wisdom of our God to teach,
his hand to guide, His shield to ward;
the word of God to give us speech,
his heavenly host to be our guard.

Against the demon snares of sin,
the vice that gives temptation force,
the natural lusts that war within,
the hostile men that mar our course;
or few or many, far or nigh –
in every place and in all hours,
against their fierce hostility
We bind to us these holy powers.

Against all Satan’s spells and wiles,
against false words of heresy,
against the knowledge that defiles,
against the heart’s idolatry,
against the wizard’s evil craft,
against the death wound and the burning,
the choking wave, the poisoned shaft –
protect us, Christ, till Thy returning.

Christ be with us, Christ within us,
Christ behind us, Christ before us,
Christ beside us, Christ to win us,
Christ to comfort and restore us.

Christ beneath us, Christ above us,
Christ in quiet, Christ in danger,
Christ in hearts of all that love us,
Christ in mouth of friend and stranger.
Christ in every eye that sees us,
Christ in every ear that hears us.

We bind unto ourselves the Name,
the strong Name of the Trinity,
by invocation of the same,
the Three in One and One in Three.
by Whom all nature hath creation,
eternal Father, Spirit, Word:

Praise to the Lord of our salvation,
Salvation is of Christ the Lord.

Amen.

Lenten Season at Westview

Ah, atheism