Russell Brand, Robin Williams, and the Gospel

I was not going to comment about Robin Williams' suicide.  Many have, and I have nothing to add to their commentary.  Much of what has been shown to me on my Facebook feed has been relatively well thought out, but none of it truly made me think deeply.

Leave it to the Drudge Report to link an article in The Guardian written by Russell Brand.  This article truly drew me in and made me wrestle because it links Williams' death with some of the big questions in life.

I didn't know much about Brand until I read his Wikipedia page--assuming Wikipedia is reliable here.  I found out he and Williams shared much in common.  Both are/were very much tortured souls.  Both, I think, struggle/d with some very tough questions regarding life.  From the article:

It seems that Robin Williams could not find a context. Is that what drug use is? An attempt to anaesthetise against a reality that constantly knocks against your nerves, like tinfoil on an old school filling, the pang an urgent message to a dormant, truer you.

Is it melancholy to think that a world that Robin Williams can’t live in must be broken? To tie this sad event to the overarching misery of our times? No academic would co-sign a theory in which the tumult of our fractured and unhappy planet is causing the inherently hilarious to end their lives, though I did read that suicide among the middle-aged increased inexplicably in 1999 and has been rising ever since. Is it a condition of our era?

...

What platitudes then can we fling along with the listless, insufficient wreaths at the stillness that was once so animated and wired, the silence where the laughter was? That fame and accolades are no defence against mental illness and addiction? That we live in a world that has become so negligent of human values that our brightest lights are extinguishing themselves? That we must be more vigilant, more aware, more grateful, more mindful? That we can’t tarnish this tiny slice of awareness that we share on this sphere amidst the infinite blackness with conflict and hate?

That we must reach inward and outward to the light that is inside all of us? That all around us people are suffering behind masks less interesting than the one Robin Williams wore? Do you have time to tune in to Fox News, to cement your angry views to calcify the certain misery?

What I might do is watch Mrs Doubtfire. Or Dead Poets Society or Good Will Hunting and I might be nice to people, mindful today how fragile we all are, how delicate we are, even when fizzing with divine madness that seems like it will never expire.

I found an echo of this thinking in his stand up show "God Complex" (warning: raunchy and quite blasphemous) when Brand said the following:

Why are they doing this to us?  Why are they positioning our heroes in these meaningless landscapes?  Why are they creating a cultural malaise in which nothing has nutrition; where our food lacks nutrition; where there's an emptiness in my stomach that can't be filled by drugs or fame or money?  Who is it that benefits from this system?  Who benefits from us having a void within ourselves that can never be filled?  Who is it that claims they can fill this void?

It is quite intriguing that Brand answers such questions in three ways: two in his article and one in his show.  1. Escaping by watching movies which have messages.  To enter stories.  2. To be nice to people mindful of our fragility and delicate nature.  3. Worshiping sexuality.

Unfortunately, none of these things satisfy.  None of them.  Show me one person who has had their hunger filled by entering into story after story after story and/or watching movie after movie after movie.

Show me one person who has become satisfied with being nice to people.

Show me one person who has become satisfied with having as many sexual encounters as possible.

They do not exist.  None of these things brings satisfaction, and they all lead to hopelessness.  There is always another story; another person who needs to receive some niceness; another encounter to be had.  There is always a desire which finds temporary fulfillment, but defies satisfaction.  If you place your self-worth in such things, you will only find disappointment.

But such things are the default setting for humankind.  These are the things we automatically search for.  Brand asks who benefits from this system?  (I'd not call it a system; I'd call it our selfish-nature.)  We all do.  We all seek our own benefit.  We all seek our own will to power as Nietzsche called it.  Our selfish gene dominates as Richard Dawkins would say.  And our selfish gene does not become satisfied.  Our will to power is never quenched.  And if that will to power is threatened; if our selfish gene becomes thwarted as our false idols crumble, what happens?

Despair.
Anger.
Frustration.
Hopelessness.
Escapism.
Depression.

What can bring satisfaction?  What can lead us away from the desires for our own will to power?  What can pound the selfish gene into submission so that it cannot dominate others or be easily exploited?

Only the Gospel.
Only God's action through Jesus Christ.

I have gone through this train of thought numerous times in this blog and in my more recent sermons.  I never realized just how the Gospel truly is the hope of humanity as I was caught up in my own will to power; my own selfishness.  I know I was on the path to despair and even hit a bit of depression.  The Gospel changed all that.

I know Robin Williams was a Christian, but I don't know if he grasped the power of the Gospel.  In his comedic routines, I'm not sure he did.  I think he saw Christianity as a set of rules and regulations.  I think Russell Brand does too.  In my estimation, this isn't good.  It shows a failure on the part of the Church to articulate what God has already done.  It shows the Church has been more concerned with advice instead of proclamation.

That proclamation brings lasting change and satisfaction.  It brings hope and peace and joy.

These are things much needed by the world.  Williams and Brand show us that unequivocally.

Is There Something Out There?

In a conversation with a congregation member this past Sunday, I invoked the name of Isaac Asimov.  My congregation member and I were discussing the relationship between science and faith and how there is quite a bit of arrogance on the part of both "sides" as they promote their particular points of view.

The reality, my congregation member pointed out, is "everyone has faith in something that cannot be proved."

For those who base their thought process in science, the idea everyone bases their thought processes in faith is abhorrent!  "Science is not about faith!!" they decry.  And then, in the name of science, they proclaim, "There is no evidence for God."  Their conclusion is logical.  However, I will argue, their conclusion stems from premises which are indeed faith based.  Isaac Asimov is helpful here.

Asimov, of course, was a brilliant author, biochemist and philosopher.  If you read his works, you will see that he has an incredible ability to remain logically consistent as he conveys philosophical and scientific truth.  His short stories weave these truths throughout and (hopefully) help the reader better to understand them.  In the short story "Reason" from I, Robot, the following dialogue is found as the two human characters try to deal with a "rogue" robot:

"Then, for the love of Jupiter, we've got to do something." Donovan was half in tears.  "He doesn't believe us, or the books, or his eyes."

"No," said Powell bitterly, "he's a reasoning robot--damn it.  He believes only reason, and there's one trouble with that--" his voice trailed away.

"What's that?" prompted Donovan.

"You can prove anything you want by coldly logical reason--if you pick the proper postulates.  We have ours and Cutie has his."

"Then let's get at those postulates in a hurry.  The storm's due tomorrow."

Powell signed wearily.  "That's where everything falls down.  Postulates are based on assumption and adhered to by faith.  Nothing in the Universe can shake them.  I'm going to bed."

(If one desires to deeply understand why Asimov places this in his stories, one can study and read up on Goedel's proof.)

The scientist may decry, "I have no postulates.  I have no assumptions.  I base everything upon what I can see and measure."

But what assumptions are built into the statement, "I base everything upon what I can see and measure?"

Just this: you are confined to the natural world.  You are confined to only the things you can see and measure.  Nothing more.  Using science, one cannot answer the question, "Is there anything beyond the physical universe?"  Based upon a method which requires measurement, duplication, reason, logic, and observation, one cannot come up with any absolute conclusion for what may lie beyond what can be measured, duplicated, reasoned, and observed.  One is limited.  The only thing one can do is look at the evidence provided within the physical universe and deduce whether or not something may or may not be beyond it.  One cannot arrive at any definite conclusion--at least based upon the assumptions.

If one recognizes this, then one easily sees that the statement, "God does not exist," is actually a statement of faith.  It is not a statement of science.  It is not a statement of fact.  It is not a statement of pure reason.  It is a statement based upon what one tries to deduce from looking at the evidence in the natural world and extrapolating to that which is beyond the boundaries of the natural universe. 

One may ask, "Well, what is the problem with that?"

From Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion:

"The human brain runs first class simulation software.  Our eyes don't present to our brains a faithful photograph of what is out there, or an accurate movie about what is going on in time.  Our brains construct [emphasis mine] a continuously updated model: updated by coded pulses chattering along the optic nerve, but constructed nevertheless."

Think about that statement long and hard.  If one's assumption is "There is nothing beyond our physical universe," then one's simulation software is set to interpret any data which comes in as supporting the assumption. 

On the other hand, if one's assumption is, "There is something beyond our physical universe," then one's simulation software is set to interpret the same data as supporting this assumption.

This is why believers and non-believers can look at the exact same evidence and come up with vastly different conclusions.  It has nothing to do with the quality of the evidence.  The evidence might be just fine--for both!!  However, it has everything to do with the assumptions governing the logic!

The cold, hard fact is that we do not know what lies beyond the bounds of our physical universe.  We will actually never know.  (Asimov is helpful here too, but I won't go there right now.)  By a statement of faith we can either say, "There is something out there." or "There is nothing out there."  Neither of these statements can be proved. They are both statements of faith.   We would do well to recognize this.

It might just help to tone down the rhetoric and settle a few court battles along the way.

At least I can dream, right?

Do We Have a Purpose?

This morning, as I was running, my thoughts turned to whether or not human beings have a purpose.

Of course, I believe we do.  As a believer in God, particularly the Christian God, I believe we were created for a reason which is highlighted in the Christian worldview.

But my thoughts actually turned to several debates I have watched on Youtube; particularly those debates involving Richard Dawkins.  Richard was asked questions about the purpose of human life several times, and (if I am remembering correctly) he seemingly dismisses them as absurd questions.

Many seem to be revolted at Dawkins' comments, but I think I understand them.  I think.

Dawkins, as a biologist does not think in terms of purpose.  Plants and animals don't have a purpose.  They are, and they strive to survive.  A dog does not think of itself as having a purpose.  Neither does a cat, dolphin, eagle, giraffe, whale, and so on and so forth.  As far as we know, no animal ever debates and wonders about why it is here.  IF (a big if) we are simply another animal in a long line of animals that has ever lived on this planet, then why should we be any different?  Why should we contemplate our purpose?  The question is actually irrelevant and not worth asking.  We are here.  We evolved from other animals.  We are driven to survive, and one day we will either evolve or die out.  End of story.  There is nothing more to contemplate.

IF, (as I said earlier) we are simply another animal.

Now, here is the rub, at least as I see it.

IF (a big if) we are simply like another animal, then what is to prevent us from acting like animals?  I mean, I study nature--not as a biologist, but as a hunter.  I know how animals act in nature--and even in domesticated settings.  They vie for power; for food; to be the apex predator or mate.  They cooperate, but only when it is in their best interest to cooperate--so that they can get something out of it.

• I had two female dogs who wanted to be dominant.  They fought constantly; horribly; terribly; over things my wife and I considered minor.  But any "minor" pack violation would set them off.  We ended up having to keep them separate for over 8 years.
• One day, while sitting in a deer blind, I heard the most God-awful sound.  A hawk swooped down out of the sky and killed a quail right before my eyes.  The strong killed the weak to devour it and gain strength.
• Oftentimes, the offspring of another male is killed by a dominant male looking to spread his genes.  Survival of the fittest and natural selection.
• Beta males and females turn to manipulative ways to further their advancement within particular colonies of species bypassing honesty and justice for self-serving need.
• Again, observations from a deer stand: one morning I watched 11 whitetail bucks in a field.  Half the time they spent eating the other half fighting for dominance.
• Nearly every animal species lives in a hierarchy.   There are those at the top and those at the bottom.  Those at the top live well.  Those at the bottom aren't so lucky.  That's just the way nature is organized for the most part.
• Polygamy is the rule in nature.  Monogamy is the exception.  

Why should we, as humans act any different?  Is there a good reason why we shouldn't perform any differently than what the vast majority of nature's species?  Here is one of the many places those who espouse Dawkins' worldview run into trouble.  IF we are nothing more than animals, then WHY shouldn't we simply act like them? 

I'm waiting...

And will remain waiting. 

Philosophers have wrestled for eons trying to figure out what distinguishes us from other animals.  Whenever something has seemed adequate, it is usually found lacking in some particular manner.  This is why Stephen Hawking famously said, "Philosophy is dead."  Philosophy hasn't been able to give us the answer. 

Hawking tries from a scientific perspective.  So does Dawkins.  In my estimation, they leave much wanting.  They fail to offer any insight as to why we should behave any differently than any other animal in the animal world. 

This is one of those reasons, I believe science is incomplete.  Because of its base assumptions, it cannot address these important questions.

Something more is needed.

I believe we need purpose.

The Probability of Life

I've had an interesting month or so when it comes to discussing the origins of life and its probability.

Last week's final post on God in school elicited a response from a friend who is a science teacher, and is someone I respect tremendously.  She outlaid what I knew to be true but didn't articulate clearly in my post.

Many teachers are forced to teach certain curriculum and have no say in how it is presented.

I think that is unfortunate, particularly when covering evolution and the origins of life.

Please understand this important point: I adhere to evolutionary theory as an explanation as to how life evolved on our planet.  I do not dispute this at all.  What I dispute is unguided evolution based on the probability of life originating and then evolving as rapidly as it has.

Please allow me to explain using the origin of life on our planet: DNA.

There is little dispute among the biological community that the first forms of life on our planet were simple bacteria.  There is little dispute that the building blocks of these bacteria are proteins composed of the DNA molecule.  There is little dispute regarding the DNA molecule and how it is in a double-helix shape composed of nucleotides.  These are composed of  nucleobases (guanine, adenine, thymine, and cytosine), recorded using the letters G, A, T, and C.  (Don't worry, I'm not going to get into anymore detailed scientific terms.  Please bear with me.  I think this is extremely important.)

Now, in the simplest of bacteria, there are hundreds of thousands of nucleobases.  This is important.  The human DNA has over 3 billion base pairs, dwarfing bacteria.  So, we are talking about the very, very basics.  Simple, correct?  And with the trillions of planets that must exist in our universe, life should be a slam dunk?  Correct?

Richard Dawkins, noted biologist and atheist gives the origins of life a one in a billion chance.  As such, he is a firm believer in the existence of life throughout the universe.  But I wonder where he got that one in a billion figure?  Is it that small?  And yes, I believe it is too small.

Interestingly enough, in a debate between Dawkins and John Lennox, who is a mathematician, Lennox states that he cannot believe that life developed randomly.  Dawkins, either sympathetically or condescendingly says, "I know that."  I think Dawkins would do well to study some mathematics and try to understand why Lewis says what he says.

I think I get it, and here is why:

The first nucleotide would be either a G,A,T, or C. It has a one in four chance of being the correct one or 25%. Not too bad a chance. But let's extend that down to ten places. Each place has a one in four shot, so we get 1/4 x 1/4 x 1/4.... or 1/4^10. That's a 1/1,048,576 chance that all 10 would come together. The odds are getting much smaller--already passing Dawkin's one in a billion chance. So, let's extrapolate down another 10 spots. 1/4^20 or 1/1,099,511,627,776. Those odds are essentially nil, zero, not a snowball's chance in h-e-double hockey sticks, and we are only to the 20th nucleotide. Would you ascribe such a coming together of chemicals to chance? Even if you have hundreds of billions of planets out there, do you really believe that number comes even close to lessening the odds? Statistically, not a chance. At all.

Somehow in the primordial soup that was our planet nearly 3 billion years ago, life emerged as these chemicals came together to form it. You can say that it happened by chance that these chemicals somehow did this on their own, but that's not exactly a very rational statement in light of the math. It's possible that it could have happened in such a fashion, but it is definitely more rational to believe that it didn't just happen on its own.

So, once again, we are left with three options presented to us regarding the origins of life:

1. Pure chance--mathematically laughable.
2. In an impossibly large number of parallel universes, we happened to be in the one that was just right--not evidence based as there is no way to measure or observe some sort of parallel universe by definition.  One must adhere to this option purely by faith.
3. Life was create--the most probable of the three given the numbers along with the fact that our universe began out of nothing and is finely tuned.

In our school systems, when it comes to teaching biology and the origins of life, #1 and #2 can be freely taught without repercussion despite the known difficulties.  I am of the persuasion that option #3 needs to be added as an option in our educational system.  It seems the most rational position.

Personal Experience, Proof of God, and Richard Dawkins

In the midst of writing my book, I came to the realization I would need to read Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion.  I had seen Dawkins debate Christian philosophers and scientists on Youtube, but I had yet to read his works.  Necessity drove me to finally purchase the book.

I have managed the first quarter of the book so far, and there is much to discuss--too much to manage in a blog post.  Dawkins' book actually received scathing reviews by many, and it is no surprise.  What perhaps is surprising is Dawkins' apologetics in dealing with those reviews in the Kindle Edition.  Basically, as I read him, he believes his critics are simply delusional--as is anyone who believes in God. 

Whether or not I am delusional, along with the majority of the world's population remains to be seen.  And I am currently writing a book to argue to the contrary; however, there is one item in Dawkins' book which I believe needs to be addressed: his rebuttal of the "Argument from Experience" for the existence of God.

Dawkins writes:

Many people believe in God because they believe they have seen a vision of him--or of an angel or a virgin in blue--with their own eyes.  Or he speaks to them inside their heads.  This argument from personal experience is the one that is most convincing to those who claim to have had one.  But it is the least convincing to anyone else, and anyone knowledgeable about psychology.  (Kindle Location 1397)

What makes Dawkins say such things?

The human brain runs first-class simulation software.  Our eyes don't present to our brains a faithful photograph of what is out there, or an accurate movie of what is going on through time.  Our brains construct a continuously updated model: updated by coded pulses chattering along the optic nerve, but constructed nevertheless.  (Kindle location 1414)

...[The brain] is well capable of constructing 'visions' and 'visitations' of the utmost veridical power.  To simulate a ghost or an angel or a Virgin Mary would be child's play to software of this sophistication.  And the same works for hearing. (Kindle location 1431)

That is really all that needs to be said about personal 'experiences' of gods or other religious phenomena.  If you've had such an experience, you may well find yourself believing firmly that it was real.  But don't expect the rest of us to take your word for it, especially if we have the slightest familiarity with the brain and its powerful workings.  (Kindle location 1471)

It may surprise you that I will not argue with Dawkins' commentary on the way the brain works.  My own studies through Bowen Family Systems Theory confirms exactly this phenomena of the brain.  In fact, it is well known that we all have a blind spot in each eye.  Yet, if we close one eye, no such spot appears.  Our brains fill it in!!!

Yes, indeed, our brains are capable of producing a model of reality, and they do it all the time.

But Dawkins has a problem here.  A big problem which he doesn't seem to grasp.  He uses this phenomena to argue against any sort of religious phenomena without admitting that his brain is running a model on the observations he too is relating to us about biology and evolution.  He may try to argue that he is subjecting his observations to rigorous methodology, but it is still being processed by his own simulator in his own brain.  And he certainly cannot argue that others have run the simulation and come up with the same results thereby confirming his own simulation because he admits: "Religious experiences are different only in that the people who claim them are numerous."  (Kindle location 1403) 

So, applying Dawkins' own argument to his works invalidates them, correct?  I hardly think he would agree, yet, this is the logical conclusion.

There is more to be said; however.  For Dawkins' only deals with the "simulation software's" ability to add things in.  What he does not delve into--either by choice or by ignorance--is that the simulation software in our brain also OMITS things.  Yes, you heard me correctly.  The simulation software omits things--especially when there is a bias attached; and there is always a bias attached.

Please watch the following video as illustration:

If you are like me, you rewound it just to make sure there wasn't some sleight of hand.

Did you see that your brain omitted something important?  Did you see how your simulation software omitted the obvious?

Perhaps Professor Dawkins knows this.  Perhaps he does not.  If he does and refused to include this important fact, I think he is guilty of major confirmation bias.  Why?

Well, if one admits that one's brain simulation software omits things based upon a particular bias...

And Dawkins' particular bias is a singular hatred (believe me, that's not too strong a word) of all things religious...

Then it is not only quite possible, but quite likely his brain omits and overlooks religious experiences that may be happening in his own life.  It is possible, even likely, Dawkins is missing something that is obvious to the rest of us: religious experience.

What Dawkins fails to recognize is the trustworthiness of the source.  It is quite possible to dismiss religious experiences as false among those who are indeed mentally ill and unbalanced.  It is quite another thing to dismiss them among people who live lives full of sanity, regularity, and normalcy (whatever that might be).  Dawkins lumps them all together, and in doing so--along with omitting a very important detail in how our brains work--falls far short of offering a dismissal of religious experience as proof of God's existence.