Why Change?

Ismael commented on my last sermon, and he asked a very good question:

If I'm doing good and helping other people causing as little harm as I can... why to change?

Why indeed?

Of course, the simple answer is, one shouldn't.  I mean, I think we should all do good and cause as little harm as possible.

But let's delve a little bit deeper.  First, let me ask: what is good?  How do you know what is good?  What is bad?  What is indifferent?

Do you judge it based upon a particular outcome or the results?  Do the ends justify the means?
Do you judge something to be good because there is such a thing as intrinsic good and intrinsic worth?

If there is no God and no transcendent reality, then there is no such thing as intrinsic worth and intrinsic goodness.  That which is good or that which is bad is only a matter of perspective.  (Nietzsche)  I have seen a few attempts to argue for transcendence (Luc Ferry, A Brief History of Thought), but I think they fail to establish any sort of true argument for something beyond; or in other words to get to an "ought" from "is".

And if there is no way to establish something good because it is necessarily good by definition, then one is almost forced to enter into teleological ethics.  (The end result is the most important.)  Of course, teleological ethics rests on the premise that we should do the greatest good for the greatest number, but why should that be the case?  What grounds do you have for suggesting that this ought to govern our thought?  (That is the first problem.)  The second problem comes when the greatest good for the greatest number adversely affects the minority.  It was the greatest good for the greatest number to have slaves do all the agricultural work in the U.S. 200+ years ago.  It was not good for the slaves themselves, of course; but what recourse do you have for proposing that things should change?  The arguments against slavery all came from establishing the fact that slaves were people who had intrinsic value and worth and should not be claimed as property.  It was an appeal, not to the greater good, but to the Greatest Good--transcendent goodness.

We could probably spend more time arguing this point, but I will not belabor it any longer.  Ismael agreed with much of what I said in my sermon by his own admission in regards to transcendence and ethics.  Therefore, I will move on to the next issue--the issue of motivation.

Why does one engage in doing good and limiting the amount of harm caused?  If one is not engaged in doing good because something is inherently good (there is no transcendence), then essentially there are two motivations for doing good: 1) I like doing good and feel like what I am doing is good.  2) The other person needs me to do something for them, and I do it for their sake.

#1, I think we can agree is selfish motivation.  If I am pursuing good because of how it makes me feel, then I am engaging in it because I get a certain benefit from it.  I feel better about myself.  I feel good about what I have done and accomplished.

One may ask: what is wrong with this?

Nothing, to begin with.  The problem comes when others do not share your vision of what is good.  If I am a tolerant person who believes in allowing folks freedom to do things, then (by definition) I must also be tolerant of those who are intolerant.  Rarely does anyone do this.  In fact, those who preach tolerance are oftentimes vehemently opposed to those they deem intolerant.  They become just as self-righteous as those whom they deem intolerant!  Examples abound of this throughout the blogosphere.  One will suffice.

Before the ELCA website Living Lutheran changed its format and did away with comments, a very interesting exchange took place in a discussion over the ELCA's change to allow practicing homosexual clergy.  "Michael", a proponent of the change, adamantly defended the church's new position by saying, "If there are those in the church who don't like the decision, then they can just find another church."  Do you see the hypocrisy in the statement?  For if "those in the church who do not like the decision" should just find another church, then why didn't "Michael" do so when the church held the opposite position previously?  Why did "Michael" and others who fought for change simply leave previously?  Answer: Self-righteousness.  It pervades our churches and our society.  Why?

This is the inevitable outcome of doing things for one's self.  It becomes all about me, and I become self-righteous, narcissistic, and I even use others to accomplish what I want, convinced I am doing good.  (I do not say such things as someone who is immune from this.  I have been there, done that in a real way and am in a constant battle with my self-righteous, self-centered self.)

#2, might not seem to be such a bad thing.  I mean, we should do good to others for their sake and not our own.  We should be sensitive to their needs and concerns and do our best to ease their suffering.  There doesn't seem to be a downside to this one.

On the surface.

But as one who has experienced such things; as one who works in a helping profession, I can say quite honestly, if you live for others and try to satisfy their needs and ease their sufferings, you will burn out.  There is not enough of you to go around.  Plus, you will run into someone who does not have any boundaries who will literally suck you dry and take every ounce of energy you have.

You will strive to live up to their expectations and their needs, and you will eventually fall.  Evidence abounds for this among care-givers.  Not only will you burn out, but you will spend your entire life seeking your value and worth from others.  You will desperately want to hear their affirmation.  You will desperately want to receive their pats on the back.  And when such things are not forthcoming, you will fall deeply into despair.  It is not a pleasant place to be. 

Now, here is where things get interesting because one could argue for a third option.  One could "change one's mind" --remember, we are not talking about changing one's actions because I think we can agree that the actions of doing good and helping others are laudable--and say, "I neither act for myself nor act for others.  I seek to do good because there is an ultimate Good."

For the sake of this blog post, I will call that ultimate Good, God.  Why?  Well, if there is an ultimate Good--an ultimate sense of what is right and what is wrong--then that had to come from somewhere.  We didn't make it up.  If we did, we are right back to perspectivism and Nietzsche.   If there is a natural law of what is right and wrong, then it is logical to assume a Law Giver--an ultimate Good. (C.S. Lewis develops this argument much more fully in Mere Christianity.)

Now, I must ask myself whether or not I achieve that ultimate Good?  Do I accomplish the good I need?  Do I do a reasonable enough job of accomplishing enough good and easing the suffering of others?  Do I fulfill this sense of the natural law that I find inherent in nature?

I think, if we are honest with ourselves, we know that we do not.  We know that we do not ease the suffering of others as much as we could.  Most of the time, we give out of our abundance--where it doesn't affect our lifestyle or our ability to do the things that we want to do.  We give as long as we are comfortable.  We ease the sufferings of others as long as we don't feel put out by it.  We enjoy the fruits of others' labor even if that labor cost someone else dearly.  At the very least, we are contributors to the brokenness and injustice of this world.  We do not live up to that natural law.

One may choose to argue this point, so let me delve into it just a little further.  C.S. Lewis showed in his book The Abolition of Man, that nearly every culture and philosophy shared the common axiom "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."  Nearly everyone I know believes this axiom should be followed.  Some folks do relatively well in sticking to it, but not fully.  How so?  Well, if I am going to do unto others as I would have them do unto me, then if I were poor and hungry, then I would want folks to help me out whenever I was in this state.  I would desire them to give me enough that I might be able to have the necessities of life.  Perhaps an individual would not be able to give me enough to sustain me, but through a collective effort, I would have enough.  This would mean, that if I had enough, I would give a little bit to every poor person I encounter.  I would willingly and graciously give to everyone who begged, even if it were a trifle amount.  The question is: do I do so?  Do I give even a little bit to everyone who begs from me--who believes him or her self poor and in need?  Regardless if I do not think they are in need, do I still give because the other believes he or she is in need?   Does anyone fulfill this to the extent of what is required?  Short answer: no.

So, where does that leave us in relationship to the Law Giver?  If we are not fulfilling the Law to the extent necessary, where does that leave us?  If we have no sense of shame or guilt, then it leaves us exactly nowhere.  I can simply go about my life thinking I am good enough even if I don't follow the universal axioms.  I can convince myself that I'm doing my part and should be satisfied with doing that part even if it isn't the fullest extent of what I can do.  If you find yourself in this category, then I simply make one observation: you cannot judge another person ever.  You cannot make any sort of moral judgement or statement about the beliefs and practices of another for you have no moral high ground to operate from.  You cannot tell anyone "you should do unto others" because you are not following the axiom yourself, and you must be content with what others choose to do and allow them to be just as satisfied with the job they believe they are doing as you are satisfied with yours.

But if I know that I do not follow the axiom to the extent it needs to be followed, and if I have a sense of shame and guilt about this, then I know I need to do something to rectify the situation.  I need to somehow make amends for not following through in doing what I know I am supposed to do.  I need to make things right within myself and with the Law Giver.  And how do I do that?

Every other religion and philosophy says, "Try harder."  "Do more."  "Overcome your selfish nature by your own strength."

The problem is, we cannot.  Why?  Well, first off, we are acting in our own self-interest when we do such things.  We are not acting in the interest of others or in the interest of the Greatest Good.  Our self is at the center, and we will head right down the path of self-righteousness.  Secondly, even when we try harder, we still will not accomplish the extent of following the axioms.  "Do unto others..."  If I followed this to the extent necessary, I would exhaust my resources and then be dependent upon others to give to me.  In a perfect world, that might work out, but we do not live in a perfect world...  History is replete with folks who say try harder, and time and again, it doesn't work out.

Only Christianity offers an alternative.  Only Christianity says, "You cannot make amends for your failure to follow the axioms of the Law Giver.  You cannot overcome your guilt and shame by trying harder.  You cannot walk a path that will not lead to self-righteousness or to self-destruction on your own.  You will either be dominated by self or be dominated by others.  Therefore, since you do not have the ability to change and overcome; since you cannot break out of this reality, the Law Giver will act to change the situation."

And the Word became flesh and lived among us...

God took on flesh and lived among us, not to take advantage of us (as in many of the Greek and Roman myths), but to die for us.

In no other religion or philosophy does God die on behalf of His creation.  Only Christianity.  (There is much, much more to it than this.  Books have been written explaining this further.  I am trying to condense it into a very small blog post, and I am just not doing it justice!!!)

And Christianity says, "To the extent you believe in what God has done for you, you will be able to overcome your selfish nature and accomplish following the great commands; not because you have to or because your self-worth or satisfaction or salvation depends upon it, but because you are thankful for what has been done on your behalf."

It is a radical departure from every other train of thought, and it is either crazy because it goes against the way the world works, or it is brilliant because its origins do not originate in the way the world actually works. 

And it is this last point which leads me to say this is why one should change.  For in Jesus we find a path that does not lead to self-righteousness (it can't because we have to acknowledge our inability to follow the universal axioms).  Neither does it lead to destruction of self through trying to please others (for we do not get our value and worth from pleasing others and doing all the right things).  It also answers how we are justified in not following the universal law or axioms (not by our own action but by the action of the Law Giver), and frees us from the guilt and shame of not fulfilling what we know we should do.  And last, it gives us the ability to point to what we ought to do because the Laws are still in effect--they are our guide in right and wrong, but we point to them in humility not in arrogance.

(If you would like to delve into this more, I highly recommend C.S. Lewis' book Mere Christianity and Timothy Keller's book The Reason for God.  I cannot even come close to doing justice to what these apologists have done in explaining the Christian faith.)

The Importance of Reformation Sunday

  

 Why is Reformation Day so important?

    C.S. Lewis, in his appendix to the book The Abolition of Man showed how nearly every single culture in the world; every single philosophy; every single world religion espoused one particular axiom.  In effect, C.S. Lewis showed that the axiom “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” is a universal truth and teaching found in every culture and teaching.  That’s a rather astounding thing considering how diverse cultures are throughout the world.  It’s rather astounding since they all begin with different assumptions about how the world works and how it came into being.  It’s rather astounding that as varied and as different as we are as human beings, there is one universal thing we all claim to grasp and understand.  We should do unto others as we would have them do unto us. 

    But there is an interesting corollary to this universal axiom.  It’s a corollary that is not usually talked about in various academic circles.  Because if the axiom “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” is indeed a universal teaching, the corollary which follows is, no one does it.  No one does to others what we would like them to do unto us. 

    Think about it.  Think about it really hard, and think about it honestly.  How many of us are as patient with others as we would like them to be patient with us?  How many of us as are considerate of others as we would like them to be considerate of us?  How many of us are forgiving of others as we would like them to be forgiving of us?  How many of us truly talk as kindly of others as we would like them to talk kindly of us?  How many of us are as generous to others as we would like them to be generous to us?  And the list goes on and on and on.  If we are honest with ourselves, we do not even come close to following this universal axiom.

    And if we are honest with ourselves, we know we have no excuses.  We know what we should do.  We know how we should act.  But we don’t do it.  Either because we can’t or because we won’t.

    St. Paul knew this.  He knew it well, and so he penned these words from the third chapter of the book of Romans, “Now we know that whatever the law says, it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.  For ‘no human being will be justified in his sight’ by deeds prescribed by the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin.”

    What is Paul saying?  He’s saying exactly what I just said about doing unto others.  We know we should, but we know we don’t.  And when we are honest with ourselves, we are silenced.  We know we have no room to talk.  We know we have no room to tell anyone else to shape up because we are out of shape.  We know we have no room to condemn anyone else for failing to follow the teaching because we don’t follow it ourselves.  Our mouth’s are silenced.  And if this axiom comes from God–which most folks believe it does, then we must be held accountable to God because we have broken His command.

    And here’s where things begin to get a little interesting.  Because here is where Christianity begins to make a clean break with the rest of the world.  Every other philosophy and every other religion’s answer to accountability is thus, “Try harder.”  Yep, you heard right.  If you aren’t doing such a good job of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, try harder.  Work harder.  Try to be a better person.  Satisfy God and justify yourself by following that command. 

    And why shouldn’t that be the answer?  I mean, that is what we are taught from the time we are infants and throughout adulthood.  When you are starting to walk and you fall down, parents say, “Get up and try it again.  Sooner or later, you will get it!”  When our kids have trouble in school learning math or reading or writing, we say, “Practice, work harder.  You will get it!”  When we start working at a job and not doing so well at it, our supervisor (if he or she is patient) says, “Keep after it.  You will figure it out before too long.”  Over and over and over, we get told this.  Over and over and over, we implement it.  Sometimes we are successful, and oftentimes we get the idea in our heads that if we simply just keep trying; if we just keep after it long enough; things will come together and we can accomplish anything!  Nothing can ever hold us back!  And where does that lead us if we truly have this mindset?  Where does this lead us in regards to others who struggle and have a hard time?   Do we become patient with them?  Do we become understanding with them?  Do we offer them positive encouragement over and over and over?  Maybe some of the time, but certainly not always.  For it is far too easy to become contemptuous and angry at those who don’t seem to get it as quickly as ourselves.  It is far too easy to become self-righteous and say, “I was able to do it; they should be able to do it too.”  And we look down our nose at others.  Do unto others...do you like it when others look down their nose at you?  Of course not.  Very few do.  But this is inevitably where “try harder” gets you.  It gets you right back to breaking the command–the very place you tried to get away from to begin with.

    Christianity is different; however.  Christianity offers a different path.  Instead of try harder, Paul lays out the alternative:
 
    “For ‘no human being will be justified in his sight’ by deeds prescribed by the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin.”  Following the law doesn’t justify us.  It only leads to despair or self-righteousness.  It cannot break us out of the cycle.  It can only show us what we have done wrong.  I wouldn’t know I was breaking the speed limit unless I saw the speed limit sign.  Because there is a sign, I know I am breaking the law!  Slowing down doesn’t justify me from having broken the law in the first place!!  So what does?  What does justify me?  What makes things right?

     “21 But now, irrespective of law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, 22the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, 23since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; 24they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith.”  The answer Paul gives is, “It’s not your actions.  It’s Jesus’ actions.”  By breaking the command of God, you have earned His punishment.  You have earned His anger and His wrath.  You must pay the price for doing what you know to be wrong.  God cannot allow such breaking of the command to go unpunished because then God would not be just.  But instead of you facing the punishment; instead of you facing God’s wrath, Jesus–the God made flesh–stepped in on your behalf.  Jesus, offered Himself to die and endure the wrath of God upon the cross so that you wouldn’t have to.  This is the sacrifice of atonement Paul spoke of.  He took your place.  He took the punishment which you were destined for.  You couldn’t do unto others; Jesus did.

    In some ways this doesn’t make sense to our way of thinking.  If you commit the crime, you should be held accountable.  If you do the wrong, you should face the punishment.  If you break the law, you should face justice.  On one level, we know this very, very well.  But let me put it to you another way–a way I think you may grasp very easily.  Most of us who are parents have a rule for our children: don’t play in the street!  It’s a pretty hard and fast rule for many of us.  Now, what parent who sees his child playing in the street with a car approaching would allow the car to run over the child because, after all, the child broke the rule and deserves what he or she gets?  What parent would allow his or her child to be gravely injured or to die because the rule got broken?  What parent would allow this tragedy to befall his son or daughter?  None that I know of.  And yet, I know of many a parent, who would gladly and willingly run into the street, breaking the parent’s own rule to save his or her child.  I know many a parent who would gladly die to save his or her child from immanent death.  Take my life instead because I love my child.  The answer would not be try harder to follow mommy and daddy’s rule.  The answer at that point–when the rule is already broken and death is immanent–is save your child even at the expense of your own life.

    “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son so that all those who believe in Him should not perish but have eternal life.  For God sent the Son into the world not to condemn the world but so that the world may be saved by Him.”

    And now, we put our trust in this saving action.  We put our faith in this saving action.  We do not trust ourselves to follow the commands because we know we cannot fully accomplish them.  Instead, we throw ourselves on the mercy of Jesus who did follow the commands and who took our place.

    “Then what becomes of boasting? It is excluded. By what law? By that of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law.”  And since we are justified–we are made right by what Jesus has done and not what we do, can we boast?  Can we brag about how well we have done unto others?  Can we brag about how well we have followed the Law and made ourselves right with God?  Can we brag that we have done enough to warrant God’s love for us?  No.  We can’t.  Because we did nothing.  Jesus did everything.  We are justified apart from the works of the Law.  We are justified by Jesus and trust in His action not our own.

    Oh, there are more than a few folks–even within the church–who would like us to operate the way the world works.  There are more than a few folks–even within the church–who would like to think our salvation is contingent upon our actions and our ability to follow the Law.  They would gladly tell us to get our lives in order lest we find ourselves damned.  They would gladly tell us we must do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with God lest we incur God’s wrath.  They would gladly tell us to stop drinking, smoking, dancing, and expressing our sexuality or the devil will play with our souls for eternity.  They would gladly tell us we must give 10% of our income to the church or God will strike us down.  They will gladly tell us God sends things like the Ebola virus or famine or drought to punish us for what we do–hoping that we will repent and cease our destructive behavior.  They will gladly try to rope us back into trying to be like every other philosophy or religion that is out there.  They will gladly try to get us to try harder.

    But that is why we need Reformation Day.  That is why we need to be reminded of the Gospel.  This is why we need the Martin Luther’s of the world–we need to be reminded that Christianity is not basically about what we do, but about what God has done through Jesus Christ saving you by His grace through faith.  Amen.

Evidence of Natural Law?

An intriguing article from CNN: Are We Born with a Moral Code?

Some pertinent snippets:

Philosophers and psychologists have long believed that babies are born "blank slates," and that it is the role of parents and society to teach babies the difference between right and wrong; good and bad; mean and nice.

But a growing number of researchers now believe differently. They believe babies are in fact born with an innate sense of morality, and while parents and society can help develop a belief system in babies, they don't create one.

And:

So what does this tell us? Paul Bloom, author of "Just Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil" and a professor of psychology at Yale, says these studies show that even before babies can speak or walk, they judge good and bad in the actions of others because they are born with a rudimentary sense of justice.  But Bloom, who is married to Wynn, says this sense of justice is "tragically limited." Although babies are born with an innate sense of morality, they are also born with flaws.

 

He writes: "We are by nature indifferent, even hostile to strangers; we are prone towards parochialism and bigotry. Some of our instinctive emotional responses, most notably disgust, spur us to do terrible things, including acts of genocide." And the role of parents and society is to overcome these limitations and further develop the innate moral beliefs that already exist in those baby minds.

 I personally could have saved them thousands of dollars and hours of time if they'd have listened to the Christian worldview.

#1. Everyone is born with a sense of the natural law.  We know there is a right and a wrong.  Kids pick up on injustice and unfairness at a very, very early age.  (Get two 18 month olds in a room.  Give one a piece of candy.  Don't give the other one a piece.  See what happens.  This study just took it back 15 months or so.)

#2.  Even our understanding of the natural law is limited.   "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."  "I know the good I ought to do, but I do the very opposite of what I know to be good."  (That's St. Paul, by the way.)

Now, I know this is a news story.   I know such stories are usually used to stir controversy.  I also do not know the numbers involved in the story.  The methodology seems to be pretty sound, but I don't know any of the margins of error or probabilities.  This may well be like other psychological studies that have often taken place: the initial study shows incredible results, but the next one has quite the diminished result and the next one even less.  More will need to be done.

However, the conclusions shouldn't be a mystery to anyone with a Christian worldview.

Of course, the next question which must be answered if indeed this study can be replicated:

If we have an innate sense of the natural law, from whence did it come?

Another "Ask the Pastor" Response

A few months back, I addressed an "Ask the Pastor" question from the ELCA Living Lutheran Website where I believed the responses given were a bit inadequate.  Today, I sense the urge to do so once again.

Today's question is a very important one raised by Bob Lawrence from Chicago:

It’s evident that violations of the laws of nature do not occur in our universe. Christianity depends on the existence of events that violate those laws. How can an intelligent human being be a Christian?

The responses given by fellow clergy are predictable and do little to actually further the discussion.  Essentially, they say, "We live by faith not by science or the laws of nature." or "We don't understand or know all the laws of nature."  Admittedly, these statements are true; however, they will not convince Bob or anyone else who comes with Bob's premise to give faith a shot. 

A congregation member of mine, Rick Shilling, is very prominent in the world of heat exchange engineering.  He is a tremendous person of faith as well as a very, very good scientist.  He and I have written the following response.  Rick's additions are distinguished by being in red print :

An excellent question, Bob, but I would like to challenge the premise a bit.  Which laws of nature are you referring to?  The laws of Quantum Mechanics or the Laws of General Relativity?  I hope you are aware that these two theories dominate the discussion of the way the world works.  Quantum Mechanics deals with the subatomic world and General Relativity deals with large objects.  They both work very, very well; yet, we also know they are incompatible.  You cannot extend General Relativity's laws into the Quantum world, because they do not work well there and vice versa.  This has troubled scientists, and, at least for a time and quite possibly still, the Holy Grail of science was a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) which brought these two areas into accord.  It still hasn't been found, and, in fact, it is quite possible that it will never be.  Why?

One must take up the study of mathematics for a little while, particularly the proof of a German mathematician by the name of Kurt Goedel.  He wrote a rather short paper On Formally Undecidable Propositions in Principia Mathematica and Related Systems I where he proved the limitations of all but the simplest of systems of thought and logic.  Goedel wrote the paper in such a way that its implications spilled over into the realms of not only mathematics but science and philosophy as well.  Long and short of it, each and every system of thought is limited.  It cannot cover all of the bases.  Exceptions will always arise.  Let that sink in a moment.   (I direct your attention to Stephen Hawking’s book The Grand Design, where if you can overlook his poor attempts to play philosopher in the name of atheism, you can find a good intro explanation of a new concept in physics called “m-theory” where specific sets of scientific “laws” are used only within defined length scales since their inaccuracies are too great outside of these length scales.)

It is because of Goedel that the term scientific law has basically been abolished.  (Ever wonder why Einstein’s theory of relativity is still called a theory after more than 100 years of successful testing, more than most any other accepted scientific theory had undergone in the past before being called a scientific law ?)The term is kept around out of respect for Newton and others who first formulated the concept; however, science does not talk in terms of certainty any longer because we have discovered that no law is always true at all times and in all circumstances.  Again, take a moment to let that sink in.

When it comes to dealing with interactions in the world, scientists now talk in terms of probability.  There is high probability and low probability.  There are even cases of extremely minute probability--for instance the probability of a person being resurrected from the dead.  It is highly improbable, but it is not impossible--at least according to science.   In engineering, where scientific laws are applied to development of real world technologies, the use of probabilities and/or safety factors in design are always included to protect the public.

This means, Bob, unfortunately, your premise is flawed.  However, the confusion is understandable and common.

First of all, the secondary education system performs a disservice to its students by teaching the "laws of physics" as if they were immutable truths instead of very accurate approximations best suited for use within certain limits. This "new" understanding became widespread in the practicing scientific community in the early decades of the 20th century but, unfortunately did not filter down to the masses. In addition, universities avoided teaching the full implications of Godel since they did not wish to sow uncertainty among their students who were struggling under heavy course loads. Nowadays, many university professors have never learned that much of Godel and proceed merrily along as if all things were determinant.

Secondly, there are some Christians who adopt a simplistic understanding of what they read in the Bible that cannot easily be defended. This is because as human beings we always "fill in the blanks" of everything we read in our attempts to understand. For most children, the Bible is understood as God performing a series of magic tricks without realizing that the magic tricks are their additions of what they have read to try to understand it. If a reader has not learned how to separate his "filling in of the blanks" from the actual written text, this reader can incorrectly misinterpret new learning as in conflict with what he believes is written in the Bible. Unfortunately, the public protests of some of these Christians get disproportionately high exposure, sometimes drowning out the majority of Christians who do not see any conflicts and are quite comfortable with both science and Christianity.

Thirdly, there are some in the atheistic community who cannot accept the fact that atheism is also a choice. This has to be troubling, if one believes in the infallibility of man or science and then discovers some of the limitations of science or of human thought. Often, some write a protest in defense of atheism by trying to use science and a childlike understanding of Christianity to prove their point. This has always failed and probably always will because neither science nor mankind is completely infallible. There are always choices that must be made.

The Christian faith does not rest upon the necessity of natural laws to be broken.  In fact, it is quite compatible with what we have come to understand as the way the world works.

And as those of us who believe in God begin to understand more and more about how the world works, we marvel at God's handiwork.  Far from a "God of the gaps" approach, we see intricacy and wonder.  We are stupefied by the physical constants and how they are just right to support intelligent life.  We marvel at how evolution brought about thinking, intelligent beings out of primordial, unthinking sludge.  Far from dismissing what science has shown us about the natural world, we embrace what science has shown us about the majesty of God.  It's not that difficult to be an intelligent person and believe in God--even the Christian God.  Just ask Francis Collins who headed up the Human Genome Project.