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.

The Hardest Sermon

Next Tuesday evening, I will quite possibly be preaching the most difficult sermon I have been called to preach in my years of serving as a pastor.

I do not wish to go into the details at this moment, but if you would, please begin lifting me up in prayer. 

Coincidence?

I just finished looking over the proposed Bible texts for Sunday.

The Gospel lesson is from Luke 10: 25-37--better known as the Parable of the Good Samaritan.

It just so happens that I read a neat little commentary on this passage while on vacation from Richard Bauckham's book: Jesus: A Very Short Introduction.

Coincidence?

I think not.

Guess which lesson I will be preaching on this Sunday?  :-)

Examining Motivations

Last week, I offered two posts which were highly critical of the theological methodology being used in the denomination of which I am a part: the ELCA.  No, I am not going back on those criticisms, but I am taking a moment to examine my motivations for writing as I did.

I am a student of Bowen Family Systems Theory.  This theory has some interesting things to say about criticism.

#1. Criticism is a form of pursuit.  Whenever a person is critical of you, that person actually desires to be in a relationship with you and feels like you are distancing yourself from him or her.

I won't dispute this point of BFST.  The more I have developed theologically, the more the ELCA has accepted certain forms of theology, the more I feel the ELCA is becoming more distant from me.  I'm not happy with this development since this denomination is my "parent."  It is the only church I have a memory of on the denominational level.

At this point, one might ask, "Why don't you just pack up and leave?  If you feel the church has left you, why not let it go and simply go on your own way.  Find a denomination where you feel comfortable."

Well, in all honesty, does one become a part of a congregation/denomination to be "comfortable"?  As a pastor, I have come to the point where I realize that sitting in the pew should be comforting and discomforting at one and the same time.  In fact, if I'm not uncomfortable, then there is little chance of theological/spiritual growth.  In order to better know one's identity and develop, one must engage others who are different.  So, comfort isn't the issue.

I am also one who has a high sense of commitment.  I am not one who walks away from relationships easily.  I try to give them every chance possible.  It would take massive infidelity on the part of another--a massive break of trust--for me to terminate any sort of relationship.

The ELCA isn't seeking to do anything which has pushed me to that limit at this time.  I hope it won't.  Are there some lines I won't cross.  Yep, but we aren't close to there now.

#2. Whenever you hear criticism from the least emotionally mature, you are doing something right.

This is an interesting tenet of BFST, and one that makes me ponder deeply.  Am I being critical because of pursuit?  Am I being critical because I am one of the least mature?  Am I being critical because I am taking a stand and preventing the choices of others from being invasive?

These are difficult questions because it is easy to say that I am the latter of the questions.  I want to define myself as someone who is emotionally and theologically mature who is taking a stand and refusing to accept the theological position of the ELCA.  But, I am well aware that nearly everyone would choose to see themselves as such.  No one likes to think that he or she is immature--emotionally or otherwise.

So, I am forced to ask myself whether or not I am immature.  Is it a possibility?  Sure.  I have to recognize this and walk carefully and humbly.

I am also forced to recognize the world in which we live.  There was a day and age when communication was limited and theological arguments were held in the academy and through journal publications and the publication of books.  But that day is long gone.  Because of the advent of the internet and the rise of relativism--anyone can be an amateur theologian.  Anyone can start up a blog--just as I did--and add their voice to the cacophony of voices.  There is so much sound being made, it is only the loudest who garner attention.  However, the loudest are not always the best theologians or the brightest.  The loudest sometimes simply yell just to hear their own voices.  The loudest oftentimes just shout to try and overwhelm the other voices which are out there and silence them through intimidation.

I hope I do not come across in such fashion.   I hope I am entering this fray being seen as having the intention I truly have: to call the church, particularly my own denomination toward reformation.  It is my belief the denomination has strayed too far from the orthodox faith and teaching.  Theologically, I believe she is on the wrong track, and I will do my best to plainly articulate why and hopefully to do so without malice.  That will be a huge challenge, but I am hoping to accomplish such a thing.

Whether or not my voice will be heard or make a difference remains to be seen, but at least my readers know my motivations.

Vacation Reading

I am thoroughly enjoying Richard Bauckham's Jesus: A Very Short Introduction.  So many of the historical Jesus books which have come out fail to deal with the totality of Jesus presented in the gospels.  They literally whittle Him down in an attempt to make Him "palatable" to the authors or to their supposed readers.

Bauckham doesn't whittle down.  He deals with Jesus as presented in these ancient, historical biographies we call the gospels.

One particular sentence grabbed me thoroughly in light of all of those who keep proclaiming, "Jesus sought out the outcast and poor and was non-judgemental."  Well, that's not exactly true when reading the gospels.  Those who portray Jesus in this fashion are actually being selective.  Most of the biblical scholars I read in college and seminary portrayed Jesus in this fashion.

Therefore, it is refreshing to read Bauckham's statement:

While he [Jesus] characteristically takes the part of the poor and the weak, he unrelentingly condemns the persistently wicked.

Yep.  If you read the gospels, you see Jesus doing exactly that.  It's exactly what one would expect from one who proclaimed the kingdom of God: Law and Gospel.  Good news for the oppressed and condemnation for those who persist in breaking God's will despite knowing it. 

Sanatizing the Bible Part II

Once is a mistake.  Twice is iffy.  Three times is a trend.  Four times...we've got issues.  Major issues, with the Revised Common Lectionary.   There is a definite trend in the types of Biblical passages being omitted by those selecting texts.  Your's truly is putting those omissions back into the readings since we print our own bulletins.

For the sake of record, I am going to begin posting blatant omissions from the Revised Common Lectionary.  I did so a while ago, and I am going to do so in the future to see if there is a pattern in what is omitted from the suggested texts.

On June 16th, the Old Testament suggested lesson is 2 Samuel 11:26-12:10; 13-15.  The omitted portion will be included in bold italics:

26 When the wife of Uriah heard that her husband was dead, she made lamentation for him. ²⁷When the mourning was over, David sent and brought her to his house, and she became his wife, and bore him a son.
But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord, ¹and the Lord sent Nathan to David. He came to him, and said to him, ‘There were two men in a certain city, one rich and the other poor. ²The rich man had very many flocks and herds; ³but the poor man had nothing but one little ewe lamb, which he had bought. He brought it up, and it grew up with him and with his children; it used to eat of his meagre fare, and drink from his cup, and lie in his bosom, and it was like a daughter to him. ⁴Now there came a traveller to the rich man, and he was loath to take one of his own flock or herd to prepare for the wayfarer who had come to him, but he took the poor man’s lamb, and prepared that for the guest who had come to him.’ ⁵Then David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man. He said to Nathan, ‘As the Lord lives, the man who has done this deserves to die; ⁶he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.’
7 Nathan said to David, ‘You are the man! Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel: I anointed you king over Israel, and I rescued you from the hand of Saul; ⁸I gave you your master’s house, and your master’s wives into your bosom, and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added as much more. ⁹Why have you despised the word of the Lord, to do what is evil in his sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. ¹⁰Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, for you have despised me, and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife. ¹¹Thus says the Lord: I will raise up trouble against you from within your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this very sun. ¹²For you did it secretly; but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.’ ¹³David said to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the Lord.’ Nathan said to David, ‘Now the Lord has put away your sin; you shall not die. ¹⁴Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord, the child that is born to you shall die.’ ¹⁵Then Nathan went to his house.

For June 30: the omitted portion is bold italics once again:

 1 Kings 19: 15-21

15Then the Lord said to him, ‘Go, return on your way to the wilderness of Damascus; when you arrive, you shall anoint Hazael as king over Aram. 16Also you shall anoint Jehu son of Nimshi as king over Israel; and you shall anoint Elisha son of Shaphat of Abel-meholah as prophet in your place. 17Whoever escapes from the sword of Hazael, Jehu shall kill; and whoever escapes from the sword of Jehu, Elisha shall kill. 18Yet I will leave seven thousand in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has not kissed him.’ 19 So he set out from there, and found Elisha son of Shaphat, who was ploughing. There were twelve yoke of oxen ahead of him, and he was with the twelfth. Elijah passed by him and threw his mantle over him. 20He left the oxen, ran after Elijah, and said, ‘Let me kiss my father and my mother, and then I will follow you.’ Then Elijah said to him, ‘Go back again; for what have I done to you?’ 21He returned from following him, took the yoke of oxen, and slaughtered them; using the equipment from the oxen, he boiled their flesh, and gave it to the people, and they ate. Then he set out and followed Elijah, and became his servant.





For July 7th: the omitted portion is bold italic again.  This portion is omitted in the ELCA and WELS suggested texts:

Luke 10: 1-20

After this the Lord appointed seventy others and sent them on ahead of him in pairs to every town and place where he himself intended to go. 2He said to them, ‘The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore ask the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest. 3Go on your way. See, I am sending you out like lambs into the midst of wolves. 4Carry no purse, no bag, no sandals; and greet no one on the road. 5Whatever house you enter, first say, “Peace to this house!” 6And if anyone is there who shares in peace, your peace will rest on that person; but if not, it will return to you. 7Remain in the same house, eating and drinking whatever they provide, for the laborer deserves to be paid. Do not move about from house to house. 8Whenever you enter a town and its people welcome you, eat what is set before you; 9cure the sick who are there, and say to them, “The kingdom of God has come near to you.” 10But whenever you enter a town and they do not welcome you, go out into its streets and say, 11“Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet, we wipe off in protest against you. Yet know this: the kingdom of God has come near.” 12I tell you, on that day it will be more tolerable for Sodom than for that town. 13 ‘Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the deeds of power done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 14But at the judgement it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon than for you. 15And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven?   No, you will be brought down to Hades.  16 ‘Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.’ 17 The seventy returned with joy, saying, ‘Lord, in your name even the demons submit to us!’ 18He said to them, ‘I watched Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning. 19See, I have given you authority to tread on snakes and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing will hurt you. 20Nevertheless, do not rejoice at this, that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.’

I raised the warning on such sanitizing a few months ago.  There seems to be an intentional omission of texts which refer to God's anger and actions against those who cross Him--even omitting what Jesus says.  Is it any wonder people ignore the idea that Luther put forth in his small catechism 500 years ago while explaining the 10 Commandments, "We are to fear and love God..."

Since God's strong judgement is omitted, many have gotten this wonderful idea God is simply love with no judgement.  The folks at the RCL are doing people in the pews no favors by omitting these texts and "sanitizing" the Bible.

Producing Good Fruit

    This past week, the Supreme Court of the U.S. made several decisions which upset half of our nation.  It’s not surprising considering the polarizing times we live in.  Of course, one of the ones that piqued the interest of many was the striking down of the Defense of Marriage Act which defined marriage as between one man and one woman.  This was either a cause for great celebration or of great mourning depending upon one’s particular perspective.  Depending upon where one stands, one either believes our country took a great step toward equality or has added further grease on the railway to hell.

    Most of you know where I stand on this particular issue.  If you have not read it in my blog, you have probably heard it.  And if you haven’t heard it and would like me to tell you, I will be happy to talk to you and explain where I stand and why; however, I do not believe this is the time or place to do such things.  What I wish to deal with this morning is something related but a bit different.  I would like to wrestle with the question of how the church is called to work in and with a society that does not share its particular worldview.  Now what do I mean by that?  Let me explain by taking one avenue in the Supreme Court’s decision regarding marriage.

    Historically, the Church has come to define marriage as the union between one man and one woman.  Now, this is not the only kind of marriage found in the Bible–we can do an at length Bible study on that sometime if you like–in fact, I actually just did one where we touched on such matters.  Most of the Christian church adheres to this definition, and those that do not are actually in the vast minority.  So, the question arises for such churches, “How does the church respond when society embraces a very different understanding of marriage?  What does the church do in such cases?”

●    Does it rush out to register tons of like minded voters to change government by ballot?

●    Does it send people out onto the street corners to warn about breaking God’s laws?

●    Does it seek to lobby government officials to pass laws which are in accord with its particular understanding of marriage?

●    Does it crawl into a hole and pretend the rest of society is wrong and that it alone holds the truth? 

●    Does it refuse to engage the surrounding culture and disassociate itself from it because it feels the surrounding culture is a horrid influence?

In some way, the church throughout history has embraced any one of these particular methods of response, but this morning I would like to argue for another way–a way which finds itself rooted and grounded in the earliest days of the Christian community before it ascended to power and prestige in the Roman empire.

    If one studies the history of the early church as it began to spread from Jerusalem and into the Roman
empire, one is struck by the fact that it began between a rock and a hard place.  The rock was Second Temple Judaism.  When the early Church proclaimed that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God, indeed, God incarnate who was raised from the dead, the leaders within Judaism saw this as blasphemy.  There was only one God–Yahweh–undivided who lived in the temple in the holy of holies.  Any claim outside of this–including that Jesus is Lord–was seen to be breaking the first and greatest commandment.  It was not too long before the Jewish authorities kicked the Christians out of the synagogue proclaiming that Christianity was incompatible with Judaism and was a heresy.

    This put the Christian church in a very precarious position.  For now it came up against the hard place: the Roman empire.  For, you see, the Roman empire actually tried to be a pretty tolerant place.  It accepted the practice of many and various religions within it–but those religions had to be authorized and accepted by the Roman government.  You had to be on the acceptable list.  Judaism was on that list.  Christianity was not.  This meant the Church could be justifiably persecuted within the Roman empire.  Simply by being a Christian, you could find yourself on the short end of persecution.  As I said, the early Church developed between a rock and a hard place.

    But that is not the half of it.  I don’t know how much you have studied about the Roman Empire, but it was not exactly a bastion of morality and justice–at least justice and morality as we understand it.  I am sure you have probably heard reference to the pax romana or the peace of Rome, but I wonder if you know how Rome enforced that peace?  Well, they weren’t exactly too particular about who they killed to enforce it.  And perhaps you have heard about Caligula and his reign of terror as Emperor and his wonton assassination of others before he himself was assassinated.  And in case you didn’t know where those infamous toga parties in college came from...well, let’s just say the Romans perfected such matters way before frats and sororities.

    It was into this social and political milieu the early Church was born.  And how did they handle such matters?  How did they handle such a society?  How did they strive to influence matters? 

●    Did they demand to be recognized as an acceptable religion?

●    Did they lobby the emperor or the Roman senate for acceptance?

●    Did they try to influence Roman law and change things from a legal standpoint?

I challenge you to read through the entire New Testament and find one place where they tried to do such things.  I challenge you to show one place where St. Paul, or St. Peter, or St. Stephen, or St. John admonished the Roman empire to change their laws or practices or policies so that Christianity might be accepted, acceptable, or it’s morals and understandings be accepted by the entire empire.

    You won’t find it.  At best, you will find the apostles testifying before kings and governors.  You will see them trying to convince them to become Christian, but you will not see them trying to make others follow Christ by changing governmental law.  That is simply not there.  Why?

    The early Church believed they had a mission regardless of what laws the surrounding culture enacted.  The early Church believed it had a mission regardless of the morality of the surrounding society.  The early Church had been commissioned by Jesus himself to make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and teaching everyone everything that Christ had taught.  The apostles threw themselves into this mission with reckless abandon.  Through their preaching and teaching, which was empowered by the Holy Spirit, others were convicted and began following Christ. 

    When the Christians practiced their faith and lived lives according to God’s guidance and God’s commands, the surrounding culture took notice.  Here was a group of people who voluntarily chose to live differently; move differently; talk differently; act differently; worship differently–who received no special privileges from the government or society–who at times was actively persecuted by the government and by authority.  Yet, despite this, they carried on.  They worked to tell others about Jesus no matter the circumstance.

    This is one of the reasons Christianity did and continues to flourish no matter what kind of government is in power.  The Church’s mission is not contingent upon what the government decides to do or not do.  The Church’s mission is not contingent upon what certain parts of the society embrace in regards to morality.  The Church’s mission is contingent upon the commands of Jesus Christ, and we are called to engage in it practicing a culture within a larger culture–engaging that larger culture and inviting people to leave those things behind and follow Christ.

    But we must be willing to do so ourselves.  We must be willing to embrace following Christ and practicing such faith right here and right now.  And we have guidance as to how such a community looks.  We have guidance in to how such a community functions.  We are shown what it means to produce fruit.  St. Paul reveals that fruit in the 5th chapter of the book of Galatians.  “Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, generosity, and self-control.”  These are the fruits inspired by the Holy Spirit.  Take a look around.  Are we as a church producing them?  Take a look in the mirror.  Do you see these fruits in your life?  Do you need the government or society making you produce them? 

    It doesn’t matter what the Supreme Court decides.  It doesn’t matter what laws the government passes.  We have a job.  We have a calling.  We are called to spread the good news of Jesus Christ and produce good fruit.  Stop worrying about what everyone else is doing or thinks–produce good fruit; spread the good news of Jesus.  The rest will take care of itself.  Amen.