Category Archives: Religion

Does God Pose an Authority Problem for You?

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Many of the people I know who reject God or who have crafted a God that makes no demands on them have a fundamental problem with authority.  They don’t want anybody telling them what to do.

For a person who wants complete autonomy, who chafes at the thought of anyone having authority over them, a creator God who makes demands is way inconvenient.

Many people who believe in God, but also have this authority hang-up, create their own version of God.  This God gives them what they want when they want it.  He approves of everything they do, as long as they are just trying to be happy.  He encourages them to follow their desires, wherever they lead.  C. S. Lewis compared this God to a senile, old grandfather who never says “no” to his grandchildren.  You want chocolate for breakfast, lunch, and dinner?  No problem!

Is this the Christian God?  Philosopher Paul Moser answers the question:

It would be a strange, defective God who didn’t pose a serious cosmic authority problem for humans.  Part of the status of being God, after all, is that God has a unique authority, or lordship, over humans.  Since we humans aren’t God, the true God would have authority over us and would seek to correct our profoundly selfish ways.

If you are “worshiping” a God who makes no demands on you, you’re worshiping no God at all.  You’re just trying to find a deity to make you feel good about your selfish choices.  What’s the point?

Who Are the Free Thinkers?

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Many skeptics of  Christianity proudly point out that they are “free thinkers.”  This expression used to confuse me, as I consider myself a free thinker, but clearly I could not be one in the same way the skeptic means it.  After talking to several skeptics, I discovered that “free thinker” is mostly a synonym for “atheist.”  The general idea seems to be that religious people are trapped in their thinking by the family and culture they were born into, whereas atheists are not – they are free to think as they please.

If you were born into a Christian family and culture, then it is natural for you to believe Christianity.  If you were born into Hindu-dominated India, it is natural for you to believe Hinduism.  Wherever we are born largely determines what kind of god we believe in, according to the free thinkers.

For skeptics, a person becomes a free thinker when they escape the chains of their family and culture.  I don’t know what atheists call themselves when they grow up with atheist parents who live in a non-religious community.  It seems like they’re trapped in their thinking just like the religious folks, but that’s a topic for another time.

There are two points I want to make about this idea of being born into your religion.  First, skeptics of Christianity do us a favor when they point out that many Christians have never questioned what they were taught growing up.  It is true that many Christians have merely taken on their parents’ beliefs without any reflection of their own.  Often this can lead to a shallow faith that collapses at the first signs of trouble.  Additionally, the Bible is quite clear that a person is never physically born into a saving relationship with God.  The decision to embrace Jesus Christ is a personal one that cannot be made by one’s parents.  Growing up in a Christian home absolutely does not guarantee a person’s salvation.  It is truly dangerous to take on your parents’ beliefs without thinking about them for yourself.

Second, we have to be clear that just because a person takes on the beliefs of her parents or surrounding culture does not mean that those beliefs are false.  Even free thinking skeptics admit that many things their parents taught them are true.  The source of a person’s beliefs have nothing to do with the truth of those beliefs.  I may be told that God exists by a genius or by a moron – it doesn’t matter when it comes to the truth of God’s existence.  In fact, philosophers long ago spotted the error in confusing the source of a belief with its truth – they call it the genetic fallacy.

So, to Christians, I say think about your beliefs for yourself.  Weigh the claims of your faith.  Apply your mind to its teachings.  If your parents were Christian, that’s wonderful, but it doesn’t guarantee you a relationship with God.  You have to do that on your own.

To skeptics, I remind them that the source of a person’s beliefs have nothing to do with the truth of those beliefs.  If a free thinker is someone who has critically examined the beliefs given him by his parents and community, then there are plenty of Christians who are free thinkers and plenty of atheists who are not.

Is There a Pagan in the Next Cubicle?

Post Author: Bill Pratt

A friend of mine recently forwarded me excerpts of an email sent around by his company’s HR department on Paganism.  The email article was entitled “The Pagan in the next cubicle (or office, or lab).”  This is a major US company with thousands of employees.  Here is what he sent me:

A Pagan employee will hold ethics emphasizing personal freedom and responsibility.

Pagan ethics allow personal freedom within a framework of personal responsibility. The primary basis for Pagan ethics is the understanding that everything is interconnected, that nothing exists alone and that every action has a consequence.

No concept of forgiveness of sin exists in the Pagan ethical system; the consequences of one’s actions must be faced. No arbitrary rules about moral issues exist either; instead, every action must be weighed against the awareness of what harm it could cause.

A Pagan employee will hold a paradigm that embraces plurality.

Because Pagan religious systems hold that theirs is a way among many, not the only road to truth, and because Pagans revere a variety of deities among their pantheons, both male and female, a Pagan employee will believe that each person is free to choose his or her own destiny, and will not believe in evangelizing or proselytizing.

One advantage of this is that a Pagan employee will thrive in a pluralistic environment, eager to support an atmosphere that discourages discrimination based on differences such as race or gender and encourages individuality, self-discovery and independent thought.

A Pagan employee is also likely to have knowledge of other religions; most Pagans have explored other spirituality before deciding on their own. Because Neo-Paganism’s mainstream popularity is less than 50 years old, few Pagans were born in the faith, but those who are were likely taught about many religions as well.

Pagan parents are adamant about not forcing their beliefs on the child but rather teaching them and letting the child decide when he is of age. Despite its sometimes-misunderstood beliefs, Paganism is believed to be the fastest-growing religion today.

What can be said about this?  First of all, estimates are that about 300,000 people are practicing Neo-Pagans in the US (latest study done in 2001).  That equates to roughly 0.1% of the population, so I’m wondering why this warrants a company-wide email.  You have a better chance of meeting a space alien than a practicing Pagan.

Second, there seems to be an anti-traditional religion undercurrent in the email, based on the contrasts that are being made.  The writer approvingly notes that “Pagan parents are adamant about not forcing their beliefs on the child” and that “Pagans have explored other spirituality before deciding on their own.”

The message seems to be that teaching a child the religious traditions of his family is a bad thing, that more enlightened Pagan parents don’t do this.  Several things could be said here.  It’s highly dubious that Pagan parents aren’t teaching their children about Paganism.  At the very least, the children can see the parents practicing their religion, which is very influential in and of itself.  Secondly, if Pagan parents believe that their conceptions of reality are correct, then they would be doing a grave disservice to their children by not teaching them.  Do they want their kids to fail?  If the Pagan parent answers that they don’t have any truths about reality as embodied in their religion, that it’s all about subjective experience, then they aren’t practicing a religion after all – religions make truth claims about reality.

Third, the email commented that “no arbitrary rules about moral issues exist either; instead, every action must be weighed against the awareness of what harm it could cause.”  Arbitrary rules?  Is that what the writer thinks of the moral codes of traditional religions, that they are arbitrary?  To a person who wants total personal autonomy with no restrictions, moral laws may seem arbitrary, but to the person who actually wants to live in a just society, traditional moral rules are anything but arbitrary.  The fact that most people live by traditional moral values is the only thing that allows “we don’t have arbitrary moral rules” individuals to have their personal autonomy.  They can live as parasites as the rest of society does all of the heavy lifting.

Fourth, the comment about Pagans being especially able to foster a pluralistic work environment is mystifying.  It is Christianity that has allowed pluralism in many forms to flourish in the US.  Most Christians understand that even though we wish to share our beliefs with others, they are free to reject our proselytization.  We believe that God has endowed each human with free will, the ability to love God or reject Him.  It does not, therefore, follow that non-evangelizing religious groups are more accepting of diversity in the workplace than evangelizing religious groups.

An interesting question arises, though.  If Neo-Pagans are not telling their children about their beliefs, and they are not telling other adults about their beliefs (evangelizing), then how does anyone become a Neo-Pagan?  They must be telling somebody if their numbers are growing, right?  Am I missing something?

Finally, can you imagine an email like this going out about Christianity?  No, I can’t either.  After all, Christians teach their children their beliefs, they proselytize, and they believe in actual moral rules.  Clearly there is nothing to learn from them.

Have You Signed the Manhattan Declaration Yet?

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Almost one year ago, I wrote a short blog post asking our readers to sign a document called the Manhattan Declaration.  Why am I back again asking you to sign?  Because we need more of you to participate.

So far, the declaration has gathered 476,000 signatures – impressive, but not enough.  We should easily be able to get over 1 million signatures on this document – after all, if you are a Christian, or a person who believes in the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage, and the sanctity of religious liberty, then you should have no problem signing this document.

What does the declaration say about these issues?  Well, you can read it for yourself in full, or you can read a few excerpts from it below.

First of all, why these three principles instead of a myriad other possibilities?

Because the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife, and the freedom of conscience and religion are foundational principles of justice and the common good, we are compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act in their defense. In this declaration we affirm: 1) the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life; 2) marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and non-believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society and; 3) religious liberty, which is grounded in the character of God, the example of Christ, and the inherent freedom and dignity of human beings created in the divine image.

To repeat, these are foundational issues.  Without life, without traditional marriage, and without religious liberty, our civilization crumbles.

About life, the declaration has this to say:

A truly prophetic Christian witness will insistently call on those who have been entrusted with temporal power to fulfill the first responsibility of government: to protect the weak and vulnerable against violent attack, and to do so with no favoritism, partiality, or discrimination. The Bible enjoins us to defend those who cannot defend themselves, to speak for those who cannot themselves speak. And so we defend and speak for the unborn, the disabled, and the dependent. What the Bible and the light of reason make clear, we must make clear. We must be willing to defend, even at risk and cost to ourselves and our institutions, the lives of our brothers and sisters at every stage of development and in every condition.

About marriage, the declaration has this to say:

And so it is out of love (not “animus”) and prudent concern for the common good (not “prejudice”), that we pledge to labor ceaselessly to preserve the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and to rebuild the marriage culture. How could we, as Christians, do otherwise? The Bible teaches us that marriage is a central part of God’s creation covenant. Indeed, the union of husband and wife mirrors the bond between Christ and his church. And so just as Christ was willing, out of love, to give Himself up for the church in a complete sacrifice, we are willing, lovingly, to make whatever sacrifices are required of us for the sake of the inestimable treasure that is marriage.

About religious liberty, the declaration has this to say:

The struggle for religious liberty across the centuries has been long and arduous, but it is not a novel idea or recent development. The nature of religious liberty is grounded in the character of God Himself, the God who is most fully known in the life and work of Jesus Christ. Determined to follow Jesus faithfully in life and death, the early Christians appealed to the manner in which the Incarnation had taken place: “Did God send Christ, as some suppose, as a tyrant brandishing fear and terror? Not so, but in gentleness and meekness…, for compulsion is no attribute of God” (Epistle to Diognetus 7.3-4). Thus the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the example of Christ Himself and in the very dignity of the human person created in the image of God—a dignity, as our founders proclaimed, inherent in every human, and knowable by all in the exercise of right reason.

Will you join us in signing this declaration?  Will you make your voice heard on these issues?  Please make your way to the Manhattan Declaration website and become a signatory to this important document.

What Is the Christian Worldview? Part 2

Stained glass at St John the Baptist's Anglica...

Post Author: Bill Pratt

In part 1 I introduced eight questions that every worldview should answer.  These eight questions are as follows:

  1. What is ultimate reality?
  2. Where did the world around us come from and what is its nature?
  3. What are human beings and where did they come from?
  4. Why do humans suffer?
  5. Is there a way for humans to be saved from suffering?
  6. How do I know right from wrong?
  7. What is the meaning or purpose of my life?
  8. What happens to me when I die?

Christianity offers profound and, what’s even more important, true answers to these questions.  The first four answers were provided in part 1, so now we will look at the answers to the final four questions.

Question 5: Is there a way for humans to be saved from suffering?

Christians believe that the only way humans can be ultimately saved from suffering is to be reconciled with God.  This reconciliation was made possible by the death and resurrection of the Son of God, Jesus Christ.  Once a person trusts Christ for their salvation, suffering in this life becomes bearable and pregnant with meaning, for the Son of God is with us in our suffering and promises to bring good out of it.

Question 6: How do I know right from wrong?

Christians believe that there exists an objective moral law that is based on the nature of God.  God reveals his perfect moral nature both through moral commands which he has communicated in the Bible, and through a common moral conscience which God has given all humans.

Question 7: What is the meaning or purpose of my life?

Christians believe that the purpose of life is to do the will of God and to enjoy God forever.  One of the beauties of Christianity is that God has given us great leeway to pursue myriad interests and passions in this life, as long as we always keep Him front and center in our lives.

Question 8: What happens to me when I die?

Christians believe that there is an afterlife for every human.  The afterlife can be spent either in the presence of God forever or separated from God forever.  God respects human freedom such that He does not force anyone to spend an eternity with Him.  Jesus Christ’s sacrificial death and resurrection provides the only means for any human to spend eternity with God.  Those who reject Jesus’ sacrifice for humanity will forever be separated from God.  Those who trust in Jesus’ sacrifice will spend a blissful eternity with the ultimate source of all that is good and the only being who can fulfill all human desires, God.

The Christian answers to these eight questions are unique among all the world’s religions and philosophies.  It is important to note that we don’t hold the Christian worldview because it works, or because it feels good, or because it’s emotionally satisfying, but because we think it is true.  We think that the Christian worldview most accurately describes reality the way it really is.

What Is the Christian Worldview? Part 1

Stained glass at St John the Baptist's Anglica...

Post Author: Bill Pratt

According to James Sire in The Universe Next Door, a worldview is the following:

A commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart, that can be expressed as a story or in a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true, or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic constitution of reality, and that provides the foundation on which we live and move and have our being.

It’s how we view the world!  All of us have a worldview, whether we realize it or not.  For those of us who are Christian, our faith heavily informs our worldview, or at least it should.  A person’s worldview should ideally answer a set of questions which are foundational to human existence.  These questions can be asked in several ways, but here are my versions of these questions:

  1. What is ultimate reality?
  2. Where did the world around us come from and what is its nature?
  3. What are human beings and where did they come from?
  4. Why do humans suffer?
  5. Is there a way for humans to be saved from suffering?
  6. How do I know right from wrong?
  7. What is the meaning or purpose of my life?
  8. What happens to me when I die?

You can evaluate any person’s worldview by asking them for answers to these questions.  Not only will you have a fascinating conversation, but you will learn what makes the other person tick.  You will get to see the world through their eyes.

So the next obvious question is this: how would a Christian answer these eight questions?  Christianity certainly offers compelling responses to these questions, as you would expect.  Below I will give you brief answers and then perhaps we can flesh them out if you (my blog-reading friends) would like to discuss them in the comments.

Question 1: What is ultimate reality?

Christians believe that the ultimate reality is God.  The Christian God has a number of qualities, but here are some of the most important: God is infinite, personal, sovereign, good, holy, transcendent, omniscient, and omnipotent.

Question 2: Where did the world around us come from and what is its nature?

Christians believe that the world around us is composed of time, space, matter, and energy, as scientists have demonstrated.  We believe that this physical world was spoken into existence by God.  We believe that God is separate from the world and not actually part of the world.

Question 3: What are human beings and where did they come from?

Human beings are soul and body.  We possess spiritual and physical dimensions.  We are created in the image of God, which means we represent God on earth as his representatives.  Being in God’s image, humans are also personal, intelligent, and moral beings.

Question 4: Why do humans suffer?

Humans suffer because of the Fall.  The Fall occurred when the first two human beings, Adam and Eve, rejected God and sought to usurp his position.  This rebellion – acting in a way contrary to God’s will –  introduced the disease of sin into the world, a disease which is passed on to every human generation.  All human suffering is ultimately the result of this pivotal event in human history.

I’ll finish up with answers to the last four questions in the next post.  See you then!

What Do God and Can Openers Have to Do with Each Other?

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Woody Allen has never been one to shy away from tackling big issues in his movies.  In the movie Hannah and Her Sisters there is a classic scene that depicts Woody Allen’s character first talking to a Catholic priest about converting to Catholicism and then announcing to his Jewish parents his decision.  His mother and father react negatively to his announcement, to say the least.

Below is a 2 minute clip.  Make sure you watch all the way to the end of the clip for a hilarious punchline.  I couldn’t stop laughing.

Caution:  The clip contains one use of the “H” word, so consider yourself warned.

Do Eckhart Tolle’s Teachings Contradict Christianity?

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Recently I learned that a local church was hosting “Bible studies” based on Eckhart Tolle’s teachings.  So, does Tolle agree with the teachings of Christianity?  Is it appropriate to promote his beliefs in a Christian church?

First, let me admit that I have not read his books personally, but I have certainly read about them (if anyone would like to correct any errors I make in the following analysis, please do so by commenting).  According to Dr. James A. Beverley, in  a 2008 article written for Christianity Today, Tolle definitely does not adhere to the essential beliefs of Christianity.

Here is a brief list of anti-Christian beliefs promoted by Tolle:

1.  God and man are one (pantheism).  Christianity teaches that God is distinct from man, that He created man.

2.  The human self is an illusion (Buddhism).  Christianity affirms the existence of the human self, but laments its corruption by sin.

3.  Death and the human body are illusions (Buddhism).  Christianity affirms that both are real.

4.  Jesus is not uniquely God, since everyone is God. Christianity denies that everyone is God, and claims that Jesus is the unique human manifestation of God.

All of these teachings directly contradict Christian beliefs.  I’m sure Tolle’s teachings contain some wisdom, but his overall worldview is obviously not Christian in any meaningful way.  The fact that we have a local church promoting Tolle’s beliefs is another clear indication that Christian education is woefully inadequate (I’m assuming that the persons leading these studies are ignorant, not purposefully trying to undermine Christianity).

If you know of any other links that discuss Tolle’s beliefs in comparison to Christianity, feel free to post them in the comments section of this post.

Does Mankind Really Need God?

Post Author: Bill Pratt

In studying church history, I’ve  been looking at the period often called the Enlightenment.  During this time, a movement swept through Europe which attempted to throw off the authority of divine revelation and place man on his rightful throne as the center of all knowledge and wisdom.

Historian Clyde Manschreck suggested that:

Man’s rational powers in league with science made dependence on God seemingly unnecessary.  Men were confident that they had the tools with which to unlock the mysteries of the universe.  Former distrust of human reason and culture, as seen in the traditional emphases on depravity, original sin, predestination, and self-denial, gave way to confidence in reason, free will, and the ability of man to build a glorious future.

Enlightenment values have continued to this day.  Many of the skeptics I know have a deep distrust of authority figures and tend to think of their own abilities as more than adequate to get them through life successfully.  One skeptical friend of mine told me that the only person he could count on to solve any of his problems was himself.  If all you need is yourself, then what need have you of God?

The Enlightenment, in some respects, strikes me as a philosophical temper tantrum against the authority and rightful rule of God over man.  Is man truly able to go it alone?  Is the world getting better due to secular human wisdom?  How you answer these questions has a lot to do with whether you believe in or trust God.

If man needs no authority over him, if he can get the job done on his own, than the Enlightenment was correct.  God, as another friend of mine recently told me, is unnecessary.  We can get along just fine without him.

I don’t know about you, but I think that coming out of the 20th century, a century with more killing of human life than all other centuries combined, you have to be nuts to think we can solve our own problems.  But that’s just me… maybe we just hit a little bump in the road.

Are You Skeptical of Global Warming and Evolution?

Post Author: Bill Pratt

A recent NY Times article linked people who are skeptical about evolution with people who are skeptical about global warming.  The author noted that there seems to be a correlation, that if you doubt one, then you likely doubt the other.

This really has me thinking about why that is, as there is no obvious connection between them.  I am a skeptic of both, but for different reasons.

My initial skepticism about evolution came from my religious views, because I was taught that only a young earth (which does not accommodate evolution) could align with the creation accounts in the Bible.  As I researched both biblical interpretation and the science behind evolution, I eventually moved to a new position.

I now believe that the earth is probably old and that this fits with literal interpretations of the Bible.  I also understand, though I don’t necessarily agree with, why common descent (the idea that all plants and animals are part of a gigantic family tree) is the dominant theory of the origins of species: it has a lot of explanatory power and there’s not a more developed contender out there right now.

But I think that the evolutionary community has no idea what the mechanisms are that would modify plants and animals to the massive extent we see.  Natural selection and random mutation just don’t cut it.  Other proposed mechanisms likewise remain utterly unconvincing to me.  Evolutionary theorists constantly provide micro-evolutionary mechanisms as examples of how macro-evolution works over long periods of time.  The extrapolations don’t convince me.

What about global warming?  I started out skeptical of global warming because it was being exclusively evangelized by political liberals, whom I generally distrust as people who value intentions over truth.  I moved beyond that initial skepticism and tried to think about it scientifically.  As an engineer, I understand how to analyze data and how to test models, and I fail to see how it is possible to accurately model the global climate over long periods of time, given the multitude of variables that must go into these climate models and the incredible uncertainty of predicting climate changes in the distant future.

My suspicions about the data have proved to be correct as some brave climate scientists have admitted that their models have failed to predict the flat-lining of global temperatures over the last 15 years. The truth is that models of the climate have a long way to go before we can bet the farm on them.

So, what is the common denominator for me?  I started out suspecting evolution for religious reasons, and I started out suspecting global warming for political reasons.

I am conservative politically and I am a believer in traditional Christianity, but these don’t necessarily go together.  It seems like there must be something deeper.  The author Thomas Sowell possibly offers an explanation.  In his book, A Conflict of Visions, he argues that a person’s view of the nature and capability of man drives opinions about political, moral, judicial, economic, and even scientific matters (see my post on his book).  His theory makes a lot of sense; maybe he has found the common link.

I don’t have any certain answers to this question, but I’m very curious to know what others think.  What about you?  Are you skeptical about both of these issues?  Why or why not?  Please register your vote in the poll below and leave us some comments about your choices.