In an attempt to compare the vastness of the universe with the insignificance of man, Carl Sagan penned two triumphs of popular cosmology: Cosmos and Pale Blue Dot. The message was simple: man is a product of evolution in a constantly-expanding universe, the size of which is inconceivable to us. Due to the intricacies of space and time, as well as the beauty of nature, we are probably not alone, and we certainly are not special. We are an accident. As he so elegantly phrased it: “We are made of starstuff” (Cosmos). Again, he hammers home his point by saying: “The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be” (from his television series “Cosmos”). This is the message that I would like to discuss.
I received some sage advice from one Jonathan Groover to make my blogs shorter. This I will attempt to do. If I sense this blog getting too long, I will most assuredly finish it in segments. This is good news for those of you who actually read my 5000 word book last time.
So far, I have explained a little bit about me, fundamentalism, and why I think evolution is a farce. I also broached the topic of proof, and made the case that God’s existence can neither be proved nor disproved. However, if I had to do it over again, I wouldn’t have started there. In an attempt to argue for God’s existence, I ended up arguing against the emotionally-charged topic of evolution. This is what people call a negative argument for God. Basically, I took a common argument against God (we don’t need God because evolution explains how we got here) and attempted to refute it. What I should have done is to start with positive arguments for God’s existence. So then, let’s not start with evolution. Evolution gets people upset. Instead, let’s push it back a step to the start of the Universe.
I finished my last blog by hinting that an argument to refute evolution isn’t even necessary to argue for God’s existence. So from now on, let’s do the neo-darwinists a favor and concede that evolution is a fact. Conceding this really won’t hurt my apologetic. It is not central to my argument, and will only serve to distract us. In my next couple of blogs, this concession will keep us from confusing evolution with atheism.
To begin, I’d like to argue from the grounds of man’s existence. We know that men exist, but how do we explain them? In other words, we see that men have this unnatural ability to reason – from where did it come? How did something like a human brain, which sees and understands order in the universe, come from such an unorderly process like natural selection? Natural selection is driven by random, small genetic mutations over long periods of time based on survival value. Again, the principal behind natural selection is survival of the fittest, not order or logic. So, is it possible for reason to come solely from evolution?
Again, we will concede evolution as a fact. I’m not arguing against evolution this time. Instead, I would argue that reason is a supernatural process in man that cannot be explained by evolution alone. The evolution of the human body and brain may be explainable on a mechanical level, but the ability to reason is seen nowhere else in nature.
But what if it was? What if further study with gorillas and other animals showed that they, too, have some ability to reason? Well, so much the better. Just because you’ve managed to push the argument one step back in the evolutionary tree doesn’t mean you’ve succeeded in explaining where reason comes from.
The topic of reason is a very intriguing one, and is a hot issue among philosophers of science, creationists, and evolutionists. C. S. Lewis, who was an evolutionary creationist, wrote a great book, entitled Miracles, on this issue. If you think he is too often quoted for someone who is not really qualified on the subject, that’s fine. To see someone who is qualified, I’d suggest William Lane Craig’s Reasonable Faith. Basically, the argument from man’s ability to reason goes as follows:
1. Human beings possess reason
2. Either reason is supernatural, or it is natural
3. Reason cannot be explained by nature because:
a) Reason is an orderly, objective process, whereas natural selection is a random, subjective process
1) Any attempt to scrutinize the objectivity of reason is self-defeating, since it must appeal to an ojective standard in order to determine reason’s objectivity
2) Natural selection is subjective because it depends on the randomness of mutations and the laws of this universe
b) In order for some process to truly be objective, it must appeal to some standard outside of itself
c) Since reason and logic can exist independently of this particular universe, they are not a product of a subjective process within this universe.
d) Therefore, Man’s appeal to reason is an appeal to something outside of him/herself, and cannot be a result of a subjective, evolutionary process within his/her own brain.
e) Because our universe is self-contained, the only way that this intersection is possible is if the supernatural somehow initiates this intersection.
4. Therefore, reason is supernatural.
5. Therefore, the ability of humans to reason is an intersection between the supernatural and the natural.
I think the above argument is valid. The only premise that I think people could argue against would be premise 2, but I think it is too solid to be defeated.
I sense this blog is getting too long, so I’ll cut it off here. Today, I argued against Carl Sagan, who thinks that the Cosmos is “all that is or ever was or ever will be”. The argument I gave was that reason and logic prove that whenever humans think rationally, they are engaged in a supernatural activity. A strange conclusion, to be sure, but one that is easy to justify using the arguments above. Ultimately, I think I’ve shown that the processes of evolution does a poor job of explaining why we are even able to talk about the processes of evolution in the first place! So in this blog, I’ve hopefully proved to you that the supernatural is possible and exists. We will build upon this argument later. In my next blog, I’ll discuss any objections that are raised, and then I will talk about the end result of an atheistic worldview.
I feel it necessary to start with an apology. Apology in Greek means “a work of defense”. Before we delve into theology, it would be prudent to discuss why we should be discussing theology in the first place. I don’t think it an overstatement to say that atheism is “all the rage” at institutions of higher education, and many respected intellects doubt whether theology is a proper subject at all. The answer is simple. It isn’t! That is, of course, if God does not exist. If He does, then it may be considered the most important subject of all.
This leads me to the fundamental question. Does God exist? The answer to this question will help you answer the 3 other fundamental questions that I discuss in my “About” section. I’m sure there is a large number of good-intentioned atheists out there who whole-heartedly believe that they have something new to say on this matter, but lately I just keep hearing the same lame “scientific” arguments regurgitated on the Internet over and over again. One might argue that the science behind their reasoning is not so much science as it is atheistic scientistswho do all the thinking for them (I realize that was a loaded statement and that the same type of argument can and has been made against creationists). Granted, some of the atheists I’ve read actually do seem like intelligent chaps, and they would have you believe they have “figured it out”, “cracked the case”, or “solved the unsolvable mystery”. Don’t be fooled. They haven’t. That’s why the debate must continue.
Let me first state for the record that I can claim no Lewis-esk atheistic background, nor do I feel like I need to in order to gain some sort of “street cred”. The fact is, I was raised in the “Bible-belt”, and that means I was taught to be as fundamentalist as they come. Fundamentalism is such a fancy word thrown around now-a-days, yet few people actually use it intelligently. They’ve just heard it spoken with negative connotations, so they use it like it’s a curse word; if not incorrectly, then ignorantly. If you find yourself in this group (the group who is not sure what fundamentalism is), let me enlighten you:
The term “fundamentalism” came into existence at the Niagara Falls Bible Conference (1878-1897) which was convened in an effort to define those things that were fundamental to belief. The term was also used to describe “The Fundamentals,” a collection of twelve books on five subjects published in 1910 by Milton and Lyman Steward. These two wealthy brothers . . . sought to restore the historic faith with a 12 volume call to arms that dealt with five subjects that latter became known as the five fundamentals of the faith: (1) Literal inerrancy of the autographs (the originals of each scriptural book); (2) the virgin birth and deity of Christ; (3) the substitutionary view of the atonement; (4) the bodily resurrection of Christ; (5) The imminent return of Christ. (quoted from www.wfu.edu/~matthetl/perspectives/twentyone.html )
Based on this definition, I am indeed a fundamentalist; but I am not a fundamentalist in the popular way that it is used, i.e. “Hey, that guy’s a religious moron who won’t listen to reason!”. On the contrary, if I heard truly infallacious reasoning and saw undisprovable evidence contradicting God, I would be inclined to change my view. However, do not make too much of this last statement. I am talking about a purely hypothetical situation, not reality.
The term fundamentalist has since been generalized to mean strong adherence to any set of beliefs in the face of criticism or unpopularity (Wikipedia – scholarly, I know, but also convenient…) In this case, I am just as much of a fundamentalist as a Muslim, Republican, or atheist (although atheism’s popularity and acceptance is rising…). If you think about it, everyone who has ever made a stance for anything might justly be considered a fundamentalist in this sense. For example, I display fundamentalism in the face of criticism like ”He is ignorant because he won’t agree with my theory (more on this in a minute) about evolution and God’s nonexistence”. Lest you think that I have progressed further than I actually have, all that I have done so far is to show you the extreme negative connotations that this word carries in modern America. I know the first time I was called a fundamentalist, it upset me. Now, I find most of the loaded comments comical. Here is one of my favorite examples:
Top Ten Signs You’re a Fundamentalist Christian
10 – You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
9 – You feel insulted and “dehumanized” when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.
7 – Your face turns purple when you hear of the “atrocities” attributed to Allah, but you don’t even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in “Exodus” and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in “Joshua” including women, children, and trees!
6 – You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5 – You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
4 – You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs — though excluding those in all rival sects – will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most “tolerant” and “loving.” 3 – While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in “tongues” may be all the evidence you need to “prove” Christianity.
2 – You define 0.01% as a “high success rate” when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 – You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history – but still call yourself a Christian. (http://www.evilbible.com/Top_Ten_List.htm)
First of all, given the true definition of fundamentalism above, we can rightly dismiss this as hateful, unrefined propaganda. Secondly, if it wasn’t such a widely held and devastating view, I would truly appreciate it for its schoolyard wit. Yet, we aren’t in the schoolyard anymore, are we? And unlike the popular cliche, words do indeed hurt, if not my feelings, then my cause, because people who read this list may begin to think that this is what fundamentalism actually is. But let us not dwell on such rhetoric. I’m sure there are some good atheists out there who, though they may laugh and nod in agreement with the above quote, wouldn’t actually make any of those arguments seriously. These more sensible people are the atheists I would like to contend with.
Let us advance to the next point I would like to make. If you’re going to be an atheist, at least be an atheist I can respect. How? By not making yourself look like an ignorant regurgitator of atheistic hate speech that serves to insult and shut down the audience you are trying to win over to your side (another loaded statement which may also be justly applied to some “Christians”). Not only is it ineffective, but it makes me nauseous, and I don’t like feeling sick. In turn, I will try my best to be a theist that youcan respect. How? By not making myself look like an ignorant regurgitator of theistic hate speech that serves to insult and shut down the very audience that I am trying to win over to my side.
Also, be an honest intellect. How? Don’t for one second tell me that God absolutely does not exist. The minute you do that, I know two things about you: 1) You haven’t thought your position through, but are instead an atheistic fundamentalist (in the popular, irrational sense); 2) You are completely impervious to reason of any kind, which makes our discussion pointless. We will return to point #1 in a minute. Concerning both points, no one has been able to disprovethe existence of God, and contrary to the mendacious (or at least blindly hopeful) Richard Dawkins and other like-minded scientists, this fact cannot be changed or be called 99.9% improbable. But lest I let my theist friends off of the other side of the hook, no one has been able to definitively (or even close to definitively) prove the existence of God. This fact could only change if the “hypothetical” God were to reveal Himself in a way that left no wiggle room for rationalizations like “it was only an illusion” or “I must have been dreaming” or “let’s find a scientific theory to explain that”. So I say all of this to let you, dear reader, know that I do not take the existence of God as a 100% certainty (seeing that He has not chosen to reveal Himself to me in the aforementioned way), and I would ask you to extend the same courtesy to me in order that an honest discussion may take place.
Returning to point #1 above, there is a popular idea in the culture put forth by the scientific community that Darwinism is the only real scientific theory that explains the origin of our present day species. I hope no one will be offended if I humor the said scientists and pretend this is so. Thus, because this is the only real, workable theory, it would behoove us to accept it, seeing how we can’t seem to think of any better ideas. Thus, those who would argue against it for argument’s sake must immediately be classified as unsophisticated, uneducated chaps with too much time on their hands and not enough ideas. But it would seem to me that if I accept this position, then I will have forgotten three things: (1) the scientific method; (2) Darwinism is just a theory; and 3) the “unacceptable”, yet glaringly obvious counterarguments.
Now, I don’t want to insult anyone by assuming you have forgotten these things as well, but for those of you who may not remember exactly, the scientific method has approximately 5 steps:
1.) Collect Data
2.) Make a hypothesis
3.) Make a prediction using 1 & 2
4.) Test the hypothesis/predictions using experiments
5.) Observe the results (old school).
Now it would seem to me that scientists have done a wonderful job of doing 1, 2, and 3. But how to test natural selection? How do we go about observing the results of evolution based on experiments that we’ve performed? The simple answer: we don’t. I have seen some brilliant evidence for microevolution (evolution on a small, species-specific scale), but I have yet to see solid evidence for macroevolution (this does not assume that it doesn’t exist. I am merely stating that I haven’t seen any. If you know of a good example, please leave me a comment saying so in order that I might study it). Now, maybe we could start something I’d like to call the Great Evolution Experiment, one in which we pass along present-day genetic information and pertinent data about the current status of the species in all 5 scientific kingdoms, to future generations. Of course, if present day estimates are any indicator, we would have to pass this information along for millions of years so that future scientists would be able to look back and conclude from our actual experiment whether or not Darwinism had any weight, after all. By that point, I might venture a guess that other theories will have taken Darwinism’s place, if not helped it evolve to a point where no one recognizes it as Darwinism. But now this is just an idea, and I do not ask you to take it seriously. The point is that such an experiment, if not impossible, is at once seen as ridiculous (as it should be). Darwinism can no more be proved than God. It would seem that its main function is to give scientists a way to rationalize the “needlessness” of God and allow “science” to take his place.
Why is it that it takes years of “counter-indoctrination” to convince people of the efficacy of Darwinism? Could it be the self-evident principle of physics that says the Universe tends to chaos over order? Could it be the evidence all around us that things are getting worse, not better? No, my atheist friends say, it is nothing as simple as that. The reason that people need a lot of convincing is because they have been indoctrinated with this queer idea of a god. Never mind all those other things, they say, it is religion’s fault and not the gaping holes in the theory. With enough schooling, it would seem, you can rationalize anything, including Darwinism or (to the Theologians) God. This brings me to the end of my knowledge on the scientific method, and I dare not venture any further.
My second point was that Darwinism is just a theory, and I’m tired of it being argued as if it was fact. I rather enjoy reading about the theory, and I admit that if I believed it were possible, it would be a remarkable one at that. What I have been thoroughly convinced of in my reading is that creatures have a remarkable ability to adapt to their environment; i.e. Bacteria have the noticeable capacity to adapt to medicines and things that would cause their extinction. However, what I don’t see documentedis the evolution of one species into another. Indeed, if species were able to do so, why are so many of them on the endangered species list? Why not evolve into something better equipped to handle the problems? The answer would seem to be that they are being selected against. But in the harsh, new world of prehistoria, wouldn’t every animal be selected against? Wouldn’t the idea of life be selected against? Life during that time would not make a lot of scientific sense. Biologists, correct me if I’m wrong, but Darwinism asserts that through the ages environmental factors and genetic factors have led to the natural selection and evolution of better equipped, new species, not just the extinction or modification of the old ones. Notwithstanding, the theory presses onward, frequently making course corrections, but never becoming extinct itself.
Evolution, then, seems not so much to be a provable fact like the speed of light, but more like a worldview, which must interpret everything it sees through a biased lens, much like religion. The key difference claimed, though, is that evolution is rational and theism is irrational. More on that later. Really, I have no problem with evolutionary theorists, and like I said, I enjoy reading their attempts to rationalize everything down to why couples still want to have sex when they are on birth control (superficially, this behavior would seem to clash with the ideas of Darwinism, but after being “rationalized”, it magically doesn’t). What I do have a problem with is those same scientists telling me that I am not a sophisticated thinker if I don’t accept their theory. Darwinism is not on the level of the theory of gravity, because we can actively observe this theory. That’s why it is called a law. I can observe gravity as I sit in my chair. With the right instruments and mathematics, I can precisely measure the speed of light. Evolution cannot be observed this way, nor does it have sufficient evidence to cross into the realm of being called a law (despite what some scientists would like you to believe). Maybe my “Great Evolution Experiment” could put an end to the doubts, but we won’t be around to see the results, so it is irrelevant. Hopefully, I have given sufficient argument in support of point #2, so I will not deal with it further.
My third point is a point that I have already given examples for throughout this post, but I will explain it further. Many-a-scientist would like you to think that the arguments against macroevolution are weak and trivial when compared to the beauty of Darwinism. Indeed, as mentioned above, natural selection is a brilliant crane (a mechanism that employs a series of small, improbable steps to explain a very complicated, highly improbable result), but one that lacks efficient evidence to explain why I am able to communicate abstract ideas to other people thousands of miles away. My first counter-example would be our dear old friend, irreducible complexity. Rather than delve into the numerous examples of IC, I would simply refer you to your Google browser to find what people are saying on the issue. The most common counter-argument to irreducible complexity is that creationists are not thinking creatively enough (ironic), and that if they were to employ some brain power and not write it off as “God”, then maybe we’d all find answers to these questions sooner. The argument amounts to this: “Well, I can’t really explain it, and you can’t really explain it, but there has to be a better reason than ‘God did it’!”. Now, there have been explanations given for supposed irreducibly complex structures, but I’ll leave it to the reader to decide if they are valid. Irreducible Complexity does not hold much weight in “sophisticated” circles, so we will leave it there.
Like Richard Dawkins, my favorite argument is from probability. You see, I am a mathematician by schooling, so it would be better for me to stick to the things I know well. First, let me expose you to the argument made by Dawkins (and other evolutionists) in his book, The God Delusion. Then I will give you my favorite argument from probability.
When I finished reading Dawkins’ main argument against God, I laughed at its simplicity and arrogance. To call it conceited and precocious would be an understatement. To a reader who would like Dawkins to do all of their thinking for them (and I dare say that if Internet forums are an indicator, most readers do), it seems as though the riddle is solved! Thank . . . um . . . Darwin’s crane! By “science”, he’s done it! I call it precocious because the argument stems from an evolutionary viewpoint, and thus reveals itself to be biased from the start. Dawkins borrows and revises the classic (and terribly weak) analogy by Fred Hoyle of a hurricane going through a scrapyard. Hoyle claims that the probability of the Universe becoming what it is today is the same as that of a hurricane sweeping through a scrapyard and assembling a Boeing 747. Dawkins does well to tear this argument to pieces. It is reminiscent of the irrational rhetoric used by politicians and (dare I say it without being misunderstood) bigoted preachers of old. I say this only because politicians and bigoted preachers are the stereotypical examples of people who grossly understate their opponent’s views, and then topple them with simple examples that do not speak to the heart of the issue. The Boeing 747 illustration does not present a fair view of the theory of evolution, and Dawkins does an excellent job of pointing this out. Natural selection does not work on chance like the hurricane. He argues that if a creationist claims that evolution is improbable, then the God they claim to have created the world must be even more improbable. Thus, God is the Ultimate Boeing 747.
To put it fairly and simply, Dawkins is asking “Where did God come from?” But his argument assumes two things: (1) God necessarily had a beginning; and (2) God’s beginning can only be explained by another creator or by a process similar to evolution. Thus, we have arrived at the “infinite regress” that has for centuries plagued the discussion of the world’s origins. Aquinas simply declared that God is unmoved and uncreated, and thus the regress stops with Him. Evolutionists rightfully see problems with this. The scientific mind has problems declaring that things simply “were”. Thus, they do not easily accept the words “Before the creation of the world, I Am”. But why is this so hard to accept? You must accept something about the start of the world. Either the Universe simply “is” and always “was”, or it somehow exploded into existence. If you accept this, then you have to admit that there is nothing more complicated about a Creationist saying that God simply “is” and always “was” and made the Universe explode into existence. You must choose one theory or the other. Dawkins has chosen to believe the former, thus he must necessarily think about God in terms of having a “beginning” and “coming into existence”. If God did have a beginning, then I would agree with Dawkins in saying that He would indeed be the Ultimate Boeing 747.
The argument I would like to employ against evolution is purely statistical, and it is arrived at from cold, hard, empirical data. A lot of the arguments from probability, including the one mentioned above, do not have any empirical data, which makes me conclude that it is more rhetoric than statistics. The argument that I submit is not mine, but was given to me by my college professor. As far as I know, he is the author, so let us call it Monty Kester’s Counter-Argument. I will be summarizing his paper entitled ”Origin of Life”.
An important part of living tissue is protein. Protein is what some have called the “building block” of life. Proteins are made of amino acids, which come in at least 20 different varieties and link together to make protein. The way that these amino acids are linked determines that protein’s function. Amino acids can exist in two forms: L-amino acids or D-amino acids. If we were to shine light through these amino acids, the L type would rotate the light to the left, while the D would rotate light to the right. Peculiarly, only L-amino acids exist in living things. Despite efforts to find examples of the D acids, only L-amino acids are found in living creatures (animals, plants, bacteria, molds, and even viruses).
This may not seem significant, but let us continue investigating. In commercial labs and in experiments simulating early earth conditions, only a mixture of 50% D and 50% L-amino acids have been synthesized. If we consider the evolutionary position, then the amino acids that spontaneously arose in the primitive oceans would be a 50/50 mixture. As these amino acids began to link to form proteins, they would produce proteins with 50/50 ratios of D and L acids. Yet, today we only have 100% L-amino acids. One might argue that L-amino acids were favored, but thermodynamically the 50/50 mixture is favoured. Secondly, what are the chances of a self-replicating organism being composed of 100% L-amino acids? If we said that such an organism was composed of 124 proteins of 400 amino acids, we would still be undershooting (the simplest self-replicating organism contains 625 proteins of 400 amino acids). To be conservative, let us say the chain need only contain 380 amino acids. From statistics, we know that since each acid has a 50/50 chance of forming, then we have (1/2)^380 = (1/10)^114, which means the odds are 1 in 10 with 114 zeroes behind it that such a chain would form. Thus we see that only 1 protein of 380 amino acids is highly improbable. But now we must take into account 124 proteins like this forming, which means we have (1/10)^114*124= (1/10)^14,136. This is the same as saying that the odds are 1 in 10 with 14,136 zeroes behind it. This means that the probability that they did not come into existence by such chance reactions is practical surety. Since the nature of this reaction is based on the laws of thermodynamics, natural selection can have nothing to do with it. Even if we were to assume that on early earth L-amino acids had a 99% chance of forming over D acids (in other words, lets assume instead that thermodynamically L-amino acids get favoured 99 out of a 100 times), the odds of forming a chain of 380 L-amino acids would be (99/100)^380= (1/10)^1.7 These odds don’t seem too bad. But remember, we have to combine at least 124 of these chains. If we could combine by chance at least one of these chains, then natural selection would have a chance to come into play. But (1/10)^1.7*124= (1/10)^210. This means that the odds of a protein forming in reactions with a 99% chance of giving L-amino acids are still 1 in 10 with 210 zeroes after it. To get an idea of what this means, the universe is estimated to be “10 with 23 zeroes after it” miles across. In other words, the odds for one of these proteins forming are statistically impossible. Yet, evolutionists will contend that with enough time, it may be possible. Such an obstinate argument sounds like Lloyd in Dumb and Dumber, “So you’re telling me there’s a chance!”.
Dr. Kester then goes on to explain why the “time is on my side” argument is also statistically weak, but the math is a little too involved for a discussion here. In conclusion, if God is the Ultimate Boeing 747, then I would contend that life spontaneously forming in the primitive oceans would be considered the Ultimate Starship Enterprise. Or maybe Hoyle was onto something after all with his original junkyard/747 analogy.
With all this talk about evolution, you would think that God’s existence hinges upon this debate. In my next blog, I hope to explain why it doesn’t, and then move on to non-scientific arguments against God’s existence, i.e. the problem of pain, morals, the God of the OT, and religious zealots who give God a bad name. Remember, I am still in the midst of arguing for a Creator God. I have not yet gotten to the Christian God, or especially a personal God. At this point, I am still working my way towards the God of the Deists. As you can see, my posts have a tendency to get lengthy. Thank you to those of you who stayed to the end.
The question I must answer first is: does the internet really need another person to give his two cents about the Maker of the Universe when the existence of that “Maker” is under heavy scrutiny (then again, hasn’t it always been?) The answer is a resounding “NO”. So lest you think me arrogant in any of my forthcoming blogs, let me tell you that I do not think of myself more highly than I ought. I have absolutely zero credentials to show for my theories, and I will need no reminding of this fact. In fact, I am a high school math teacher who graduated college with a B.S. in Math. But if there was anything I learned while in college, it was the importance of coming to my own conclusions based on evidence and logic; and I would encourage you, reader, to do the same. So no, for your sake, this blog is decidedly unnecessary. But for my sake, it is necessary indeed. For I am an imperfect being, and my thoughts are fundamentally flawed. I would like to think that I readily listen to views that are in support of or in opposition to mine. Others’ views can serve one of two ultimate purposes: either they will affirm me in the knowledge that I have acquired, or they will force me to abandon my position in favor of something nearer to the truth (if it is possible to judge something as “nearer to the truth”). May God bless us as we seek to find His truth.
“There is a tendency for humans consciously to see what they wish to see. They literally have difficulty seeing things with negative connotations while seeing with increasing ease items that are positive . . . Words that evoke anxiety . . . require greater illumination before first being perceived”. (218, quoting Lionel Tiger in Optimism: The Biology of Hope, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1979)
