Reasoning With Faith

Nowadays, it seems that there are two prevailing choices when it comes to religion. Either to believe in a personal God, or not to believe in any God at all. If one truly believes in a God, then it is pretty much expected that one believes in the possibility of a day-to-day relationship with God that has the same characteristics of human relationships (especially parent-child). God loves us, we love God. He takes care of our needs, and we praise him, and thank him for doing so. We live according to “his word” or he punishes us- just like Mum and Dad, or Grandma and Grandpa.

Is it possible that we are wrong about the relationship between God (assuming such a deity exists) and man? Could the way that we are wrong about this relationship be a root cause for the failure of religion – as evidenced by the amount of global violence and oppression in the name of religion, and rampant spiritual skepticism? Just as the relationship between a child and its parents has to change in order for the child to mature psychologically, does our relationship with a “Heavenly Father” need to change, in order for humanity to mature spiritually?

Personally, I struggle with the idea of a universal God who attends to the inner workings and destiny of this universe (and any others that may exist), yet who is still personal enough to watch over and intervene in our moment-to-moment lives. Is it possible that our so-called “personal relationship with God” is just a relationship with our own projections of hope, fear, and other emotions?

It’s very comforting to believe (or to know – for those who believe that they KNOW) that we have a personal relationship with an all-powerful, all-knowing, omnipotent being in whose “image” we were created. Has our comfort and need for a loving Heavenly Father created a mass delusion, which cripples – rather than empowers – true spirituality? Is our relationship with God based on spirituality, or emotional needs and wishful thinking?

Sometimes a person will say “God has blessed me” because they find a $20.00 bill on the street. Does it really seem likely that the creator of the Universe somehow arranged events just so that we can find some cash lying in the street? Maybe it’s true… It just doesn’t seem very likely to me. Random chance seems more likely to me: someone just dropped the money, without any Divine Intervention.

People may say “It was God’s will”, when they recover from some chronic illness. So whose will would it have been had they NOT recovered – the Devil’s? If “God is GOOD” then when “bad” things happen (especially to Good people) whose will was that? Is is possible that our concept of God’s will, and of Good and Evil is grossly – and conveniently – oversimplified?

It seems so important to many religious people to invoke the presence of a Universal God in as many aspects of mundane, earthly life as possible. I’ve actually seen people get royally pissed and offended because they sneezed and a “God Bless You” wasn’t forthcoming? Why? What does God have to do with irritants and mucus being forcefully expelled from the nasal passages?  I’ve heard people say that it was God Almighty who was responsible for waking them up – like some Divine alarm clock. Then there is the whole idea of having God bless our food (I wonder if God condones the conditions of the slaughter-houses from where the food he is supposedly “blessing” originates).

What if the idea of an ubiquitous personal God is completely wrong? Assuming the existence of a God, what if “he” is as interested and involved in our daily lives as we would be in ant-hill; or a cloud of gnats being blown hither and thither in the wind; or a hair follicle under our left armpit?

What if God couldn’t give a hoot if a particular person got out of bed – or if they even existed? What if God did NOT cause a money to fall out of the pocket of a sinner just so we could “tithe ten percent” of it to the church – after buying the groceries that God somehow knew we needed with the rest?

What if our cancer isn’t in remission because we are in God’s grace (while the “un-graced” die in agony), but because of successful chemotherapy? What if the food we didn’t pray over and thank God for, nourished our bodies just as well, or was excreted just as efficiently as food that did NOT have the benefit of our prayers?

Would it really be so terrible if the God of the entire Universe had infinitely more important tasks to attend to than our mostly self-centered little lives? When we praise God, and thank God, and glorify God is it REALLY out of love for God, or out of fear for ourselves?

After all, if we keep up with the praising and thanking and glorifying, surely God will continue to “bless” us! If we develop a personal relationship with God, why would he not continue to hear and answer our prayers? If we love God with all our hearts, why WOULDN’T goodness and mercy follow us all the days of our lives… all the way up to the Pearly Gates, to guarantee us a place in Heaven – instead of writhing for an eternity in Hell?

When we confess and ask forgiveness for our sins, is it because we feel oh-so-badly about disobeying and disappointing God (if we believe in God) or because we fear divine punishment for them? Given a choice between sincere repentance, and never-ending third-degree burns, wouldn’t most of us choose the sincere repentance… it’s a no-brainer – but is it real repentance?

If God were a human relationship partner, how long would the relationship last? I think it would last about five seconds after God realized that the value of the relationship in our eyes, was all about what he has done, is doing, and can do for us.

If we can accept the possibility that the nature of our “relationship” with God is based more on human need and projections than spiritual reality, aren’t we then free to explore a relationship that is more spiritually empowering for humanity than at present. What might such a relationship look like?

Sherlock Holmes – one of my favorite fictional characters -said “Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth“. Makes sense doesn’t it? So when factors in the physical universe fail to explain observed phenomena, shouldn’t explanations also be sought in the “nonphysical” Universe?

When all our facts, laws, and theories-of-the-day lead us away from a deeper understanding of the Universe (instead of closer); when they raise more questions than they could possibly answer; when the answers they do provide are contradictory, illogical, or just plain don’t make any sense, is it not possible that they are eliminating themselves as viable candidates in our search for truth?

So where else could we look, in addition to our telescopes and microscopes? Well, why not explore parapsychology, occultism, and the supernatural? I’m not suggesting that we start chasing things willy-nilly that go thumping and bumping around in the night! They are probably too busy thumping and bumping to be of much use to us anyway. I’m also not suggesting that we join hands around the rising table with the moaning Madam Zora and her Indian Spirit Guide.

So what DO I mean by such terms as “supernatural”? Here are some definitions and links to more information.

Supernatural – phenomena attributed to causes or forces that are currently unknown or unexplainable by science (gravity and electromagnetism would once have been considered supernatural phenomena )

Parapsychology – psychical research (e.g. telepathy, reincarnation and clairvoyance )

Occultism – a study of a deeper spirituality that exists beyond logical reasoning and physical sciences (e.g. Astrology, Religious Mysticism, and the Kabbalah)

The typical scientist will dismiss all or most of the above as nonsense, and for now this is probably as it should be. If it weren’t for science, we would be even more exploited, bamboozled, led astray by charlatans and quacks(intentional or otherwise) – promising everything from supernatural healing, and conversations with dead relatives, to a knowledge of previous lives.

Most of these quacks are harmless: they have as much chance of “opening” anybody’s chakras, or teaching people to consciously leave their bodies and traipse around the Universe in “astral bodies“, as they have of levitating an elephant.

In my opinion some of these so-called “psychics” run the risk of causing actual harm: people who would be better served by sessions with a mental health professional or medical doctor, may be deluded into thinking that the root cause of their psychological difficulties is a “hidden agreement” with ancestors (alive or dead); or that their physical ailments can be healed with miracle candles made of wax containing the healing energies of candle-pouring reiki practisioners.

Is it any wonder that real scientists would scoff at the “supernatural”, and not give any of it a second thought? But therein lies the problem: until open-minded scientists investigate occultism and paranormal phenomena, how will we we ever be able to separate the intellectual wheat from the nonsensical chaff? Meanwhile, should we just throw out everything as chaff, while we hunger for the nourishment of more profound truths than conventional science has served up to us so far?

If there has been just ONE real case of clairvoyance, reincarnation, or telepathy in the relatively short history of mankind; or if it is possible to correlate personality traits or events (on an individual or global scale) with planetary positions; or if spiritual healing was proven to be true and its mechanism totally understood, couldn’t such things not only potentially revolutionize important aspects of society, but also help provide answers to the meaning and purpose of life?

Why not set free the Scientific Method to do what it does best, in areas where its methodology and discipline is sorely needed – while leaving the table-tilting to Madam Zora?

In Part 1 we explored science’s discovery of a “love hormone”, basically nothing more than an inanimate molecule, interacting with each other inanimate molecules to create the illusion that there is something more profound than molecular interaction at work. Lately, I was surprised to learn that in 2004, science also claimed to have discovered a “God Gene” which supposedly predisposes our personalities towards religion and spirituality.

The discovery was made by Dean Hammer, the director of the Gene Structure and Regulation Unit at the U.S. National Cancer Institute. He wrote about his findings in a book titled “The God Gene- how faith is hardwired into our Genes”.

What the title seems to imply – even though it isn’t explicitly stated – is that religious faith is not the result of interaction with spiritual forces, but the action of a gene: specifically a gene called VMA2. A much stronger implication appears on the Wikipedia page where it states:

According to this hypothesis, the God gene (VMAT2) is a physiological arrangement that produces the sensations associated, by some, with mystic experiences, including the presence of God or others, or more specifically spirituality as a state of mind (i.e. it does not encode or cause belief in God itself in spite of the “God gene” moniker).

So basically, according to the hypothesis, mystic experience and feelings of God’s presence are “sensations”, “physiological arrangements”, and “a state of mind”… caused by a gene. If we feel called – in the quiet stillness of night – to turn to pray, meditate, or reflect on whatever God we believe in, it’s not really God – its just gene VMA2, regulating the levels of hormones serotonin, dopamine, and norepinehrine.

But wait a minute, where have we seen these hormones mentioned before? Aren’t they exactly the same chemicals that science says play a major role in our experience of love (See part 1 of this post)? Here are some links that describe the role of the hormones regulated by the God Gene, in creating feelings of love: HowStuffWorks;  Your Amazing Brain;  The Chemistry of Love.

So… do the “love hormones” also do double duty as the “God hormones”? Is that what the Bible means when it says “God is Love”? Thanks to modern science, can we amend the sentence to “God is Love, and both of them are hormones”?

Dean Hammer claimed to be able to tie the presence of the God gene to religious faith through the use of a questionnaire (a “Transcendence” test), which is supposed to provide a measure of how spiritual a person is. Those who scored high on the test were also more likely to share the gene VMA2. Later however, another scientist (Dr Carl Zimmer) who reviewed the sudy in an article that appeared in ‘Scientific American’, pointed out that only 1% of the variance on the Transcendence test could be accounted for the presence of the gene.

Dean Hammer’s results were never replicated by other investigators.  Since replicability of results by one’s peers in the scientific community is one of the cornerstones of the Scientific Method, the “God Gene” shared the same fate as the “Gay Gene”, a genetic link to male homosexuality. This gene was also discovered by Dean Hammer (approximately a decade earlier) – before it was discovered to be bogus.

But what if the God Gene were proven to be real by other scientists? Is it just a matter of time before love, spirituality, God, and everything that makes us more than sophisticated ants – just higher on the evolutionary scale - is reduced to biochemistry and nerve impulses? Is that the role that science will play in helping us to find a deeper meaning and purpose for our lives?

If God is with us, and we are “blessed” by him when we are in good health, does that mean we are abandoned and cursed by him when we are sick? If that’s the case, why would we expect him to turn around and heal us – once he has abandoned and cursed us so? Doesn’t it seem to make more spiritual sense to assume that God is as present in our lives when we are sick as when we are well?

If he is present in our lives when we are ill, isn’t he in effect allowing the illness to affect us, by not intevening? If – for some reason – he is allowing our affliction, why would we presume that he would end it just because we prayed and asked him to? If he was in our lives, saw our suffering, and could have ended it before we thought to pray why didn’t he?… just to see if we would pray and ask for help? Would a God of love and mercy really be that sadistic or in need of adoration?

Let’s take a look at Hebrews 12:10

It is for chastening that ye endure; God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father chasteneth not? [...]  All chastening seemeth for the present to be not joyous but grievous; yet afterward it yieldeth peaceable fruit unto them that have been exercised thereby, even the fruit of righteousness. Wherefore lift up the hands that hang down, and the palsied knees; and make straight paths for your feet, that that which is lame be not turned out of the way, but rather be healed.

What if illness is a form of ‘spiritual chastening’ which “seemeth for the present to be not joyous but grievous”?  Could “exercised thereby” refer to remaining steadfast in spiritual faith and hope, despite physical and psychological pain and suffering.

What if “lift up the hands that hang down, and the palsied knees; and make straight paths for your feet, that that which is lame be not turned out of the way, but rather be healed” is telling us that physical illness may lead us towards greater spiritual healing?

I’m not suggesting that those who are ill deserve it for some greater good. I’m not suggesting that we shouldn’t do all we can to heal our sick, or at least make them as comfortable as possible. Even the bible tells us to have love and compassion for those who suffer. Jesus himself healed the sick, he didn’t say “keep suffering – it will be good for your soul”.

What I am suggesting is that maybe some illnesses are meant to run their course no matter how much faith we have, no matter how much we love the Lord, and no matter how long and hard we pray – even if the prayers are part of a 2.4 million-dollar scientific study…to see if God will answer them.

For a greater spiritual purpose God allowed his own son to endure the pain and suffering of the crucifixion – even to the point where Jesus cried out “my God, my God why hast thou forsaken me?”  Isn’t it possible that we mere mortals may also end up thinking that we have been “forsaken” on our hospital beds…because our prayers for healing (at the behest of science) seemed to fall on God’s deaf ears?

A few years ago, a 2.4 million-dollar scientific study was conducted by such reputable organizations as Harvard Medical School and the Mayo Clinic, to see if intercessory prayer (praying for someone else) could influence recovery from cardiac illness. Here is a link to an article describing the study which appeared in the American Heart Journal.

The study concluded that only does prayer NOT work, but when the patients knew they were being prayed for, it actually created a HIGHER incidence of complications among them! Needless to say, some atheists had a field day with the results, while some Christians said the study was flawed and didn’t really prove anything.

Once again it appeared that materialistic science has moved us closer to accepting a reality where there is no God, and spirituality is a delusion.

In my opinion, there is a lesson to be learned from this study by scientists, atheists, and people of faith. I believe that each group has a valid point in their interpretation of the data, and each perspective on the study reveals an element of truth – even though the truths may seem contradictory.

The first thing I would say to people of faith is that we should be careful what we wish for. If we turn to materialistic science and ask it to investigate the foundations of our faith, does it make any sense to believe the results of the investigation ONLY if it proves what we want it to? If we deem a study credible and valid, does it become less so, merely because we disagree with the results?

Isn’t the time to say “this experiment is ridiculous and can’t prove or disprove anything!” BEFORE the results roll in? If the people who were prayed for fared significantly better than the people who weren’t, would Christians have been walking around saying “this study was flawed” or praising the study for validating their faith?

Double standards aside, I believe that a very strong argument CAN be made for dismissing the entire study as ridiculous: from the hypothesis (i.e. that intercessory prayer will influence the recovery of the heart patients), to the experimental design, and interpretation of results. I’ll explore the matter more in Part II of this blog, but for now let’s take a look at James1:6-7:

“But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord.”

I’m no biblical scholar, but I would interpret that passage to mean that faith is a necessary condition for the Lord to answer our prayers. Well from the git-go, how much faith are we showing in the Lord and the efficacy of prayer, if we are conducting an experiment to see if prayer really works?

When what we once accepted only on faith is scientifically proven true, the faith is transformed into fact, and disappears forever. If the faith of humanity is as important to the Lord as all the biblical passages seem to indicate, would he really allow an experiment that would destroy humanity’s faith in one foul swoop to succeed?

This is a very simplistic analogy, but which is a stronger statement of faith on the part of your spouse: “I’m going to go through all your e-mails and chat sessions to make sure I can trust you not to be cheating online”, or “I’m not going to go through your e-mails – I’m just going to trust that you aren’t cheating”?

If there is a God, maybe he wants us to just trust that our prayers will be answered – or not – depending on some spiritual plan that is greater than our own individual lives, perceptions and wishes. I wonder if any of those doctors, scientists, and religious folk in the study stopped to consider the possibility that illness may be as much an expression of “God’s will” as health.

Imagine a computer in the year 3000. It has no programs installed on it yet. All it does it boot up and display the logo for Windows 7000 on it’s three-dimensional display. Clearly it has no ‘consciousness’ – just the operating system. Someone then loads the latest, leading-edge ‘intelligent’ software, including programs capable of performing the same commonsense reasoning as human beings. If we apply the criteria described in the article at scientificamerican.com, after we loaded the software, our PC became a conscious machine!

But where did the consciousness come from? Before the software was loaded, the PC was just an inanimate object. The programs that got loaded on the computer weren’t conscious either – just a set of instructions that got translated into sequences of 0′s and 1′s, the language of the computer chip… a stream of electrical signals.

No matter how sophisticated or “intelligent” the end result, does it really seem likely that our inanimate computer in the year 3000 became conscious because it received a set of inanimate instructions in the form of electrical signals? If a machine just behaves in a way that is determined by a set of instructions that I gave it, does the complexity of the instructions give it the power of consciousness?

But if we really want to claim that we can create a conscious machine, there’s a much easier way to do it. All we have to do is simply redefine the word ‘consciousness’ to mean:

“the ability to solve real-world problems of the same complexity that human beings can solve”

With our new definition of consciousness, we can take comfort in the fact that computers started their journey along the path to consciousness, the very first time that a program was written that could play tic-tac-toe… or recognize a human face in a photo. Given the trends in technology and mathematics, we can also take comfort in the fact that eventually our computers will become fully conscious. What an achievement!

But isn’t that what modern science (which can tend towards intellectual arrogance) often does when faced with problems of a spiritual nature: totally “redefine” the problem in materialistic terms, while disregarding and throwing away the spiritual components?

We can’t explain human consciousness? No problem, let’s just redefine it to mean more sophisticated PC’s! If we can’t prove God’s existence, then there is no God! If we can’t find a greater purpose or meaning in human existence, then there is none. Doesn’t it seems sometimes that science is becoming our religion, and that we are turning towards genetic manipulation and ‘conscious machines’ for our salvation?

There are some interesting implications of the article, from a religious and philosophical point of view. If human beings can create “consciousness” with inanimate silicon chips and electricity, then consciousness does not require life. Instead of being a “divine spark” and a manifestation of whatever God we believe in, consciousness becomes a purely physical phenomena.

It makes me wonder what’s next on the agenda of materialistic science, after creating conscious machines. Will it try to bring the machines to life (real life) with jolts of electricity, next-generation materials, and advances in bio-engineering? Will modern-day Frankenstein be the crowning glory of science and technology, by creating intelligent, conscious machines… that are soul-less and conscience-less. Will we clap and applaud the cleverness of science as these machines walk the earth looking, thinking, feeling and acting like human beings… until they bring about our demise because it seemed the most logical thing to do?

After all, if a machine is intelligent enough, and “conscious” enough to possess all the reasoning capabilities of its human creators (and more besides), wouldn’t it be smart enough to figure out that any organism that can just turn it off, is a threat to its existence? Isn’t that what human reasoning leads US to do – destroy those who would destroy us, before they have the chance to do so?

But let’s create increasingly more intelligent machines anyway, and then give them increasingly more command and control in our society anyway, no matter what the consequences. Why? Well, aside from just the fact that we can, we can make these intelligent, conscious machines serve us and improve the quality of our lives. There may not be a God in Heaven, but there’s a Best Buy just down the street…

Perhaps the question shouldn’t be HOW to create ‘conscious’ machines, but whether or not we SHOULD. What do you think?