Thinking Christian

From the conclusion of a paper out of the University of Virginia (emphasis added):

This brief provides an array of evidence indicating that religion is an answer to the male problematic—that is, the tendency of fathers to become detached, emotionally or physically, from their children and the mothers of their children. I find that fathers who are religious, and who have partners who are religious, are—on average—more likely to be happily married, to be engaged and affectionate parents, and to get and stay married to the mothers of their children. As a consequence, religious fathers and husbands are much less likely to fall prey to the male problematic of late modernity.

[Link: Center for Marriage and Families » Blog Archive » Is Religion an Answer? Marriage, Fatherhood, and the Male Problematic]

The “male problematic” was defined earlier in the paper:

One of the most important consequences of the family revolution of the last half-century—a revolution marked by dramatic increases in divorce, nonmarital childbearing, and cohabitation—is that ever larger numbers of men are becoming disconnected from family life. From New York to New Orleans, from San Francisco to Seattle, more and more men in the United States are living apart from the children they helped to bring into this world. This growing disconnect between men and families has been aptly called the “male problematic” by University of Chicago theologian Don Browning.

This entry joins others showing positive outcomes associated with faith. Please note the disclaimer there (at the end of the page) regarding how this information should be interpreted.

The May 29 post on Tingley and Pascal has continued to raise discussion. It opened up questions about “the heart” as evidence or a way of knowing God. What does it mean? Is it valid? I originally wrote this as a comment following this one, but I’ve decided to post it as a main blog entry instead.

What if there were observational evidence, perceptions, that not everybody has access to? This is something like what Alvin Plantinga suggests in Warranted Christian Belief, and it has definite Biblical underpinnings.

We know there are everyday perceptions not everyone has access to: the visual world is inaccessible to the blind, and the profoundly deaf cannot know the world of sound except through rough analogies to felt vibrations. The Bible speaks of a kind of spiritual perception, a sense of God, that not all persons experience. The reasons are found in places like 1 Corinthians 2:10-14, where “the natural person” is one who has not been regenerated (given new spiritual life) through a relationship with Christ. In our natural condition, we are separated from God so thoroughly we can’t even tell he’s there, but he can and does open the eyes (metaphorically) of his followers so they gain that perception.

This is not fideism, faith in faith or belief for the sake of believing, without evidence. This is belief on the basis of perception. I believe there are dogs next door because I can hear them barking. I believe the weather is clear this morning because I see blue when I look up at the sky.

Obviously, the dogs and the weather both involve more than my immediate perceptions. I have a long, rich, personally and socially developed web of conceptions and confirmations surrounding my beliefs. In relation to the dogs, I have observed many dogs barking, I have never observed other animals barking; and in my experiences of other persons’ statements about dogs and barking, I’ve never heard it seriously suggested that it could be otherwise. I’ve heard recordings of dogs barking, but my experience with acoustics and my knowledge of my neighbor inform me that this is no recording. (Of course I also know that they have had a dog for a long time, but this is the first time I’ve heard two different “dog voices;” my knowledge of their having multiple dogs there is based on nothing but perception, within this conceptual background.)

My perception of the barking, accompanied by much other knowledge and experience, leads me to conclude there are dogs there. Is there a parallel set of confirming knowledge for the perception of God? Certainly there is. There is the clarification of perception given through revelation, God’s word. There is the social confirmation of millions of others who agree in what they perceive. There is the historical confirmation provided through archaeology, textual history, and so on. There is the personal confirmation provided through testing: I have tried God, and found him to be good (Psalm 34:4-8). There is the philosophical confirmation by which I find Christian theism to be far more explanatory than other worldviews.

I’m rambling, I know. But I’m trying also to explain “the heart.” It is partly about a direct perception of God. Since we’ve been on the subject of Pascal here, it’s worth pointing out what he himself said about about this, including:

GOD of Abraham, GOD of Isaac, GOD of Jacob
not of the philosophers and of the learned.
Certitude. Certitude. Feeling. Joy. Peace.
GOD of Jesus Christ.
My God and your God.
Your GOD will be my God.
Forgetfulness of the world and of everything, except GOD.
He is only found by the ways taught in the Gospel.
Grandeur of the human soul.
Righteous Father, the world has not known you, but I have known you.
Joy, joy, joy, tears of joy.

And what if one does not have this experience of God? I suggest you ask him for it. He will certainly answer, if you welcome it on his terms. He is the “Righteous Father,” who cares and loves as the most perfect father on earth cares and loves, only far better; and he is also one who intends to deliver us from our sin. Taste, and see that the Lord is good!

There’s a potential false conclusion to steer clear of as you read Edward Tingley’s article, “The Skeptical Inquirer,” on which I blogged yesterday. He refers to Blaise Pascal’s statement that God cannot be known through the senses. One might suppose that he is saying that it is impossible to perceive God in any way. Whatever Tingley and Pascal might say to that, I would put it this way: While it is not impossible to see God, it is possible not to see God.

I was thinking about this on my drive home from the office, on the Colonial National Parkway between Williamsburg and Yorktown, Virginia. The drive begins in a forest of tall pines, dogwoods, oak, and maple trees, and continues along the York River, a place of unusual calm and beauty. I could certainly see God in that (his workings, that is, or better yet, his artistry). I can see him in the members of my family, and hear him in the birds singing as I sit on the back porch now.

Psalm 19:1 says “the Heavens declare the glory of God.” Romans 1:19-20 adds that

what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.

And yet many do not see God there.

The same could be said for the historical evidences for God in Jesus Christ. There is ample evidence for the life of Christ in history; see Craig Blomberg’s article on this, for example. As for his death and resurrection, it’s marvelously explanatory. It makes sense of the generally agreed facts surrounding the events, and it explains the remarkable turn history took following Jesus’ (by ordinary standards) relatively obscure life. It lays the foundation for answers such as no other system of thought can provide for deep existential questions regarding the human condition, and what is to be done about it.

Yet many can see the same questions and consider the same answers, and not see God.

The classic philosophical arguments for God, likewise, explain conundrums like consciousness, reason, purpose, the existence of the universe, and more. They, too, are persuasive arguments for the reality of God.

I and many others see God there, yet still others do not.

Though it is not impossible to see God, it is possible not to see him. This, I think is the point to be taken home from Tingley’s and Pascal’s skepticism regarding finding God through the senses. Evidence can be interpreted in multiple ways, so in the end, though the senses can speak to the question of God, they cannot decide it.

Tingley’s important reminder for us is that they cannot decide against God any more than they can definitively decide for God. Those who seek a final conclusion on the matter must look elsewhere. Pascal suggests the heart as one place to look. It’s a suggestion worthy of real reflection.

I gave this talk at Seaford Baptist Church on Wednesday, April 23, 2008. Some portions have been edited out because they’re not applicable to a wider audience.

 

 Do We Really Know It's True? [33:00m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

More positive life outcomes associated with spirituality. This EurekAlert article’s headline reads

Religion, other factors contribute to successful African-American marriages

Spousal commitment, faith and communication key to enduring relationships

This continues to add to an ongoing store of articles on spirituality and life outcomes. Please see that page for perspectives on interpreting such research.

Richard Dawkins is famously trying to convince the world that it’s abusive to raise children in a religious tradition–any religious tradition. It’s an ironically unscientific opinion, not just unsupported but actually contradicted by research. Mike Gene points to yet another instance of that:

Spirituality — defined as an inner belief system — accounted for eight to 17 per cent of the average child’s sense of happiness, the study showed.
By contrast, money, the marital status of parents and the child’s gender didn’t even register one per cent.
“It’s a whopping big effect…”

[From Calgary Herald, Finding out what makes kids happy]

This adds to an ongoing store of articles on spirituality and life outcomes. Please see that page for perspectives on interpreting such research.

Albert Mohler on Is Belief in God Just a Natural Phenomenon?

Barry Carey on Jesus Without the New Testament

Rather technical but helpful for those who do this kind of thing: State of the Debate: Rowe, Wykstra, and Plantinga on the Evidential Argument From Evil (Hat Tip to Johnny-Dee)

The responses to my question last week include the following.

From SteveK:

I’d say a religion that confirmed, or aligned with, what we are most striving for…. What has humanity been striving for throughout history? At the top of the list: love, truth, joy, contentment, justice, peace, understanding, relationship, significance, hope, etc.

Leslie explained that followers’ devotion is not a true test of a religion, then added,

Personally, the historical authenticity and reliability of the religion’s writings seems to me to be one of the few ways to take an unbiased look at the validity of what the religion teaches. I’m not sure it’s the whole test, but for me it’s definitely part of it.

Paul wrote:

I’d need to be able to communicate with the God of the religion in a normal fashion. I’d need a being that I could communicate with directly, as easily as I do my friends.

doctor(logic)’s answer seemed to be that there is no test. Does that imply there’s no way to know what is not a true religion?

Medicine Man said he believes a true religion must display internal consistency of its beliefs and ideas. Then he linked to a page on his blog where he adds these tests:

1. It has to provide meaningful impacts on one’s daily life
2. It must correlate to reality
3. It must be internally consistent
4. The worldview must be supported by rational, real-world supporting evidence
5. These tests must be objective

He expands these five items with commentary there.

wf3 offered a surprising suggestion:

Since truth, by necessity, excludes error, I would look for a religion that claims to be the sole truth.

Fabio picked up an earlier theme on the adherents to a religion and suggested,

at if you want to judge a religion by its adherents you would not measure the adherents by some set bar, but rather you would measure each adherent by the changes, positive or negative, in that person.

This follow-on was amusing:

Obviously that’s difficult to do and subject to interpretation (would a relativist agree that a liar who became honest is a better man?).

Further, he added,

this religion should not contradict scientific fact…. [and] he religion should account for the origin of the entire universe, not just earth or mankind, and the religions god should be external to the universe. If a religion claims that its god is part of and contained in the universe, then it can hardly be true.

Havok pointed to the internal consistency test that was raised more than once, and suggested that those commenters were holding to an internal coherence theory of truth. That’s not necessarily the case. Internal coherence theories typically say that a system of beliefs is true just if it is internally coherent. Internal coherence is the sole test. We saw among these comments, though, that there ought also to be a correspondence with reality. Correspondence theories include coherence as one test, but not the only test of truth.

Since I’ve already moved from recapitulating into analyzing, I’ll continue. No one pretended these comments would make an exhaustive list of tests, but there are some good ones here. wf3’s is the most unexpected: A religion that claims to be the sole truth. I think this is on the right track. If religions disagree with each other, and one of them is true, then the others must be false (where they disagree with it). Moreover it seems that the one true religion quite plausibly would have the self-awareness to know that its truth excludes all conflicting truth claims.

In The Reason for God, which I’ll be reviewing soon, Timothy Keller makes an interesting related point. If there is one true religion, then your culture and mine, as well as all other cultures, are going to think it’s wrong on some significant point. Why? Because ultimate spiritual reality is not culturally conditioned. Every religion teaches that humans have a problem with knowing or doing the truth. A problem like this is bound to appear in cultures as well as individuals. Every culture will have a problem with knowing or doing the truth.

Because of cultural conditioning, though, we are likely to see it the other way around. We tend to think of our cultures as having “arrived,” but this, too is culturally conditioned. Westerners typically think it’s illiberal and unethical, for example, to judge another culture, but other cultures disagree with that. Are we going to judge them and say they are wrong? That’s contradictory and can even become comical. Mark Steyn wrote of Lady Kennedy’s apparent belief that

our tolerance of our own tolerance is making us intolerant of other people’s intolerance, which is intolerable.

Paul’s test, to be able to communicate with God as a friend, raises all kinds of interesting thoughts. I’ll outline a much-too-short Christian response. First, God calls us into a very personal relationship with Him, where there is true communication. Second, it cannot be as a friend to a friend, because God is God and we are not (nor are our friends). God is worthy of worship, not casual hanging out together. Third, human rebellion from God creates a barrier which God overcomes in Jesus Christ’s death on the cross (it’s Good Friday today, when we commemorate that). Real relationship is possible for those who enter it on God’s terms, but not for those who refuse the terms for which He lovingly gave His life. And the real relationship we can experience now is nothing compared to the intimacy we’ll experience in heaven with God.

To summarize, we have several tests on the table here:

• Internal consistency
• Meeting the desires/strivings of humans, including love, meaning, forgiveness, joy, relationship, …
• Life change of adherents
• Correspondence with extra-religious fact, including science and history
• Transcendence
• A claim of unique truth
• Challenging individuals’ and cultures’ beliefs and actions

That’s not a bad list. We can work with it.

Commenter Havok has been asking for evidences that could convince him that Christianity is true. He has been asking for the answer to one type of question in particular, as here:

But there are many different Gods experienced. Some claim Yahweh, others Jesus, others Allah, others Ganesh etc. With all of these conflicting experiences, how can you trust that any one experience is accurate? To me, they all seem to be based on the same evidence, that is personal testimony of an internal revelation.

Given that there are many different religions, how can we have confidence that one of them is true? That’s a big question, and I’m relaxing on a Friday evening, I’m going to ask you for help with it. If you’re willing to do this with me, we’re going to define the question more clearly. I’d like your answers to this:

Assume for the sake of discussion that there is one true religion, that it can be known to be true, and that its truth means that contrary beliefs are false. How could its truth be known? What might be some indicators of its being more trustworthy and reliable than other beliefs?

I’m not asking for answers in the form “here is the test and this is why Christianity passes,” or conversely “this is why Christianity fails.” I’m just asking for the first part of it: what would you consider to be the kind of thing that might indicate the truth of a religion? If you want to tell us you think Christianity does or does not measure up to your test, that’s fine, but you need not go into how it succeeds or falls short. We’ll come back to that very soon. For now, I’d be interested just to know what readers think would constitute a useful truth test for a religion.

Please think in terms of real-world tests. I’m not asking for signs like, “If God wrote Jesus’ name on every brick in the world, then I’d know.” Even those of you who are skeptics or atheists might be able to think of tests like that. You could think about how you might fill in X here: “If I were to find out that X, then I might believe that Y was the one true religion.”

I hope this is clear. Thanks for participating!

In his new book, The Reason for God, currently No. 18 on the New York Times bestseller list, Keller offers what one might call his summa: the meat of his preaching, teaching, and confession of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior for a world of unexamined materialist presuppositions, genetic determinisms, and endless digital cross-chatter.

I [Anthony Sacramone] sat down to talk with Pastor Keller at the Redeemer offices in Manhattan….

[From FIRST THINGS: On the Square » Blog Archive » An Interview with Timothy Keller]