The 3 Foundational Beliefs of Man

The following is a response to a student concerning beliefs.

Great job!!!  Some questions and thoughts concerning your work:

You still are hung up on religion not having right or wrong... but again I ask, what is the point of believing in God or not god if none of it is right or wrong?  It is a logical fallacy to believe one over the other and then say that it does not matter.  The entire purpose of mankind hinges on whether or not there is a God or no god.

If God, then many possibilities, such as divine purpose, absolute rights and wrongs that are not subjective and determined by people and preference.

If not god, then all is subjective and there is no real right or wrong outside of personal opinions and preferences. 

Both cannot be true.

As far as faith goes... we all have a measure of faith and we put it in something.  

Some people put it in not grappling with deep questions, meaning they have decided to believe it is not important to ask whether or not God exists.  And they think that the consequences are manageable both here on earth and in whatever after life.  They believe this by faith because they cannot prove it true.  

Some people, by faith, believe in only a physical realm without a metaphysical realm.  They, by sheer logic cannot believe in absolute good or evil.  And if we take that logic path we have to decide that logically speaking there is no real rights or wrongs.  Unless they decide that that Universe is eternal and created us with a purpose.  Then they have just made physical matter god to man instead of an outside the universe God.  

Some people believe in an outside the universe God and this logically can lead to ultimate purpose as well as ultimate right and wrong, good and evil.  There are many different beliefs concerning this God.  Thus we have to use other tools besides religion and science, such as history and philosophy to help determine which are more or less accurate. 

So we have 3 major types of beliefs.  The first belief is we do not need an answer to the question of God.  The second belief is we only have a physical universe, thus the only major, real and useful tool outside of our minds is science.  And the third belief is in a God, and in this belief we can use all the tools to determine what is most accurate.

How can we know? Is it possible to know if God, our Purpose?

The following is a response to a student’s thoughts on religion.  The student believes all religions are equal, that it is not known whether or not life exists after death.  That religion is more determinant on ones upbringing rather than a search for truth.  That nothing can be known to be true, everything is opinion:

Great job, you are definitely thinking through the material.  Let me address some things you have mentioned.  At one point you said that no religions are right or wrong.  If that is true, what is the point of religion?  Also, just as an example of two religions getting completely different answers to the same question; Jesus is a central figure in both the Bible/Christian religion and the Qur’an/Muslim religion.  The Bible says he died on the cross.  The Qur’an says he did not.  Which is true?  Both answers cannot be true, thus both religions are not equally correct.

To state that many have different names for God all around the world means that you must believe it is possible for some to know whether or not God and or which God.  Otherwise it is not logical to even give credit to all the names that people have come up with.  

You bring up science testing life after death.  But is that possible?  Can science test the metaphysical as it does the physical?  If not, what other tools can we use to determine whether or not it is probable for there to be a life after death?

As far as people being brought up in one religion or another, how many people do you know who have not questioned the religion they were brought up in?  How many of the people have rejected the religion they were taught?  Now, it is true that some religions are less tolerant of those who leave the way, but people still can choose to leave.  This is what gives us free will.

As far as our ability to know truth; if we are incapable of knowing the truth, what purpose is there in any pursuit in life?  If we cannot find truth about our purpose, how do we know what we are doing has any meaning or value, whether it is right or wrong?  Why pursue anything?

Again, great job!  Keep thinking things through.

Is Morality Relative?

 Below is a response to one of my students concerning moral relativity vs moral absolutes:



If a standard- Objective truth: then important things are not subject to mans interpretation and opinion.
If no standard- subjective preference: everything is dependent upon individual opinion and preference in the moment.

If we have objective truth then it does not matter what laws man makes or what feelings an individual has, the truth is always true.  For example, pedophilia is wrong!  If that is only my opinion then we are not certain it is wrong just because many agree; there are those who would disagree.  If that is only an opinion then it is subjective  and neither opinion is wrong and neither opinion is right.  I personally do not believe this is an opinion, I believe in a standard of truth that is not subject to mans opinions.

Here is a logical reason why I believe there is a standard.  Every human needs oxygen to stay alive.  This is not a subjective opinion, but an absolute standard fact.  I think it is logical that there is also a standard; a set of laws for man to discover in the metaphysical (supernatural) world similar to the laws man has been discovering in the physical world.  In the physical world man has discovered the laws of gravity, motion, physics, thermodynamics etc... etc... etc...  Man did not make these laws, but discovered them.  It seems logical to assume that the metaphysical world would also have laws and man must discover them.

These metaphysical laws would logically be established by one whom we call God.  So it is not a question of God, but which god.  Did God leave a trail, a Holy Book, something for man to discover what his created purpose is and what his relationship ought to be with his creator?

What do you think?

Part III B: The buffet of religion or did God create with purpose?

             If someone does not have strong beliefs they may be questioning what to believe.  There are so many religions to choose from.  Which religions have it right?  Do they all have it right?  Is it possible that there is only one right?  If so, how can so many people get it wrong? 

    Because religions are as vast as there are people groups on the planet it would be impossible to address every religion that man practices.  For example, Hinduism is the foundation of many eastern religions, such as Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism and the like. Judaism is the starting point for many religions as well; such as, Christianity, Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witness, Islam etc...  (There are some who will find offense to this last statement and if that is the case please re-read the definition of religion given in the previous blog.)  There are also newer religions, such as, Wicca, Scientology, new forms of old religions; such as the new atheism, new agnostic, of course there are your traditional atheist and agnostics etc… etc… etc…  

    When one decides to become cognitively consonant pertaining to their religious beliefs or beliefs in the supernatural (metaphysical) it is imperative to take a look at the source of one’s belief.  In the process of determining where one would like to put their faith many questions should be asked, without these questions one either accepts or rejects particular belief systems blindly.  It is also imperative to come at this with a purely open heart.

     A truth can never be undone by a question.  If someone questions the roundness of the earth and suggests that he/she perceives that the earth is rather flat.  If this someone questions and challenges, does this change the facts?  If God exists and has a purpose for His creation does that become undone by a question?  The point is, not all of us are on the same level of belief and not all of us use the gift of reason at the same level.  Let us try to determine if we were created with a purpose!

Part III A: Religion: The Sacriest Word Of All!: Is it one size fits all?

              It is safe to say that just about everyone who reaches an age where they are contemplating life, it’s meaning and purpose, has formulated a definition of religion.  One of the questions I ask my students the first day of class is, “How would you define religion?”  As with faith, there are multiple answers which range from, defining religion to be a set of ideas that people are brought up to believe, to a way for governments to control us, to a God ordained way of life.  All the answers my students give have some merit based on the definition I will give.  Religion is man’s attempt to explain the behavior of mankind; his interaction with the world around him and the idea (possibility or impossibility) of as well as man’s relationship to, a supernatural- spirit realm and Supernatural, Spiritual gods or God.  Or for those who are squeamish with the concept of supernatural, let us call it metaphysical.

              It is important to state that the definition of religion is not as close to absolute as the definition of what science should be.  That is not to say that one cannot find absolutes in their religion.  The western mindset pertaining to religion is somewhat of an individualistic mindset that allows the individual to freely express religion on their own terms.  This is why I used the definition above; it allows the individual to have free expression of their beliefs as well as allowing for the possibility of gods or a supreme god who mandates a set of beliefs, rituals; sacred acts to appease said gods or god.  The definition even allows for a loving relational God. 

              Religion has evolved over time along with the best definition for it.  Though it is debatable where the American founding fathers stood on particular religious thoughts and expressions, though the European ideology of church being governed by the state caused many different expressions of religious belief to be birthed, one thing stands as fact. The Christian religion has been utterly influential throughout the western world since Constantine made Christianity the main religion of the Roman Empire.

              In our ever shrinking world because of the ease of global transportation, the internet, multicultural cities and other factors western religious thought and expression is easily found worldwide.  Eastern and Middle Eastern religious ideologies, thoughts and expressions have come to be more influential in the west because of these same factors.  This is interesting because of the very nature of religion.  Most people who take their religion seriously consider it to be something personal and sacred.  What do we do when we come across someone whose religious ideology don’t line up similarly to our own?  Is pluralism the answer, or should we live and let live?  These types of questions are very important for those who consider religion to have value (of course all adhere to one set of religious values or another whether they recognize their religion or not).

             Of course there is the atheistic religion that is permeating western society.   I have interacted with many atheists over the course of the last few years and their beliefs are as wide spread as any other religions.  Some, who call themselves atheist are more agnostic and atheist.  Meaning, they do not state empirically that their is no god, only that there is no god presented that they can accept (or something along those lines).  Others are much more ardent in their belief that there is no god.  Yet each atheist has a belief system concerning morality and rights and wrongs.  They all have a belief system concerning consequences for their actions.  They all have a thought on how the universe began etc... etc... etc...

              Since this work is intended to focus on faith and not on religion the answer to these questions posed above will not be addressed fully, though posing the questions and dealing with the whole “religions” part of life is important when talking about faith.  Whatever ones religious beliefs are it is important to remember that being sensitive to ones fellow man and operating from a stand point of compassion is the best way to address some of these sensitive topics.

Part II D: Naturalistic Evolution: Faith or Fact?

With that in mind it is time to broach the subject of evolution.   As stated earlier, because evolution has been a scientific discipline, much in the way of understanding biology, anatomy and the constructs of basic life has come to light.  This helps humanity on many levels including man having the ability to combat and overcome disease.  One very recent possible breakthrough for scientists is figuring out the correct binding of proteins that will in turn bind to another protein that is central to the influenza virus.  With this binding comes new information that will help man battle the common cold as well as strains of influenza that are more difficult for our immune systems to manage.  This does not explain in detail the pain staking difficult work scientists had to go through to have a brake through.  Not only do proteins have to bind to the infectious based protein, they have to be the right kinds of protein that bind.  They not only have to be the correct kinds of protein, but they must bind to the infectious causing protein in the correct place.

              It took the most cutting edge technology to accomplish this; just right environment and many thousands of hours of research and development for scientists to get to a desirable outcome.  It begs the question, if it takes so much time, energy, research and intellectual know how to produce proteins that are affective in combating one disease, how then does one explain away a purely naturalistic process for the origins of life and evolution?  

              Evolution at an earlier stage in its history was a simpler concept than it is today.  One did not have to clarify whether or not they were talking about evolution from one species to another or talking about the origins of life.  Today, because of many factors, evolution theory is a much bigger dilemma than it was.  In the beginning evolution had a simple base; something along the lines of simple less complex organisms evolved into bigger more complex ones.  Today, because of technology we can see a lot of similarity in one celled organisms and multi celled complex organisms.  Scientists look at the more complex organisms and determine, based on DNA, RNA, and Genome mapping which organisms look to be most closely related.   Because of very close relations for particular species scientists determine which species evolved from others.  This in and of itself appears to have value, if evolution had already been proven at a base level.

              Looking at evolution from a purely logical point of view one needs to ask a more in depth question; how did the first single celled organism get here?  Until that question can be answered fully, all other conjectures of purely naturalistic evolutionary processes as the only possible explanation is blind faith based.  If, by chance, a natural process is found it doesn’t prove that natural origins are the only answer to the origins of life, it only changes the faith from blind faith to substance based faith.

              At this point it must be stated that some scientists have moved back into the Deist camp because of the difficulties posed with the question raised in the last paragraph.  Depending on an individual’s interpretation concerning Deism (the belief in an entity outside of the known universe is the “first cause” of the universe) one of two belief systems emerges.  One belief is that the entity was the first cause of the universe only; the other possible belief is the entity is the first cause of life as well.  If an individual determines that the entity was the first cause of life as well as the universe, that individual cannot believe in a purely natural origin to life, thus does not believe in purely naturalistic evolution as the only possibility to life’s inception.  This line of thinking also leaves open the possibility for the entity to be the first cause on many levels that are not personal in nature to man.  It is no more personal for the entity to make a fish than for the entity to make a one celled organism.  This could mean that the entity made everything up to the point of man and then allowed man to evolve from one of the things it made.  Therefore the entity would have been more personal with every creature then it was with man.

              It would appear that Deists would not take things that far, therefore most believe the entity was the first cause of the universe and everything else happened by pure natural processes.   But this leads back to the question of how did the first single celled organism come into being?   Who or what caused life to begin on our planet or the universe at large?  Atheists do not have a legitimate answer to these questions.  Every single hypothesis presented that purports a natural origin has difficulties to say the least, in fact these difficulties are so severe a better word to define this process is, impossible.  To truly grasp this material, one would have to study every possible scenario of how a naturalistic origin to life has been presented.  There are many volumes of material that have been written concerning this matter and if one would like to determine whether or not putting their faith in naturalistic pursuits alone is worth it, becoming informed is essential.  

              Instead of trying to regurgitate something that others have said much better than I can, it will suffice to say that those who have made this pursuit their life’s work have become frustrated with the lack of evidence.  As I have done my research I have found that some leading scholars in this field have actually written about their findings with disappointment or after having presented their findings they state something along the lines of, though the findings make naturalistic origins to life more difficult to explain the findings should not necessarily line up with what is preferred (what is preferred by the researcher and his audience).   Some researchers have gotten so frustrated that they start trying to figure out if certain things such as homochirality are even necessary for life.  The reason they want to find a legit reason to question this is because it is absolutely needed for life and it cannot happen by purely natural means alone (to study this subject on a more complete level a wonderful resource is Origins of Life by Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross).

              This is why I question evolution being ported as a theory (something that is true or recognized as the best explanation).  If we compare the Big Bang Theory with the Evolutionary theory we see that the more tests that are devised and the more understanding we have the more apparently true the Big Bang Theory appears to be.  With the Evolutionary Theory, the more tests it goes through, the more understanding that we have; the more difficult and fragmented it becomes.  Does this alone prove Evolution to be false?  I’ll leave you to do the research for yourself to come to your own conclusions.  However, as things sit today it takes blind faith to believe in a purely natural origin for life.