Sunday, May 27, 2012

Let there be light

At the end of June I can be found in Northeastern Pennsylvania on my parents' property involved in "Cousin's Camp" where seventeen grandchildren and a few dear friends will gather to spend time together and learn something. This year's theme is light and it's place in Christian theology, and five fathers will present material throughout the week on the theme. My segment is on the constellations so in the next several days I will be working this. I will let you join me on my journey.

"And God said, 'Let there be light' and there was light." What is light? That is a problem that has been debate for centuries. When God called for light in Genesis 1 what did the ancient writer mean? Did the particles come into existence or were the waves of particles that already existed leave their source and begin to bounce off the waters on the empty sphere called earth? What we know now about light is that it consists of particles that we called photons that move faster than any other particles of which we aware. Even though the little bits of light we see move really fast, the colors we see only make up a little bit of the light that is there. I could tell you all about the many, many tests scientists have done over the centuries to find the different particles of light and how they move, but we don't have time. I can tell you that scientists have found that light particles move in waves, and the different size of the waves are seen by our eyes differently or not at all. 

I said that light is made up particles, but I will keep talking about the waves of light because we could not really catch one particle of light by itself because it moves too fast. So what we can see is the effect of particles of light when they are together in waves. The funny thing is that you can split light up by its waves by setting special filters in the way of the light waves. When we have light waves moving together we often call that group of waves a beam of light, and so when we have a beam of light we can set up a filter to split the beam into several beams that consist of the same wave type. Suppose you want to see the waves, how would they look compared to each other? Red light waves and blue light waves have a different pattern in that the distance between the top of the wave for each is always the same for red and a little farther apart for blue light.

So when I write about different types of light I talk about different lengths between the peaks of the waves or to shorten it I say "wavelength". The cool thing is that there are wavelengths that are invisible to your eyes because your eye does not have the type of cell that can see it. Wavelengths that are outside the visible spectrum are still very important. You wear sunscreen because a wavelength of light that is shorter than purple (violet) light is invisible to you, but can injure your skin cells and cause burns or cancer. Other wavelengths on the shorter side of the spectrum can do even more damage like X-rays. The other side of the spectrum has really cool effects like radio waves. 

So when light began it wasn't just the ability to get rid of the dark that came, but new ways of experiencing energy. When we think about energy what you and I usually mean is the movement of particles called electrons. Electric wires carry electrons back and forth while gasoline burns as electrons move from one molecule to another. Light has the ability to move electrons. That is how your eyes work. Photons hit the cells of your eyes and electrons in those cells move chemicals that stimulate electrons in your brain which your brain connects to memories to understand what the light told your eyes. 


Morality

I recently saw a friend post on Facebook about the neurosurgeon Ben Carson who is standing against evolutionary theory because it is a poor basis of morality. His alternative? He feels that safety is found in basing our morality on the Christian Bible. At first blush this may make sense, but I don't really believe this and you don't either. I thought I could write something about this, but I see that I already did so here is a link to the different posts I put up on this subject- http://me-as-me.blogspot.com/search/label/morality

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

What is your reality?

You do not see this page with your eyes. Well, if we were to be real picky, you really don't see anything with your eyes. You may know this, but what really happens is that light enters the front of the eye, stirs activity in cells inside the eye which begin electrochemical reactions in the nervous system, and the reactions in the nervous system activate various areas within the brain that convert the signals from the eyes into images that are then matched to various memories to interpret what the light reveals. You really "see" with your memory. The cool thing about our brain is that it can remember concepts, things, and events so that you can read this word and instantly remember seeing it while connecting it to an idea, and possibly even have feelings elicited because of an event of which the word reminds you. This is why you learn about everything you see in your world instead of instantly knowing everything about your world. This is also why optical illusions are possible. 

I remember the first time I saw a mirage on the road in front of us on a hot summer day. I can still remember the feeling of surprise when the water wasn't there when we came to the dip in the road where there had been a puddle of water only moments before. My dad explained how the different temperatures of air bent the light to make it seem as if water was reflecting the sunlight, and I learned that things can seem different than they are. My favorite example of this is the McGurk Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGurk_effect) in which a sound is "heard" differently depending on what is seen by the hearer. Some optical illusions show quirks in how light enters and is transmitted by the eye, but others reveal how what is "seen" is interpreted by the brain in conjunction with prior memories as in the McGurk effect. If you are used to distrusting what your eye tells you about sounds, like if you watch badly-dubbed kungfu movies, then the McGurk effect doesn't really work on you. 

All this is interesting because it is possible for your reality to differ from mine in very important ways. We often use the words reality and truth interchangeably, but some aspects of reality do differ from person to person because we experience the world with different brains which interpret things based on different memories and makeup. So while we both may experience the same sunshine your brain may see happiness and life while others may see murderous UV rays. I remember the story in the Gospels about the man Jesus healed of blindness who then described men walking around like trees (Mark 8:22-26). Imagine a blind man who knew by touch that upright structures were trees, but when his eyes worked he saw upright structures walking and talking like men. In other words his reality hadn't really included both sets of features in the same object. Mark remarks that a second touch from Jesus was required to allow him to recognize the same reality that someone who saw from birth had.

What if reality differed from truth? My favorite contribution to the Internet is my quote an acquaintance spread years ago- "Belief and sincerity do not define truth; it exists despite belief and sincerity." You may sincerely believe your reality is true but it doesn't mean that it is. One of my big frustrations is the false idea that still lives in this country that if something seems "natural" it is better. I am consulted by my fellow nurses at least monthly about some new "natural" treatment or supplement (as if taking a pill is natural) that seems better than modern medicine, and I must admit that while some people naturally see these things as better in obvious ways I do not agree with their reality. So our reality disagrees. What are we to do? An independent measure must be used to determine truth in our realities, and it cannot be who is loudest or most sincere. This is the real argument. When I still worked in the "alternative healthcare" industry I struggled over real evidence. My well-meaning mentor insisted that good healthcare started with the presupposition that certain concepts trumped "science falsely-so-called" that seemed to dominate the industry. In the end the only evidence that was included was whatever study supported his prior convictions of reality. I find this is often the case in the false healthcare industry- conventional medicine and science is supposed to be tainted and so only is right when it agrees with the nonconvenitonalist's preconcived notions. This has led to all sorts of craziness like iridology, applied kinesiology and overdosing on toxic plants because Aunt Gertrude saw a Chinese Indian take them once. 

This frustration is what led me to where I am. I found that scientists trust each other less than herbalists trust them. In fact they are constantly checking and rechecking their work to the be the gal or guy to prove a deeply held theory to be wrong. Preconceived notions are often thrown out to be reformulated or verified, and sacred cows are slaughtered whenever possible. So when a young earth creationist tells me that evolution is impossible because Genesis 1 says God did it in six days six thousand years ago I say, let's test that theory. "It's not a theory." I'm told "It is a preconceived notion that must be accepted to find the truth." What this means is that I must accept the way your brain interprets truth in order to find other truths. In other words this is a reality that lives on the same level as Aunt Gertrude's bitter poisonous green leaves. This is what I can't seem to swallow.


Friday, May 11, 2012

Justification or Explanation?

I dealt with a few approaches to the problem of evil in the last post, and how I am trying to reconcile what I see as reality with what I have been raised to believe. For many of my friends and family members "the problem of evil" is not even remotely an interesting question. These dear ones feel as if there is not any need to question God. When tornados tear bodies and lives apart some Christians see judgement of sin or a long-term purpose that goes beyond our understanding. Joseph of early Jewish history faced horrible rejection at every level, but he is remembered for recognizing God's higher purpose when he said "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good." (Genesis 50:20) On the other hand Job was rebuked for looking for a higher purpose, and trying to understand why he was suffering. (Job 40:8) 

I know a little about suffering, but only a little. As a small boy we were told that my mother was going to die, and there were a few times that I was convinced that I was watching her last moments. Cancer hurts everyone related to the victim, but what would happen if you were to ask my mother how she felt about the disease her body finally defeated. Her physical and emotional suffering was incredible, and she will tell her story with a few ideas on what purpose God had for her suffering. Ask Mom in a particularly vulnerable moment and she will confide that she cannot really find a purpose of God that makes the suffering to feel truly worth it, but she believes in her heart that His plan is far better than any she could have so she chooses to tust Him though she wishes His plan could have been perfected another way.

As I read through different writings that deal with the "problem of evil" I see a pattern developing in which those who have a problem reconciling God's goodness with the presence of evil are inclined to distrust God in the first place. Christians who discuss the problem of evil seem to be trying to explain how their intensely felt belief in a loving God makes logical sense. I suggest you read a blog by a man currently in the raw moments of pain- http://raymelick.blogspot.com/2012/05/men-at-ease-have-contempt-for.html Ray knows how to tell it. 

 

As I struggle with my unbelief I am beginning to think that problems with belief are not a matter of logic, but obedience to an inner sense of reality. What do you think? Do you feel the way you do because it feels right or because of irrefutable logic? In other words, when you defend your beliefs are your providing an explanation or trying to justify how you feel?

Friday, May 04, 2012

Not a Tame Lion

My son was around five when I read him the C. S. Lewis Chronicles of Narnia, and we happened on the statement that Aslan, the lion that seemed to represent Jesus in the allegory, was not a tame lion. It was a pretty good explanation to come back to when my son later noted a moment when something made him sad and I could not explain it by saying it fit God’s plan. "A tame animal is predictable and obeys your wishes, but you can't always predict what an untamed animal will do. It obeys no one but itself." Looking back I am interested that I didn't tell my son that God was a wild creature that can't be tamed. Instead I simply stated that he was not tame. A wild God is a scary idea. Wild animals bite and kill for no reason. A wild lion can turn on his handler, leaving onlookers puzzled as to what happened, and yet when I read that God, or Jesus, is not a tame lion, is the alternative simply that they are wild animals? 

One of my first concerns as I try to walk back through the doorway of my former faith is the problem of evil. Is it true that God is either not good or not all powerful? If he is good why does he allow evil unless he is too weak to fend it off? If God is powerful enough to fend off evil he must not be good enough to want to do it. The Christian Scriptures describe its god as all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfect in love. It seems to many that there is a breakdown somewhere in the attributes of God or that there isn't a god like the one described by the Christian.

I have heard different theologians speak of natural disasters as if they were the result of sin or satanic influence, but it is clear that if the God of the Bible can do anything He is fully in control of whatever happens in his world. If God let it happen then He is responsible for it happening. In the Bible even evil men are said to be under the control of God. Think about how God hardened Pharoah's heart while the ten plagues ravaged his country, and even how Solomon stated that the "heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord" and he turns it any way he desires. (Proverbs 21)

Google the word "theodicy" and you will see different attempts of philosophers and theologians (some of whom are philosophers) to make sense of the fact that the Christian god is perfectly good and all-powerful. I discussed this with my son recently and we went through all the options, but we decided that the only answer that really worked for him is that somehow God knows best, and we just have to trust him. This is good enough for many, but it really only works if you feel like God is perfectly good and need an "escape clause" to make you feel ok about an out-of-control world. It is as if you are saying "I know He is good so He must have some higher purpose at work." 

There is another approach that can answer why this world is out-of-control. From the beginning of time as we know it chaos has been the rule of the universe. When untamed powerful forces interact they can change the current organization of things to something very different which can disrupt life and its ability to survive. I am told by Christians "But if everything is the product of chaos then everything is meaningless!" Really? To see that our species has risen out of such chaos and thrived even as the forces of weather, geology, and the competition for resources worked against us creates an incredible sense of being part of an incredibly innovative movement of life. I have a small part of ensuring the continued success of our species as it evolves into the next stage of physical and cultural development. By producing children I have already potentially made a permanent mark on our species' genes for millions of years, and by working to teach my children I have a chance to mold our culture to be better in the future. As humans around me observe my behavior they instinctively develop opinions on how to copy or respond to my behavior which also modifies my culture in a small way, and as billions of us around the Earth act and observe we create the genes and culture of our future. Yes, there is meaning in life, even without a god!

So why would I want to return to my former faith? The culture and people I know and love draw me back, and I honestly want to be part of the confused happiness all around me in church. I remember the good feeling I felt when I believed that God was real and at work in and around me. Now I feel as if those days had me watching a movie on a screen while reality was obscured behind it. Now that I feel like I know the truth I only enjoy the movie for its sense of nostalgia, but I still long for the certainty that came with belief.

So what is the answer for evil? Did God create evil? In a sense the Christian must admit to some extent that his God did create evil, but he could argue that in doing so God had a greater good in mind that goes beyond philosophy and theology. So the God of the Bible allows horrible events to happen on a whim, and cannot really be predicted. All the Christian can say is, “Deep in my heart I know that God is good, and when I get to Heaven it will all make sense.” I guess you must accept God as being truly wild, or untamed, to accept His religion, but I am yet unsure that an untamed God is a better explanation than untamed forces.