eChurch Blog

A message I needed to hear today:

Fascinating research conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute in partnership with Religion News Service, following the recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan:

7-in-10 Americans see God as a person with whom one can have a relationship, and a majority (56%) say God is in control of everything that happens in the world.

However, less than 4-in-10 (38%) believe earthquakes, floods and other natural disasters are a sign from God; and even fewer (29%) believe that God sometimes punishes nations for the sins of some of its citizens.

The one exception to this pattern is found among white evangelical Protestants.

Nearly 6-in-10 (59%) white evangelicals also believe that natural disasters are a sign from God. Only about one-third of Catholics (31%) and white mainline Protestants (34%) believe natural disasters are a sign from God.

A majority (53%) of white evangelicals believe that God punishes nations for the sins of its citizens–a view held by just 1-in-5 white mainline Protestants and Catholics.

Nearly 6-in-10 (58%) Americans say that the severity of recent natural disasters is evidence of global climate change, compared to 44% of Americans who say that the severity of recent natural disasters is evidence of what the Bible calls the ‘end times.’  White evangelical Protestants and Republicans are an exception to this pattern:

Among White evangelicals, 67% believe that natural disasters are evidence of what the Bible calls the ‘end times’ compared to 52% who see it as evidence of global climate change.

Among Republicans, 52% believe that natural disasters are evidence of what the Bible calls the ‘end times’ compared to 41% who see it as evidence of global climate change.

….read all

The following cross-post by Stacy – Accepting Abundance – is in response to the recent BBC article entitled: ‘Religion may become extinct in nine nations, study says‘:

Why math can’t predict the extinction of religion, or rainfall

Math cannot predict the extinction of religion any more than it can predict when and where the next rain drop will fall.

We are right to be indignant when researchers use mathematics improperly to assume they can predict such things as is the case in this research paper about religion being driven to extinction.  It is possible for academics throw a bunch of Greek letters at an audience with the sole purpose of intimidating them to accept the premise because they don’t think people are smart enough to figure out what they really mean.  Some people are too happy to lazily accept the conclusion because it’s what they want to believe.

A number of Catholic writers picked this up.  I saw Christopher’s post on it at Christopher’s Apologies and he and his wife point out that the researchers had a predetermined conclusion.  Stuart at Theology in the News mentioned it and linked to Joe Carter’s article via Rod Dreher at First Things.  He points out that the conclusion can be turned on it’s head.  If religion can become extinct, then it can also become 100% pervasive.

I want to add to these astute comments a broader explanation about why mathematics cannot prove such things so that when this stuff pops up, it can properly be smacked down.  It’s not only offensive, it’s potentially dangerous.  Science has become the marketing wrap for ideas in secular culture.  My husband has advanced degrees in applied mathematics and numerical theory and he has worked in the financial industry for over 25 years.  He spends his life modelling human behavior and trying to predict what people will do, but not so he can publish papers with predetermined conclusions funded by people with agendas.  In his field, he has to be objectively right or people become unemployed, including him.  He knows very fundamentally what people sometimes try to get us to deny:

Humans and natural systems are inherently unpredictable.

Any prudent, rational, responsible and honest researcher must keep this truth before them at all times because mathematical models can be manipulated to deliver any outcome one wants to make.  If the foundational assumptions are wrong, the conclusion will be unreliable…or, if done intentionally, the conclusion will be what you want it to be.  That’s why in the scientific method forming the hypothesis is so critical.

For example, it’s rather straightforward to design an experiment to correlate violent death with eating french fries, and then warn people to never eat them again.  However we all know instinctively that any such model would be utterly incapable of predicting what will happen the next time you eat a french fry.  You don’t have to be able to rip through formulas to know it.  The math in the correlation may be perfectly correct, but the hypothesis is flawed.  Here’s one sentence to remember whenever any research references a mathematical model.

Models that explain past behavior can only reliably predict future behavior if the component parts 1) behave according to the laws of physics, and 2) the conditions can be controlled.

Anyone who’s baked more than a few loaves of bread knows this from experience.  You more or less know what will happen if you cut the quantity of an ingredient in half, and all other things being equal, it’ll happen that way every time.  In this case both rules apply.  Food follows the laws of physics and the conditions for cooking can be controlled.

Now consider rain.  In a parking lot it would be possible to mathematically model why all the raindrops hit the ground when and where they did during the last shower.  It would be a massive thing to model, but it could be done.  This is somewhat how weathermen predict the weather, but we all know from experience that they are often wrong about the prediction.  Why?  Because there are endless factors we cannot account for that cause rain to fall or not fall.  Back to the parking lot, there are almost endless factors that affect when and where a single raindrop will hit the ground.  This is why predicting where the rain drop will fall, even if you have a good model about the past, is utterly impossible.  Water molecules follow the laws of physics, but the conditions for rain fall cannot be controlled.

To know scientifically why the rain drop hit when and where it did, one would literally need to ask a series of “what caused this” questions all the way back to the beginning of time and space.  This is what St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Aristotelian epistemology, meant by God being the “first cause” of all things.

Now consider human behavior.  Humans are not just physical, like the water molecules in a rain drop predictably affected by the movement of other molecules in the environment.  Humans are spiritual, and they have free will.  It should be glaringly obvious by now why it is impossible to predict human behavior, no matter how mathematically savvy any model that explains the past may appear.

Karl Marx based his “cultural materialism” on the idea that humans were objects that followed physical laws and he constructed social systems with controlled conditions.  Communism didn’t work precisely because people denied that humans are spiritual.  Let that sink in.

To repeat, humans and natural systems are inherently unpredictable.  If it really and truly were possible to model and predict human behavior…the stock market would not exist, insurance companies would not be necessary and raising kids would be like turning on your computer.  And George Soros would be mowing my lawn.

When you consider the reality of our universe, math and science properly viewed direct us to the existence of God Almighty.  When people deny that, the utilitarian outcomes can be destructive.  Maybe this paper about religion becoming extinct doesn’t seem so offensive as to deserve accusations of dishonesty or social engineering, but to people who devote their lives to math, science, and first and foremost to family and God, the paper deserves an honest light of exposure.  Any perversion of math and science to promote an agenda deserves a righteous smack down.  If anyone can lay claim to math and science, it’s the faithful believer who does so in humility.

I too suffer from depression from time to time and I find that talking about it really helps, it helps but it breaks the conspiracy of silence, the great taboo that surrounds depression and says we must not talk about it. In some Christian circles it is seen not only as a weakness but as a sign of sin, and we must confess and confess until we are free of the thing that is holding us down and making us depressed. I am amazed at the number of people I have spoken to and ministered to who have been subjected to that type of rubbish and it makes me really angry. It is usually accompanied by some form of deliverance ministry and the depressed person ends up in a worse state than ever! Don’t get me wrong I believe there is spiritual evil in the world, and I don’t discount the possibility of oppression or even possession, but I think this is very rare, and a case for the experts, AND I do not believe that most depression comes anywhere close to that category, it is a medical condition that needs medical treatment and rest.

Read all

I consider it a privilege to work alongside Michael Patton of Credo Ministries, as editor and blogger of his Theology in the News Blog.

From my vantage there is no doubt in my mind that Michael is one of those chaps with a brain the size of a small planet. It’s with this in mind, that his honesty and transparency in detailing just how much he doesn’t understand about the mysteries of God, becomes all the more poignant.

I retweeted Michael’s recent post entitled: Not “Something on a Stick” and a Twitter friend suggested that the premise of the post should be our ‘thought for the day’.

I agree.

For me, with so many of yesteryear’s certainties evaporated and replaced with unknowing, I can take solace in Michael’s thoughts and observations. I’ve been told that acknowledging God’s incomprehensibility is a sign of spiritual progress, well it sure doesn’t feel like it.

Right now I miss the old days of certainty, where I thought I had everything sewn up, you know, ignorance is bliss and all that.

Anyway, here’s Michael’s post, reproduced here with kind permission:

Sometimes I have to laugh a bit at human endeavors into knowledge and understanding. Sometimes I have to laugh at myself as I attempt to learn and, of all things, teach people about God. Sometimes I want to give it all up and throw in the intellectual towel and head East, where mystery is much more accepted. I have taught theology for over a decade now. I have written more than a thousand articles (if I can call a “blog” and article!) articulating my understanding about the Bible, God, and human nature. I have evaluated, contemplated, discussed, and fellowshipped with who I believe to be some of the greatest living “scholars.” I have a Th.M. Translation: Theological Masters. Therefore, I am a “master” of theology?

Chuck Swindoll used to say, “Sometimes you think you are something on a stick. You are not something on a stick.”

The truth is when I am at my best, I realize how little I know. God is infinite, I am not. People often get insecure when they encounter someone who, from the world’s perspective, is “learned.” We call them “academicians,” “experts,” and, my favorite, ”scholars.” Sometimes we put Ph.D.s and Th.M. after their names. In Christ’s day, they were called “scribes.” Same meaning, different time. We give away awards and prizes for people whom, from the perspective of the awarder, has made significant contributions in this field or that.

I wonder what God thinks of these type of things? Does he think we are something on a stick?

Simply put, God is incomprehensible. I was reminded of this as I have been in correspondence with a “seeking” atheist over the last few weeks. Her inability to even grasp the concept of God as I explained him caused me to once again realize that I don’t grasp it either. As I described his infinite, transcendent, holy nature, I was describing things that were beyond my ability to fathom. The conversation was pushing my buttons of ignorance and finitude. My theological legs began to shake as I realized once again the ineffability of God. Our inability to fathom these things does not make it any less true. It just puts us in our place.

1Co 1:20
“Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?”

Problems arise when we begin to think we can comprehend the incomprehensible. Bigger problems arise when we think that in order to qualify for belief, it must be understood. So many people our there are like this young atheist saying, “Explain it to me until I comprehend it, then and only then will I believe it.” We think that we are something on a stick. We think that we can rise to the heights of God and look him in the eye.

I love what A.W. Tozer say in Knowledge of the Holy when speaking about the doctrine of the Trinity:

“Some persons who reject all they cannot explain have denied that God is a Trinity. Subjecting the Most High to their cold, level-eyed scrutiny, they conclude that it is impossible that he could be both One and Three. These forget that their whole life is enshrouded in mystery. They fail to consider that any real explanation of even the simplest phenomenon in nature lies hidden in obscurity and can no more be explained than can the mystery of the Godhead.”

What naive people we so often are. How lofty are our thoughts of ourselves. In reality, we don’t understand much. Oh when surrounded by others of our caliber (humanity in general) and then comparing ourselves to the most base of animals, we can push our self-admiration up a notch or two. Our IQ can get to 150 and we are placed on a pedestal for being fifty points smarter than the next, while the IQ of God cannot be gaged with human numbers. We look through a microscope or telescope and describe what we don’t understand. We are ants looking out of the ant farm window describing, as best we can, the anatomy of the world, and then giving each other high fives for our great wisdom.

In reality, we don’t understand much. Yet, ironically, when the One who understands all speaks and graciously explains reality, we test him by the standard of the “best of” in our ant farm.

We love the truth of God. We love understanding. In fact, God has said himself, “let him who rejoice, rejoice in this: that he understands and knows me” (Jer. 9:24). God has revealed himself to us truly, but not fully. We can be confident that when he speaks, he speaks the truth. The comings and goings our our “great understanding” are just that: comings and goings. While there is no sense I would advocate giving up our pursuit of knowledge and understanding, there is a time when our accolades and pats on the back must make God laugh.

Who are the scientists of the ant farm? Who are the philosophers? Who are the theologians? Where are the scholars?

“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Where were we when I thought of the idea of light? Where where you when I made the hydrogen molecule? Where were you when I created Andromeda? Where were you when I created the color blue? Where were you when I had the idea of taste, touch, and smell? Your ant farm had not even been created yet. And you think you can look me in the eye?”

We are not “something on a stick.”

I must say this new report from the Public Religion Research Institute has taken me by surprise.

This research is US and Catholic specific.

Here’s the executive summary:

Catholics are more supportive of legal recognitions of same-sex relationships than members of any other Christian tradition and Americans overall. Nearly three-quarters of Catholics favor either allowing gay and lesbian people to marry (43%) or allowing them to form civil unions (31%). Only 22% of Catholics say there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship.

When same-sex marriage is defined explicitly as a civil marriage, support is dramatically higher among Catholics. If marriage for gay couples is defined as a civil marriage “like you get at city hall,” Catholic support for allowing gay couples to marry increases by 28 points, from 43% to 71%. A similar pattern exists in the general population, but the Catholic increase is more pronounced.

Beyond the issue of same-sex marriage, Catholic support for rights for gays and lesbian people is strong and slightly higher than the general public. Nearly three-quarters (73%) of Catholics favor laws that would protect gay and lesbian people against discrimination in the workplace; 63% of Catholics favor allowing gay and lesbian people to serve openly in the military; and 6-in-10 (60%) Catholics favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to adopt children.

Compared to the general church-going public, Catholics are significantly less likely to hear about the issue of homosexuality from their clergy, but those who do are much more likely to hear negative messages. Only about 1-in-4 (27%) Catholics who attend church services regularly say their clergy speak about the issue of homosexuality, but nearly two-thirds (63%) of this group say the messages they hear are negative.

Compared to other religious groups, Catholics are significantly more likely to give their church poor marks for how it is handling the issue of homosexuality. Less than 4-in-10 (39%) Catholics give their own church top marks (a grade of either an A or a B) on its handling of the issue of homosexuality.

Seven-in-ten Catholics say that messages from America’s places of worship contribute a lot (33%) or a little (37%) to higher rates of suicide among gay and lesbian youth.

Catholics overwhelmingly reject the idea that sexual orientation can be changed. Nearly 7-in-10 (69%) Catholics disagree that homosexual orientation can be changed; less than 1-in-4 (23%) believe that it can be changed.

A majority of Catholics (56%) believe that sexual relations between two adults of the same gender is not a sin. Among the general population, less than half (46%) believe it is not a sin (PRRI, Religion & Politics Tracking Survey, October 2010).

You can download the full report in PDF format here.

Most forms of atheism seem to me to assert a significant claim for human reason, and that the universe is capable of rational comprehension. The rigour of much of the argument against faith can help Christians (and others) refine the reasonable coherence of their own understandings of God and the world, and expose weaknesses within them. If Christians believe (as we say, I think) that the gift of reason is part of being made in the image of God, then being challenged by reason is also a means of listening for God’s wisdom.

Source – Do hop over and read it all, as it is a very fine and thought proking piece…..as usual!

There’s no other way to begin this post than with….oh dear oh dear.

I’ve just returned from my RCIA group and I’m not entirely sure how I’ll ever show my face there again.

We were looking at the subject of prayer and during this the catechist happened to mention that she had no problems thanking God, but did struggle in asking something of God, and having the faith to expect an answer.

I have unwanted empathetic abilities and this coupled with the way she spoke, I felt there was something personal that she had prayed for God to intervene in, without success.

The response around the table was predictable, ranging from: God knows the wider picture, God is intervening but we just can’t see it, God works for good in all circumstances (Romans 8:28).

It was at this point – much to my own surprise – a rage surged over me, and I found myself saying: What about the Japanese Tsunami? What about the 12,000 dead? What about the 2500 bodies washed up on the shore? Where was God then? How was he working for good in this?

The insistence was made that God was in fact ‘in’ the Tsunami and ‘with’ the struggling Japanese survivors and I found myself simply saying ‘bollocks’ and heading for the door.

I came home.

I’ve read dozens and dozens of detailed and harrowing accounts of this tragedy, to the point whereby – with my empathetic curse – I have in some small way felt their horror and utter desolation. I have even had nightmares of a tidal wave washing me and my family away.

Sometimes, the pat Christian answers sound so damn glib, that tonight when I heard them again, a beast within me rose up in rage.

Some Christian I am.

It hasn’t helped that I have myself recently witnessed some Christians proffering callous explanations for this tragedy, which culminated in my blog post yesterday highlighting a video of Rick Joiner.

His video so sickened me, as all he prattles on about is how prophetic they’d all been in predicting this, and only concerned with its potential ‘demonic’ impact on America.

I was so enraged by Joyner’s hard-hearted bullshit, that I called him a charlatan tosser. I quickly deleted the post as it was so negative. I don’t remember ever deleting a post before.

So all in all, this tragedy has hit me with terrible force. Couple this with witnessing a response from some quarters of Christendom that can only be described as sociopathic at best, and we have the recipe for tonight’s disaster.

Oh dear oh dear…..

Fascinating post from the ever excellent Justin Topp, looking at the intersection of philosophy, psychology, theology and science around the concept of free will.

I’ve read two interesting articles on free will in the past couple of days.  The first, in the New York Times, said that although we cannot be sure that we do have free will, it’s better for us to act as if we do. Imagine living life and thinking that all of your decisions are predetermined. Similarly, even if we think that someone who commits murder had no choice in the matter, we must punish them as if he did. Thus, keeping with the illusion of free will is the only way to keep society in check and individuals sane.

The second article, in Scientific American, was a post discussing a recent article by Fried and colleagues in which they found that they could predict in human subjects when a decision would be made based upon the firing of specific neurons before the decision had been made. The decision was a rudimentary one. The subjects were asked to press a button when they wanted to while watching a clock. This enabled them to “know” and tell the researchers when they made the choice to push the button. Based upon the firing of neurons, however, the researchers were able to predict when they would choose before they subjects were aware that they would choose.

….continue reading

I had the great privilege of working with many Filipino nurses in Worcestershire some years back, and as a result, the below comes as no surprise to me.

I know you can’t generalise over an entire race, but the Filipino nurses I met were – to a man and woman – devout Catholics. Their caring love for patients and their level of medical knowledge were second to none. Their commitment and sheer hard graft put many to shame.

I loved their family ethos and they told me that institutions such as elderly nursing homes largely didn’t exist in their home country, as the family always took responsibility for care. The elderly were revered and held the position of ‘heads’ of the family with responsibilities to raise the younger generations and generally dispense wisdom. The Filipino’s would cite these facts when explaining that diseases such as dementia, were practically unheard of.

In the Philippines if a family member were admitted into hospital, then the family would take on the responsibility for washing and feeding the patient and so forth. This freed nurses from the task and allowed them to concentrate on medical matters.

The western ‘nuclear’ family structure baffled them.

Filipino medical workers who decided to stay in Libya despite the war are considered “heroes” by the Libyan people, a Filipino Catholic priest reported.

“The decision of Filipino nurses and medical workers to stay and serve their patients has earned the respect of many Libyans,” said Father Allan Arcebuche, assistant parish priest of San Francesco Catholic Church in Tripoli.

He said the Libyans are aware that if Filipinos leave, many hospitals will be forced to close.

“Libyans regard the Filipino nurses and medical workers as heroes and enjoy some degree of protection,” the priest said.

….continue reading