Posted on by Abe Austin

Reasons for Disbelief- Models of Reality

Understanding the World)

Mankind has always had the desire to understand the world around us. Indeed, the desire to comprehend our reality seems to be as great as our desire to know what is morally right. Long before our modern conception of the scientific method, people would try to explain life and death, disease, the changing seasons, and the different elements of nature by telling stories of unseen cosmic forces. Even with the advent of the scientific method started to take hold, people would still give naïve, pseudo-scientific explanations for the world, such as the medical descriptions of the four humours of the body.

Because of our great hunger to understand ourselves and the world we inhabit, we tend not to accept a belief system that does not fit with our perception of reality. To believe in God we have to believe that He is the cause of the world as we see it today. Conversely, if we do not see God as the cause of the world, then we do not feel it right to believe in Him. As a result, just as the scientific explanation for the world has parted itself from intelligent design, the general population has increasingly parted ways with their spiritual beliefs.

Limitations of Our Models)

Of course, no model for understanding the universe is complete. Much as the die-hard atheist might have us believe otherwise, we have no explanation for why the universe is comprised of an ordered nature, or how the first proteins could have formed by random chance. This is a topic of such depth and breadth that I won’t attempt to cover it here, but just know that the idea that the building blocks of life randomly collided together without any intelligent intervention has serious mathematical problems. The odds against such an occurrence are astronomical beyond belief, and require assumptions that go against the tenets of natural selection. Thus, the scientific explanation is actually at war with itself in trying to model these developments.

But most devotees of science don’t delve that deep into their own subject. They see clear, natural explanations for the realities that are immediately at hand, such as for how a ball drops, and a balloon rises, and ice melts, and fire consumes wood, and they are content to say that because everything they see is accounted for, there is no need for a God. So long as the edifice looks complete around us, we tend to not care whether there’s a rational foundation down below.

The Resistance to Change)

And there is something about this which we can abstract into a general rule for disbelief. Materialists will passionately reject rational, scientifically-backed criticisms of their materialistic beliefs because they are afraid of having their conception of reality upended. They might claim all sorts of rational superiority, but when they face a rational argument that they cannot refute, many of them will become emotional and openly hostile. Ironically, it is just the same when a theist who does not actually understand his doctrine has the flaws in his faith pointed out as well. In both cases, what is being challenged is the person’s core desire to hold to a model for the universe, an intense fear of what would happen if they let that model go.

And that basic human instinct is true whether we are talking about scientific materialists, or disciples of social opinion, or a theist that refuses to consider a different doctrine, or any other sort of person that dismisses the true God out of hand, even in the face of rational arguments. People of all sorts have concocted their personal model of the world, and adopting a more divine belief system will always break that model to one degree or another.

As such, those who proselytize Christ’s gospel should have reverence for the fact that when they ask to share a message, really they are asking to shatter that other person’s entire view of reality! Yes, it is a flawed reality, and it would be replaced with something better, but it’s understandable why the other person is so hesitant and unsure. Their reluctance is understandable, and a great deal of love and support is usually necessary for them to make the transition.

Reason #5 for Disbelief is that we have a previously-established model of reality that doesn’t allow for Him. We would have to shatter our existence in order to make way for His existence, and that prospect terrifies us.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Reasons for Disbelief- Social Pressure and Emotions

Unavoidable Confrontation)

I spoke previously of how we assimilate into our world model the information that we receive from others, the logical strain that comes from competing messages, and the risk of rejecting old beliefs simply to relieve that strain. That post was focused on the logical/rational element of giving in to false teachings, but there is a social/emotional element to it as well. This element, I believe, stems from the fact that most of us prefer to avoid awkward confrontations, preferring to disassociate with someone rather than face repeated arguments with them. We would rather maintain our moral stance somewhere that it won’t be constantly criticized.

But, detaching from others is not always an option. Perhaps the confrontational person is a close family member, or perhaps the disagreeable principle is being pushed on us from all sides of society. Sooner or later, all of us will find disagreement that we cannot run from, and in that situation we may be tempted to give in to the opposing arguments simply as a means of restoring positive feelings in our relationships.

Divided Loyalty)

Sometimes the surrender to outside pressure is explicit, where we voice our capitulation for all too hear, repeating the message that has been being pressed upon us. Sometimes, though, it is only implicit, where we silently give the impression that we have no argument to make against what is being said. I, myself, have fallen into that second category, failing to realize that by my silence I was “serving two masters.”

What did it mean when I would hear others speaking against the truth but was afraid of making the situation awkward? What did it mean when I would remain silent to “preserve the peace?” It meant that I was more committed to social comfort than I was to the word of God. I had found this middle place where I was not converted to the messages of the world, but I was converted to needing to meet social expectations. I was more converted to being “normal” and “non-confrontational,” than to championing the word of God.

There are too many Christians today who are hesitant to condemn society’s sins because they aren’t willing to face the ridicule or awkwardness that follows. I know many Christians who say “it’s not my place to judge, I’m not God,” which is true, but then why don’t not address the fact that God has already ruled on many of these matters in His revealed words. The fact is, we Christians have no obligation to justify why the commandments are what they are, God will take care of that, we only have to point the way to Him.

***

So what is Reason #4 for Disbelief? Prioritizing social comfort over proclaiming God’s truth. The more we signify to ourselves that we care more about what our neighbors think of us than God, the more we still start to think and believe as our neighbors do, and not as God does.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Reasons for Disbelief- A Confused Hierarchy

Different Hierarchies)

I was debating with another person about a social issue, and what the correct, moral stance on it should be. As we explained our disagreements I started to recognize that it wasn’t that we had different morals in general, but that we held them in a different hierarchy. I told the other person, “The difference between you and me is that I believe that the truth matters more than other peoples’ feelings, and you believe that peoples’ feelings matter more than the truth.” And the person agreed.

Which raises the question, “is there a correct hierarchy?” Is it appropriate to set some principles as superior to others, or should they all be equal to one another? Or, if I choose one principle over another and you invert the order are both perspectives equally right?

The answer is no. There really is a correct hierarchy and it really does matter. Remember how the Pharisees tried to trip up Jesus on this very point? “Master, which is the great commandment in the law?” they asked, and he had a clear and definitive response for them: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” (Matthew 22:36-39).

When it comes to moral questions, Jesus doesn’t leave us any doubt. Loving God comes first—and surely that includes loving his laws—and then comes loving our neighbors. We may do everything to support and please our neighbor up to the point of offending God, but then our loyalty to Him must surpass our loyalty to the neighbor.

The List)

One way to represent our hierarchy is to put it in terms of the different authorities in our lives. Whose voice carries the most weight when we make our decisions? I’ve examined myself, and I find that I try to follow this hierarchy of authority:

  1. Divine revelation
  2. Scripture
  3. Personal feelings
  4. The opinions of others

At the bottom is the opinions of others. I grow and learn from hearing outside perspectives. Other peoples’ insights can reveal truths to me that I would not find on my own. However, I know that there are false teachers also, so the things I take from others has to first be filtered by each of the higher standards.

Next comes my personal feelings. Not the feelings of what I want, but what I feel in my gut is right. These generally lead me rightly, but they are at times susceptible to immaturity and compromised motives, so they must also be subject to higher authorities.

Scripture comes next, which is the divine word of God. His voice must trump all earthly babble. I actually had an experience just recently where I was hearing an opinion from others that started to turn my personal feelings; I was becoming converted to that message, but then I reminded myself of the passage in the New Testament that stood as a clear rebuke to that line of thinking. I conformed myself to the scripture’s teaching, because I simply did not have the right to override it.

Finally, there is Divine Revelation. I believe the scriptures to have originated from the pure word of God, but the reality is that thousands of years and numerous translations stand between the original utterance and the words on the page today. Some of those translations disagree with one another, and some of them are difficult to understand correctly with our lack of ancient context. I therefore have as my final authority the revelation of God given to my mind and heart, purifying and brightening that which might have become muddled and faded.

Worship of Man)

The most concerning shift that I see in society is the progressive elevation of either “Personal feelings” or the “Opinions of others” above all other authorities. Many of our social divides are based around this transformation. Personal opinions and group interests take precedent over the divine words of God, and utter confusion follows. Not only are God’s morals trampled under foot, but everyone starts to fracture and divide from one another. Loyalty to God, Country, and Community are superseded by Loyalty to the Self or Loyalty to the Mob.

So what is Reason for Disbelief #2? A hierarchy authority that places anything above God. One simply cannot believe in a God when their hierarchy forbids compliance with Him.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 14:29

29 But the children of Israel walked upon dry land in the midst of the sea; and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.

Verse 29 describes a most awe-inspiring situation for the Israelites. “The waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.” Thus, they went forward with the potential for absolute destruction raised on either side of them! It must have taken great faith to put themselves in such a situation. Of course, faith in a safe crossing would be strengthened by the fact that God had already proved He could part the sea in the first place, so He should be able to keep it parted for as long as needed to reach the other side. The God who brings us into the path by a miracle will also be able to sustain the path by continual miracles.

Recently, I observed how some of the symbolic expressions in the Judeo-Christian theology were literally manifested among the ancient Israelites. There is another example of this in today’s verses, too. Here, in the image of the Israelites walking down the parted sea we have the literal manifestation of the straight and narrow way “which leadeth unto life,” a way that is marked by God and provided to us by His grace and power. Meanwhile, on either side of the narrow path stood the broad expanse of the sea that led unto destruction.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 14:19-20

19 And the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them:

20 And it came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and it was a cloud and darkness to them, but it gave light by night to these: so that the one came not near the other all the night.

The Lord had been leading Israel in a pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night. That pillar was still present when Pharaoh and his army arrived, and it moved to stand between the Israelites and the Egyptians. In later years, Isaiah would assure the Israelites that “the Lord will go before you; and the God of Israel will be your rearward” (Isaiah 52:12). Here we see that these words were not only figurative, for in this moment God had literally been both a guide ahead of Israel and a guard behind. Every promise of the Lord is fulfilled in many figurative ways, but I believe that there is always a literal realization of them as well.

Note, also, that the pillar now shifted to take on two distinct faces at the same time. It was a cloud of darkness to the Egyptians, which obscured their way forward and forced them to hold until the new day. Meanwhile, to the Israelites it was a burning fire, illuminating the way ahead as Moses worked God’s miracle upon the Red Sea and the Israelites made their escape.

Thus, once again, God was able to make a division, showing one wonder to the Egyptians and another to the Israelites. One wonder of darkness, one of light. One to hinder, one to push forward. The same God will judge, divide, and separate, like a sword cleaving good from evil.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 14:17-18

17 And I, behold, I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians, and they shall follow them: and I will get me honour upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host, upon his chariots, and upon his horsemen.

18 And the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, when I have gotten me honour upon Pharaoh, upon his chariots, and upon his horsemen.

The Egyptians had already come to commit a slaughter, so why would their hearts have to be further hardened to continue with what they already intended to do? Perhaps because God was about to work another miracle in their sight, one that would pose an obvious danger. To venture into the maw of the parted sea would require a hatred or an arrogance sufficient to override the most extreme sense of self-preservation!

Only this time it was not Pharaoh’s heart alone that would harden, but that of the entire army. God meant to slay the entire horde and that could only happen if they did not mutiny and leave Pharaoh to his own devices. They all needed to charge forward as one.

This is the last instance of God being said to harden the heart of Pharaoh and his people. Frankly, it wouldn’t even concern me if in this instance He really did. At this point, Pharaoh had already shown himself willing to commit a horrible genocide, even after being given so many reasons to stand down. He was already more than worthy of death, and the God who rules over every life would be justified in guiding Pharaoh and his men to their death sentence.

Of course, there has been some speculation as to whether Pharaoh himself died in the depths of the sea. Did he lead the charge after the Israelites, or did he command from the rear, ordering his men ahead while he remained on the banks of the sea? The fact that God specifically mentions that He would “get me honour upon Pharaoh” strongly suggests that the ruler received the exact same fate as his soldiers. I think it is pretty explicit language that Pharaoh did, indeed, die in this wonder.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 14:13-16

13 And Moses said unto the people, Fear ye not, stand still, and see the salvation of the Lord, which he will shew to you to day: for the Egyptians whom ye have seen to day, ye shall see them again no more for ever.

14 The Lord shall fight for you, and ye shall hold your peace.

15 And the Lord said unto Moses, Wherefore criest thou unto me? speak unto the children of Israel, that they go forward:

16 But lift thou up thy rod, and stretch out thine hand over the sea, and divide it: and the children of Israel shall go on dry ground through the midst of the sea.

Moses appears to have been unperturbed by the Israelites mocking, frantic questions. He assured the Israelites that they would not have to trade blows with the Egyptians, for God would battle for them. After all, hadn’t God battled for them with His plagues in the midst of Egypt? The Israelites had sat idly by while the Lord worked His wonders there, and Moses was confident that it would be the same here.

But notice that Moses first told the Israelites to “stand still,” and then the Lord corrected him, saying “Whererfore criest thou unto me? Speak unto the children of Israel, that they go forward.” Moses had been incorrect in suggesting that the Israelites should remain motionless, when actually God needed them to start moving. This suggests that until God detailed the parting of the sea in verse 16, Moses had no idea what God’s plan to save the Israelites actually was. He was sure that God would save his people, though, even if he didn’t know in what way. This reveals great faith on Moses’s part. It shows the confidence he had in the character of God, and how he rested in the certainty that the Lord would surely save them somehow.

The somehow, God revealed, was going to require more of the Israelites than standing on the banks of the sea. Back in Egypt, He had worked many wonders that required no involvement from the Israelites, but He had also worked some wonders where something was required of them, such as painting the lamb’s blood on their door posts. This next miracle was going to be of the latter category.

Moses was absolutely correct when he told the Israelites that God would fight for them and destroy their enemies, but first they had to get themselves to the place appointed for their salvation.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 14:1-4

1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

2 Speak unto the children of Israel, that they turn and encamp before Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, over against Baal-zephon: before it shall ye encamp by the sea.

3 For Pharaoh will say of the children of Israel, They are entangled in the land, the wilderness hath shut them in.

4 And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, that he shall follow after them; and I will be honoured upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host; that the Egyptians may know that I am the Lord. And they did so.

Thus far, God had been leading Israel by day and by night, moving them as quickly through the land as He could. Now, though, He instructed them to stop their progress and make camp, and He deliberately instructed them to do it with their backs to the sea, thus cutting off any escape route.

God even said that this was so Pharaoh would see a moment of supposed weakness where the Israelites would be “entangled in the land.” This would tempt Pharaoh to come out with his armies and destroy them. Pharaoh would think that the Israelites had walked themselves into a trap of their own making. And indeed it was a trap, but a trap for catching Egyptians!

Thus, it was Pharaoh’s hubris that was to be his downfall. He could, of course, have left well-enough alone, but God already knew that he would not. The trap was effective because it was targeted towards Pharaoh’s character flaw: his pride and unwillingness to accept when he had lost. Due to this flaw he had already unnecessarily subjected his people to unnecessary suffering through the plagues, and now he would do so again.

Of course, verse 4 does say that God would harden Pharaoh’s heart, but I’ve already written many times that I believe this rendering is inaccurate, given the other times where it instead says that it was Pharaoh who hardened his own heart. And while this may not be the most significant of evidences, after reading today’s verses it occurs to me that another reason for believing that Pharaoh was culpable for his actions is that to assume otherwise would disrupt his character arc. Pharaoh is a type and example to us all of hubris and pride and self-defeat, but his cautionary tale would lose all its weight if he wasn’t a free agent in choosing that path of self-destruction. From a narrative perspective, it is essential that Pharaoh chose of his own free will to do evil so that the moral of his story may resonate in our hearts.

Posted on by Abe Austin

God and Abraham and Sodom and Gomorrah

I have already reviewed the account of the Lord’s destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in my standard scripture study, but the story has been on my mind lately and I wanted to address a few points about it in greater detail. All the verses I will be discussing can be found in Genesis 18-19.

God’s “Haggle”)

What first prompted my thoughts on this story was hearing a celebrity give it as evidence of God’s capriciousness, an example of Him being so petty and heartless that He would bargain and haggle over the lives of His children before destroying them. This is, of course, in reference to Abraham petitioning the Lord if He would spare the city for fifty souls, then forty-five, then forty, etc.

And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?
 Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?

So, let me first point out that these accusations are obvious falsehoods, completely misrepresenting the story as it is written. God did not haggle or bargain over how many people it would take for Him to spare the city and He never changed His position on the matter. Abraham’s position changed, but not God’s.

The first thing to note is that God never brought numbers into the matter. He simply expressed His judgment, which was to destroy the city, no numbers attached whatsoever, and it was only Abraham who brought up the idea of sparing the city if a particular number of righteous people lived there.

Abraham wanted to know whether God would have spared the city for 50 righteous, and God assures that He would have… but there just aren’t 50. Abraham wanted to know if God would have spared the city for 45 righteous, and once again God indeed would have… but there just aren’t 45. And so on and so on, until Abraham reaches his own personal limit for mercy: 10 righteous souls to spare the city.

That Abraham presses the matter no further than 10 seems to suggest that he, himself, could not condone sparing the city for any less righteous than that. Even he felt it was justified to lose nine or eight righteous, if it meant that such a terrible evil could be blotted from the earth. And, once again, God shows that His mercy extends as far as Abraham could ever hope for. God, too, would have spared the city for 10 righteous…but there just aren’t 10.

When I read the account in Genesis 18, it is not about God and Abraham haggling, it is about Abraham not yet fully trusting God, and him exploring the limits of God’s mercy until he is convinced that God’s judgment is worthy of his trust. God had pronounced judgment, but Abraham wasn’t able to trust that judgment until he was convinced that God came to that determination by due prudence and fairness, and God indulged Abraham’s tests because He wanted to earn Abraham’s trust.

Thus, there is no haggling going on in this story and no changing of God’s mind. God was simply allowing Abraham to double-check His calculations so that Abraham could begin to learn to trust the Lord’s decisions.

God’s Mercy

And, as it turns out, not only was God as prudent and merciful towards Sodom and Gomorrah as Abraham, He was even more so. For after there were not even 10 righteous in the city Abraham would have surrendered any good souls to their destruction, but God would not. God shows us in this story that He cares for even the individual righteous soul, the 1 over the 99. Thus, while He was determined to destroy the city, first He sendt two angels to draw Lot and his family out of the midst of it.

In the records we have, Abraham never beseeched the Lord for the life of his nephew, Lot, even though he knew that Lot lived in the path of destruction. Abraham seems to have been ready to let his own kin die as a justified sacrifice for this destruction of evil. It was only because God was more good than Abraham that Lot and his family were spared.

A Lesson for Abraham)

Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice the righteous for the greater good returns again later in his story. When God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, we do not see a moment of hesitation in Abraham’s response. He forthrightly makes preparation, goes to the place of sacrifice, binds his son, and raises the knife to take the lad’s life. Abraham knew that his son was good, but as with Sodom and Gomorrah, he was willing to sacrifice that good to fulfill the demands of the Lord. But then, as with Sodom and Gomorrah, God intervened to save the good and provide another way.

I wonder whether Abraham being commanded to sacrifice Isaac was, in part, a way for God to teach Abraham a lesson that He had tried to teach with Sodom and Gomorrah, but which hadn’t fully clicked yet. I wonder whether Abraham was too quick to believe in the God that would sacrifice good to destroy evil. I wonder if God temporarily assumed that role when He commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, so that He could then dispel that illusion from Abraham once-and-for-all. I wonder if one of God’s lessons to Abraham in that moment was “Stop seeing me as the God of sacrifice, the God of taking, the God of destroying evil. See me as the God of saving, the God that brings back, the God of redemption!”

This is, of course, pure speculation. I don’t claim to know that this was the subtext to Abraham’s trial, or even if it’s likely. It is simply something that I wonder about. At the very least, it does stand out to me that we have no account of Abraham pleading for Lot’s life nor Isaac’s, and yet God saved them both. Whatever else those facts mean, surely they mean that these stories show God’s mercy, not wrath. They show His care, not indifference. They show His compassion, not brutishness. They show that God is a God who can be trusted when He declares His judgment because He has already analyzed the situation more than we ever could, and He cares for the innocent more than we ever would.