Five favorite quotes

So my friend Marauder tagged me to post about my five favorite quotes. I don't know why I'm responding, as it's just going to encourage him and others to keep doing things like this, but well, here I am. Here are five quotes I'm rather fond of, in no particular order:

"From inside the fish Jonah prayed to the LORD his God." -Jonah 2:1

I might as well start with my favorite verse from the Bible, seeing as I'm a Bible blogger. I'm rather fond of this verse because there's something simultaneously absurd and profound about the idea of praying from inside a fish (or whale?). It seems like an entirely unlikely place to be praying, but on the other hand, most people would do exactly that upon finding themselves in such a position, and in Jonah's case, if he had bothered to talk to God earlier in his story, he probably wouldn't have been there.

"Ninety-nine percent of everything that goes on in most Christian churches has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual religion. Intelligent people all notice this sooner or later, and they conclude that the entire one hundred percent is bullshit, which is why atheism is connected with being intelligent in people's minds." -Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson

I like this quote, because whether or not Stephenson is a Christian (I have no idea) I think he's hit on a profound truth. I think just about every religion, including Christianity, is like a shiny gold coin with a mountain of crap piled on top of it. Even in a good church, how much of the time one spends in there is spent studying the basic, fundamental truths of Christianity that really matter? Not that you could do that 100% of the time, because all the extra stuff is important, too, if it happens to be tangential to the fundamental truths rather than central.

"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." -Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA

This quote by Crick is one I find humorous. As you may have gathered from some of my previous posts, I'm not completely set against the concepts of evolutionary theory, and actually am often found to be an advocate among fellow Christians for the concept of evolution in a general sense. However, I've always thought that the amazing complexity of the DNA molecule points very strongly to the idea of an intelligent designer. I think it's funny that Crick here seems to be agreeing with that assessment, but insists that any serious scientist must keep his mind closed to such an idea.

"A cartoonist is someone who has to draw the same thing everyday without repeating himself." -Charles M. Schulz

A lot of people seem to feel that the comic strip Peanuts got sort of old and tired towards the end, or that it was never quite as good as the earlier strips. This may be true, but keep in mind that Schulz was drawing the thing for fifty years! One of my favorite blogs is The Comics Curmudgeon, in which the writer rants daily on what's really really bad on the newspaper comics page. I love newspaper comics, and consider it a wonderful art form all of its own, but it's true that there is a lot of bad stuff out there. At the same time, consider how difficult it must be to come up with 365 new jokes every year, and to draw a picture for each one. Even though I laugh along with Josh's other readers at his blog, I appreciate the challenge that these artists are facing, and bow down to even the mediocre ones as being far more talented than I probably ever will be.

" 'But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
" 'Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat. 'We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.'
" 'How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
" 'You must be,' said the Cat, 'or you wouldn't have come here.' " -Alice in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll

I feel like this a lot. (Alice, or the cat? Take your pick.)

A death in the family

It's an odd sensation to pick up the newspaper or, in my case, a magazine, and find out for the first time about the death of a family member. Not that it was a close family member, nor that I was unaware of the fact that they were dead. Actually, the real news was the former: the fact that they were not as close a relation as I had been led to believe.

Of course, as I'm sure you realized the instant you began reading this that the relative I was talking about was homo erectus, who apparently died, oh, tens of thousands of years ago, I guess, I don't know the specifics. I was reading a fascinating article in Newsweek on a number of interesting developments in the study of human evolution, and I marveled, not at the information, but at the manner of presentation of the information, and the implications it might have for both those who put their trust in fundamentalist Christian dogma about the origins of man and those who put their faith in Darwin, or whatever, I think you know what I mean, although I am here and no doubt throughout this writing going to be far less than scientifically precise. Here I present another meandering musing on evolutionary theory that may be almost as random and aimless as the supposed forces of natural selection themselves.

So anyway, it turns out that the paternity test came back, and erectus is not the baby's father. The article itself is vague on exactly when the test was performed, but really, when erectus has been gone for thousands of years, it's not clear exactly how much it matters; suffice it to say that the suspected connection was never there, at least not in the way many scientists suspected. Rather than being our father, the family tree of the hominids that is now considered more accurate shows erectus as a sort of "first cousin twice removed" or grand-uncle, something of the sort. I don't know whether this came as a surprise to evolutionary scientists, but it sure does seem to have come as a surprise to the author of the article. Homo erectus was a species that, according to what is known about it, managed to thrive for around two million years and spread across various parts of three continents. They didn't make tools, or at least not more than very crude ones, but they walked upright, looked a lot like modern humans and are believed to have had a pretty good cognitive ability, based on what appears to be the structures of the brain. Still, they died out, and--along with homo neanderthalensis--seem to have not been our ancestors, nor the ancestors of any living species.

The author of the article seems to be very surprised to find that such seemingly advanced species of hominids could have lived and yet not been our ancestors. "More than once in human prehistory, evolution created a modern trait such as a face without jutting, apelike brows and jaws, only to let it go extinct, before trying again a few million years later." The author's view of evolution is interesting to me, both because many of the things they seem to find surprising seem obvious to me, and because it's the sort of surprise that I think for some people may be based on commonly-accepted ideas of evolutionary theory. If evolution is indeed an unguided force of nature (more or less, "force" may be a poor choice of words) then why not create something randomly that turns out not to be useful at the time it's created? Heck, species die out all the time, so why should it be so unusual that hominid species have also done so, even if they were similar to other ones that did survive?

For that matter, does the author really think of evolution as an unguided force? Would one say of an impersonal force, "evolution created", or "let it go", or "trying again"? It sounds more like the description of a cosmic tinkerer or scientist, trying little experiments to see what happens. Of course, that's hardly the view of any world religions I know, either, which is why this evidence, while it "upended traditional ideas" about evolutionary theory hardly gives weight to creationism. Certainly the God of the Bible isn't the sort of being that would have created numerous nearly-human species just to let them die out, right?

Both the author's view of an age-old understanding of evolution and the implications of a theory of theistic evolution favor the idea that human descent is a matter of a straightforward, linear progression of "{Sahelanthropus tchadensis} begat Australopithecus who begat Homo habilis who begat Homo erectus who begat Homo sapiens." Of course now it would seem that few if any of these ancient hominids are direct descendants of our modern species. There are two mistaken assumptions here, firstly that evolution is linear, and second that the whole point of evolution is to yield an end product of homo sapiens. Both of these concepts are worth exploring, though.

The author says about these dead-end branches that "It's like discovering that your great-great-grandfather was not an only child as you'd thought, but had a number of siblings who, for unknown reasons, left no descendants." I say, is that so momentous? My grandfather was into genealogy, and it's interesting to me to note that while scientific studies of genealogy like to focus on the Y-chromosome as a pointer to study lineage, my grandfather has left behind no descendants with his Y-chromosome. On that side of my family, I have only one male cousin, and he, like me, was born of one of our grandfather's daughters, while my grandfather's only son has only daughters himself. Now that Y-chromosome may exist in a distant relative somewhere--and probably does, actually--but if by odd chance there was a genetic mutation in my grandfather's Y-chromosome that might have been significant in some way, the world will never know. If it happens on a small scale with my own maternal family (and possibly paternal family, as I have no sons or brothers), then why not on a larger scale? That being said, while those branches seem obviously likely to exist to me, it's not completely wrong to look at evolution as a linear process in one sense, because my own Y-chromosome came from a direct line of male descendants before me, obviously, and if you wanted to track its origin, my lack of genetically significant male cousins doesn't matter at all. Homo erectus may be interesting biologically, but only tells us things about who we are indirectly.

As for the concept of evolution being directed at the creation of modern humans, oddly this is a sort of yes and no, and it's only yes due to random chance, one might suppose. It seems sometimes like humans are the pinnacle of life on this planet, but that's only out of an anthropocentrist sort of view. Evolution seems to focus on humanity because the study of evolution largely focuses on human evolution. Biological science will no doubt study all life, but put its primary focus on our own life because, despite occasional claims to the contrary, we as a society do try to use science to answer the same questions we struggle with in religion. We want to know how we got here, and what possible purpose we may have in being here. Sometimes it may make us forget that science does try to be dispassionate and unbiased as much as it can be. It makes sense to want to study ourselves, but in doing so, we inflate our own abstract sense of self-worth sometimes, and pure science doesn't give us that. To the undirected force of evolution, while today we may be the dominant species, thousands of years from now we may be another homo heidelbergensis: a stepping stone to a new, more advanced species, or tomorrow's homo erectus: just another evolutionary dead-end. That being said, while in a grander scale our place in the order of things may be temporary, at the moment we may indeed stand at the apex of the animal kingdom.

But as we stand at the summit and view those others that fell off of cliffs along the climb here, the surprise at what we see is interesting. While I strongly suspect the author is perhaps somewhat clumsily presenting information in a newsweekly that's not really "news" (I mean, aside from the fact that this is all stuff that happened hundreds of thousands to millions of years ago), there was a time not too long ago when this information was being newly processed by scientists and shaking up their own more sophisticated assumptions of hominid descent. After all, it's only been a little over 150 years since the first skull of a neanderthal was discovered, making scientists start to think more deeply about our biological place in the world, but every time a discovery is made, claims are made about what significance such and such fossil has, charts are rearranged to reflect new thinking, and human evolution is turned upside down, shaken out of its box and put back together.

Even now that we have begun to use more sophisticated methods of examining fossils, including DNA analysis (although I don't understand how one gets DNA from a fossil, but no matter) there seems to be a lot of assuming going on. In the opening of the article, we are assured that "...DNA...accumulates changes at a regular rate." Later, we are told that (my emphasis) "...DNA changes at a fairly regular rate." Technicality, right? Molecular biologists supposedly can use this rate of change like a clock, which is why we are told about it, but then about halfway through the article we are told of a specific gene:

It had changed in only two of its 118 chemical "letters" from 310 million years ago (when the lineages of chickens and chimps split) to 5 million years ago. But 18 letters changed in the (relative) blink of an eye since the human lineage split from chimps'...

How's that? We know that the change is regular, except when it's not regular? It seems that in these huge time scales of millions of years, so much is assumed. The article tells an interesting tale of how DNA of body lice tells us that they evolved about 114,000 years ago, and since they live in the habitat of human clothing, that must be when we evolved to lose most of our body hair. Oh, it's a fascinating theory, no doubt, but then, does it really make sense?

Why evolve to lose our body hair if it's just going to force us to invent clothing to keep ourselves warm? Why not invent clothing, which leads to the evolution of body lice, which between the two leads us to evolve to lose body hair, since clothing means it is no longer needed, and it's easier to delouse if you have less hair? Could we have the cause and effect backwards? Not to mention the fact that there are plenty people alive today that still have lots and lots of body hair, so it's not quite a common trait of the whole species.

And how do we really know what is a common trait of a whole species? The briefly-mentioned sahelanthropus tchadensis had a big part to play in rearranging the diagrams of hominid descent with its discovery, but then it's only a single fossil! Using the family tree metaphor again, it seems sort of like finding a single picture of a man in an old family photo album who looks sort of Italian, and dumping out all the pictures in your (non-Italian) family's album to rearrange the lot of them. Surely there must be a more rational approach, but then I'm not a photo album arranger, nor am I a biologist. Still, if a person who's never been to the U.S. saw a broadcast of a basketball game from Houston, would they be fair to assume that there exists in the U.S. a race of seven-foot-tall Chinese men?

My personal observation on all of this? There are far too many fossils of our ancient, branching family tree to deny that there is something to the theory of human evolution, but at the same time, there seem to be far too few fossils to say anything about it with definitive surety. Maybe in the end I will be proven wrong, but it seems to me that the science of evolution, in studying things that happened millions of years ago that left behind scant evidence, we operate far more on speculation than anything else.

I brake for taillights!

So, I was on the way home this evening and got in a crash. It's depressing, and it's weird.

I don't know if you've ever been in an accident, fair reader, but it's a sort of surreal experience. It's a cliche, but we never think accidents will happen to us, and so when they do...you don't quite mentally accept it. Sitting on the freeway tonight, looking at the crumpled hood of my car bowing upwards through a faint spiderweb of new cracks in my windshield, I marveled that less than half an hour ago, I had been mentioning to the people with whom I was eating dinner that I don't take good enough care of my car. Now, I was contemplating with 99% surety that I would never give my car another oil change. In fact, oddly enough, the last thought to cross my mind before impact was, "Well, car, it was nice knowing you..."

Anyway, I saw the brake lights in front of me and slammed on my brakes, but I really don't think my Automatic Braking System kicked in. Also, my airbag didn't deploy, and it seems like it should have since I hit pretty hard, but that's another matter. When I realized my car wasn't going to stop, and the traffic was too heavy on the left to change lanes suddenly, I swerved right towards a concrete barrier, hoping to either pass the car in front of me to the right (which I realized immediately was not going to happen) or at least transfer some of my momentum to the barrier instead of another car. Thinking back some time afterwards, I considered that I might have done well to simply grind my car into the barrier so that all damage would be taken by my car, but then hindsight's not so useful in an emergency situation.

As it is, since I was the car in back, I'm very likely to be found liable. Now, who I think should be liable is the person who was driving the car in front; in the very front. Apparently somebody's car stalled, and they took it upon themselves to simply leave their car parked on the freeway, locked, parking brake on, but no lights. My wife, who had been in a separate car passing by earlier, had called 911, and remarked to me at home that in some surreal manner, she had phoned in to report an accident that happened after she passed, and the person in the accident happened to be her husband.

I don't know why that car was there, but it presented me with an odd dilemma. The Highway Patrol showed up at the scene finally, and they instructed me and the woman I had run into to move our cars off the road. I didn't follow orders. I thought, "What happened here is that a car was parked on the freeway with no lights, and it led to an accident. If I leave, the car will still be there, and very likely, history will repeat itself." I left the lights on in my car (including hazard lights, of course) and climbed out through the passenger window (the doors would not open).

The officer was furious with me. "I told you to move your car!" I apologized, and told him that I couldn't leave the scene as another accident waiting to happen. Maybe someone would smash into my car, but I felt that without my car there and its lights on, someone would be bound to crash into the other car. I hated to leave my car. I hated to disobey an order from a law officer. I hated to walk down a busy freeway on foot. I didn't know what else to do.

Anyway, the officer gave me a lecture later, I emptied my belongings out of my car at home, and then I parked it on the street with a note assuring anyone who inspected it that it was not as abandoned as it no doubt appeared. But still, even though my car runs and can be driven, it's as good as dead, a large portion of the engine smashed in and one headlight obliterated.

It was nice knowing her...

Blessed art thou, Valentine!

So last night, I was looking at the cheesy little Valentine's Day cards my kids got for their class. You know the ones, probably, little cartoon characters giving cheesy holiday greetings in a pack of twelve? They're goofy, not really deep in the sentiment they express, and every kid loves them.

They come in Strawberry Shortcake, Spongebob Squarepants, Pokemon, He-Man, Lord of the Rings, you name it, and if it's a pop-culture phenomenon, they probably exist somewhere. So I was thinking...what about all those popculture phenomena that don't get put on Valentine's Day cards because they're not the regular mainstream sort of thing that usually goes there? Of course, being a Christian blogger with an odd sense of humor, I thought, "Hey, what about Jesus Valentines?"

So, I did it. Yes, they're cheesy, and they're meant to be. I tried to make them inoffensive, but then the whole concept is perhaps a bit sacreligious, so if anyone's going to be offended, it's probably conservative Christians. Oh well, I had fun doing them.

Super Monday Musings

So, as I start to write this, I have just finished watching Superbowl XLI. I've got big rants about pro sports, but I'm just looking to share a few odds and ends that flashed through my mind as I watched.

Nothing against Cadillac in particular, all companies do this, not even just car companies, but is it just me that gets just a little disturbed with giving the MVP a new car? I'm far from the first person to notice this phenomenon, but how do companies feel about giving away free stuff to people who probably could afford it with their pocket change?

What is the deal with North American sports that crow their champions as "world" champions when few outside of the continent play the game? (For that matter, when there was an attempt at a true world championship of baseball last year, the two teams that made it to the final game were from Asia, which I think says a lot.)

I noticed that the owner of the winning team gave credit to God for the winning season. Does any serious believer in God really think that God cares much who wins the Superbowl and/or takes an active role in determining the outcome? Whether or not there are atheists on the team (and there almost certainly are) is it really fair or right to credit God with the victory?

Was it just me, or were the commercials a bit more lackluster than they used to be? Although it was a very exciting game, I'm the sort of person who watches for the cool commercials, and in my opinion there were only about three or four that were really impressive, and most of them were ones I'd seen before.

Whenever I watch the Superbowl, and actually even a regular season game on occasion, I think about the technology of the television coverage, the salaries of the players, the size of the stadiums, and the costs of producing and airing the commercials. I think about all of that and I think that if the amount of money and effort that was put into professional football was redirected, we could pay off the national debt, solve world hunger, find a cure for AIDS, who knows?

Why are we all so fascinated?

Blasphemous Rumours

I may be a Christian, but actually, I do think that God has a sense of humor, and when I die, I do expect to find Him laughing. (And Depeche Mode is a pretty decent band, too.)

So, I was reading that an interesting trend has exploded on the Internet scene, and I said, "Wow, that's going in the blog for sure!" What is it? Well, in case you missed it, it's the Blasphemy Challenge! The site explains it pretty well, but let me summarize: According to Mark 3:29, there is one sin that God will not forgive, known as the "Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit". Inspired by this concept, the folks of The Rational Response Squad (an online atheist group, natch) are encouraging people to post videos on YouTube containing the phrase "I deny the Holy Spirit", and in return, they will send you a copy of a supposedly (not to disparage it, I simply can't vouch for it personally) very good documentary on atheism, or something like that. Jokingly, they suggest that they've set the price at $24.95 or one human soul.

Oooo. Well, the whole concept is pretty funny, and I'm pretty sure they know that. Of course if you're a person who doesn't believe that you have a soul, you're not going to be too upset about "losing" it. If you believe that the Holy Spirit doesn't exist, you're not going to be really worried about offending Him. If you'd like a copy of this movie or just want to be part of a trendy new Internet thingie, it's pretty easy to jump on board. (Actually, I was considering making a video myself, just for the free documentary; more later on why I personally would or would not do such a thing.) Actually, as I began writing this entry several days ago (I've been distracted by real-life issues), a search for "Blasphemy Challenge" on YouTube turns up over 800 videos, most of which are probably entries.

I'm not sure what the point is, though. I mean, for the guys that started it, not the responders, who have at least two clear and simple motives, but may have other more complex ones under the surface which may or may not be expressed in their videos. Why start a movement to publicly blaspheme the Holy Spirit? Is the desire to raise the profile of atheism in America? I suppose if that's the point, it's an easy and effective way to do it. But then I'd have to wonder what the point is behind that point. I've never understood the idea of so-called evangelical atheism, but maybe it's just me. If there's nothing to believe in, then who cares what you believe? I suppose it has something to do with affirming truth, but then affirming truth through more or less lying? Denying something that doesn't exist, and call it brave? I defy the power of the Genie of the Lamp! Do you consider me brave for that? It's pretty much nonsensical on some level. Maybe it is just meant to be humorous

Aside from showing personal support of a particular world-view, though, it has nothing to do with supporting reality. If I were to go on YouTube and post a video saying that I affirm the power of the Holy Spirit, does that then counteract the effect of one denial video? Putting the overall societal effect as a phenomenon of popular culture aside, there is absolutely nothing that making one of these videos will show about the Holy Spirit in particular. I mean, despite the fact of the Bible passage stating that there is the possibility of an unforgiveable sin (whether this be it or not), there is no statement that committing this sin or any other will bring God's wrath down on you in any immediate, tangible sense. Are we expecting to see the people in these videos struck by lightning, or inflicted with leprosy or something? Maybe the figuring is that there needs to be some critical mass of blasphemers to see this effect, since God seems more likely to put a good old-fashioned smiting over on a collective group rather than an individual? I don't know what it really proves.

Really, it's more compelling to see a person denying the power of the Holy Spirit if they actually believe in it. There may have been a few. Disgruntled Christians, maybe Satanists? I don't know. I wonder how the folks running this might feel about, say, a Muslim who denied the power of the Holy Spirit while testifying to the supremacy of Allah? Or a Jehovah's Witness who might be able to perform the challenge without contradicting their beliefs? (I'm not sure, that's a tough one.)

Anyway, are these people really committing the "Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit"? I don't think so. There are two standard explanations for what this term really means. One of them is taken from the immediate context, and isn't the sort of thing an atheist is likely to find appealing. Jesus makes this statement about BotHS after an accusation is leveled at Him in verse 22: "And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils." Many Bible scholars have therefore taken it to mean that this particular sin is characterized specifically by making the claim that the work of Jesus and/or the Holy Spirit is actually the work of the Devil. I'd like to see a large group of atheists make such a claim; it would be entertaining.

But then I would be condemning them to Hell, right? How can that be entertaining? The other common explanation of this blasphemy is one taken from the overall context of the whole New Testament. In this view, the idea is very simply that to Blaspheme the Holy Spirit is to deny the redemptive power of Christ. This makes sense in the traditional manner of thinking of Christian salvation: A person is saved by believing in Christ, and accepting His sacrifice on his/her behalf. If you don't believe in the power of Christ, then you've already committed that blasphemy, video or no video! God doesn't forgive that sin, you simply stop it when you accept Christ.

The end result of all this is that even from a Christian point of view, these videos mean nothing. Sure, some people might find them offensive, since it is a form of blasphemy, but I think God is laughing. Ultimately, I think this will bring more publicity for Christianity, and a deeper understanding of some important Christian principles. It will also give more weight to the perceived concept that atheism is not so much a belief in itself as it is a rebellion against Christianity. Whether the atheists behind this think that is so or not, they're promoting it indirectly, and for better or worse, raising the profile of the Bible's challenge.

Moralists Anonymous

I have another post I've been working on, but I put it aside for this. This post is dedicated to one of my biggest fans, who posts quite often on my other blog, and even occasionally here: Anonymous. This guy is great, not so much that he's always the kindest comment poster or deepest thinker, but I am flattered that he takes time out from all his poetry writing, clever quipping and police informant work to drop in on my blog and give me his opinion. Lately, he had a lot to say in response to my post on slavery (scroll to the comments), but in the end, it apparently boiled down to an issue that I haven't addressed there, and probably never will, due to the nature of the blog.

The issue is the moral nature of God. Anonymous claimed, as many before him have done, that there is good reason to question whether or not God is morally right in His actions and overall interaction with humanity. For many people, this issue is raised as part of the Problem of Evil. Short version: (A) God is good. (B) God is all-powerful. (C) Evil exists. It is claimed that all three of these cannot be true, and if this is so, and rational people cannot reject (C), then (A) and/or (B) must be false, and Christianity cannot be based on truth. This is also related very closely to the problem of suffering, which is essentially the same, but with "evil" replaced by "suffering". Anyway, the point is that the nature of God becomes questionable in this light, and one must wonder what Bible believer can say about it.

I'm pretty sure I have addressed elsewhere the issue of questioning (B), but due to Anonymous' questioning, I think it might be time to shed some light on (A). Why does it sometimes appear to some that God is immoral, and how do Christians reconcile this? Why does God allow evil that seems like it would be simple enough for an all-powerful God to stop, and on top of that, why does the Bible condone things like slavery and capital punishment that many of us find morally distasteful? I'm not going to pretend to have the answer, although I may highlight my favorite theory before I wrap this up.

One of the very common ways to respond to the issue is to simply say "We have no right to judge God." This actually comes in a number of different forms, some of which blur the boundaries with other types of responses that I plan to discuss here. One form is that of the defaulted reverential approach to God, where one has simply been taught that God is Holy and wonderful and that one should never question God's goodness because...well, just because! What are you, some sort of heretic? A more abstract but actually in a way more reasoned approach is to simply point out that since God created the universe and the living creatures in it, they belong to Him, and he gets to do whatever He wants with them, and if you don't like it, go make your own universe! Maybe that's alright for some people in their own minds to take a position like this, but for someone who is not a believer to begin with, this approach will be sadly lacking in weight. Furthermore for those of us that are believers that want to have any sort of serious discussions of theology, there is a need for a reasoned approach. This isn't it.

As I said, there is a blurring of the boundaries between these different types of responses, and it may not be really clear why this is different, but another approach is to claim that morality is actually a creation of God, and since God made it, He has a certain amount of control over it. This is a strange and many-faceted idea that sometimes is approached from the other direction in a manner of speaking, when someone tries to argue that without God, there is no morality, period. The idea in such an approach is to suggest that the fact we can make moral judgments somehow verifies the existence of a higher moral standard, and that that standard can only be the almighty creator of the universe. Perhaps somebody can suggest to me a good book or essay to read on the subject because I frankly have never understood this position, and every time I've heard it, it seems to be stated as though it's self-evident. Putting that aside and getting back to the subect of God's "control" over morality, a good metaphor is that life is like a game where the rules exist in God's head. Whatever God does, He can bend the rules to fit his actions, or, more to the point due to God's omniscence, God has created the rules with loopholes for Himself. (That's an over-simplification, but I'm really convinced that the argument boils down to that in essence.) Those who don't like this argument seem to feel that it's a matter of hypocrisy that God doesn't have to obey moral law while His creation does, and there might be something to that. One thing that Christians in particular have claimed is that in the person of Jesus, God lived the life of a mortal, and in the thirty-odd years He spent on earth, He willingly subjected Himself to those laws. Whether that helps the argument or is even plausible to those who read the Gospels with a skeptical eye, who can say?

Similarly, but with some deeper theological implications, there are those who claim that God, a being of a higher order and quite different from us in many ways, does obey moral law, but has a completely different set of moral laws that apply to Him. Generally, this is hard to explain in the particular case of God, but perhaps can be illustrated in a different way. Let's talk fleas. Most people would not think it immoral of a person to buy a flea collar for their pet. The flea collar kills fleas, but we recognize that the fleas are detrimental to the health of the pet, and for the pet's sake, should be eliminated. If the pet chose to wear it or managed to remove it, either way, most people would not think such an action on the part of the pet would be immoral. Now despite the fact that the pet and the owner are unhappy with the flea, nobody would particularly feel that the flea was immoral for biting the pet (or the owner, for that matter) since that is the way it survives, and cannot be expected to do otherwise. Also, the flea has no comprehension of why it is unwanted (if indeed it is aware of it at all!)

So, as the difference between fleas, pets, and pet owners implies different moralities not just in degree, but in kind, so God exists in a state where His morality is perhaps as unrecognizable to us as ours is to a flea. And the comparison is perhaps appropriate, as many have wondered about the morality of God creating fleas in the first place. It may be that God has created fleas (and evil and suffering in many other forms) for reasons that we simply cannot fathom, not being God. I think a likely objection to this view is that if God's morality is of a kind that is not related to ours in such a fantastic manner, how can one even know that God is moral? Really, we'd just be guessing and/or taking God's word for it. While that objection is basically true, this may nonetheless be the case, like it or not.

Now, my preferred manner of viewing the morality of God is that God's morality is of a higher order than ours, but not so much of a different type. The distinction between this position and the last one is that while we often do not understand the moral aim of any choice God makes, it is not because it is intrinsically unknowable. The issue for God is that God sees the big picture. My children don't understand why it's not good to eat nothing but candy all the time. They're too young to understand nutrition. Frankly, I don't understand nutrition either, but I'm mature enough to recognize that there is a right and wrong way to choose foods, even if I don't always do it. My kids could grow up to become nutritionists or doctors, and have a much better grasp on the concept, the potential is there. Now while we can't "grow up" and become God, I think that God has knowledge that leads Him to do things that is often beyond our current grasp.

One of the biggest things that I feel that God understands better than any person alive is the concept of death. There's a bit of a trend I've seen lately, perhaps started by Steve Wells in his blog Dwindling In Unbelief, to point out that if one goes through the Bible, we see God killing more people than Satan. I am personally of the belief that when God (and perhaps Satan as well?) kills a person, it is a different matter than when a human kills another. This is not a matter of God having the right to kill because He created life (a fairly popular response), but God having the right to kill because He and He alone, being omniscient, knows the full implications of ending any particular life at any particular time. One of these days, I'm going to have to do a post on my view of the spiritual aspect of murder, I have what I think is an interesting personal take on the matter. Why do I take away my kids' candy before dinner? Because I know something that they don't. Why does God take away a life or allow some other form of suffering? Because God knows something we don't. People can complain that God allowed a man like Hitler to exist, and then turn around and complain the He allowed a baby to die. We may not be aware that had that baby grown to adulthood, he would have become a man far worse than Hitler, and it was better that he died before setting off down the path that led to that end. Wildly theoretical, I know, but not at all impossible.

A person might object to this sort of speculation as being the same sort of grasping at straws that "blind faith" breeds, and heck, they might be right. However, I have met many atheists that have a similar view of materialistic science. If we only knew more about the universe, they assure us, then we'd have no need for God or miracles or an afterlife. Well, how do they know that? The same way that I know that God is moral. The more I investigate, the more I understand, and as yet, nothing has given me strong reason to think otherwise. And anyway, I do have faith in science in that way as well (well, short the part about not needing God), and I don't think it's wrong. I think science can tell us everything we will ever need to know about the physical universe, if we only investigate carefully. I simply feel that the physical universe is not all there is. There is God, there is the spiritual aspect of our world, and there is a morality, both of man and God that shapes it all in ways that we only partly understand.