SECTION VI Chapter 6 - The Importance of Belief ("Faith") in Christian Doctrine "Nevertheless, when the Son of man comes, will he find faith on earth?" --Jesus Christ (Luke 18:8) "The spirit of grace causes us to have faith, in order that through faith we may, on praying for it, obtain the ability to do what we are commanded." --St. Augustine (CONFESSIONS) "I believe in order that I may understand, not I understand in order that I may believe". --St. Anselm "When God commands us to believe, he does not propose to have us search into his divine judgments, nor to inquire their reasons and causes, but demands an immutable faith...Faith, therefore, excludes not only all doubt, but even the desire of subjecting its truth to demonstration." --Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566) "Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: It never comes to the aid of spiritual things; but--more frequently than not--struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God." --Martin Luther (TABLE TALK) "That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which to our eyes appears white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it black." --Jesuit founder, Ignatius Layola SPIRITUAL EXERCISES, Rule #13 "The equal toleration of all religions...is the same thing as atheism." --Pope Leo XIII "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." --Blaise Pascal "A simple man believes every word he hears; A clever man understands the need for proof. -- Proverbs 14:15 (NEB) "What can be greater blasphemy than to ascribe the wickedness of man to the orders of the Almighty?" --Thomas Paine "How can a state be well governed without the aid of religion? Society cannot exist unless there is inequality of wealth, and equality of wealth is intolerable without religion. When a man is starving to death beside another who is gorged, he cannot accept that disparity without some authority who says: God has decreed that there must be rich and poor in this world, but in the next and throughout eternity, it will be the other way around." --Napoleon "What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason...Faith consists in believing not what seems true, but what seems false to our understanding." --Voltaire "Faith...can be nothing but the annihilation of reason... Faith therefore, is nothing but submissive or deferential credulity." --Voltaire "...to pretend that God demands the sacrifice of human reason, is to maintain that God wills one thing, and intends another at the same time." -- Diderot "Doubts in religious matters, far from being blamable--far from being acts of impiety, ought to be regarded as praiseworthy, when they proceed from a man who humbly acknowledges his ignorance, and arise from the fear of offending God by the abuse of reason." -- Diderot "Faith means not wanting to know what is true." -- Nietzsche "Many theatrical preachers...successfully inculcate the fear of death and hell, and live luxuriously on the folly of their hearers. The latter have so much intellectual cowardice that they dare not reason about those things which are directed by their priests to believe." --Erasmus Darwin (grandfather of Charles Darwin) "Many of these people have the reasoning faculty, but no one uses it in religious matters." --Mark Twain "Had God designed the world, it would not be a World so frail and faulty as we see." --Lucretius "[Wherever] God appears, man is reduced to nothing; and the greater Divinity becomes, the more miserable becomes humanity. That is the history of all religions; that is the effect of all the divine inspirations and legislations. In history the name of God is the terrible club with which all divinely inspired men, the great 'virtuous geniuses', have beaten down the liberty, dignity, reason, and prosperity of man." --Michael Bakunin "When one reads Bibles, one is less surprised at what the Deity knows than at what He doesn't know." -- Mark Twain "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." -- Carl Sagan "If God has spoken, why is the universe not convinced?" --Percy Bysshe Shelley "It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning." – Calvin The Importance of "Believing" When the gospel writers of the New Testament preached against the "nonbelievers" of their times, this did not mean that the peoples of the ancient world did NOT believe in any God (or gods) nor any miracles. For the vast majority of ancient peoples have always believed in divine and miraculous powers! Thus, the challenge for early Christians was NOT to get people to BELIEVE in the miraculous--But to get people to SWITCH their belief from other divine beings to a belief in the divine Jesus Christ. Because Christianity, (like Islam and Judaism) is based on a faith in a perfect authority--to challenge any premise can be interpreted by faithful believers as HERESY. Some religions are more tolerate of other viewpoints-- holding to the universality of a belief in God. For example, the Baha'is of Iran have always stressed principles of universal brotherhood and hold that there are fundamental truths in almost all religions. Likewise, Unitarians and Buddhists believe that there are spiritual truths to be found in all religions. As we have seen, there were other ancient religions, which competed with Christianity, that ALSO promised rewards of life after death--along with spells/enchantments-- to protect against the terrors of passing into a shadowy, nether-world existence. Early Christians appear to have emphasized (more than other groups), the terrible consequences of eternal damnation hell--from NOT believing SOLELY in their God and savior, Jesus Christ. Jewish Belief in Good Works and Observances of God's Laws Jews, who stress belief in one God, have usually viewed punishment from disobeying God--in terms of unhappiness or death on earth--and NOT in terms of an eternal torture in another afterlife. Some scholars have contrasted Judaism with Christianity as follows: Judaism is based on a belief in "correct" practice or orthopraxis, while Christianity stresses "correct" belief or orthodoxy. (Islam, in turn, stresses BOTH "correct" practice and "correct" belief.) Jews believed that the creation of the world and mankind is basically good. They believe they can secure God's favor through living a life of good works (orthopraxis), based upon the laws as laid down by the Torah and rabbinic tradition. As a reward for living a good life, pious Jews look(ed) forward to the blessing of a large family, and happiness on earth. Jews generally believe that God will forgive one's sins if the individual sincerely repents and performs righteous works. Can Children Be Punished for the "Sins" of Their Fathers? --the Jewish View Interestingly, the OLDEST books of the Old Testament warn that LATER generations could be punished for the sins of their fathers. (These verses were no doubt concerned with explaining the presence of evil during the reign of a good king.) For example in Exodus just prior to the Ten Commandments, is the statement that children COULD be held responsible by God for the sins of their FATHERS--as far down as the third and fourth generation: "Thy Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me." (Exodus 20:5) Another example, can be found during the reign of King David. After there was a famine for three years in a row, David was told by God that this occurred because "There is blood guilt on Saul and on his house, because he put the Gibeonites to death." David immediately went to meet with the Gibeonites, during which he agreed to let them hang seven of Saul's sons to expiate the sin of their father. (see 2 Samuel 21:1-7). In later books in the Old Testament, we see a reversal in this doctrine-- That is, sons (and presumably daughters also) will be judged by God based solely on the merits of their own lives. For example, the prophet Ezekiel stated: "The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself." (Ezekiel 18:20) This view is held today by most Jews AND Christians. What is Necessary to be Saved?--the Christian View In hebrew, the word for "sin" means to "miss the mark", (with the implication that a person needs to try harder next time to obey God's commandments.) Early Christians however employed the term "sin" to mean an "offense" against God, leading to one's "loss of personal salvation." St. Paul believed that all mankind was ravaged in sin, and only through belief in Jesus Christ could one be saved: "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." (1 Corinthians 15:22) Unlike Jews, who emphasized living a life of good works, Christians came to emphasize "correct" FAITH (orthodoxy) as the key towards salvation: *"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."(Mark 16:16) *Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." (John 6:47) * This view is also seen in Ephesians 2:8: "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing it is the gift of God--not because of works, lest any man should boast." There are TWO EXCEPTIONS to this view of faith in the New Testament: In the New Testament's epistle of James (which according to tradition was written by Jesus' brother James), the author does emphasize good works in addition to faith: "But some one will say, 'You have faith and I have works'...Even the demons believe--and shudder. Do you want to be shown, you foolish fellow, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? ...You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone...For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead." (James 2:18-26) Secondly, the author of Hebrews, states that faith is not enough if one has slipped back into their evil ways after being baptized as a Christian-- (See 6:4-6)--This means there can be NO second forgiveness for one's sins. As support for this view, the author cites the story of Esau in the Old Testament, who, "found no chance to repent", even though he sought "with tears" to "inherit the blessing" (12:17) (This issue was of great importance to early Christians because during times of Roman persecution, some Christians would publicly recant in order to save their lives. Catholics eventually did allow for means whereby one could "atone" for a sins done after baptism). One of the basic difference between the tenets of the Catholic and Protestant doctrines is that Catholicism emphasized good works, along with ACTIONS--such as atonement and confession for past sins. The book of James and Hebrews thus support the "Catholic" view. Protestantism was instead founded upon a belief that salvation depends entirely on faith. The writings of St. Paul are usually relied on for this view. As for the writings of James and Hebrews, some Protestants (going back as far as Martin Luther), have questioned whether these were truly inspired. Hell, the Christian consequences of NOT Believing Traditional Christian doctrine holds that BELIEF in Jesus as the Christ is fundamental to being a Christian--and receiving salvation. Traditionally, Christian dogma has taught that the consequences of NOT believing--will be to experience eternal tortures in hell! Some Christian sects demand other REQUIREMENTS (such as membership to their Christian sect, etc) to escape the horrors of hell. Hell--the consequences of NOT believing--and therefore NOT being "saved" is described in the New Testament as so terrible, that: "...if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." (Mark 9:47-48 . See also Matthew 11"20-24, 13:49-50; Mark 3:29; Luke 16:19-31) According to Matthew, upon Judgment Day, "The Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evil-doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth." (Matthew 13:41-2) and, "Depart from me [the Son of man is addressing the sinners], you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." (Matthew 26:41) The book of Revelations states that those whose names are not found in the book of Life will be thrown into "the lake of fire" and "tormented day and night for ever and ever". (Rev.20:10-15) (Neither the gospel writer John, nor Paul ever refer to Hell as an actual place of 'everlasting punishment", although they do speak in terms of "dying", being "condemned" or "lost".) Doctrine of Hell Accepted on "Faith" Most medieval theologians preached that only a very small percentage--say 1 in 1,000, or even as few as 1 in 10,000 would make it to heaven. The Protestant reformer Martin Luther, was disturbed that Christian doctrine taught that so very FEW people would go to heaven, while the VAST MAJORITY of people would go to hell. However, to him, this was one area where one cannot use logic--but must ultimately submit to "faith": "This is the highest degree of faith, to believe [God] merciful when he saves so few and damns so many...so that he seems, according to Erasmus, to delight in the torments of the wretched and to be worthy of hatred rather than love. If, then, I could by any means comprehend how this God can be merciful and just who displays so much wrath and iniquity, there would be no need of faith." (Martin Luther, BONDAGE OF THE WILL, trans. Philip Watson, in Philip Watson and Gordon Rupp, LUTHER AND ERASMUS: FREE WILL AND SALVATION (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969), p 138) Liberal, Humanist Christian Interpretations of Hell Many liberal Christians have likewise found it hard to understand how an all-good God could believe in eternal torture in hell, instead of letting a person just die a natural death. Why, it has been asked, would an all-powerful God resort to such tactics? It does not make sense--especially since there are SO many different beliefs--with a large number of these confident that only THEY will escape from the terrors of hell. Walter Kaufmann put it this way, "As long as we cling to the conception of hell, God is not love in any human sense--and least of all, love in the human sense raised to the highest potency of perfection." (Walter Kaufman. CRITIQUE OF RELIGION AND PHILOSOPHY. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978; originally published in 1958) Miguel de Unamuno, wrote in his great work THE TRAGIC SENSE OF LIFE: "For to assert that since God is infinite, an offence committed against Him is infinite also and therefore demands an eternal punishment, is apart from the inconceivability of an infinite offence, to be unaware that, in human ethics, if not in the human police system, the gravity of the offence is measured not by the dignity of the injured person but by the intention of the injurer, and that to speak of an infinite culpable intention is sheer nonsense, and nothing else." Consequently, some liberal, humanistic Christians began to interpret hell allegorically as symbolizing separation from God, as opposed to a fiery eternal jail-- This was because belief in eternal hell would seem to be in conflict with Jesus' other philosophies of "turning the other cheek", plus the axiom in the golden rule itself: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If these rules are applicable on earth, it would seem to make sense for them also to apply in heaven. (These groups typically do NOT take a "literal" interpretation of the bible, and tend to favor other liberal views too, such as evolution of life on earth "through God", supporting efforts to improve relationships among the races, and other humanistic endeavors.) Skeptics have savagely criticized the doctrine of eternal suffering in hell. For example, Mark Twain used his wry humor to decry this belief, writing in his LETTERS OF THE EARTH: "In time, the Deity perceived that death was a mistake--it allowed the dead person to escape from all further persecution in the blessed refuge of the grave. This was not satisfactory. A way must be contrived to pursue the dead beyond the tomb...He invented Hell, and proclaimed it." (Conservative religious groups, of course, believe Twain has gone to hell for his viewpoints). Believing WITHOUT an Overt Miracle There is an interesting parable told in the gospel of Luke where Jesus relates the story of a rich man, and a beggar named Lazarus. Although Lazarus goes to heaven after he dies, the wealthy man lands in hell. Realizing his error for leading a sinful life, the former wealthy man asks Abraham to send some one "from the dead" to his family, to warn them about the torments of hell. However, Abraham refuses, saying "'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them...If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced some one should rise from the dead.'" (Luke 16:19-31) According to the parable of Lazarus, this means that it should be enough for people to HEAR the message of the gospels without seeing an OVERT MIRACLE, in order to believe. Yet there is conflicting evidence on this--even within the gospels themselves: The apostle Thomas (dubbed the "Doubting" Thomas) reportedly did not believe that Jesus had been resurrected--until he placed his hands through Jesus wounds on his hands from the nails of the cross. Likewise, St. Paul was originally a persecutor of Christians before he received his divine "revelation"-- It was only after this EVIDENCE, that Paul immediately converted. Therefore based on these reports, evidence DID make an important difference in causing these two men to BELIEVE. Most NON-Christians in the world today are BELIEVERS of religions (based on some divine element) which they were born into. If God wished it, people would "see" which religion was true immediately-- and billions of believers would convert. This was no doubt the meaning of the English poet Shelley's words, when he wrote: "If God has spoken, why is the universe not convinced?" For this reason, more liberal religious groups see God's handiwork present in many religions. As John Milton so beautifully put this, "God prefers the lush and many-tinted profusion of spring to the frozen conformity of winter." The Problem with Blind Faith Most modern biblical scholars will admit that the miracles reported in the Bible LACK the rigorous evidence that are demanded in today's scientific-minded society. It is also a fact, that when the gospels were written, most peoples of the ancient world were extremely superstitious-- Therefore if one is NOT to question biblical stories--then this must be taken completely upon FAITH, while ignoring reason. In earlier chapters on the early history of Christianity, we have seen how many of the earliest Christians praised faith (while simultaneously denigrating wisdom--meaning reason.) I am repeating some of these verses: *"Consider your call, brethren, not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many of noble birth; but God chose the foolish in the world to shame the wise. (1 Cor. 1:26) * "It is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will thwart. "Where is this wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has God not made foolish the wisdom of the world! (1 Corinthians 1:19-20) * After Jesus had faced leveled judgment against those cities that had apparently rejected him, he states: "I am grateful, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; such was your gracious intention." (Matthew 11:20; see also Luke 10:21) Looking backwards in time we can see how primitive and backwards many of the beliefs of ancient people were (for example believing in demons for ALL mental illnesses.) It would thus seem incredible that Jesus would have acted as if the problem was one of people being too smart, as opposed to being grossly superstitious. As was demonstrated in Section IV, when the ancient Western world became entirely ruled through faith, it fell into a Dark Age. Does an All Powerful God "Demand" Absolute Obedience from People Some theologians and philosophers explain that humans are too low on the evolutionary scale to understand God's ultimate Ways. For example, C.S. Lewis speculated that for us to try and fathom God's will is like a dog trying to understand what his human master is up to: "... of course [any] conjectures as to why God does what He does are probably of no more value than my dog's ideas of what I am up to when I sit and read." Still, using this same comparison, it can be argued that most humans do NOT demand ABSOLUTE obedience for their pet dogs/cats.--Nor to they desire to consign their pets to an eternity in hell, if they don't obey them. In Diderot's THOUGHTS OF RELIGION, the author argued that God is far too infinite and powerful to be bothered with humans: "How canst thou believe that God requires to be worshipped? Weak mortal! What need has the Deity of thy homage? Dost thou think that thou canst add any thing to his happiness or to his glory? Thou mayst honor thyself by raising thy thoughts to the Great Author of thy being, but thou canst do nothing for him, he is too much above thy insignificance. Always bear in mind, that if any kind of worship be more acceptable to him than the rest, it must be that which proceeds from an honest heart. What matter then in what manner thou expressest thy sentiments? Does he not read them in thy mind? What matters it in what garments, in what attitude, in what language thou addressest him in prayer? Is he like those kings of the earth who reject the petitions of their subjects, because they have been ignorant of, or disregarded some little formality? Pull not down the Almighty to thy own littleness, but believe that if one worship were more agreeable to him than another, he would have made it known to the whole world. Believe that he receives with the same goodness the wishes of the [Muslim], the Catholic, and the Indian; that he hears with the same kindness the prayers of the savage, who addresses him from the midst of a forest, as those of a Pontiff, who wears the tiara." The Doctrine of Eternal Damnation If various religious sects are claiming that only THEY are the "Elect", then obviously not ALL of them can be true. We have seen that TERRIBLE persecutions, tortures and wars have been inflicted upon "heretics"--in the name of God. Looking back in time (such as to the wars between Catholics and Protestants during the Reformation and Counter-Reformation)-- It is apparent that, at least SOME of these actions originated from "ordinary men" and did not come from "God". Likewise, we know that the THREAT OF ETERNAL DAMNATION has been used by authorities (within a diverse number of religious communities) to demand absolute obedience from their subjects, One would not have to look very far to understand why HUMAN AUTHORITIES have used such tactics--the answer is, of BECAUSE IT WORKS! That is, the threat of eternal damnation by authorities has been very effective over roughly two millennium in keeping the faithful flock closely guarded from any "wolves" that would try and influence their beliefs. People were warned not to use REASON-- as this could lead them towards discovering what was REALLY going on. This "theory" can explain a great deal of the events that we see in history--That is, it was MEN (and NOT God) who were primarily responsible for the INHUMANITIES perpetrated against mankind throughout history-- Or, stating this another way-- it was HUMANS who deceitfully used the name of God (or other ideology) in order to maintain their own authority--and in some cases, to conduct their own personal terrors. In conclusion (using a reworked Paine), we might say "What greater blasphemy is there, than to see men ascribing their wickedness to the orders of the Almighty!"" Many religious Christian humanists of the Enlightenment wrote passionately on this topic. As one example, John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson in a letter dated September 14, 1813: "Now, my Friend, can Prophecies, or miracles convince You, or Me, that infinite Benevolence, Wisdom and Power, created and preserves, for a time innumerable millions to make them miserable, forever; for his own Glory? Wretch! What is Glory? Is he ambitious? does he want promotion? Is he vain? tickled with Adulation? Exulting and triumphing in his Power and the Sweetness of his Vengeance? Pardon me, my Maker, for these Awful Questions. My Answer to them is always ready: I believe no such Things. My adoration of the Author of the Universe is too profound and too sincere. The Love of God and his Creation; delight, Joy, Triumph, Exultation in my own existence, 'tho but an Atom, a Molecule Organize, in the Universe; are my religion. Howl, Snarl, bite, Ye Calvinistic! Ye Athanasian Divines, if You will. Ye will say, I am no Christian: I say Ye are no Christians: and there the Account is balanced. Yet I believe all the honest men among you, are Christians in my Sense of the Word..." Mark Twain spoke bitterly of the reported biblical God, who fixates over whether of not He should be worshipped, while all the time making man's life miserable on earth: "I were to construct a God I would furnish Him with some way and qualities and characteristics which the Present lacks. He would not stoop to ask for any man's compliments, praises, flatteries; and He would be far above exacting them. I would have Him as self-respecting as the better sort of man in these regards... He would value no love but the love born of kindnesses conferred; not that born of benevolences contracted for. Repentance in a man's heart for a wrong done would cancel and annul that sin; and no verbal prayers for forgiveness be required or desired or expected of that man. In His Bible there would be no Unforgivable Sin. He would recognize in Himself the Author and Inventor of Sin and Author and Inventor of the Vehicle and Appliances for its commission; and would place the whole responsibility where it would of right belong: upon Himself, the only Sinner. He would not be a jealous God -- a trait so small that even men despise it in each other... He would spend some of His eternities in trying to forgive Himself for making man unhappy when he could have made him happy with the same effort, and he would spend the rest of them in studying astronomy." The Doctrine of Predestination It has been remarked (Diderot for one), that IF all the miraculous happenings surrounding Jesus as reported in the gospels were TRUE--then possibly the GREATEST miracle of all, was that so many Jews--who were EYEWITNESSES to these events-- STILL did NOT believe! One method for answering this area of criticism, has been to reference the doctrine of predestination--which stresses God's omnipotence, and therefore indicates that God is indirectly responsible for the wickedness in the world. The argument for predestination goes at least as far back as the story of the Exodus. Here, the Egyptian Pharaoh was witness to numerous miracles performed by Moses. However, because God "hardened his heart", he refused to let the ancient hebrews leave Egypt--this, despite all the terrible plagues that were unleashed on the Egyptian population. Finally, the Pharaoh yielded, but only after all the firstborn children of Egypt were reportedly killed in the last plague called by Moses. The "hardened" Pharaoh still pursued the hebrews across the Red Sea, and was killed with many troops after Moses called the waters to close back in on them. Predestination (ie the belief that God has already chosen WHOM He will save) figured predominately in the writings of St. Paul and the gospel of John. Some excerpts: *"We know that in everything God works for good with those who live him, who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He knew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren. And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified." (Romans 8:28-30) *"What shall we say then [regarding God's predestination that Jacob would be loved and Esau hated]? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So it depends not upon man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy. For the scripture says to Pharaoh, 'I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.' So then he has mercy upon whomever He wills, and He hardens the heart of whomever He wills. You will say to me then 'Why does he still find fault? For who can resist His Will? But, who are you, a man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me thus? Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use?" (Romans 9:14-21) The gospel writer John, also touched on the doctrine of predestination, as can be seen in the following verses: *"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him at the last day. It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me." (John 6:44-5) * Here the gospel writer John has Jesus quoting the prophet Isaiah in explaining why the Jews did not believe: "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, least they should see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and turn for me to heal them." (John 12:40) *"If you know these [divine] things, blessed are you if you do them. I am not speaking of you all; I know whom I have chosen" (John 13:17-8) St. Augustine believed God to be all-powerful, and therefore this would mean that God "knew" beforehand exactly what humans would do. Although the Catholic Church sanctified St. Augustine's views on "original sin" into their doctrines, they did not similarly accept his views on predestination. (Possibly this was because St. Augustine had devised his arguments in order to CONVERT the entire population over to Christianity. Later after basically everyone was already converted, the focus shifted towards OBEDIENCE to church authorities). Thomas Aquinas later reintroduced the concept of predestination into Catholic doctrine, insisting that "God is the cause not only of our wills but also of our willing." "He is the cause of the movements of the will." Thomas believed that to deny that God is not responsible for will, desire, and choice in all humans, was tantamount to denying the divinity of God. Thomas Aquinas believed his views were a logical extension of Aristotle's principle that "anything new must have a cause." (SUMMA CONTRA GENTILES, IN BASIC WRITINGS OF SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS, 2 vols, ed Anton C. Pegis (New York: Random House, 1945), vol. 1, bk. 3, chap. 89, as quoted by J.E. Barnhart, RELIGION AND THE CHALLENGE OF PHILOSOPHY, Littlefield, Adams, & Co., Totowa, New Jersey, 1975). Protestants re-visited the doctrine of predestination upon reading St. Augustine's works. Martin Luther believed that since God is all-mighty, then this means man has NO "free will". That is, God has chosen from the beginning, whom he will save, and whom he will damn to hell. It was part of God's plan, that Christ would die only for the select few. According to Martin Luther in his THE BONDAGE FOR THE WILL, "For if we believe it to be true that God foreknows and foreordains all things...then there can be no free will in man, in angel, or in any creature." John Calvin made predestination one of the cornerstone beliefs in his doctrines. Calvinists reconciled predestination with the concept of "free will" as follows: People are free to carry out their own needs and desires. HOWEVER, it is God who either directly or indirectly is responsible for their needs and desires. One orthodox Calvinists explained this doctrine as follows: "I wish very frankly and pointedly to assert that if a man gets drunk and shoots his family, it was the will of God that he should do so. The Scriptures leave no room for doubt...that it was God's will for Herod, Pilate, and the Jews to crucify Christ. In Ephesians 1:11 Paul tells us that God works all things, not just some things only, after the counsel of his own will." (Gordon H. Clark, RELIGION, REASON, AND REVELATION, (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co., 1961), p 221 as quoted by J.E. Barnhart, op cit. p 114) Muhammad, the prophet of Allah also placed a heavy emphasis on the doctrine of divine predestination. Muslims believe in the predetermination of the fate of man, and the necessity for the absolute submission of man's will to that of God. This doctrine was used by Saudi officials to explain a tragic situation that took place on one of their airplanes during the 1980's. The air- conditioning system had gone out, when the plane was filled with religious Muslims on their way to a pilgrimage. Everyone on the plane died from suffocation. Saudi authorities explained that it was the predestined "time" of the pilgrims to die, in accordance with "Allah's Will". That is, if there had been no plane trip, then every one of these pilgrims would have independently met their death at exactly the same hour, scattered throughout the world. (It is for this same reason that conservative Muslims do not agree with the Western concept of insurance which reimburses victims for catastrophes--as theses are literally considered to be "just" acts of God.) For philosophers, one problem with the doctrine of predestination, is that it appears to conflict with God's described nature as BOTH an all-powerful AND all-good Divine Being. Or phrasing this another way, how can so much evil exist in the world, if it were created by an all-good, all-powerful being who predestined every detail of evil with the good? (See Section VI, Chapter 2. Note, interesting parallels can be made to predestination with science's "chaos" theory- i.e., where small errors can accumulate to become catastrophic--as opposed to canceling each other out. This was set off from Edward Lorenz 1979 paper, entitled" Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly's Wings in Brazil Set Off a Tornado in Texas?" Today, sensitive dependence on initial conditions is dubbed "the butterfly effect.") Does Belief Help Individuals Cope with Personal Sadness and Tragedy? Without doubt, religion can TRULY help some people cope with terrible lives and give them HOPE for a better future! Indeed, there would be people who might "give up" on life itself if this hope were taken away from them. There are also numerous accounts of unhappy people--even criminals-- who, after becoming convinced that Jesus personally cared for them, reported living happy, fulfilled lives--even becoming role models within society! Thus, for the majority of people, religion can truly serve as a source of inspiration and comfort. On the other hand, when tragedy strikes, religious people may suffer terrible psychological pain in addition to the tragedy itself--because of their belief that God has "allowed" this to happen to them. For example, I have known various individuals, who later confided to me how after a terrible tragedy (one contracted cancer, another had a miscarriage), so much ADDITIONAL emotional anguish was caused because "well-meaning" religious friends told them God must be punishing them for some past sin. More humane religious individuals have fortunately come to the rescue for victims, who wonder how God could let their tragedies occur. For example, Rabbi Harold Kushner wrote on the pain and betrayal he experienced, after he discovered that his 14-year old son had protracted progeria ( a terrible disease whereby the child's natural mechanism for aging somehow accelerates) A child with progeria may die of "old age" in his teens or early twenties. Kushner wrote on his anguish in his book: "If God existed, if He was minimally fair, let alone loving and forgiving, how could He do this to me?" Still, throughout his personal crisis, Kushner never abandoned his faith in God. He eventually came to believe that God could NOT have prevented his tragedy, and he was comforted by the thought that God had grieved along with him, during his darkest hours of suffering. Rabbi Kushner has done an unquestionable service in helping dispel the myth that all suffering is due to "God's Will." Philip Yancey, in his book DISAPPOINTMENT WITH GOD, also wrote on the guilt and betrayal felt by many Christians who experience personal problems and tragedies. Yancey believes that God has obviously distanced himself because humans keep rejecting His Ways--thus preventing a strong relationship from being bonded between Creator and human. Yancey dramatized this concept by pointed out how Jesus was specially sent to help mankind, but was instead rejected and crucified. According to Yancey, "All feelings of disappointment with God trace back to a breakdown in that relationship" with Jesus and God. He encouraged others to not ask "Why" when suffering comes, but instead "To what end?" Yancey believes that "God deserves trust, even when it looks like the world is caving in." Another view, is that unjust tragedy is the work of the Devil--whom God either "allows" to wreck havoc upon the Earth, or else is powerless to stop. One advantage of this view (in my personal opinion) is that the tragedy is no longer associated with the act of an all-good God--and thus bypasses the twisted logic used by some of the hardened religious-- to "prove" that "evil" is really--"good". There are of course, another set of problems from this view--because people do not always agree whether an event is the result of "God's divine justice" or the "Devil's wicked handiwork"! Thus, when an earthquake hit the Christian Armenians in the late 1980's, some Moslems cheerfully celebrated this as an act from God. When years later, another bad earthquake hit the Moslem side, there was no word from leaders as to whether this was ALSO an "act" from God. No doubt, this time, it was considered an act of the Devil. Are Religious Individuals Happier and Better-Adjusted than their Atheist Counterparts? Some recent studies have concluded that atheists are psychologically LESS happy and socially less well-adjusted than their religious counterparts. This was the conclusion of John F. Schumaker in the book RELIGION AND MENTAL HEALTH. Here he notes that religious individuals score better than agnostics/atheists on standardized psychological tests measuring life satisfaction and social adjustment. Other tests also have found similar results. That is, these show that VERY religious individuals find their lives MORE worthwhile, than those with moderate to no religious views. (Interesting, there was not much difference in response between individuals with moderate to low religious intensity--and outright agnostics/atheists in this survey on this issue.) This is a complex area however, for psychological measures are not agreed upon by all professionals. For example, skeptic psychologists have observed that religious beliefs may NEGATIVELY impact SOME areas of mental health. Specifically, they argue that belief systems may: * generate unhealthy feelings of guilt and low self-esteem * create anxiety and fear over going to hell * encourage prejudice through stressing that mankind is segregated between the "saved" and "unsaved" * engender unrealistic expectations * suppress one's true feelings * view rational and critical thinking as sinful * cause one to depend on others to make decisions, etc. Schumaker knows all this. But he still believes that religious individuals are HAPPIER and better adjusted individuals than their atheist counterparts. He argues that having HOPE that somehow life is better on the other side of death-- can have a powerful tranquilizing effect on our day to day problems and stess. Such beliefs can also serve to reduce anxiety towards fear of death, and to provide assurances that there is meaning to our lives. Schumaker believes that religious rituals have therapeutic value for believers, and can act as "healing mechanisms" for individuals with psychological stress/problems. Participation in rituals appears to cause individuals to temporarily suspend their critical thinking-- and to replace this with feelings of "belonging" to something bigger and better. He feels atheists who do not find substitutes for these rituals are missing out on an important experience. Because atheists are so few in number and scattered, it is also more difficult for them to congregate into groups, that can act as social support systems. Atheists respond that there are major flaws with Schumaker's conclusion that religious individuals are better adjusted than atheists. The playwrite George Bernard Shaw once caustically wrote how: "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." Wendell Watters, M.D., a practicing psychologist, argues that religious patients are more inclined to "say" that they are happy when they are not, because their religion "tells" them they "should" be happy, or that they "must" be "sinners" if they are unhappy. Per Watters: "Many psychiatrists have found that intensely religious patients deny psychiatric symptoms, on the grounds that if they are depressed... it means that their faith is weak and God will punish them for it... This mechanism of denial, a form of dishonesty with one's self, works not only in relation to actual symptoms, but also in relation to dysphoric affects such as anger (one of the seven deadly sins), or guilt (which the Christian is taught to believe was washed away by Christ's sacrifice.) It is common to hear religious patients deny that they feel guilty, even when they live absolutely pleasure-free lives..." Watters also criticizes Schumaker's study for NOT distinguishing between categories of atheists. There is a big difference, he insists, between the atheist who avoids thinking about religious matters, and the atheist who has encountered the major philosophical issues regarding the existence of God. There is also a difference between HUMANIST atheists and NON-humanist atheists. (He defines a humanist atheist as "an atheist who cares.") Watters contends that Schumaker's study does not appropriately distinguish between categories of BELIEVERS. According to Watters, a believer might be a child-abuser or a violent racist. But by taking no responsibility for thinking for himself, he can score wonderfully on psychological tests. Some religious individuals easily give up their critical thinking to authoritative figures. Cult members would be one extreme example of this. (See Section IX, Chapter 5). These individuals would no doubt achieve extremely high scores on questions asking them if they were happy. However, most individuals, including conventional religious individuals, would take this happiness to be delusional, and therefore not truly meaningful. (Note: The above borrows heavily from two FREE INQUIRY articles from the Summer 1993 issue, Vol 13, No. 3--John F. Schumaker, "The Mental Health of Atheists", pp 13-15 and Wendell W. Watters, M.D. "A Response to Schumaker".) * * * This makes the issue of whether religious individuals are better adjusted, and happier individuals a complicated subject. Still, I suspect that if all these factors were appropriately adjusted for in some future study, that very religious individuals would STILL likely score somewhat higher than their atheist counterparts on psychological tests measuring happiness and social well-being. That is, many people have described how it "feels good" to believe. This is probably one major reason why the majority of people will ALWAYS be religious!