Side topic - Resurrecting Hope

In light of the Easter season, I am going to (again) delay my 2nd post about the "religious views are relative" viewpoint and instead talk about the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The reason for doing so is that around this time people commonly hear the typical Christian phrases, "Jesus is alive", "Jesus is risen", or "Jesus has conquered death". However, many many not know what those phrases actually mean, or know the significance of those phrases to Christians. 

To understand why Christ's resurrection is important in the Christian worldview, we need to understand the Jewish context of the resurrection in the first century A.D. Why? Because the first followers of Jesus Christ (aka Christians) were originally Jews, so a large portion of their interpretation of Christ's resurrection and its significance would derive from their understanding of the Jewish belief in "the resurrection".

What do I mean by "the resurrection"? Is that referring to anything about Jesus? Based on the Jewish understanding of "resurrection" in the beginning of the first century, it is not. In summary, it is referring to a single time in the future when God (in the Jewish context, Israel's God) will raise all of his people from the dead, and they will subsequently live for eternity with God in some sort of bodily form. 

There are several sources that show this view was prominent among Jews in the 1st century AD. One example comes from the book of Daniel in the Old Testament. To the Jews, this book would be understood as a collection of stories of Israel's past, and prophecies (revelations) of its future. The relevant verse is Daniel 12:1-3, where the phrase "many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake" seems to be referring to the rising from the dead idea. However, the "like the stars" phrase, if taken literally, seems to refer to some kind of spiritual, rather than bodily, existence.

The next source, 2 Maccabees, was a Jewish writing about particular historical events of Israel. Jewish historians say that it was written sometime in the 2nd or 1st century BC. The relevant text is 2 Maccabees 7, which makes several references to the idea of the resurrection (i.e. "you are depriving us of this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to live again forever").

Next, the 1st century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus also refers to the resurrection several times in his writings. One of these passages is from War, 3.374, which mentions the idea of the resurrection of the body:

"Do not you know that those who depart out of this life according to the law of nature, and pay that debt which was received from God, when he that lent it us is pleased to require it back again, enjoy eternal fame; that their houses and their posterity are sure, that their souls are pure and obedient, and obtain a most holy place in heaven, from whence, in the revolutions of ages, they are again sent into pure bodies"

This is just a selection of Jewish writings that discuss this topic, but the above three passages give the general idea. The point I am making is that Jews living in the first century would have understood the term "resurrection" to mean the future event where God raises his people/followers from the dead in bodily form.  This background allows us to make sense of passages in the New Testament such as John 10:37, where Martha says her brother will "rise again in the resurrection at the last day". There were Jews who did not believe the resurrection would occur (i.e. Sadducees), but those people still would have understood what the word "resurrection" meant to an extent.

With that backdrop in place, what did the earliest followers of Christ believe about how the resurrection related to Jesus? In summary again, they believed that Jesus was the first person to go through this "resurrection" process - with God raising his body from the dead. This belief is probably shown the clearest in one of the apostle Paul's writings, 1 Corinthians 15:20-23:

 "But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.  For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him."

So, according to Paul's belief, Christ is the first to undergo the resurrection, and later all who are in Christ will undergo the resurrection in the future. This passage proceeds a passage that discusses Christ dying, rising, and appearing to his followers and 500 others. If Paul believed that these things happened, then he believed those appearances offered a preview of what will happen in his future. The future Jewish hope of eternal life with God has come into the present through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That hope could be realized by those who "belong to Christ". Again, there are other examples in the New Testament of how "the resurrection" and "the resurrection of Jesus Christ" relate, but this small passage gives the idea of this belief held by one of the earliest followers of Christ.

So what does all of this mean for us today? If the events listed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, that Jesus Christ of Nazareth died and rose from the dead three days later, actually happened, the hope of eternal life has been physically displayed by the post-death body of Jesus. This connection can be drawn from the Jewish context behind the teachings of Jesus, combined with his followers' understanding of the significance of Jesus' resurrection in light of that context. 

So, Christ is "risen", has literally "defeated death", and is "alive" for eternity. And his followers will... well... follow him into that same resurrection. And that is one of the main reasons, among others, why the resurrection of Jesus Christ is important to people who follow Jesus Christ.

I have discussed primarily the beliefs of the earliest followers of Jesus in light of Jewish beliefs in the first century. I have not discussed the reasonableness of the truth of the resurrection, or anything else in the Bible. I may get to that at a future time, but I am going to go back to writing about truth in the next post.

As typical of a blog post, I have a lot of summarized and not-completely-backed-up things in here, so if you want to learn more about some of these ideas, I recommend two books by the New Testament historian NT Wright, The New Testament and the People of God and The Resurrection of the Son of God

Religiously Different - Part 1

In my last main post, I discussed the exclusivity of all religious systems. Now I am going to look more specifically at 3 religions, and then ask the question, "Can these all be true?" Put in another way, do they all say the same thing? When you look at these three religions - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - the details seem to be the same. For example, they all claim:

1. There is one God who created the world 

2. God has revealed himself to people in some way, especially through prophets

3. God has perfect qualities - all-powerful, merciful, loving, etc. 

4. There is some kind of hope for life after death

I could continue to list some similar aspects. Looking only at these things, you could conclude that these religions claim the same thing. Hence, if one is true, than people who believe in the other two religions are correct along with believers of the first.

However, if you consider the central claims for these religions, you can see a very clear difference which breaks down the view that they are all the same. The easiest way to show what I mean would be to list these central aspects for these religions, backed up with some writings from the sources where these aspects come from.

I'll start with Judaism. Almost all of the similarities between the three religions stem from Judaism, since Islam and Christianity both claim to be a continuation of Judaism. I'm just going to list some of the major points, but there are more of them. There are also more examples of each point in the Bible of each, but I will just list one or two for this blog. The Jews believe that

1. There is one God who created the heavens and earth (Gen. 1) 

2. God created man in his image (Genesis 1:27)

3. Man disobeyed God and were punished. (Genesis 3) This disobedience is called "sin" (Genesis 4:7) 

4. God promised that all people will be blessed through Abraham. His descendants are the Israelites  (Genesis 12:1-3)

5. Moses wrote down God's commandments for the Israelites (Exodus 20)

6. God set up a sacrificial system to atone for sins (Leviticus) 

7. God will raise his chosen people (Israel) from the dead at some point in the future, and they will live forever (Zephaniah 3:14-20) (Daniel 6:26)

8. A savior (Messiah) would come to restore Israel and its people (Isaiah 11:1-5) 

Moving on to Christianity, it is important to describe the essential claims of Christianity. If any of the following components were NOT true, then the entire religion would not be true.

1. Jesus Christ of Nazareth lived at some point in history 

2. Jesus Christ is God's son, and is divine (John 1:14)

3. Jesus died, atoning for the sins of everyone (i.e. not just Israel) (Luke 23:46) (1 Corinth 15:3)

4. Jesus rose from the dead (Luke 24:4-8) (Acts 2:32)

I could discuss the significance of these things, but that is not necessary for this topic. The main point is that there would be no Christian religion formed without these four beliefs.

Before discussing Islam, I am going to post an essential statement in the Quran:

"This is the Book in which there is no doubt. It is a guidance for the God conscious, who believe in the Unseen, establish Salah, and spend in charity out of what We have provided for their sustenance, who believe in this Revelation which is sent to you and the Revelations which were sent before you and firmly in the hereafter. They are on true Guidance from their Rabb and they are the ones who will attain salvation" (Sura 2:[1-5])

From this passage, you can pull several claims that are central to the Islam faith:

1. "The Book" (The Quran) is completely true. In fact, Islam claims that the Quran are the direct revealed words of God (Surah 2:[23]).

2. The people who "attain salvation" do the following things:

A. "establish Salah" - means regularly pray to God 5 times a day (Surah 87:[14-15]

B. “Spend in charity” - called the Zakah (Surah 2:[42-43])

C. Believe in the Revelation (Quran) 

3. Muhammad is the Prophet who received this revelation. From above: “…this Revelation which is sent to you (Muhammad)” (Surah 8:[63-64])

The Quran and the belief that the Quran is the revealed words of God are the basis of the Islam religion. Therefore, if there is something in the Quran that is false, the religion as a whole will likely be false (assuming no misinterpretations of the text). This situation holds because the Quran claims that God is all-knowing (Surah 9:[77-78]), and since the Quran are the words of God, it must be true, must have “no doubt”.

With this factor in mind, I will proceed to discuss the implications of these central beliefs on the “they all say the same thing” view and the “religious beliefs are relative” view.

Side topic: Watching Coincidences

Occasionally I am going to deviate from my main blog thread to discuss a "side topic" due to time issues or because something is on my mind. So instead of religious truth claims, this topic is coincidences.

It seems common for people to credit unlikely things to a divine source. I can think of plenty of "ridiculous" ones... Tim Tebow throwing for 316 yards (representing John 3:16), the appearance of the virgin Mary in grilled cheese, etc. 

There are a few issues with crediting coincidences to the divine. First, plenty of very unlikely things happen whether it involves something spiritual or not. Second, You can always come up with a naturalistic explanation for certain things that happen.

However, does that mean we should be completely closed off to divine intervention? In other words, should we always assume that every unlikely event has a purely naturalistic explanation?

I think the answer to this question is no. We should not be set on this assumption if there is reason to believe that for a particular event, divine cause is more plausible than any naturalistic explanation. 

What sort of criteria could lead us to think that an event had a divine cause? I can think of three things to look at (there may be more):

1. The event is overwhelmingly unlikely

2. The event (seemingly) has spiritual significance

3. There are few, if any, plausible naturalistic explanations

Looking at the two examples above, the Tim Tebow example could fail #3 because an obvious explanation is that Tebow simply had a good game and happened to throw that many yards. Plus it's a stretch to make the spiritual connection in the first place. The grilled cheese example is questionable on #3 because a person could warp a very likely shape into something that looks like their image of Mary, like how you can warp the shape of a cloud to look like a bunny. Plus there's little practical spiritual significance.

The three factors above can add weight to a divine explanation for an event. You can always come up with a natural explanation for an event. But the question should not just be "is there is a natural explanation?", but instead should be "what is the most plausible explanation, no matter what the implications are?

With this question in mind, I now turn to a story that three years ago was sent to me, a questioning freshman, from a guy named Paul. You can choose to believe or not believe this story from his pastor. This is what Paul sent me:

"

I would like to share with you an additional event that the Pastor of my church recently shared with me that happened to him. He told me this after I told him some of the things that happened to me. He asked me if I thought that these kind of things only happen to me. I said YES!!!. I never heard any of these kinds of stores from people I knew and was never taught that they were readily available to be experienced, you just had to want to experience them

So here is what he told me,

His father once bought him a watch for good luck. The following day the watch stopped at exactly 2:15. He noticed that it stopped, then fiddled with it and set it to the right time and thought nothing further of it. The next day it again stopped at 2:15. So he thought it was simply broken and returned it to the store where it was bought. The clerk gave him the exact same replacement watch, same make-same model. The very next day the watch stopped again at 2:15, so he took the watch to the store and told the clerk. The clerk could not believe it and so started fiddling with it and set the watch for 2:14 and sure enough it stopped at 2:15 again in the store. So the clerk gave him an entirely different watch, different make/model. Sure enough the next day the watch stopped at 2:15 again. At this point, the pastor tells his wife to remember the time of 2:15 since God is telling him something about that time. The very next day, the watch doesn't stop at 2:15 but keeps on going and never stops again. A week later at 2:15 PM he gets a call from a church that he interviewed at (one of many he had interviewed at and was considering) and they offer him the job. He knows it is the will of God that he take that position and does so on the spot....

Lets examine the watch event I described. The watch always stopped at 2:15 PM, never 2:15 AM. And that's significant because there is no difference between the initial conditions of the watch at 2:15 PM versus 2:15 AM as it was an analog/mechanical watch and did not differentiate between AM and PM.

5 times the watch stopped at 2:15 exactly, plus the phone job offer came at 2:15 pm. That's 6 events. Do you know what the probability of that event happening was?

Do you know much about statistics? Rather than dive into the theory, I will use a quick example.

The probability of flipping a coin and having it land heads 6 times is
0.5^6 = .015625 = 1.56%

The probability of having a 6 sided dice land on 1 six times is
(1/6)^6 = 2.14x10-5 = .0000214 = .00214%

What is the probability that the watch would stop at 2:15 PM 6 times has 2 answers depending on whether the watch stopped to the second at 2:15 PM or only to the minute. Since he is a pastor, he would not understand the mathematic implications of one versus the other. So he never took notice, except that it was at 2:15 and NOT 2:16 or 2:17... etc..

Lets calculate the odds of to the minute first. There are 60 minutes in an hour, 24 hours in a day. Recall that it never stopped at 2:15 AM, so that means we are dealing with a trade space of 24 hours. That means there are 24 x 60 = 1440 possible minutes.

Using the same math as before

(1/1440)^6 = =1.12e-19 = 0.000000000000000000112

If it were to the second, then it would be
24 hours X 60 minutes X 60 seconds = 86400 possible seconds

(1/86400)^6 = 2.4e-30 = .0000000000000000000000000000024


Do you know what the probability of winning the lottery is ?

1:22,957,480 = 4.36e-8=.0000000436

Odds of being struck by lightning in your lifetime (80 years)

1:5000 = .0002

Now consider the odds I mentioned about the watch in comparison to the other events. That's why I call them "Miracles of incalculable odds". People don't understand 2.4e-30 terms. They understand 1:5000 as with lightning, but they can not grasp the other.

Let me make a better comparison for you. Found this write up on

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/539329.html

So how many grains of sand are there in the world? You could start
off by trying to guess how many grains of sand there are in a spoon of
sand. Use a magnifying glass to count how many grains fit in a small
section. Then, count how many of those sections fit in your spoon.
Multiply the two numbers together to get an estimate.
"Using this same principle, plus some additional information,
mathematicians at the University of Hawaii tried to guess how many
grains of sand are on the world's beaches. They came up with
7,500,000,000,000,000,000, or seven quintillion five quadrillion
grains of sand."

That number is 7.5 x 10^18 or 7.5 billion billion.

How many stars, galaxies, clusters, QSO's etc. in the Universe?

"To get the total stellar population in the Milky Way [that is, in our
galaxy alone], we must take the number of luminous stars that we can
see at large distances and assume that we know how many fainter stars
go along with them. Recent numbers give about 400,000,000,000 (400
billion) stars, but a 50% error either way is quite plausible."

So in our galaxy alone, there might be between 2 x 10^11 and 6 x 10^11 stars

How many galaxies in the Universe?

"the Hubble telescope is capable of detecting about 80 billion
galaxies (although not all of these within the foreseeable future!).
In fact, there must be many more than this, even within the observable
Universe, since the most
common kind of galaxy in our own neighborhood is the faint dwarfs
which are difficult enough to see nearby, much less at large
cosmological distances. For example, in our own local group, there are
3 or 4 giant galaxies which would be detectable at a billion
light-years or more (Andromeda, the Milky Way, the Pinwheel in
Triangulum, and maybe the Large Magellanic Cloud). However, there are
at least another 20 faint members, which would be difficult to find at
100 million light-years, much less the billions of light years to
which the brightest galaxies can be seen."

So the lower end estimate for the number of galaxies is 8 x 10^10

If we accept even the lower end of these Hubble figures, and if our
Milky Way has a typical number of stars in it, that puts the number of
stars in the universe to be at least
(2 x 10^11) x (8 x 10^10) = 16 x 10^ 21

So if we round the number of sand grains to, say, 10^20
and round the number of stars to, say 10^22
then there are at least 100 stars in the universe for every grain of sand on earth.

Using the same math as before

1.12e-19 = 0.000000000000000000112, for to the minute accuracy Watch

2.4e-30 = 0.0000000000000000000000000000024, for to the second accuracy Watch

7.5e18 = 7,500,000,000,000,000,000, for number of grains of sand in the world

16e21= 16,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 # stars in the universe

So the factual reality is that if I were to mark a G on a piece of sand anywhere in the world, you would be more likely to find that one piece with one pick, than for the watch event to have happened.

Actually they are very close 1.12e-19 versus 1.33e-19, if we round down they are the same. Interesting

If I use the model of accuracy to the second, then it isnt even close.

Lets examine the stars effect, if I were to ,metaphorically speaking, mark a G on a star anywhere in the universe, you would be more likely to find that hidden star with one pick, than for the watch event to have happened.

In fact you would be 26 million times more likely to find the hidden star than to repeat the watch example.

The interesting thing is that the Pastor only thought that it was maybe a 1/1000 event, and had only shared that story with a few people. These kinds of miracles happen all the time, but they remain hidden because most people dont know how special they are.

"

Now, after reading this story, I look back at the criteria:

1. The event is overwhelmingly unlikely

- That was one of the main points of this story. Check out the statistical figures given.

2. The event (seemingly) has spiritual significance

- This event affirmed this pastor's decision to lead the church that called him at 2:15. This decision has significant implications; this pastor will likely be leading the people of this church for several years.

3. There are few, if any, plausible naturalistic explanations

- This is the key point I want to focus on. Of course, you could chalk this story (and others) up to coincidence. But if this event were to be explained in naturalistic terms, many pieces (rare in themselves)  would have to come together to fully explain how these events happened. Although possible, it would be very difficult to come up with plausible naturalistic explanation(s) that explain the entirety of this story. At this point, I think we need to be at the least open to the idea that there was divine involvement in this situation, especially in light of the spiritual implications involved.

However, I am only talking about one isolated situation here. As Paul hinted, there are a lot of stories involving miracle claims - extremely unlikely events with spiritual implications. If the total naturalistic viewpoint is held, ALL of these claims require a natural explanation, whether there is a plausible one or not. This view creates a nature-of-the-gaps scenario, where every event, no matter how unlikely or unexplainable, is credited to a natural explanation.

The opposite can occur as well (crediting only God when there is a clear natural explanation), so I am not saying that we should assume God is the explanation of all coincidences. I am saying that if a certain explanation of an event is the most reasonable one, we should consider it even if it involves bringing the divine into the discussion.

Excluse me, but it's all true

I now turn to another area of life, religion, to see how the relative view affects it. The view I will focus on is the view that religion is essentially "internal"; whatever religious view you hold is true to yourself. To make this topic easier to explain, I will mostly discuss views involving spiritual belief, and not atheistic views.

There may be different reasons for holding a relative religious view, such as the desire for someone to tolerate people of different faiths and the fact that "people of faith" universally seem to feel a peace due to their religious beliefs. Thus, in this last reason, it does not matter what specific religion a person follows; religious peace a person finds internally is what matters.

I thought I was going to start with talking about relativity, but I will actually now talk about exclusivity.  One definition of this word is "Excluding some or most, as from membership or participation" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/exclusivity. 

Try thinking of a hypothetical belief system that would not contain an exclusive religious view. An example I can think of is a system with the central claim that "all people who believe there is a spiritual essence (i.e. whether belief in one or multiple gods) follow a true religion". I'll call this the "all true" system.

This belief system has potential to work at first thought. If you believe in spiritual things, as people of all religions do, you are following the truth. There's no exclusivity (again, barring Atheism). That is... until you look at specific central claims of religious systems. 

For example, some religions have a claim that religious truth is only contained in one specific god (let's call this the "one true" view). Therefore, if truth is NOT contained in that one god, a person holding this religious belief is incorrect. And if truth IS contained in that god, then someone who denies this god is not following truth. A person holding the "one true" naturally disagrees with the claim that "all people who believe in a spiritual essence follow a true religion".

What does this mean? the "all true" system is exclusive, just like any other belief system. It implies that a person does not believe there is only one true spiritual being. However, there are people who hold the "one true" view, which automatically excludes them from following the "all true" belief system. 

Why is this important? It's an example that religious views are exclusive. There is always an underlying claim that people can accept or deny. You can also extend this point to atheism, as that system implies a general disbelief in spiritual things. However, you are excluded from this system by believing in a spiritual being. 

Turning back to relativity, is it possible for the relative religious view to hold up? In order to answer this question, we need to look at the foundational claims that a particular religion makes. It is possible that religious relativism is true, as long as the "all true" or a similar system actually describes reality. But it is not true if a "one true" system actually describes reality. 

I'm thinking the next question to ask is "What do these 'one true' systems or other systems actually claim?" In other words, we need to look at the systems themselves, not just what a person believes about a religion internally. Also, can the "all true" relative system hold up in light of these claims?

And the next important question is "What reasons are there to believe a particular claim describes the way the world actually is?" To say the least, these questions demand much more than one or two posts.

Million Dollar Madness

In my last post, I explained that there is objective truth in the world. I have only talked about complete objective or complete subjective truth thus far, but there are "shades" in between those two ends. Some people believe there is some objective truth, and they could be wrong about some things, but certain areas of truth are dependent on an individual's views.

One of these areas is morality. Even if relative morality can be argued, there is still one main issue with it. A person holding this view cannot logically enforce their views of morality on others! Since the setandard of what is correct changes from person to person, someone is justified to do anything they want to if they believe it is justified. The act remains justified no matter what someone else's view about the morality of that act is, especially since there is no "outside" standard to determine whether the act is moral or immoral.

For example, Bob has a million dollar check that is his. He holds a relative moral view. Jake comes in, picks up the million dollar check, and walks away. Bob starts an uproar. "WHAT ARE YOU DOING!?! YOU CAN'T STEAL THAT FROM ME!", screams Bob.

Jake tries to calm Bob down. "Dude, it's all good", Jake says, "I'm gonna cash this check and give it all to that one foundation that builds a bunch of wells in Nigeria. You were just gonna use the money to expand your world-record Twinkie collection. Taking the check seems right in my eyes".

In this simple example, Bob holds a relative morality view, yet seems to enforce what he believes is wrong (stealing the check) to Jake, even though Jake believes that stealing the check is right/moral in this situation. So, Bob suddenly appears to hold much more of an objective view of morality (that there's some sort of moral standard that everyone should follow). In this case, the standard would be "stealing something from me is wrong".

This example shows how difficult holding a strict relative moral view would actually be. You cannot enforce what you believe is moral, even if someone performs an act that is clearly immoral. Besides, there is nothing that is "clearly immoral", because there is no absolute standard available to determine what is moral/immoral. Relative morality ends debate on what is good/moral, because a person's view on what is moral is automatically correct.

In summary, the relative moral view is almost impossible to hold practically, and leads to contradictory views about the same topic. This contradiction issue is the same one found in the relative truth view. There is some kind of objective standard of morality. A person can have a wrong view about what is moral. 

Although I have not backed this next statement up yet, I believe there is a standard that applies to all people. Once again, I am discussing "extreme" views - total relative/objective morals. There are other views, like societies determine morals, but I will hold off on them right now. I have also not discussed the foundation of objective truth.

Since I don't want to make these blog posts too long, I will split up this topic and relative religious views (my next post). I also plan to add website sources to reference once the topics start getting more complicated.