Four steps of reason leading to a personal God

As I begin this post, I ask myself “Am I deciding what to write?”  You might think that a strange question with an obvious answer, but if I were to have a materialist view of things then I would struggle to answer with a ‘yes’.  At the heart of the problem is the question of whether I have free will or not.  Am I able to exert any choice on any decision (such as what to write) or is my action simply a result of the state of the molecules in my brain at the particular time when I think I am making a choice?

If there is nothing but matter, and matter behaves according to strict laws then there is no scope for me, or you, to make a free choice about anything.  Holders of the materialist view have argued that those who believe in free will need to demonstrate a mechanism before free will can be accepted to exist.

I do not subscribe to that view of things.  A bumblebee flies even if I am unable to demonstrate the mechanism.

Other disagreements with such a view are subjective.  Whilst I recognise that many of my actions might indeed be simply as a result of my brain state at a given time, I identify situations where I stop myself behaving according to ‘habit’ and consciously choose to behave differently.

From a practical viewpoint, our whole society is built on the basis that we have free will.  If I have no free will to be able to choose how to behave, then what right has society to imprison me for murder?  I would have had no choice but to kill my neighbour – it would have been an action that simply resulted from the chemical configuration in my brain at the time.

So for all practical and from all subjective points of view, I accept that we have free will.

That is step one; that we have free will.

The fact that I can call an opinion subjective inherently means that there is an “I” that is choosing to have an opinion.  Similarly, I speak about personal experience which requires there to be a person.  My personal subjective view is that there is indeed an “I” who is considering the facts and deciding what to write.  Descartes’ famous statement “I think therefore I am” argues that the only thing I know is that there is an “I” who thinks, and therefore “I” must exist – even if everything else is just my imagination.

So step two is that there is an “I” who exists.

The next thing to consider is how I exist (with the proviso that my physical being might be a delusion – but I still exist).   I exist because I have the ability to exist; something is causing me to exist.  I am not causing myself to exist, it is something apart from me that is ensuring that I exist.  Some might call that something ‘the laws of physics’, but I shall choose here to call that something God.

That is step three.  There is something that sustains me (and everything else) that can be called God.

The final step is to ask whether it is reasonable to imagine that this something (God) could sustain an “I”, who has free-will (which must operate outside the laws of physics) without itself having an “I-ness” to it.  Can the physical properties of a human being, which are sustained by God, ‘create’ an “I-ness” that God does not have itself?  Can “I-ness” be dependent on the sustaining power of God and yet above and separate from God?  And if not, then the power that sustains us must also have an “I-ness” about it.

Step four: the power that sustains us has itself the characteristics of “I-ness”: it is a person God.

A fresh understanding of Grace

St Paul asked the rhetorical question “Well then, should we keep on sinning so that God can show us more and more of his wonderful grace?”  He then went on to answer with complicated and metaphorical language about being buried with Christ through baptism.  But I read this just after reading a facebook post from someone I care about behaving in a way that frankly won’t bring them happiness, and is simply satisfying their lustful urges. Looking at how I felt puts a new and simpler perspective on the question.

Let’s take it as read that God is love, and that he loves each one of us deeply.  We also need to understand that sin harms us deeply.  It may satisfy an immediate urge, but it harms us.  In the same way that it saddens me to see those I love harming themselves, it must sadden God so much more to see us harming ourselves.  Yet God still loves us, and in the same way that I still care about the person above, he cares about us.  I will not reject that person, and God will not reject us.  But it saddens Him so much that he was prepared to see Jesus tortured and killed on the cross to try to get through to us.

So if St Paul’s language seems confusing, just put yourself in God’s place and imagine how you would feel seeing your beloved son or daughter self-harming.  You would long for them to give up their life of sin, and return to your loving arms.  If they wanted to make a fresh start,  you would do whatever it takes to wipe their slate clean.  And that is just what God has done for us.

That’s why we shouldn’t keep on sinning; it causes God more pain and sadness and it does us no good either.

Simple.

Fear of science

There are millions of people spending their working life pushing forward scientific knowledge.  The breadth of knowledge discovered by the hands of so many scientists is beyond anyone’s comprehension.  Pronouncements by the scientific community have become almost the word of God.  Nobody has the evidence to question them. And yet…. sometimes they just don’t seem right.  They make us uneasy.  We fear that scientists have overstepped their knowledge, and often rightly so. We must not be afraid to voice our concerns, see for example https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2013/11/22/mitochondrial-donation-some-concerns/

With so much knowledge out there, and so many people working on science, many in society have come to believe that science will eventually be able to answer every question.  “Eventually we will know everything about how the universe works. Science will allow us to live forever.  Technology will reverse global warming.  We will finally leave earth and colonise the solar system and universe.  Maybe we will even learn to travel through time itself, and finally we will be able to meet the maker of it all and ask why he made such a mess of things….”

Of course, many of these ideas come from science fiction, but literature influences our culture and outlook.  All of the ideas above seem reasonable extrapolations of where we have got to, and are often reinforced by the fantasizing of high profile scientists. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1270531/Stephen-Hawking-backs-possibility-time-travel-millions-years-future.html

There is another group of people who have a different outlook. They believe that the literal explanation for everything that has happened, and prediction of everything that is going to happen in the future is written in a collection of books and manuscripts compiled from 2000-4000 years ago, called the Bible.  The first of these books describes how the world was created and populated with all the plants and animals as completely formed organisms. The whole process took just six days.  This literal interpretation of the book of Genesis will inevitably lead to a fear of science; “Will those millions of people prove my belief’s wrong?  Have I built my life on a lie?”

How can we overcome our fear of science?  How can we tame and control this beast, and stop it turning round and destroying us?

The only way to overcome our fears is to face them.  We need the courage to try to understand what science is and what it isn’t, what it can tell us and what it can’t.  We need to understand the assumptions behind all science.  We must not get lost in the detail, but we need to set the whole in context.  We need a guide.

Many of my posts on this blog are intended to help us think about scientific issues:

https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/how-far-should-we-trust-scientific-prediction/

https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/information-dna-and-evolution/

https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2013/04/07/god-miracles-and-the-laws-of-physics/

and my book “The Big Picture” can equip the reader to begin to understand how to deal with science.  Reviewers seem to think it works:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/766354330

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/767596412

There are other resources that help understand how we might deal with science, and I refer to many in the book.  But I hope that my years of spare time researching of these big questions will be of benefit to others, if only as a starting point for further discovery.

As I mentioned above,  if we are afraid of science, the best thing to do is to confront our fears.  And it’s best to confront them with a friendly guide.

 

How to become a best-selling author

Ever since I was offered a publishing contract for “The Big Picture” I have been undergoing a transformation from an analytic and thoughtful writer to a bold marketer and salesman.

The success in finding a publisher was followed by an honest look at the book that I had written, and the realisation that it was rubbish! Well, not rubbish, but lots of scope for improvement.  So having taken some professional editorial advice from http://www.writersservices.com/editorial-services/editors-report I had an intense couple of months restructuring and redrafting.

After such surgery the book needed several re-reads to smooth out the knots.  Rather like combing tangled hair, each re-read/re-write improved the flow of the text and arguments.  And perhaps like combing hair, the job is never finished; you just have to stop sometime.

The title has changed a lot over the past three years.  It began as The Human Project, was The Minimalist Christian for a while, took and excursion into bizarre title such as The Myth of Reality, Sacrificing the Sacred Cows, and even You Need to Read This Book.  It settled on The Big Picture, basically because that’s what it is about!

The Big Picture includes a lot of references, and I learnt the hard way that you need to record the source of your information when you find it. Going back months later takes much longer, and sometime you just can’t remember where you found something.

Then the deadline is met, and it’s over to the publisher to put the text into the right format for both paperback and multiple e-book formats.

There is the excitement of what the cover should look like.  I am amazed at how inventive graphic designers can be.  I can be ‘tidy’ and make something look presentable, but there is a spark of inspiration that creates something I would never think of.

And finally, the mail arrives with “The Big Picture is live!”

Champagne moment.

But not for long.  There’s no point in having produced a brilliant book if nobody knows about it, and so I have to grasp my confidence in both hands and start to advertise.  But what works?  Do I spend £1-2000 on a Kirkus review and marketing package?  Do I put adverts in the major newspapers?  These are the big questions that face every new author.

It seems to me that someone has to have a reason to buy a book, and until there are some reviews then the reason will probably be personal connection.  So I let friends know, and work colleagues, and those who follow my blog, or twitter, or LinkedIn.  Remember this, if you are writing a book it has to be worth building up some sort of following and making connections on social media for a long time before you publish.

I got a lot of good feedback from the engineers that I work with in UK and overseas, and so I decided to experiment with an advert in Professional Engineering – a magazine with a circulation of over 60,000.  Being a Fellow of the IMechE I got a substantial discount on a quarter page advert which went live at the start of November.  I have to say that the response based on daily statistics from Amazon sales was astonishing and suggests that a total of zero people have bought the book as a result.  Remind me never to expect an advert to work again!  But then I have to remind myself, would I have bought from an advert? No.  So why should I expect anyone else to?

But the early sales are leading to some reviews, and so I can use those reviews to promote the book to others who don’t know me from Adam.  And they are encouraging! See for instance:

http://amzn.to/1ioJHWw

http://amzn.to/1amyFOb

http://amzn.to/1bV5HDV

And I think it’s important not to skimp on sending review copies to people who influence others.  What we need as unknown authors is as many people as possible telling other people that our book is worth reading.  So reviews and word of mouth recommendation are indeed important, and I’ve found that politely asking someone to recommend the book has never caused offense. Usually people are happy to oblige.

The other nice thing about reviews is that a good review can lift the spirit when the sales figures seem disappointing.  A good review tells me to keep going – it’s worth it!

So it seems to me that marketing takes a lot of perseverance and patience.  There are so many books out there that people are not going to find yours by chance. They need a reason to buy, and unless your book is aimed at budding authors and is called “How to become a best-selling author”, the reason to buy won’t be the title.

Having said all this, I’m still at an early stage and am not yet a best-selling author.  I’ll post again later when I’ve learnt more about what not to do!

Meanwhile, let me recommend an excellent book.  It’s by someone I’ve known all my life. It’s called The Big Picture…..

Have a great day.

The Big Picture - cover

Lord Kelvin and God

From the BBC website:

Lord Kelvin believed science must be treated with reverence, as he explained:

“I have long felt that there was a general impression that the scientific world believes science has discovered ways of explaining all the facts of nature without adopting any definite belief in a Creator. I have never doubted that impression was utterly groundless.

“The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe science excludes atheism. If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God, which is the foundation of all religion.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/0/24535331

If, like Kelvin, you are as willing to explore the facts and consider your own opinion, you might like my recently released book “The Big Picture – an honest examination of God, Science and Purpose”

http://www.electiopublishing.com/index.php/bookstore#!/~/product/category=4758362&id=28794920

 

“The Big Picture” – an honest examination of God, science and purpose – OUT NOW

“I recommend this book to all thinking people – we might just change the world.” 

“This book will definitely make you think and then think again. Hemsley did his research for this book, and I received many answers to questions I’ve pondered over the years.”

“it is a welcome relief to come across a book that presents such a broad and balanced overview”

“This book covers an considerable amount of territory in its 253 pages.”

The Big Picture is a much-needed book that allows the reader to consider the big questions of life without feeling bludgeoned to adopt the author’s opinion. The book explains basics of science, philosophy and religion in a straightforward manner.

It will encourage all those who want to live a good and purposeful life and would like a sound basis for doing so. Such readers may find a resonance with the teaching of Jesus and this book will explore whether we can trust what has been recorded in the gospel accounts, and whether the findings of science and a reasoned understanding of the Bible are consistent or contradictory.

Many books in the arena of science and faith are hostile and adversarial. The authors set up straw men of their opponent’s arguments, dismantle them and then preach their own arguments to their disciples. The author of The Big Picture recognises that there are intelligent atheists and intelligent believers, and that a case can always be made for whatever someone wants to believe. The reader is therefore treated with respect

ebook

paperback

Amazon UK

The Big Picture - cover

The Big Picture – an honest examination of God, Science and Purpose

If you have wondered if science, faith and reason are compatible then this is a book for you.

The book explores how everything (including science) is based on faith of some sort.  It explains in understandable terms what science tells us (quantum physics, evolution, DNA, neuroscience etc), and what it can’t tell us, and presents some of the documentary and rational evidence for and basis of Christianity – useful if you want to base your outlook on information instead of propaganda.

The style is a combination of balanced data presentation and respectful discussion; you will not be brow-beaten into having to agree with the author!

Click on the book cover (right) to order your copy.

The Author’s Fear

For all those of us who write about God, I found the following by George MacDonald in an anthology of 365 readings compiled by CS Lewis.

If I mistake, He will forgive me.  I do not fear him: I fear only lest, able to see and write these things, I should fail of witnessing and myself be, after all, a castaway – no king but a talker; no disciple of Jesus, ready to go with Him to the death, but an arguer about the truth.

A wise reminder!

 

Goodness – me!

Do you ever stop to think what you would like on your gravestone when you are dead?  It’s a good way of finding out what we really want to be like.  I don’t think any of us would like to see phrases like:

“Always selfish and greedy”

“Never had time for anyone else”

“Vindictive and hateful”

When we see a new baby, at a christening who would want to think that the baby would grow up to be a thief, or to have a string of husbands who she cheated on and deserted, or to be a child molester.

We know deep down that we want to be good.

In the 11th century, Anselm of Canterbury described how being good is possible through ‘goodness’, and how supreme goodness is God.  So that desire to be good is actually us wanting to be like God (supreme goodness), to act like God, to be in his image.

St John’s describes in his gospel that God is love.  So when we love one another, our love is possible through love, which is through God.  We are choosing to act like God, to be part of God.

Each of us has the essence of goodness in us, and the essence of love in us.  God is goodness and God is love, so we all have God within us.  Sometimes we choose to ignore goodness and love, and instead choose to be selfish, vindictive or hateful.  But that is not what we want to be – as we found at the start of this post.

The true Christian religion is about helping us to be what we want to be – good and loving.  It is about connecting with that goodness and love within us; God within us.  It is about learning from Christ what goodness and love looks like, and trying to imitate him.

And if you want to be good and loving, then that means that you want to be like God.  Jesus said that ‘if you have seen me then you have seen God’; Jesus represented supreme goodness and love in human form.  So if you want to be good and loving, since Jesus was supremely good and loving, then you want to be like Jesus, and if you want to be like Jesus you can call yourself a Christian.

Christians pray to help make that connection with goodness and love.  Here’s an example of a Celtic prayer from Lindisfarne:

Help me dear Lord to care too much

To love too freely

To pray unceasingly

To forgive endlessly

To laugh fearlessly

To question

To live

To be who I am

To be where I am

To be what I am

To hope

To believe

To reach out my hand

That’s a good prayer, isn’t it?  It’s about connecting with God within us.  It’s asking God to help us be who we want to be.

Do you want to be the sort of person that the prayer describes?  You can take a step closer by praying that prayer.

Related posts

https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/an-argument-for-and-definition-of-god/

https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/the-god-of-science/

 

Richard Miles – Archaeology: A Secret History

The description of this program on iPlayer is “Archaeologist Richard Miles presents a series charting the history of the breakthroughs and watersheds in our long quest to understand our ancient past. He begins by going back 2,000 years to explore how archaeology began by trying to prove a biblical truth – a quest that soon got archaeologists into dangerous water.”

Unfortunately the tone and style of presentation of the program was similar to the description.  The program frequently asserts that there is conflict between Archaeology and Biblical truth, and implies that Archaeology has proved the Bible to be wrong.  The church is presented as a dogma bound institution that can only consider that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally.  The church’s only contact with scientific methods was to use them to show that the world was created a few thousand years ago.  Isn’t he aware that different parts of the Bible are written in different genre’s?  Would he think that if archaeology could prove that there wasn’t a good Samaritan then that must show that Jesus was lying when he told the parable?  Does he think that Christians really believe that the Genesis account is to be taken literally?  As far back as the early fifth century St Augustine was forthright in his criticism of literal interpretation of Genesis.

The presenter, Dr Miles, frequently implies that archaeologists were ‘in dangerous water’ by thinking – thinking is something that is presumably not allowed by the church.  Doesn’t he know that many of the greatest minds have been and continue to be Christians?  Even the greatest secular scientists realize that questions of God are not trivial.

Dr Miles  appears dismissive of the approach of looking for evidence to support a theory (Empress Helena seeking for evidence of Jesus’ crucifixion) – isn’t he aware that this is precisely the scientific method – build a large Hadron collider to look for a Higgs bosun for instance?  

Dr Miles seems far happier to find something and then simply guess what it might mean.  He appeared disappointed that the speculations of John Frayre (sp?) who ‘instinctively knew’ that the triangular objects had been made by human hand were not immediately adopted.

So for me, the undercurrent of generating a false conflict between God and Archaeology/Science, and the implied rejection of ‘belief’ spoilt what could otherwise have been an interesting and enjoyable program.  I am disappointed that the BBC feel the need to generate some sort of conflict or controversy in so much of their programming.

Related posts:

https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2012/04/29/things-that-a-minimalist-christian-does-not-have-to-believe-the-genesis-account-of-creation/

https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/an-argument-for-and-definition-of-god/

https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/how-far-should-we-trust-scientific-prediction/