What is Inside of the Box?

"We will never know whether or not God actually exists," is a phrase I have heard time and time again while discussing my search for truth. Here is why I think this is a ridiculous statement!

Ok. Jim has a box that Larry cannot see into, and there may or may not be a marker inside of the box. Now Jim has a question for Larry: "Is there a marker inside of the box?"

Larry certainly can't tell me whether or not there is a marker in the box right now, because he can't see into the box. Jim decides to try to figure out whether or not there is a marker in the box, but Larry tells him "it is impossible to know whether or not there is a marker inside of the box."

This is an extremely prideful statement for Larry to make. Saying that he knows that it is impossible to know, would be to say that he has already ruled out every past, present, and future method for determining whether or not there is a marker inside of the box. How does Larry know that it is impossible, if he hasn't even made an honest attempt at the possible methods for finding out.

You know what? I think that Larry is lazy and just wants to stay in his comfort zone. His life is simple and figured out based off of what he currently thinks about this devious marker, and questioning his belief would force more questions.

It is far easier to say that it is impossible as an excuse to not try. Unfortunately, Larry would have to have already exhausted every methodology to determine that it is, indeed, impossible to know.

Here are a few things that we thought were impossible to know in the past:

• How to create vaccines
• How to build prosthetic limbs
• How to send a man to the moon
• What the atomic structure of water is
• How many membranes certain types of bacteria have

If Larry had been asked about these things 1000 years ago, and said "it is impossible to know," he would have been very wrong.

Now, it is possible for there to be things that are impossible for us to know about. For example, did Napoleon spit in a pond on the third day of June while he was 19 years old thinking about how much he likes good wine and cheese? This, probably is impossible to know, unless we develop time travel and ask him.

But if something really is impossible to know about, is it worth it to bet your life on something you can't know about?

The Difference Between Searching for Jesus and Searching for Truth

Having attended protestant-based churches for my entire life, I have noticed a unifying goal: searching for Jesus. This includes a longing to know him, experience him, glorify him, and share the good news about him with others.

I have found that there is a fundamental difference between seeking Jesus, and seeking truth. I will use Christianity as an example here, but feel free to insert whichever worldview you prefer. My argument should apply to many belief systems.

The first thing many Christian readers will think here is "But Josh! Jesus is the truth, so when you search for truth, you are searching for Jesus!"

Allow me a few paragraphs to explain why I do not think this is the case

------------------------------------------------------.

1. Someone searching for truth believes things only based off of their true-ness, and devotes their time and energy to examining arguments and evidence. If this person were to end up believing in Jesus based off of evidence, then they believe in Jesus because he is true.

2. Someone searching for Jesus assumes that Jesus is true, and devotes their time and effort to deepening their relationship with him. This person believes in truth because it is Jesus.

It is possible for someone searching for truth to end up believing in Jesus if the evidence points towards him. The logical conclusion of a search for truth that points towards Jesus is to follow him, accept the gospel, and believe (once again, a search for truth could end up with the searcher being an Atheist, in which case it makes the most sense to simply enjoy the one life you have and not bother with silly religious blather). This type of belief in Jesus does not, as I have defined things, made that person someone who fundamentally searches for Jesus. The person is most fundamentally someone who searches for truth, and the evidence just so happens to point towards one specific religious leader (who, in this case, would also happen to be God).

Keep in mind that a search for truth can point in any direction--it does not decide where it is going to end up at the beginning. Instead, it sets up a framework for determining which things are true and which things are false. This means that a searcher for truth could end up believing in anything or nothing, depending on where the arguments and evidence leads. The important thing in searching for truth is the evidence.

It is not generally possible for someone searching for Jesus to end up believing something else. Not caring about evidence, or more commonly, assuming that the evidence overwhelmingly points towards one's own beliefs without ever actually looking at the evidence either way. I have found that this type of belief is based off of social pressure (including parental pressure) or emotional experiences.

Summary:
Someone who follows Jesus based off of evidence is someone who most fundamentally believes in him based off of searching for truth. They believe in Jesus because he is true. This is in stark contrast to someone who believes in truth because it is Jesus. 

A final thought. Searching for Jesus lacks distinction. By this I mean that if you pick a religion or worldview for reasons other than evidence, you essentially roll the dice and hope that what you picked it true. Searching for truth has distinction, because it can fairly distinguish between all other kinds of worldviews.

Has God ever healed an amputee?

For many years I have been curious about whether or not praying for someone when they are sick has an effect. Having spent dozens of hours doing so myself, I certainly hope that I haven't been wasting my time.

Unfortunately, after examining several studies concerning the effectiveness of prayer, I came to the conclusion that no prayer study done so far is legitimate in answering the question it seeks to ask (If you know of any good ones, please let me know). Lacking a valid study on the effectiveness of prayer, I considered my personal experience growing up as a Christian. What I remember is that people with mild illnesses were often 'healed' thanks to the prayers of the church (myself included), but those with life threatening illnesses didn't seem to make it.

In particular, there was one person who died at a very young age, despite the fervent prayers of an entire church.

So, does prayer work when it comes to healing the sick? I recognize that there are other reasons to pray, such as glorifying God, expressing dependence upon him, submitting to him, etc. What I am currently curious about is whether or not asking God to heal one of your loved ones has a physical impact.

Consider the following question: Has anyone ever been healed of losing a limb or an organ?

If you have a recorded instance of this happening, please let me know. As of yet, it seems to me that no amputee has ever been healed through prayer (although some cool scientists have made prosthetic limbs and replaced organs).

Does this mean that God has a special plan for amputees? If so, why did He single out the amputees as opposed to people with other kinds of illnesses?

Infinite Sets an Impossibility?

If any readers are familiar with Thomas Aquinas, or simply arguments pertaining to the existence of God having to do with the impossibility of an infinite set, then hopefully this post will be enjoyable.

Here is an example of an impossible infinite set:

Premise 1: The universe has existed forever
Premise 2: Time flows forward at a finite rate

Conclusion: It would be impossible for us to ever reach the 'present' time, because there will always be non-zero amounts of time that have to pass before we will reach the present.

Another way of saying this is as follows: If time goes backwards into the past, and there was never a beginning of time, we would never reach the present. There would quite simply be 10 more years before 10 more years before 10 more years, etc. before we ever reached the present. In fact, you would never reach any point in time, because there would always be another 10 years (actually an infinite number of years) before you ever reached any given point.

Tonight I was also considering the 'traveling half the distance' paradigm. This argument is as follows:
If you continue traveling half the distance from point A to point B, you will never reach point B. You will get pretty darn close, but there will always be space between the two points.

I have to go study for a test now, but I wanted to jot down my ideas and throw them out there for consideration and comment! I acknowledge there are key differences between the two concepts I have introduced. Also, there are many issues to bring up, especially concerning the first two premises of argument 1.

The Suspicious Coincidence of 'Objective' Morality which lines up with Natural Expectations

Here is the main point of this post:   

Out of the set of possible moralities that God could have chosen, he happened to pick one that lined up excellently with a non-objective morality that would have been evolutionarily generated.

If you are not familiar with both the moral argument for God's existence and evolutionary biology, what I just said probably did not seem significant. My statement is a response to the first chapter of Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis. The remainder of this post is an explanation as to why my previous statement is relevant to Lewis' work.

------------------------------------------------

If God exists, then he has the power to define what is right and wrong, no? God is omnipotent and created everything. Therefore, he is afforded the right to define what is morally right and what is morally wrong for everyone. He has the authority to do so because he is God.

These thoughts fall under the ideology of divine command theory.

But is there another possible source for objective morality other than an all-powerful God? While multiple scientists, most notably Sam Harris,  have attempted to assert that there is, I think that they have ultimately failed to do so (for now I will leave it to William Lane Craig to demonstrate the failure of Harris; see the debates I linked for info on this). Before continuing, let me recommend a few  resources on this subject for those who are new to the objective morality debate.

Here is a worthwhile, 5 minute video from Richard Dawkins on the subject. I highly recommend watching it before continuing your reading.

• http://bigthink.com/ideas/17055

Here are two debates on this subject, if you are interested in delving deeper. They are long, but very worth while:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq1QjXe3IYQ
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqaHXKLRKzg

It would also be a great idea to read the first chapter of Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis!

Anyway, if there is no higher authority, it impossible for a universal Right and Wrong to exist. The is no objective Good or Evil. Why? Consider the following scenario:

Person A thinks that it is morally wrong for people to be homosexual. Person B thinks that it is not morally wrong for people to be homosexual. Who is right?

Well, both of them in their own eyes. As long as there is no higher authority for either one to appeal to, neither can say that the other is wrong. Both people define a personal morality for themselves.

This does not mean that we have the innate sense that objective morals exist. This, we most certainly do possess.

Now we need to find and explanation for our perception of objective morality. Any explanation for our innate feelings on this subject must meet two criteria. 1) The explanation must be universal and cross-cultural, because morals are wide-spread and similar throughout the global population. 2) The explanation must allow for certain types of cultural variance, because various cultures do exhibit fluctuations from the overall trend.

There are two possible explanations that I know of:

1. A higher being created the human race with a sense of objective morality
2. Through the process of evolution via natural selection, along with cultural interactions, humans developed a sense of objective morality.

Keep in mind that in explanation 1, objective morals actually exist. In explanation 2, objective morals do not exist (it only seems like they do because we have been culturally and genetically programmed to think so).

Both explanations 1 and 2 are valid when it comes to why humans have a sense of objective morality.

HOWEVER, and now we are getting back to my main point here, there is an infinite set of morals which God could have chosen to make objectively right. In addition, the set of morals which could have been generated due to evolution via natural selection is limited.

For example, God could choose to make murder objectively right. He could also choose to make doing hand stands 23 times a day objectively wrong. He could do anything at all that he wanted.

On the other hand, perceived morals generated via evolution could not make certain kinds of things seem morally right or wrong. It would be a rarity (not an impossibility, but a rarity), to see a perceived moral Right generated which would hinder the fitness of a population of humans (Although certain exceptions must be allowed because emergent phenomena such as culture and religion have the ability to create anomalies).

Let's nail down one concrete example that can be used to demonstrate the contrast here:
God could make it morally obligatory for people to kill all of their children. You probably feel a sense of disgust at this, but if God had created you with the innate sense that killing your children was Right, then you would not feel that sense of disgust. Rather, you would feel disgust at people who didn't kill their children.

On the other hand, it would be impossible for an evolutionarily generated morality to contain such an idea. This is because killing one's children reduces one's evolutionary fitness to zero.

Here is a brief list of perceived morals which make sense from an evolutionary/meme-based standpoint. If you have questions on any of these at all, PLEASE ask! I don't want to shot-gun you with a list and expect you to agree with me. In fact, I think that unless this makes sense to you based off of your previous education in biology, you should neither agree nor disagree with me until you gain the necessary knowledge. As a biologist myself, I am more than happy to help you gain that knowledge.

• The existence of strict societal rules regarding marriage/mate choice
• Why rape seems wrong
• Why murder seems wrong
• Why lying seems wrong
• Altruistic acts such as dying for one's family
• Nationalistic acts such as dying for one's country (google 'memes biology dawkins' for info on that)
• Why stealing seems wrong

And so we will return to my main point once again:

Out of the set of possible moralities that God could have chosen, he happened to pick one that lined up excellently with a non-objective morality that would have been evolutionarily generated.

To me, this seems like a suspicious coincidence. Then again, God could have simply created a natural world which would have undergone the generation of life such that environmental pressure would cause a perceived set of morals which lined up with what he had already purposed the objective morality to be. However, there is no reason why an omnipotent being would need to make his morality line up with natural causes. If the 'God made nature do it' argument is to be followed here, then we find ourselves in scenarios such as 'God created through evolution' or 'God made the universe with the big bang.' In every scenario like that, God adds nothing to the equation.

And so we come back once again. God could have picked any morality. It just so happens that the morality we have lines up very nicely with what you would expect from a society that evolved via natural selection.

What we have here, ladies and gentlemen, is a suspicious coincidence.