Why settle for only pizza, or sushi, when it is possible to take the good from each and enjoy the richness of life?

As a prefix to my children, this is in response to an enjoyable article by Von. Having never met Von, my knowledge of him comes from his writing and profile description, and while we agree on many things (specifically the importance of family, the virtue and happiness of living a good life, and that children are wonderful) we also disagree on quite a bit. His belief in theonomy is at the top of that list. As I doubt you know what theonomy is, here is my brief, shallow understanding. Theonomy is the belief that society should be governed according to God’s divine law, as understood by Christianity, with a heavy emphasis on the Old Testament. (Von, please feel free to correct that. As I state, I have not been a student of this topic.) I tend to believe in pluralism, with a heavy emphasis on liberal values. Liberal meaning old school liberal (individual rights, property rights, freedom of speech), not leftist values.

You may be wondering why I am including this in a Substack written for you to read as you get older. A few reasons, in no particular order. First, I was invited to participate in a written exchange of ideas, and I love debating. As you know, I will argue for views I do not even hold because I believe it is to the mind what exercise is to the body ( I am not doing that here, but am happy to do that at times). I also think it assists us in steelmanning and understanding other view points. Second, I think dialogue is the best way to think. Those hours every Sunday morning I go walking with Uncle Kevin? Those are spent talking, trying to figure out what I really believe. Often, in my view, it is not until I have articulated something out loud that I realize a flaw in it, or accept that I believe it more firmly than I thought. Third, because I think it is important to model behavior worth emulating, and in a world where words are violence, and disagreement is bad, I want to demonstrate that ideas are ideas, and words are words. There is nothing scary or dangerous about them. Finally, and most importantly, because Von may enlighten me, change my opinion, or have me look at something from a new perspective. And that, my dear children, is how we learn and grow. We are not our beliefs or ideas, and to believe otherwise is to lock ourselves into stagnation (otherwise called being damned); progress stops. If we believe something and discover we are mistaken, we should change our beliefs. It is that simple.

Dear Von,

First, thank you for the opportunity, I always enjoy a good back and forth. To respond to your well written argument, I would like to reiterate the points I believe you are making. This ensures that if I have misunderstood, that can be corrected. Without doing so, my statements may be applied by others to what they understood your points to be, not what I understood them to be. First, and I believe the most fundamental point, is that all of modern Western society has a foundational view of the world based on Christian understandings in truth existing. Second, that our belief in God is totally separate from whether he is real, but seemingly, many that claim not to believe act as though they do, either by directing anger at Him, or basing decisions on beliefs structured around His existence. Third, without God, there can be no universal basis for right and wrong, nor any basis for truth or relationships at all. Fourth, that our fallen status requires a Savior to remedy. Fifth, that our understanding of God and divine things varies by person and circumstance, but that the universality of God is unaffected by our understanding or belief. Finally, that we should believe.

I hope that is a fairly succinct and accurate summary. It glosses over some of your finer points, but those seem to me to be examples to illustrate the points, or branches coming off of the main ideas. I disagree with parts, agree with others, and take a different perspective on the same phenomena in some cases; but I enjoyed reading all of it!

I would like to start with the easiest of these, in my mind, to argue. Can we make a case for right and wrong without religion? Emphatically, yes. There are plenty of studies on animals in which morality seems to organically spring up through things like play. It is not framed in “right and wrong,” but in the instinct to treat others well, for the common good. Dominate too much, and you are shunned, guaranteeing death. Play by the commonly accepted rules, thrive. Additionally, we are capable of abstracting. By assuming that I, as a person, am a community of people (my past self, present self, and future self) it is possible to argue that we should treat each iteration with respect. By extrapolating that out, it is logical to assume we should do as much with every member of the community; essentially, the Golden Rule. Treat others as you would like to be treated is a solid basis for an ethical or moral treatment of humanity.

“But people don’t” is the obvious response.

Of course they do not. But that is unaffected by religious belief. Does anyone believe that Catholic priests wish they were sexually abused? Is anyone willing to argue that Medieval Christians hoped to have their lands invaded? Or that Muslims want Jihad against themselves? These are human failures, as is every failure of the Golden Rule. Secularists fail, as do religious people. Arguing morality is not hard; convincing people to abide by it is the eternal human struggle.

With all of that, I recognize that it is easier for some to accept morality as imposed from above, not organically created.

From here, I am not going to go in order necessarily, but I hope to hit all the rest of your points. The second point I would like to make, and the reason I wanted to reiterate your arguments back, is to point out we had different ideas about what was being discussed at the beginning of this back and forth. With regards to the sushi or pizza debate, I would never argue that food is frivolous, just that there are multiple ways to gain sustenance, and that pizza or sushi is a matter of opinion on the preferred way to ingest calories and stay alive. You will note, however, that I make no claims about whether they are of equal nutritional value. We have three separate ideas, all in a single metaphor.

• Claim 1, Food is necessary, and we instinctually know this.

• Claim 2, People have different preferences in food.

• Claim 3, Some foods are more nourishing and healthier than other foods.

All of those claims transfer completely to religion, in my estimation.

• Claim 1, Humans have a religious instinct, and it seems that some belief is conducive to thriving

• Claim 2, Individuals have preferences on religion that are neither existential nor irrelevant, but are matters of taste

• Claim 3, Some religions offer a more actionable ideal, as well as a roadmap that is easier to follow

Now, religion can mean many things, including: a specific church, group of sects within an overarching belief system, or a series of beliefs. When I speak of religion moving forward, I am assuming religion is a system of beliefs and faith, which may include formal worship, but which impacts how we choose to act. By this view, Nihilism is its own religion, and it is the pineapple pizza of religion. Some choose this path, but it should be rejected by everyone as the disgusting, pointless thing that it is. How does Nihilism qualify as a religious belief? It is a matter of faith, the claim that nothing matters, or even exists in reality. A claim that cannot be proven or disproved, and which most definitely affects how people choose to act. Walter Sobchak had it right when it came to Nihilism.

I suppose I should make the case that all humans have a religious instinct, not because I believe we disagree, but because being thorough is important. I did not believe this, I thought some were drawn to religion and a belief in a higher power or way of being, and others were able to do just fine believing life was sufficient reason for life. A libertarian ethos, which I recognized was rooted in Judeo-Christian values, of individual rights stop at the rights of others seemed possible, and with enough rationality and goodwill, I thought we could thrive.

Then I watched the culture and society of the United States from about 2010 on, and saw “rational” non-religious people and organizations successfully reinvent religion. They re-created original sin with slavery, re-invented the soul with some ineffable gender identity unknowable to all but the true believers, and re-instituted sacrifice, but instead of slaughtering animals or recognizing the sacrifice of Jesus on behalf of sinners, they opted to sacrifice the sinners themselves, going fully Old Testament on those who dared to err in their past. Sure, they did not stone them with physical rocks, leaving them dead on the ground. We are civilized now. We just stone your reputation and livelihood, leaving you emotionally and financially dead, while seeming to hope that these sinners will have enough grace to just do the physical deed themselves. It is very noble that they do not physically kill the sinner. I obviously do not view it as a form of cowardice that it is done by people behind a computer screen who seem to lack a sufficient conviction in their beliefs to own them publicly or take them to the logical conclusion.

Or, for a more obvious example, simulation theory is literally just the re-creation of creation and a Creator, but with a sci-fi twist. Congratulations, you rewrote the Biblical story and called it rational.

I could go on and on regarding the new religious tenets offered up by those who scrapped the old to replace it with a shallow facsimile, but I think the point is clear, and again, I believe we are on the same page regarding a universal human drive to believe in something beyond us, above us, or greater than us. Some may come up with a work around to this, but I do not think it can be exported across the span of humanity.

If we agree that all humans have this instinct, then the question is, are all religions or beliefs created equal? How is one to distinguish or rank them? A wise man (or perhaps a God) once said “Ye shall know them by their fruits.” If I were to asses the value of religions, I would look at the products (in this case, people or practices) they spit out. I don’t think very highly of nihilists, so I assume Nihilism is flawed and offers very little. Judaism has produced a rich tapestry of science, art, history and philosophy, and thus I believe it is a valuable belief system. Buddhism has brough a sense of peace to followers, although it comes with a dis-attached, aloof world view that worries more about inner enlightenment than the betterment of society or the world writ large. I am fairly lukewarm on it as a whole, while recognizing the Buddhist practitioners I have met have been solidly stoic, calm people, capable of taking great suffering in stride. This one may come down to a matter of personal preference, and I wish everyone incorporating Buddhist philosophy the best!

Christianity brought us, in my view, the underlying framework for all modern science, in that there is a belief in universal truth, which is knowable, allowing an explosion of understanding. Christianity also instilled in its followers the belief in the value of each person, otherwise called the idea of individual worth and rights, the predecessor for Western enlightenment. Nietzsche, followed by some who studied his philosophy, seemed to argue that Christianity killed itself. By so successfully laying the foundation for material sciences, an ability to know truth, and the enlightenment ideals of rationality and logos, it placed humanity on a path that would inevitably lead to people “disproving” religion. I may not be thrilled with the notion that God is dead, but I cannot deny the fruits of the religion that created Western culture as a whole. We have John Locke, liberation theology, and the Civil Rights movement. All founded in on Christian ideals.

Within the realm of Christianity, there are many separate religions, and this, in my mind, is where the personal preference comes in most of all. Catholicism, with the many rites, rituals and mysticism, might not be for all Christians. Evangelicalism, with the “miracles” and speaking in tongues, may turn off those with a more down to earth, practical view of the purpose of religion. Mormonism might not appeal to anyone who prefers a long tradition and history. What they all have in common, however, is the belief that Jesus is the only way to salvation. This is not a popular view amongst religious individuals who believe they have the one true church, but I tend to be more literal in my understanding that Jesus is the way to heaven, not any one religion. And so I say, “Sushi, pizza, a hamburger, take your pick; just don’t starve to death.”

I suspect that seems like quite a claim, that the way to heaven is through Jesus, from someone who does not believe in the literal truth of all of this. And now we get to the heart of the question: is God literally real, does our belief in him matter in any sense and must we believe in him to be saved?

I have no answer as to whether God is real, as described in the Bible. It seems to me that if he is as described in the Bible, there are some complex contradictions between his commandments in the Old Testament, and his example as lived out in the New Testament. I am, as of recently, feeling more inclined to believe that there is something more. I also recognize that my very limited understanding is insufficient to argue for or against this. We are, the world is, the universe is, and it came from somewhere. If something exists, it was caused by something. Perhaps science has an explanation for what caused EVERYTHING, but I have yet to hear it explained in any comprehensible way. Apparently a big explosion got the ball rolling, but what caused the energy or matter that exploded? If the present is always Time0 (T0), and the past is T-1, can there every be a period where T-1 ceases to exist? I cannot understand how that is possible, and God seems as likely as anything else to explain that. I also could be mistaken, and a perfectly reasonable explanation may exist for how EVERYTHING suddenly sprung into being. But, for the sake of discussion, I will accept God.

Does that mean a perfected human-like being? Perhaps, but to me it means some ineffable thing that is behind this all. Love? Energy? Knowledge? Intelligence? Some quantum-realm science-fiction-esque superbeing? Truth? I say maybe to all of those. For the sake of argument, let us accept that some entity or power got the ball rolling.

What happened? It seems to me that once that tiny ball got rolling, much like Emmett’s snowball, it kept on growing and gaining momentum. From single cell organisms to complex conscious beings, the power unleashed drove progress. I see no incompatibility between a Creator and evolution. In fact, every day I walk into my home and see the two coexisting. My wife and I got the ball rolling so to speak, when we fertilized some eggs. She aided the process for nine months, and then gave life to, so far, three wonderful little creations. It is totally reasonable to consider ourselves the creators of these children, but let me tell you, they are evolving. Every day they learn, adapt, grow and change.

Do we owe something to this Creator? Perhaps, but at best, it strikes me that we owe a “Thank you.” This is not an academic, theoretical statement. I believe that children owe parents gratitude if they tried, but no undying allegiance until death. Once grown, children should recognize sacrifice and effort, but if the relationship is not mutually beneficial, that is enough. Creating is a decision, being created is not. We are not required to maintain an ongoing interaction simply because parents opted to give birth.

As is a human life, why not all human being? Did God create and abandon? We, as species, do not. We create, and then we try to shape the evolution. We try to teach, encourage, prune bad behavior and instruct. And yet, at a certain point, we expect our creations to go live on their own, and eventually we pass, and stop actively shaping them. None of this is an argument that God does or does not take an active participation in his life, it is merely acknowledging I can find a logic in God doing so, while also seeing parallels for why God might not be an active participant in our lives.

Therefore, I do not believe we owe this being or power unquestioning allegiance. We must see what works, and find a relationship that functions based on the individual.

We may have been created, it seems likely we were. I cannot disprove alternate theories, however. I also cannot claim to know the nature of the relationship with the Creator. Perhaps it is active and ongoing, or perhaps the first push occurred and we are left to go from here.

Why am I content with what essentially boils down to," “Could be, who knows?” Mainly, because I think it mostly irrelevant to my life and choices. Please note, I am not saying any person’s life, but my life. How is this possible?

Pascal’s wager, in a nutshell. I choose to act as if there is God, and behave accordingly. This is easily dismissed as a superficial, incomplete view of the situation, and that may be fair. To that assertion I ask, is my behavior not faith? According to my understanding of scripture, faith is not a simple belief in something unprovable, but a call to action. In fact, in James we read the following:

“What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?… …Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.”

Whether, in a person’s heart, they have an unwavering belief in God, a certain knowledge of his existence, or absolutely zero belief in God is totally irrelevant to God’s power or being, as you correctly argue. What is asserted here, is that our actions matter. Does our belief also? It may impact the salvation of the person. That, however, seems contradicted by the words of one Jesus Christ.

In Matthew 25, Jesus gives three parables: the ten virgins, the talents, and the sheep and goats. I would like to focus on the third of these. From the Bible:

Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?  When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 

Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

I apologize for the long quotation there, but the entire length is important to the point. Jesus explains to His followers that upon judgment, those who cared for Him would be saved, and those who left Him in need would not. Was it literally a service offered to God? Apparently, in His words, any service to our brothers and sisters on this planet is a service to God. But more importantly, the intention to serve God is completely omitted from the equation. The people who failed to serve were ignorant of their actions, yet will suffer the consequences. Those who did follow the commandment to “love thy neighbor as thyself” were equally unaware, and welcomed just the same.

If we accept the above scriptures at face value, faith that fails to motivate to action is dead, or insufficient to save. In addition, action, service, or obedience without knowledge or comprehension is an acceptable sacrifice.

Am I cherry picking scriptures? Absolutely! But I would say that every sermon I have ever witnessed does the same to drive home their point. Belief is beside the question, actions and behaviors matter.

This still leaves us with the importance of whether we need a Savior.

The argument, as I understand it, is that a Savior is necessary due to fallen nature of man. Men are fallen in that all men sin, meaning miss the mark. This is so obvious it does not need debating. All men make mistakes and come up short. The question is, who needs to forgive, and who needs to be forgiven.

As Jesus points out, if as evil men, we can give good gifts, how much greater is the gift giving capacity of an almighty Being? It seems to me that our small capacity to forgive, as evil men, both others and ourselves, is a much greater impediment to progress than anything else. I have a friend who was responsible for the death of his best friend. It was absolutely on him, and a tragedy. Do you know who has not forgiven him? Himself. It is dragging him through Hell constantly. He may or may not want forgiveness from a greater power, I would not know. I do know, without a doubt, that he torments himself constantly, decades after the fact. This tracks with my experience.

Perhaps we do need a Redeemer, but if we do, I suspect it is more to assuage our own feelings of guilt and remorse. I know that I am my own worst critic, but I also know that feeling the guilt of past mistakes is a highly motivating way to refrain from repeating them; or maybe we should move on and forget.

How is Jesus the path if I do not have a literal belief in this?

A Savior is necessary if Hell and Heaven are literal places, where we go after death. In my experience, Heaven and Hell are states of being on Earth, and self-inflicted ones. With this understanding, the need for Redemption is fully dependent on the individual person. Some are able to learn from a mistake, steel themselves not to repeat it, and move on, with some painful memories as a reminder. Some will self flagellate indefinitely, and probably do require a belief in an external Sufferer willing to remove our pain. Either way, we need to accept the basic axiomatic premise that we can move past our mistakes, and attain a higher purpose, perhaps salvation.

What does salvation mean? It may mean “life in the presence of God for all eternity.” It may also mean living a Heavenly existence for the very short time we have here on this earth.

I fear there is some truth to Marx’s argument that “Religion is the opiate of the masses.” Failure to live this life intentionally, well, and with a proper respect for the potentially accurate possibility that it is all we have, risks missing the one opportunity we absolutely know we have, all to gamble on a possible future. I propose, for what it is worth, that we should attempt to properly balance these options, living in a way that both maximizes the opportunities of this life, without mortgaging the possibly infinite future. Perhaps we should believe, but only if it means taking wins here, with potential future gains. We should not trade misery now for a possible reward. “One in the hand is worth two in the bush” and all that.

I tried to address each point which surfaced in your writing, albeit it in too many words and a round about way. I apologize for the length, I will work on honing this down in the future; this was more of an birds eye view. I look forward to reading your thoughts on this, as a whole, or any particular aspect. Thank you for the opportunity, I look forward to your response.

Love,
A guy who wishes you the best, and looks forward to gaining new perspective


P.S.
I tried to sum up my responses, as this was long. We do not disagree on all of these, and my preference would be to focus on our points of difference. With that said, I welcome any additional thoughts on any point!

First, and I believe the most fundamental point, is that all of modern Western society has a foundational view of the world based on Christian understandings in truth existing. I have a hard time arguing against this. Maybe we could have arrived at the enlightenment without Christianity, but I cannot, in good faith, argue that point. We cannot make an aught from an is, but I am unwilling to argue that an is must be.
Second, that our belief in God is totally separate from whether he is real, but seemingly many that claim not to believe act as though they do, either by directing anger at Him, or basing decisions on beliefs structured around His existence. Agree. People seem motivated to respond to religion and religious belief, seemingly as an instinct.
Third, without God, there can be no universal basis for right and wrong, nor any basis for truth or relationships at all. I believe that we can make a case for right and wrong, and well educated, intelligent people may do so. This will succeed for some, but will fail for others. Perhaps religion can instill this where logic fails, but one must be careful to avoid the pitfalls. Also, human error is hard to overcome, religious or not.
Fourth, that our fallen status requires a Savior to remedy. I see no reason to accept this for the population at large, while accepting that some people cannot seem to move past mistakes on their own.
Fifth, that our understanding of God and divine things varies by person and circumstance, but that the universality of God is unaffected by our understanding or belief. Obviously comprehension varies, whether that is based on education, logic, or any other factor. If God exists, why would we affect an all powerful being?
Finally, that we should believe. Undetermined. We should act as though there is a higher purpose, but the strongest argument for that in my mind is that it will produce better outcomes in the here and now.