Category Archives: Uncategorized

The Great Commission and How It Doesn’t Apply to You

Posted on by

great commission jesusChristianity continues to change with the times—it has 42,000 denominations and counting—and I nurture the hope that it will adapt to become more civilized, at least in the West. Maybe a strain could simply be cultural Christianity, a philosophy or way of life with no supernatural baggage. Millions of practicing “Christians” don’t actually believe, and they deserve to keep the good things of Christianity while discarding the unsupportable claims.

One thing holding Christianity back is the Great Commission. This was the final charge of Jesus to his disciples before he returned to heaven. “Go and make disciples of all nations,” he tells them in Matthew 28:19. Sounds like Christians are obliged to actively get out there and spread the meme. But that stands in the way of Christianity becoming a healthy worldview instead of the dogmatic busybody that conservative politics has made it in America.

But are Christians’ hands really tied? Consider who Jesus was talking to. He wasn’t talking to today’s lay Christian; he was addressing the disciples. You flatter yourself to imagine that you’re one of the Twelve, and the charge of the Great Commission was placed on your fragile shoulders.

Nevertheless, most Christians still hear that, yes indeedy, Jesus was addressing them. Let’s pursue this and see if it holds up.

The lesser commission in Matthew

There are several variations of this assignment of Jesus. An earlier commission in the same gospel also charges the disciples to hit the road, but this time Jesus gave them superpowers. They had “authority to drive out impure spirits and to heal every disease and sickness” (Matt. 10:1). If the commission comes with power to help carry it out but Christians today don’t have those powers, then they probably weren’t given the commission either.

And even more superpowers

In another gospel, Jesus sends the disciples on their way with a power you’d think would be reserved for God himself: “If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven” (John 20:23).

We see something similar in Matthew. Jesus said to the disciples, “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 18:18). Binding means to forbid and loosing means to permit, both by an indisputable authority.

The disciples weren’t ordinary chowderheads like you and me. They obviously had superpowers not available to the rank and file. I wonder then how Christians can imagine they share the disciples’ assignment.

Four reasons to ignore the Great Commission

Many Christians are uncomfortable with the idea that they make baby Jesus cry by not witnessing to strangers. I’d like to empower them by showing why this isn’t their fight.

1. Jesus wasn’t talking to you. The Great Commission was given to the apostles. Don’t flatter yourselves—you’re not Matthew or Peter or John.

2. Apologists acknowledge the difference. Some apologists capitalize on this and use it to their advantage.

Here’s the problem they face. The book of Acts shows Paul healing a lame man, Ananias curing blindness, and Peter raising the dead. “Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles.”

What about the incredible power of prayer? In Matthew, Jesus says, “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.” In Mark, Jesus says, “Whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.” In John, Jesus says, “He who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do.”

Trouble is, it doesn’t work that way for Christians today, and everyone knows it. Many apologists will avoid the problem by saying that these remarkable claims were relevant only to the disciples. That works, but then the Great Commission logically falls into the same category.

3. The Bible makes a nutty demand? Then rationalize away the demand! Christians easily dismiss aspects of the Bible that don’t translate well into modern Western society—God’s support for slavery, polygamy, genocide, human sacrifice, and so on. God’s position is clear, but loftier principles override the Bible, and Christians (correctly) take the sensible approach where there are conflicts. If pushing your beliefs on others also doesn’t seem right, maybe that’s because it isn’t.

And what’s the point of evangelization anyway? Fundamentalists will tell you that it’s the Holy Spirit that does the work, not your evangelization, “so that no one can boast” (Ephesians 2:8–9). Surely the omnipotent Holy Spirit has the capability to save souls and isn’t constrained by what people do or don’t do.

4. It’s not everyone’s job to evangelize. Paul says that we have different gifts (1 Corinthians 12:4–11). You may simply not be an evangelist. And don’t take on the teaching role lightly: “Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly” (James 3:1).  

There’s no need for the Great Commission

Christians have been told that it’s their duty to save people. Just imagine if your neighbor went to hell simply because you were too lazy to convince him that he was worthless scum who needed what your church was selling.

Paul makes clear that this fear is unfounded. Comparing the symmetry of Adam’s sin with Jesus’s sacrifice, Paul said, “For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous” (Romans 5:19). The price has been paid—you’re good. (Thanks to Greg G. for this insight.)

We see a similar attitude in the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25. The King gives eternal life to those who lived honorable lives. Evangelism and mandatory beliefs aren’t necessary.

Christians, discard the great baggage of the Great Commission. There’s work enough to just live your life as a good Christian. If someone asks, you can give the “reason for the hope that you have” (1 Peter 3:15).

If instead you want to follow the lead of Jesus, he spoke at length about helping the disadvantaged. That’s a charge that makes a lot more sense.

Take from the church the miraculous, the supernatural,
the incomprehensible, the unreasonable,
the impossible, the unknowable, the absurd,
and nothing but a vacuum remains.
— Robert G. Ingersoll

Photo credit: Wikipedia

C. S. Lewis on Science

Posted on by

C. S. Lewis Discovery InstituteA couple of years ago, I attended the premiere of the Discovery Institute’s video The Magician’s Twin: C. S. Lewis on Science, Scientism, and Society.

The Discovery Institute is a Seattle-based think tank whose Center for Science and Culture (CSC) is dedicated to undermining public support for evolution. Though evolution wasn’t a main theme for this video, rejection of evolution and a positive case for Intelligent Design are the goals in two subsequent videos.

Discovery Institute

Before I review the film, take a look at the organization that created it. The budget of the CSC is reportedly $4 million per year. The agendas of foundations and wealthy individuals who contribute include the goal of “total integration of biblical law into our lives” and commitment to “the infallibility of the Scripture”—acceptable goals in a free society but incompatible with the scientific goal of following the facts where they lead without crippling it with an agenda.

In a reasonable world, an organization dedicated to exploring the limits of biology would be staffed with biologists—people who actually understand the science and who are capable of evaluating it. But, unsurprising to any observer of Creationism and related fields, there are very few here. There are lots of doctorates among their 40-odd fellows, but as for relevant ones, I could only find these two:

  • Michael Behe has a doctorate in biochemistry. Though he proposed the clever concept of irreducible complexity, he accepts common descent (the idea that all life has a common ancestor), a view rejected by most in the Creationism and Intelligent Design movements.
  • Jonathan Wells has a doctorate in molecular and cell biology, but Wells has made clear his agenda: “[The words of Rev. Sun Myung Moon], my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism.” While I applaud his honesty, this agenda is at odds with science.

Creationism

The approach of the Creationism industry is similar to the tactic of “fear, uncertainty, and doubt” used in the computer industry. Back in the mainframe computer days, IBM’s product was more expensive. IBM salesmen were said to soften up reluctant customers by reminding them, “Keep in mind that no one was ever fired for buying IBM.” In other words: you pay a little more and you’ll get a reliable product, but if you cut corners, you may find yourself out of a job.

The Creationist version is to acknowledge the fruits of science but then mention hoaxes (Piltdown man, the Cardiff giant) or errors (ether, geocentrism) or dangers (radioactivity, surveillance) or embarrassments (eugenics, Tuskegee syphilis experiment). Are you really sure about this whole science thing?

Creationism saying that science is valuable is a bit like Mark Antony saying in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, “Brutus is an honorable man.”

And that approach colored The Magician’s Twin. It was a mixture of sensible cautions against a thoughtless acceptance of all things scientific—“if it comes from science, it must be worth adopting,” or “if science says so, it must be true”—and a subtle undercutting of the credibility of science.

Lewis felt that science and magic are twins in three ways.

1. Science as religion. Consider the crowd of atheists that attended the national Reason Rally, science giving meaning to people’s lives, and Darwin Day celebrations. This is what religion does!

Is that all religion is—community, meaning, and celebration? No, the supernatural is fundamental to the meaning of religion. Indeed, this supernatural-free caricature of religion seems insulting to believers.

I attended the Reason Rally, and yes, that sort of community is a valuable thing. The Sunday Assembly is a weekly gathering for atheists that is becoming popular. Religious people and atheists find value in community, meaning, and celebration, but they don’t share belief in the supernatural. Science is quite plainly neither religion nor magic.

2. Science as credulity. Science discourages skepticism and encourages gullibility. And what is it built on? C.S. Lewis said, “If my own mind is a product of the irrational, how shall I trust my mind when it tells me about evolution?”

This is a variant of Alvin Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (addressed here). If evolution were true and your mind were honed by natural selection (those minds that thoroughly understood reality being more likely to survive than those that didn’t), we’d expect it to give you a fairly trustworthy account of reality.

As for skepticism and gullibility, I’ll grant that public science education is poor, science is dangerously misunderstood within society, and politicians sometimes fall over themselves to dismiss the scientific consensus when unpleasant. Let’s work together to fix these problems, but don’t pretend that religion is on the right side of this issue.

(I argue that the lay public has no option but to accept the scientific consensus here.)

3. Science as power. Much of science is devoted to power over nature. Unlike magic, you actually can control people with science. Eugenics, drone aircraft, bar codes, transhumanism, and surveillance cameras are some of the many technologies that have downsides.

Let’s be clear on what does what. Science does its best to tell us what is true about nature, and policy decides what to do with this information. You don’t like eugenics? Fine, but don’t blame science for it. “We should sterilize population category X” is a policy statement, not a scientific statement. “Here’s what you need to know about optics to make a video camera work” is from science; “We should install surveillance cameras in public places to reduce crime” is from politics.

In the Q&A afterwards, the video’s director raised concerns about groupthink within biology. Sure, following the crowd rather than the evidence should be avoided, but is this really a major problem? It reminded me of a powerful story Richard Dawkins told in The God Delusion about a senior lecturer in the Oxford zoology department. The professor believed that one feature of the cell was an artifact and didn’t actually exist. One day a visiting American lecturer presented evidence powerful enough to convince even this skeptic.

At the end of the lecture, the old man strode to the front of the hall, shook the American by the hand and said—with passion—“My dear fellow, I wish to thank you. I have been wrong these fifteen years.” We clapped our hands red.

Wow—talk about a teachable moment.

The video does raise appropriate cautions about science. But how do we constrain science as a force for good without taking the nonsensical path of encouraging citizens to pick and choose their scientific truths for themselves? My suggestions:

  • Don’t confuse the debate of scientific ideas within Science with the debate within the public. We laypeople can debate what we think of science, but we don’t decide scientific truth. Science is not a democracy, and we’re stuck with the scientific consensus as the best provisional approximation of the truth. Skepticism doesn’t mean that everyone decides their scientific truth.
  • Don’t confuse science (a decent approximation of what is true) with policy (what to do about it). Science is the domain of scientists; policy is the domain of politicians and the society to which they answer.
  • Understand that science can get it wrong and that its pronouncements are always provisional. Science can get railroaded by powerful interests with an agenda–corporations, grant makers, or politicians for example. To minimize this, let’s encourage transparency and motivate science in the direction that’s best for society. When a study of the safety of phosphorescent zucchini is funded by the company that wants to sell this new vegetable, that doesn’t invalidate the research, but make this funding known.
  • Demand public scrutiny of policies with downsides. The European Union puts the burden of proof that a new policy is not harmful on the proponent of that policy. This Precautionary Principle makes sense, though it may have been used to demand scientific certainty, which science can never provide. We must find the right balance between reckless application of new science and timid immobility.
  • Demand strong science education in schools. Ridicule politicians who reject the scientific consensus when it is uncomfortable. These are necessary for national competitiveness as well as self-respect.

Yes, it is rare that one disputant in an argument convinces another.
Thomas Jefferson said he had never seen it happen,
but that seems too harsh.
It happens in science all the time.
— Carl Sagan

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 8/13/12.)

Photo credit: www.cslewisweb.com

God’s Diminishing Power

Posted on by

In the beginning … God walked in the Garden of Eden like an ordinary supernatural Joe. He dropped by Abraham’s for a cup of coffee and a chat. He didn’t know what was up in Sodom and Gomorrah and had to send out angelic scouts for reconnaissance: “I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me” (Genesis 18:20–21). God didn’t know the depths of Abraham’s faith and had to test it. Afterward Abraham proved willing to sacrifice Isaac, he says, “Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son” (Gen. 22:12).

But, like Stalin gradually collecting titles, God has now become omniscient and omnipotent. He’s gone from needing six days to shape a world from Play-Doh and sprinkle tiny stars in the dome of heaven to creating 100 billion galaxies, each with 100 billion stars.

If you want to double check your math, that’s 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg of universe.

If God is to change with time, you’d think that his biblical demonstrations of power would likewise increase with time, but the reverse is true. From creating the universe, he’s weakened such that appearing in a grilled cheese sandwich as Jesus is about as much as he can pull off today. He has the fiery reputation of the Wizard of Oz but is now just the man behind the curtain.

Even God’s punishments became wimpier. A global flood, with millions dead is pretty badass. Personally smiting Sodom and Gomorrah is impressive, though that’s a big step down in magnitude.

And it’s downhill from there—God simply orders the destruction of Canaanite cities, and to punish Israel and Judah, he doesn’t do it himself but allows Assyria and then Babylon to invade. As Jesus, he doesn’t kick much more butt than cursing a fig tree, and today he simply stands by to let bad things happen.

It’s almost like the Bible is mythology and legend, and God’s followers have boosted their own self-image by boosting the image of their god.

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God
who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect
has intended us to forgo their use.
— Galileo Galilei

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 8/4/12.)

Photo credit:Why There is no God

20 Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage, Rebutted

Posted on by

same-sex marriage bigotry gayIn a Christian Post end-of-year survey of “intolerant liberalism,” half of the 33 examples had to do with same-sex marriage or acceptance of homosexuality. Why is this issue so persistent?

I recently speculated how the conservative anti-gay fight might change (“Having Lost the Same-Sex Marriage Fight, What Will Opponents Do Now?”). I keep thinking that conservatives will throw in the towel and begin to worry about other issues, maybe ones that actually matter. How about energy independence or improving conditions for America’s poorest citizens? If voters reward conservative posturing, couldn’t we trust them to reward conservative politicians who actually address some of society’s problems?

Some conservatives may be dropping the issue, but not all. Let’s take a look at one who’s keeping the anti-same-sex marriage candle burning. Frank Turek is one of the fish in this “traditional marriage” pond, but the pond is drying up. I’d like to preserve what he says today so that it can be used to plague him tomorrow.

Much of the following is in response to a few of his recent articles (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Let’s consider some of the popular arguments against same-sex marriage.

1. Activist judges! In Frank’s dictionary, “activist judge” seems to mean “a judge who doesn’t do what I want.”

Activist judges won’t honor the ballot box. 41,020,568 people across more than half the states have voted to recognize marriage for what nature’s design says it is—the union of one man and one women. Yet just 23 unelected judges have overturned those 41 million people across about 20 states!

Yeah, that’s how the legal system works sometimes. Very few laws are put in place by direct vote of the citizens, and sometimes judges are the last step in the process.

Frantic Frank imagines the sky falling with these “unelected judges” rampaging through society, but the Constitution defines the separation of powers that form the checks and balances between the branches of government. Judges are appointed by the president and confirmed by senators who are elected. Judges can be impeached. The Constitution can be amended. I’ll believe that “activist judge” isn’t simply a convenient slur for when he doesn’t get his way when he applies it to conservative decisions.

For all their talk about equality, the other side does not respect democracy unless the vote comes out their way.

But surely that’s not true for Frank. He’s okay with public opinion—which is good, because a recent CBS News/New York Times poll showed the public strongly in favor of same-sex marriage by 56% to 37%, with the gap continuing to grow. Look at the trend from the Gallup poll:

2. But we’re already equal! Frank next denies that there’s a problem.

Everyone already has equal marriage rights. Every person has the same equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Compare with this: “It shall hereafter be unlawful for any white person in this State to marry any save a white person” from the Virginia Racial Integrity Act of 1924. Sounds like the same deal—the white folks were constrained just like everyone else. That’s fair, so what’s to complain about? I wonder how Frank can fault the logic in the racial category but not in the sexuality category when we’re talking about people in both cases.

It’s amazing that he anticipates no consequences from his base after saying something so bigoted, but then George Wallace’s “I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!” from 1963 didn’t have major negative consequences.

Not immediately, anyway.

Frank’s assurance that things are fair and he’s not prejudiced sounds hollow when his proposal doesn’t inconvenience him. He wants to shut off an option that could help millions of Americans, but that’s okay because he’s not one of them. Here’s an idea, Frank: how about if people with odd Social Security numbers can only marry people with even numbers and vice versa? Everyone is constrained by the same rules, so it’s fair, right? Is someone you care about inconvenienced yet?

If you say that that’s a stupid rule, you’re getting an idea of what some people say about your claim above.

3. But you can’t redefine marriage!

Been there, redefined that. Don’t imagine that marriage has been a constant since Adam and Eve. The last major change (just considering marriage in the U.S.) was in 1967 when rules against interracial marriage were struck down in 17 states.

Even now, rules vary by state. What’s the age of consent? Can you marry your cousin? Is a blood test or Social Security Number required? What’s the waiting period? Residency requirements? Requirements for divorced persons? Let’s not pretend that marriage is fixed.

4. I’m not a bigot! Frank rejects the comparison of laws against same-sex marriage with racist or sexist laws.

There was no rational case to preclude people from voting because of their race or sex. But there certainly is a rational case to preclude changing marriage.

We can agree that laws that precluded citizens from voting were wrong. They thought it was okay back then, but society changes. Frank clearly has no problem with society evolving and improving. That’s good, because it’s changing again to accept same-sex marriage.

Continue with Part 2.

Heterosexuality is not normal,
just common.
— seen on the internet

Image credit: Wikipedia

Disambiguation: Legend, Myth, and More

Posted on by

Let’s straighten out some of the terms used in the study of religion, the supernatural, and related topics. There are colloquial definitions, but it’s good to know the scholarly distinctions.

We’ll begin with the big category, folklore. This is the traditional knowledge or forms of expression of a culture passed on from person to person. Folklore can be material (quilts, traditional costumes, the hex signs on Amish barns, or even recipes), behavioral (customs such as throwing rice at a wedding, what constitutes good manners, superstitions, etc.), or traditional stories.

Traditional stories is itself a large category, containing music, anecdotes, ghost stories, parables, popular misconceptions, and other things you might not think of.

Now on to the kinds of traditional stories that are most interesting to apologetics. These terms can overlap quite a bit, so consider these definitions approximations. First, let’s consider stories seen as true (or plausibly so) by their hearers.

  • Legends are grounded in history and can change over time. They can include miracles. Urban legends are a modern category of legends that don’t include miracles, are set in or near the present day, and take the form of a cautionary tale.
  • Myths are sacred narratives that explain some aspect of reality (for example: the myth of Prometheus explains why we have fire and the Genesis creation myth explains where everything came from). Epic poems such as Beowulf and the Odyssey are one kind of myth.

The difference between legends and myths is that a legend is set in a more recent time and generally features human characters, while myths are set in the distant past (“long, long ago”) and have supernatural characters. Some stories are mixtures of the two. For example, the Iliad tells the story of a real city, and the characters include gods, humans with supernatural powers, and ordinary humans.

Lady Godiva, King Arthur, William Tell, and Atlantis are examples of legends—the stories have human characters and are set in a historic past. Myths include the stories of Hercules and Zeus, Hindu mythology, the Noah story, and the creation stories of dozens of cultures—they have gods as characters and are set in a distant or undefined past.

Let’s take a brief detour to look at a few relevant terms that are not part of the category of traditional stories.

  • Religion starts with the sacred narratives of mythology and adds beliefs and practices. Myth and scripture are both sacred, but scripture is the writings themselves. Doctrine is codified teaching, and dogma is that mandatory subset of the doctrine that must be believed for one to be a member.
  • Superstition is any belief that relies on a supernatural (instead of natural) cause like astrology, omens to predict the future, magic, or witchcraft. It can also be defined as the unfounded supernatural beliefs of the other guy’s religion (not your own, of course). Merriam-Webster defines it as “a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation.”

Finally, let’s consider stories understood by their hearers to not be true.

  • Fables have a particular kind of character: nonhumans such as animals, plants, inanimate objects, or forces of nature that have human-like qualities. Fables end with a moral.
  • Fairy tales also have particular characters: fantasy characters such as fairies, goblins, and elves. Magic is also an element. There is no connection with historic time (it begins “Once upon a time …”).
  • Parables are plausible stories with plausible characters (no talking rocks, no magic) that are not presented as true. Parables illustrate a moral or religious principle.

If it can be destroyed by the truth,
it deserves to be destroyed by the truth.
— Carl Sagan

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 8/1/12.)

Photo credit: Wikimedia

In Which I Experience a Miracle. Or Not.

Posted on by

I was a fan of the “Skeptics Guide to the Universe” podcast in the summer of 2007 when Perry, one of the hosts, died at about age 44. I was listening to a memorial retrospective podcast of Perry’s contributions as I walked through Seattle’s streets, on my way to an Alpha group meeting. (Alpha is a series of classes that discuss various aspects of Christianity, so God is in this story somewhere.)

One of the quirks of the show was an ongoing argument over whether birds or monkeys were more impressive animals (don’t ask). Perry would often spar with another regular on the show, enthusiastically arguing for the monkeys.

So there I am, listening to this poignant reflection as I walk to my Alpha meeting, and I turn a corner onto Queen Anne Avenue in Seattle. I see a sign that says “Monkey Love Rubber Stamps” (above).

This sign didn’t have just any name, but a name with an animal. Not just any animal, but a monkey (not an ape or a chimpanzee). Not any common monkey idiom (monkeyshines, monkey business, monkey’s uncle) but monkey love. What more is necessary to indicate a celestial blessing on the memory of a departed friend?

Apparently a lot more than that, because it’s been a memorable coincidence to me and nothing more.

Fortune telling through pie

Here’s another small but surprising event that stuck in my mind. On my daughter’s wedding day, I was making two pies that called for six eggs. The last egg had a double yolk.

This was my daughter’s wedding day. Clearly that had to mean something. Jesus was clearly telling me that they would have a happy marriage. Or that they would get married. Or that they would have kids. Or, because I beat the eggs for the pie, that they would be mangled in a horrible accident. Or something.

Other coincidences

This curiosity of the double egg yolk is like the New York state lottery picking the digits 9 1 1 on the one-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Sure, that’s cool and even memorable, but what does it mean?

Noteworthy and even startling coincidences are easy to find.

  • The Apollo 13 mission to the moon nearly ended in disaster, but some clever extemporaneous engineering saved the crew. Look for thirteens in this story, and you find them in abundance. Not only was the mission #13, but the time of launch was 13:13. The disaster happened on April 13. 1970 was the 13th year of the space program.
  • In the weeks leading up to the June, 1944 D-Day landings, the code words Utah, Omaha, Overlord, Mulberry, and Neptune appeared in different crossword puzzles in London’s Daily Telegraph. No, not espionage—just coincidences.
  • In 2001, an English girl released a helium balloon with her contact information. It landed 140 miles away and wound up in the hands of another girl. Not only did the girls each have as pets a gray rabbit, a guinea pig, and a black Lab, they were the same age and each girl was named Laura Buxton.
  • The coincidences between the Kennedy and Lincoln assassinations are famous: Lincoln’s secretary was named Kennedy and Kennedy’s was named Lincoln, both presidents were succeeded by Southerners named Johnson, both assassins were known by three names, Booth shot in a theater and ran to a warehouse while Oswald shot from a warehouse and ran to a theater, and others.
  • Everyone knows about the 1912 sinking of the Titanic. Fewer know about a novel written 14 years earlier about another “unsinkable” ship, the largest ever, that struck an iceberg on its maiden voyage and sank with great loss of life. The ship’s name was Titan.

If God is simply that which is unexplained or curious, then sure, that God exists. But God is then no more supernatural than an interesting pattern on a grilled cheese sandwich. Without good reason to think otherwise, a coincidence is just a coincidence.

Self-validating miracle claims

Survivors of a disaster—tsunami, plane crash, whatever—can look at the long odds for their surviving and read that as evidence of God’s providence. The problem with this analysis is that all the naysayers—those who could puncture that bubble with their own stories of how God didn’t care enough to save them—are all dead. The result is a monoculture of survivors who could look imagine God’s action.

Littlewood’s Law

Littlewood’s Law says that a “miracle”—a once-in-a-million event—happens once a month. To make this calculation, he assumed one “event” per second. Obviously, most of those are mundane. These monthly “miracles” are the surprising (but not supernatural) events that we tell our friends, like the two that happened to me, above.

We’re pattern-seeking animals. We see a man in the moon, shapes in clouds, and the face of Jesus or Mary in a tortilla. Someone determined to see supernatural agency in life can find examples, but the evidence doesn’t back them up.

Whatever Nature has in store for mankind,
unpleasant as it may be, men must accept,
for ignorance is never better than knowledge.
— Enrico Fermi

Photo credit: yelp