The Three Musketeers of Capitalism

By Pat Berkheim
contributing writer

Capitalism needs to be "all for one and one for all". Capitalism as a total free market is unrealistic. Every man for himself produces winners and losers, an unjust two class economic society. Communism produces a two class society of powerful bureaucrats and unmotivated workers and therefore is also unrealistic.

"All for one" means the populace supports the efforts and success of outstanding citizens, encouraging them to produce and lead the way. Like the team being thrilled by the individual efforts of a star running back scoring and helping the team to victory. Also supporting the star's reward of publicity, popularity, and gratuity knowing that these will reflect well on the team.

"One for all" means the entrepreneur realizes his success was not totally an individual accomplishment. Both circumstance and group effort probably contributed to the final result. Like the star running back who gives credit and reward to the blocking and teamwork which make his touchdowns possible, the economic star recognizes a moral obligation to help the group. As the group is rewarded the star's self interest is also served because the workers are motivated to continue to produce to enhance the success of all. Like the linemen of a humble running back will give more effort than the blockers for and egotistical braggart.

Government is the third musketeer in capitalism ("all for one and one for all"). There are interests of citizens that are not served best by profit driven organizations. Examples are education, police and fire protection, national defense, transportation infrastructure, and health care. Citizens in a capitalist republic also deserve a social safety net to protect children and the elderly. The wealthy need to accept more of this financial burden, understanding that a stable society will benefit all. The government in the football analogy takes the role of coach and referee. The coach encouraging entrepreneurs to invest and support fair wages and bargaining rights. The referee protecting citizens from profit seekers willing to jeopardize our water supply, clean air and food sources. Also, helping to settle differences between business and workers. The coach encourages workers to make reasonable demands and loyally work for the success of the company.

What has happened in America is a swing to only valuing profit. Big business and the wealthy have been consumed by greed. The rich have been able to take control of government by buying politicians. The pendulum needs to swing toward workers rights and responsible government; not bigger government or no government but government that is responsive to all citizens, politicians not manipulated by the wealthy and small activist interest groups in their constant quest for re-election but politicians who believe America is "all for one and one for all".

Greed and Liberty

By Pat Berkheim
contributing writer

Some people care about money. Others care about people. The people who care about money believe if you take care of money the people will prosper. If you care about people you know love of money is not always enough to promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. People who care about others believe government has a role in both liberty and equality.

The people who believe government's only role is to insure liberty believe the wealthy will provide for all. Greed is a false prophet who has convinced many a follower that taxation is an evil demon. A representative democracy must balance equality with liberty. A progressive tax is fair and just. America can afford to help the disadvantaged and be solvent. The wealthy, motivated by greed, will attempt to scare the majority with cries of government control and loss of liberty, but they can pay more with no impact to their liberty.

People who care believe that some elements of America are better served by not for profit entities under the control of the voice of the people. America's judicial system, highway transportation network, police and fire protection, education, social security and our military are examples of entities that would be ill served by for profit private control.

Striving for balance that promotes equality, liberty, and justice is not socialism but the duty of Americas' representative government as defined by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Why Am I A Liberal?

By Dennis McClatchey

My political awakening began in the sixties as I journeyed through high school and then into college. The political story of the day was civil rights. It was during this time that I became truly aware of the inhumanity of the Jim Crow south.

I learned that in the south if you were black you were told: Sorry, you can’t shop here. You can’t dine here. You can’t drink from the fountain here. You can’t ride on the bus here. You can’t live here. You can’t work here. You can’t go to school here. And, if you have the audacity to try to do these things we will bring out the hoses. We will bring out the dogs. We will bring out the clubs. We will bring out the rope. We will bring out the bombs and guns. We will beat and terrorize you into submission. And yet, many had the audacity to believe that this was America, the land of the free. They came out by the scores, by the hundreds, by the thousands. And, out came the hoses, the dogs, the clubs, the rope, and the bombs. Unbelievable pictures of this savage response to the exercise of freedom were thrust into our homes with the powerful visual intimacy of television.

And, during this period, who was it who championed civil rights legislation? It was the liberals. Who fought passage of the legislation? It was conservatives, many of whom were southern Democrats. Regardless of party affiliation, the liberal cry was for civil rights for all, while the conservatives decried loss of states’ rights. Notable conservatives such as William Buckley recognized the injustice but believed the marketplace- capitalism- would eventually solve the problem. Be patient. Eventually these shop owners will realize the color of money is all the same. Even the conservatives’ beloved Ronald Regan, while running for governor of California, proclaimed that if a home owner didn’t want to sell to someone for whatever reason he had a right not to do so.

 I immediately knew where my political soul belonged.

While the civil rights movement was a defining moment for my political arousal, it has not been the only moment. My liberal beliefs have been reinforced both by a reading of history as well as through contemporary events.

In 1935, as a part of his New Deal, it was the liberal Franklin Roosevelt who brought us Social Security including unemployment insurance. And who fought against this bold new initiative? The conservatives, of course, again many of whom were southern Democrats. In fact, a major embarrassment of this otherwise lofty landmark was the fact that Social Security when it was first enacted did not cover most women and minorities, another gift from the conservative coalition of the day.

 Roosevelt also signed the Fair labor Standards Act of 1938. The FLSA provided for a minimum wage, banned child labor and had as its purpose establishing minimum standards of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well being. Once again, it was opposed for the most part by southern conservatives.

It was liberals who promoted and passed in 1965 Medicare and Medicaid providing health coverage for the elderly, the poor, and the disabled. Once more, the conservatives pushed back hard to block this progressive move calling it “socialism.”

The liberal agenda brought us Title IX which established that: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

The liberal agenda brought us The Americans with Disabilities Act which “prohibited private employers, state, and local governments, employment agencies and labor unions from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities…”

The liberal agenda brought us the Consolidated Budget Reconciliation Act (C.O.B.R.A.) which allowed employees access to their employer’s health care coverage for eighteen months if they lost their job or were laid off.

The liberal agenda brought us the Children’s Health Insurance Program (C.H.I.P.S.) which made millions of children eligible to receive health insurance coverage if otherwise unavailable.

These are but a few examples that come readily to mind. Not too shabby of a record for a bunch of “elitists.”

 And, who fought this agenda for social justice? Why, our conservative brethren, of course.

 Now, I know the conservative retort: government is too big, too intrusive, and too expensive. Please, my taxes are too high as it is. Well, friend, if you are paying a chunk of taxes, then you are also making more than a chunk of money, so for you, life is pretty good. So, stop your complaining. “Oh yeah,” you say. “Well, it would be an even better life if my taxes were lower.” Perhaps. But how better would your life be if you lost your job and that liberal sponsored safety net wasn’t there to ease your fall.

Throughout our history it has been those “God-less liberals” who have stood for the poor, the weak, the disabled, the disadvantaged. It has been those “Godless liberals” who have fought for social justice. (Remind you of anyone from history, say around 2000 years ago?) The liberal mantra can be said to be: we are our brother’s keeper. The conservative chant, on the other hand, seems to be: what’s in it for me?

Why am I a liberal? I guess the question to me should be: why isn’t everyone?

Stop Calling it Socialism!

By Dennis McClatchey

We all have our little pet peeves.

For example, my wife goes bonkers when people seem to confuse a plural noun with a possessive noun. For example, you may see "the Smith's" when it should be "the Smiths." Unless, of course, the former is followed by the word "house" or "dog" or some other possession owned by the Smiths.

For me, I have always cringed at the incorrect pronunciation of the word, Zoology. It should be pronounced, zo-ol-o-gy. Not, zoo-ol-o-gy. Count the Os.

But I have a new irritant. And, it's driving me crazy. The word is socialism. And commentators on the left, right, and in the middle appear to have no idea as to what it means. Because I hear everything from Medicare to Social Security being labeled as such. And they are not, repeat not, examples of socialism. Not by a long shot.

Go to Webster, or any dictionary for that matter, and you will find a definition such as this. Socialism is "the theory or system of the ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution by society or community rather than by private individuals with all members of society or the community sharing in the work or products."

In other words, in modern political terms in order for an enterprise to be properly labeled as an example of socialism that enterprise must be owned and operated by the government.

In Great Britain, for example, the government owns the hospitals, employs the workers, purchases the supplies, and equipment. The doctors, nurses, allied health professionals, housekeepers, food service workers, janitors are all on the government payroll.

Great Britain has socialized medicine. America's medicine is not socialized. It is free enterprise.

There are exceptions such as hospitals run by the US Bureau of Veterans Affairs and county or city facilities operating to meet the needs of certain population groups such as the indigent.

We keep hearing the refrain from the right that "Obama Care" (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act signed March 23, 2010) is a "government take over of our health care." 

As I see it, doctors are still practicing their varied specialties privately, and mostly as for- profit businesses. The hospitals remain private non- profit or for- profit institutions. The pharmaceutical companies, medical suppliers, durable medical equipment distributors continue to operate totally within the free market system.  And, insurance companies are still doing quite well, thank you, especially considering the truck load of new customers the Act will deliver them. Some government takeover.

Okay, the Act does add some new rules for these insurance companies.

The PPAC Act will immediately...

 Eliminate lifetime and unreasonable annual limits on benefits

 Prohibit rescissions of health insurance policies

 Provide assistance for those who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition

 Require coverage of preventive services and immunizations

 Extend dependant coverage up to age 26

 Develop uniform coverage documents so consumers can make apples-to-apples comparisons when shopping for health insurance

 Cap insurance company non-medical, administrative expenditures

 Ensure consumers have access to an effective appeals process and provide consumers with a place to turn for assistance navigating the appeals process and accessing their coverage

 Create a temporary re-insurance program to support coverage for early retirees

 Establish an internet portal to assist Americans in identifying coverage options

 Facilitate administrative simplification to lower health system costs

Health Insurance Market Reform: Beginning in 2014, more significant insurance reforms will be implemented. Across individual and small group health insurance markets in all states, new rules will end medical underwriting and pre-existing condition exclusions. Insurers will be prohibited from denying coverage or setting rates based on health status, medical condition, claims experience, genetic information, evidence of domestic violence, or other health-related factors. Premiums will vary only by family structure, geography, actuarial value, tobacco use, participation in a health promotion program, and age.

So, that's "Obama Care" in a nut shell. Sound evil and un-American to you? No, doctors are not told how and where and when to practice medicine. There are no death panels. And, despite Rick Santorum's fear mongering to the contrary, citizens will not be forced to wear bracelets stating, "please do not euthanize me!" The program is simply designed to make health care more assessable and more affordable for all of us, regardless of our class.

You remember the Preamble to our Constitution, "...provide for the general welfare..."

Yes, the free market health care system remains alive and well. And, trust me, I'm a fan of capitalism. Really. Well, most of the time.

You see when the free market is working properly it operates in a mutually beneficial way. For example, say I'm in the widget selling business. I want people to purchase widgets from me, not my competitors. To do so I must price my widgets below all others. Or, I must produce a superior quality widget. Or, I must make the availability of my widgets easier to acquire. Or, I must be more effective in the promotion of my widgets.

But ultimately, my goal must be to satisfy my customers. If I satisfy my customers they will return to me for all their widget needs. And, if they are really happy they will tell their friends, and they will come to me as well. The relationship between the business enterprise and the customer is symbiotic.

However, the insurance business turns this model on its head. In order for the insurance company to generate a healthy bottom line, it must avoid paying out claims. The fewer claims paid, the better. That's why such companies are always finding ways to either deny a claim, refuse to cover certain high risk people, and generally looking for opportunities to weasel out of their coverage commitments. This is not a mutually beneficial exchange.

Now, it's one thing to weasel out of fixing a car fender or covering stolen property (as bad as that might be). It is something else when the denial can literally have life and death consequences. As I see it,  we as a society have a choice on the question of health care. We can either socialize it and remove the insurance companies altogether. Or, we can continue to allow the free market system to operate but with certain protections. And, that's what the Affordable Health Care Act does. But for some it is still way too much. And, I'll bet these folks are fully insured and are doing quite well.

But let us return to our discussion on socialism. I must admit, that even within our capitalistic free enterprise free market system there does lurk some institutions that can be accurately identified as representing the true meaning of the word, "socialism." Are you ready?

Libraries, fire departments, city-county-state-federal law enforcement agencies are all examples of this derided conceptual model.  And, I hope you would agree, that is as it should be.

Let's take law enforcement, for example. The purpose of a city police department is to reduce crime. This is done, in part, through the enforcement of the city's laws by responding to and investigating violations of those laws. More resources and the greatest priority, we would hope, would be placed on those crimes that are the most violent and harmful to the welfare of our community:  rapes, murders, assaults, arsons, etc. In order to evaluate the success of a particular police department we would track and report the city's crime rate over time paying particular attention to those crimes that are the most pernicious.

Now let's say this enterprise were to be outsourced to a private for-profit business. Now its purpose has been altered a bit. Now, the goal is to generate a profit through the enforcement and investigation of crime. But, in order to evaluate it as a business, we would be tracking profit and loss statements. And, our priorities would shift to those activities that generate the greatest revenue while requiring the fewest resources (which is the definition of efficiency a goal of all business ventures).

So, if the greatest efficiencies result from, let's say, speed traps, that's where the priorities would go. And, if there are lesser efficiencies in investigating rapes, well, sorry there's just not enough money in it so it becomes a back burner activity.

Now, I know no one is arguing for the privatizing of police departments. At least I hope not. My point is, there should be some activities, some enterprises that are so vital and important to the community at large that it should not be subject to the priorities and needs of the bottom line. And maybe, just maybe health care would fit such a category.

Yes, I know the majority of America's hospitals are run as not-for-profit charitable institutions. But, I also know-having spent 20 years working in this arena-that the same financial pressures apply. I have attended countless board meetings of said organizations and I can report that more time and attention by the boards was placed evaluating the profit and loss statements and reviewing the age of the accounts receivables of the hospital than any quality of care indicators.

This is not to say that non-profit board members are greedy and heartless. To the contrary. Some of the most caring, selfless, and giving people I have met were those I met serving on our hospital's boards. And, they dutifully give of themselves voluntarily. There is really nothing in it for them other than providing a service. It's just that most of them are business men and women. They feel more comfortable examining a balance sheet than infection rates or morbidity and mortality reports. That, they feel, should be left to those trained and educated on the clinical side of the ledger.

So, again,  the fiscal strains of the non-profits are the same as their for-profit counterparts. As one Catholic nun famously said, "no margin-no mission."

Perhaps some endeavors, such as police enforcement, should not be required to have "a margin" only a "mission." And, perhaps health care delivery fits into that category.

Here again, that's not what has occurred with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It is designed to protect the free market exchange of health care as much as it is designed to protect citizens from becoming bankrupt due to a devastating health catastrophe. But listening to the rhetoric on the right, it's hard to know that.

Yes, I have heard the argument. "Do you want the same people that are running the Postal Service running your health care system?" Well, here's one for them. Do you want the same people running your health care system to be the same ones who were once running Enron?

Give that some thought.

In Defense of the US Postal Service

Actually, the question raised by conservatives and libertarians, "do you want the same people who run our post office running our health care? " is worthy of further examination.

Think about it. For 44 cents you can write a personal note and have it hand delivered to virtually any house, apartment, or business in the country, usually within 2 to 5 days. Can you name any other service of equal or like value?

And, no, the USPS is not funded by our tax dollars. In fact, in 1970 the Postal Reorganization Act mandates that the Service  function as a semi-independent agency in a revenue neutral fashion. In other words, no losses, no profits.

Yes, the USPS is facing a major financial crisis. But it is not from poor management. The cause? In 2006, Congress passed a law requiring the Postal Service to pre-fund the cost of its retiree health benefits covering the next 75 years of obligation, but to do so in a mere 10 years. Trust me, if any other business was saddled with such a requirement it would be sucking air, too.

Fact is, the USPS is efficient. Ten years ago it took 70 employees one hour to sort 35,000 letters. Today, only two are required.

Fact is, the USPS is more reliable, more efficient, and less expensive than either UPS or Fed Ex in most categories of shipments.

And, did you know that each year UPS and Fed Ex pays the USPS to deliver over 400 million of their ground packages in residential areas and on Saturdays?

So, perhaps the answer to the question, "do you want the same people who run our Postal Service to be running our health care?" is a resounding...YES!

Here's a Novel Idea. Let's Put Christ Back into Christianity

By Dennis McClatchey

If you ask a Christian what it means to be a Christian, you are likely to get a response similar to this: having a personal relationship with Christ and knowing that he is the son of God and that he died for my sins. Further conversation would likely reveal the certainty that the only requirement for grace and salvation is in this belief. In fact, anyone anywhere not of like conviction will not be permitted to enter the Kingdom of Heaven regardless of his or her virtuous life.  

This, of course, means for the purist of this school of thought that if Hitler on his death bed asked Christ for forgiveness and he was truly sincere, Hitler would gladly be received into the Kingdom of Heaven. But for the millions of Jews who were gassed, tortured, starved, and ripped of their possessions by him...well, sorry, you're not in the club. To me, that alone disqualifies this brand of Christianity from being taken seriously. It certainly can't be described as a loving compassionate theology. But, that's just me.

To these followers, the price of admission for salvation is not complicated.

A recent conversation with a "devout Christian" stated it even more simply. She said, "I believe in Jesus because that's all he asks of us." Boy, that sounds really easy, doesn't it. It also sounds really wrong. As I think back to my younger days in the Methodist church, my Sunday school classes, and the church sermons that followed, to my undergraduate college religion courses which included classes in New Testament and the Life and Teachings of Jesus, I recall that being a Christian involved following the teachings of Jesus. And to do so was not all that simple. In fact, it seemed to be a rather daunting task.

So, what has happened? For me the answer is as simple and as it is puzzling. Many Christians do not follow the teachings of Jesus even though they seem convinced that they do.

What did Jesus teach?

Jesus taught that we will be judged by how we behave and how we treat others, not simply by what we believe. All through the Gospels (which translates to mean "the good news"), we find his ministry focused on the less fortunate, the margins of society. Jesus preaches that we should strive for universal compassion and selfless action.

 A good starting point for the ministry of Jesus can be found in Matthew chapters 5-7, referred to as the Sermon on the Mount, the longest piece of his teachings.

In Matt 7:21 it is clear that the simple way to Heaven claimed by many Christians is not the way seen by Jesus. "Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he that doith the will of my Father which is in Heaven." 

In fact, Jesus did not teach that the way to salvation was faith alone. He taught faith through works and deeds. His was a proactive behavioral ministry. It was not based simply on a belief.

Matt 19:16-17: "And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."

And, when it comes to obeying the commandments, here again, Jesus does not make it easy for us. Back to the Sermon on the Mount.

Matt 5:21-22: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment."

 Matt 5:27-28:"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a women to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

 Not only does Jesus expect us to follow the commandments handed down to Moses, he significantly raises the bar for their compliance.

Far from having faith alone, Jesus taught a ministry of love and compassion.

Matt 22: 35-40:" Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him and saying, Master, which is the greatest  commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all of the law of the prophets."

In Matthew Chapter 25, Jesus is asked directly how one is to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. He tells of judgment day when the Lord will separate us all as a farmer would separate his sheep from his goats. And then describes those who will be saved. His answer leaves no doubt that it is through action, not mere belief, that salvation is reached.

Matt 25: 35-36:. "For I was 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."

And, when those receiving these words expressed their confusion of not having done this for him, he makes his meaning clear.

Matt 25:40:"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."

Jesus is telling us that, in the end, we will be judged by how we treat the less fortunate. To these we are to be loving, caring, and giving. Yet, I find it extremely curious that some who wear the Christian label most conspicuously protest the loudest against governmental policies aimed at the greater good. Welfare recipients are called parasites. Programs to help support the poor, the disabled, the sick, the elderly are denounced as evil socialism. Protesters hold signs reading: Christianity Not Socialism. I seriously doubt the protester could accurately define either term given the fact that what they call socialism is consistent with the ministry of Jesus.

Oh, I know the response...Jesus was asking of us as individuals, not governments. Please. I'm certain Jesus would have no objection to a government that follows his teachings (as well as individuals) particularly if such collective actions are the most effective way of meeting his goals. And, the sad truth is, the needs of the less fortunate can not and are not being sufficiently addressed by private efforts alone.

I suspect the real truth behind these protestations is not wanting portions of their earnings (taxes) going to someone else. We hear refrains such as: This is America, anyone can make it here if they work for it. After all the Good Book says the Lord helps those who help themselves (there is no such reference in the Bible). Why should my hard earned dollars go to these people, no one helped me? Sound to you like universal compassion and selfless action?

Perhaps this is one reason why many Christians have chosen the easy way to salvation, having faith only. The way outlined by Jesus requires some sacrifice. Believing in something is easy. Doing something less so.

Jesus was constantly preaching a message of giving.

Luke 6:38: "Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give unto your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again."

Jesus was constantly preaching a message of loving actions.

Matt5:38-39: "Ye hath heard that it has been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

 Matt 7:12: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." (the Golden Rule)

In the Beatitudes (Matt5:2-12) he extols the virtues of those who morn, the meek, the merciful, and the peacemakers.

He tells us how to pray.

Matt 6: 5-7: "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy father which seeith in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathens do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."

And then Jesus instructs us as to the Lord's Prayer. (Matt 5: 8-12.)  Interestingly, in the Prayer he tells us that before we can be forgiven for our actions against others (our trespasses, our debts) we must forgive others who require forgiveness from us. Forgiveness requires a quid pro quo. Our forgiveness requires action on our part.

This view of forgiveness is stated again.

 Luke 6:37: "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: Forgive and ye shall be

forgiven."

Speaking of judgment, Jesus repeatedly expressed his disdain for those who go about casting their moral indignation at others.

John 8: 7: "So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

Matt 7:3: And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considered not the beam that is in thine own eye."

Over and over Jesus teaches us that it is our actions, our behavior that matters most.

John 3: 19-21:  "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, nether cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."

Given Jesus' antitheses for public praying and those poking their disapproving figure at others, I can't help but wonder how he would react to today's television evangelists who, when they are not asking for money, are pointing out all the many sinners (homosexuals as one example) and praying at the drop of a hat in front of millions of viewers. I'm sure they have an answer. And, I'm equally sure it won't come from accurately quoting Jesus.

Faith only requirement

So from where did this prevailing Christian belief that faith is all that is required for salvation? The answer is simple: Paul.

It is true that "Christians" who choose the easy road to salvation can find ample New Testament references supporting this view. The problem, though, such instructions are found in books reported to be authored by the Apostle Paul (Romans, 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1st Thessalonians, 2nd Thessalonians, 1st Timothy, 2nd Timothy, Titus, Philemon ) and not from books representing the story and teachings of Jesus. And, they are not in harmony with one another.

(It should be noted that Biblical scholars have questioned whether Paul was the author of all these books, or portions of some of these books. Because they are described as Pauline books and have been represented as Paul's works, for the purpose of this discussion I have attributed the Apostle Paul as their author)

It is clear that Jesus followed the law of Moses and preached constantly that one was to follow and uphold these Jewish traditions and beliefs.

Matt 5: 18-19 (Sermon on the Mount):" For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach them so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of heaven."

Paul, on the other hand, sees the road to salvation much differently.

Romans 3:28. "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Gal 2:16: "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."

Gal 3:11: "But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith."

Romans 9: 31-32:  "But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone."

Eph 2: 8-9: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God: Not of works, least any man should boast."

And while Jesus was constantly reaching out and ministering to the sinners of the day (the unclean, the whores, adulterers) and expressing love and compassion, Paul would have none of that.

1Cor 5:11: "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man is called a brother be he a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one not to eat."

And when Jesus was asking of us to care for the least of us who go hungry, Paul, again, would have none of that.

2Thess 3:10: "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat."

Does this seem Christ-like to you? To me Christians need to make a choice: follow Jesus (faith through works and deeds) or follow Paul (justification through faith alone). You can't have it both ways.

Who was the Apostle Paul?

Much of what we know about the life of Paul comes to us in the Book of Acts, believed to be authored by the same person who wrote the Book of Luke.

In his early days, Paul (formally Saul of Tarsus) could be described as a religious zealot and extremist. He found the teachings of Jesus to be blasphemy and did all he could, including violence, to persecute those who followed the ways of Christ.

Acts 8:3:  "As for Saul, he made havoc of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison."

The conversion of Paul is described in Acts 9:1-22  On his way to Damascus in his angered pursuit to put more Christians into prison, Paul is struck by a blinding light from Heaven and hears the voice of Jesus asking why does he persecute him and his followers.

From here we are told Saul receives the Holy Spirit, becomes baptized and begins his ministry for Christ. This mission takes him to Jerusalem (where he meets the disciples Peter and James) then onto Cyprus, Antioch in Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe. Ironically, Paul begins to receive the very same gruesome violence that he had previously instigated.

Aside from his vision on the road to Damascus, Paul never met Jesus. Never heard him preach. And, with the exception of Peter and James never met any of the disciples. And, based upon the Book of James, it is doubtful that James would embrace Paul's faith-only road to salvation.

James 2:24: "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith alone."

And yet oddly, it is Paul who is considered the founder of Christianity, not Jesus. Perhaps this is because we have actual writings from Paul, and only reported stories of Jesus. And, much more of the New Testament is devoted to those writings.

So, is that how we choose which path to follow? Do we go the way of Paul because he has the luxury of having been more literate than Jesus? Do we choose Paul because he seemed to be a master at marketing this new religion? Or, perhaps, Paul is our choice because he enjoyed a longer life than Jesus and, therefore, a longer ministry?

Or, maybe your choice is Paul because his is a much simpler road to salvation. But such a path makes us free of moral obligations. Because in the end, we are all saved if we just believe and ask for forgiveness.

If that is your theology of choice, fine. But do me a favor. Don't call it Christianity.

DESPERATELY SEEKING GOD

By Dennis McClatchey

A Philosophical Conversation between a Thoughtful Christian and an Inquiring Agnostic

Michael: Thomas. No one answered the door so I let myself in. Are you alright?

Thomas: Why certainly, Michael, why do you ask?

Michael: Well, for one thing you’re sitting here staring into space seemingly oblivious to all that is around you.

Thomas: Oblivious to all that is around me? Not at all. In fact, quite to the contrary. I am keenly aware of what is around me. I’m just trying to understand that which is around me.

Michael: Oh boy, here we go, Thomas the philosopher, Thomas the thinker. Now what’s on your mind?

Thomas: The same thing that’s always on my mind, Michael, I’m trying to figure out the true nature of God, that’s all.

Michael: That’s all? Well, I guess that’s progress.

Thomas: Progress?

Michael: Sure. I thought you claimed to be an agnostic. At least now you are admitting that God does, indeed, exist.

Thomas: Not sure I’ve progressed all that much. Logic tells me that every creation requires a creator, every effect requires a cause. And, lacking any other label, I’m willing to put the name God on such. But, this concept of God brings to me more questions than answers.

Michael: Like what?

Thomas: Well, this creator, this cause could be nothing more than basic chemistry and basic physics coming together with energy to randomly create all that we see and experience. And, if that is true, from where did these chemicals and energy come? That’s the question I would put to my atheist friends. 

Michael: Well, as one of your religious friends, I can be of little use there. For me, the answers are clear.

Thomas: For many of my atheist friends, the answers, too, are simple and clear. Michael, I wear my agnosticism with pride. Theists and atheist have one important thing in common; they both have made up their minds. It is only the agnostic who remains intellectually engaged.

Michael: Alright, Thomas, engage me. Ask your questions, I’ll be happy to supply whatever answers I can.

Thomas: Terrific. Alright, let’s start with this. The nature of God, what is it?

Michael: What do you mean?

Thomas: Well, is God a loving God?

Michael: Absolutely

Thomas: Then, how can such a loving God have allowed such horrible things as the holocaust? Why would a loving God put up with genocide, disease, starvation of innocent children, natural disasters that destroy and kill, allow babies to be born with gross deformities, permit child neglect and abuse?  

Michael: Thomas, attempting to follow the teachings of Jesus, even though we fall far short in our efforts to do so, does not bring the promise of a trouble free world and life without tribulation. Jesus makes this point clear in John 16:33. “These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In this world ye shall have tribulation; but be of great cheer, I have overcome the world.”

Thomas: Well, friend, that passage may bring you comfort, although I’m not sure how. It leaves my question unanswered. Is all this unavoidable tribulation the work of a loving God?

Michael: My comfort comes from the eternal rewards in the next world not avoidance of the trials of life in this. But let me try to address your dilemma this way.

My view is God has given us life and a wonderful gift to go with it. That gift is choice, freedom to choose, freewill. But, with freewill comes responsibility to make correct choices. And that’s why having a solid foundation of religion and a set of moral rules is important. If we had no freewill, we would merely be a puppet in someone else’s story and life would have no point.

Thomas: So, in order for us to have purpose, God has given us freewill even though God knows we will likely make some horrific choices that will cause pain, suffering, even death to innocent people. And, what about all those natural disasters that cause human suffering? What possible purpose is derived from that?

Michael: You can’t have one gift without the other consequence, even though the other consequence can be horrible. Look, God created gravity. Gravity is a wonderful thing. If it wasn’t for gravity everything unattached to earth would go flying off into space. And, eventually the earth itself would begin to crumble. But with the gift of gravity comes the consequences of gravity. If, for instance, you lean too far out a window on the 50^th floor of a building, you will fall to your death. You can’t have the gift without the consequence. You can’t have the wonders of nature without the consequences that result from the rules of nature. The power of God has given us an orderly world and universe.

Thomas: But if God is as all powerful couldn’t He have created a world that contains the gifts without the negative consequences?

Michael: No, because He created a logical world with basic rules of physics and chemistry, rules that science is still discovering and trying to explain. As our understanding of these established rules improves so does our ability to predict outcomes.. In other words, in order for us to have any purpose, we need choice. And, in order for us to make correct choices, we need to be able to predict the consequences of those choices. And, in order for us to be able to accurately predict those consequences there must be a fixed set of unchanging rules that we can rely on to occur. Our challenge is to better understand these rules.

Thomas: So, you’re telling me God has created a logical set of physical principles that are fixed and unchanging and necessary in order for us to live in a reliable and predictable fashion. You’re saying we must accept the negative with the positive in order to have the positive. God is not going to intervene and change these rules even though the negative can cause terrible things to happen to good people. That’s the way it is and we must accept it?

Michael: That’s right.

Thomas: But, a reading of the Bible contradicts that. According to scripture He has defied these basic principles over and over again. He parted the Red Sea. He created a human birth outside the natural process of reproduction. He gave Jesus the ability to walk on water, raise the dead, change water into wine. The whole notion of miracles, which you and your religious friends insist do occur, requires the belief that God will, on occasion, intervene and alter those fixed unchangeable rules of nature.

Michael: Okay, I can see how you would see the notion of miracles being a contradiction to a world of fixed universal principles. And, I must admit that on this I do part company with many of my religious brethren. You see, I don’t define miracles the way most of my religious friends do. I don’t believe that they are acts of God defying natural law. The best way I can explain my view is to adopt the view of St. Augustine. He believed that miracles are not contradictions of the natural state of things. He believed that miracles were a contradiction of our understanding of the natural state of things. In other words, if something does not make sense to us it is simply because we don’t have all the information. In other words there are natural principles and rules at play we have yet to fully grasp.

Thomas: So you’re position is that all miracles—parting of the sea, walking on water, changing water into wine—all have a natural explanation? We just don’t know what the explanations is, right?

Michael: Right.

Thomas: Now you have to admit such a premise seems highly illogical.

Michael: Yes, I realize that. Look, here’s the best way I can explain it. Take you’re dog. You have a very bright dog. You can teach him a variety of tricks. Some dogs can be trained to do some amazing things. But, no matter how smart you’re dog is, any dog for that matter, there’s no way you can make a dog understand the nature of the solar system, the concept of our planet rotating, the notion of our earth orbiting around the sun, the principle of the seasons. The dog recognizes that sometimes it’s dark outside. Sometimes it’s bright. Some days are hot and warm. Some days are cold and the ground is covered in snow. That’s all the dog can appreciate. I am suggesting that our mind, as developed as it is, is similarly deficient. Our mental capacity has a similar relationship to understanding all that is in nature. In fact, I believe the dog’s mind is closer to our mind than our mind is to knowing the ultimate truths of our universe. And, that is when faith kicks in. We must come to realize that we can never know all. Don’t worry about it. Don’t fret. Surrender to your faith.

Thomas: Just believe and everything will be okay.

Michael: Exactly.

Thomas: I’m sorry, Michael, but to me that’s a cop out and more than slightly insulting. You’re saying if something doesn’t make sense don’t waste your energies in fruitless intellectual exercises. That’s like telling me to disengage my mind. It would be like saying, if you’re bothered by seeing pain and injustice just look away and have faith. If you hear ugliness being expressed, just plug your ears and have faith. You talked earlier about these wonderful God given gifts, then when the thinking and perceiving becomes taxing, turn off the gifts and surrender to faith. Frankly, this is the argument I get from my religious friends when they have run out of answers to my questions. I credit you for having gone as long in this discussion as you have. But, it all comes down to, sorry, I have no reasonable answer so, have faith!

Michael: Well, I’m sorry Thomas, but faith does play a major role in my religious beliefs. I can’t be expected to share my views on this topic without bringing it in to the discussion. I can assure you I do not abandon science and reason in an effort to protect my faith. I take science and reason as far as I am able. But there is a point beyond which I cannot travel. That is when my faith kicks in. I guess the best advice I have is for you to think outside the box because our boxes of reason and logic are limited.

Thomas: Wait a minute, I should think outside the box!

Michael. Yes. Think outside the box.

Thomas: Michael, you’re the one thinking inside the box. In fact, I would argue you’re thinking inside boxes that are inside boxes.

Michael: How do you mean?

Thomas: First you’re thinking inside the box that claims a supreme being is responsible for all that exists. Then, within that box you are in the box that claims this God is a loving, purposeful God that interacts with Man. Then, within that box you’re in the box that believes this God sent his son to die for our sins. Then in that box you have your particular denominational box with which you belong. And, I would guess even within that denominational box you belong to some grouping of a particular set of orthodox beliefs. So, not only are you thinking within a box, you’re thinking within a box that’s within a box that’s within a box that’s within a box that’s within a box.

Michael: Well, obviously, if one has a set of beliefs one can argue that they belong in a box containing those beliefs. So, by your definition, believing in anything requires being within a box. But, you wouldn’t suggest that we should be void of any beliefs at all would you?

Thomas: No, of course not. Remember, you’re the one accusing me of not thinking outside the box. I would only point out that as an agnostic I’m willing to consider the merits of not only all of your boxes of beliefs, but the many boxes of beliefs existing in other boxes inconsistent with your beliefs.

Michael: Thomas, when I challenged you to think outside the box I was asking you to accept that there is much that you don’t know. There is much none of us knows. So, rather than reject that which is considered miraculous because it doesn’t make sense instead accept the possibility that it does make sense, but we just don’t have all the information. And, we can then proceed within a foundation of faith.

Thomas: Michael, I’m sorry. I have a difficult time accepting the fact that Jesus did change water into wine using some natural process that we all could perform if we just had some mysterious additional information. That sounds to me all the so called miracles were just a trick, a magician’s illusion.

Look, the bottom line question for me is this: the miracles described in scripture either happened or didn’t happen. And either way that question is answered places Christian orthodoxy with a difficult problem.

Michael: How so?

Thomas: Well, if the miracles didn’t happen then you have some major errors in biblical scripture and serious doubts as to the divinity of Christ. And if, indeed, the miracles did occur you have evidence of God’s intervention into our lives. And, you are left with the perplexing question as to why would God choose to intervene in order to ensure sufficient wine at a wedding festival but chose not to intervene in the gassing of six million Jews during World War II? To me that suggests an odd set of priorities.

Michael: First, the miracles performed by Jesus were not mere illusions that anyone could perform. Jesus, I believe, was and is divine. He has knowledge of certain truths far beyond our comprehension. Again, like comparing our minds to that of a dog’s. And through His divinity He could perform feats that to mere mortals seem impossible. And, these miracles were not examples of a God who intervenes whimsically into our lives. The miracles told of in scripture served two specific purposes. One purpose was for those witnessing the act to believe in the Lord. And the second purpose was for those present to believe in His word. Also, in the book of Mark, Jesus promised His disciples that they, too, would have the ability to perform miracles as evidence of the power and the truth of the word they were to preach. 

Now, as to why God is not still carrying out miracles to save us from despots like Hitler I return to my earlier point that if we are to have purpose, if our life is to have meaning we must be free to make choices knowing and appreciating that those choices will have predictable consequences. And, if we are to enjoy the fruits of a logical universe, we must have that universe behave in a predictable fashion as well. We can’t expect God or Jesus to be constantly intervening whenever someone’s actions turns out badly. And, to further complicate things, one person’s choice may turn out favorable for some while unfavorable for others. For whom does God intervene on behalf? My son needs a kidney transplant to live. In order for my son to have a kidney transplant, he needs a donor. In order to have a donor, someone with a compatible kidney must die. How can righteousness have any meaning if no matter what we do God will make it right?

Thomas:  Am I hearing you right? Miracles no longer occur? That notion seems to contradict a lot of what I hear from others of faith.

Michael:  I realize my view here may be at odds with a lot of my fellow travelers. But, I believe that true miracles—that is, acts of God that supersede natural law—do not exist.  And, even if you were to believe that the miracles found in scripture were supernatural—which I don’t—a case can be made from scripture that these miracles are no longer available. For the Apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians Chapters 12 and 13 that these gifts would in time pass away. I believe that events that people ascribe as being a miraculous are, as I stated earlier, merely events for which the witness lacks all the information.

Thomas:  Okay, Michael, you make a good and, I would add, necessary argument for why God doesn’t and shouldn’t intervene and perform miracles capriciously or selectively. Although, I doubt many believers would agree with you which is why I feel their position lacks credibility. So, what about prayer?

Michael: What about prayer?

Thomas: Well, it seems to me that a prayer can be defined as a request to God for divine intervention. If God is answering one person’s prayer and not another’s, aren’t you still confronted with the same conundrum? God is intervening here, but not there. Jane’s prayer is answered, but Bob’s is not. God is intervening. And, he is being selective in His intervention.

Michael: Maybe God is answering every prayer. It just might be that for some the answer is no.

Thomas: Okay, I’ve heard that before, and I’m not impressed. First, distinguish for me the difference between a prayer for which the answer is no and a prayer for which there is no answer. There is no distinction. There is no difference. Besides, if God answers the prayer and the answer is no you still have a God playing favorites.

Michael: Well, I may surprise you here, Thomas, because my attitude on prayer differs from many of my fellow believers. I, like you, am troubled by the notion that God sits on high fielding our prayers like a trial judge deciding who gets the “yes” verdict and who gets the “no.” I don’t see God playing favorites, allowing person A to be cured of cancer while person B is not just because God was more impressed with A’s prayer than He was of B’s; or God felt A was more worthy of an extended life than was B.

Thomas: So, you are not one who believes in the power of prayer?

Michael: Oh, quite the contrary. I do believe in the power of prayer. In fact, I believe it to be very powerful.

Thomas: How so?

Michael: First, you have to ask yourself what is the true purpose of prayer? For me it’s not just asking for favors. But rather, it is a way to worship. It is a method for giving praise, to give thanks, to be aware of God’s presence. And, to me, the end result is a feeling of euphoria and gratitude. As Paul wrote in Thessalonians, “Be joyful always, pray continually, give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.”

Thomas: So, for you the power of prayer is just a function of feeling good after having said thank you?

Michael: No, it’s more than that. I think you can have prayers of supplication when you make a request for yourself. For example, I think it wise to pray for strength in forgiving someone who has wronged you. I think it proper to pray that you can be more understanding, more caring, more loving, more giving. And, by praying in this manner your mind becomes focused on these goals and, as a result, you are more likely to attain them.

Thomas: Okay, I get it. But, some people achieve the same thing through meditation, through positive thinking, through visualization.

Michael: True. The difference is my process is directed through what I believe to be a higher power, while your examples may be through another thought process. But, yes, the results may be the same.

Thomas: But, if I understand you, you don’t believe in the prayer of intercession where God moves in and causes something to happen or not happen.

Michael: Right. I have difficulty with the notion that events are manufactured by God for the benefit of some to the possible detriment of others because, as you stated earlier, good things seem to happen to bad people while bad things happen to the good. Now, my fellow believers might argue that I just don’t have all the facts. That it is all just. But, when I see innocent children starving to death, being abused, living in pain and sorrow, I think I have all the facts I need.

Thomas: Okay Michael, I can accept prayer’s power within the context you have presented it. And, as you admitted, it falls a considerable distance from many religious followers with whom I have come in contact.

And, I accept that there are rules of nature.  Whether or not these rules were created by a God as described by many of our religions, though, seems to big a step for me to take.

 

Look, to me religion is the creation of man. Religion serves a purpose for man—fulfills needs of man that would be unfulfilled were it not present.

Michael: What purpose?

Thomas: Actually, I think religion achieves four purposes for man.

First, it allows man to explain the unexplainable. It gives us an explanation for how we got here, from where did we come. It explains the origin of the creation. Now this is where science and religion often come into conflict because science has dispelled many of religions’ earlier beliefs of the creation. So often religions choose to simply reject the science when it contradicts with earlier beliefs. Now, I can accept faith when there is an absence of facts. But when one holds to a belief that is based on a faith that is in direct contradiction to known and accepted facts, then that faith can only be described as ignorance.

If you really want to study the creation of God-- however you choose to define God-- you must study science, not theology. Science is the school that works to discover and explain those fixed rules that you described. And, it does so using very strict methods in order to best ensure accuracy. And, yet many who wear their religious robes speak loudly with disdain toward science. In deed, much of the history of The Church was filled with denouncing and punishing those who worked to cast light on God’s rules of nature. You see, faith requires hope while science requires facts. And facts should always trump hope.

Michael: Well, yes, some religion has done some negative things over the years.

Thomas: Some religions, some negative things? I would submit virtually all religions have done a lot of horrible things, and continue to do so in the name of what they consider righteous. The crusades, the Inquisitions. Religion has often preached my way or you die! And even today saying AIDS is God’s revenge on homosexuals. The destruction of New Orleans by hurricane Katrina was the result of the city’s sinfulness. The oppression of women, of gays has been in the name religion.

Michael: But, Thomas, you can’t blame the worthiness of a theology or a philosophy by those who misuse and misrepresent it.

Thomas: I agree, you can’t. But I would argue that those with whom I disagree are not the few on the religious fringe. Rather, they would be considered by many as mainstream.

Michael: How so?

Thomas: Well, let’s begin with those Christians who are certain the Bible is the inerrant word of God. It is a document written by the hand of man with the true inspiration of God.

Michael: I don’t believe that.

Thomas: I know you don’t Michael, but you have to admit a lot, a very lot, of your Christian brothers and sisters do.

Michael: True.

Thomas: And, for them there is no room for discussion. What bothers me is how so many can have this view despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It makes me seriously doubt either their intelligence or sanity.

Michael: Now, I think your being a bit over dramatic.

Thomas: Over dramatic? Look, first there’s the issue of all the contradictions in the Bible. When confronted with this they refuse to accept the presence of any contradictions. Anyone who says the Bible does not contain contradictions has either not read the Bible, or doesn’t understand what was read.

Michael: Alright, there are contradictions, but nothing that really changes the central message.

Thomas: Some contradictions are perhaps minor. Like, for example, in the telling of the story of Jesus’ birth in the Gospels. In Matthew we’re told the Baby Jesus was visited by wise men. But in Luke there’s no wise men visiting, but instead shepherds. Then there’s the famous cleansing of the temple story. In one book it happens in the first week of Jesus’s ministry. In another, it occurs a week before he is crucified. And then…

Michael: Alright, Thomas, I concede there are discrepancies in the Bible. As I said, I’m not one who believes the Bible was written by God. It was written by men, several men. And, these accounts were decades after the events in which they described and described by writers who did not even witness the events first hand.  And the stories had been handed down orally, at first, then written, translated into other languages, then copied over and over through several generations. We’re on the same page.

But, continue. What are the other needs that you feel religion fulfills.

Thomas: Okay. The second need for religion is to give us purpose, to make us feel important. If we believed we were merely the product of random cosmic physical energy, we would tend to believe we were mere accidents and flukes of nature making us feel inconsequential. But, if we believed we were created by a powerful and loving creator made in His own image, now we have purpose. We are special.

The third need religion provides is to help us deal with our mortality. The thought of dying is not a pleasant thought. But, if we can believe that we do not cease living, that there is life after death and it is a life in paradise, then mortality becomes less of a problem.

Finally, religion helps us come to terms with what seems to be an unjust world. Bad things happen to good people. Good things happen to bad people. Life seems too often to be unfair. But, if we believe justice and salvation will come in the kingdom of Heaven following this world, then we are better able to grasp with what would seem to be the short term injustices of the present.

Michael: Well, Thomas, I believe religions, at least my religion, do fulfill those purposes. But, you can’t conclude that because a certain theology gives us hope and peace of mind that the theology is flawed and in error can you?

Thomas: No, of course not. I’m just saying man would create such theologies regardless of what the absolute truths may or may not be. That should, at the very least, give us pause as to their certainty.

Michael: I have no problem with giving pause. I have no problem with having doubts. In fact, I believe a healthy skepticism and internal thought can actually lead to a stronger sense of faith. But, as I always do, I come back to faith…not faith that contradicts with known scientific facts…not faith that is absence of reason…but faith that fills the void where science and reason are not yet present.

Thomas: Okay, Michael, let me challenge your faith with a theory I find absolutely intriguing. You asked me to think outside the box. Now, I’m going to ask you to do the same.

Michael: Alright.

Thomas: I’ve been reading about what has been called a neuro-theological experimentation. Some scientifically conducted research has pointed to the theory that a person’s belief in God is actually embedded in a specific portion of the brain in the right temporal lobe. Researchers refer to it as the God Spot. 

Michael: The God Spot?

Thomas: That’s right. Now hear me out. The theory, again based on preliminary experimentation, suggests that ones belief in God is hard wired in our brains. In other words, ones belief in God and ones degree of spirituality is determined by how developed this spot is.

Think about it. Some of us are very religious. Others of us aren’t. Some claim to hear the voice of God, see angels, and feel the Lord’s presence. This theory would suggest these feelings; these perceptions are very much real for these people. And, this region of the brain can be stimulated. It would also explain why people, even those who are not particularly religious, do feel some spiritual uplifting after attending a religious ceremony filled with music, pageantry, and an inspiring message. Others get these highs when communing with nature, listening to a symphony, or experiencing some other form of inspirational art. In fact, one scientist developed what he called the God helmet which, when placed on a subject’s head, stimulated this region. The result, subjects reported spiritual feelings including specific visions and voices.

If this theory turned out to be true, what would that do to your undying faith?

Michael: Well, that’s a lot to take in. And, it’s a lot of theorizing and speculation.

Thomas: True. But for the sake of our discussion, what would that do to your faith if it was determined to be true. Where would your faith be if it was shown God was literally just in your head?

Michael: Well, Thomas, I agree with what you said earlier that faith where there is an absence of fact is acceptable whereas faith that contradicts facts is ignorance. So, if all this speculation were found to be true, I would adjust my beliefs and my faith accordingly.

Thomas: How so.

Michael: Well, if it was determined that the brain is the source of our spirituality and our communion with God it wouldn’t necessarily say to me there was no master creator. Just as I believe that the theory of evolution can be the work of God, why can’t I also say the God spot is the work of God? As long as it serves us the same way, it matters not where God physically resides. Perhaps this best explains the concept of the Holy Spirit that we are taught resides in each of us. If the spot gives us moral direction and stability, then I say, “Praise the Lord.” I say to myself, how can I stimulate this spot in others? How can I share with others this wondrous feeling? For me, if the speculation were to be true, the God spot functions in much the same way as our kidneys, lungs, and liver. They are all there for a purpose. If someone’s kidney was failing, wouldn’t you want to find a cure?  So, if someone’s God spot is failing to function wouldn’t you want to find a way to transform it?

Thomas: So you are saying that you are willing to adjust your faith based on scientific evidence? You are telling me that you would only employ faith where there is, indeed, an absence of fact?

Michael: Yes, that’s right.

Thomas: Now, you know that would put considerable distance between you and the majority of other believers.

Michael: Why do you say that?

Thomas: I recently read that a poll conducted in 2006 showed that if science contradicted a person’s religious beliefs, 64% stated that they would reject the science in favor of their faith. In other words, the majority of religious followers would choose what you and I have agreed to be ignorance over enlightenment. To me that’s not only sad, it is dangerous.

Michael: Well, with that I agree.

Thomas: And, Michael, even your somewhat progressive point of view troubles me.

Michael: In what way?

Thomas: While I admire your willingness to move your faith to accommodate newly discovered facts, you are admitting that your faith needs to be moved. Doesn’t that make you question your faith to begin with?

Michael: Not really. It is just an admission that I’m willing to learn and grow.

Thomas: But your growth must be thrust upon you by science. What if everyone took your position? This is my faith. I believe in it. I trust it. Unless, of course, you can show me I’m wrong.

Michael: We all have to begin with a belief in something, don’t we?

Thomas: Yes. But my belief is in the pursuit of truth, not in the complacency of faith. I believe each of us must challenge our beliefs rather than wait for someone to do it for us. Typically it takes a lot more evidence to change a mind that has settled on some erroneous fact than to push a mind that is open. I believe innovation requires the fixing of things not broken.

Michael: How’s that?

Thomas: Those who say, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” are expressing complacency with the status quo. They are saying if it works leave it alone. But the innovator is never satisfied with the status quo. To the innovator the fact that something works does not mean it can’t work better, more efficiently. The innovator is always tinkering, always exploring always searching.

Michael: So, what’s that to do with my faith?

Thomas: For you, your faith isn’t broken so you are complacent with it. For me, faith needs to always be questioned in order for learning and growth to take place. You wait for facts to change your beliefs. I seek facts to determine if my beliefs are worthy.

Michael: Well, all I can say in defense is that my faith gives me peace of mind. It gives me joy.

Thomas: I congratulate you on that, Michael. While I don’t share your peace of mind, my searching for answers gives me the feeling of knowledge. To each his own.

Michael: Yes, Thomas, to each his own.