Freethinkers and Brights

A common label used by atheists to depict their style of thinking is the term “freethinkers.” I gather that the use of the term bears the meaning of being those who are liberated from the presumed archaic supernatural beliefs of all varieties.

However, at first glace the term connotes the idea of being released from a bound way of thinking to thinking more freely and broadly about the world. It seems to suggest that thinking for the Freethinker flows more freely to consider more possibilities than the limited view of the supernaturalists.

If Freethinking is more accurately described in the first paragraph that simply the old way of looking at the world has been replaced with a new more correct way and thus one is free of the old and embarking on the new, then, while I disagree with the premise, I accept the accuracy of the term. To put it another way, I understand why the term is used in that context even though I disagree that one needs liberating from supernaturalism as I don’t see naturalism as a more true view of the world.

If the second paragraph also contains the meaning of the use of this term in that the atheists believes they can see more broadly about the world than the theists then please consider the following. If, however, I was incorrect and the term is not used in this manner at all then simply ignore the following.

I cannot speak for all theists, nor all Christians, but I am going to speak as I usually do as a Christian and briefly compare and contrast the idea of freethinking between my worldview and that of an atheists/naturalist.

As a Christian I can look at the world and find something true and valid in any worldview, religion, or non-religion. For instance, I see nature as really there just as the naturalist does. But I also agree with the theists and spiritualists out there that a supernatural world also exists. I see a reality to spirituality like the Buddhist does. I see a God who is there and speaks to His people like the Jewish people do. I agree with the witchdoctor that there really is a dark power that he taps into. Thus, I find it difficult to see one who sets themselves apart from all the religions of the world and holds only to naturalism as a free thinker.

I am not advocating pluralism. I do not accept that opposite truth claims are equally true. The world’s religions have many opposite truth claims, however, there are things we have in common and things that I can see as mostly true, or somewhat true, or having a little truth, but a lot of distortion of that truth.

I would imagine though that a worldview that can see truth in more places would be more freethinking than one that only sees truth in naturalism and sets itself apart from the thinking of most of the world. Even the emerging term “Brights” depicts a mentality that naturalist/humanists/atheists are more intelligent than those who are not thinking their way. I’m not convinced that mentality is purposeful, I hope it is not. But I think the use of the terms gives the need for consideration of what exactly is being professed.

I’m not offended by the terms, but I wanted to analyze them a little. Maybe you all can tell me more about the use of these terms and what they mean to you.

Unity Amidst Diversity

It is quite possible to ascribe to different ideas and yet not be adversely related to those with different ideas. For instance, within the sphere of Christianity there exists a plethora of denominations, streams, movements, and cultures.


Historically, Christians have often aligned with others who share the same theological doctrines while being separated intentionally or unintentionally from others with different doctrines. This began to transpire early in the Protestant Reformation. As several grassroots movements began to sweep through Europe with the idea that Christians could read and interpret the Bible for themselves without having papal authority set forth the accepted interpretation a huge shift began in the Church that birthed what we now call Protestantism.


However, the freedom for each person to study and interpret the Bible created a door for diversity of interpretation. Christians began to align together based on their common agreements of doctrine. While the Church as a whole, both Catholic and Protestant, still shared many common theological positions there were some things that set them apart from each other. This is because they began to align on their differences instead of their similarities.


Then with the difference illuminated, those differences began to be construed to cause divisions between believers. To illustrate, if one group believed in baptism by sprinkling and the other by immersion their group would become known by that difference rather than the 85% of things they agreed upon.


In modern times, there is another shift happening in Christianity where believers are choosing to unite not based on commonly held interpretations of Scripture, but around Christ Himself. The Church is rapidly coming into unity around the knowledge that we are a family regardless of intellectual differences and that is where we unite. We don’t have to have unity of ideas to have unity between us.


I can disagree with something a pastor teaches and it not cause division or opposition. My husband pastors a church we started a couple years ago. One of the important things we want to get across to people when asked what denomination we belong to is that we are neither denominational nor non-denominational nor independent. We don’t ascribe to one particular denomination, nor do we consider ourselves separated from other denominations nor independent from the rest of the Body. We see the Church as a family and us amongst the family not choosing a side or a flavor separate from the rest of the good flavors out there. We have come under an international ministry for accountability purposes, but we value the entire body of Christ and see wonderful good things in each and every part of the Church regardless of where we may do something differently or disagree.


I say all this to explain that whenever I talk about difference of interpretation or opinion between me and other streams of Christianity, I am not setting myself out to be opposed to them. My disagreement is not adversarial nor does it set those I disagree with out to be somehow less Christian than I. I simply do not see disagreement that way. I think no less of those I disagree with then those with which I agree.


The same mentality extends to those who are not of the Christian faith. My disagreement with atheists or even Buddhist doesn’t in my mind set me apart from them or cause me to be adversarial to them. I think we can engage with ideas without being opposing on the personal level and I think we all have shown that here by living it out when we engage in discussions where we obviously disagree and yet can be friends at the end of the day.


I read recently that C.S. Lewis enjoyed surrounding himself with people who thought very differently from himself so that he could always have his thinking challenged and also so that his friendships weren’t so superficial to be based merely on agreement but could withstand disagreement. I hope to follow his example in this.

Musings Upon Reading More About Reformation

As I am reading through McGrath’s book on the Reformation I noticed that prior to the Great Awakening there was this mentality in the Church that revolved around intellectually believing the right doctrines. If one accepted the right beliefs then they were considered among those who are Christian. It wasn’t until the Great Awakening, with a few exceptions, that the focus began to shift to whether or not one experienced conversion. During the Great Awakening people were having experience with God when they came to faith in Christ that was considered conversion experiences. From these people began to tell their testimony of when they met Jesus rather than the focus being on ascribing to certain intellectual propositions. The Moravians, a Christian group in Germany, had already had these type of experiences and already emphasized personal relationship with Jesus over doctrinal beliefs. Also there are many books written by individuals prior to the Reformation who spoke of such experiences and depth to their walk with Christ.


But it seemed in this age that there was a distinct shift from what one believed in their mind, to what one experienced in their heart. The faith from intellectual belief deepened to a faith which had personal experience.


Reading on, I read about Jonathan Edwards; a man who is often mischaracterized by most. Throughout my Christian school education and on into my college years at secular colleges I was taught this fiery man was one of those sorts of preachers that made Christianity look bad. The problem is most focus only on his most famous sermon Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. There is a whole story surrounding that sermon that I won’t go into at present that makes sense of that sermon. However, there is so much more about this man. I recently read something by him regarding the manifestations people were experiencing in his day, akin to the Pentecostalism of today. He addressed every common argument I have heard against such a thing being God showing point by point how it very well can be God. I realized I want to study this man more as well as some of the other key people in those days. He is certainly a more interesting fellow than I once realized.


The last thing I wanted to address was the difference history reports between the ministry that came out of the groups of Christians who were all about knowing Christ experientially and those who were staunchly about what doctrines one maintained. The missions sent out from the experiential group were all about helping the people preserve their cultural identity and protecting them from the advances of colonialism. They would work to get to know the people, be helpful to them, learn their language, and transcribe their cultural stories so that they would be protected for future generations. The Moravians who settled in North Carolina befriended the Native Americans and lived amongst them. However, the missions that came from the more staunch groups were combined with financial prospects of commencing trade, converting the native people to the ways of the colonizers, and often they brought harm and trouble upon the people.


I am often met with the argument of the No True Scotsman. However, I think there is really a difference between those who follow a set of doctrine and moral laws and those who claim to know God experientially and have real relationship with them. These two groups had stark differences—one seemed to walk out the life of Christ with hearts full of compassion and love and the other trying to fulfill a mandate of reaching the world with the Gospel without knowing God’s love experientially. I am not sure that truth or love can be lived out with only intellectual understanding of it, I think it takes a transformation of the heart that has come into relationship with the living God.

Anthony Flew's Story

I was perusing books in the religion section of Borders last night. I picked up Anthony Flew’s book on his change from atheism to deism. The majority of his book is on why he was an atheist in the first place and with the last few chapters devoted to why he has renounced his atheism. He said that he often argued that he was not going to believe in the existence of God until presented with good evidence of his existence. He now believes that science has produced such evidence. He believes that the Intelligent Design argument gives sufficient evidence for a change from his atheistic position.

He also asserts in his book that he is in the process of tackling evidence for Christianity supplied upon request from N.T. Wright. He speaks highly of Wright and says that the evidence Wright has compiled is by far the best collection of data for the cause of Christianity. He hasn’t accepted it as true of it, but it appears he is taking a new look at the information to see what he finds.

He says that even though he now believes there is a God, he has no experiential contact with him to date. But he seemed to leave that open as something that may or may not take place in the future.

I know that Anthony Flew’s change of mind is old news, but I am curious to know who has read his book or followed the story and if it gave anyone pause to reconsider the evidence.

Separation of Church & State

Protestantism was birthed in the 16th century as a grassroots movement to reform the existing church. Soon it exploded into a division separate from the Catholic Church. The reformation made its mark on Catholicism as well as causing important renewal to take place. However the rise of the protestant church had a tumultuous phase before it found peaceful co-existence with Catholicism.

I am currently reading a book on the history of the reformation entitled “Christianity’s Dangerous Idea” by Alister McGrath. I am only a third of the way through the book at this time. However, my mind is arrested with the thoughts concerning the drama of the reformation period of history.

I did not previously realize that so much political angst marked the early days of the reformation. Political leaders, governors, Kings, Queens, etc. were dictating what flavor of Christianity their country would align itself with. Some broke off their political allegiances with the pope and established a protestant variant as the religion of the land only to switch back to Catholicism when the next royal took the throne. Kings and Queens were even dictating doctrine and had their hands heavily involved in what the beliefs would be of their respective lands. Basically they were dictating what beliefs best supported their thinking and their power.

Injustices that occurred during the reign of Mary Tudor or other Royals who persecuted those who were not of the state religion were not as I once thought actions of the church that were contrary to the Christian faith, but actions of government that had nothing to do with the Christian faith. It would seem that much of what occurred was politics and not condoned by the church. Not that the church wasn’t involved in the politics of the day vying for state approval, it certainly was involved it would seem. However, in all I read about the turmoil of the age, it all seemed to have little to do with the Gospel and much to do with politics.

As an American used to not having the government tell me how I must believe, it seems so foreign a concept to have the governing authorities dictate religion to the people. However, America is the great exception to the normal way of things in this world. It was because of the problematic policies of Europe that our Founders sought to protect the church from government meddling. Constantine is not seen as a favorable ruler by many American Christians for we do not think the church ought to have ever been enjoined to the state in such a manner.

To have the government dictate religious belief seems akin to going to the doctor to have your car tuned up. Religion might have something to say about governing such as providing leadership principals, ethics, philosophical grounds for laws etc, but the government doesn’t have any jurisdiction dictating religion. It is precisely because religion had something to say that the government was given this restriction. Jefferson wrote so eloquently that we are “endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Thus, the Founders believed, our freedom is inextricably tied to our God given unalienable right to liberty and thus the government of America limited itself to make no law regarding the establishment of religion.

I am grateful to live in a nation that values the market place of ideas. I am glad that people don’t have to believe the way their government institutes and that we are free to believe in accordance with our own reason and faith as we choose whether that be Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Atheists, Agnostic, or in Flying Spaghetti Monsters. Certainly there are beliefs that are better for a society than another, but a free society is better than one whose beliefs are forced.

As a Christian, it would be unethical for me to support a nation that dictates everyone be Christian. I will stand for the freedom of others of other worldviews just as quickly as I would stand for Christians to enjoy this freedom. God gave us the freedom from the beginning of time to choose our own path and it’s not for me to impose restrictions on humanity God did not impose in all His wisdom and power. True love is only known through freedom, I wouldn’t want a world where love couldn’t be fully experienced.

A Healed Heel

All last week I had this pain in the heel of my right foot. It plagued me. I was limping around attempting to keep my weight off the heel and yet it hurt whether I was sitting still or walking around. By Sunday morning the pain was at its worst. I was limping worse than I had all week and was uncertain as to if I would be much help setting up the space we rent for church. We started the morning off, before setup, with a time of prayer. My husband asked Jesus to heal my aching foot. I didn’t think much of it at the time; my concentration was on my pain more than on praying.

We began to start the set up process and I tentatively began to do my usual tasks. In about ten minutes I was walking from one room to the next and it suddenly came to my attention that I wasn’t limping. I stopped and walked around, testing out my foot and realized I had no pain whatsoever. I, who believe in miracles, was still skeptical that it was totally gone and thought maybe it was a temporary relief of some kind. I went throughout the day with no pain, into the next day with no pain, and even went to the gym last night and did a mile on the treadmill with no pain. Now on the third day, there is still no hint of a problem with my foot.

A Fish Story

A couple of weeks ago my friend’s daughter ran into her house and told her mom that she saw a fish fall out of the neighbor’s tree. My friend, at first, did not get up to go investigate. Fish don’t fall out of trees, whatever happened couldn’t be that. But her daughter’s declaration continued to reverberate in her mind until she decided to venture to see what this was all about. She crossed her yard to join her daughter under the tree. Upon the ground laid a fish, fresh, but still, now dead. No one around had been fishing and no practical joke was unearthed. Simply a fish had fallen from the tree. The best explanation I would wager is that a bird had plucked it from a body of water nearby and it fell from its talons through the tree and unto the ground below.


I find it fascinating how often a child will make a statement that adults think preposterous and dismiss as a child’s fantasy when in reality the child was telling the truth. An adult might not be so quick to go running around telling everyone they saw a fish fall out of a tree. But a child is unwavering in what they know to be true without regard to what others may think.


How much do our adult minds hinder us from seeing what is really true because life has taught us such a thing doesn’t happen? We have a greater mental maturity than a child and yet sometimes the child is more aware of what is really true for they tell it as they see it. I wonder if this is one of the reasons Jesus said we ought to be as little children to see the Kingdom of God. It isn’t that the Kingdom of God is some fantasy only fit for children. Nor is it that He didn’t want adults to uncover the truth of its non-existence and so it would be better for them to think childishly. No, it’s that children see what it is really there without preconceived notions of what’s proper or acceptable. They aren’t swayed by what’s respectable to society, but what really is before them.


A child can often perceive the reality of things much better than adults. They lack the fear that holds adults back from accepting something that seems too incredible to be real as reality. Children don’t concern themselves with all that, they just tell you what they know to be true even when a fish falls from a tree.

Point of Reference for Value

What is real value? Can value be real if it can be given and taken away at will by humanity? History shows a world full of people who think their race is better than another’s. Prejudice, racism, and slavery still abound in the world and yet we all have this idea that this is wrong. How is that? Are we just evolved from the animals and we have our own form of the survival of the fittest? What keeps that mentality from prevailing over the value of every man, woman, and child?

In the popular film I Robot, Will Smith’s character wrestles with the knowledge that a robot calculated the odds of his own survival over that of a small child and pulled him to safety instead of the child. Smith wanted the child, whom he had never met, saved before his own life. He was willing to chance both of their deaths to save the weaker one first.

In an airplane if there becomes a need to put on the oxygen masks the stewards tell the passengers to put it on themselves before putting it on the children and others who need help. This is because it is our natural inclination to protect the weaker not the stronger. The stewards know that if you don’t put the oxygen on yourself first you may not have time to help the weaker ones and they won’t be able to help you. The point though is that we will risk ourselves to help those with less chance of survival. This is not in line with the Darwinian evolutionary progress.

Regardless we hold to the value of life. If life has value regardless of who believes it does, then someone else external to us is giving life value. Time plus matter plus chance is not producing value. If all there is the natural universe which exists as a result of random chance then there is no value to our lives other than what we choose to give it. If we have the power to choose to give life value, we have the same power to take it away for we are not perfectly good people and we will use people for our own needs and thereby rob their value at the will of the stronger.

However, if we have been lovingly fashioned and created by a good God who makes good things then we have inestimable intrinsic value. Each and every human no matter how small or weak or handicapped has priceless value. This is why abuse, murder, discrimination, racism, hatred, unkindness, etc is wrong.

I’m certain some of you are ready to argue that since I said above that humans who give value can just as easily take it away that God could do likewise. In fact, you will further claim that he has reduced the value of life by taking it Himself. So how in the world do I have any grounds to claim God gives us value?

I don’t think anyone can argue though that humans have a birds eye view on life nor are we perfectly good in our thinking and actions. We could and have convicted innocent men. We are not perfectly just in what we do.

However, a perfectly good and holy God would be perfectly just and perfectly good in all of His words and actions. A perfect God would not need to change to be something other than what He has always been for if He is perfect then there isn’t something else better to be and perfection isn’t ever being less than that. So if God created us with value then we really have it and that doesn’t ever change. But God also is just because He is good and perfect and He can perfectly exact justice and when He does so our tainted fallen minds may see it has unjust and we may try and claim He is doing something wrong. But if goodness is that which lines up with Him, we have no grounds in our created selves to declare the only source of real goodness as doing something not good. For we have no other point of reference for the good. He created all, He is the only uncreated Being; thus His goodness is uncreated.

All other references to good only gain meaning in light of His goodness. He has to give it to us from His own goodness in order for it to be so. That is why that which is evil is that which is contrary to Him, for what is in accordance with Him is good. When we alter the point of reference of good to something that is not perfect we create an ambiguous ever changing point of reference which is no real point at all.

Our understanding of what is good will be limited and tainted by our current state of imperfection, but when we join in God’s life by His invitation which He has extended freely He works in us to bring a full restoration of who we were really designed to be. And while He instantly makes us righteous when we accept His invitation, the transformation of the inner reality is a process walked out in time that culminates in a future day where we will fully be restored.

More On Morality

It is predominantly accepted that if something is true it is accurately corresponding to what actually is real. For example, if 1 + 1 = 2 is a true mathematical equation then we are accepting that if one thing is added to another thing the real result is that there is now two things.

This necessarily is not a truth we created, but a truth we discovered. People have assigned values to signs (numbers or letters) to explain that truth in a communicable form. Therefore, when a person sees the sign “1” we know it signifies the singular. Similarly, if a person sees the sign “I” it also signifies the singular in a Roman numeral fashion. However, regardless of the sign used, it has the value of representing what really is accurate. No one held a conference to decide if one object and a second object make two objects, it simply does. It is a reality, a truth.

To illustrate further, gravity is something real, it did not become real when we discovered it and gave it a name, it has been real. Man didn’t create or invent it. The real existed apart from our apprehension of that reality.

Therefore, when I use the term “really real” I am indicating that which is truly actual apart from our thinking about it. It exists or is true whether or not we know it or accept it.

To dig a little deeper, morality is either a reflection of what we think about the world and our humanity and does not correspond nor conform to any real good, or that which is really right morally is that which most accurately reflects the good.

If the former is true and there is no real good that morality corresponds to, then the only anchor for morality is that which we as humans devise. Those that agree with those morals remain free, and those who do not get punished by the system which enforces those ideals. So if humans devise that stealing is not an acceptable behavior then some form of punishment or retribution may be brought upon those who steal. But in the long run, the only wrong committed is that a person decided to do something outside of the cultural norm. Eventually a new cultural norm could be adopted and stealing made acceptable. This I think is similar to the argument given that slavery was acceptable and thus right and now not acceptable and wrong. Thus, morality changes over time or is different from one culture to the next. In this view, there is no good. Right and wrong are continually in flux based on whose perspective one is viewing the world for the oppressor and the oppressed see it very differently.

Now, in contrast to this view, there is the idea that morality is to be a reflection of what is truly good. Good exists, and what is right conforms to what is good. Something then is either really right or really wrong. We can do something that is wrong and not know it’s wrong, and it still be wrong. This view would say that if it is really good for mothers to love their children then it is good even if no one believes it to be so. If it is good for fathers to be kind to their children, then it is really good and right.

Moral principals, or laws themselves can be judged because they are to be reflections of what is right, and in them is not rightness itself. Thus if the government says that murder is wrong, their authority does not make it really true that murder is wrong. They could be incorrect and the law could be out of line with what is good, or it could be a reflection of what is really true and murder is indeed very much wrong. But there is a sense that we can judge if a moral is right or wrong, because there is an external good by which we judge. We might not be aware of this good, we might have a worldview that denies it, but we still think in conformity with the idea that we can reason about a moral that an entire culture upholds as right and we can contemplate whether it really seems right or not. There is something by which we judge it even if we haven’t understood it yet.

We use degrees of perfection all the time. Killing a child is worse than killing a fly. Or some would say we ought not to kill a fly either, especially if you are the President of the United States. Still to argue for either one needs a point of reference of what is the ideal good. One cannot argue that killing the fly is actually wrong, unless there is a standard of what is really good. Is it good for no living entity to be killed no matter the reason? Is that better than being killed? If it is truly better, then there is a standard that makes it better. One could say that standard is ourselves and what we want, but that only lends itself to a standard that is created by us by our feelings, desires, reason, but not something that is really real. That standard changes with each culture, generation, family, and person. It isn’t a constant good. It’s not a reflection of what really is, but what one wants, believes, or thinks. However, people believe and think things all the time that aren’t an accurate approximation of what is true.

So the two choices that I see on the table for those who accept the reality of humans living in relation to morality are that morals follow only from the human intellect and emotions and have no real correspondence with any real good or that morals are to reflect the real good and can do so in degrees of accuracy some being a bad or grossly distorted reflection and others being the best reflection available to us.

*******************************

I hope that has cleared up the discussion a little. If I have not accurately retold the perspective of morals existing without a perfect good, then please show me where I erred. Notice I did not use the term “objective” or “subjective” or “absolute” anywhere above in this post to be as plain as possible.

Man Raised From Dead: Verified by Doctor

I don't usually post miracle testimonies I haven't personally been connected to because I can't personally vouch for the credibility of the story. But this caught my attention and I wanted to share it for anyone interested in a testimony of a person raised from the dead and verified by a cardiologist.

Follow this link for the video. For another telling of it see this link.