Ryan Waggoner » Faith

On death

Ryan W. — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 05:09:51 +0000

There was recently this really good article on Hacker News about the regrets of the dying. The author had the privilege of working in palliative care for years, working closely with patients during the last weeks or months of their lives. The five regrets he talks about are really interesting, but it’s the first two that caught my eye:

I wish I had lived a life true to myself, instead of the one others expected of me
I wish I hadn’t worked so hard

They’re both pretty common death-bed refrains, but it’s the combination that caught my eye. The thing about working too hard has always bugged me, because it seems to subtly imply that work isn’t as important as other things in life, like friends, family, etc. But is that always true? Isn’t purpose the most important thing in life? And can’t you find that through your work? Would they have regretted working so hard if the work had been part of the life they wanted? I completely understand the sentiment of wishing you hadn’t worked so hard, but only if that work was part of the life others expected of you.

Will we hear this same regret about working too hard from Steve Jobs, Richard Branson, your local pediatrician, your local inner-city youth counselor, and anyone else who works hard at the thing they were born to do?

I hope not.

Disgusting.

Ryan W. — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 05:34:06 +0000

I’m not always as up to date on the news as I should be, and something caught my eye today that has probably been in the national news for months, but had previously escaped my attention. The issue in question? The Ground Zero Mosque.

At first I wasn’t sure what the controversy was, and I read through some articles trying to understand, before I realized that people are literally just upset because a mosque is going to be built near ground zero.

Oh no! Anything but that!!

Seriously, this is the world we live in now? I was surprised to learn that the majority of Americans are against the mosque being built there, and that even the majority of New Yorkers are against it. What ever happened to religious freedom? I was under the impression that America was founded in large part to escape these kinds of ridiculous attitudes. This is like being upset that some Japanese people live near you during WWII. Oh wait…we actually rounded those people up and put them in camps. Some things never change.

Stuff like this is why I don’t read newspapers or watch TV news. It’s too depressing to be constantly reminded that I share my country with such ignorance and stupidity.

Stay classy, America.

The Inerrancy of Scripture, Part 2

Ryan W. — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 19:45:38 +0000

I wrote a post a few days ago about Young Earth Creationism and the inerrancy of Scripture, and I think some of the commenters misunderstood the point I was trying to make, so let me try again.

Imagine an isolated group of non-religious people discover a new book about reality. It purports to offer answers to their deepest questions, and includes a lot of details like predictions, history, and other information about how the world works. At this point, there are three possibilities:

The book is wrong about everything.
The book is wrong about some things, and right about others.
The book is right about everything (inerrant).

Now, imagine that as they explore the book, the more discrepancies they find between the book and reality. So now they know that the book is not inerrant. Or do they? Assuming binary truths where one of the two sources (reality or the book) are true, there are two ways to explain these discrepancies:

Where the book and reality differ, reality is wrong and the book is right. (Actually, it’s really only fair to say that the interpretation of reality is wrong, because reality by definition is what’s real, what’s true. So reality can’t be untrue, because then it would be both true and untrue simultaneously.)
Where the book and reality differ, reality is right and the book is wrong.

Actually, there’s a third way to explain the problem: perhaps our interpretation of reality is true, and the book is true, but our interpretation of the book is untrue.

In the context of Scripture and science, I think this is essentially the situation we find ourselves in. The problem is that a dogmatic attachment to a particular interpretation of Scripture rules out explanation #3. In other words, we cling desperately to our particular interpretation of Scripture as being the only way to interpret it. So when discrepancies between Scripture and our interpretation of reality (science) are found, we have no choice but to conclude that it’s the interpretation of reality that’s wrong (#1), not that Scripture is wrong (#2) or that our interpretation of Scripture is wrong (#3). This is not a terribly unreasonable line of reasoning to take, but only to a point. If we find only a few discrepancies, it could very well be that our understanding of reality (via science) just hasn’t quite caught up yet. However, the further that science and Scripture diverge (and again, assuming you’re unwilling to reevaluate that your interpretation of Scripture may be flawed), the more you have to argue that reality is not at all what it seems. And it gets to the point where you start to wonder what’s more reasonable: believing that everything you can see and hear and touch is fundamentally different from what it seems to be, or that the book just simply is wrong about some things?

Which brings me back to my original point: if the group of people who found this random book found everything or nearly everything in it to be perfect and true, it seems very reasonable to conclude that it’s probably inerrant. But the more errors that arise in the book, the more an outside observer would have to wonder why they clung so desperately to the belief that it’s inerrant in the first place?

Why do you believe the Bible is inerrant?

Ryan W. — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 04:46:23 +0000

I’m confused about something, and I’m hoping that someone out there can help me understand the issue better.

I know a lot of Christians who believe in what’s termed “Young Earth Creationism” (YEC), which is the belief that Genesis refers to a literal 6-day creation period, and that the universe and all that’s in it is around 6000 – 7000 years old. This figure is arrived at by adding up genealogies in the Bible and the estimated life-spans of each person in those lists, which span from Adam to Jesus.

How does this view fare in the scientific community? Here’s a great description that I found:

“A statement by 68 national and international science academies lists the following as facts, established by numerous observations and independently-derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines, without any contradiction from scientific evidence: that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old and has shown continuing change; that life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago, and has subsequently taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve; and that the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicates their common primordial origin.”

Read that paragraph again, slowly, and think about what it means.

Essentially, it means that in 2010, we have an incredible bounty of evidence across a multitude of disciplines, leading to a near-universal scientific consensus that:

1. The age of the earth / universe is many orders of magnitude larger than 6000 years.
2. Life has been on the planet for at least 2.5 billion years.
3. Evolution is responsible for all of the varieties of life that we see on the planet.

When I was growing up and attending Christian schools, the attitude that my teachers and textbooks had was that YEC is real and accepted by real scientists, and oh yeah, there are some fringe scientists who believe in evolution and that the earth is really old, but they’re crazy and you don’t need to pay any attention to them. Imagine my surprise when I got out of the Christian bubble and discovered that the opposite is actually true.

So far as I can tell, what’s happening is that some Christians (certainly not all) have taken a very narrow view of how a small piece of Scripture should be interpreted, and have spent the last 150 years furiously denying copious amounts of scientific evidence that contradict that interpretation. Some will be quick to remind me that Evolution is “just a theory”, that there are holes in the explanation, that there’s evidence for YEC, etc. But those are serious distortions of the truth, which is that virtually all working scientists in relevant fields subscribe to some variation of the old earth / evolution philosophy. While many questions remain about the exact nature and mechanisms of evolution over the last 4.5 billion years on this planet, we have an incredible amount of evidence pointing to the fact that it DID happen. So much evidence, in fact, that a serious survey of even a little of it will convince you that either YEC is utterly ridiculous, or God created the world in such a way to make it look utterly ridiculous to test our faith. But I’m getting ahead of myself.

We come to the crux of the issue: does science inform your faith and your interpretation of Scripture, or does your faith and your interpretation of Scripture inform your science? These are two different approaches to looking at the world, with vastly important consequences, but they’re asymmetrical, in terms of the definitions on each side of the equation. I’ll explain what I mean.

Science is supposed to be an objective search for the truth. Obviously, since science is practiced by humans and we’re flawed, it’s never perfectly objective, but that’s what it is supposed to be. Scientific inquiry is a method of examining the evidence and coming to a conclusion based on that evidence, regardless of whether you like it. At its best, science follows the evidence to its conclusion, wherever that is.

But religion and science are not just a different approach to the same thing. Religions do not search for the truth, at least primarily. They offer it. They claim to already have the truth, not to be on a search for it.

My current approach is that science informs my interpretation of scripture and my faith. That is to say, if I were presented by overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence from multiple scientific fields that everything I believe is wrong, I hope that I would be able to change my beliefs. Why spend your life living something you have no reason to believe in? As Paul said, if our faith is in vain, we are to be pitied above all men.

But many seem to take the opposite view. In particular, the YEC crowd seems to believe that a strict literal interpretation of Scripture trumps science and what we can see about the world. Essentially, their position is that if the Bible says 1 + 1 = 3, then they will believe that 1 + 1 = 3, and they will twist their interpretation of reality to match that belief. Regardless of whether I think that’s intellectually dishonest or foolish or whatever, it brings me back to my title: why do you believe the Bible is true in the first place?

There are many religions in the world, and they all think they’re the true religion, and they all have scriptures of their own that say that they’re the only true religion, etc. So why do you believe the Bible over any of those others? And more importantly, could anything change your mind? If you read through the Bible and literally everything you read was completely different from what you see in reality, would you still believe it? And if so, why?

I’m not looking for deep theological answers or answers based on emotion. Most of the people I know who subscribe to YEC didn’t go to seminary, and it’s doubtful that they have a deep theological reason for their beliefs, which is fine. And if the only answer you can come up with is that you know in your heart that it’s true, I wish you the best, but that’s worthless to me.

I’m primarily looking for answers from people who believe in that the earth is 6000-7000 years old and that it was created in six literal 24-hour periods. Why do you believe the Bible is true? And not just true in the abstract, but true down the last word, to the point that you’re willing to dismiss the vast scientific consensus on YEC because you believe that if your paper Bible, translated to English thousands of years after the original words were written, has the word “day” printed there, it was exactly 24 hours?

Help me understand.

7 tips for talking about hot-button issues

Ryan W. — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 02:53:59 +0000

Over the last couple months, I’ve engaged in dozens of conversations about religion, politics, and other sensitive topics. The conversations have been online and offline and with people with whom I agree and disagree, in some cases vehemently. After some reflection, I wanted to point out a few things that I’ve learned can be helpful when approaching these kinds of issues. I’m still working on these, and my critics will be quick to tell you that I’ve still got a long way to go. They’re absolutely right. But you have to start somewhere.

Many will probably disagree with my fundamental premise, which is that dialogue is valuable and is the only true path to understanding.

1. Initiate dialogue with those you disagree with
Far too many of us avoid talking about the deepest and most meaningful issues of life, often because we dislike conflict, we fear not knowing the right answers, or perhaps we’re afraid of offending someone. Whatever the reason, the result is that many of us live in ideological bubbles where ideas are seldom challenged and beliefs are rarely scrutinized. There are many people who harbor deep feelings of resentment and dislike, even hatred, towards people who hold opposing viewpoints on religion or politics, but they have never actually had an open and honest conversation with those people.

2. Seek to understand the other side
If you approach these conversations with the goal of changing the other person’s mind, you’re almost certainly going to be disappointed. Now, I know that it’s unrealistic to go into a tough conversation on a controversial issue when you have a dearly held position and truly have an open mind. But do your best. Try and set aside the preconceived notions you have and really listen to what the other person is saying. It might not be as ridiculous as you thought. Even if you still disagree after hearing them out, you may find that you respect them and their beliefs more than you did.

3. Find common ground
When going into tough discussions with people we disagree with, we tend to focus more on what we differ on than what we have in common. This is a mistake, as it sets people as enemies when they may agree on many of the most important points of their positions. A good example of this is the incredible fracturing that occurs in most major religious traditions over the most trivial minutia, despite the fact that they agree on almost all the key tenets of the faith.

4. Keep your emotions in check
Emotion and passion are useful, but only when they are tightly controlled. It’s natural for you to feel something when faced with things you disagree with strongly, but if you let your emotions fuel your reaction, the entire discussion will be useless, and is likely to make things worse. Be calm and rational as best you can, and if you can’t, put the conversation aside until you can. This is one reason that discussing things online or via email is often more useful; each side can take the time to think things through carefully and let their emotions settle down.

5. Stay away from personal attacks
One of my favorite moments in all the debates leading up to the presidential election was when Joe Biden talked about how it’s ok to question people’s judgement, but don’t question their motives. I think this is great advice in general. The truth about liberals and conservatives is that they both love America and want to see Americans succeed and do well; they just differ somewhat about the best way to accomplish that. When you accuse someone of being unpatriotic because of a political belief, or otherwise impugn their character, you only do damage to your own credibility and character. Stick to the issues.

6. Admit when you’re wrong
You don’t think you’ve always got it figured out, right? You will be wrong. When you are, admit it, learn from your mistake, and move on. And take heart…finding out that you’re wrong is a great thing, because you’ve eliminated another incorrect belief from your worldview. Progress

7. Don’t get discouraged
The truth is that even if you follow the above (and any other great advice), you probably won’t see a lot of change in other people’s positions or in your own. People tend to hold many of these beliefs as a part of their overall identity, and getting them (or yourself) to think about them differently is challenging because they feel like they’re losing control over who they are at the core. But do not give up. I am living proof that rational discussion can change at least some minds. It may take years, but it can happen. And you might find that you change your mind on a few things, too.

I’d love to know if you think these tips make these kinds of discussions worth having, or if you have any others to share. Post them below…

Creating SMART goals for what matters most, part 2

Ryan W. — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 04:33:22 +0000

Yesterday, I blogged about how I’m having trouble aligning my goal plan with my overall values in life. In particular, I’m having trouble determining how to write specific, measurable, actionable goals for more nebulous and ongoing journeys, like my faith, my relationship with my wife, contentment, peace, etc. When I wrote the post yesterday, I had some thoughts already in mind, but I wanted to see what people said in the comments. Dave posted a great thought that is in line with what I’m thinking:

I think that it is possible to create SMART goals for things that affect the “intangibles.” For example, I can’t really make a goal to love my wife 10X more, but I can make a goal to spend an extra evening each week doing something with her. Or to leave a little “love note” for her every morning on the bathroom mirror or something. Spirituality can be the same. While it may not be possible to say “I want to be 35% closer to God.” you can say things like “I want to spend X amount of time each week serving others.” or “I will spend 15 minutes each morning meditating/in prayer”

Here’s what I think about creating SMART goals for the things that matter most: you can’t. However, as David points out, you can create goals that align your resources (time, money, energy, etc) with your values, in ways that are most likely to result in growth in those areas. Just because I spend time each morning in prayer or reading Scripture doesn’t necessarily mean that my relationship with God will be strengthened, but it certainly improves the odds To that end, I’ve started looking for ways to write goals that encourage the alignment of my resources with my values. It’s the best I can do.

Can you create SMART goals for what matters most?

Ryan W. — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 02:36:49 +0000

For the last week or so, I’ve been working on reviewing, streamlining, and unifying my goals across different areas of my life. I’m building a comprehensive goal plan for the next ten years, and I’m calling this effort Project Goalpost (cheesy, I know). One of my guiding principles that I’m employing while working through all these goals is to ensure that each goal is SMART, which is a useful mnemonic that says goals should be:

Specific
Measurable
Achievable
Realistic
Time-bound

I have found this device to be a useful one when devising my goal plans, as it helps avoid nebulous and ill-defined goals like “get into better shape” or “prepare for the future”. How would you have any idea when those things have been accomplished?

Currently, I’m dividing my goals into these different life areas:

Personal
Physical
Financial
Entrepreneurial
Real Estate
Spiritual

I’m doing pretty well with most of these, but it’s the Spiritual category that’s giving me the most trouble. I’m just not sure how to write specific, measurable goals for matters of the heart, especially for several years out.

For one thing, faith is about the journey, not really the destination, and much of that journey occurs in ways that don’t lend themselves to metrics. For example, it doesn’t really make sense to say that you want to be 35% closer to God, or have your prayer life be twice as good. The destination doesn’t really exist, either, as I don’t believe that Christians can ever really say that they’ve accomplished their mission as a Christian, at least not in this life.

Second, I’m not entirely sure that our faith is something that should get a category of its own. Shouldn’t our faith undergird all that we do, rather than being put into its own bullet-point list of todo items?

And why does this bother me at all? I guess because my goals should reflect a lot about who I am, but when you look at my list, it seems so shallow and materialistic, because a lot of my goals revolve around financial gain, real estate, and other items in that vein. Those things just lend themselves to measurement. But they aren’t what matter most in life, and I know that. What matters most in life are things like relationships, contentment, and faith, but can you really create SMART goals for those things? I have a few ideas I’ll explore in a future post, but I would love to know what you think.

Fantastic Post on Christianity and Politics

Ryan W. — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:27:42 +0000

A friend of mine wrote a great blog post on the intersection of politics and Christianity in America. It eloquently sums up much of what I feel on the subject. Here’s an excerpt…check it out!

Modern Christianity has transformed itself from a grassroots movement that sought to change society by changing lives, into a Political Action Committee trying to enforce morality through legislation, a plan that might change the nation’s actions but can never change its heart. Even if it succeeded, it would only create a nation of pretty tombs, gleaming rocks full of dead bones.

My quest for a blog name

Ryan W. — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 05:28:44 +0000

I’ve decided to start a side blog about Christianity (or faith in general) and science, technology, and the future. I need a name. Here are my thoughts so far: Would Jesus Have an Ipod? Yeah, that’s all I’ve got so far. Seriously, toss some ideas my way. Please. Related posts: October 2010 Blog Income Update [...] Related posts: