Recently, I wrote of a Maui church remarkably untouched by the awful “fire hurricane” (the term used by Hawaii’s Governor Josh Green). It seemed miraculous to me, but my interest was further sparked by skeptics who insisted nothing unusual had occurred.
show-me-a-Hawaiian-miracle-and-I-will-believe
The skeptics protective instinct is to invoke the term “science”, as if the word itself is kryptonite to the notion of the supernatural (or, it seems, to any conservative idea in general). They say science explains the church’s survival, and nothing else can. However, their arguments were weak and would have been better if they had simply appealed to dumb luck; after all, a few other buildings and homes on the island were mercifully spared as well.
“The Church didn’t burn because it was made of stone. Basic science.” Nice try, but the fire didn’t even touch the church grounds: the trees, the shrubs, the grass, the telephone poles, the rickety fence formed the “protective” church barrier. “The grounds were well kept, probably,” another said. “Not a miracle”. So, regularly cutting the grass and trimming the shrubs was enough to stop the “worst fire of the last century”?
The fire was spurred by high winds generated from an offshore hurricane. The entire island, including homes and trees directly across the street from church burned–and then the fire stopped at the church grounds. How is that?
Nothing to See Here?
I asked my critics in email: Is it not remarkable the church survived the wind storm and the fire? You do not have to call it miraculous, but wouldn’t you have marveled had you been walking the city and discovered this yourself? I was told, it was not remarkable at all:
You can look at pretty much anything and see signs of miracles if you want to and you don’t have to look to which buildings were spared to find miracles because life itself is a miracle. You seem to slant your “miracles” towards religious artifacts rather than miracles that affect everyone, which you will find many examples and it seems like a recruitment technique you are employing.
So, it is fine for me to believe in God and miracles, but how dare I put my faith on an equal plane with science? How dare I use religion to influence (i.e. recruit) people who know no better? Science explains the mysterious and the seemingly unexplainable, but, they believe religion cannot explain the physical world at all. Even if science cannot explain something today, they are confident science will ultimately provide the answer; religion, my critics argue, will always fall short when it competes with science.
Yet, contemporary science falls short when it comes to climate change, COVID policies, transgenderism, and more. Meteorology, the science of weather, routinely fails us. Science once said we should blood-let to cure illness and promoted phrenology which says we can measure intelligence by skull sizes. The science explains all until one day it doesn’t. Even Copernicus, who first advanced helio-centrism needed correction (he incorrectly theorized the planets moved in concentric circles around the sun). Dr. Mengele, the Nazi “Angel of Death”, was a physician and well-trained scientist raised to the highest levels of his government. Do we still follow the science he advanced?
My point is not that science is untrustworthy. Science has indeed improved the quality of our lives and enlightened us with regard to so many things. Newton, Einstein, Archimedes, and countless other great scientific minds are still rightly held in high esteem. Yet, science’s record has many flaws and there are indeed things science cannot explain (and will never explain). There are things which fall outside the realm of science and into the realm of the supernatural. God reveals Himself to us through the physical world. God reveals He can transcend science, time, space and everything else that limits us mortals.
God, the Fine Tuner
I also asked the following of my critics:
Science tells us 13.8 billion years ago, there was no universe; nothing we know today existed. This belief is well-established and widely accepted. So, what came before the universe existed? What set the creation of the universe in motion? How is something (our universe) created from nothing? Science can explain much of what happened since the universe began, but can it ever explain how it began?
God also told us how something can be created out nothing: And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. Genesis 1:3
Science should actually promote belief in God. As we understand our universe better, we learn it is “finely tuned”; a minute change in certain values would have led to disaster before 13.8 billion years had passed (Einstein showed that the values for the cosmological constant and curvature of the universe needed to be perfectly maintained. Even the slightest alteration in any of these values, would cause the universe to either expand forever or contract back onto itself in a great cosmological “big crunch” – Stephen C Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis).
It is natural to conclude our finely tuned universe comes with “A Fine Tuner”, yet contemporary scientists dismiss the existence of a fine tuning God with elaborate theories like the “multiverse” which says our universe, finely tuned as it is, is just one of billions of other universes (they portray our universe as something like the lucky winner of a cosmic lottery and the universe generating mechanism as something like a roulette wheel or slot machine turning out either life-conducive winners or life unfriendly losers – Stephen C Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis). Ironically, wouldn’t the existence of billions of universes, further support the hypothesis of God’s existence? How could this be without a creator to set all in motion?
Einstein be damned; my critics say science doesn’t need to explain everything today because science ultimately prevails over the fairy tale of religion:
I can’t explain what was here before there was anything. Science doesn’t explain it in a way I understand it and may not explain it at all. But that doesn’t mean it can’t be explained scientifically. Most people can’t fathom the vast size of space either. To say something is 5 lights years away, and that is close, is outside anything we can comprehend. Travel time with current technology – over 150,000 years. Scientists say the universe is expanding and that doesn’t make sense because to me it must expand into something and that means there is something already there. Equating it to a balloon being blown up doesn’t help, there is still something outside the balloon.
Contemporary culture has manufactured this conflict between Church and science; it purports that science always prevails in this clash. (On-church-and-science-yet-another-phony-narrative) My friend won’t even consider that religion might provide an answer, yet his faith in science is no less than my faith in God. It is remarkable how those who reject God, have so much zealotry in what they believe in as well (and so much criticism for religious zealotry). The truth, however, is that the Christian Church worked very much in concert with science for thousands of years. The church stood alone to advance science and learning during the dark ages after the fall of the Roman empire.
The university was invented in the Dark Ages, many universities developing from church cathedral/monastic schools. Universities were tasked with the pursuit of knowledge and innovation was esteemed, eg human dissection was introduced into human physiology studies. The first university was founded in Bologna in about 1088, then Paris (1150), Oxford (1167), Palencia (1208) and Cambridge (1209). About 60 more were added by 1500, over half endowed with papal charters.
The Church promoted science from within its own ranks with scientists/clergy such as Nicholas Copernicus, Gregor Mendel, Roger Bacon, William of Ockham, among others. Today, the Vatican operates (staffed by clergy as well) an astronomical observatory at the University of Arizona https://www.as.arizona.edu/vatican-advanced-technology-telescope.
Throughout history, lay scientists, as well, linked God with scientific discoveries:
For Newton, as for Boyle and Descartes, there were laws of nature only because there had been a [Divine] Legislator. Oxford University Historian of science John Hedley Brooke.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawking, and other notable contemporary scientists have successfully guided our culture towards a pro-science/anti-religion orientation. Yet, historically, science and religion have not been in conflict. Religion and science both seek truth. Both are sustained by the truth. Both are corrupted when people within their ranks ignore truth and use their positions to advance other agendas. Science explains a tremendous amount today and will continue to in the future, but science cannot explain a God which transcends it. When science cannot explain, it is perfectly logical (not anti-scientific in the least) to look to the supernatural instead.
Meaning of Life
We are all (or we ought to be) searching for meaning in our lives. Either we are here to serve God and fulfill His purposes or there is no creator and no pre-destined purpose to life because mankind arose by sheer coincidence (we could have evolved into any one of billions of different forms; without God guiding the process, it is only by pure chance, we are who we are).
Atheists, agnostics, non-practicing believers, and the “nones” still find a life’s purpose; there are a myriad of causes to suit them all. They may devote themselves to saving the planet; they justify depopulation, aborting children, euthanasia, and de-carbonization (which diminishes the quality of life for countless millions around the world) because, for them, the planet has greater value than human life. Is this worship of the earth a return to paganism? Others find purpose in socialism because the collective matters more than the individual; God, on the other hand, promotes the value of each and every individual. He is not a socialist. Still others find purpose in promoting human sexuality: hookup culture, swapping partners, de-valuing monogamy, family and commitment of marriage, sexually grooming children, promoting transgenderism and all possible forms of sexuality because they worship humanity over God; human pleasure becomes the ultimate goal.
Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. Colossians 3:5
Many today claim to be spiritual (seeking God or some other external force) but not religious; however, without a religious community to aid you and without a moral code above your own (i.e. one you cannot legitimately alter to suit yourself), you are far less likely to find the right path.
There are countless other misdirected purposes, but, ultimately, the search for meaning leads to God and the hope that God provides. If we don’t worship God, we will instead worship one of these false idols. There are far too many choices available today, most of them invalid. We get lost when there are too many choices. Parents, for instance, limit their kids’ choices because they instinctively know this.
I see God in a Hawaiian church spared from a horrific fire, because I have found Him elsewhere. Others see no God in Hawaii because God has never been a central part of their lives. How can they recognize Him now? We both look upon the same event with vastly different perspectives and come away with totally opposite conclusions. I was challenged with the following:
So a benevolent, all powerful God sat by and did nothing while hundreds (possibly a 1000) people burned or choked to death on smoke, and many more lost their homes and everything they had, but he decided to intervene to save a church?
The fact that many died, perhaps unnecessarily, does not disprove the existence of God (or alternatively show He exists but does not care). In other words, the fact we die does not mean God does not exist. How silly is that notion? Virtually all civilizations and religions have accepted God is immortal and man is mortal. Even pagan religions have appealed to supernatural beings who rose above mankind.
More importantly, our Christian God, made many promises and covenants, but never promised any will be spared from death or from suffering. God Himself came to earth and He too was allowed to die (and suffered tremendously). If you want to convince Christians God does not exist, then appealing to the fact that 1,000 people died in Hawaii is not a convincing argument. Furthermore, why stop at 1,000 deaths? Why not appeal to the fact that billions and billions have died to this point in history? This notion added fuel to my friend’s argument:
You believe God intervened to save one church. That means God could have intervened to save the entire town. He didn’t. So he wanted all those people to burn to death. After all, if he didn’t want it, it wouldn’t have happened. If you give God credit for sparing that church, you have to give him “credit” for burning all those people to death. That’s the thing about being an all powerful interventionist God; you are responsible for every thing that happens, bad or good, because those things couldn’t happen if you didn’t want them to.
“Why stop there?” Why indeed? If your God exists, then he is indeed responsible for every death, every earthquake, every flood, every tornado, every cancer, every baby born without skin…every bit of suffering and misery that has befallen the world since the beginning of time.
But he loves us. And we know this because he didn’t burn down one church.
Another added this argument:
Your God’s divine intervention leaves something to be desired. Only a God who didn’t care about human suffering would consider this as benevolence. And I have a hard time seeing how any human that cared about human suffering could see this as a miracle. Maybe you should explain to the families of all those who died how God couldn’t getting around to saving their loved ones because he was too busy saving a Church. I’m sure that would give them great comfort.
Yet another said the following:
your ‘God’ spares a building, but allows people and other forms of life to die? And you think that’s a ‘miracle’? Do you, then, place the value of that building ahead of life?
What thoroughly depressing comments. They either believe God exists but hates us or believe all the suffering and death in the world prove there is no God at all.
If you believe God hates us, then why doesn’t a vengeful God force us to suffer endlessly? Why does He allow us any joy at all? Have you never enjoyed walking on the beach or hiking a trail? Have you never enjoyed a beautiful sunset or watching the stars? Has nature never amazed you? Have you never enjoyed a good meal, a good book, a good movie, or a magic show? Have you never fallen in love with someone or something? Have you never felt the joy of an accomplishment: scoring a goal, winning a race, graduating from school, losing weight, obtaining a promotion or a new job? Have you never felt the joy of becoming a parent and watching your children’s accomplishments? Have you never had a good friend, a teacher, or a colleague help you overcome a problem? Have you never smiled, never laughed, never been content with anything? Does the God you blame for our pain allow any of these good things? Does He make any of them possible? There is indeed much good in life, and the good in our lives should lead us to conclude God (if you believe He exists) loves us.
Still, the notion of why God allows suffering troubles many, both the religious and the non-religious.
Recognize that pain is often accompanied by great good: child bearing, winning a race, graduating from school, losing 100 pounds, etc.. Nothing worth accomplishing comes easily. If it comes easily, without much pain or struggle, it is not worth much. My son ran in the state high school cross country championship a couple years ago. He endured runs at 6AM before school started. He suffered injuries and setbacks, and re-dedicated himself after each. He often continued running five more miles after he thought he couldn’t go another step. It took years of practice to lower his times. Few teenagers have the discipline he had. There was much pain and sacrifice involved, yet the pain was worth the accomplishment, one that will remain with him the rest of his life. No pain, no gain.
Furthermore, we live in a disordered world because man, not God, introduced sin into the world. This is difficult for some to accept or to fully understand. Dr. Paul Chaloux wrote an excellent book, Why All People Suffer, discussing this in great detail. I cannot possibly discuss this concept fully in this short essay, but I quote a few lines:
Perhaps the natural evil that people have the greatest difficulty reconciling with a benevolent God is that innocent children are born with abnormalities . . . St. Thomas answers this concern by reminding the reader that Original Sin deprived humanity of original justice and left human nature on its own and in a disordered state. Not only did this untether reason from God and disorder the powers of the soul, but disorder in the body made it subject to corruption . . . God does not delight in punishments for their own sake, but because they are required for the sake of justice . . . People can create disorder that they cannot repair on their own, and that if they do not seek the help of God, Who can fix anything, they incur a debt of eternal punishment.
Pain and death are consequences of sin, which came into the world because of our free will and our ability to say “no” to God and “yes” to sin. Furthermore, suffering is not always harmful, and in many ways is redemptive and a reminder of how we need to re-direct ourselves. Dr. Chaloux adds:
Suffering has a way of turning a person inward, toward where God resides . . . it is unavoidable when breaking humans of vices with which they have become comfortable in order to set us firmly on the path of redemption.
Finally, think of a world in which pain and death were removed. Who would be in control? Mankind couldn’t be trusted any longer. God would have to intervene to prevent us from doing harm to others or to ourselves. He would swoop in whenever any harm was on the brink of entering our pain-free world. Instead, he gives us free will. We accept pain and death in this world in exchange for free will. Do wish to surrender your free will to live in that pain free world?
We believe God creates life, but He cannot create life without our cooperation, can He? God surrenders so much of His control over the world so we can have free will, so we can know the joy of our own accomplishments. It seems obvious to demand a loving omnipotent God end all our suffering, but that would also mean a world in which we could not freely choose to love Him or love others. It’s not so obvious and not such an easy choice, after all. Our love would be compelled because there would be no other way in a perfect, pain-free world. Our rejection of another would cause pain otherwise. What is the value of love in that case? Your love of another has much greater value because you always have the choice of not loving.
God give us free will and puts us in control, yet folks blame God for all that is wrong. How often do we shift the blame for our own problems to others? My critics sneer at any implied intervention from God; if He does anything at all, it is not enough or it is the wrong thing. They can do better at being God than God Himself? God allows suffering because He respects our free will. Christians blame sin and man’s disobedience to God instead of blaming God Himself. Mankind can make the world a better place, and often does, but still the problems in the world are our doing, not God’s.
God surely saved more than just this one church in Hawaii. A building does not matter more than lives. I am sure many lives were saved through His intervention in Hawaii, but we just have no visible evidence of that. Furthermore, the church is not simply one of a small number of buildings that survived. The church is a central part of the lives of many people; its survival gives hope to many, those in desperate need of hope. The church’s continued presence is a comfort to those who have already lost so much. If you are not a person of faith, this concept will seem totally foreign. Indeed, my critics paint me as uncompassionate and non-empathetic for believing such a thing, but why do they dismiss this comfort as unimportant in Hawaiians’ time of crisis?
What If I am Wrong?
St. Paul tells us those “professing to be wise” reject the readily apparent evidence of God. This is the ultimate sin in the eyes of God: God reveals Himself, we reject Him, and we are therefore are without excuse.
because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Romans 1: 19-25
The lack of God in our lives leads to a disordered, often depraved life. God provides us many avenues to come to Him, not all of them are dire warnings like this passage. To be without God is to be without hope. As I used to tell my kids: you just need to join the winning team. We already know who wins, so why join the wrong team? The choice should be simple and available to all.
My friend says I am following a God that may not exist; therefore, I live life in a way that minimizes the importance of today.
but you are living this life a certain way that minimizes its importance just to get into an afterlife that may not exist.
If I am wrong about the afterlife, I am no worse off than him after death (we both die forever). But if he is wrong about the afterlife, then the difference is immense. This hundred or so years of our lives are just the first few years of our eternity. Shouldn’t we want to preserve that eternity?
Furthermore, God’s precepts lead us along the right path today in addition to preparing us for the afterlife. Many complain religion has too many rules and is too restrictive, but the discipline and the elimination of the countless bad choices is what we need for the current life.
Christianity is not a faith that promotes our own welfare in this life. It demands sacrifice; it does not shield us from pain, and often leads us into harm’s way, but such a life can still be lived to the fullest. How many of the false idols, which the world is full of, lead us to lives of disappointments and a minimal legacy?
Seek the Truth 