God And Bioethical Considerations

The more I ponder the discipline of bioethics, the more I become dissuaded of the existence of God. At least a God that could reasonably intervene on our behalf such that He might be considered personal. The ironic thing is this comes in response to having read Francis Collins' “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief”. Ironic in that he is a self-professed Christian.

In the end, trying to “fit” a wonderful, personal God into the obviously callous and cruel nature of reality seems to necessitate absurd explanations as to why a child would be born with cystic fibrosis, something or other.

Concerning the discipline of genetic engineering, it would seem that God can choose to be either personal to the wishes of those who believe genetic engineering in all its grandeur is an affront to His authority or personal to the wishes of those who believe He has given us the fortitude and perhaps even His blessing to reverse these genetic “oversights”. In other words, he can't be personal to both.

With this realization, it becomes difficult to endorse the idea that God is personal to us all. Perhaps He is personal to NOBODY?

If one outright rejects this supposition, a challenging follow-up question to the notion of this Creator being personal is personal to whom? I have pondered this extensively and have concluded, perhaps regrettably to many, that the idea of a personal God does not seem to overcome simple scrutiny. How can God be personal to all of us when it seems the vast majority of our prayers and desires seem to conflict with that of other faithful followers? For instance, how would God personally intervene in the lives of countless God-fearing males all seeking the affection of the same God-fearing female?

If one chooses to overlook this “problem”, he is burying his head in the sand like an ostrich to deny what is perfectly obvious.

Alternatively, if one believes God is personal, this would of course imply that He is personal to him. Does this not seem of utmost arrogance? Where is the humility?

The Collective Struggle Of Existence 2

I want to discuss my idea of accepting what is. “Shirley you can't mean accepting everything just as it is,” Mr. Smith asks quizzically?

Firstly, I will respectfully ask him not to call me Shirley ever again! Secondly, what if I were to tell him that is exactly what I mean?

“Well that just sounds like a meaningless waste of a life, devoid of satisfying your wants and desires and hence accomplishing little or nothing,” Mr. Smith sadly reflects. Perhaps.

But the fact that few if any practice this philosophy of accepting everything exactly as it is inevitably leads to conflict. Why? Because the world we live in is finite and as such, there will be many losers for all the winners out there! This collective struggle explains why the world is exactly as it is.

My point in advocating a philosophy based on accepting everything exactly as it is is to expose what systematically stems from a philosophy that does not. Conflict and struggle over power, money, resources, ideology, jobs, mates, etc.

Many will point out that obviously we should accept some things as they are but not everything. The problem with this is that there is no consensus as to what exactly should be accepted and what should not. This being the case, there will be conflict and struggle regardless because many of the things some think should be accepted, others think should not which in turn creates conflict and struggle.

My point is not to say one should or should not accept this or that. My point is that the inevitable result of people trying to change what is to what they think should be is conflict and struggle! I see this as neither good nor bad in itself. It just is.

However, the ramifications of this conflict and struggle will inevitably manifest itself in very ugly ways. Fighting, arguing, blaming, violence, vengeance, war, envy, resentment, espionage, treason, etc. This must be accepted with a philosophy predicated on changing what is to what each individual thinks should be.

This is why the world is exactly as it is! How could it be any other way?

A Matter Of Time

Does God lie inside time or outside of it?

If it is supposed He lies inside time, mustn't He have originated out of something prior to His own existence? In this case, we are forced to appeal to something outside time to explain how He and time itself came about. But this would imply that God is not the "First Cause". Which implies He is something less than God. Hence, what many people believe to be God is not really God.

On the other hand, if it is supposed God lies outside time, this dilemma is avoided. However, another arises. 

How could He participate in temporal activities like healing, working or planning if He is not inside time? One might suppose God to be overly versatile and in being so lies both inside and outside time.

But at this point, He becomes so nebulous an entity that one could just as well say God is anything or everything for that matter. Which leads to the idea that even if God exists, there is no absolute way to view or define Him/Her/It?

Circular Reasoning

Pertaining to peoples' definite claims about the nature of reality, it must be pointed out that whatever one is initially inclined to believe is, out of necessity, going to be the only logical conclusion. The reason this is the case is because fundamental presuppositions must be set forth to conclude anything which in turn necessitates the use of circular reasoning. One can only ever conclude the nature of reality based on his underlying assumptions. 

For example, we might ask that if God exists, how is His own existence explained? If one presupposes a hypothetical God is uncaused (presumably a believer of any God must), of course through “logical” reasoning it will be concluded that He almost certainly exists.

On the other hand, if one presupposes a hypothetical God requires a cause like everything else is thought to, he will conclude “logically” that God almost certainly does not exist.

Do people choose presuppositions exclusively because these assumptions support something they already or at least “want” to believe? Almost certainly, which is what makes it so difficult to objectively evaluate the veracity of these kinds of conclusions.

An unbeliever will likely be accused of choosing only those presuppositions which support his inclination to deny the existence of God. But a believer does just the same. Simply choose the presuppositions that will inevitably lead to the conclusion that God almost certainly exists.

What is my aim in this discourse? That there is no compelling reason to believe anything wholeheartedly. As I've alluded to on many counts, I don't have a problem with this. It does not matter to me whether God does or does not exist. I can live a fulfilled life with or without God or at least with or without belief in God. To allay the concerns of those suspicious that my lack of belief will lead me astray, do not worry! I have no compulsion to degenerate into a wretched, vile animal just because I don't believe in God!

I want to be forthright about something. There is nothing wrong with having beliefs. We are ultimately going to believe only what we want to believe. With this in mind, we must brace ourselves with the fact that many people are going to believe contrary to us. We should be humble and respectful and simply agree to disagree.

A Reflection On Morals

Need God even exist for moral precepts to have intrinsic meaning and value?

If one finds morality irrelevant without God, he is actually making a scathing indictment of His moral precepts. How so? The implication of morality only being relevant if God exists necessarily implies that morality is merely arbitrary in the sense that it can in principle only be good because God deems it such. But if it is only arbitrarily good and not intrinsically good, how does this make God good?

Whether God exists and whether morality ultimately comes from Him, I think the overarching importance of morality is not for the sake of making God happy but rather is ostensibly for us in order to have more fulfilled and peaceful lives free of unnecessary drama!

It puzzles me that many implicitly seem apt to believe God's precepts are nothing but obstructions to their happiness but that in the end, their obedience (translation: suffering) to said precepts will open up a treasure trove of rewards.

But I think this is silly. I believe the reward is the obedience to said precepts as they are intrinsically meaningful and valuable and as such will lead to fulfillment and peace devoid of needless suffering. Now if one does not agree with my assessment that obedience itself leads to fulfillment and peace, he is making a mockery of God's chosen precepts by either reluctantly following them or simply following them as a means to amass rewards for “stellar” behavior. Of course if he is not following said precepts, he will certainly be judged, will he not?

But I don't believe God would be heard saying, “I'm so happy you are following My moral precepts for the sake of being obedient to Me!” Rather, I think He would say something like the following: “Here are My immutable moral principles which lead to peace and fulfillment. I don't want you to follow them for My sake. Rather, I want you to ponder their value and significance such that you might feel compelled to follow them for your own sake!”