We went out to breakfast this morning in the Colorado mountain town of Edwards, near Vail, where we are staying with dear friends. It’s Tim’s 60th birthday and we’ve had the most marvelous visit for the past ten days or so. Lots of snowshoeing in the backcountry … exhausting work traipsing up forested trails to alpine meadows in fresh snow but I remarked that this is what heaven must be like at 18 degrees. 🙂

All of this was a counterpoint to a disturbing image in the restaurant this morning. Two twenty-something couples sat in a booth nearby and as they passed and sat down, I read the phrases on their sweatshirts.

The woman’s said, “Trash the Fetus” and the man’s said, “Eye Hate God.”

My first thought was that this was pretty brazen stuff. In-your-face and not the kind of thing one sees every day. I’m all for free speech but this was pure attention-getting and I tried to wrap my head around who they were and what they were actually thinking.

Of course, I know a lot about atheism and the rejection of God as a theory. Objectivism, Rationalism and Naturism are all philosophically grounded in the belief there is no all-powerful supernatural being.

I’m very familiar with the Roe v. Wade decision and most of the debate points on the issue of abortion. I also am aware of the complexities involved in trying to determine how the legal system should respond to the issue, whichis a perfect confluence of science and morality. It confronts fundamental facets of human life … its meaning and significance. I happen to harbor my own strong feelings on the issue and I’m certainly not alone in that. But, to celebrate “trashing” a fetus is, to me, just plain repugnant which is why I was immediately taken aback.

It’s no secret that I “fought” God for decades. My wrestling was with the concept of such a Being in light of so much suffering and evil in the world. But, I never “hated” God. I’m not sure of the phrase on the man’s sweatshirt that said “Eye (as opposed to I) Hate God.” Nevertheless, my mind pretty quickly put these things aside as I remembered an amazing truth.

God loves them as completely and fully as he loves me and everyone else. Just because they reject him and seem to celebrate in that rejection … just because they see a developing human being as garbage, does not reduce by one iota his unconditional love for them. And, I am called to do the same.

So I prayed. I prayed that their hearts would turn from violence to compassion. That, should they question the idea of God, they should also pursue a life similar to the one Jesus proposed … one of service and charity, forgiveness and grace and, most importantly of love.

Lord, I suspect they really don’t hate you, if for no other reason than that they don’t know you. I rejected you in no uncertain terms as Saul of Tarsus did two thousand years ago before he emerged as the apostle Paul. But, you are the hound of heaven, the shepherd who leaves the ninety-nine to recover the one. I pray that the young man and young woman I saw this morning will some day hear your voice and say, “yes.” Amen.

A little over a month ago, not long after the world’s most famous scientist, Stephen Hawking, died, I read excerpts from a recent interview wherein he made especially strong claims that there was no room for God, given the authority of science. I’ve followed Hawking for many years, having read his most popular book, A Brief History of Time not long after it was published in 1998. I’ve read more than a few books and probably hundreds of articles about physics, astrophysics, cosmology and astronomy. While I’m certainly not a trained scientist, I nearly minored in biology in college and am a big fan of the scientific method, here defined as

a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.

While continuing to read up on many things scientific, I like to think I’m a rational person, given to reasoning through many potential implications of observable and hypothetical data points. I also like to think that I’m open to reasoned discussion and debates on a wide variety of topics … and am not a fan of hyperbole and great leaps of logic. After all, the main focus for my M.A. in Theology was Epistemology, which is the philosophy of knowledge. One cannot dive very deeply into the philosophy of knowledge without applying principles of reason.

I guess this is probably just a way of presenting context for what follows. I had thought last month to share my impressions about what Hawking presented as he was close to death. (I continued to be amazed over the many years of his resiliency as he suffered ALS while remaining completely atop his field of astrophysics.)

I was going to rebut his contentions that science and God are exclusive and his “proof” that God does not exist based upon his science-based conclusions. While I had great respect for much of his work, I was puzzled that he would leap out of his field of expertise and try to speak as an expert in a field of which he had little or no expertise.

Anyway, I got sidelined by other things and this potential blog topic was pushed back.

Until I ran across this blog post this morning from someone who does a much better job than I could have … so I’m attaching it here.

I must say that it’s quite long and very possibly of no interest to many of you but if you care to wade through it, you might gain some insight into this raging debate about the confluence or divergence of faith and science in the world today.

Good luck and here it is. Brad

As a human being who often struggles with relatively trivial difficulties in life, I have long felt admiration for Stephen Hawking’s courage and determination to continue working in spite of a highly-debilitating disease. As a physics enthusiast, I have the greatest respect for his accomplishments. But now, as a result of an article published in The Guardian two weeks ago, I also feel embarrassment for, and disappointment in, Hawking. The article reported his views on religion and metaphysics — they were unoriginal, ill-informed, biased, insensitive, and even arrogant.

The article was entitled, “Stephen Hawking: ‘There is no heaven; it’s a fairy story’.” I don’t believe Hawking is capable of such an inane statement, so I attribute this bit of silliness to the reporter’s desire for an attention grabbing headline. It’s just another example of why no one can trust reporters. Unfortunately the rest of the silliness that follows is undoubtedly Hawking’s.

For example, Hawking believes the human brain is like a computer that will stop working when its components fail. This is an old and discredited view of the human mind. The brain is not like any known computer. For one thing, computers process serially, while the brain has the wonderful ability to process things in parallel. Hawking simply has the metaphor backwards, as any computer engineer struggling to make computers more like the human brain can tell you.

This simplistic view of humans can also be faulted for his apparent ignorance of the related problems of consciousness and mind/body dualism. Consciousness is one of the great unsolved mysteries of the universe, and there are no conscious computers except in movies. Since Hawking doesn’t say anything new about consciousness, his statements about the human condition are pretentious.

The dualist/monist debate about whether or not the mind and brain are the same thing has been raging for about 2,500 years. The best philosophers in the world have failed to resolve the question, something of which Hawking seems unaware, since he takes the monist side and simply dismisses the dualist view without argument. When it comes to philosophical arguments, scientists — even great scientists — need to understand that they have no special privileges.

Hawking was also reported to have said, “There is no heaven or afterlife for broken-down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.” From an uninspired and misleading analogy he leaps into metaphysics with an arrogant disregard for the limitations of science. Science is the study of our material universe, and as such it can have nothing to say about heaven or the afterlife. It is destructive of science for one its best to loudly proclaim scientifically unsupportable and irresponsible conclusions.

Hawking certainly has as much right as any other person to speculate on the great questions of human existence. But, honest inquiry and open communication do not appear to be his intent. Hawking does not acknowledge his lack of expertise in these matters nor does he invite the rest of us to discuss heaven or the after-life as his equals. Instead he engages in a condescending and mean-spirited condemnation of deeply-held religious beliefs. There is no empathy for those who fear the darkness of an existence devoid of genuine love, objective moral truths, and the hope of eternal purpose. His message seems to be ‘here is the way smart people think, and if you think differently, you’re a pathetic dimwit.’

Hawking is blind to the wrong he is doing science. He reportedly told Diane Sawyer that “there is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win, because it works.” There are three parts to this statement, all of which are wrong:

1. There are at least three relevant definitions of the word ‘authority.’ Hawking is using the word in the following sense:
   
   The power or right to control, judge, or prohibit the actions of others.This would be a generally accepted definition of religious authority. Hawking certainly has in mind the atheist myth that Christian leaders have over the centuries prohibited scientists in significant ways. The false allegation of Galileo’s persecution by the Catholic Church is a notable example¹. The undeniable historic truth is that Christian faith and beliefs were the necessary foundation of modern science.Hawking should keep in mind two other important definitions of authority:An expert in a particular field.The ability to influence or control others.Hawking, as a renowned expert in physics, has significant influence over others — he is a scientific authority. When he uses this sort of authority to make pronouncements that go far beyond the scope of legitimate science, Hawking is the one abusing authority.
2. I wholeheartedly agree with Hawking that science is largely based on observation and reason. So, what has Hawking observed to lead him to the conclusion there is no afterlife or heaven? Has he teleported to the far reaches of the universe? Has he managed to visit the other seven dimensions that string theory posits to exist? Has he somehow escaped the confines of our universe to see what is outside? Has he at least had a near-death experience? If his beliefs are not based on direct observation, then what exactly does Hawking’s reason tell him that has eluded so many other great thinkers before him?
3. In what way does science work better than religion? Science gives knowledge of one kind, but it cannot give humankind a viable ethics to live by²or explain the meaning or purpose of life. The Bible does these important things for billions of people. Even for non-Christians, the dominant moral system in the world today has its roots in Christianity, which is the major reason the world has never been safer or more prosperous than it is now.Furthermore, the Bible is arguably superior to science as a source of truth about our universe. Is Hawking aware that the Bible states that the universe had a beginning³, that it was created out of nothing⁴, and that time in our universe is relative⁵? Scientists didn’t figure any of this out until the 20th century. Genesis 1 alone makes at least 26 scientifically testable statements about the creation of the universe and the origins of life. All 26 are consistent with current scientific understanding and in the correct order. The inconvenient truth for atheists is that the Bible somehow beat science to important truths by about 3,000 years.
   
   Science works in an important but very narrow sense — it assists humankind in understanding and controlling much of the natural world. But it also gives people tremendous destructive power. Without religion to give people direction in the choices they make about using that power, humankind could end up destroying itself.Finally, if you compare societies around the world in regard to which works best, science or religion, one fact of supreme importance will jump out at you. Generally speaking, non-religious peoples are not reproducing themselves while religious ones are. This single aspect of a society overrules all others; if a nation doesn’t reproduce itself, it is irrelevant how many other wonderful qualities it may have because they won’t be projected into the future. In the long run, atheist or secular humanist societies, no matter how scientific, don’t work because they lack the power to continue.

Hawking goes on to say that the concept of religion is in constant conflict with his life’s work — science, and understanding the most basic ways in which the universe works — and it’s almost impossible to reconcile the two. The first part of this statement is an old atheist lie: there is no inherent conflict between Christianity and science. Hawking either ignores or is ignorant of the historical fact that the Christian faith and beliefs made science possible in the first place. If you doubt this, take a look at when and where modern science developed and flourished, along with the religious beliefs of the great scientists who laid the foundations of science.

This is not to say that there hasn’t been conflict between science and religion, but it’s not the fault of Christianity. From at least the time of Darwin, secular humanists such as Thomas Huxley have misused science and misrepresented Christian beliefs in an effort to undermine the influence of Christian faith. The truth is that some scientists are in constant conflict with religion because of their atheist beliefs, and they betray science as a result.

The report reminds the public of Hawking’s position that it is “not necessary to invoke God … to get the universe going.” He has maintained this position since very early in his career, telling German news-magazine Der Speigel in 1988 that “what I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began.”

He’s not saying that he knows the cause of the Big Bang. He is saying that he has constructed a mathematical model of a possible explanation. To say something is possible is meaningless and useless. It’s possible that somewhere in the universe, blue gooses lay gold coins with Hawking’s likeness on them. Like Hawking’s statement, it’s not scientific, because no one can prove it’s not true. The other weakness of his argument against the necessity of God is that it requires the laws of nature to be eternal. They would have had to ‘predate’ the universe in some manner that can never be scientifically proved, such as the emerging atheist myth of the multiverse.

Hawking continues, “This doesn’t prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary.” Hawking is at least aware that science cannot be used to prove that God does not exist. Instead, he engages in the weasel argument that there is effectively no God since anything that is not necessary can be ignored or discarded. It’s like a child denying the necessity of parents. Child to parent: “I’m not saying you don’t exist, you just aren’t necessary. I can live without you, so just give me the keys to the house and the car along with your credit card, and go away and leave me alone.”

Scientists such as Hawking and Richard Dawkins start from a bias against God and then play in a child-like way with concepts to justify their prejudice. Just as a child cobbles together some rough approximation of an airplane out of Lego, Hawking imagines that he has constructed a viable worldview that doesn’t rest on the notion of God. But he has explained nothing and ignored almost everything of significance. He has his mathematical model of a godless universe; don’t bother him with the mysteries of what came before the Big Bang, the origins of life, the sudden Cambrian explosion of animal life, the nearly universal human need for spiritual beliefs, or the greatest mystery of all, the origin and meaning of human consciousness. He has his toy and wants to show it off.

Then Hawking says something that gives an important insight into the workings of the atheist mind. The report continues, “And it’s his work that keeps him going — even if there isn’t a heaven.” “I’m in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first.” This statement illustrates the most telling and annoying aspect of atheism: atheists seem incapable of taking any of their beliefs and reasoning to necessary and obvious conclusions. They dismiss God and the afterlife, argue that the material world is all that exists, assert that man is the measure of all things, and conclude that people can free themselves of religious restrictions and do whatever they want. If you ask them to continue with this train of thought, they usually make some kind of vague statement about a life in the service of humankind and the possibility of a kind of immortality in the sense that society will remember a person’s good deeds ‘forever.’

The problem, of course, is that it is delusional nonsense. What any good scientist should know is that our material universe is very likely heading toward what is called heat death, a state in which energy no longer exists in a form that can support life. But even before this occurs, the human species will have become extinct anyway. What is the point of doing anything in this life when you will be annihilated in the blink of a cosmic eye followed in short order by the rest of humankind? If atheists really believed this, they would either commit suicide or become Buddhist monks. But the vast majority of them continue to act as if human existence has some kind of meaning greater than that of their material state. If Hawking is right about God and the afterlife, every trace of humanity will be destroyed, all of Hawking’s work will be lost, and every effort he makes will be futile.

What he is really means when he says he is in no hurry to die is that he values his existence and he wants to keep on existing. He feels he has purpose, but he does not wonder where that purpose could possibly come from. He’s not thinking his own position to its logical end, which is that without God his existence is pathetically finite and ultimately meaningless. He says there is no God, but acts as if there is.

Interestingly, Hawking has also made headlines in recent years over his views about the existence of aliens, and what interactions between our races would be like. “If aliens ever visit us, I think the outcome would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn’t turn out very well for the Native Americans,” he said.

Here we detect the pessimism that will always be a result of atheism (as well as a lack of imagination based on what little he thinks he knows about the past). Without God and the hope for the redemption of humankind, he has no reason for optimism, no belief that things will work out better in the future than in the past. Christians believe this because they believe that good is stronger than evil, that by following God’s direction people can always triumph over evil, and that good therefore must be the future of humankind. That’s why, for instance, evangelical Christians, not atheists, put an end to the worldwide slave trade; that’s why Christians, not atheists, marched into horrendous Civil War battles singing, “He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,” and ended slavery in America.

In spite of all this, I still believe Stephen Hawking is a hero. He has persevered with a debilitating disease and done tremendous work in theoretical physics. But what do you do when a hero lets you down? There’s a line from the Gordon Lightfoot song, “If You Could Read My Mind,” that goes “The hero would be me. But heroes often fail …” That’s what I think about Stephen Hawking. When it comes to religion and metaphysics, he has failed, but he is still a hero in a way that does not diminish the meaning of the word.

I came to believe in God because of what I learned about the universe. I had the good fortune not to go to Oxford and be saturated with humanist bias against the “God hypothesis.” When I look at the structure of the universe and life on Earth, I see evidence of a great mind at work. I am sorry for Hawking that he can’t.

I heard a message the other day that resonated.

All of us get in ruts. Ruts are those things that basically direct us and have walls and sharp edges. In a sense, they act as controlling influences in our lives, oftentimes with less than desirable results. I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone say, “Boy, am I in a rut and it’s awesome!”

One of the main reasons we get in ruts is that a thing that at one time might have seemed good, like a new job or a new relationship, has lost its allure and no longer pulls us forward in a compelling way. The bloom is off the rose. Everyone who has felt this, raise your hand. 🙂

Some ruts are pretty benign. “I can’t seem to improve my golf game.” Others can indicate serious problems, such as “I can’t stop drinking.”

Essentially, these ruts are of the spirit. We are in ruts because the things we had previously thought would provide us meaning no longer do so. They indicate a crisis of meaning, which is a spiritual thing, regardless of any links to religion.

The things that seemed to glitter, perhaps bringing us a degree of happiness or a sense of fulfillment, no longer seem to do so.

Which is one way of describing addiction.

Another way of talking about this is to speak in terms of idols. Idols are things that we worship because we want something from them. A grand quid pro quo. I know that the word “worship” immediately calls to mind God or gods or religion. But it doesn’t necessarily mean so. Worship is actually a form of surrender to things to which we concede control over our lives. All sorts of things can become objects of worship … idols, if you will. Children, spouses, jobs, financial security, fashion, movie or sports stars, political affiliations, and so on. Unfortunately, when we set these things up as greater than they really are, we create idols, hoping they fill a hole in our lives … providing a sense of meaning. And, they will always disappoint. Always.

One of the byproducts of that disappointment is boredom. We’ve relied on some things to give us meaning but they fall short. Or, they provide a serious diversion from other things in our lives that should carry more importance. Since they underperform our expectations … like a lackluster (or worse) return on investment … we either up the level of attention and commitment, which can lead to addictive behavior, or we do the opposite: Descend into boredom, cynicism and/or complacency. We all know the results. Disenchantment, burn-out, and withdrawal are all possible outcomes.

Which brings us back to the nature of meaning, which is not a physical thing but a spiritual thing. I’ve used the metaphor of the compass before. I read recently that the earth’s magnetic field is really changing at an unprecedented rate. The magnetic north is moving rapidly to the west and will end up at some point in Siberia, quite aways from the North Pole. This is causing no small problem for navigation as GPS systems are being adjusted in order to adapt and make sure we don’t go off course.

I bring this up because magnetic north (constantly shifting) is quite different from true north. The North Pole is the north pole. A compass that actually pointed to that very specific spot would be pointing at true north. Immovable. Constant. Reliable. It can be counted on to always be there.

Do we get meaning from things that shift as I’ve been describing? Or, do we get meaning from a thing or things that don’t shift? Idols shift. I’ve mentioned possible outcomes.

What to do?

Well, first is to rethink the whole thing. Change the paradigm. Metanoia in the Greek. Repent. Admit the way things are. Open up to someone. Try on transparency to see if it fits. Seek support from others who have had similar experiences and can testify to how they’ve changed for the better.

A life of abundance is possible and I’m not talking at all about material abundance. In fact, the dogged pursuit of material abundance is one of those false norths and counterproductive to spiritual abundance which is another way of saying a permanent state of fulfillment.

Complacency, which is a byproduct of boredom (if boredom hasn’t deteriorated into cynicism) is, to me, a truly sad state. The complacent person is one whose vision is sketchy at best. At worse, it is non-existent in any real sense. And, without vision of where things could be, that remarkable force we call hope, is like a mirage. The complacent person has a kind of hollow feeling about things. It is what it is. “What else can I expect?”

One does not find abundance while living in a rut. To me, the abundant life is one where we can meet suffering head on, feel and express grief, find deep and transcendent joy in, perhaps, very small things, experience what it means to be pulled forward by great hope, and where we wake up each day to new possibilities and opportunities. It means being willing to change and, especially, to surrender the worship of transient idols. 

What if joy and hope held a stronger position in our lives? What if we possessed greater resiliency when things just don’t seem to be going where we’d like or take a serious turn for the worse? Where joy and hope reign, boredom and complacency are sidelined and lose their power over us. The pursuit of happiness also loses its allure as happiness isn’t faithful.

Spiritual complacency is not all that far removed from a withering spirit. I believe that “religious” people are no different from “non-religious” people. Perhaps even worse. They’ve bought into a paradigm that is either inauthentic or hasn’t produced the desired results.

When the Samaritan woman at the well offers Jesus a drink, he demurs, telling her that he is there to offer her “living” water instead. This living water is the nourishment that is permanent and offers abundance in ways the world doesn’t perceive. It is the antidote to boredom and complacency. All we need to do is get off our butts, be willing to rethink some things, shift our focus towards the undeviating true north and get ready for the ride of a lifetime. 

I recognize that my audience includes practicing Christians, skeptics and a few who are either believers of another faith tradition or who have faith in atheism. Which a nice group!

For the non-Christian, this reflection may seem fanciful or bizarre. Had it not been for some experiences growing up and into adulthood, combined with my perspective on human nature and the lengths we go to destroy all that is good, I might have just dismissed what I’m going to say out of hand. Even so, it took a leap (which I believe to be rational) to take these words of the apostle Paul to heart.

As translated in the New International Version of the Bible, in his letter to the church in Ephesus that we call the Book of Ephesians, chapter 6, verse 12:

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

Or, as translated into current vernacular in The Message, verses 10-12:

And that about wraps it up. God is strong, and he wants you strong. So take everything the Master has set out for you, well-made weapons of the best materials. And put them to use so you will be able to stand up to everything the Devil throws your way. This is no afternoon athletic contest that we’ll walk away from and forget about in a couple of hours. This is for keeps, a life-or-death fight to the finish against the Devil and all his angels.

A few verses later, Paul tells us exactly what those “weapons” are and I can testify first hand that I have deployed them on more than a few occasions. Maybe more on that later.

So, here comes the part that can get really weird to those with modern sensibilities.

Now, most people believe in evil. Many of these people believe that evil is an intrinsic thing. It’s not just a really bad action by some really bad people. It’s a thing all of its own. Some would refer to this as a dark force … sort of like the thing we get out of the Star Wars stories. There are forces for good and evil and they both can tug on us to varying degrees.

The modern sense is that mankind has always struggled with understanding this tension and has done a good job of deifying the conflict, assigning humanlike or person like features to make it more apprehensible. That modern sense then dismisses this as mythology, not grounded in reason. Giving credence to some itinerant religious guy (Paul), who went around planting early Christian churches two millennia ago, is not in the cards. I can understand.

Well, here is what Paul is saying.

All of us live within a massive reality, a good deal of which we don’t see or understand. This supernatural reality exists in both our dimension and a dimension that we normally don’t see (while occasionally seeing) but makes our reality infinitesimally small in comparison. While this is his contention and the contention of the majority of humans today, including some very rational people, it runs contrary to contemporary cultural trends that can be classified as materialistic. What you see is what you get (or want to get!).

And, says Paul, this reality is a battlefield. I mean, really. A battlefield. We exist in a kind of cosmic war, with far reaching implications that we should not only recognize but respond to. With determination. With weapons. None of us is excused from the battlefield. All of us play a part, whether or not we realize it. This is the beginning of what he’s saying.

Which brings us to the battlefield and the players in his scenario. (An important aside, first. Everything Paul says can be traced to the teaching of Jesus. It is often said of Jesus that he was as a lamb, gentle and innocent. He is casually airbrushed to match human longings for a loving God who is forgiving of all shortfalls. However, he is also referred to as a lion, a roaring giant of a creature who has no peer and whose power in nature is overwhelming. This perspective speaks to the human longing for a God of justice. These are two sides of Jesus, which causes no lack of divisiveness in the Christian faith and no lack of interpretations of the value of Jesus’ teachings in the world at large.)

Paul recognizes that life, itself, is a battle, a constant struggle. He even admits (in the Book of Romans 7:17-20) that he does things or behaves in ways he knows are wrong and almost can’t help himself. He refers to this as sin, a predilection towards things that are not good or healthy. Paul was one heck of an introspective guy and is, no doubt, very hard on himself. (Note: Being hard on one’s self is not in current fashion as the contemporary mindset leans towards gratifying the self and the “fact” that all personally-held values are inherently equal and good.)

So, goes the thinking, we are all, by nature, engaged in this battle but (and here comes the kicker) those personal and internal battles are just the manifestation of the larger cosmic battle of which there are actually identifiable players. This is the exact opposite of the aforementioned conclusion that any cosmic significance is the manifestation of purely natural impulses. I’ve been watching this debate for a long time now.

So, let’s cut to the chase and call it as it is.

Paul is describing a scenario whereby we are getting it wrong. We think that the battle is earthly. It’s about our “flesh and blood.” No, our battle is with the dark forces that exist outside of nature and, yes, they are real, having form and substance. These dark forces intersect with us spiritually, although they can also manifest physically from time to time. This, of course, is the “enemy” the demons aligned with the Devil, the Satan, the fallen angel, Lucifer, who challenged God for primacy, was banished from the presence of God but allowed to exist for a time (one of the great conundrums that I’ve addressed before and will probably address again) and still exercises dominion over the hearts and minds of humans.

The “weapons” that the demonic use are lies of all kinds, whispered into our existence, primarily for the purpose of getting us to see that we can be our own gods, which was the point of the whole falling out of favor thing in the first place. These lies can come in many flavors. Some tell us that we are worthy of great esteem and should be venerated and even worshipped for our great accomplishments. Others tell us that we lack worth and value and should therefore be pitied. The lies tell us that, in the end, we are alone and that “self-actualization” is the fundamental quest. We are the masters of our fate and it’s a winner take all struggle. The lies promise all sorts of rewards and masks them beautifully. God binds us and the death of God frees us. Frees us from superimposed morality that suggests we all carry the seeds of evil in our hearts; instead we should realize that our desires are all good and should be nurtured and fed in the search for earthly happiness, which is our right.

My favorite depiction of this battle comes in a little book by C.S. Lewis entitled The Screwtape Letters. I have read it several times and marvel at the author’s wit and insight. It was written in England during the Second World War so, literarily, it’s not everyone’s cup of tea but I urge you to get a copy (libraries are good for this!).

Lewis also had this to say about the demonic realm and the chief demon:

There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them. They themselves are equally pleased by both errors and hail a materialist or a magician with the same delight.

So, really? Isn’t it the height of irrationality and superstition to believe in all of this? Certainly, a case can be made that this kind of thing is just human projection of the same kind of fears little children have of things that go bump in the night. Isn’t it just plain bizarre to think that there are actual creatures … possibly looking like vicious gargoyles with wings and claws, smelling of foul odors, whispering deceit into our ears, guiding us towards idolization of self over all things, leading us away from God and the life that God offers?

I find it curious that so many people believe in “good” energy that we can “send” one another or that there are guardian angels or any kind of angel for that matter (a lot of people believe that, when arriving in heaven, they will receive wings). But that “dark” energy isn’t really considered or that, missing out on heaven, we grow claws and barbed tails in the hereafter.

I have written about angels before but to make things seem more confusing and fanciful, the suggestion here is that the good angles (also referred to as the heavenly host) are in a constant battle with the bad devils or demons. If it’s true that these are actually physical creatures, it’s certainly appropriate to ask how the heck they’re doing battle? Swords and arrows? Wrestling matches? Traditional Christianity posits that the heavenly host is incredibly vast … millions and millions of them. It also posits that the chief fallen angel, the beautiful and self-absorbent God wannabe, Lucifer, took about a third of the host, agreeing to become traitors in their quest to unseat God and defeat the remaining faithful. Failing miserably, their corruption manifested physically and their beauty turned to unparalleled ugliness, whereby they live on (remember that the reason for this is a fascinating study in itself). And from that, we have the battle for the souls of all mankind, God’s greatest creation.

What a fairy tale!

Or, maybe not.

To be continued.