"Easter Again!" Says the Atheist.

Easter to me is more than seeing off the end of a cold, miserable winter, and seeing and feeling the weather become warmer, the days become longer, and the sun floating higher in the sky rather than briefly hugging the horizon. It is more than putting away the heavy coat, thick woollen jumpers and wellington boots for the next six months or so. Spring brings promises of warmer days, milder nights and the mental images of barbecues on the beach, swimming in the sea, hiking through glorious nature trails and being out in natural surroundings at its best, with the sun beating down as I pull out a bottle of sun lotion from the rucksack...

Except of course, that here in the UK, we Brits need to first head for the airport to fly south to some foreign country to experience all these things. At least this year, the UK winter is prolonged, it's bitterly cold as we are about to enter the month of April, and there are still snow flurries drifting through the air. And the only source of heat is the gas central heating system in our home, the thick duvet over our bed and, not forgetting, my weekly walk to the public sauna.

To the atheist, Easter originated from some ancient pagan festival celebrating the start of new life - the budding of tree leaves, the blossoming of flowers, the lambing season and the promise of fairer weather ahead - and attributed to some god or deity without the scientific knowledge that the two Poles of the Earth are lopsided by some 23 degrees, and as the planet swings around the Sun on its orbit, its tilt being the cause of the seasons.

Little wonder, that deprived of this scientific truth, the ancients worshipped some deity, with the Sun being reborn each day, seen by them as a deity riding across the sky in a fiery chariot.

 

 

Therefore what the ancients believed fuels the atheist's opinion of the ridiculous. But unfortunately, this applies to the Christian faith as well. As a matter of fact, the Christian faith has become the target for the sceptical arrows above all other faiths. Only today I was reading in the Daily Mail newspaper an essay about the decline of the Christian faith in Britain, based on Archbishop Carey's criticism of the Government's endorsement for our faith to be obliterated by the secularists, the latter being the end result of the writings of such authors as Simon Cowel and Richard Dawkins.

For me, of course, the Easter weekend is all about the crucifixion, death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, which makes Easter the most important holiday of the whole year, more so than Christmas (although the retail outlets may not agree on this.) I firmly believe in the historicity of Jesus, the Jewish Messiah who died on the cross to atone for our sins. Indeed, this is tremendous news - about the God whose love for us is strong enough to put his Son through such agonising suffering. Furthermore, God had given me the wonderful privilege to spend time in the Holy Land, a total of 23 weeks in five separate visits spanning 24 years, with my last visit together with my wife Alex in the year 2000.

Orthodox Jews ushering the Sabbath, 1993

Visiting the Holy Land had brought the Bible to life in such a way that one has to be there for the experience. Back in 1993 for example, and as a lone backpacker back then, I felt my emotions deepen as I stood just outside the forecourt of the Western Wall on a Friday evening, and watching Orthodox Jews celebrate the ushering in of their Sabbath, on a Friday evening during and after sunset, as with the Hebrew clock, the new day always begins at sunset. To me it was Friday, to them, Saturday. Then as I walked the next day through the deserted streets of West Jerusalem, the area of city occupied by Jews, not a car was to be seen, let alone buses and trucks, and every shop closed, along with offices and every private and Government institution. The whole city being empty of life certainly looked as if the whole of mankind was obliterated, leaving the planet's population of zero (or just one - myself.) It was an extraordinary experience, yet a testimony of the truthfulness of the Bible.  And yet, believe it or not, shortly after sunset Saturday, the whole city was alive and bustling like any Saturday afternoon here in the UK. It also seemed strange to me that Sunday was a normal working day right across Israel and the West Bank alike, yet still attended a church service while the shops were busy trading alongside.

Modern Israel is a testimony of the Bible's truthfulness. But as a Christian, I somehow feel apologetic to the atheist about my firm belief and conviction of the Bible. Richard Dawkins, for one, calls the God of the Old Testament the most savage and cruel, infanticidal bully he had ever known. It would be natural for any Christian to wonder how anyone could address God in such a manner. Yet how would I feel or re-act if Dawkins approached me, aware of his excellent knowledge of the Bible?

Take, for example, Numbers 16. From verses 27 through to 34, there is a narrative of the destruction of the families of Korah, Dathan and Abiram. It was these three men who sinned against the Lord although their wives and adult sons most likely co-operated and gave their blessings. But in verse 27 there were mentioned of "little ones" - most likely their grandchildren. Dawkins can argue that these were far too young to understand any implication of their transgression, yet perished screaming with the rest of the family by pure divine justice.

Another striking example of infanticide can be found in 1 Samuel 15:3 where God through Samuel, instructs King Saul to annihilate the whole of the Amalekite nation, not just adult men and women but also children, infants and sucklings too, along with all their livestock. Although King Saul did sin in sparing the livestock, he did obey the Lord in slaying every human being - including infants and sucklings.

Dawkins would have the perfect right to ask me where is the justification in such innocent infants to be slain. He would ask, how was it possible for such children to be slain for the sins their ancestors had committed against Israel? All they were concerned were for their mother's maternal love and comfort and to be breastfed. What does the suckling know about some transgression committed by some great grandfather? It is like saying that both my wife, daughters and myself be punished for the crimes of the Crusaders committed 900 years ago, who happen to be my Mum's ancestors. How would I answer Dawkins?

Then American atheist Sam Harris takes up the issue in questioning the validity of the Bible being God's word by calling into question the measurements of the huge circular bath, or sea, constructed by King Solomon to be set up by the Temple in Jerusalem (1 Kings 7:23, 2 Chronicles 4:2.) Both narratives gives the measurements as ten cubits from rim to rim and thirty cubits in circumference. To Harris, this was the most crudest approximation for PI as it could have ever gotten, a strange thing for Almighty God to give through his inspired writer. Even the ancient Babylonians, a thousand years before Solomon, had a far more accurate approximation for PI than what the Bible allows, according to Harris.

Indeed, Harris would be right. Ten cubits times PI would give a result of over 31.4 cubits, nearly one and a half cubits more than what the Bible had given. But if you look carefully at the above pic, (I know it's rather small - there is little I can do about this) - you will notice a recess just below the rim. If this recess was four inches deep, then the diameter would have been eight inches less than the actual rim. Considering that the measurement would be made much easier if taken at the recess than from the rim itself, assuming that one cubit was 18 inches, this would have given a circumference a tad over 540 inches, or almost exactly thirty cubits. The Bible wasn't too far out after all.

I perhaps can give a plausible answer to Harris on the approximation of PI, but in the New Testament there are issues that would have thrown me back, even to this day. For example, Matthew quotes a prophecy which he says that it was from Jeremiah, but it is actually from Zechariah (Matthew 27:9-10 with Zechariah 11:12-13.) If Matthew wasn't able to check his resources properly, then how could this piece of Scripture be inspired of God? So Harris also asks. True enough, Jeremiah did buy a field (Jeremiah 32:6-9, also 19:1) which might have given enough inspiration for Matthew to quote, nevertheless, the actual quote was from Zechariah, not Jeremiah.

Then there seems to be a disagreement between Mark's and John's accounts on the timing of the crucifixion, an issue which bothers me to this day. Mark has Jesus being nailed on the cross by nine in the morning (15:25) while John has Jesus still before Pilate by noon (19:14) when Pilate cries out, "Behold your king!" According to John, by noon Jesus was still with Pilate, while Luke, like Mark, has Jesus not only on the cross by noon, but also the start of the darkness which was to last three hours, i.e. until three in the afternoon. Luke also recorded the meeting of Jesus with Herod. Even if Herod was in Jerusalem at the time, if Jesus was already on the cross by nine in the morning, then his meeting with Herod must have been brief indeed. Atheists by the likes of Dawkins would have a field day. Given credit that the Sanhedrin had delivered the Lord to Pilate as early as six in the morning, with an hour spent with Herod, both quite plausible, it does not solve the discrepancy between Mark's and John's accounts.

I'll be honest here: If Dawkins, Harris or for that matter, Cowel, confronts me with these issues, I must admit that I'll be at a loss on how to answer them. For me, these are serious issues on which my faith in Christ rests upon. In fact, the Bible is the sole authority on which the whole of the credibility of the Christian faith rests. Our salvation depends on it.

In my blog, Good Friday? I'm Confused, written two years ago, I dealt on when Jesus was crucified, and I advocated a Thursday Crucifixion, based on one sole verse, found in Matthew 12:40. It was Jesus' own saying, tying his duration of his burial to that of the prophet Jonas, who was in the belly of a whale for three days and three nights. At the Good Friday service, one of the Elders mentioned in his sermon that in two days time we would be back here (in the church building) to celebrate his resurrection. Two days from Friday. In Hebrew numeracy, there is no zero. Therefore Friday itself would have been counted as day one, Saturday as day two, and Sunday as day three, even if the day began at sundown Saturday, giving a complete first twelve hours of Sunday for Jesus to remain entombed. But even with no zero in Hebrew counting, this does not add up to three nights as well, as there would have been only Friday night and Saturday night (or Saturday morning and Sunday morning, both before sunrise.) A Thursday crucifixion makes better sense, but this does not only go against the grain of my church at Ascot, but the whole of Christian tradition. Another area where the atheist would have had his day.

But also in the Bible there is much to credit for its inspiration. Just read Psalm 22, Isaiah 53 along with Zechariah 9:9 and others. There was no way that these writers imagined the future from their standpoint without divine inspiration. Despite some difficult bits, the Bible is still trustworthy and the Holy Word of God. And because of it we can trust the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for our salvation and celebrate Easter as well.

Happy Easter to you all.

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

Any comments shedding light to the issues mentioned above would be most welcome. True, I have a modification system set up, but this is to keep out advertisers (e.g. Click on this link to see my great product etc.) and it's is not to discourage discussion. God bless.  

Science Plus Faith - A Potential Mix

In 2011 my wife Alex and I spent a few hours strolling through the ruins of the Asklepeion, the remains of an ancient hospital at Kos, one of the Greek islands of the Dodecanese. The header photo on this page was taken at the Asklepeion, with Alex posing among six of the seven original Roman columns which once supported the roof of the Temple of Apollo. These columns were relatively recent, about AD 200, by comparison to the site on which they once stood, and standing once again after active restoration. Because dating back centuries BC, this hospital was the home of one of history's greatest doctors of all time - Hippocrates (c.460-370 BC.)

Bust of Hippocrates

Hippocrates has always been considered the father of medicine. One of his greatest achievements was to separate science facts from the pagan pantheon of bickering gods whose thoughts and actions determined the decisions made by men. Instead, what he did was observe the erratic behaviour of individuals and associate these behaviours with specific diseases. This idea eventually allowed him to draw up a theory that each human has four body fluids - blood, yellow bile, black bile, and phlegm. For good health, each of these fluids must be in perfect balance, according to Hippocrates. But generally, they are not in perfect balance but rather, each person has one, maybe two, dominating fluids which not only bring certain types of physical diseases, but also determine the person's behaviour, particularly in relating to others around him.

Therefore, this theory became known as the Four Humours, or Temperaments, and until recently it was used as a base tool for Psychology. This is the explanation on say; the sight of a partially filled glass. Two of the four humours would say,
"The glass is half full, let's make use of the resource we have." (Optimism.)
While the other two would lament,
"Oh dear, the glass is half empty, what will happen now?" (Pessimism.)

These are the two viewpoints over a half-filled (or empty) glass which psychologists divide personality into just two - extrovert and introvert. But Hippocrates saw that both these characteristics were divided into two sub-divisions, these creating four temperament types. One type of extrovert was people-centred. Hippocrates believed that it was warm blood which made this particular individual talkative, impulsive, very friendly and having a warm heart towards others. Thus this type of person was labelled Sanguine - meaning blood. The other type of extrovert was task oriented. He had good leadership capabilities, less talkative than the first, but very productive - but also had a quick temper and was prone to anger. Hippocrates believed that yellow bile predominated, and referred to him as Choleric - meaning anger-prone. Among the introverts, one was prone to be sad or moody most of the time, but also enjoyed the fine arts and music, and tended to be a critical perfectionist. The ancient doctor believed that black bile ruled the roost in this chap, and labelled him Melancholia - meaning prone to sadness. Finally the fourth type was observed as slow, unmotivated, always tired, and spent much of his time at rest. As such he was referred to as Phlegmatic - meaning that phlegm dominated in this person.

The Four Humours. Clockwise from upper left: Phlegmatic, Choleric, Melancholia and Sanguine.

Hippocrates referred to the fluid imbalance as the cause of various diseases, and his remedy to his patients was to rest and allow the body fluids to re-balance themselves in the effort to recover. He was one of the first to also prescribe herbal drugs to hasten the re-balance. At the Asklepeion, we were able to see the site of patient wards were the sick rested to aid recovery, as well as a counselling room where diagnoses were made.  The only feature which were absent were the operating theatres, mainly due to the culture of the day which forbade dissecting of the body to observe the human anatomy.

However, patients who had terminal illness were allowed to make peace with the god Asklepios, the son of Apollos and considered in ancient Greek folklore as the god of health and medicine. His temple was located on the upper of the three levels. Very much like the chapels found in modern hospitals.

The Asklepeion in Kos

Hippocrates was a brilliant analyst of his day, but modern science had disproved his theory of the four body fluids. However, according to Dr. S. I. McMillen in his book, None of these Diseases, (1964, final reprint 1980) this 20th Century medical doctor lists more than ninety diseases, illnesses and other infirmities brought about by excess stress and the constant over-production of adrenaline fed into the bloodstream. Normally, adrenaline is a hormone which is rapidly pumped into the bloodstream as a result of fright, or imminent danger, allowing the person for rapid action, fight or take flight. However, on the minus side, Dr. McMillen sites anger, fear and worry as the three main causes which activates the two adrenal glands, located on each kidney.  Since this is mainly an emotional issue affecting one's reaction towards an opinion, another person, group of people or a set of circumstances, its debilitating effect on one's health seems to bring a correlation between the research of Dr. McMillen and that of Hippocrates, namely that body fluids determine both behaviour and health. However, for Hippocrates to carry out his research, the major move he had to make was the departure of science from the superstitious beliefs of his day.

At present, we see science as a great benefit to our lives, especially in the area of medicine. But as I stated in my last two blogs, some disciplines of science had taken us away from faith in God and the truthfulness of the Bible. Darwinism is such one discipline. No other branch of science had enticed so many from belief and faith in God, challenging the truthfulness of the Bible. And yet, as a part in preparation of this article, I had checked some statistics. To tell the truth, I was somewhat surprised in what I have found, because according to The Guardian newspaper, printed Sunday 1st February, 2009 - the headline read:
Half of Britons do not believe in Evolution.
This headline came out close to the date of Charles Darwin's 200th birthday and at the time such discussion were at its peak. With 2,060 adults questioned, the result of the survey was:
25% believe that Evolution to be definitely true.
25% believe that Evolution to be probably true.
22% believe in creation by intelligent design, with 10% believing in the Young Earth creationism.
The remaining 28% were not sure.

In response to the survey, Professor James Williams of Sussex University commented:
Creationists ask if people believe in evolution. Evolution is a theory and a fact. You accept it because of the evidence. What the creationists have done is put a cloak of pseudo-science to wrap up their religious beliefs.  Evolution is very badly taught in schools so the results of the survey don't surprise me. On the other hand, creationism has traditionally been an issue in North America and there is a big problem in Australia and Turkey. It matters if people don't understand how science works.

Agreeing with Professor Williams, an anonymous commentator added:
Well, what a seriously depressing article! I knew that the Brits were thick, but I didn't realise we were that thick...

Maybe so, but there is a strong correlation between the UK and the United States, where the latest Gallup Poll showed that up to 46% of all Americans believe in Creationism, leaving 32% believing in Theistic Evolution and the remaining 15% believing in Evolution without divine intervention. With this kind of survey result, little wonder that neuroscientist Sam Harris, in his book, Letter to a Christian Nation, (2006) the author lamented:
Indeed, I am painfully aware that my country appears, as at no other time in her history, like a lumbering, bellicose, dim-witted giant.

In writing this blog, it becomes apparent that those who protest against creationism in favour of evolution are mainly post-graduates. This is endorsed by the same Gallup Poll that amongst post-graduates, only 25% believe in creationism, compared with 46% of the rest of the population. In turn, 29% believe in evolution without divine intercession to the 15% by the general population.

This is the hostility of those holding on to science in opposition to faith. But by looking, as an example, to microbiology, it becomes apparent that it is mathematically impossible for the cell to have evolved in the Darwinian sense, a fact that evolutionists simply don't admit, although those who research genetics and such allied studies are fully aware of the impossibility for the cell to have evolved without any form of divine intervention. To read the full details of this, go to one of my blogs,
A Small Block To The Reality Of Evolution, published 26th February, 2012.

But to read how the vastly complex mechanism of the cell works to produce the intricate protein chain needed to sustain life makes fascinating reading. And this knowledge, when mixed with faith in the God who designed it, brings out my awe and admiration to the Creator of life. Science, mixed with faith in a Creator, is a wonderful blessing. Not only does science as a whole makes daily living  less harsh but brings a lot of personal comfort, it is worthwhile noting that the most complex and the most intricate device ever created is the human brain. God has given us brains to learn all about the ins and outs of his creation, and we call that science.

Faith asks why the world works in a certain way. Science asks how. And both complement each other.