I'm reading a new book entitled The Case for Religion by Keith Ward. So far (and to be honest this isn't very far at all), his arguments seem to primarily rest on showing the longevity of religious beliefs and the vast number of people who have believed in various religions. And so far, his arguments are striking me the same way that many of the arguments from many Christians around have: purely personal and therefore difficult for me to believe.

Don't get me wrong. I understand the argument from personal experience. I have FELT personal experiences that seemed to be miraculous, moments of God reaching out to humanity in a way that seemed could only be from God. But I guess I'm just too jaded (especially after being in marketing!) to trust that kind of thing. It's so easy to be misled and/or swayed by emotion and I can just as easily be swayed into negative feelings. I just don't trust them to be any indicator of truth.

So I cannot rely on what I feel or even what I think I've seen. And I certainly cannot trust what other people tell them from their own personal experience. Martyrs are/were absolutely convinced in order to die for their beliefs. But people die all the time for inaccuracies and untruths. Even listing all the intelligent people who have come before me who have believed does not convince me.

Here's hoping that subsequent chapters will provide arguments with a little more *meat*!

My current "investigation" is into the questions of the Bible and inaccuracies. The more I read, the more I find it difficult to explain them away. Some tenets of Christian doctrine that many take issue with I do not consider to be critical to my faith (such as the virgin birth) and therefore am not disillusioned to find that most likely the old testament writings referred simply to a young girl rather than a "virgin" (although this does not seem to be much by way of sign...but whatever).

Outrights untruths though are another matter. I do not know what to do with the historical fact that Herod died four years before Quirinius began his rule or that there is no record of a census/tax anywhere around that time, particularly one requiring people to journey back to their city of origin (which always seemed odd to me in any event). The obvious conclusion seems to be that the writers of the gospels were tailoring their story to fit in with the prophecies concerning the Messiah (i.e., that he would be born in Bethlehem) rather than relating the actual story. I'm having a very hard time reconciling this to what I have always believed: namely, that God's word, while not primarily a historical document, would nonetheless prove to be true to the extent that the human (and therefore fallible) authors were capable. I expect inaccuracies of the sort of an imperfect understanding of science, but the above reeks of manipulation and outright charlatanism.

Perhaps the solution, as has been suggested to me now by a whole range of friends and acquaintances, is to accept that the Bible is not inerrant but to view it as I would the words and works of more contemporary Christians - imperfect and broken tools that God uses to His glory in spite of themselves.

Atheism is not a proof that God does not exist. Instead it is the assertion that theism does not provide an adequate proof of the existence of God.(Dawkins)

Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science & reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. (Hitchens, God Is Not Great, p.5)

So this brings me to the crux of my problem: while I have no problem believing that there is god, much of the Bible "contradicts science or outrages reason" so many times. And yes, I know the verse about God's wisdom being wiser than the wisdom of the world but to be honest, this just seems like a bit of a cop-out in my present frame of mind. I keep coming back to the thought that if humans are created in God's image (and given the whole "God is a spirit" doctrine, I'm assuming that's spiritual image rather than bodily), why wouldn't it make sense? Yes, acting in faith can be a spiritual experience but why wouldn't the overall framework fit together? It's one thing to believe that there is a God, that he wants a personal relationship with humans - but why would there be huge discrepancies in the revelation he gave us then?

I am now 2 more books into my search (Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God and Christopher Hitchins' God Is Not Great; I also read Swinburne's Is There a God? in there but didn't find anything new/enlightening) and have reached the tenuous conclusion that there is a god of some sort - in the sense that there is some supernatural being who is eternal and upon whose existence the laws of the universe are based.

Of course, since this is not much more than calling the constants "god", I'm not sure how much progress this is but it feels like a start.

coolest xmas gift

Last summer a friend of mine from work, Lisa Gellens, was showing my friend Jenn & myself some of the jewelry that she had been designing - really cool stuff. She and her sister, Stephanie, have set up a business which you can find online here. I immediately asked her if she would design something for me but had no idea what to even ask for. Jenn jumped in and said "Oh, let me work with her - I think I know what you'd like and then I can give it to you for Christmas." The result is this gorgeous necklace & earring set that are just so beautiful, I almost feel too nervous to wear them.

The stone is called larimar and is absolutely exquisite -- beyond words. It comes from the Dominican Republic. The color, the detail in the stone, and the unique setting make this my all-time favorite Christmas gift.