SEARCHING FOR GOD

By

Joe Wilkins

Copyright © 2014

The concept of God is no longer entrenched as firmly in the minds of people as was in the past. Ancient people always had a god or gods they worshiped, were fearful of, looked to for answers on the human condition, and other aspects of their world that were a mystery to them. They looked to these spiritual guides to tell them why good people suffer, how humankind came into being, what lay in the future, what happens when they die, what was the purpose of their existence, etc.

To answer these questions certain people, such as priests, medicine men, shamans, preachers, prophets and others, developed “callings” to help get the answers. These were usually men, who were anointed or called into these professions, and were given high status by their peers and community for their unique abilities. In some cases they were elevated to be the objects of worship themselves. The qualities they all had in common was the belief that they possessed personal deity or had communication with higher powers, who would communicate with them about the realities of the spiritual world.

This essay will deal mainly with the Christian religion, since the author is a Christian and is not well versed in other religious belief systems. However, they all have some common ground, so the reasoning in this essay will apply to all in varying degrees. It should be noted, however, that this essay falls into the category of informed personal opinion, and is not intended to devalue any religious belief system. The possibilities inherent in this treatise are that it is completely or partially off base, or at least has some connection to reality. The subject matter is difficult, and may be difficult for some people to accept. The author apologizes to anyone who may be offended. Your opinion and reasoned critique of this writing is valued.

One of the problems that religions struggle with today—and have since the advent of Renaissance scholars such as Galileo, Copernicus, and others—is that some of the findings of science call into question some of the specifics of the various religions. If a person is well trained in the scientific method, and accepts it as a valid means of exploring and seeking the truth of this world and the afterlife, often there have occurred inevitable conflicts between scientific discoveries and certain aspects of religious belief systems. The paradox, of course, is that the scientific method was created to study the nature of our world and the universe, but it is grossly deficient at discovering the realities of the spiritual world.

Assuming there is a spiritual world, the scientific method has failed to verify it. There have been anecdotal experiences of individuals who claimed to have had experiences and knowledge of the afterlife, but none has held up to rigorous scientific scrutiny. From a scientific perspective, religious beliefs may seem to be much like believing in flying saucers or visitors from alien worlds, and we just have not been able come up with evidence that withstands rigorous investigation. The transition from our real world to the spiritual one seems to have an impenetrable wall, through which science is woefully deficient at penetrating.

One explanation for this deficiency is that the scientific method was developed by the finite minds of men, which, while brilliant and with vast potential, finite minds cannot comprehend an infinite universe. Our minds can only understand those parts of infinity that are “visible.” For example, suppose the universe is infinite, with no end, and goes on forever and ever. Can we really understand that? I contend that we cannot, because we are limited by the cause-and-effect phenomenon, a limitation imposed on our limited minds, dictating that when viewing the Milky Way and the rest of the Universe on a clear night, we cannot really understand the immensity,  how it all began, and perhaps someday will end.

One current scientific theory as to our beginning is the “Big Bang” theory, which hypothesizes that several billion years ago all matter or energy in the Universe was confined in one small spot, which “exploded” and evolved into what we know today. This stretches our common sense brains—but we are finite–so there is obviously more here than we can understand. Even acceptance of the Big Bang leaves us with the question of what went on before that event. Some cosmologists have used higher mathematics to devise theories or explanations about all this, and have come up with the ideas that there may even be eleven universes—or perhaps an infinite number of them! How can our finite minds even begin to comprehend such matters, always remembering that any system devised by our finite minds– in this case higher mathematics–will have its finite limitations, incapable of understanding an infinite universe—if indeed it is infinite.  Finiteness can never understand infinity; it can only present the concept, but is doomed to never “get inside” and fully understand it.

If we consider the possibility that the universe is not infinite, but does have limits, then our endeavor is simpler, and we may possibly come to an understanding of it someday. For then our finite minds will be able to use the scientific method—or any other method we devise—to come closer to the reality in which we find ourselves in the cosmos. Even with this scenario, however, we still face a monumental problem: finiteness itself can be complicated beyond comprehension, as evidenced by the complexity of our DNA structure or the neural pathways of the human brain. It has been estimated that our brains have about one hundred billion neurons, which have a number of interconnections that exceeds the number of atoms in the known Universe! Now, this may be an over-calculation, but all will agree the number is huge. Even so, the brain is still finite and has its limits.

I am a great admirer of science, without which we would all still be living in caves or the savannahs, trying to stay alive by eating whatever wild creatures or plants we could scrounge up. Thus, it is my contention that until future humans develop infinite brains, we are doomed to understand our universe just one small part at a time, but we will never be able to comprehend the entire picture. If one could do that, would not he or she be God?

Nevertheless, the evolving principles of modern cosmology require one to have a very high IQ to understand these theories, which dooms most of us to some vague notion of what is going on, and Heaven help us in explaining them to others. Recently, one very brilliant scientist stated that he had read Stephen Hawkings’ book on the nature of the Universe twice, and he still did not understand it!

Therefore, we are in need of some understanding that will be beneficial to us all. That is the purpose of this essay; but we must remember, it is being written by a person with a finite mind.

Let us examine a few religions that have been unproven scientifically, but are held strongly within our belief-faith systems and see where that takes us.

Christians, first of all, have the belief that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin mother, and after execution was raised from the dead, and ascended into heaven. Now, science says all this is impossible. There has never been a scientifically, verifiable instance where a dead person came back to life, much less ascended into Heaven and reappeared on Earth. And there has never been any proof of a virgin birth. But this does not mean these events could not have happened; it’s just that science cannot confirm or disprove them. Moreover, if there is no omnipotent, universal, infinite God, these events are most likely impossible! However, just because something has never happened before or since does not mean it could not have happened that one time. The Big Bang was supposedly a onetime event, and was much more miraculous than the events recorded in the New Testament. However, if there is an infinite God, then all this is possible, because an infinite creator of either an infinite or finite universe, has infinite power and can use that power to do anything He desires. Put yourself in such a God’s shoes. You have created your Universe, with the planet Earth among others, and you decide to make a virgin pregnant, and she births a son who can relate to the rest of your creation in ways finite humans can understand.  It is easier for the average person to understand Jesus—because he is flesh and blood—than to comprehend an omnipotent Creator. However, people cannot scientifically understand virgin birth and bodily resurrection, so they are forced to accept them on faith, or reject them.

So, Mary has God’s baby, Jesus, and he preaches and spreads his wishes to his finite-thinking followers. Then Jesus angers and confuses many, so they crucify him. Then God brings him back to life, which with His infinite power is possible, because if you can create a Universe from nothing there is no problem in bringing a dead body back to life. Moreover, just because God has never done it again, does not mean it did not happen. Jesus is then witnessed by many people for a short time, according to  historical records—which is not scientific proof, but is eyewitness testimony, and is better than no evidence. All this is the basis of the Christian religion, and if it is true—as many of us believe– then that’s all there is to say about it. But we must remember that there are many thoughtful, intelligent people people who do not believe Jesus was the son of God; they acknowledge that he did exist, but was more or less  like the rest of humankind, and was a great teacher and prophet.

Muslims have their Mohammed, who had a different relationship with God than did Jesus. Moses and Joseph Smith were different also. The record of their relationship and experiences with God are each unique and slightly different, but we cannot scientifically say their experiences did not happen—they just can’t be proven scientifically. There is only faith.

Thus, we find ourselves somewhat at a dead-end scientifically. Faith leaves many people hanging between belief, partially believing, not believing, wondering, hoping, or any other mental state that gives them comfort–or induces anxiety–about this whole business. In short, we are doomed to never know for sure—leaving us only with faith to cling to if we choose to believe in God.

However, there is a part of humankind’s achievement that can comfort us with some assurance when appplied to what science has found about the Universe thus far. And that achievement is mathematics. Strictly speaking, mathematics is not a science, but is a special language we have devised, and it is used to investigate certain aspects of reality in which scientists are seeking knowledge. Specifically, I am talking about the laws of probability. In mathematics, probability is defined as the likelihood of the occurrence of any particular form of an event (the existence of God in this case), estimated as the ratio of the number of ways in which that form might occur, to the number of ways in which the event might occur in any form. Rephrasing, this means that, of the various ways things could have formed in our solar system to give us humankind, compared to the other ways things could have happened, is the probability that we exist as we are. If the probability is very high it suggests that we are not likely the product of chance, but might just be the result of some divine, intervention plan of God—or other First Cause.

Let us look at some of the events that science has determined to have happened and how they add up, demonstrating that we are likely more than the result of chance occurrences.

We will use the simple formula for probability familiar to students of advanced algebra. This formula is expressed as follows: Probability = probability 1, x probability 2, x probability 3, etc. For example, the probability that I can toss a coin and come up with heads 5 times in a row is P=p1xp2xp3xp4xp5 where each toss has one chance in two of being heads. Our formula would then be P=1/2×1/2×1/2×1/2×1/2, with P =1/32, or one chance in thirty-two that I could get five heads in a row. .

Given this understanding, let us look at the probability factors of events that have occurred on earth, which have resulted in life as we know it on our planet. We will then speculate as to whether God caused all this to happen

1) The Earth’s geological composition. Originally, the Earth was a hot ball of rocks and metal, resulting from an amalgamation of cosmic particles that coalesced to form our planet. There was no water originally. Odds of this happening: Let us be conservative, and say 1 chance in 10.

2) The Earth’s size, composition, and gravitational pull is just right to hold on to our atmosphere, something Mars and other moons and planets do not have because they are too small—if they ever had much atmosphere at all. Odds: 1/10

3) Earth’s acquisition of water is the result of icy asteroids, comets, or moons hitting the earth, and at the right time, helping to cool down the crust, providing the planet with a basic necessity for the formation of life. Odds: 1/100

4) The Earth is just the right distance from the Sun to support life as we know it. Mercury and Venus are too close, with Mercury having no atmosphere or rotation, with Venus having an atmosphere, but the surface temperature being about 800 degrees. Mars is too far. Odds: 1/1000

5) The earth has a magnetic field, due to an iron core, which protects us from fatal cosmic radiation from the sun. Odds: 1/5

6) The earth rotating as it does, giving us the seasons. Odds: 1/5

7) There is evidence that the moon was formed after a collision between another astral body and the Earth during the solar system’s formative days. Our moon’s size and distance from Earth is precisely what we require and is critical to our existence. This confluence of events regulates the tides at the optimum rate, prevents wobbling as the Earth spins. If the Earth wobbled there would be radical rising  and falling  of temperatures and tides. Odds: 1/1000

8) The asteroid that hit the earth 65 million years ago at the end of the Cretaceous period and caused the demise of the dinosaurs, allowed life as we now know it to form. A little known fact about this episode was that most of the dominant plants and animals were reduced or wiped out, leaving animals and flowering plants we have today to evolve. Odds: 1/1000

9) For reasons too complicated to illustrate here, the size, structure and position of the planet Jupiter caused our solar system to form in its present manner. Without Jupiter, humankind would not exist. Odds: 1/1000

There are numerous other things that have occurred which have contributed to life as we know it on Earth. But with just the above 9 factors, the estimated odds of all these events occurring is huge, represented by the formula of: P = 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/100 x 1/1000 x 1/5 x 1/5 x 1/1000 x 1/1000 x 1/1000. This gives the probability that the Earth as we know it had only one chance in 250 quadrillion of becoming what it is. And, realistically, the figure has to be much higher than that, if we plug into the equation many of the other events that occurred in Earth’s formation and development.

What does this mean? Either we are strictly the result of a series of monumental, cosmic accidents, the probability of which is unimaginable, or we are the result of some planned creative effort over billions of years, resulting in a planet that gave birth to and supports our form of life.

There is some speculation that there are lower forms of life on other bodies in our solar system, many of which have water, and future space probes will investigate this. There is also the supposition that life may have originated on other worlds, and was transported to Earth in the early days by comets and/or meteors. If this proves out, what are the odds of this happening also?

In approaching the hypothesis that God created the Universe, we are faced with the limits of science, which can only investigate objective reality– that which is measureable. Science has to assume that there is an objectively real Universe if it is to be investigated. Moreover, what science has discovered about the Universe thus far has been objective—though there are still many unknowns, but they promise to be discovered and analyzed in the future.

Thus, science can only determine the real, substantial, objective Universe around us. It cannot determine the existence of God, or anything of a spiritual nature. That reality is only known through faith, but it cannot be proven.

So how do we get to the next level, given that science cannot prove there to be a God?

Consider that philosophical rule called Occam ’s razor, which states that any theory that introduces the least new assumptions is preferred by science. Otherwise, we could introduce any number of theories as to how the Universe was formed—which is what all the cosmologists are doing today. However, if the Universe is infinite, and is unguided by a Creator, all things are possible—and in fact will occur! There is the old story that if the Universe is infinite, and you seat down an infinite number of monkeys at typewriters, and if they typed away forever, then they would ultimately produce every piece of literature that mankind has produced—and would produce forever.   Since the human mind is finite that avenue of discovery is doomed to an ambigious journey, which is what is happening with the theories of multiple or alternate Universes, black hole speculation, quantum theories, etc.

Science, and the scientific method, are thus stopgap measures that our finite minds use to determine the reality around us. This means that we are doomed to uncertainty, and we will remain is this fog of unknowing if the Universe is infinite. However, if the Universe is finite there is hope that someday we can figure it out. Nevertheless, don’t hold your breath.

Thus, our Occam principle says that we should go with the theory that has the fewest assumptions about Creation, which is that God created it. This theory has the advantage of being the simplest, most understandable and encompassing, and gives us answers that science cannot. The only other alternative is to believe in nothing, that the Universe came into being on its own.

However, this does not conform to what science has thus far proven. For example, there is evidence for the Big Bang from telescopic observation and cosmic investigation, but there is no explanation how this explosion from nothing created all the matter we can see with our telescopes. Agnostics and atheists cannot give us an answer to the question: How did a secular Universe come into being from nothing?

The God-cause gives us the only answer at this time. Our finite minds can conceive of a spiritual being—separate from our material Universe, with infinite power—who could create something out of nothing, but this cannot be proven—only taken as an act of faith. Then we are faced with the same problem the agnostics and atheists have: how did God come into being? This is the question that causes the gulf between non-believers and believers. The agnostics and atheists say it all started with the Big Bang, but cannot explain what there was before, while religious folks cannot tell what was before God—if anything. Religious folks can only say, “God always was, and always will be! Thus, we come to an impasse between the two groups.

Thus, we seem to be at an epistemological dilemma, whereby our quest for knowledge comes to a dead-end.

It is at this point that we have to use some finite, scientific, common sense. Looking at the God-concept, we can ask someone to come up with a better idea, recognizing that most of the great minds in history have done so, and have convinced themselves there is a God, because it answers most of the unknowable questions. However, we find that no one has given us a good alternative. Many people go through life believing there is no God and accept that at the end of their lives there is nothingness. That is discomforting, because most people, when they get to their final days, psychologically need to believe in something beyond them. The old adage that there are no atheists in foxholes is almost 100% true.

Therefore, we can use the probability suppositions we have discussed to circumvent the limitations of science, and with great confidence propose that the formation of our universe had a God creating it. Otherwise we have a one chance in 250 quadrillion that He did not. This would then mean that we are the result of a great cosmic lottery, that out of all the possibilities of things that could have happened to produce the planet earth as it now exists, our existence is just one big accident. Now an accident like ours could have happened in an infinite or exceedingly complex universe, beating those odds of one in 250 quadrillion, but it does not appear likely.

So where does all this leave us? An informed opinion by this author proposes that there has to be a God. It’s clear that we cannot scientifically prove there is a God, but humankind definitely does need a God. We have demonstrated throughout history that our existence alone is not enough. Some thinkers have continually believed that we could create heaven on Earth if we would only pull the pieces together. Revolutionary forms of government have been the methods we have tried the most: the United Nations; US Constitution; Articles of Confederation; the British unwritten constitution; Russian, Chinese, Cuban, North Korean, and Vietnamese communism; etc; but they have proven themselves severely lacking in many areas. They certainly have not created a non-violent, peaceful world. Actually, these systems made things better in the short term in many cases, with the American system arguably the best of the lot, but they all have been plagued with a lot of dysfunction and evil, as anyone looking around the world today can testify. The world has not been free of war and strife during humankind’s entire existence.

Thus, we have proven that we are unable to create Heaven on Earth. Moreover, those today who believe that it is possible to do so forget, or are ignorant of our history. All attempts, either social or political, have failed because of humankind’s many sins of commission and omission. We seem to be able to calm things down for brief periods, but later we always degenerate into dysfunction.

Therefore, it is my contention that we cannot count on the world to improve beyond what has already been demonstrated. For all who believe and try to practice the Golden Rule, to love our neighbors as ourselves, they are countered by significant opposition that does not believe this, and the two factions are continually at war with one another.

While humankind wants a peaceful world, we have thus far been unable to achieve it. But mankind needs peace to counter the violence and dysfunction. If we cannot get it in this world, then perhaps we will in the afterlife, which offers hope from our Earthly despair. In one sense, it does not matter if there is a God or not—we need one! So, many believe in a God who offers hope, on which we can live a better life for ourselves and our neighbors. If there is no God then we have to invent one, because the God within each of us will never let us down as do the systems of this world.

In conclusion, there are those who believe that science is the enemy of religion, a thesis with which I disagree. The further I have explored both science and religion, I have concluded they are not in opposition with one another, seeming to compliment each other more and more with the passage of new discoveries and insights. The God of my understanding is good, because if he is evil then what’s the point… A good God would not allow humankind to develop the system of science, allowing us to deceive ourselves with deceptive thinking. Thus, science is a tool of God’s, which with each new discovery, draws us closer to all of His magnificent creation. The fundamental religions of the world are fearful of this progress, because it means they may have to alter some of their beliefs, which is, admittedly, very difficult to do. Fear of such change can hold us back, but the mysterious truth of God will draw us closer and closer to Him, if we will only keep our minds open.

BOOK REVIEW/OFFER

There’s a little known secret in the world of cooking: cooking with a microwave oven is easy, efficient, healthful, and comprehensive. In fact, the microwave is very versatile, in that it can do all that  traditional ovens and stovetops can do—it just does things slightly differently. However, most people only use their microwaves to heat things up, and rarely take advantage of the creative cooking that is possible.

In the early 1980’s three professional home economists, having discovered the benefits of microwave cooking, began exploring ways to get this new technology more thoroughly introduced to the public. A few microwave cookbooks were available, but they were sketchy efforts, produced by the microwave manufacturers, and were sorely deficient in creativity, cooking expertise, variety, and other factors that make fine cooking an art.

So these three ladies decided to write their own cookbook, and to publish it themselves. Subsequently, due to their dedication and belief in this new technology, they created and tested hundreds of recipes, using their extensive knowledge and experience to put it all together in Simply Scrumptious Microwaving. To promote and sell the book they travelled the country, promoting their book at bookseller’s conventions and in bookstores. They gave cooking demonstrations wherever microwaves were sold, appeared on TV, and gave countless interviews with the press. Their sales efforts soon paid off, and the book was so successful, that Doubleday of New York and David & Charles of London picked the book up, and soon it was the most successful microwave cookbook ever. Final sales numbers were over 250,000 books sold.

This book is a classic, and is now out of print. Its legacy is that it has spawned numerous other microwave cookbooks, and now almost every home in America has a microwave oven. To ensure that creative cooks can expand their expertise beyond the traditional stove, a few original copies of this book are available to interested readers of this website.

Based on the success of Simply Scrumptious Microwaving, and Simply Scrumptious Microwaving For Children (no longer available), a third book was written, The Microwave Cook’s Complete Companion (over 700 recipes), which expanded the options of the original book. Both books are now available and can be ordered by sending check or money order to Lorela N. Wilkins, 5544 Stonehaven Drive, Stone Mountain, Ga, 30087. Simply Scrumptious Microwaving, 214 pages, is $20.00, and The Microwave Cook’s Complete Companion, 484 pages, is $24.95. Shipping is free.

Joe Wilkins, Copyright © 2014

In thirty years of counseling clients with varying types of mental disabilities, the abortion issue often came up, often presenting as an agonizing issue with the women involved. These women had many deep-seated psychological problems, which were the reason they were in mental health treatment, but their past behavior in terminating the lives of their fetuses would often gnaw at their sub-conscious psyches. However, not all women were so tortured; some were able to handle it quite matter-of-factly, so generalizations about this issue could not be made. Those who were raised in religious settings seemed to be the ones most affected with guilt and doubt.

Over the years, I attended several abortion-related, training seminars, usually conducted by psychiatrists, physicians, or psychologists, who never brought up the religious or spiritual aspects of abortion behavior. Information was usually presented in an abstract, scientific, and statistical manner, which would leave any concerned religious attendees with rather empty, incomplete feelings about the whole business. The political correctness attitudes among us therapists inclined us not to dwell into the religious aspects of this behavior.

Gradually, however, after many one-to-one counseling sessions with women who had had abortions, several issues began to arise in my mind.

1) First, most of the clients felt that if the baby was going to be defective in some way, and many of these women had abused alcohol while pregnant, with fetal alcohol syndrome on their minds, then aborting the baby was the sensible thing to do. They reasoned that life even for a normal baby would entail enduring considerable pain and suffering, as most of them had experienced, so deformed or defective children would be even worse off. In their minds not to be born at all meant nothingness, so aborted children endured no physical or psychological suffering.

In addition to addiction problems, many of these women had suffered physical, mental or sexual abuse as children (an estimated 70% to 80%), thus they were likely viewing this whole issue through cloudy lenses. On the other hand, they knew things about pain and suffering that most others do not, so I concluded it was important to listen to them. What had to be determined was how much of their reasoning was obscured by their own personal suffering—or had they really learned something from it.

2) Next, several clients stated that if a life is terminated before birth, then there is no consciousness, thus the fetus is unaware whether it was beginning a life or not—no consciousness, no existence! They said that they remembered nothing about themselves before they were two years old or so–no consciousness of life itself at that early age, therefore an unborn fetus certainly would be unaware of whether it was beginning life or not. Thus, they didn’t feel guilty about stopping life at that early stage.

3) Finally, religious and spiritual clients wondered, when does a human develop a soul? For these believers, this was the major question that gradually arose in their minds—usually after the abortions were performed. Was the soul present at conception? Is the soul there before conception, half in the egg and half in the sperm—or what? On the other hand, does the soul enter the body before, during, or after birth? Indeed, does the soul gradually evolve in stages with the physical growth of the body, or does it enter somehow from the “outside?” Many clients, when they began to explore and think about these things, often for the first times in their lives, wondered how all this applied even to the rest of the animal kingdom! One man in a group counseling session wondered if plants had some sort of souls, and he would likely feel guilty about cutting down a tree!

Some of these clients had gone to ministers, priests, rabbis and chaplains to discuss this soul issue—with mixed results. They reported that some clergy were uneasy about all this and gave them incomplete answers. One woman specifically asked her minister at what age was the soul present, and she said, “He was damn well ready to tell me in the greatest detail all the other aspects of my religious life, but he was real wishy-washy on this soul issue!” After considerable discussion about her remarks, the group concluded that he could not give her a definite answer about something he wasn’t sure of himself. The group concluded that most religious faiths have not dealt with the specifics of the soul issue in abortion, and science is of no help, so  individuals are going to have to make up their own minds. Religious leaders are then forced to take up positions based on religious doctrine or personal opinion.

Thus, it is the position of this essay that abortion has strong spiritual dimensions, and at the core it is not even a legal problem, except to the extent that we foist it into the laws and courts, which is about all we know to do.

Then, one day at the mental hospital, a patient whom we shall call Sally walked into my office, crying and very upset. She had no appointment, but my secretary convinced me that I should see her right away.

Sally was a young woman of twenty-three, living in a halfway house with other recovering alcohol and drug addicted women. She came from a Southern Baptist family, but reported that the family wasn’t really all that religious. I had seen her several times before and she had impressed me that she was serious about staying clean and sober, turning her life around, and going to work. She initially came to me for career and job counseling, but we found that her addiction behavior was intertwined with her work life, so we had to do deal with the pain caused by her past behavior in order to free her up so she could adequately deal with her current problems. It was obvious if her past behaviors were not resolved she would not be able to stay clean and sober. And we quickly discovered that the problem she was now agonizing over was her feelings and thoughts about having an abortion right after high school.

“I got pregnant my senior year in high school because I lost control of my life while using alcohol and drugs,” she said. “The first thing I had to decide was whether to have the baby or not. I wasn’t married and my family would have disowned me if they found out. Believe me it was a hard decision—so hard that I resented that such a monumental thing as having a baby or not would boil down to be the result of a decision! It was either/or! There was no in-between. But believe me there was plenty going on in my guts. It just wasn’t fair. Besides, it didn’t do any good to talk to anybody about it, because all they were going to do was come down on one side of the fence or the other, and I didn’t know which side was right—or the best for me or the baby.”

Taking a quick clue, I responded with my best counseling demeanor, “The pressure of having to make this decision nearly tore you apart, other people weren’t much help, and you’re still struggling with the consequences of what you’ve done.”

“Exactly!” she perked up. “I knew what the preacher would say, so I didn’t even bother with him. And my dad would have killed me, and my mother is a vacuum-head who does whatever Dad says, so I was trapped.” Then, after a pause, “You know what I did?”

“No,” I responded. “What?”

“I went to a doctor who does abortions, thinking he might know something. He was very matter-of-fact, but non-committal, if you know what I mean. He gave me lots of scientific info, but it wasn’t of any help to me. So I went home and started praying about it long and hard. Then, suddenly, the answer popped into my head: go get an abortion. But frankly I’m not religious enough to believe the answer came from God. Actually, it came from the fear in me caused by my chemical abuse, so in a sense the liquor and drugs made the decision for me. Now isn’t that a hell of a note!” Then she began crying.

Over our next several counseling sessions, as I further gained her trust, Sally talked more about her abortion and presented some ideas that stirred my thinking with things I hadn’t given much thought to previously. The issue was foremost in my mind at that time because the Supreme Court was soon to decide whether to overturn the Roe vs. Wade decision.

It was apparent from Sally’s conversations that once a woman was pregnant and considering abortion, her decision was a spiritual one—not a legal one. As Sally said, “Once the sperm fertilizes the egg, a unique form of life is created: a human being.  But what I wonder about is whether the fertilized egg has a soul. I believe people have souls, but if we don’t have souls, I wouldn’t have a problem aborting babies. But we do have souls, so the problem for me is when does the soul enter the fetus. Does it float down from Heaven and go in, like some reincarnation people believe, or does it just come up in the fetus itself? I didn’t know then and I don’t know now. But I need to know that!”

She and I then had long talks about the possible origins of the soul for believers, but we never got much further than her orginal thoughts. Science, we concluded, was of no help, because it could deal only with those things that are of substance, that can be measured and experimented with—and the soul was beyond that. Sally’s Christian belief was that the existence of the soul was an absolute fact, that she had a soul, but there was no answer as to how it came into existence.

“What I finally did,” she continued, “was to figure that a soul somehow evolved after about the sixth week of pregnancy—but don’t ask me where I got that six week figure from; just one of my drunken stupors, I guess. It answered my doubts and fears at that time, so if I aborted before then it would be all right, because I’d be killing something with no soul, sort of like squashing a bug. Of course it would be sinful to abort after the six week period…”

From Sally’s struggles we can see that the abortion issue is a spiritual one at its deepest level—not a legal one. So why did we let the Supreme Court make a spiritual/moral decision such as this? Logically, these decisions would seem to be the province of our religious leaders, but because they can’t prove the existence of the soul, the decisions transfer over to our legal system. What other choice do we have?

However, the various religious demonitions have taken positions on abortion, which logically should be followed by their congregations, or like believers, but the problems arise when one religious ideology tries to impose its position on non-believers and the rest of the nation, thus forcing the legal system to take over. But the legal system doesn’t have enough verifiable information on the existence of the soul,  so it is forced to decide the issue based on non-spiritual reasons: 1) all life is to be protected from conception, so there will be no abortions 2) abortions are arbitrarily allowed on certain periods during the nine month pregnancy period, based on certain criteria 3) all abortion issues are to be decided by the individual, based on personal belief sytems. Due to the complexity of the human condition, there can be other non-religious justifications for abortions, which all thoughtful readers will have to reason out for themselves.

Is there a final answer? It doesn’t appear so. All of us have our opinions, based on incomplete facts. So we are forced to defer to the legal system, while still trying to impose our religious and moral reasoning onto those who make our legal decisions, which is our situation today.

Joe Wilkins

Copyright © 2014

Why do good people suffer? This is a universal question over which great philosophers and religious leaders have pondered since humankind developed consciousness. Past societies have attempted to explain suffering primarily through their religious beliefs by searching for explanations as to why their God (or Gods) has imposed this earthly burden on them. A primary reason they have developed is that if you do bad things then God will punish you. This explanation appeals to most people’s sense of justice.

The problem arises when we try to explain the suffering endured by good people—especially when there seems to be no good reason why they should be so punished. Everyone knows of some poor soul who has lived an exemplary life, doing the best possible, when unexpectedly some terrible calamity hits. Conversely, history is full of some nasty people who seem to coast through life with few problems and minimal suffering—and we wonder where the justice in all this is.

Over my career I have worked with some of the most unfortunate, suffering people in our society: the mentally ill, addicts, alcoholics, paralyzed people, the blind, the deaf, birth defective adults, disease infected folks, etc. Moreover, most of these people did nothing to deserve these fates. The suffering they endured seemed to have fallen on them in an arbitrary fashion, leading others to ponder that there, but for the grace of God, goes me!

People who believe in God, or a higher power, typically have difficulty understanding why their God would allow such things to happen. Those who have a deep, intimate relationship with God seem best able to compensate, but even some of them struggle at times. The arbitrariness of the suffering is most difficult to endure, and it implies that God is withdrawn from the human condition on Earth, and allows the suffering to occur randomly, according to his will. Most people handle it by simply not thinking about it, or accepting such bromides as “It’s God’s will and we cannot possibly hope to understand; we must accept his will.”

This satisfies many people at a conscious level, but deep in their inner feelings, they think it is an incomplete answer. One woman, who lost her beloved husband at a young age to a heart attack, leaving her alone to raise three young children, became severely depressed and overcome with her burdens. She began drinking to relieve her misery, became an alcoholic, and dropped deeper into her suffering. After many treatment experiences, she finally achieved lasting sobriety, and went to a preacher and asked why she was being punished so. The minister told her to have faith in God, that God had a plan for her, and things would get better. Then, years later, when things had not gotten better, she decided in her naive way, that her minister had not known his Bible sufficiently. Thinking the answer to suffering had to be in the Bible somewhere, she began studying it thoroughly, looking for the answer that would relieve her pain. She loved God, so she needed to get an answer to keep her faith. And since the Old Testament’s Book of Job specifically deals with the issue of suffering, she concentrated most of her efforts there. Later, she came back to me for more counseling.

“But it was an awful journey,” she said. “When I finished with my study, I felt worse than when I started.”

“Why was that?” I asked. Not being a Bible scholar, I very interested to find out where her studies had led her.

“Well, Job was a very good man—a perfect man in the eyes of God. He was the best man on Earth. God was especially pleased with Job because he did all that God expected of him. So, for his reward, God blessed him with a wonderful life– kind of heaven on Earth. That’s what I had before my husband died.

“So Job had it made!” I added.

Her eyes narrowed at me, critically. I didn’t know whether she was angry at me or God.

“Not for long. Soon God caused Job to endure the most horrible suffering you could imagine. Compared to him my life’s been a stroll in the park. Want to know why?”

“He was punishing Job for his sins?” I answered blindly.

“No… God had a bet with the Devil. Now fancy that! God and the devil were engaged in a power struggle as to who would reign supreme over us poor souls down here on Earth. God was claiming how wonderful a man Job was, as evidenced by the fact that he went to great lengths to please God. And in return, God blessed Job with a rich, worldly life.” She paused a while, then continued, “Then the devil pipes up, saying all this didn’t prove anything, because Job, of course, would keep on pleasing God as long as he was being rewarded. But just go ahead and throw some pain and suffering on him, and see how quick he would swing over to the Devil’s point of view.”

None of this was totally new to me, because I had studied the Book of Job in a literature course, when it was presented as a great work of art, but the suffering aspects of it were not emphasized. “So God agrees to make Job suffer to prove his point to the Devil, but Job remained true to God through all his suffering. If you’ll pardon the expression, that’s a hell of a note!”

“Absolutely!” she countered. “That God would do something like that—make Job suffer so, just to prove a point to an evil being. It made me wonder about God.”

“Well…” I started.

She butted in quickly, “Now don’t you go defending him. The way I see it, if you take the Bible literally, like some folks do—and I used to—then God’s playing games with us. But I don’t like the idea of a God who’s so arbitrary and possessive, so I decided to start taking the Bible with a large grain of salt. It’s a good book, but it’s not the only book! So I quit looking for the answer to my suffering in the Bible or from preachers. I’ll find my answer somewhere, somehow, some day…”

This session was very disturbing to me, being a dedicated Christian.  Never having had to endure the kind of suffering she had, I had always endured my suffering stoically—which suited my personality—and eventually things would get better.

I never saw this client again, but she was the one who started me thinking about suffering in depth.

Certainly, suffering is a central theme in the Jewish and Christian religions, as well as all the other major religions. However, I have not experienced many clients who got complete psychological relief through their religious beliefs. It always seemed that they needed some rational foundation that could support their beliefs. Trying to merge these two factors into some cohesive system that was easily understandable became a major interest to me as I pursued my counseling career.

An exception to this client were those who embraced their religion so thoroughly that reasonable alternatives were unavailable to them. Many times they were psychologically so obsessed with their religious beliefs and practices that it consumed their thinking and feeling processes so completely that they did not seem to have time to think about their suffering. I used to classify this process as the psychological defense mechanism of denial, but I have since concluded it is more complicated than that. In effect, they “buried” the suffering so deeply within themselves, and lived on the “highs” they got from their religious zeal. However, often this religious “insulation” would wear thin, and some would drop back into depression, addictive behavior, or other mental difficulties.

Soon I began to think that I needed to offer something more to my clients—at least to give them a sense of hope. Some of my colleagues criticized me for taking too much responsibility for my clients’ feelings. In a sense they were right, but being young and determined, I continued searching for the answer.

Then, one day, while discussing this problem of suffering with a colleague, she suggested that I read Viktor Frankl’s book, Man’s Search For Meaning. She said that Frankl was a survivor of a holocaust concentration camp, and if anyone knew anything about suffering it was him.

Encouraged, I obtained his book and read it. I quickly realized this was one of the most important books of the twentieth century. In my view, Frankl has updated all that was previously known about suffering, and his philosophy most nearly reflects modern man’s struggle with it. And what I liked best about it was that it was a view from the bottom up, in that he had endured and been immersed in unimaginable suffering, the likes of which the rest of mankind were completely unaware, that is the hell-on-earth suffering that occurred in the Nazi concentration camps. To reinforce this, an older counseling colleague of mine, was a World War II army veteran, and he was in one of the units that first opened and entered one of the concentration camps. He said it was a defining moment of his life—worse than the combat in which he had been engaged. It was something that would haunt him forever. He was a strong advocate of Frankl’s views and encouraged me in my efforts.

Further reinforcing my efforts was the fact that Frankl was a well educated physician and psychiatrist, so it was obvious he had the ability to put the suffering question into terms that were relevant to other professionals seeking answers.

Frankl says that suffering is inevitable, that people are going to suffer in varying degrees throughout their lives. The suffering comes from God (for those who believe in God), in that He has “programmed” it into the natural laws that govern the Universe which He created. This is much like the philosophies of John Locke and Isaac Newton, in that they imagined that the Universe was like a clock, which God “wound up,” is letting it run according to certain natural laws, and He is not interfering with its operation. If one does not believe in God, that the Universe came into existence without supernatural help, then just believing in the order of the natural laws themselves is all one can do.

In any event, these natural laws govern our lives, but they sometimes “catch” innocent, good people into suffering that does not make sense. For example, if little Johnny slips and falls from the top of a tall tree, the natural law of gravity dictates that he will fall to earth, and flesh and bone will be damaged. Johnny, being a good little boy, doesn’t “deserve” this, but he will suffer nonetheless. In this sense, the law of gravity is very democratic, and applies to good and bad people alike.

All this does not explain why God has created a Universe where such suffering can exist, when an all-powerful God could have just as easily created a Universe without pain and suffering. A complete answer to this paradox is unknowable to us at this time, thus we are forced to accept God’s creation as we find it—warts and all. As one client remarked to me, “When I die and go to Heaven, I’m going to button-hole God on a lot of loose threads He left hanging all over the place. I want some straight answers, and I ain’t letting Him off easy, either!”

Thus, if suffering is inevitable, two questions arise: What’s the meaning of suffering? And, What can we do about it?

Frankl say we must endure our suffering—we have no other choice, anyway. However, he points out that the attitude we hold as we face our suffering, and struggle with it, is the critical issue for all of us. If we face the downfalls of our lives with a whiney, “why me” attitude, then the suffering will weaken us, perhaps eventually consuming us. This will further promote negative thought patterns, leading to depression and despair, making one less able to cope with later, unfortunate incidents, deepening our depressive tendencies in an ever-increasing downward spiral.

But if we stand up to our suffering with as much pride and dignity as we can muster, accepting and struggling with it as best we can, we will have the potential to transcend it and become stronger. We can then maintain a survivor’s mode in our inner minds. In this sense suffering then becomes a teacher, and to a lesser degree, a friend, by making us stronger and more capable of coping. People who have been through suffering, and survived by using their inner psychological resources, will know that it will be easier to endure such suffering in the future.

Frankl tells about his fellow Jews in the concentration camps, being herded into the gas chambers to die. They knew what lay ahead, and there was nothing they could do about it. This was the end, the cruelest coup de grace of life! Their lives would soon be over in the most demeaning manner possible: killed by evil people who had lost all concept of what it meant to be human.

Then, Frankl noticed a strange phenomenon. Here were these poor souls facing premature, cruel deaths, with all dignity stripped from them. All their choices were gone and there was nothing they could do about it. Then, miracously, he noticed he was wrong: there was one bit of dignity left, something that no one could take from them.

God had left one choice open to all humans, one that even God would not interfere with: the freedon to choose one’s own attitude toward one’s own death. As each person marched into the gas chambers, they held their heads high, indicating they were in control of their attitude–and they were going to die with dignity and with the attitude of their choosing. This happened almost without exception as he watched thousands die.

In my counseling career I have watched clients face certain death in nursing homes and other situations, and they too, without exception, chose to maintain a positive attitude toward their own deaths. Some were religious and some not. Even the most undesirable of people, murderers in their final hours before their executions, most often choose to die with calmness and dignity, according to reports.

Where does this leave us? Sure, most people die with dignity, we might say, but what other choice do they have? They are going to die anyway, so they might as well go out dignified. They could make their exits kicking, cursing, and screaming, but what is the point of that sort of behavior at a time like that?

My contention is that Frankl has established that we have only one absolute freedom regarding suffering: to choose our attitude about it. Further we possess this freedom our entire lives, and the scorecard of our existence hinges on the summation of which attitudes we most consistently choose.

This translates down to the following scenario: Use our intelligence to avoid all the suffering we can, but when it eventually hits us, do not whine about our misfortune. Endure and overcome it as best we can, and try to learn something from it. If we are able to learn lessons from the suffering, when we emerge from the darkness, we will be stronger than before, because we will be better able to endure and avoid it when it faces us again. This will then produce feelings of strength within, elevating self-esteem. In effect, we are then more responsible to ourselves in a challenging world, building a suit of psychic armor around us.

So strongly do I believe in this process that I often did not overly protect my children from many daily sufferings that confronted them. While my wife and I did not let circumstances overwhelm them with severe suffering, if it was something we thought they could face and struggle through without much parental intervention, we would supervise their efforts, praise their efforts, and help them learn something in the process.

Make no mistake, children want to avoid all the suffering they can, often trying to get Mom and Dad to do it for them, or to bail them out of their misery. Good parents guide them through it, encouraging the children do those things that they can reasonably do for themselves, while poor parents either ignore their children’s’ needs, or rush in and rescue them all the time. This usually results in children who enter adulthood not knowing how to cope with the suffering that will eventually confront them. And these ill-prepared adults are very prone to seek quick fixes through alcohol, drugs, and other forms of escapism that have developed to escape pain and suffering in our quick-fix societies.

Let us look at a practical example of how all this prevails in our everyday lives. First, I will give you a visual image as to how this works, and then show a specific example how a client used it to work himself out of his anguish and suffering. And every client of mine, who re-oriented themselves in the following manner, reported that it was helpful. Consider the following graphic:

POSITION A , WHERE AN INDIVIDUAL IS IN PAIN AND SUFFERING AND DESPERATELY WANTS RELIEF

(Let’s use an example where the person is very overweight, to the extent it is affecting health, self image, socialization, and job options. The individual must face the following:)

FACTORS THAT HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED AND ACTED UPON TO LOSE THE WEIGHT AND TO GET IN GOOD PHYSICAL CONDITION

(This can be viewed as a “swamp” that must be crossed to get to the “other side” where the desired goals lie. In this case the factors that must be addressed are: 1) engage in a proven weight-loss program 2) give up old habits of eating 3) increase exercise levels 4) give up the psychological reinforcers that support obesity

POSITION B, THE PLACE WHERE THE PERSON WANTS TO BE: THE GOAL

(To get here the person has to “cross” or wade through the “swamp.” The goal demands that the factors above be addressed and accomplished. To achieve them will be difficult and painful, meaning lifestyle changes, new thinking, physical effort, etc. They will require much work.

As we can see, the “swamp” is an obstacle course between the desire and the goal. The moment a person sets a goal to accomplish a wish or desire, there are certain obstacles to be handled to accomplish the goal. Obstacles in the “swamp” can be emotional, educational, physical, social—anything. But they all require taking risks, and work to overcome them to accomplish the goals. The person has to wade into the swamp, deal with the obstacles, eventually coming out on the other side where the goal is located. Obstacles always require work, and humans are quite clever in devising ways to avoid work. In the above example, many people will try to use the fad-diet of the moment to circumvent the obstacle course to lose weight without much effort. I call this making an “end run” rather than “bursting through” the center of the line.

Suffering people often make non-productive, feeble attempts to stop their suffering. Their attempts may be constructive or not, but eventually lead them to a crossroads where they will be faced with a choice between 1) avoidance, 2) doing nothing, or 3) struggling. If they choose to struggle, then the suffering becomes the fuel for their engine, impelling them to do something constructive. If they choose to do nothing they remain in a chronic state of suffering—sometimes for their entire lives. Many try to avoid what the suffering demands of them by trying to achieve the goal without going through the obstacle course. Examples of this are the alcoholic who tries to stay sober through will power alone and not attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, or getting a college degree by paying money to a diploma-mill college, or getting through a course of study by cheating rather than studying and burning the midnight oil.

But if the person accepts the challenge of the suffering, they automatically do what they must to get through the obstacle course. And if they get through the obstacle course a psychological “miracle” usually occurs, which is an increase in psychological and spiritual strength. Persons who have faced difficulty, and dealt with it in the manner I am proposing, will find that the struggle has strengthened them, because they now know they are able to handle such adversity. Confidence in this and similar matters increases physical and mental attributes tremendously. And it is easy to see that those people who make an everyday practice of this type of behavior are usually confident and accomplished persons. Conversely, those who constantly avoid the demands of the obstacles, become weak, unhappy people, and rarely accomplish their goals.

Next, it is clear that the particular kind of suffering dictates the type of obstacle course that must be crossed. I once had a middle-aged client who had never learned to read, and he had spent his entire life doing nothing about it. He had developed several methods to compensate, usually relying on other people to help him when needed. He had avoided learning earlier because he was fearful people would then know he could not read, and would think less of him. I set him up in an evening reading class, which to him was the fearful obstacle course, but he ultimately decided not to attend, and remained in his state of suffering. I saw him occasionally at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, where he nervously tried to avoid me. The look in his eyes told all: he knew he should confront the suffering (fear of going to school) and learn to read, but he did not do it because the anticipated fear of school was a greater state of suffering than was his chronic state of despair of not being able to read. So he stayed mired in his misery. Most people who remain in a chronic state of suffering are emotional cowards, as was this client.

In summary, it is clear that we humans are condemned to suffer as we go through life. Some of the suffering is the consequence of our own behavior, and some is not. However our lives are judged by how we handle the suffering and our attitudes toward it. Going a bit further, Frankl said that one’s mission in life is to do good deeds; experience the positive values of art, beauty, and love; and to be responsible to our suffering. Suffering descends upon us when we do not do good deeds and cannot experience the positive values of life.

We must be responsible to our suffering and get the meaning back into our lives.

POSTSCRIPT: Years ago Viktor Frankl came to Atlanta, Georgia and gave a lecture to the public on his concepts about suffering and other therapeutic matters. I attended that lecture and recorded his words on tape. My secretary transcribed them, and I shall put them on this web site in the future for interested readers.