In God We Trust?: Some Do Trust God—Some Aren’T so Sure—Some Don’T— Some Claim the Trust, but Don’T Live by It.

By Donald Sterling Sweeney

This book brings together Donald S. Sweeneys lifetime experiences, coupled with his natural(innate) desire to know and understand the facts and truth of situations that affect his life and the lives of others. He has searched out the thoughts of many prominent and highly respectedthough often at opposite ends of the beliefwriters and thinkers for ways to resolve the conflicting beliefs about God between those who; 1. Are atheistic, and those who hold to a faith and trust in God; 2, Are of different monotheistic theologies, 3, Are believers that the creation of the universe started 13.73 billion years ago, and those who believe that the biblical version of the six- day creation is literally true. The conclusion that is reached by In God We Trust is that the conflicting views about existence or non-existence of God can, in fact, be compatible with each other, but that those of opposing viewpoints must give up some of their erroneous ideas..

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Jun 14, 2013
• ISBN: 9781483631981

Book preview

BOOK 1

MANKIND’S NEED FOR GOD?

CHAPTER 1.1

WHY DO WE BELIEVE AS WE DO?

Pascal Boyer, in his book, Religion Explained, offers several characteristics that he believes drive the human longing and need for religious and spiritual trusts and a trust in an all powerful and omnipotent God. He uses the modern findings of the disciplines of evolutionary psychology, evolutionary biology, paleontology, genetics, neurophysiology, and histories of religions and anthropology to arrive at his understanding of the origins of religions. He writes:

. . . Most accounts of the origins of religion emphasize one or more of the following suggestions (ideas): (1) Human minds demand explanations; (2) Human hearts seek comfort; (3) Human society requires order; (4) Human intellect is illusion-prone… .

I would add one more: Humans must have hope for a better life. While admitting that religious trusts are central to . . . many peoples existence… . Boyer’s studies into the findings of the several scientific disciplines seem to leave him frustrated because they don’t identify a single well defined provable reason for the human need for religion and God. He does go on to admit that the human intellect has an intuitive—although he wouldn’t say evolutionary—cognition (The mental acquisition of knowledge through thought, experience, and the senses.) of religious symbols, of God, and of spiritual things. He does make a strong and solid case in his book for the basic human hope for religious and spiritual awareness; however, he seems in the final analysis to deny—or at least he doesn’t think it is wise to admit to—the power that this universal human characteristic has on the world in which we live, much less any possibility of an afterlife, whether spiritual or otherwise.

In the light of Boyer’s views, the thoughtful person might ask: Isn’t there more depth to the human character, some underlying basic need and longing for spiritual things, a call for God and a trust rather than what Boyer sees as a mindless quirk of happen chance, a cognitive idea, a useless hope, or perhaps an evolutionary mistake?"

Melvin Donald Faber, in his book, "The Psychological Roots of Religious Faith: Searching for Angels and the Parent God", has described an hypothesis that offers a possible explanation of the human need for God and religion:

. . . human life begins with an infant crying for food, for comforting, for protection, for help, and getting answered by a big wonderful thing called mother. Thousands of times the infant cries out; thousands of times the cries are answered. One would be hard-pressed to discover within the realm of nature another example of psychological and emotional conditioning to compare with this one in both depth and duration… .

It is both nature and nurture. Faber argues that this prepares the child for a trust in God:

. . . He (The child) makes contact with the supernatural domain because in a manner of speaking he has been there all along. He has been living in the company of powerful, unseen, life-sustaining presences since before he was born… .

Mankind desperately needs help to live their daily life, help to overcome the problems they can’t overcome by themselves, much less understand why they happen.

To quote Faber again:

. . . He (The infant) has come to expect the big one, his mother, who appeared over and over again a thousand times to appear again to rescue him from hunger and distress and to respond to his emotional and interpersonal need for attachment to others. So, the child’s unconscious mind resonates to religious narratives even before his rational facilities have ripened, before he can see and critically evaluate what it is that asks for his perceptual assent… .

This is a most powerful hypothesis to describe the evolutionary human characteristic of hope that God is there and in control of all things. There are other recent studies that back up Faber’s hypothesis and strongly suggest that there are also genetic evolutionary characteristics in humans that drive us to search out, believe in, and hope for a caring authority and power greater than ourselves.

A 2004 animal behavior study by Crag Kinsley of Richmond University and Kelly Lambert of Randolph Macon College appears to support Faber’s hypothesis. Recognizing that this same characteristic is also inherent in all animal mothers, including human mothers, they reasoned that:

. . . If you look at offspring as a significant universal metabolic and genetic investment, then nature has effectively maximized the likelihood, through the desire and ability of the mother… (And their community of like beings, as with bees) . . . to care for the infant, that those offspring will survive and prosper… .

Actually, this investment that KInsley and Lambert talk about translates into an enforcement of Faber’s hypothesis: that there is an inborn genetic need and drive of the biological mother to love and protect her infant, to put that drive above her own well being and safety, regardless of the effort or danger to herself. The mother intuitively follows an algorithm (Algorithm: A process or set of rules to achieve a specific result.) that is designed to ensure to the greatest level of the survival of the species.

Adding possible credence to the idea, but also paying tribute to atheistic beliefs, Dr. Richard Dawkin’s (Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University) idea that some traits are passed on by what he calls memes(Traits passed on from generation to generation by repetitive replication of an act or idea.). Medical doctor and pioneering neuro-scientist Louann Brizendine says in her book" . . . The female Brain . . .":

. . . Although behavior itself can’t be passed on genetically, new research shows that the nurturing capacity in mammals is passed on in what scientists now call nongenomic, or ‘epigenetic’—meaning physically on top of the genes type of inheritance… .

If I understand her she is saying, the need of mammals to nurture their young is genetically driven but, the specific techniques of nurturing among species are cultural replications—or memes—that are passed on by the replication of actions of each particular species. Most of us have seen the pictures of mother apes lovingly holding and fondling their new born offspring. B.J. King found that to be true over her many years of close study of the apes. It is remarkable how carefully and tenderly the mother ape, with her massive and seemingly clumsy hands, will handle her new born, and how the infant clings to the safety of the mother. It is evident that the infant places total trust in its mother for its succor and protection, clinging tightly to it’s mothers breast or back, as the case may be, and always staying within reach of the mothers protective embrace. And later, as the baby matures, the mother continues to have concern and care for the safety for the young one, although it is gradually given more freedom and is able to explore more of the world on its own. Still, the child never strays far from the care and protection of the mother, and later of the father and the family group. Where does this instinctive care and concern (love?) for the newborn come from if not from the (God given?) genetic background that ensures the survival of the species?

Another example of obviously genetically driven bonding of an infant to its care giver is the bonding of a just hatched goose to its mother or, to a human if the human is the first larger animal it see’s and who feeds it after its hatching. This fact of behavior among goslings is unarguably and scientifically well established, and can only be reasonably explained by an inherent and genetically derived behavior, since there isn’t any physical relationship between the human and the gosling. Kinsley goes on to suggest that, like the rat mothers and infants, a similar bonding occurs between the human mother and her infant that is genetically programmed into nearly all animal forms (Except for some infrequently occurring fault that prevent’s the mother-infant bonding.). It appears that the universal human need begins as the child exits the womb, a time when the cognitive bonding between mother and infant starts. It is a simple matter of every day observation of any mother with her young infant to recognize that the mother’s primary interest is to protect and provide for all of the child’s needs. Conversely, the child is completely dependent on and trusts the mother for its needs. There is a hope and a trust between mother and child that is obviously more than just a learned behavior, a replication, or more than Dawkin’s meme. It surely must be a (God given?) genetic derivation. This bond, which starts with birth, grows and is enhanced during early childhood years when the shared physical interactions between the mother and the child, (e.g., suckling to satisfy hunger; the smell, voice and feel of the mother, etc.) are a constant, necessary and integral part of the life of the infant and mother. As the child ages and learns more about life and the interactions that lead to success it finds that he or she is also as dependent on the father for many of the same things it has depended on from the mother. A bonding similar to that between the child and the mother also occurs between the child and the father or some other care giver, although some might question that it is ever as strong a tie.

Is it just a coincidence that the Jews and the Islamists refer to Father Abraham, or the Catholics refer to the Pope as Papal (Derived from the medieval Latin Papa, Pope or Father as their authority, or when Christ prayed he referred to Our Father in heaven… or are they just memes? The same idea can be seen in the teachings of pastors today, as they tell of . . . our father in Heaven… ., there appears to be an inviolable reason to believe that a hope for and a trust in God isn’t just a coincidence, but an expression of the need and hope of humans for a powerful and omnipotent authority figure who watches over them and guides them in the right paths. It follows that the act of bonding between mother and child is, in actuality, also the (God given?) basis for the child’s development of a love for other people: a love that leads to empathy, which leads to the understanding by an individual for the plight of others; an empathy that leads to compassion, which is the favorable impulse to help others; a compassion that leads to morality, which is the recognition that there are right behaviors that improve the social environment in which we live together, and that there are wrong behaviors that lead to the destruction of that social environment; all of which lead to the idea of social justice. It also, in fact, leads to the hope for, and the recognition of, a supernatural and omnipotent protector God. Simple everyday observation and common sense show the concepts of love, empathy, compassion, morality, justice and trust in God often clash with the world in which we live—and many times even with the wrong impulses we find within ourselves—and consequently they are frequently at odds with the individual’s drive for self-preservation or aggrandizement.

Without conscious thought the maturing child may search out and replace the need for parental protection with a hope for, and a trust and faith in, an all powerful God who watches over them. This ability to substitute an omnipotent spiritual power for the once cherished parental authority doesn’t make a persons hope for an all powerful God or creator in any way false. It should be considered a piece of the proof of the existence of God because it is essentially a universal hope of all of human kind. It must be recognized, honored, and even revered as a basic genetic and evolutionary (God given) investment in of all of mankind.

As we have hypothesized, most humans have the God given, innate, genetic hope and craving for love and compassion in their lives, especially when in the depths of depression and the confusion of personal or group trials. I believe this genetic need and hope of humans for love explains why people yearn for and search for an omnipotent and powerful God who can answer their unanswered questions about life and their relationship to others; e.g., the trust of Christians in God (The Father, Christ Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit); the trust of Catholics which is extended beyond the trust in God, Christ, and the Holy spirit, to the Pope (Papal or Holy father) and to the church itself; the trust of the Jews in the commandments of the one all powerful God; and the Muslims trust in their ‘Father’ Abraham’ and in the one ‘Allah’; the extended trust of the Islamists in the prophet Mohammad and the Qur’an. Idrees Shaw, who wrote the book, The Caravan Of Dreams said, and I think correctly so, that the idea that memes provide some of the human cultural trusts is real—that:

. . . The individual has to learn that he cannot reform in society in reality, nor deal with others as reasonable people, unless he has learned to locate and allow for the various patterns of coercive institutions and ideologies, formal and informal, which rule (that) society… . people will always tend to relapse into obedience to the pattern of the coercive agency and ideologies that have ruled them in the past… .

The patterns of the spiritual ideologies and behavior that people fall into and which have ruled them in the past, and to which they will always conform and relapse into, have been acknowledged in the ancient Christian Old Testament; e.g., Proverbs 22:6, which says:

. . . Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it… .

Whether the child is trained in the ways of God, or in the ways of the clan of the patriarch, or of Christianity, or of Judaism, or of Islam, or in the ways of Nazi Germany in the 1930’s, or in the Godless communism of Stalin, the precepts and rules and commandments of the ideology and culture in which he was trained will always tend to affect his actions and trusts—unless they can be re-educated and focused to better and higher principles through the freewill of the individual. There is a great deal of wisdom and understanding in this concept Ms. Shaw wrote about that must be kept in mind as we try to understand the nature of God as well as man’s trust, trust and hope in Him.

There is a recognition by those with a trust in God that the problems of life—the understanding that we cannot fully understand how the universe and the world with its biologic life were created—lead us to hope for our God. To quote the New Testament book of Heb. 11:1-3:

. . . Now faith (trust) is being sure of what we hoped for and certain of what we do not see… . Through faith we understand that the worlds were formed by the word of God, so that the things that are seen were made of things which do not appear…

It follows, then, that in addition to the influences of nature (genetic/evolutionary development) and nurture (parental/cultural influences), we have been given intelligence and common sense and at least one other determining factor that leads us to a faith and trust in the one and only all powerful and omnipotent God. That additional influence is hope, coupled with the freewill to decide for ourselves what it is that we will believe, which is sought after because of our recognition of our inability to cope with life’s vagaries by ourselves, and a need to have a caring supporter who loves us.

CHAPTER 1.2

WHY DO WE HAVE A NEED FOR GOD?

The history of mans religious trust, from antiquity to the present, has been what the local community considered at the time to be a strong unfathomable source of good, or sometimes of evil, that supposedly works for the benefit, or against in the case of evil, of the community and individuals. Usually, it an imagined supernatural force, a god or gods, good or evil spirits, a volcano, the sun or the stars, or almost any other unexplainable natural or imagined spiritual force who is perceived to be able to help, or sometimes even prevent, the community from making it safely through the maze of inconsistent human actions and the unpredictable forces of nature.

Because of the human conflict between our drive for self preservation and the longing for protection from the vagaries of life, we find that we often feel inadequate, or trapped in a situation that is detrimental to our safety and well being. In those times we hope for help from a greater, more powerful, and hopefully, benevolent, helpful and forgiving source… a supernatural figure, a God. When trying to cope with natural disaster or personal trials and failures—fear, sorrow, uncertainty, confusion or lack of knowledge, and inability to cope with our situation—we will, in desperation, just as infants and small children turn to their parents for help and protection, realize that the problem is beyond our frail human comprehension and ability to successfully handle by ourselves, and will seek out a supernatural partner for help and guidance. In those desperate times, almost without conscious thought, we will turn to a concept of God for protection and self-preservation. The soldier on the battlefield understands that ". . . There are no atheists in fox holes . . ." Likewise, in other times of desperation in our personal lives we call out with our hope, trusting in a spiritual force (God?) that can and will direct us to do the ‘right’ thing, or to protect us from the danger we face. In extremely trying circumstances we feel the need to put our trust in God to take over the situation and remove all of the problems from us even though much, if not all, of the responsibility for the paths we take in our lives actually falls on us.

It appears that there is a genetic/biologic/evolutionary universal gift of humans, an inner longing for a all powerful figure who protects us and gives us sustenance. (Also see Pascal Boyer’s book ‘Religion Explained’.) He has found that there is compelling evidence that we are all born with a philosophical question about the nature of our being. It is a gift that is similar to our need as infants to depend on our ‘god-like’ mother to protect us from harm and evil, and to give us the love we crave; etc. This need of the child for the strength and power and love of its mother and father is not only seen in human babies, but can also be observed in most of the animal kingdom: apes and their young; lions and their young; all animals and their young; and etc. The need of the mother and father to protect and provide love, protection and sustenance, for their young offspring is just as powerful as the need of the infant for the protection of its god-like mother. This symbiotic relationship between mother and infant is primarily natural, but surely has some nurtured elements as well.

It can be argued on a philosophical and theological level that it was an almighty creator God who provided the newborn child with this intuitive need and inner longing. Common sense, as well as the recent scientific advances in genetic biology, tells us that somewhere in our gene pool there is a shared bit of DNA, RNA, or perhaps some combination of several of the basic human genome building blocks that are at the root of the universal human need for that perfect and almighty protector God who created the universe and humankind with its own unique characteristics. Coupled closely with this biologic possibility is our natural (genetic?) drive to ensure survival of our species, and an understanding that mankind has the evolutionary capability to distinguish between good and evil (As in the allegorical Genesis story about the tree of good and evil.), and the understanding that the evil residing within us can, with help from our spiritual protector, be overcome by the good that is also inherent within us. This natural inner longing for an all powerful leader who loves and protects, who explains the otherwise unexplainable, who provides rules for a cohesive society, who provides—as Boyer says—. . . a cognitive supernatural and omnipotent illusion…, is similar to the drive that causes people to: ban together for mutual strength and safety; seek out and follow charismatic leaders; form governing bodies together; willingly give up personal freedoms for what is seen as the greater good of individuals or community.

Boyer’s hypothesis about the human propensity to ban together for unity with a group is closely paralleled by the belongingness hypothesis put forward by Barbara J. King in her book ‘Evolving God’. The following is a quote from the cover of King’s book:

. . . We humans crave emotional connection with others. This deep desire to connect can be explained by the long evolutionary history we share with other primates, the monkeys, and apes. At the same time, it explains why humans evolved to become the spiritual ape—the ape that grew a large brain, the ape that stood up, the ape that invented technology and art, but above all the ape that evolved God…

Before anyone gets too excited by the last statement, let me define what I believe she meant by . . . the ape that evolved God… . I believe she meant that we humans have, over the centuries, painstakingly learned more and more about the God we believe in and trust, and have gradually come—evolved—to a better understand of our relationship to Him, and of Him to us. She seems to be saying essentially the same thing as Boyer said: ". . . there is an innate (God given?) human need to belong to someone or something, to love someone or something more powerful than we are—a clan, a parent, a social union, a political party, a religious group, a God…"

Although King makes the case that this apparent biologic need is a good thing that provides closeness and safety in numbers with others of the same kind or culture, in her discussion of nature vs. nurture she seems to come down more on the side of nurture, emphasizing that she believes that today’s discussion puts too much emphasis on the effect of natures genes on human behavior, and not enough on the cultural replication of human behaviors. King fails to recognize that, as with Darwin’s discovery of the natural evolutionary processes, there is a universal and genetically intuitive need of all biological forms to survive in the environment in which they find themselves. It is a need that isn’t necessarily recognized as such for only any particular biological form, but all biological forms will procreate, fight others who threaten their existence, change and adapt to the environment in which they find themselves, and in some cases will even combine their gene pool with the gene pool of another similar biological form to ensure successful procreation and survival through change.

There are many examples throughout history of how masses of people who, because of the natural instinctive need to find their place in a group, or for a leader who brings people together—. . . an instinctive need for belongingness…", to borrow the term from Barbara J. King. Humans will join with others, even in supposed God based groups, to take control and power for themselves despite the damage it will do to those who don’t belong to the group. Often, even the honest but undiscerning members of the group are victims of these self-enriching individuals. The undiscerning people who follow these leaders have given up their freewill and follow the leadership of charismatic, self willed, often narcissistic and destructive men, and have allowed themselves to be subject to the destructive will of those leaders. In its more radical and conservative forms this unchecked trust in a person or group who seems to be able to provide all of the spiritual answers and needs, has all too often lead to trusts and actions that have spawned wars, and even genocide of entire cultures: i.e., the Christians who followed the crusades to take Jerusalem