Evidence for God from Science

congrats

Kurieuo wrote:Glad to hear you moving forward to where you want to be.

I often wondered what it is you studied and overall life journey since we both began here.
Especially given the many ups and downs with your seeming love-hate relationship for G&S and this board.
But, seems there's been some mellowing especially in recent years.

So I'd be interested to know about what was happening in your life over the past dozen years.

BUT, Congratulations! Hope things work out more for you.

It has been a long time, hasn't it? For years I was working towards being a professor. I got a BA in religious studies and then an MA in apologetics. Around the time I was finishing the BA and starting the MA, I married Gretchen. We wanted to move to Chicago so I could go to Trinity Evangelical Divinity School where I was going to get an MA in Old Testament and Semitic Languages, but she had just started her degree program. So that was when I got the MA in apologetics and wrote the thesis on DS. I also decided that I did not want to be the kind of professor who was terribly dry because he had never actually done the thing he was teaching (I sat under too many of those). A friend of mine was a hospital chaplain and recommended I take a unit of CPE (Clinical Pastoral Education). I figured if I couldn't make my theology work at the bedside, it probably wasn't worth boring my students with, so I signed up. In the meantime, I took a job as an adjunct professor of apologetics at a local seminary teaching undergrad students. I found out through that that I really don't want to be a professor. As it turns out, though, I really LOVE the chaplaincy. So I decided to make a career change. Rather than go to TEDS, I went to Liberty (much cheaper option!). I needed an MDiv (which I hadn't gotten because it wasn't required to be a prof; I was just going to have the BA, two MAs, and a PhD). I also needed a year of full time work as a chaplain resident, good for four more units of CPE. So I did that at a major research hospital in Atlanta called Emory University Hospital. I just finished that program in June. THAT was intense.

Not surprisingly, much of my academic focus shifted in a more pastoral direction. I'm still very interested in philosophy and theology (obviously), but now my concern is pastoral. I took a lot more classes in counseling and systems theory, and I shifted my focus away from theology proper (which was obviously an emphasis previously given my interest in DS) more to biblical anthropology, and especially to the nature of the soul. I was the only person in my CPE group who, when talking about pastoral care, would be quoting Augustine, Aristotle, Plato, Aquinas, Basil, Chrysostom, and other ancient writers (I read an AMAZING book, by the way, on the intersection between modern cognitive therapy and the pastoral theology of the Greek Church Fathers . . . fascinating stuff). I also found myself very interested in systems theory, especially per Edwin Friedman's Generation to Generation. Where this did affect my theology proper was in my abhorrence for process philosophy and theology, which is rampant in CPE, and which has pretty serious impacts on one's theory of pastoral care. So I found myself in my MDiv programs continuing to defend classical theism, but now with an eye towards pastoral implications.

So I just finished all of that earlier this year. I've now moved to Arkansas where I am the cardiac chaplain. That has moved my area of research again. Cardiac patients in America have about double the depression rate of the rest of the population (~9% v ~20%, by most estimates I've read). Further, I've found that post-surgery depression is very common among people who have just had coronary artery bypass grafts (CABGs, otherwise broadly known as "open heart surgery" or "bypass surgery")--estimates vary from everywhere from about 15% to 60%. In my anecdotal experience, the rate seems to be about 30% or so. Obviously, that is MUCH higher than the general population. Given all that, I have become very interested in the relationship between pastoral care, religious coping, and anxiety/depression levels. I am not, though, a psychologist, nor am I interested in being one (although I am only about five classes out from having all the same training that licensed therapists have). I have some problems with the way their model approaches those questions. I think that the pastoral model is much better fitted to dealing with the problem, and that especially given the idea of spirituality I am developing (for clinical purposes--I'm hoping to publish my ideas on the subject, along with a spiritual assessment tool I am working on, in 2015). So I see my next several years as focusing on developing clinical research around questions of best practices and effectiveness of various assessments and interventions in clinical settings.

I suspect there has been a lot of mellowing. If it isn't clear, I attribute that to CPE and my ever increasing interest in the functional nature of theology. I would have blasted anyone five years ago for saying theology is essentially functional. But, such is what happens when you actually study these issues. Add to that my enthusiastic support for systems theory and my experience of working with a group of about 20 very liberal chaplains (including an atheist), almost all of whom were on the far left end of the political spectrum, and then having to provide meaningful pastoral care to every type of person imaginable . . . well, let's just say that being a big fish in a small theological pond isn't quite so important to me anymore.

tl;dr - I've been having a lot of fun.

----------------------------------------------------

Proinsias wrote:Glad to hear it. I always thought of 'hospital chaplain' as a Christian position but I've never experienced death of a loved one outwith the Catholic church.

Most people have that misconception. But then again, so did I before I started the program. There is some rebranding going on, though. There is a pretty big move away from "chaplains" towards "spiritual care providers." I don't know how I feel about that, but I get what they are trying to do. I'm just concerned that the new terminology is less about being clear and wreaks far more of political correctness.

/offtopic

I recall you were writing a book/paper/thing as a sort of layman's guide to divine simplicity. Did I miss it? is it still in the works?

It is still in the works. But I have made significant progress. Part One is effectively finished (five chapters). I've submitted it to a few people for review and gotten broadly positive feedback. I'm in the middle of part two (three chapters), and actually this week I had something of a breakthrough on how to handle a difficult portion. The material is easy enough to define. But how you talk about this stuff without getting lost in technical jargon . . . that's the art. And that, more than anything, is what is taking so long. I've been pretty surprised at how hard it is to write on a more popular level and still be faithful to the importance of the subject matter being addressed. But I am pleased to say that I am actually very happy with how it is coming out. If I keep writing at the pace I am, I expect I'll finish Part Two next week and then Part Three sometime around Christmas. We'll see! Thanks for asking.

-----------------------------------------------------

PaulSacramento wrote:Congrats Jac !
I am glad that things are working out the way you want them to.
I am curious as to what kind of training ( in terms of dealing with grief) you have, care to share?

Sure. My academic training, of course, required I take several courses in pastoral counseling, so I learned about several approaches to grief counseling. Actually, I've found that grief counseling is far more about what not to do than anything else. But, anyway, after than, I took five units of CPE, which is basically training for grief counseling on steroids. We had to learn to distinguish between the different types of losses (i.e., material, physical, interpersonal, relational, symbolic, etc.), simple v complicated grief, how to recognize anticipatory grief, etc. I'm a fan in general of Brueggemann's model of orientation->disorientation->new orientation. Anyway, all of that theoretical stuff had to be practically and concretely applied in our practice. We would have to take about one session with a patient per week and transcribe as much as we could remember from the conversation verbatim (so, those are called "verbatims"). We then had to analyze it, identify what we were feeling in ourselves, what we picked up from the patient, what theories we were relying on as we worked through the issues, why we chose to explore the issues we did with them, what we could have done better, how much of what we did (and why) was really coming from our own stuff (i.e., counter-transference), etc. Then our supervisor, who had about 20 years experience doing this, including training as a therapist, would rip our work to shreds and half the time we would find out that we only thought we were talking about the pt's concerns, when, in fact, we were far more worried about ourselves. All that lead to our own grief counseling! I've also had some training in group sessions (I worked on a psych unit for awhile), critical incident stress debriefing, and general work on managing transitions both professionally and personally. Next year my work is sending me to Little Rock to get some crisis training to learn how to deal with catastrophic events, and I'll probably do a few more weeks of continuing education in grief counseling specifically.

But for all that . . . I'll just say that until you've sat next to a woman who is holding her baby as the child is extubated and you watch that baby take her last breath in her mother's arms . . . shy of that, it's all just theory. And in that moment, the theory doesn't mean much of anything. At that point, all you can do is hold on for dear life and pray that you don't say anything that will make the situation worse. By and large, I've learned the best grief work is to not say anything at all. I've often remarked to my colleagues that Job's friends provided GREAT pastoral care for the first seven days they were there. It was only when they opened their mouth and started talking that they went off the rails. I mean, honestly, if you sat with me in a session, you would probably be surprised at how little I actually say. I trained a few pastoral aids a few weeks back, and one of them raved for days about how "great a listener" I supposedly am. I finally just told him it's not that I'm a particularly good listener. It's that I have learned to shut my mouth and let the other person talk. I know how to ask a well placed question or make a gentle observation. That's just the training. But, really, the patient does pretty much all the work.

-------------------------------------------------

Thanks all for the well wishes. It really does warm my heart. I was a bit worried with my initial post about sounding like I was bragging. But I figured and hoped y'all wouldn't take it that way. So thanks again.

Yeah, Jac - I can see how important this up close and personal interaction with people in crisis has been for you - as you say, it's where your theology, theories and training (the "rubber") hits the road. I recently made friends with a young seminarian who also happends to be a grief counselor. I had no idea how well trained some of them are. And I wonder how difficult it must be to come home and deconpress, of not having sleepless nights over patients situations, wondering if you were a help or a hindrance.

I've been to Emory - I'm only about 200 or so miles to the east of there. Atlanta traffic - worst on the East Coast, I'd say.

But for all that . . . I'll just say that until you've sat next to a woman who is holding her baby as the child is extubated and you watch that baby take her last breath in her mother's arms . . . shy of that, it's all just theory. And in that moment, the theory doesn't mean much of anything. At that point, all you can do is hold on for dear life and pray that you don't say anything that will make the situation worse. By and large, I've learned the best grief work is to not say anything at all. I've often remarked to my colleagues that Job's friends provided GREAT pastoral care for the first seven days they were there. It was only when they opened their mouth and started talking that they went off the rails. I mean, honestly, if you sat with me in a session, you would probably be surprised at how little I actually say. I trained a few pastoral aids a few weeks back, and one of them raved for days about how "great a listener" I supposedly am. I finally just told him it's not that I'm a particularly good listener. It's that I have learned to shut my mouth and let the other person talk. I know how to ask a well placed question or make a gentle observation. That's just the training. But, really, the patient does pretty much all the work.

Well said and quite correct.
I asked because I have seen first hand some well intention-ed pastors making things far worse.

Jac3510 wrote:...Oddly enough, we had an atheist in my CPE residency program. Her "faith group" was a unitarian church that explicitly said in its "doctrinal statement" that it was a place for both believers and unbelievers alike to come and share unconditional love and "spiritual growth." Obviously, for her, "spiritual" had a very different meaning, but it was fun, not to mention helpful, to have her in the program. It really forced us to take seriously the notion of being able to work alongside of and minister to people of every faith group, including those who are of no faith at all. Anyway, she said a similar thing to you here--she found the program extremely valuable. I don't know if she ever found a position. Finding a job as a hospital chaplain requires putting out resumes nation wide, so you don't really get to keep in touch with your other residents. But all the same, she was a good chaplain, so I'm sure she's doing well enough for herself.

An atheist chaplain. That makes sense.

By the way, my mechanic wasn't able to fix my brakes, so he decided to make my horn louder.

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:...Oddly enough, we had an atheist in my CPE residency program. Her "faith group" was a unitarian church that explicitly said in its "doctrinal statement" that it was a place for both believers and unbelievers alike to come and share unconditional love and "spiritual growth." Obviously, for her, "spiritual" had a very different meaning, but it was fun, not to mention helpful, to have her in the program. It really forced us to take seriously the notion of being able to work alongside of and minister to people of every faith group, including those who are of no faith at all. Anyway, she said a similar thing to you here--she found the program extremely valuable. I don't know if she ever found a position. Finding a job as a hospital chaplain requires putting out resumes nation wide, so you don't really get to keep in touch with your other residents. But all the same, she was a good chaplain, so I'm sure she's doing well enough for herself.

An atheist chaplain. That makes sense.

By the way, my mechanic wasn't able to fix my brakes, so he decided to make my horn louder.

FL

I don't know if it's tiredness, but you made me laugh.

Kurieuo wrote: I don't know if it's tiredness, but you made me laugh.

Okaaaay...but being funny wasn't the point of my comment. Does "atheist chaplain" sound like nonsense only to me?

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: I don't know if it's tiredness, but you made me laugh.

Okaaaay...but being funny wasn't the point of my comment. Does "atheist chaplain" sound like nonsense only to me?

FL

No more nonsense than a married bachelor.

Actually FL, I noticed that too. But I didn't say anything because I didn't want to rain on Jac's parade. How would it sound if we said that Jac was just as qualified to be a chaplain, as an atheist?

Yes, what would be the atheist chaplain's comfort at the bedside of a dying man: "Well, may it comfort you to know that we're all in the same boat, as the reality is we all live, go throught the hell of this life, eventually get sick, and then die - but at least then you'll be out of pain." So their best is to encourage one to look forward to death because then "no more pain?" Or he might advise, "Have you ever seriously considered suicide, as why prolong pain?"

If spiritual needs are an objective part of reality, just like morality is, then atheists can work to meet them, too. And, to that extent, you would be surprised when you watched her ministry at how much what she does is exactly what you would be doing if you were in her shoes. Granted, there are some things that would be different. But there is a HUGE overlap, believe it or not. What you have to be careful about here is to avoid confusing evangelism with spiritual care. There is a place for evangelism. But there is also a place for loving people where they are . . . rather than talking about Jesus, just showing them Jesus. You all should know me well enough not to read into my words a denial of the necessity of evangelism. But I can also tell you that if you do things in the wrong way, if carts get put before horses, so to speak, then not only will your evangelism be ineffective, it can also be positively harmful.

So can an atheist show the love of God? If an atheist can love people at all, then they can. And they do, on both counts. Obviously, her ministry is severely hampered by her denial of Christ, and that in more ways than one. But I have no problem saying after three years of doing this job full time that there are atheists who make very good spiritual care providers. Far from suggesting, then, that God doesn't exist, I think, in line with the argument from objective morality, that just strengthens the case that spiritual needs are real and are really and ultimately fulfilled in Christ.

edit:

philip, I wonder if you you're confusing providing comfort with preaching about heaven. I fully grant that talking about the hope of heaven can provide some comfort. But do you think that's the only way? And what would you say if I told you that, for some people, at some moments, such a message can actually be hurtful? But this is why I said that this chaplain's ministry is hampered. She is missing a HUGE tool (namely, the ability to preach about heaven). But that doesn't mean she has no tools. And, as a matter of fact, she is actually not prevented from talking about heaven. As an atheist who doesn't believe in it, but as one who doesn't believe the theology is harmful, she was trained to help people employ their own spiritual resources for comfort. So rather than declare that the dying person will soon be in heaven, she might have a conversation like this:

C: I understand that it looks like you are coming to your final days. Can you tell me a bit about what you are going through with that, emotionally and spiritually, I mean?
P: I don't know. In some ways, it is terrifying. But I'm also at peace about it.
C: You're a Christian right?
P: Yes, I am.
C: Your words remind of what what Paul said in Philippians, when he said that he desired to depart and be with Christ but that he also wanted to stay on in the flesh and continue working for the church. He wanted to be with Jesus, but he also wanted to live on longer. Does that sound like you?
P: Actually, yes it does. A lot. I don't want to die! But if it's my time, then I know where I'll be.
C: And where is that?
P: Well, with Jesus, of course.
C: It sounds like that gives you a lot of comfort. Tell me, what do you think heaven will be like . . .

And so on. She doens't have to believe a word of it. But in helping him think about his own faith, he can have his objective spiritual needs met--the need for hope and for peace, for instance. A conversation along those lines, in the right context, could also help him feel affirmed, respected, and valued. And that could lead to a conversation where the patient gets to talk about why death scares him.

Again, I'm not saying that evangelism is unnecessary or that an atheist can be as good a chaplain as a Christian. Although I will say with Paul above that I've met some Christian pastors who have made things very much worse, and I would have WAY preferred to have the chaplain in question providing care for my family in that case! I'm just saying that the concept isn't as self-contradictory as it might sound at first. Spiritual needs are objective, and as such, they are accessible to anyone, regardless of their faith. They just have to be willing to accept them and work with them.

RickD wrote:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: I don't know if it's tiredness, but you made me laugh.

Okaaaay...but being funny wasn't the point of my comment. Does "atheist chaplain" sound like nonsense only to me?

FL

No more nonsense than a married bachelor.

Actually FL, I noticed that too. But I didn't say anything because I didn't want to rain on Jac's parade. How would it sound if we said that Jac was just as qualified to be a chaplain, as an atheist?

While I didn't have any atheists in my Theology classes when I was getting my degree, we did have 3 agnostics.
I do recall it being mentioned that some atheists HAD taken the course but that was only found out after the fact.

Jac3510 wrote:If spiritual needs are an objective part of reality, just like morality is, then atheists can work to meet them, too. And, to that extent, you would be surprised when you watched her ministry at how much what she does is exactly what you would be doing if you were in her shoes. Granted, there are some things that would be different. But there is a HUGE overlap, believe it or not. What you have to be careful about here is to avoid confusing evangelism with spiritual care. There is a place for evangelism. But there is also a place for loving people where they are . . . rather than talking about Jesus, just showing them Jesus. You all should know me well enough not to read into my words a denial of the necessity of evangelism. But I can also tell you that if you do things in the wrong way, if carts get put before horses, so to speak, then not only will your evangelism be ineffective, it can also be positively harmful.

So can an atheist show the love of God? If an atheist can love people at all, then they can. And they do, on both counts. Obviously, her ministry is severely hampered by her denial of Christ, and that in more ways than one. But I have no problem saying after three years of doing this job full time that there are atheists who make very good spiritual care providers. Far from suggesting, then, that God doesn't exist, I think, in line with the argument from objective morality, that just strengthens the case that spiritual needs are real and are really and ultimately fulfilled in Christ.

Indeed, I recall more then once hearing that the existence of God, for SOME, hampers more than helps at times.
The problem of suffering is quite the issue in relation to an "all loving God".

Very much, Paul. With those kind of people, I end up doing what is called an implicit spiritual assessment. It is just a fact of humanity that we need God, and so without God Proper, we make gods out of things. We attribute divinity and perfection and ultimate meaning to this or that. But all such language is really language about God, even if the person doesn't know it. So if someone is very angry or hurt at God over the evil in their life, it is sometimes far more helpful to do implicit theological work than have a discussion about whether or not God really exists in Himself as you and I understand Him to. Such a discussion would not only increase spiritual distress (which is a medically diagnosed condition, by the way, with real physical results), it could increase related issues like anxiety, depression, raise blood pressure, and have an overall negative impact on someone's health. It could also serve to further alienate the person whom you are "caring" for, and if all that weren't enough, it isn't even necessary to have the conversation. God's existence is a red herring. The real issue is what their need in that moment. It's far more of an art that a science, but if we practice it well, we really can provide healing; and through that healing, people can find themelves at a place where faith in Christ seems like the most natural thing in the world to do.

edit:

And see my edit in my post above. Some of what I'm talking about here I illustrate with a possible conversation between an atheist and Christian in which the atheist is the one providing spiritual care.

Jac wrote:But there is also a place for loving people where they are . . . rather than talking about Jesus, just showing them Jesus.

Jac3510 wrote:Very much, Paul. With those kind of people, I end up doing what is called an implicit spiritual assessment. It is just a fact of humanity that we need God, and so without God Proper, we make gods out of things. We attribute divinity and perfection and ultimate meaning to this or that. But all such language is really language about God, even if the person doesn't know it. So if someone is very angry or hurt at God over the evil in their life, it is sometimes far more helpful to do implicit theological work than have a discussion about whether or not God really exists in Himself as you and I understand Him to. Such a discussion would not only increase spiritual distress (which is a medically diagnosed condition, by the way, with real physical results), it could increase related issues like anxiety, depression, raise blood pressure, and have an overall negative impact on someone's health. It could also serve to further alienate the person whom you are "caring" for, and if all that weren't enough, it isn't even necessary to have the conversation. God's existence is a red herring. The real issue is what their need in that moment. It's far more of an art that a science, but if we practice it well, we really can provide healing; and through that healing, people can find themelves at a place where faith in Christ seems like the most natural thing in the world to do.

edit:

And see my edit in my post above. Some of what I'm talking about here I illustrate with a possible conversation between an atheist and Christian in which the atheist is the one providing spiritual care.

Very well said my friend, very well said indeed.