Dear Craig,

Well, here it is. Years of blood, sweat and tears now poured out on paper just for you. Boy! The things I do for you! I must really be a swell guy. (I've never taken such poetic licence in a final paper before, but I guess that since this is also a personal letter to my own brother, it's okay.)

Let me say right off the bat that I know this is an extremely long letter and that you are probably on the floor right now having a heart-attack. But that's not my fault; my professor made me do it! (Just kidding, Professor Barrs.) But don't despair, my favorite (and only) brother. I have made sure that this letter won't be boring! (It has real chunks of entertainment baked right in!)

But anyway, aside from all this joking, I do want you to know that even though this is a final paper for class, it is far, far more than that to me. In my eyes, it truly is a personal letter from me to you, and I take that very seriously. Through my own personal growth in the last several years, I have come to appreciate and value you as my brother far more than I ever did before. So everything I say in this letter, I say truly from the bottom of my heart with the genuine desire for it to be beneficial to you in your life!

I want to thank you again for answering all those questions that I e-mailed you about what is important to you in life and about what you believe concerning morality and the world we live in. It's not often that we have been open enough to talk about such things in the past. I'm glad we can do so now, and I hope we can continue to do so. I honestly do value what you have to say and am very interested in what you think about various things. So instead of yakking on here about what I have to say to you, I want to take some space here to give you my understanding about what you had to say to me in answering those e-mail questions about what you value in life and about morality and the nature of the world we live in.

Many of the questions I asked you had to do with your views of the nature of the world in which we live and the basis for morality. Your answers (and our conversations in the past) show me that it is your view that the universe we live in is a strictly physical universe; after all, as you say, you're a "science kind of guy". That is, everything in the universe can be explained (with enough scientific knowledge) as some combination of matter, energy and forces. You went on to say that the universe must have come from some kind of pre-existent force that we really know nothing about. This force somehow brought the universe into existence and the matter, energy and forces that resulted from it began swirling around, colliding and combining in a random fashion. After an extremely long period of time, the chance arrangement of things has given us the world we have today and everything in it.

You then explained your view that people are strictly physical as well, which is consistent with your view of the universe as a whole. This means that we are a combination of atoms and forces like the rest of the universe. You also explain that there are aspects of man that we just don't understand right now. But this is because we do not understand the nature of some of the forces at work within us. We will gain a better understanding, however, if we can learn more through scientific study.

Concerning the basis for morality, you said quite plainly that there is no absolute standard for right and wrong, but that matters of morality must be determined by each individual society. This also is consistent with your view of the universe, for in a strictly physical universe, we are on our own with no one to judge us from the outside.

In addition to questions about the nature of the world we live in and the basis for morality, I also asked you about what's important to you in life. That is, where is the value in life? You answered these questions by saying that the important things in life consist of basically two things: loving and caring for your family and friends, and taking the time to enjoy what you have. Of course, I know these things are important to you because I've been around you for so long. I know that your relationship with Tracy means a great deal to you, especially now that you will be married in October (cool!). I also know that you really do care for Robin and that she thinks the world of you, and I know that your relationship with her means a great deal to you as well.

I see that taking the time to enjoy life and to enjoy what you have is important to you as well. You explained to me in your responses to my e-mail questions that it is important for you to just take a step back and "smell the roses". I see you doing this in many ways: playing golf, going to Braves games (chop! chop!), and flying out to Texas when you can. Of course, you've got to work and go to school, but I see you taking advantage of every opportunity you can to take that step back and enjoy life. These things seem to be very important to you.

In response to your views, I would just like to commend you for your stance on what's important to you in life. I think you value what should be valued in life. I'm glad you value family, because that means you value me (haha!). But seriously, loving your family and enjoying life are things that are completely worthy of being valued. They are valuable! These are the things that give life its meaning. These are the things that make life worth living. And I am glad that you hold to these things so dearly.

Because I am glad that you hold so firmly to family and enjoyment of life (and want you to continue to value these things), I ask you to consider with me a difficult question. Does your view of the world we live in even allow for family and life to be valued? That is, in a world that arose from matter, energy and forces after trillions of years of chance collisions, is there really a place for love, commitment or enjoyment at all? Now, you may be thinking, "Oh, Chris is at the point in his letter where he is beginning to challenge me." But I want you to know that I do not see this as an intellectual boxing match. I have no desire to "go one on one" with you. The reason I am considering this question is not to try to win an argument or to take away from you the very things you value so much in life. If that's my goal, may I fail this paper! But on the contrary, my hope in writing this letter to you is that it would be beneficial to you in your life, not harmful. I want you to have these good things in your life. I want you to have life to its fullest. But, as I will try to demonstrate to you, your position takes away from you the very things in life you so value.

Now, I know that right now your defenses are up, and understandably so. After all, I'm asking you to take a hard look at what you believe. And that's not always an easy thing to do. It's not always easy for me, either. But we both must be willing to honestly consider our beliefs in light of what we know to be true about the world in which we live. Otherwise, we are believing what is convenient and are deceiving ourselves. Now, if I were asking you to do this without being willing to do it myself, I would be a hypocrite. I do not approve of Christians in the least who say, "Don't ask questions; just believe!" I am not interested in believing in something just for the sake of believing it or for any other reason like that. I believe what I believe because I am thoroughly convinced that it explains the world in which we live in a way that nothing else does or can. But be assured, if I am ever presented with evidence that demonstrates that what I believe is not true, I will turn away from it!

Of course, because our beliefs (assumptions) are so ingrained in the way we think, it is really hard to bring ourselves to honestly test what we assume to be true in light of the nature of the world as it really is. Often, instead of honestly testing our assumptions in light of the nature of the world we live in, we find it easier to interpret the nature of the world in which we live in light of our assumptions. But this must be resisted. Let me tell you a fun, little story to illustrate the point.

One day, a guy came into a doctor's office and said, "Doc, I have a problem!" The doctor said, "What's the problem?" The patient said, "I'm dead!" This puzzled the doctor, as he could see that the patient was not dead. So the doctor began to think of a way to demonstrate to the patient that he was not dead. Then, the doctor had an idea. He said to the patient, "I want you to go to the library and do some research on the characteristics of dead people." So he did.

A couple of days later, the patient came back to the doctor's office and said, "Doc, I went to the library and found out something really interesting about dead people." "What's that?" the doctor asked. The patient replied, "Dead people don't bleed." The doctor got all exited, because he now had evidence to demonstrate that the patient really wasn't dead. He quickly grabbed a needle and pricked the patient's finger. As a drop of blood appeared on the patient's finger, the doctor asked, "Now what do you think?" With a sigh the patient said, "Well, Doc, I guess I was wrong. Dead people do bleed!" (Hahaha)

I like that story. But the point is that we must all, myself included, be willing to take an honest look at our assumptions and beliefs in light of the nature of the world we live in.

So with this in mind, I would like to return to that hard question I asked previously. In a world that arose from matter, energy and forces after trillions of years of chance collisions, is there really any place for love, commitment or enjoyment at all? Is it possible for atoms to love one another? Is it conceivable for energy to be committed to energy? Is it characteristic of forces to enjoy life? In other words, can that which is impersonal (atoms, energy, forces) do that which is personal (love, commit, enjoy)? Of course not! Then, if we are merely the product of that which is impersonal, are we not impersonal machines ourselves?

Of course, it could be argued that people do have the capacity for love, commitment and enjoyment (even though we are comprised merely of atoms, energy and forces) because, through the evolutionary process, we have become so complex that the capacity for love, commitment and enjoyment has somehow emerged over trillions of years. But if what we call "personal" is merely a highly complex structuring of what is impersonal, then can we really say that it's actually personal? Is it really feasible that what is personal would ever emerge from what is impersonal?

Let me give an illustration. I have read that in the Alps, from time to time new lakes will suddenly emerge in the valleys (for some weird reason). So imagine, if you will, that you are there in the Alps standing on top of one of the mountains where you can see three parallel mountain ranges with two valleys in between. You see that there is a lake in the first valley, but the second valley is dry. Suddenly, you see a new lake emerging in that second valley, where there was no lake before. Then, you ask the appropriate question, "What is the source of that new lake? Where did it come from?" If it stops at the same level as the lake in the first valley, you may rightly conclude that there is at least a possibility that the water had come from that lake in the first valley. But if the level of the new lake ends up being twenty feet higher than the level of the first lake, then you could no longer consider the possibility that it came from the first lake. You would have to seek out another explanation.

This is the way it is with what's personal. Just as no one could say that the second (higher) lake had its source in the first (lower) lake, so no one has ever been able to say how we could possibly get what's personal from impersonal sources.

But if all we have to work with is an impersonal universe, what are we to make of the fact that people do indeed experience what's personal (love, commitment, enjoyment) every day of their lives? Are we not forced to say that the "love" we experience is really something along the lines of a complex chemical reaction? For that matter, are we not left to say that anything which we experience as "personal" has its ultimate explanation in the mechanical laws of nature? But if this is really the only explanation for what we experience as personal, then are you not left to conclude that the love for family and enjoyment of life that you so value is a mere illusion?

If the love for family and enjoyment of life that you experience is really no different than any impersonal force or chemical reaction (only more complex), then how can you say that these things are really worthy of the value that you place on them?

So what am I getting at by saying all of this? My point is simply this: your view of the world, if held consistently, does not allow for family and life to be valued as you value them. So we have an internal conflict. On the one hand we have your assumptions that the universe, and all that's in it, is made simply of physical matter, energy and forces. On the other hand, we have the world around us and our own experiences plainly showing each one of us that the world is a personal place. If your assumptions are right, that everything came from an impersonal source, then there is no place for what's personal in the world. But if what we actually experience in the world is right, that life is indeed personal, then there must be a personal source from which it all came.

I mentioned earlier that we must all be willing to test our assumptions in light of what we actually see to be true in the world around us. If we don't, then we are like that guy who assumed that he was dead, even though his experience of bleeding (which only living people do) proved otherwise. So my challenge to you is that you would be willing to see that, since the world we live in is clearly a personal one, there must be a personal source from which it all came.

Up to this point, I have been demonstrating that the source from which the universe came must be a personal source, not an impersonal "it", but a personal "he" who has personality. Now, I would like you to consider with me the implications of there being a personal source to the universe.

First, I want to point out that, with a personal source to the universe, there is a place for love, commitment and enjoyment in the world. We all seek after these things and we can find them, because they are really there.

Second, I want to also point out that, with a personal source to the universe, there is also an absolute moral foundation in the universe. Part of what it means to be personal is to have views, or opinions. So the one who brought the universe into existence -- since he is personal -- has opinions also. But we can't really say that what he thinks is mere opinion, can we? You and I have opinions, but we don't define the existence of reality. But if the source of all existence has an opinion, then it is more than an opinion; it is right! So the point here is that, since there is a personal source to the universe, we must look to him for direction, not ourselves or anything else.

Of course, a common objection that many people raise at this point (which you also raised) is that he has not told us how we are to direct our lives. Well, it is true that we do not walk around hearing "the voice of God" all the time. But has he not made it known to us how we are to direct our lives? Has he not made it clearly evident to each one of us that we are to be honest in our business practice, that we are to help those in need around us and not harm them, that we are to remain faithful to those we are committed to? Is there anyone in the world who can honestly say that these things are not clearly known to be right?

So this objection that God has not told us how to direct our lives, though at first glance appears to be an intellectual objection, really boils down to being a moral objection. That is, the problem is not that we don't know how to live as God requires. The problem is that we don't want to live as God requires. Of course, I'm not saying that we go around cheating in business and kicking people's dogs all the time (though some do). But what I am saying is that we live as God requires only when we ourselves approve of what he requires. We remain the master of our lives without acknowledging that it is he who has made us and not we ourselves. So the objection here is really that, even though he really is the only one who has the right to govern our lives, we want to continue to live as if the right is ours.

So I sincerely urge you to recognize that there is Someone who is the master of our lives. We are not our own masters. He is the Creator of all the universe and the one who gives it true meaning. He wants us to live under his direction, not only because this is right, but because it is true freedom for us, for it is consistent with the way we were made. If we live as if we were our own masters, then we are living as fish out of water (there is the appearance of freedom, but it brings death in the end). But if we recognize God's rule and live as he requires, then we are living as fish in water (we are truly free because we are living as we were made to live). So God desires true freedom for us. But don't be mistaken. Those who do not yield to him will not escape his anger!

So again, I urge you to recognize that you are not the master of your own life. I urge you to be thankful for all the good things in your life (which are many in your case) and to recognize that God grants you to have such things to show you his kindness toward you. Finally, I urge you to surrender yourself to the One who will be true freedom for you, if you only turn to him.

Well, that's all I have to say now. I know that all of this was pretty heavy stuff (stuff I hope you will continue to keep in mind), but I am really glad that I have had the opportunity, not only to write this letter to you, but also to learn more about what you think through your e-mail responses. As I said before, I have really grown to value you more and more as my brother. And I hope that nothing in this letter was interpreted as a personal attack. It surely wasn't intended that way. But I hope you will feel free to give me your thoughts concerning what has been said here. I would love to know what you think.

Until then, keep your nose clean!

Your Favorite Brother,
Chris

[Feel free to e-mail responses to ckdaniel@msn.com]