If man is the measure of all things, as the Greek philosopher Protagoras said, we may be measuring “things” by a very small measure, something like using a yardstick to measure the distance from Chicago to Moscow.

Take our brains. Neuroscientists study the activities of the brain and the nervous system. Studies have focused on the functioning of the parts of the brain, such as how they interact and specialize. Some studies have looked at the reactions of the human brain to other humans. These social activities appear to occur on another level, a more complex one. It includes the parts of the brain, but is more than the sum of the parts, this interaction between two humans.

We can prove that humans exist in the scientific sense, but God cannot be seen or studied the way a human brain can. So what of the claims of those of us who are Christian that we can interact with God? We might look at this idea as one that leads us to yet another level, beyond human interaction, one that faith opens to us.

Social interaction moves a person’s focus from self to another. Faith changes the perspective even further, from examining the inhabitants of a thin atmosphere on a small planet to—what? Perhaps to a spiritual level that cannot be quantified but can be experienced.

A computer math course taught me that we can have other number systems than the one based on ten. Computer systems, at least when I was studying them, are based on the binary system, the on/off properties of two. You go on up to four, eight, sixteen, thirty-two, sixty-four, and so on. Presumably you can have a system based on threes or thirteens or three thousand and sevens, if you want to. In other words, the possibilities are endless.

A previous blog discussed systems that we, as yet, have no way to predict. The usual example given is the weather, which we still can’t accurately predict beyond two or three days.(In the Puget Sound region, even the prediction of a few hours can be in error.) The author theorized that these systems we can’t predict aren’t really chaotic, but we lack the knowledge to unlock them. And when we answer one question, we find a thousand more waiting.

The universe amazes us with its complexity. Humankind is equally marvelous. The study of both leaves us in awe and provides useful knowledge, but the ultimate why for these marvelous works is beyond science. That journey begins with faith that sends us in another direction.

Before the spread of Islam, most Egyptians were Christians. Today, only about ten percent of the population call themselves Christians. Why did so many leave the Christian faith when Islam appeared? No doubt many reasons underlay the change. Some historians point to the Christian schisms that afflicted that part of the world before the Muslim conquest. Christianity lost its good name. The new religion may have struck many as more genuine than the old one.

The shoving aside of religion to the sidelines that began in the 1700′s was caused partly by the appalling religious conflicts of the century before. Pure reason seemed a better way, perhaps, than religious passion, than the killing and torturing of those who disagreed with you.

And for those of us today who call ourselves Christians? If we fail to live up to Christ’s teachings, should we expect any different judgement on us?

I lived for several years in foreign countries, including one in which I could practice my Christian beliefs only in private. When I returned home to the United States, I became aware of a lack of interest on the part of my fellow believers in the United States about other countries and cultures. Though Christians were called to go out into the world from the beginning, many American Christians, it appeared to me, fixated on domestic issues.

How do those of us who are Christians interact with other cultures and their religions? Do we want religious freedom only for, say, Christians in Saudi Arabia? Or are we also concerned when Tibetan Buddhists are persecuted in China? What about freedom for those who wish to practice no religion?

Baptists in Virginia after the American Revolution struggled for the freedom to practice their beliefs outside of the established churches. Are those of us who profess Christianity still as adamant for religious freedom as those early Baptists? Are we interested in religious freedom only as long as we are the odd ones out?

I would be interested in hearing from you, Christians and non-Christians alike, on this issue of religious freedom. The idea of publicly commenting on a blog may inhibit some of you. If this is the case, feel free to email your comments to me at islandfiction@hotmail.com. I won’t use your name or other personal information in my blog response; I’ll only comment on your thoughts.

How can we curb our suicidal march toward the undisciplined life that allows immediate desire to overcome our God-given ability to reason? Even our politics seem driven by “unreasoning” hatred.

Our young people imitate their elders who over-eat, over-drink, over-shop, and over-entertain themselves without any thought given to deeper purposes. The consequences can suddenly horrify as in automobile fatalities caused by drunken driving. They may surface over longer periods, as in routine gluttony or a country’s slow decline following decades of self-gratification.

We need a purpose that encourages a longer view than a news sound byte or the next election or what we buy on Black Friday. What are our goals? With whom can we share our blessings? Our talents?

A generation or so ago, parents wanted their children to “amount to something.” Now we prefer them be “happy,” but isn’t happiness a byproduct rather than a goal?

Like many, I find enjoyment in Jane Austen’s novels, as well in the movies and Masterpiece Theater remakes. What is it about life portrayed in the Austen stories that accounts for the revival of interest in her work? Few of us would want to live in those days of rigid social systems, poor sanitation and medical practices, and lack of modern conveniences. Why, then, the appeal?

Perhaps we yearn for the order and civility that we lack in our lives today. Even more, the sense of family and of family loyalty, of honor and common values, appeals to us, I think.

Those times were brutal to the poor and vulnerable and stifling to others, such as women forced into limited roles. We have greater equality today and more enlightened views about women and class. We enjoy freedom of religion and are not forced by community expectations to sit through boring sermons in established churches, already calcifying even in those days.

Yet we have lost something, too, a sense of community and of belonging. We have lost standards of decency and behavior. Those in Austen’s day frequently fell from the standards they professed, but at least they had standards.

When what we cherish is threatened, we often react with anger and hatred. Yet God commands us to love even our enemies. Surely, then, our love extends to those atheists who have caught the recent attention of established Christianity.

After the death of Christopher Hitchens, a well-known atheist, some Christians celebrated his passing like others did the death of Osama bin Laden. Such an attitude not only is counter to the teachings of Jesus but appears to spring from insecurity in their own beliefs.

Some unbelievers profess honest difficulty with Christian claims. Do we want them to pretend to believe what they cannot? Perhaps God is less troubled by an honest nonbeliever than by one who claims he is a believer and denies Christ by his actions. In fact, one reason for unbelief is the hatred expressed by some who call themselves Christians.

Jesus welcomed the questioning Nicodemus to his lodging for a discussion. Jesus answered his questions frankly, but he did not belittle Nicodemus or his questions.

Those Christians among us must realize that religious wars, intolerance, and vituperative comments serve to distance unbelievers from any true understanding of Jesus. Do our attitudes spring from a fear that we will be led down that dark alley of unbelief? Perhaps we should admit our fears to God and trust him for enlightenment and help in the resolution of our insecurity, rather than react in hateful attacks on unbelievers.

A thoughtful column ponders Hitchens from a more Christian perspective.

Here’s another, written by Peter Hitchens, Christopher’s brother, a Christian.

Today an author is encouraged to create a web site, post regular blogs, maintain a presence on Facebook and perhaps on one or two other sites, prepare book trailers, tweet, and join in discussions with online groups. Also, of course, he should keep up with additional sites, like Goodreads and others that deal with his writing interests.

The wired world offers myriad opportunities never before available to anyone with an Internet connection, not just writers. The problem is that we can never take advantage of all these opportunities. We can never upload all the books to our Kindle or Nook that we want/need to read, skim all the online magazines, keep up with the news downloaded to our iPad, create meaningful comments on all the relevant blogs, or appear regularly on Facebook and other social media.

When do we have time to work? Or ponder? Or worship? Or read. Or enjoy time with family and friends? Or chill out? We miss one day of checking our email, and the next day we stagger in our attempt to catch up.

I’ve found out the hard way that I must accept boundaries and make choices. I must limit my wired time, delete immediately much that appears in my inbox, and concentrate each day on only a few tasks. What doesn’t get done, I will have to leave to God. Else life becomes a frantic guilt trip.

Come to think of it, I guess our lives have always been about exercising faith by choosing certain paths.

Dorothy Sayers subtitled her book, The Mind of the Maker, as “An examination of God the creator reflected in the artistic imagination.” (Reviewed in From My Bookshelf on this site.) In this book, she dissects her own novel, Gaudy Night, a detective novel, into three parts: 1) A puzzle to be solved (the crime); 2) A human perplexity dealing with the relationships of the protagonists; 3) A conflict of values.

At novel’s end, the first, the puzzle is solved. In the second, the protagonists develop a new relationship, with possibilities for good or evil. Finally, the collision of values, is not “solvable” but the conflicting values, from their tension, may create a new, stronger value.

I applied Sayers’ ideas to my own novels. The romance, mystery, or other plot finds resolution. New relationships (both between the protagonists and between the protagonists and God) begin a growing process, that offer hope but not completion. Finally, a background theme in many of my novels is that of the Christian’s struggle in a postmodern world of shifting values.

In Singing in Babylon, the American protagonists feel exiled by their Christian faith within a country predominantly of another religion. When they return to the U.S., however, they sense exile from their consumer-hypnotized fellow citizens.

Quiet Deception unfolds in this country during the 1970′s, a boundary between a time of generally accepted common values and the time after, when those values changed and collided with others. Kim chooses a path already becoming less favored, one, in a cultural sense, of exile.

In Searching for Home, the protagonists constantly must exchange one home for another and eventually discover that the idea of home is at best a spiritual destination. No permanent home exists in this world.

My characters operate in a world that has lost its way, one in which values, including those common to most religious faiths, are questioned. Kate and Philip, Kim and Todd, Hannah and Patrick are remnant exiles. They struggle with the worth of old values as cultures collide.

While the misery in this country has not reached the level suffered by the German people during that time, we can still note the tendency to grasp at simple solutions. They range from “down with government” to “down with Wall Street” to “down with religion.” Atheism would answer the problem of religious intolerance, for example, by simply ridding the world of religion. That solution gets rid of religious intolerance but offers no help for our intolerance of differing political views or ethnicity. Could it be that the underlying issue is not religion (or government, or Wall Street), but our sinful tendencies?

Solutions, most likely, will require difficult choices and the overcoming of our inclination to fight only for our tribe or group instead of the common good, not a magical waving of some political wand.