An Anti-Response to An Atheist
Over at Ebon Musings, one atheist writer offers a challenge to theists who claim that all atheists are closed-minded and exhibit their own brand of fundamentalism. Although he (I’m calling the write a “he” for brevity’s sake alone) must agree that there are closed-minded atheists who are fundamentalists, I think he is right to defend the possibility that not all atheists are the same. To prove that he is open-minded, he is willing to convert if he could be convinced of the truth of any particular religion.
I would like to comment on the article. He puts two categories that proof would fall under: the first category deals with “things that would absolutely convince me of the truth of a particular religion“. He says that he would “convert on the spot” if any of these could be shown to him: verifiable fulfillment of prophecies that couldn’t have been contrived; scientific knowledge in holy books that wasn’t available at the time; miraculous occurrences, especially if brought about through prayer; any direct manifestation of the divine; aliens who believed in exactly the same religion. The second category he calls “circumstantial evidence“, which, if he was shown any of these, might cause him to rethink his position even if he doesn’t convert: a genuinely flawless and consistent holy book; a religion without internal disputes or factions; a religion who’s followers have never committed or taken part in atrocities; a religion that had a consistent record of winning its jihads and holy wars. The third category deals with things that would not convince him at all: speaking in tongues or other pseudo-miracles; people’s conversion stories; any subjective experience; the Bible Code or other numerological feats, creationism of any sort.
That’s the summary of his article. Frankly, I like it and generally agree with all his points. I don’t believe in God because of any of the items in the first category (verifiable proofs). Neither do the items in his second category (”circumstantial evidence”) impress me to stay or leave. And his third category are incidental. They don’t matter.
I totally identify with something that T.F. Torrance wrote in his important work, Theological Science:
If I may be allowed to speak personally for a moment, I find the presence and being of God bearing upon my experience and thought so powerfully that I cannot but be convinced of His overwhelming reality and rationality. To doubt the existence of God would be an act of sheer irrationality, for it would mean that my reason had become unhinged from its bond with real being. Yet in knowing God I am deeply aware that my relation to Him has been damaged, that disorder has resulted in my mind, and that it is I who obstruct knowledge of God by getting in between Him and myself, as it were. But I am also aware that His presence presses unrelentingly upon me through the disorder of my mind, for He will not let Himself be thwarted by it, challenging and repairing it, and requiring of me on my part to yield my thoughts to His healing and controlling revelation.
What Torrance writes cannot be proven or documented scientifically. “God” has pressed upon my life and my mind. It is beyond science. Beyond knowledge. Beyond proof. Like I wrote yesterday, even the most impressive and seemingly perfect arguments for or against God are limited. There is a Wisdom that is beyond all human thought and discussion. I realize that this will be frustrating to some atheists who see it as another subjective theistic cop-out and to some theists as a cowardly compromise. My response will be unsatisfying to everyone, even me. Of this other Wisdom that presses upon me, what more can be said?
The painting, “Face Emerging From Tree“, is the creation of my artist friend Tina Newlove.
art, atheism, naked, pastor, theology, torrance Share This
The atheist writer surely deserves to be commended for attempting to be open-minded, though his requirements for proof would cause even his own belief-system to fail.
I love that quote, I’m sure you’ve posted it before. It’s worth reading again and again.
I enjoyed reading your thougthts, very rich!
thanks heidi
Dave - last year the head of the atheist association here in the UK got saved and chose Jesus! The outcry from his fellow believers because he had chosen to believe in something because he had done as this man had said.
Robbie williams, a UK singer last year wrote in a major newspaper that he had tried all the major beliefs of the world but christianity. He asked if anyone could show him a good reason to believe in God - he would! Not sure but maybe I should have a go!
I can identify with the quote you refer to. I am not convinced it is generated by an external spiritual entity.
My question is, even if it was, how do you know that this perception (which is all it really is - is it not) of (a) God is the God that is reflected in the Bible? How do you know it is not Zeus incarnate, or Osiris or any of the other Gods which aroused identical emotions in people in the past?
Unlike Heidi, I don’t commend the writer. The first two paragraphs of his article show that he is close-minded as the believers he talks about. His conditions are impossible to achieve under any belief system, whether theistic, atheistic, polytheistic, or panentheistic.
He says I will judge the eternal based on mind and matter. Belief in a spiritual existence is alogical.
I don’t follow any organized religion because there are so many, they do disagree, and are shaped by their times and interpreters. That doesn’t mean their roots in a universe of meaning is untrue. It just means people are human and will change and color their experience based on who they are and what they believe. But as Galileo is rumored to say, we can only say It moves.
Zeus and Osiris may not be the best examples of gods that could incite the same feelings as the writer had when he implied that God is not offended by the disorder of our minds etc. These gods had contemptuous human traits. I have a modest collection of books on Greek and Egyptian myths..they make great bedtime stories! I doubt they aroused identical feelings that the writer is claiming.
Rick: I agree with the writer because, in a strange kind of way, he is right. These things cannot ultimately convince me to believe in a god or not. Which leads me to insist that human thought and argument cannot aproximate God.
Jake: Anselm’s dictum, “Faith seeks understanding” makes sense to me. For me, understanding didn’t lead me to God. At a certain time, I became acutely aware of being known by God, which lead me to try to understand. I’ve since become certain that this was Jesus, whom I humbly say I’ve come to know. And the scriptures, though a human document, is the best pointer to him.
You could call me a simpleton on this topic, and you would be right, but there are a few very simplistic things that come to my mind.
It always amazes me how you can just go outside, look around and not believe in God. To think that all of this is random, to me, is completely illogical and senseless.
I also think you have to consider some things such as the many medical laws in the Old Testament that were well beyond scientific knowledge at the time, regarding what people were to eat, germs, etc. How would they just dream up all of these concepts? They were not known to other cultures of the time.
We just had a wonderful speaker at our church last week, a representative from “Jews for Jesus”. He said he did an extensive research paper in college to disprove Jesus’ divinity, and by the end of it, he had come to know that Jesus was, in fact, divine. I hope the atheists out there try to keep those minds open as he did, and come to know in their own way, in their own time.
As our family went through the loss of my son’s good friend in a tragic accident last week, we remarked on how terribly difficult it was, and how impossibly difficult it must be for atheists to go through the trials of life without the faith and hope to guide them through.
Hello all,
I’m the author of the essay this post is responding to. If I may, I’d like to offer some thoughts.
First, on Heidi’s comment:
“The atheist writer surely deserves to be commended for attempting to be open-minded, though his requirements for proof would cause even his own belief-system to fail.”
Do tell - why do you say that? The items I listed are applicable only to supernatural belief systems, which atheism is not. Atheism is, rather, the default position. It is what we should rationally conclude if no religious faith can offer persuasive evidence of its truth.
And for Rick Cockrum:
“His conditions are impossible to achieve under any belief system, whether theistic, atheistic, polytheistic, or panentheistic.”
Again, I’m puzzled by this comment. My conditions are impossible to achieve? So you’re saying it’s impossible for prayer to have any measurable effect on anything? It’s impossible for God, if he exists, to simply show up at my doorstep in a form I can perceive? It’s impossible for a god who inspires holy books to convey any knowledge beyond what was already available in the culture at the time? Not only do your statements imply that God is not omnipotent; they imply that he is completely impotent. And how is a god who cannot affect the world in any way substantially different from a god that does not exist?
“He says I will judge the eternal based on mind and matter.”
Yes, that is exactly right. And I say that for one very simple reason: mind and matter are all I have. I cannot make decisions based on evidence I cannot see, senses I do not possess, or knowledge I do not have. Of course I make decisions using my own mind based on the facts that have been presented to me. What on earth do you imagine is the alternative?
Of course, I know what you’re going to say: faith. But faith is not a means of gaining knowledge at all: it is a way to convince yourself of the truth of beliefs you already hold, nothing more.
David Hayward’s post is a good example of this. Mr. Hayward says he believes in God because he perceives God as an immediate reality not dependent upon evidence. Surely he is aware that millions of people have relied on that same method throughout history, and through it have come to diametrically and often violently opposed conclusions about the identity, nature, and desires of the being they claim to be perceiving.
The vast divisions and endless squabbling among humanity’s many religions show clearly that religious experiences do not reflect a single, unchanging reality. If they did, our beliefs would have converged by now, but they have not. In fact, religious confusion and division are more rampant than ever, and unanimity seems farther away than ever. Compare this to science, which in just a scant three hundred years (compared to the many millennia already allotted to theologians) has reached an astonishing degree of agreement about many of the most fundamental facts regarding the nature, origin and fate of the universe we live in.
Mr. Hayward, you say that God has “pressed upon your mind” in a way that is “beyond knowledge” and “beyond proof”. I invite you to consider the possibility that, fervent and sincere as your beliefs plainly are, they are mistaken. As a human being, and particularly as a Christian, I assume you agree with me that human beings are fallible, and that we can be wrong even about things which we deeply and passionately believe to be true. I propose for your consideration that this may be one of those things. Clearly you’ve had some kind of powerful experience; I would not seek to deny or downplay that. But I would politely suggest that it may not represent what you think it does.
Ebonmuse: Thanks for visiting my blog to comment. I don’t feel my beliefs are fervent and sincere, nor would I presume that I am not mistaken. However, I do know that I am known, somehow, and Jesus seems to me to be who God is. In other words, the scriptures mostly confirm what who I know, and nourishes this knowledge. We are agreed that all proofs of God are insufficient to lead to God. But we do not agree that insufficient proof must lead away from God.
Hello Ebonmuse! The reason I said what I said is that I’ve always believed that even atheism requires a type of faith in order to believe that it is the true state of things. To clarify, I would define “faith” simply as believing in something to be true. In this case it would be believing that there is no God.
With this being my personal perspective, I have a problem with thinking of atheism as the default position. It’s just another belief system or world view.
Thanks for asking, and I mean that. It’s a bonus to see this discussion go further with your added thoughts.
Dear Naked P: I also “know” deeply..deeply, I tell you, that the planet Neptune is populated by 600-foot tall talking pink elephants who will dispense endless margaritas out of their trunks should you be lucky enough to visit there. At this time, I can only offer insufficient prrof of this truth, but please — for the sake of your thirsty palate - do not lead yourself aeway from this truth.
Abundant Blessings: It always amazes me how you can just go outside, look around and not believe in God. To think that all of this is random, to me, is completely illogical and senseless.
I would consider myself illogical and senseless if I stood outside my door and thought that everything I saw around me was random.
That doesn’t get me from A to B(elief), however.
I think a point that may be confusing is whether someone who declares himself to be atheist means 1) I am convinced beyond all doubt that god does not exist (strong atheism), or 2) I have yet to hear a convincing argument or see convincing evidence for the existence of god, & until such happens I will take the default position of assuming god doesn’t exist (weak atheism).
I suspect Heidi assumes Ebonmuse is a strong atheist, while somewhere on his web pages I saw him explicitly state that he was a weak atheist.
I feel very inadequate to address the rational, scientific, and wise points articulated by Ebonmuse. I do think that being an atheist in light of the complexity of creation (both on an infinite universe-sized level and on a microscopic atomic level) requires some amount of faith in something–even if it is faith in the ability of random pieces of matter to assemble themselves into something complicated. After years of trying to present evolution as fact, scientists have yet to provide verifiable proof of recurring macro-evolution by compiling a list of missing links. If evolution could be clearly and rationally “proved” wouldn’t everyone accept it without question?
I have often wondered what happens if I die and discover (or actually don’t discover) that there is no God? What if after death, contrary to what I’ve been taught, nothing happens? And if at that point I could think or reason which, of course, atheists probably believe I would not be able to do because I would be nothing but decaying matter…I believe that I would be disappointed to not see God as I expected to. But I think I would also feel that living my life according to Biblical standards–even if they are shown to be false–would have been fulfilling and helpful to me. Yes, you read that right. If Christ and His teachings are untruth, I think I will still be satisfied to have lived my life by falsehoods. And worms will devour my flesh and that will be it.
What do you say Ebonmuse? What if you die and discover that there is a God? What if He at that point finally manifests Himself to you supernaturally? What if He says He longed for you to have faith in Him and to share a personal relationship with Him and to spend eternity with Him? Do you feel, given this new knowledge, you would be able to say that living your earthly life according to atheistic standards was satisfactory?
I am guessing that perhaps though we are very different about what we believe and hold to be true, we are very much alike in our passion and our comfort our individual systems of thought and belief. I wish you the very best as you continue to raise points we should all be raising and as you attempt to open a dialogue with those who think differently from you. You are helping us all to reevaluate our belief systems and definitions. Thank you for that.
Sorry, that should have been “our passion for and our comfort with our individual systems of thought…”
My fingers are succumbing to the weariness of a long day.
Hello all,
Interesting discussion, I’m a bit late but I’ll wade in if that’s ok?
By Heidi: “The reason I said what I said is that I’ve always believed that even atheism requires a type of faith in order to believe that it is the true state of things. To clarify, I would define “faith” simply as believing in something to be true. In this case it would be believing that there is no God.”
I’m afraid that your definition of ‘faith’ is simply wrong. Faith is “Mental acceptance of and confidence in a claim as truth without proof supporting the claim” (Wiktionary). Without proof. This is what makes atheism the default position. We are atheists because we have no evidence for any gods.
By TTM: “What if you die and discover that there is a God? What if He at that point finally manifests Himself to you supernaturally? What if He says He longed for you to have faith in Him and to share a personal relationship with Him and to spend eternity with Him? Do you feel, given this new knowledge, you would be able to say that living your earthly life according to atheistic standards was satisfactory?”
The question wasn’t addressed to me, but I’d like to answer it anyway, if you’ll be so kind. I would say to God, “If you wanted me to believe in you, why did you want me to have faith? Why didn’t you just present yourself and say, ‘hello’? Why all this faith business? You presented yourself to Moses, why not me? You’re the all powerful creator of the universe, and you know everything, so you knew when you created the universe that I wouldn’t believe in you, because that’s how you made me. Why didn’t you just create me to believe in you? And if you’re all powerful, why did you either cause or allow such horrific things to happen to your creations? Why did you let good people die of horrible diseases or be killed in earthquakes and hurricanes?” I would have more questions, than anything else.
And yes, I could say my life based on “atheistic standards” was more than satisfactory, because I based my beliefs on reason, logic and evidence, not faith, gut feelings, wishful thinking and guessing. I valued human beings in their own right, spoke out for their happiness and rights to freedom, and spoke out against their suffering.
ttm wrote
“If evolution could be clearly and rationally “proved” wouldn’t everyone accept it without question?”
In fact it was conclusively proved over 100 years ago. The problem is that many religious people feel it threatens their belief systems and so deny it.
ttm also writes
“After years of trying to present evolution as fact, scientists have yet to provide verifiable proof of recurring macro-evolution by compiling a list of missing links”
It is impossible for a highly educated person who has studied evolution to write such a statement honestly. Unfortunately in the modern world it is all too common for people to make outrageous statements which can easily be checked and discovered to be entirely false. Why THIS is so I must admit is a complete mystery to me.
Heidi said “Zeus and Osiris may not be the best examples of gods that could incite the same feelings as the writer had when he implied that God is not offended by the disorder of our minds etc. These gods had contemptuous human traits.”
So did the god of the Old Testament - angry, jealous, cruel & a mass murderer to boot!
I believe in the scentific views of the workings of the universe, because they rest on scientific evidence. I do not have faith as in blind, unsupported belief in anything. Pieces of matter can sometimes assemble themselves into something complicated, but that has nothing to do with religion or a creator. Science has shown this to be perfectly possible under the laws of physics. Science has compiled lots of lists of links between different speicies (). In fact the right word is transitional. If missing links are found, they are not missing anymore. So a missing link will allways represent a gap by definition. But how do think you explain anything by saying a gap is there because a god made it?
Scientific theories can never be proved only falsified. But if you have no falsifiing evidence and lots and lots of evidence in favor of a theory there comes a time when one must conclude that the theory is almost certainly right under the “current conditions”. With “current conditions” I mean that if we ventures into new territory (higher energies, new livingplaces, higher radiationflux, smaller scales etc.) things might chance and the theory can break down like Newtons does under high velocyties. To a scientist this is always exciting: New land and new possibilities. But remember the old theory is still usefull under the old conditions.
Evolution is proved as good as Eisteins relativity-theories () and in reality as good as any scientific theory can be. Some new additions to the theory of evolution could (like it has done before) very well make it better, or perhaps a new theory could turn up that explains things even better like it happened to Newtons theories on gravity with Einsteins theories of relativity, but rocketengineers often still use Newtons laws because they are good enough for many, many apllications. The fact is that the theory of evolution explains a lot of things and scientist are using it every day ().
And no. Everyone does not accept reality. That is why some people of religious faith do not accept the theory of evolution. They percieve it as counter to the religion and allthough the evidencescore says Religion: 0 Evolution: 10000 (at least), they cling to there religion and discounts facts. Many believers will be more rational and accept the facts without letting it break their religion.
What happenes when we die? Of course noone knows for sure, but I think we revert back to the state before we were born: Nonexistance. Like other atheists has often said: People does not seem so troubled about the billions of years of nonexistence before their birth, but most are very anxious about death and the probable nonexistance after that event.
If I die and suddenly stands before some pearlygates and a god says: “Why didn’t you believe me?” I wil say: “Lack of any kind of evidence, man!” And I would be glad for my athiestic, freethinking life.
To me religion is a prison for the mind, because religion discourage thinking outside the box. Faith without evidence is a virtue in religion, and freethinking, forming ones own opinions is generally not a seen as a good thing in religion. The priest, imam, rabbi tells you what to do, think and believe. Religion gives people a comunity but excludes people with different thoughts, so to me religion seems divisive. It risks installing hatred and bigotry against people with other takes on life, though thankfully not in all believers at all. All this doesn’t mean I think believers are evil, just that they believe things without evidence and that that can be dangerous. If I believe I can walk on air without evidence it is very likely to lead to my death, if I choose to act on that belief.
To me truth matters. And I know of only one way of knowing the truth: Examening facts and evidence and form hypothesises, theories and experiments based on that. Let others examine your results and conclusions. In time all this will condense into almost certain and objective truths. That is called science. You might get consolation or community out of religion, but I can find that with friends, family, work and science too. Religion do not give objective truths only percieved truths, wich might be good and fine for some, but not for me. Give me something from Ebonmuses list of evidence and I might chance my mind, but I have never experienced anything comming close yet.
Oh I was just going to read the comments quietly but since my name was brought up 3 times, I’ll shake the morning cobwebs from my head and try to respond.
Jim Baerg: I made no such assumption and I’m not sure that a distinction between a weak belief and a strong one is relative. I’m also not convinced that atheism is the default position. It’s still a chosen world view in that it’s how one has chosen to interpret the world around them.
tobe38: I don’t see anything in the definition of faith that you gave that is contrary to my given opinion. An atheist accepts that there is no god without proof that there is no god. Perhaps I shouldn’t have used the word “faith” because of it’s historical attachment to religious beliefs which pertain to God.
bassmanpete: Point well taken!! I’d be a fool to disagree. But if there was a contest between the gods weighing out their “good” and “bad” traits…..
This debate will go on until the end of time because every facet of society and science is open to speculation. Some things, love for example, will never be able to be scientifically proven.
Some comments on the T.F. Torrance quote :
“To doubt the existence of God would be an act of sheer irrationality, for it would mean that my reason had become unhinged from its bond with real being.”
It’s amazing how much people will distort their view of reality rather than face the possibility of being mistaken. The speaker does not realise that he is already unhinged from reality, and so twists his reality to fit in with his beliefs.
“Yet in knowing God I am deeply aware that my relation to Him has been damaged, that disorder has resulted in my mind, and that it is I who obstruct knowledge of God by getting in between Him and myself, as it were.”
Is there some hope that reality is starting to filter through?
“But I am also aware that His presence presses unrelentingly upon me through the disorder of my mind, for He will not let Himself be thwarted by it, challenging and repairing it, and requiring of me on my part to yield my thoughts to His healing and controlling revelation.”
Alas, no. Put the blinkers on, deny the evidence, and continue to believe erroneous dogma. Poor chap.
Heidi, there is a subtle difference between the statement “I do not believe there is a god” and “I believe there is no god” - atheism is in fact the former position, a lack of belief. The onus of proof is on the party making the claim, and hence the default position is to withhold belief until proven otherwise.
The latter position is impossible to prove unless we have total knowledge.
Tobe38:
I appreciate your thoughtful response to my thoughts. You said: “I would say to God, ‘If you wanted me to believe in you, why did you want me to have faith? Why didn’t you just present yourself and say, ‘hello’? Why all this faith business?”
Maybe God is saying “hello” in the things you don’t trust…the Bible, Christ, the experiences of others who do not share your definitions of truth and reasonable beliefs.
You wrote: “You presented yourself to Moses, why not me?”
How do you know God presented Himself to Moses? Have you discovered a historical document (other than the self-proclaimed word of God) which verifies this even actually occurred?
You said: “You’re the all powerful creator of the universe, and you know everything, so you knew when you created the universe that I wouldn’t believe in you, because that’s how you made me. Why didn’t you just create me to believe in you?”
I don’t think I would want to serve a God who was just a puppeteer pulling my strings. I believe that God himself values freedom and grants human beings the autonomy to accept or reject the truth He offers.
You wrote: “And yes, I could say my life based on “atheistic standards” was more than satisfactory, because I based my beliefs on reason, logic and evidence, not faith, gut feelings, wishful thinking and guessing. I valued human beings in their own right, spoke out for their happiness and rights to freedom, and spoke out against their suffering.”
Despite our differences, we have much in common, tobe38. We both have strong points of view. We both value human beings in their own right. We both want people to be happy and to be free. We both speak out against suffering. And we both are doing the best we can to find reasonable answers to the questions which have been pondered by human beings throughout the centuries.
Thank you for giving me a few things to ponder today.
Isn’t it safe to say, Darren, that no one can prove that there IS a god (even if all the facts are in), but also that no one can prove that there ISN’T (because it is possible that all the facts aren’t in)?
Well, my links to the TalkOrigins-website and the PZMeyer-blog has disappeared. Anybody in need of factual information on evolution can look here for a start:
talkorigins.org
scienceblogs.com/pharyngula
Best regards
Voice of Reason:
It’s interesting to me that secular humanists and evolutionists avoid answering straightforward questions by attacking the intelligence and sincerity of Christians. I think your implication that people of faith are under-educated fools making outrageous statements serves only to prevent honest dialogue.
Would you please provide information or links to information proving the “fact” of evolution with those of us eagerly reading this blog?
Since I will probably struggle to understand the highly intellectual and logical concepts, perhaps you wouldn’t mind attaching a dumbed down, paraphrased verson for me? If you could just explain it the way, say maybe a third grade Science book would, it would be great! (And visuals are always helpful, too! I like books with a lot of pictures. Pictures are fun!)
Thanks.
Nakedpastor:
No, it’s not safe to say that. If all the facts are in, then we have total knowledge and we can say definiteively something exists, or it does not.
ttm: your third paragraph appears to undermine your first. Are you capable of understanding evolution, or not?
Thank you L. Neilson. When I posted my comment I didn’t realize someone had already provided a link regarding evolution. I’ll have to check it out later today. But I might be back to ask you for clarification if you don’t mind.
nakedpastor:
As Darren said: “The onus of proof is on the party making the claim”
The burden of proof is on the religious. Since noone anywhere have ever produced a single piece of evidence (even just circumstanciel) there is almost certainly no gods, as Richard Dawkins puts it in The God Delusion. If you will turn the table of the burden of prrof you have to agree wtih me that the universe was created by the great pink unicorn with golden ears, because you cannot disprove that such a creature with unlimited power exists.
Well, Darren, I’m not sure. I may think I can understand it, but someone more educated might say that I don’t possess the capability. Once an instructor has labeled a student unable to move beyond existing knowledge because of a disability, the instructor’s assistance becomes useless. And what student assesses his own knowledge rightly? It’s the teacher who creates and grades the tests.
I was responding to Voice of Reason a bit tongue in cheek because as the one with the knowledge–he or she will have to plan the lesson for me unless he or she believes it is not worth the effort because it seems (from the instructor’s assessment) that I am unable to move forward in my thinking. It would be nice if VOR referred me to a source of knowledge who specializes in Special Education, but that probably won’t happen. I may just be lost in the educaitonal cracks forever…
Rational thinkesr do not have to abandon their sense of humor, do they? I suppose they do if a sense of humor cannot be quantified and verified by outside sources!
ttm, don’t be so hard on yourself. I asked if you had the capacity to understand, not the knowledge, and I’m sure you could understand the subject matter if you applied yourself to the task. Unfortunately, the religious tend to take the path of least resistance, and accept the unproven word of the mistaken or the deceitful. For those possessed of an enquiring mind, there is a natural inclination to understand, learn, and actively seek out better teachers, even if that teacher turns out to be oneself.
Thanks, Darren. Apparently we agree that those who actively seek shall find the truth.
Indeed we do, ttm. However, I’m genuinely interested to know how that spirit of enquiry manifests itself in the religious when all that seems to matter is the contents of a millenia-old book. Surely that is looking backwards, stagnating, and not forwards to new boudaries?
“I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen—not just because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.” C. S. Lewis
Here is a piece that might be of interest on this topic:
The Faith of an Atheist
A discussion with Alister McGrath
http://www.christianodyssey.org/faith/atheist.htm
One observation I’ve noticed about this discussion is that atheists are just as capable of making sweeping generalizations and faulty assumptions about Christian belief methodologies as Christians are of atheists. (not sure that’s a grammatically correct sentence??!)
nakedpastor said: Over at Ebon Musings, one atheist writer offers a challenge to theists who claim that all atheists are closed-minded and exhibit their own brand of fundamentalism. Although he (I’m calling the write a “he” for brevity’s sake alone) must agree that there are closed-minded atheists who are fundamentalists, I think he is right to defend the possibility that not all atheists are the same. To prove that he is open-minded, he is willing to convert if he could be convinced of the truth of any particular religion.
I am an atheist (the past 8 years) and former bible believer (25 years). I will forever be perplexed at believers who claim that non believers are closed minded. The very claim makes no since.
I have to ask this; if a person has faith in a god, (let’s say the God of the bible) and “knows” that their faith is based on “truth”, will they be open to the idea that their faith may be misplaced? Will they be open to the idea that the God they have faith in may not actually exist? If they are not open to that idea, can we classify them as “closed minded”?
As an atheist, I do not believe any gods (supernatural supreme beings who command and/or deserve my adoration and praise) exist. And it would take considerably more than words in a 2,000 year old book to convince me. But I could be convinced that a god does exist. I do not at this moment know what evidence I would require. I guess similar to what I would need to convince me that alien UFO’s have visited planet earth.
Honestly people, I like the idea of an afterlife. I could waste hours daydreaming about that…but I won’t, not until I receive some evidence.
Now, are there any believers here who are as open minded as I am? Are there any believers here who can honestly make the statement; “I may be believing in a myth.”
If they can’t make that statement, are they open or closed minded?
Darren:
I can understand how from your vantage point basing an entire life on an ancient manuscript seems asinine! Really…what kind of idiot would base philosophical, intellectual, sexual, financial, social, medical, and other lifestyle decisions on a musty, old, outdated book surrounded by such controversy?
I’m not sure what that book means to you, if anything, but to me it’s a loveletter from God’s hand to my heart. I want to hear what He has to say. I’m eager to read his words of encouragement and of warning. Because I feel loved by Him like I’ve never been loved before, every word from Him is precious.
I totally understand to someone outside of that kind of relationship with God, the book is mere sentiment–laughable pap. Yet, what you can’t help but see as stagnant and irrelevant, I can’t help but see as a cherished treasure which gives me hope until I can be held safe in His arms.
I have a collection of loveletters from human beings, too. And even now, years later, when I read them something in me is set aflame. Because in looking back from my current vantage point, I can see the value in those starting points even if they didn’t end in eternal love. They were the beginnings of new understandings, new boundaries, and new horizons.
Abundant Blessing:
“I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen—not just because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.” C. S. Lewis
Marvelous sentiment. It reafirms what you already believe and probably gives you a nice sensation of warmth in your solar plexus.
It’s also completely unpersuasive, like the rest of C.S. Lewis.
Here is a piece that might be of interest on this topic
I didn’t find it that interesting. Alister McGrath has barely a fingernail’s grasp on scientific epistemology and, like so many apologists, completely misundersands evolution. This was a “ho-hum” re-heating of leftover apologia. I’d be happy to dive into specifics, if you’re interested.
For some rigorous examinations of the epistemelogical underpinnings of metaphysical naturalims, try:
* “The Problem of the Soul: Two Visions of Mind and How to Reconcile Them”, Owen Flanagan
* “The Illusion of Conscious Will”, Daniel M. Wagner
and “Sense and Goodness Without God”, Richard Carrier.
Unlike most of the people who frequent this site, I’m not Christian, and a theist only occasionally. That doesn’t
Darren: Your differentiation between “I do not believe there is a god” and “I believe there is no god” would better suit an agnostic than an atheist. The first statement leaves the position open. The second statement does not, and as you say, cannot be taken as fact unless all the evidence is in - an impossibility in an infinite universe. That would tend to show that agnosticism is the default position, not atheism.
Ebonmuse: I see no reason to change what I said. Assuming there is a personal God, to demand he or she step up to your door and say “Dude, I’m for real. You’ve got to believe in me.” is like calling up your wife and saying “Jane. I don’t believe in you. Prove you’re real.” and expecting her to come running.
Again, assuming there is a personal God who is omnipotent, the ability to act doesn’t imply the necessity, or even the desire to act. You may as well start a game of chess and change the rules in the middle in random ways.
Religious groups, like materialistic groups, are composed of people. People love, hate, desire and despise. Most of the wars we no about have little to do with religion per se, much to do with wanting what someone else has, wanting to control what someone else does, or fearing someone else because they are different. Stalin didn’t kill tens of millions of his own people for religious reasons. Mao Tse Tung didn’t carry out the Cultural Revolution for religious reasons. The Romans and Alexander didn’t carry out the building of their empires for religious reasons. Asoka didn’t carry out his conquest in India for religious reasons. The list could go on. but most war has little to do with religion, even when it is painted that way.
You assume that mind and matter are all you have. All knowledge starts from experience, but all experience is colored by knowledge and assumptions. To say all I have is mind and matter, shows an assumption that matter is actually all there is, as otherwise mind would be the ghost in the machine. To believe that matter is all there is, is to believe you don’t have free will because matter does act according to law. From what I’ve seen, people do make choices. These choices are colored by their history, but not determined by them. The belief in a existence of a non-physical dimension to the universe is, to me, a pecondition for free will.
This is all air, though. There has been sufficient evidence of reincarnation to show, if not its existence, then its possibility. Most people don’t accept it. Any evidence of telepathy, changes resulting from prayer, psychic healing, is put down to coincidence. Any reports of out of body travel are labelled as delusory or dreams. What evidence for the non-physical there is, is not repeatable on demand, so it is discarded. The materialist-religious debate has been going on for millenia. It isn’t something that can be solved by discussion. The discussion can be enjoyable, and help clarify thinking, but it will never be persuasive. Each of us will make our personal decision and live their life accordingly.
In reply to the following question from ttm:
“Would you please provide information or links to information proving the “fact” of evolution with those of us eagerly reading this blog?”
By far the best introduction to the theory of evolution I have ever read is “The Blind Watchmaker”, by Richard Dawkins. Don’t be dissuaded from it by the fact that Dawkins wrote it. It is not a rant against the irrationality of religion. It is a beautifully written, logically compelling explanation of a subtle and complex subject.
Rick, “I do not believe there is a god” is not agnosticism. The agnostic statement would be something like “I do not know if there is a god”. The agnostic is someone that is ripe for an emotional misinterpretation that leads to belief, or to consider the facts at hand and come to a logical decision. Either there is a god, or there is not. As the burden of proof is on the claimant, then the natural state is atheism. Agnosticism is simply the inability or disinclination to make a decision.
Your references to non-religious wars does nothing to discount the fact that religious views have caused many wars. This is merely dodging the issue.
ttm, if the best love you have experienced is from an imaginary being whom you have never met, then I would urge that you look about you harder. There are some beautiful, kind, generous, loving people just outside your door.
“That book” is no more important to me than Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. An interesting tale, but nothing more. What distresses me is that people continue to kill and hate each other because of different interpretations of a story that claims itself to be true.
Ebonmuse: I see no reason to change what I said. Assuming there is a personal God, to demand he or she step up to your door and say “Dude, I’m for real. You’ve got to believe in me.” is like calling up your wife and saying “Jane. I don’t believe in you. Prove you’re real.” and expecting her to come running.
You’re analogy is dead on arrival. In what verifiable way does God even answer the phone to begin with, never mind refuse to come running? I’m pretty sure that if Ebon actually had a conversation with a being who he could reasonably presume was God, that would overcome most of his objections on the spot.
To believe that matter is all there is, is to believe you don’t have free will because matter does act according to law. From what I’ve seen, people do make choices. These choices are colored by their history, but not determined by them. The belief in a existence of a non-physical dimension to the universe is, to me, a pecondition for free will.
Except that
Randy said:
Now, are there any believers here who are as open minded as I am? Are there any believers here who can honestly make the statement; “I may be believing in a myth.”
David? What say you?
Sorry. Bad edit. Please ignore everything after “on the spot”.
;o)
We all must concede that the object of our thoughts, conclusions, opinions and beliefs could be radically misunderstood and may not even exist. Agreed. But I still stand by my original post in which I quote Torrance, in agreement:
“I find the presence and being of God bearing upon my experience and thought so powerfully that I cannot but be convinced of His overwhelming reality and rationality”.
It is important that this statement says “presence and being” and not “theology of and doctrine about”.
ttm wrote
“Since I will probably struggle to understand the highly intellectual and logical concepts, perhaps you wouldn’t mind attaching a dumbed down, paraphrased verson for me? If you could just explain it the way, say maybe a third grade Science book would, it would be great! (And visuals are always helpful, too! I like books with a lot of pictures. Pictures are fun!)”
If you are at a third grade level of intellectual development then I would not like
to abuse you of belief in the tooth fairy, santa claus, or any other myths you might enjoy.
I assume you have access to the internet. There is plenty of material of the kind
you “seek.” It is dishonest of you to pretend the mateial is not easily accessible.
The truth is that you have no desire to understand evolution beacuse you see it
as a threat to your belief system. THAT is the problem.
But, Darren, I have met Him. Because of God’s pursuit of my heart and presence in my life, I must agree with Torrance and nakedpastor. He is real and I cannot be anything other than convinced.
I’m not at the third grade level of development, Voice of Reason. I was joking that you probably think I am. You do not have to assume anything…obviously I have access to the Internet or I wouldn’t be engaging in this interesting dialogue. I have access–that’s a fact.
And I am not being dishonest in any way. I am not pretending that material relating to evolution is unavailable or inaccessible. I am asking you, as a someone who claims evolution was proved 100 years ago to show me the proof. What I am asking is not really very different from what Ebonmuse asked in his request for proof of the truth of any religion.
I am not threatened by evolution. Obviously, you and I define the problem differently. I see the problem this way: you are trying to appear superior to anyone who doesn’t view evolution as you do while I am trying to learn more about your position through dialogue. When you attack those whose ideas differ from yours with inflammatory language such as impossible, outrageous, dishonest, and threatened you run the risk of being the only one left to hear what you have to say.
I wish you the best in your quest to share your truth with all who will listen.
Thank you for the book recommendation, Jack. I just happen to have a personal shopping day discount at a well-known bookstore which expires in two days. Now I have a reason to use it!
I appreciate your forthright answer to my question.
I am asking you, as a someone who claims evolution was proved 100 years ago to show me the proof.
Here’s some.
Here’s some more
And more
Where would you like to start?
Just got in from work to find I’ve missed quite a bit since this morning!
TTM, thanks for your response.
“Maybe God is saying “hello” in the things you don’t trust…the Bible, Christ, the experiences of others who do not share your definitions of truth and reasonable beliefs.”
Personally, if I were God and I wanted everyone I created to know I existed, I would not leave any room for interpretation. I would leave everyone in equally little doubt of my existence. “The experiences of others” is particularly tricky, why does God present proof of his existence to some, but not others? Isn’t this spectacularly unjust? Will the person who had an experience go to heaven while the person who didn’t burns forever in Hell?
“How do you know God presented Himself to Moses? Have you discovered a historical document (other than the self-proclaimed word of God) which verifies this even actually occurred?”
Very shrewdly spotted. I don’t believe the Bible is a true historical record or the word of God, but let’s just say that if I die and come face to face with God, I’ll accept that I was wrong.
“I don’t think I would want to serve a God who was just a puppeteer pulling my strings. I believe that God himself values freedom and grants human beings the autonomy to accept or reject the truth He offers.”
If what you say is true, then God simply cannot be omniscient. If we are free to make our own choices, then God does not know everything. I never consider the god I would want to serve or want to believe in, only the god I can find evidence for. On what grounds do you believe that God values freedom? He clearly endorses slavery, for example, in the Bible.
“Despite our differences, we have much in common, tobe38. We both have strong points of view. We both value human beings in their own right. We both want people to be happy and to be free. We both speak out against suffering. And we both are doing the best we can to find reasonable answers to the questions which have been pondered by human beings throughout the centuries.
Thank you for giving me a few things to ponder today.”
And the very same sentiments in return, TTM. I commend you for the liberalism you demonstrate, but at the same time feel compelled to point out that neither the teachings of the Bible, nor the actions of the God described therein are consistent with your values.
Thanks.
And to Heidi,
We can no more disprove the existence of God than we can of Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. Do you require evidence that Santa Claus doesn’t exist in order to with hold your belief in him? I with hold my belief in God, quite reasonably, until the evidence is present. The burden of proof, I’m afraid, is on you.
ttm, quite frankly I do not believe you when you say you have met him. What did he look like? When was this? Where? How?
Usually when people say they have met god, they actually mean they’ve misinterpreted an emotional response, or had a dream, or a hallucination. I think you are not being honest with yourself, or me.
tobe38, I’m not quite sure where you got the notion that it is up to anyone to prove anything to anyone else. The burden of proof is actually not on me, any more than it’s on you.
Hey and don’t mess with my belief in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny! They’ve been very good to me over the years.
I’m not at all surprised you don’t believe me, Darren. If I were you, I guess I wouldn’t believe me either.
Actually, when God make Himself known to me, I couldn’t see Him. I can only describe it as a blind person might describe a situation when she suddenly senses she is not alone in the room. If you want to know the physical sensations–goosebumps, raised hairs on the back of my neck and arms, a racing heart, a sudden empty pit in my gut, and a lump in my throat. The emotional sensations? A feeling of excitement and dread at the same time and a weird feeling of “What will happen next and will I survive it?”
This event occurred six years ago. I was alone in a dark room in the middle of the night. The house was calm. I was going through a lot of anguish from a failing marriage and was becoming exceedingly frustrated with the “easy (but to me insufficient) answers” my church and my Christian faith were providing. You might suggest that I was in an emotional and needy frame of mind so I fantasized something “real” which would give me hope. I would say someone real suddenly presented me with a truth overshadowing the questions I was asking at the time.
Although I was raised in a Christian family and charismatic, fundamentalist church, attended a Bible college, and had professed the Christian faith for years, it wasn’t until this experience that my intellectual assent of God’s truth became deeply personal. All of my ideas about God suddenly didn’t really matter…what mattered is that He was there with me filling the room, my soul, and my spirit.
I am sure that you will consider my experience an unreliable, emotional response. That’s okay with me. I can see how you would see it that way. But please don’t accuse me of being dishonest.
Thanks for the links, schemanista. I’ll add them to my rapidly growing list of things to read. I appreciate your help in helping me to better understand another point of view.
ttm said: But, Darren, I have met Him. Because of God’s pursuit of my heart and presence in my life, I must agree with Torrance and nakedpastor. He is real and I cannot be anything other than convinced.
This discussion began as a result of someone accusing “all atheists” of being “close minded”…I think.
ttm says; “I cannot be anything other than convinced” with regards to the actual existence of the God he or she believes in.
Perhaps I am confused here. Perhaps someone needs to define “closed minded” to me.
If I believed in the Great Pumpkin with such conviction that I proclaimed “I cannot be anything other than convinced” to a Christian who was trying to tell me about his or her God, they would probably accuse me of being close minded.
Years ago, when I was a bible believer, I invited some Mormon missionaries in to my home. They spent several hours trying to convince me that Joseph Smith was indeed a prophet of God. I was not persuaded. At one point, in anger, the larger of the two missionaries abruptly stood up, pointed his index finger at me, and shouted “You are closed minded”. Well, in fact, I was. I believed in my God, not his. And my belief was so strong that I was not going to be persuaded. They could not offer me any actual evidence that would convince me that J.S. was anything more than a nut. Of course, the fact that I was well read in the apologetics against Mormonism, didn’t help their cause either. My mind was made up before they even came through the door. Neither I nor they were looking. We had our feet firmly planted in the mud of our respective faiths and were not looking to change. We each had “the truth”. We were all closed minded.
I am no longer closed minded with regard to faith. My mind is wide open. I will not submit as a result of a tearful testimony, third party proclamations of miracles, supposed answers to prayers, feelings of any kind, especially a “burning in my bosom”. I am open to any and all historical, scientific, and photographic evidence. But just as no one here would accept my testimony of how much the Great Pumpkin loves me and cares for me (Peanuts 3:16), I will not be able to accept such platitudes as anything other than empty emotional outbursts. Christians will demand evidence for the existence of the Great Pumpkin God that I worship, yet they will suspend such requirements for their own God.
Please people, please tell me who’s mind is open to persuasion, yours or mine? And if you are so totally convinced that your God is real, please don’t call me closed minded if I am equally convinced that your God is not real. Play fair doggonnit!
Randy, who here accused “all atheists” of being “close-minded”?
This isn’t one of those “you picked on my kid brother and my posse will make you pay” knock-down drag-outs, is it?
Geez, guess I didn’t see that one coming at all!
Actually Randy, I don’t believe anyone on this site called atheists closed-minded. That all began when Ebon Musings responded to that accusation in an article he wrote titled The Theist’s Guide to Converting Atheists. Ebon Musings invited responses to that article. This is how this post all started. Of course, we are all selectively closed-minded. But I also think we are all selectively open-minded. Thanks for your comments.
So let me get this straight, ttm. You were under considerable emotional stress, late at night, alone. You were indoctrinated from an early age into believing the Christian god. Your body displays the physical symptoms of a fear response, and you interpret this as having met your god?
This is precisely what I mean when I say you are not being honest with yourself. Is it not more likely that you were stressed, tired and on the edge of sleep? Or did you consult a doctor to explain such an apparently unprompted physical reaction? Did you exhaust all other possibilities for your experience, or were you looking for something to justify your beliefs and teaching? Are you open to the possibility of physical and psychological causes of unusual sensations? Do you attribute all unknown and unfamiliar feelings and experiences to the god you were taught about? Can you honestly answer the question posed by Jake in the fourth post of this thread?
You said “You might suggest that I was in an emotional and needy frame of mind so I fantasized something “real” which would give me hope. I would say someone real suddenly presented me with a truth overshadowing the questions I was asking at the time.” - at least you can recognise an alternative explanation. Can you tell me how a feeling, felt late at night, in the dark, can possibly be honestly representative of “someone real” or “meeting” your god.
Your stressed and tired mind is playing tricks on you, and you interpret the experience to conform to the erroneous dogma you were taught as a child.
It saddens me to realise you will never admit this because you desperately want to believe, or fear being mistaken your whole life. You seem to be a good and intelligent person, labouring under the worst of misconceptions. Will you explore the alternatives?
I did say that, based on his article, Ebonmuse was as close-minded as the believers he talked about. That may be the source for Randy’s remark.
Heidi:
What you believe behind your own eyes doesn’t matter to me (although it might be interesting to study what people believe) and therefore I will of course have no interest in demanding proof from you, as long as your belief stays there.
But as religious factions fight over religion, try to make laws founded on religion, demand special treatment and protection from criticism, try to harm education or discriminate against people with a different take on life then the rest of us must demand evidence that their claims are true. They claim a god has created all the creatures on earth. If that is to be taught as a plausible explanation to our children then they must provide some evidence. Noone have. Evolutionists claim evolution is the explanation and they provide mountains of evidence for that. Your claim means you have the burden of proof. That cannot be otherwise. If you think so please revisit my claim of a divine great pink unicorn with golden ears further up. If your claim has any influence on someone else it is up to you to provide the evidence for the truthfullness of your claim.
ttm:
Most people get the same religion as their parents. Don’t you think the following is probable?
If you had been born in Denmark about 1100 years ago such expeerience would have made you feel the presence of Odin, Thor or Freja. If born in India you would feel some of the Hindu goods or perhaps feel Allah by your side. If you had been born 2000 years ago in Rome you would believe that Jupiter or Mars had presented themselves. If born in the Amazon jungle 400 years ago you would feel the company of some junglespirit. Why don’t you think it was Odin who was with you? If you say that Christianity is the one true religion, then please provide the proof of that.
You are dishonest to yourself if you do not acknowledge that this is possible:
You where by your own acount in a stressfull state and you had been raised in a christian family, associated with a fundamentalist church, attended bible college, proffesing christianity for years and looking for answers in your church and faith. Your brain which (like every other human brain) are a master of deception and delusion react to the stress by presenting you with the feeling that someone bigger and more powerfull is there to help you. I would have been surprised to learn that someone with that history didn’t either meet their god(s) or loose their faith completly.
You are neerly there as you say: “You might suggest that I was in an emotional and needy frame of mind so I fantasized something “real” which would give me hope”
Darren:
You’re quicker than me
Rick Cockrum:
How can you call Ebonmuse close-minded? He is the one starting all this by showing a clear will to consider evidence and change his mind.
Your remark is born from a belief that nothing on his first two lists will ever happen. Then please tell me why you believe that, if you hold a religious faith? Don’t you believe in religious prophecies, miracles, divine intervention, effect of prayers etc?
Heidi,
The burden of proof is always on the positive claimant. If I claim I can fly like superman or run 100 metres in 7.4 seconds and I want people to believe me, then I have to provide evidence to support my claim. Nobody else is obliged to prove me wrong!
Exactly the same principle applies when we say “every man is innocent until proven guilty”. The person making the accusation is the person making the claim, he has to provide evidence of guilt, not the other way around.
Extroardinary claims require extroadinary evidence. The existence of God is an extremely extroadinary claim. If you want to believe it on faith, that’s up to you, but if you want people like me to agree with you, you’ll have to provide evidence.
By the way, sorry about what I said about Santa - was just kidding
What if you die and discover that there is a God? What if He at that point finally manifests Himself to you supernaturally? What if He says He longed for you to have faith in Him and to share a personal relationship with Him and to spend eternity with Him? Do you feel, given this new knowledge, you would be able to say that living your earthly life according to atheistic standards was satisfactory?”
Yes, because I believe my beliefs are based on the best evidence I have available to me. If I’m wrong, well I’m wrong, but I will have I hoped lived my life well and according to my personal identity and not according to what somebody else says my life should be like. I value the freedom to examine the evidence and come to my own conclusions, rather then having conclusions force-fed to me like so many religious people have had done to them. If my conclusions are wrong, well, I’m human, I’m going to be wrong sometimes, it doesn’t change the value of thinking for yourself.
Personally, I feel that if there is a god, and he wants me to believe he exists, he can come over here and tell me himself, I don’t accept the Bible as “proof” of anything, because it is self-contradictory and appears to be heavily influenced by the governing culture of the time. I don’t accept anybody else’s subjective experiences because I have some idea about how easily the human brain can fool itself into experiencing things that aren’t real. It’s going to take a lot more then “visions” experienced by people in emotional and suggestible states to convince me, something like something seen by dozens of people who are not in an emotional and suggestible state, which is caught on camera by a person who we can reasonably assume would not tamper with the film. Yes my requirements might seem rigorous to you, but as Carl Sagan has famously said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!
Randy:
You seem to be very open minded and receptive to evidence as long as it fits the parameters you’ve established. I appreciate your desire for fairness. I’m curious as to how atheists such as yourself would view “the heart”. Not the physical heart–but a place of emotion and feeling and essence unique to each individual. Is there such a thing? Or are we only able to experience things with our minds–no heart, no soul, no spirit?
TTM,
We know that our emotions and consciousness exist, but they can all be accounted for physically within the brain, as neurons firing etc. We don’t need to posit a soul or anything else supernatural to explain them. Does this cheapen our emotions or devalue the power of our feelings? I don’t think so, if anything it makes them all the more amazing.
Darren,
I appreciate your back and forth dialogue with me about my experience of meeting God for the first time.
I don’t know that I would say I was “indoctrinated” as a child though perhaps I was. I have always been a questioner who doesn’t like formulaic thinking and was a real pain in the butt to my teachers and parents when I suspected I was being fed drivel.
I was stressed and both physically and mentally exhausted at the time in question. I did consult a doctor to deal with the symptoms I was feeling and everything was found to be medically all right. I also met with a therapist for a time who concluded that I was not delusional or schizophrenic or even just weird (Well, maybe he thought that but was kind enough to keep his thoughts to himself and the notes in the file…)
Let’s see…”Did I exhaust all other possibilities for my experience?” Hmmm. I’m not sure what they might be. I had no reason to be afraid prior to feeling the presence of God. There had been no sirens, loud noises, or nightmares waking me. I had been sleeping.
Was I looking for something to justify my beliefs? Maybe. (This point deserves more thought on my part.)
Do I attribute all unknown and unfamiliar feelings and experiences to the god I was taught about? No! Sometimes I attribute them to eating too much chocolate or to thinking the guy across the restaurant who caught my eye is a real hunk!
Question by Jake..fourth post. Just a second….let me scroll up…All I can say is if it had been Zeus, he probably would have killed me and raped my corpse. And wouldn’t there have been lightnings bolts so that I could see him in all his glory? And if it had been Osiris I imagine he would have shared with me how to keep that damn fungus from killing off my plumbago plants. So I doubt it was either of them. It may take some time to rule out the rest of the gods…especially when I get to the Hindu list!
Seriously, I believe it was the God of the Bible. You bring up a good argument for why I would believe that as opposed to believing I had been visited by any other god (which I don’t believe exist.)
I know you are not able to understand how a feeling late at night can be respresentative of meeting God. I see how you, from our perspective, would attribute such an event to a stressed mind and an overactive imagination. You were not there, so I wouldn’t expect you to be able to interpret it from afar. Only God himself and I can attest to what happened.
The fact that you are saddened by my acceptance of what you view as a delusion is a gift to me. I guess, perhaps, I have wrongly believed that atheists are heartless people. The fact that you want the best for me–that you want me to find and know the truth–helps me to see that just as all Christians cannot be lumped into one narrow category, neither can atheists. You appear to be a kind and compassionate man, Darren. Thank you for challenging my assumptions with courtesy and thought-provoking questions.
L.Neilson,
I totally agree with you that it is highly probable that children will follow the same faith as that embraced by their parents. We agree on that point for sure!!
I do believe that Christ is the only way to eternal life, and I also believe that all religions and philosophies contain elements of truth. I did meet the God I had been doubting that night and I did not lose my faith.
Can you clarify what you mean by “You are nearly there…”? I’m not sure I’m following your train of thought.
Let me clarify, too. The quote you attributed to me was in response to Darren’s comments….I was predicting that he would say I was inventing a crutch because my own mind was discombobulating. And his response proved my prediction to be correct.
What I experienced that night…and many times since…was not all in my head even if you don’t believe it. That’s all I can say. And I know that for you and many more reading this, it’s not enough. I hope that each one of you find what IS enough to make you content in this life and in the next (if you find there is one…)
L.Nielsen said:
“But as religious factions fight over religion, try to make laws founded on religion, demand special treatment and protection from criticism, try to harm education or discriminate against people with a different take on life then the rest of us must demand evidence that their claims are true.”
It may surprise you to know that I’m right there with you on this one.
No where in my comments above have I claimed anything, so I respectfully reject the notion that I’m responsible to provide evidence. I don’t even look at the issue in that way. Words like “influence” and “evidence” aren’t a part of my thinking in regards to Christianity. I’m not actually out to prove anything, not because of a pompous “I’m right and you’re wrong” attitude, but simply because it’s not the point.
Whoa baby, take your time to write a response and wham, you get wayyyy behind!
I’d better grab a cuppa java!
tobe38, you sent me into a spiral of despair over Saint Nick, but I’m glad to see you were just joking.
I don’t think I implied anywhere that I wanted people like you to believe me, though I’d have to go and reread what I said….but don’t make me do it….I’ve already spent wayyy too much time on here today!
I think one of my recent comments clarifies this better. Now I really must go get a cup of coffee because you all are really puting a lot of thought into your comments and therefore they are LONG!
I must say, everyone, that I am generally quite impressed with the quality of discussion. Thanks.
Tobe 38,
Thanks for the ongoing dialogue…
God doesn’t seem to do things the way I would either. I used to really struggle with why He would present Himself in parables and metaphor more than in cold, hard facts. It’s my personal opinion–NOT a dogmatic doctrine to which I hold–that He might do this just to keep things interesting. Relationships take time and people are revealed in layers–not all at once. So I think God might want to keep us guessing a bit and not put it all out there right away.
It would seem unfair for God to present proof of His existence only to some and then judge the rest for not believing. I believe that God does present Himself to all–that He allows everyone equal access to His truth. Can I prove that? No.
Regarding heaven and hell, I am no expert.
I have struggled for years to reconcile God’s omniscience with man’s free will. I don’t think I will ever be able to understand it, but I will say that I don’t believe it’s an either/or situation. I think God can foresee the outcomes of all the choices we might make, but he doesn’t interfere with our ability to make them.
As far as God valuing freedom and the slavery issue here’s a relevant link:
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html
I was always taught that the “slave” of Bible times was similar to an employee. The Bible encourages “slave owners” (similar to employers) to treat slaves fairly and well since they, the owners would have to answer to their own Master (God) one day for their actions. When I said that God values freedom I meant that God offers us freedom from sin and freedom to live eternally in His presence (thereby freeing us from sadness, sickness, tears, and death).
It was Christ who encouraged the fair treatment of women…God who commands us not to neglect the poor and to feed orphans and widows…God who insisted that field owners leave part of the crop behind to be picked up by hungry gleaners…God who said men should not take advantage of one another by charging interest…Christ who attacked the Pharisees for their rigid thinking and superiority complex toward Samaritans…How are my values inconsistent with the teachings and actions of God?
I appreciate your willingness to share your thoughts.
Let me say this is a very peacefull thread and I am glad to participate. It is nice to hear all your opinions.
ttm:
Exactly. I was referring to your prediction that others “might suggest that I was in an emotional and needy frame of mind so I fantasized something “real” which would give me hope”.
In other words: You can see what I and others think happened to you. If you could see it that way yourself, your “knowledge” of a divine spirit standing by your side could vanish. But I know it is very hard to drop religious belief or part thereof, so perhaps the road is longer than I imagine, when seeing it from my side.
If this doesn’t make you doubt just a little, can you imagine something that would make you doubt? And what would you think could convince me or atheists in general?
Heidi:
You said to tobe38:
“tobe38, I’m not quite sure where you got the notion that it is up to anyone to prove anything to anyone else. The burden of proof is actually not on me, any more than it’s on you”
and I took the liberty of chiming in because if a claim has consequences for anyone beside the claimant those other people have the right to examine the claim and demand evidence for its truthfullness. Religious people very often asume they have an argument when saying “You can’t disprove God”, when it really isn’t worth anything.
Please excuse me for quoting myself (2 sp. edited):
“If you will turn the table of the burden of proof you have to agree with me that the universe was created by the great pink unicorn with golden ears, because you cannot disprove that such a creature with unlimited power exists.”
If someone said: “God has ordered me to collect 1000$ from every person in Texas and use it on churchmatters (including a luxury house and other good stuff for myself).” Wouldn’t you think demand of evidence would be a very good idea?
If a claim has no consequences for anybody but the claimant I couldn’t care less, and then you are absolutely right. Then no one will need evidence or proof, allthough I think if the consequences for the claimant are very severe (like f.ex. a very strong fear of hell!) I would perhaps try and help.
ttm:
If it was Christ who encouraged the fair treatment of women, why do many christians see women as inferior to men?
Now I must end for today. Its past midnight here and I got a long workday tomorrow. Good night and thanks all.
L.Nielsen:
I’ve been asking myself that question for decades…all I can surmise is that many Christians misinterpret the concepts of authority and submission.
Thanks for spending your evening dialoguing…I’ve enjoyed it and learned from your comments.
Hi TTM,
“Thanks for the ongoing dialogue…”
My pleasure, and thanks to you too.
“God doesn’t seem to do things the way I would either. I used to really struggle with why He would present Himself in parables and metaphor more than in cold, hard facts. It’s my personal opinion–NOT a dogmatic doctrine to which I hold–that He might do this just to keep things interesting. Relationships take time and people are revealed in layers–not all at once. So I think God might want to keep us guessing a bit and not put it all out there right away.”
If this were the case, then God would be condemning millions of innocent people to death each year that he chose to “not put it all out there”. People die every day in wars that are happening because people can’t agree on who or what God is, and what he wants. If God is able to step in and stop all the fighting and death, but chooses not to, he is evil.
“It would seem unfair for God to present proof of His existence only to some and then judge the rest for not believing. I believe that God does present Himself to all–that He allows everyone equal access to His truth. Can I prove that? No.”
Not only can you not prove it, the evidence is spectacularly against you. For every Christian who swears blind they have experienced God, there is a Muslim who will swear blind that he has felt the touch of Allah. You can not both be right, but you can both be wrong. And no, they are not the same God. It is one of the few things that both the Bible and the Quran are very clear about.
“Regarding heaven and hell, I am no expert.”
You don’t need to be. No human being can cause an infinite amount of suffering, and yet he receives infinite punishment in Hell. Most of the modern civilized world agrees that a punishment should bear some proportion to the crime. God, it appears, would disagree.
“I have struggled for years to reconcile God’s omniscience with man’s free will. I don’t think I will ever be able to understand it, but I will say that I don’t believe it’s an either/or situation. I think God can foresee the outcomes of all the choices we might make, but he doesn’t interfere with our ability to make them.”
Your last sentence is a complete contradiction. Either God created us knowing what choices we would make and, therefore, made those choices for us, or he gave us the ability to make our own choices and doesn’t know what they are until we make them. You can’t have it both ways. Whichever way you choose, you can’t give God his omniscience and keep free will for us.
“As far as God valuing freedom and the slavery issue here’s a relevant link:
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html
“I was always taught that the “slave” of Bible times was similar to an employee. The Bible encourages “slave owners” (similar to employers) to treat slaves fairly and well since they, the owners would have to answer to their own Master (God) one day for their actions. When I said that God values freedom I meant that God offers us freedom from sin and freedom to live eternally in His presence (thereby freeing us from sadness, sickness, tears, and death).”
I don’t have time right now to write a detailed response to this, but I think it splits hairs. Slaves treated humanely were still slaves as they were deprived of their freedom. People who choose to be slaves are not slaves – if you can pack up and leave at any time, you are not a slave, you are an employee – that’s the difference. It shouldn’t matter that social dynamics have shifted. If the Bible offers us the perfect morals it is often claimed to teach, it should condemn all forms of slavery, clearly and unequivocally. This is a poor effort to disguise the fact that the Bible is out of date because it was written by humans who lived thousands of years ago.
“It was Christ who encouraged the fair treatment of women…God who commands us not to neglect the poor and to feed orphans and widows…God who insisted that field owners leave part of the crop behind to be picked up by hungry gleaners…God who said men should not take advantage of one another by charging interest…Christ who attacked the Pharisees for their rigid thinking and superiority complex toward Samaritans…How are my values inconsistent with the teachings and actions of God?”
I don’t deny that there are examples of great humanity and kindness in the Bible, and your examples clearly illustrate that point. But if it were the word of God, and proud possession of a perfect religion, it would contain only that. It doesn’t. Take a look at the following references:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/inj/long.html
I don’t think these can be reconciled with an all powerful, loving god.
“I appreciate your willingness to share your thoughts.”
Always a pleasure, never a chore.
ttm writes
” I am not pretending that material relating to evolution is unavailable or inaccessible. I am asking you, as a someone who claims evolution was proved 100 years ago to show me the proof.”
You admit the evidence is available yet you choose not to study it. This indicates lack of intellectual honesty. Are you prepared to state exactly what form of proof you would accept? Whatever it is, it is almost certainly within a few key strokes on the internet. But of course you are too busy to read it.
A common misunderstanding concerns FACT versus THEORY.
On the one hand there is the FACT that evolution has occurred. The evidence is simply overwhelming and of various different types: the fossil record, the genetic code, experimental confirmations, structures in living organisms which are of no current use but once were, faulty “designs” that are explained by “blind evolution” but that no sentient being would create, predictions that are tested based one the hypothesis it has occurred etc. The earth is 5 billion years old and for most of that time the flora and fauna were very different from what we now observe. An honest person can’t dispute the FACT evolution has happened and continues to happen.
Then there is the THEORY of evolution which purports to explain the facts. The theory is beautiful, elegant and full of detailed subtleties. Sometimes various details of the theory are changed to account for new discoveries. Unfortunately the general public do not distinguish FACT and THEORY. The fact that evolution has occurred certainly predates Darwin, it was his explanation of HOW it happened that was the breakthrough.
It is a bit like the FACT things fall to the ground and the THEORY of gravity. Probably you don’t dispute the former and don’t understand the latter.
Finally, as a professional truth seeker, I find ttm’s quote
“Apparently we agree that those who actively seek shall find the truth.”
very naive. If only it were that easy I would be rich and famous.
ttm, I’m pleased to find a believer that appears to be intelligent and introspective enough to at least recognise the non-theistic reasons for your misinterpreted spiritual experience. I cannot help but wonder why you would choose to interpret this experience (which sounds to me like that fuzzy, disorienting transitional state between sleep and wakefulness that we all experience from time to time) as meeting your god. Perhaps it was indeed a fear response, fear of losing your god and all the attendant social networks you have surely built around it? Faced with the prospect of denying everything you have been brought up to believe, I can perhaps understand why you would convince yourself to go running back, eager to believe and be accepted.
I agree with L.Nielsen’s sentiment that you are “almost there” - close to realising that this is the only life you have and that all your effort should be directed at living it well for it’s own sake, close to realising that you are strong enough as an individual to face the world without the psychological crutch you call god, close to realising that you are a good human being in your own right, close to realising that your own successes, failures, loves and fears are yours and yours alone, not attibutable to an imaginary creator. Be strong. Make the break.
Voice of Reason:
Then there is the FACT that you continue to use inflammatory language such as “lack of intellectual honesty,” “too busy,” and “naive” and my developing THEORY that your arrogant attitude may be what is preventing both riches and fame from making their way into your life.
If I don’t respond to any more of your comments to me, it’s because I’ll be very busy searching the internet for more FACTS. Thanks for telling me how to deconstruct my misunderstandings. Most likely you will dispute the former and doubt my ability to follow through on the latter.
Darren, thanks for your encouragement to be strong.
As I don’t carry enough theological weight to help my fellow believers in this debate with evidence or valuable dialog, and I was never able to cement myself in mt attempt to be an atheist, I can only say that when I tried to de-construct my belief system and embrace the scientific angle, it fell flat. I have read apologetics on both sides and found both wanting. To say that evolution was “proven” 100 years ago is to disregard the fact that even Darwin doubted his own contentions(as he states in origin of species), for every bit of scientific evidence for evolution there is scientific evidence against it.(more or less, I haven’t kept a number tally). The same can be said for religion. As David said, I am als