Christian Evidences
If I was going to argue the position of atheism, I’d argue about like Sam Harris did. I’d speak about these things:
1. A sense that something is very wrong with this world — something that is hard to mesh with a believe in a loving, all-powerful God. I’d ask why this God doesn’t protect his people better. (How hard would it be to keep an SUV full of teenagers who are returning from a youth rally from turning over on I-20? How difficult would it be to answer the prayer of thousands of believers asking for a 5-year-old with cancer to be healed?)
2. A conviction that the personal testimonies aren’t enough. The same testimonies to healing, answered prayer, and changed lives have come from Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Mormonism, etc. People who believe dramatically different things have offered witness to the amazing things they’ve seen their God do.
3. An observation that people have continued to be willing to kill each other over their holy books. Partly, this is saying that the faith doesn’t seem to “work.” While we might say that’s just talking about the inconsistencies of the people of faith rather than of the faith itself, Jesus said, “By your love they will know you’re my disciples.” Apparently, if they live with grudges, bitterness, and murderous intent, it’s fair enough to assume they’re not Jesus’ disciples.
4. A feeling that the holy books of the various religions have serious problems. Each religion finds serious flaws in the holy books of the other religions. Few are able to back off and say that they all are problematic. (E.g., just pointing out that the OT has a higher moral than, say, the Babylonians, doesn’t really answer all the questions about killing teens who talk back and about taking women as personal spoils of war.)
All right, you may be wondering. Has Mike converted?
Nope. But I’ve always had a deep appreciation for serious struggles of faith. Several people introduced me to an approach to Christian evidences of the EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT variety when I was in college. Shortly after I graduated, I started a Bible study with university students at UNC-Wilmington who were searching for faith. It quickly became clear that the EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT perspective only demands a verdict if you already believe. (There is, of course, some value to that.)
First, let me mention a couple books I read over the holidays that I think help us think through Christian apologetics in our current world context. One is Greg Boyd’s Letters From a Skeptic.
In the preface Greg Boyd writes: “Exceptionally intelligent, intensely skeptical, very strong-willed, and 70 years old — could a more unlikely candidate for conversion be found than my father? He had given me little grounds for hope.”
The letters from the dad ask the good, tough questions; the letters from the son are honest and hopeful.
The last letter in the book says:
Dear Greg:
Well, as I told you over the phone, I finally “took the leap.” Hallelujah! As I sit here and read over all of our correspondence, I still can’t believe how I’ve changed from a smart-ass-know-it-all to an actual believer! Jeanne can’t believe it either! It’s probably even confused the hell out of our dog! The angels whom you say rejoice over this sort of thing are probably giving each other high-fives! . . .
As you know, I’ve still got a number of questions, and I’m sure we’ll continue to hash these out. But my disposition has completely changed. I’m asking them no longer as a skeptic, but as a believer. You don’t need to end your letters “with hope” any longer. . . .
Lots of love, with faith (!)
Dad
The other book is Alister McGrath’s brief (123 pages) Glimpsing the Face of God: The Search for Meaning in the Universe
Here are a couple of my conclusions about Christian evidences:
1. My central arguments for faith aren’t cosmological (“nothing comes from nothing”), teleiological (“there’s an intricately designed watch, so there must be a watch-maker”), moral (“why does everyone agree that Hitler was evil?”), or ontological (“I can imagine that there is a God . . . so there must be a God”). I begin as a Christ-follower. I am a believer in the story of Jesus Christ. That’s where I begin. I believe because I have committed myself to this one who came from God “to put the world to rights” (as N. T. Wright would say it). So I’m inviting others to consider that possibility with me. My opening move is one of story. Within the consideration of that story, the other traditional Christian evidences find their value.
2. The whole EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT doesn’t ring true for many seekers. If there were evidence that DEMANDS a decision, they’d already believe. Some are dishonest, of course, but many are not. Many are genuine truth-seekers. I prefer to speak about clues. There are footprints in the sand. We’re trying to figure out the story behind those footprints.
“What if nature is studded with clues to our true meaning and destiny, and fingerprinted with the presence of God? This book is an exploration of this fascinating possibility.” (McGrath)
Someone asked in my last post how I could question Harris’s statement that atheism is “simply an admission of the obvious.” And the reason is because you can’t prove faith in atheism. There is no scientific discovery that can conclude definitively that there is no God. The man who was a primary driver in the Genome Project is himself a devoted believer!
Again, from McGrath: “There has never been any shortage of people who will tell us that the evidence is totally persuasive, and that — unless we are complete fools — we will accept that there is no meaning in life, and no God behind this world. Some argue that atheism is the only logically and scientifically respectable worldview. Yet this overlooks the inconvenient fact that the truth claims of atheism simply cannot be proved. How do we know that there is no God? The simple fact of the matter is that atheism is a faith, which draws conclusions that go beyond the available evidence.”
Finally, today, these words from Martin Luther King, Jr.: “Faith is taking the first step even when you don’t see the whole staircase.”
Just wondering……what is the goal of atheism? So far, from the works of Harris to the words of Keller and Richard B, all energy seems to be directed toward defending their unbelief of God by attacking Christianity.
Are there selling points for atheism? I mean beyond not believing in God, what are the benefits of atheism you just can’t find elsewhere? Is there an ultimate reason for atheists to rejoice in their belief that all ends here, there is no hope for a better life in eternity?
C.
Just to defend myself a little. I’m not attacking Christianity. I’m a believer. Perhaps a little autobiography will help contextualize my comments and concerns.
Early on in my faith journey I seriously considered the fact that I might be fooling myself about this faith thing. That faith was simply a form of wishful thinking (Freud’s narcotic). That faith was the failure of existential courage. So, I set out on a journey to explore this in myself. For me, the only way I could self-verify the authenticity of my faith was to truly stand in the cold wind of unbelief to see if I could live from that vantage. I found I could and then returned to faith. This might be an odd thing to do to oneself, but it was critical for ME to do it. I understand that I’m willing to go places in my own soul most people won’t dare to go, but I’m guessing some people on this blog know what I’m speaking of. In the end, I verified for myself that I have the courage to both believe and not believe. Then, from that position, I chose faith. This, for me, is how I verify the authenticity of my own faith.
Leland,
There is a description in the Bible of your opposition to the three things you listed: DAMNABLE HERESIES.
You state that you are a Christian, despite your unbelief in the risen Christ, and his divinity. Is there something I am missing here? If there is no risen Christ ascended into Heaven, then there is no such thing as “Christian”.
I sincerely hope, for your own sake, that your statement is just a desperate attempt to generate controversy, and not your actual belief (or lack thereof). I’m not “nuanced” like a lot of folks that seem to be hanging around here; is there some sort of sarcasm or “doublespeak” in his post that I am missing?
Richard’s arguments are baffling to me. Once again, I don’t understand how you come up with that theory in the light of what Jesus said. You have to have the courage to not believe, in order to prove that your faith is authentic? Very simply, my faith is authentic. I don’t need to prove anything to myself, or anybody else. I KNOW that God exists, and I BELIEVE that he did what he said he did, and that he will do what he has said he will do.
John 1:12 & 13, at least to me, says something about what you are talking about. It says we became “the sons of God…not of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” This so-called “modern” approach that we must tear something down to nothing in order to build it back to determine its authenticity just does not fit the scriptural model. For years I’ve been hearing versions of your argument, just not as extreme. They have always bothered me. Instead of simply telling a young person to study their Bible, and helping them along, we preach this strange concept that they must cast aside what their Christian parents have taught them, start over again, and develop their own faith. I think the term most often used is “own your faith”. How silly! I wonder how many of these people who took this approach ended up rejecting the truth during their “conversation” or “exploration” of God? Somebody will no doubt say that I am misrepresenting the spirit of the idea, but look at the posts above! I am responding to that very argument!
I am not saying that everyone should blindly accept what they have been told, with no study of their own to verify what they have been told. I am saying that some here are taking it to extremes that seem detrimental to a Christian life.
It’s time to stop philosophizing and theorizing and playing monday morning theologian, and simply walk AND talk the gospel truth. It is not complicated, it is not “nuanced”, and it is not hard to understand. The only difficult thing about it is that it is hard for many to accept. We shouldn’t be surprised by that, because Jesus told us that in those very words.
simply walk AND talk the gospel truth
What does that even mean? Your insider language doesn’t even mean the same thing to all Christians, and would be utterly confusing to nearly all those outside the faith. I think it’s possible to over-philosophize Christianity into just another set of beliefs or moral laws, but I also think that Christians need to think deeper about what exactly they are calling people into. Many of the traditional explanations of this fall painfully short with most not-yet-Christians, because believers have truncated or over-simplified the gospel to “their experiences” or “childlike belief” (which, by the way, is impossible for most thinking people).
By the way, I too have a hard time accepting a Christianity that leaves out Christ’s divinity and the resurrection. As for the 7-literal-day creation account, I’m with Leland. I don’t think the validity of the story of God hangs on whether or not Genesis is a science textbook or poetry (though I lean toward poetry).
Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. Matt.10: 39
If you are not willing to lose you will not win.
Kerry,
Since you picked me out I’d like to respond.
Rest assured that we find each other mutually incomprehensible. The situation is symmetrical.
Further, referring to your post about Mark 10 and coming to the Kingdom “as a little child.” Are you aware that the best interpretation of Mark 10 has nothing to do with cognitive states but with powerlessness and marginalized persons? The children are prevented from coming to Jesus because the disciples perceive Jesus as “important” and the children as “unimportant.” Jesus reverses this, placing powerlessness on top. This interpretation is consistent with the other gospel accounts using children as an illustration (e.g., Matthew 18:1-3).
I go into this little example to suggest that your confidence in your biblical acumen may be misplaced or at least needs a little circumspection.
Richard B
You do not fight fair. It takes a half hour in the dictionary before one knows he/she has been skewered.
This is hopeless.
“Insider language”??? Uh…I’m talking to what I consider to be “insiders” here. I would hope that when somebody says what I said to a group that is largely composed of Christians, they would understand what I mean.
I do not truncate the gospel to my “experiences”; far from it. I think “experience” based Christianity is a horrible way of presenting the gospel. Absolutely horrible.
You say you have a “hard time accepting” Leland’s version of Christianity. I don’t have a hard time figuring out what it is; it isn’t Christianity, it is a doctrine of demons, straight from Hell. Satan was a “liar from the beginning”, and this is just one of many that he tells.
There is another lie that he loves to tell, especially to believers:
“Did God REALLY say…?”
I do think that the validity of the seven literal days is important. Our eternal life doesn’t hang on it, but the validity of God’s Word does. If the seven days aren’t literal, then why in the world would the Holy Spirit move other Biblical authors to refer to the seven days?
You say that you view Genesis more as a book of poetry (allegorical, at that), rather than a science textbook. I don’t see it as a science textbook, either (thank God), but it is not allegorical poetry, for goodness’ sake! If what you say is true, then where does the poetry end and the history begin? If the seven days of creation isn’t literal, then was the fall of Adam and Eve literal? Was the flood literal? Was Abraham literal? Was Pharaoh literal (oops…something in Genesis can be proven…what do we do with that?). If the first chapters of Genesis aren’t literal, then other Biblical authors, including some of those New Testament guys, were deceived by the Holy Spirit, which invalidates every single thing that a Christian believes. As I said before, Jesus had very harsh words for those who didn’t believe what Moses wrote, and he said so multiple times (i.e. throughout the book of John). Moses wrote about the creation of the world. Additionally, to quote the book of Job, “where were you when I laid the foundations of the world?”. Who are we to second-guess God and add our supposedly scientific opinions to his Holy Word?
But I guess there’s no danger in doubting the lliteralness of the creation account, is there?
I’ll let someone else tackle kerry’s response. I’m at work and don’t have the time nor resources to adequately address her last comment to me. Not throwing up the white flag … just passing the responsibility off to a colleague who also believes God may have created the Earth in a different time period than 7 scientific days.
Thanks.
“But I guess there’s no danger in doubting the lliteralness of the creation account, is there?”
In short, no, there isn’t. Besides the fact that the word translated to English as “day” in Genesis 1 is not a 24-hour period in Hebrew and the fact that the account of creation in Genesis reads differently than other portions of the book, it’s the message that is of utmost importance–God created the universe; He created man to have a relationship with Him; man’s sin separated Him from God; despite the separation that sin brought about, God did not abandon man. To say that the creation story in Genesis has to be taken literally otherwise the validity of any other scripture could be questioned is poor logic.
What about the book of Job? Are we to take it literally? I know that plenty of modern scholars questions whether Job was actually a real man–yes, I know someone could say, “Ah, but they’re just out to dismiss the Bible as hogwash.” So, for the sake of argument, let’s say job was, in fact, a real man. Do you think people in ancient times conversed exclusively in poetry? Of course not. Does that mean there’s no validity to the message of Job? Again, of course not.
Mike,
There is a 5th argument I would add to your list that I find especially compelling, and I think puts the others into some kind of framework. The arguement in this form has recently been formulized and popularized by T. Drange, and it is often called the “hiddenness of God” argument. Formally, it goes something like this:
If God exists, God:
1. wants all humans to believe he exists before they die;
2. can bring about a situation in which all humans believe he exists before they die;
3. does not want anything which would conflict with and be at least as important as his desire for all humans to believe he exists before they die; and
4. always acts in accordance with what he most wants.
If God exists, all humans would believe so before they die (from 1).
But not all humans believe God exists before they die.
Therefore, God does not exist (from 2 and 3).
Informally: The world looks like God is absent; the average rational Joe can come to the perfectly reasonable conclusion (from looking at the world) that God doesn’t exist. Believing in God seems mostly to depend on what side of the fence you fall on, rather than any self evident truth. This would indicate that God has been remarkably “hidden” for at least most of history, and this hiddenness contradicts the nature we ascribe to him of desiring relationship with us.
There is something compelling about this, I think.
The answer of “starting as a Christ follower” seems unsatisfying to me. You seem to be implying that only by participating within the story is the truth made evident. That seems to not be true, as there are many many people who started genuinely as being Christain and involved sincerely in the story, but lost their faith for whatever reason.
Kerry,
I suggest you read “The Bible Unearthed” by Finkelsteinn and Silberman. It deals with the relationship of archeology with the events recorded in the Hebrew Bible. Of course, if you have such a low view of science’s ability to find the truth, then you probably won’t get much out of it. But then you are also probably the kind of person who believes in unicorns, dragons, fairy godmothers, and other things that are unsubstantiated by science. And forget ever getting in car or plane again, because you can’t trust the guys that built those.
Pecs,
Your argument has a hole in it. Your premises include:
1. wants all humans to believe he exists before they die.
That is not the only thing God wants. And it doesn’t necessarily trump the other things He wants. Suppose, for example He also wants to be *discovered* by people seeking Him (Acts 17:26-27) That might therefore prevent him from *causing* them to know him.
substitute “belief” for “relationship”. God wants relationship with us before we die (of which belief is a prerequisite).
I believe God wants more than just for humans who believe he exists to be in relationship with him. I believe God’s dream is the restoration of the entire cosmos. This is why we have imagery of the earth “groaning as in birth pangs” and the animal kingdom being represented in the throne room vision in Revelation. God is redeeming the world of which Jesus is king, and while humanity is certainly a main actor in the story, it is by no means the only actor.
(this is what bugs me about statements like, “if you were the last person on Earth, Christ would have died for you…”.)
Can God make a rock so big he cannot lift it?
The answer is obviously no therefore God does not exist.
Does God depend on our understanding of him in order to exist?
Lots of commentary here with little resolution, but I think it is healthy to search one’s accepted concepts in the light of other folk’s critique. Wish I had been able to post earlier, before everyone moved on to the next topic…
It seems to me that no amount of argument in our society will prove God exists or does not exist, to the satisfaction and conviction of the opposing side. Having been a scientist and geologist for all these years, I am accustomed to evidence and proof in an argument. What does God want out of all this? Could he snap his fingers and prove to the whole world that he is? Yes. Does he? No. Why is that?
His evidences in nature will always appear to be proof to the believer and ridiculous to the atheist. I think he wants me to choose, without proofs, without evidences and arguments. I can’t use the Bible as a tool to prove to an athiest that God exists; I have tried and failed (perhaps my own failing, but failure anyway). What God wants is for me to choose to believe in him every day, every minute; unforced relationship is a source of great freedom. My argument for the existence of God is voiced to the extent I am changed by him to treat others with love and respect and compassion, no matter what they have done or not done. No matter whether I am talking to an atheist or a brother. The harshness and downright mean-ness demonstrated by Christians and athiests alike in some of their arguments is an evidence that we are the same, BUT WE SHOULD NOT BE. God doesn’t need for me to prove he exists; he wants me to live like he exists.
I have been asked many times how a geologist could possibly believe in God, knowing the history of the earth and rock record, knowing that what we see does not appear to match what we read in the Bible, knowing the evidence of evolution and the fossil record. I have read all the varied threads of reasoning discussed in the posts above. When I was in college and studying geology, especially in grad school, I became very disturbed and troubled about what I learned. I did a lot of reading and questioning. What I have come to KNOW for myself is that the greater the learning and education, the more questions I have about God, and the more I must choose to accept him. The evidence of God is individual for me; the way I treat others and conduct myself.
Through eyes of faith I see events as inspired by God, I see actions and not accidents. Proof is in what he is doing in me that society, politics and science can never do—- he is teaching me to live by choice, not by accident.
Mark,
I (Brett) hold by my statement that “dumping” certain strands of Christian apologetics (notably Young Earth Creationism some strands of the Intelligent Design movement) are necessary if Christians want to engage (honestly) with nonbelievers. In other words, some Christian explanations for faith are better than others.
I’m not saying you have to renounce every foolish belief- just those that are most blatantly wrong. I’m fascinating by this conversation/dialogue because it is bringing out the difference stances many Christians hold on these issues (which I think is worthwhile). Obviously some on this blog have no problem viewing the Genesis account as poetry, or allegory on some level, and this could be compatible with scientific accounts of origins.
I’m not sure why you think I’m not looking for conversation. I posted here precisely because I am interested in that. I was particularly hopeful that I could correct a very common misconception about what atheists/agnostics believe/don’t believe (as noted above in response to Mr. Cope and his quote from McGrath). This understanding of how atheists think is as important for Christians as it is for me to understand how differently Richard B, Leland, and kerry (all self-proclaimed Christians) think.
I particularly like Calvin’s post (thanks). It is similar to what I’ve heard from many educated Christians- that to bother “proving” Christianity gets one into tiresome arguments that are ultimately unsuccessful. It really is about faith, and that’s what it comes down to.
Also, Mark pondered the lack of attacks on Islam and focus on Christianity. I’m not sure if you’ve read the works of prominent atheists, but I know that both Dawkins and Harris are much more critical of Islam than of Christianity. In particular, Harris’ The End of Faith focuses quite a bit on Islamic terrorism. I think the disproportionate time spent refuting Christianity is due to the fact that most atheists and agnostics live in societies that were once predominantly Christian, not Muslim, and interact with Christians much more often. In books focusing primarily on Christianity (such as Letter to a Christian Nation) the authors tend to specify their reasons for talking directly about Christianity. I’m guessing you haven’t read many works by these atheists, so here’s a link to a particularly vehement diatribe on Islam. I think most Islamic societies have simply not tolerated dissent to the point where a vibrant freethinking culture can grow.
My last comment should have contained quotes around “foolish” (I was re-using Mark’s wording, not stating that I think all beliefs are foolish). Sorry.
C.,
Atheism (those “without theism”) is not a single monolithic system, so it has no single goal. Some atheists are humanists, others are hedonists, others are Ayn Rand-ites, and so on. These groups can have very different goals.
I devote much more energy to that defending my lack of belief. However, this particular post was about “Christian evidences” so I engaged in debate on that subject. It would have been odd for me to proselytize for the lifestance of humanism. (If you’d like some of that, I have quite a bit written on my blog.)
“I mean beyond not believing in God, what are the benefits of atheism you just can’t find elsewhere?” It’s not that I do not believe in God because it brings me certain benefits (that would be silly-to assert lack of belief to gain benefits when one really believes!) but because I think it is true. In this sense I can agree with Christians who say, “It doesn’t really matter whether the world is a happy place or not, I want the truth.”
and again, the last post (second paragraph) should have read “I devote much more energy to the “positive”- i.e., helping others, often in cooperation with Christians- than I do to defending my lack of belief.
I really need to proofread..
Jason,
If Job wasn’t a real man, then then Ezekiel and James were deceived, because they call him by name. If Job is simple a fictional character meant to illustrate a point, then Noah and Daniel are fictional characters, too. You can’t have it both ways. In fact, the passages in Ezekiel are both followed by the words “saith the Lord God.” IN OTHER WORDS: GOD JUST TOLD EZEKIEL THAT JOB WAS REAL.
James mentions Job in the same breath as the prophets, so if Job isn’t real, then the prophets must not be real.
Additionally, if the book of Job is only allegory, then you have just claimed that someone put words in God’s mouth that he didn’t REALLY say to a REAL man named Job. God speaks many times in the book of Job, and specifically tells Job that he was one of the things He made.
This confirms everything I thought at the beginning of this discussion. So many here claim to believe in God, yet deny the truth of what he has plainly said. What is the point of this endless “searching” for what is plain as day in front of your face? SOMEONE PLEASE HONESTLY ANSWER THE QUESTION. No answers about how intelligent and educated you think you are, in comparison to me, who you have never met. No silly comments about unicorns, fairies, etc… No recommendations to read yet another book about something. Just say why you can’t or won’t accept what the Bible says at face value. It’s time to admit what you really believe. I’ve stated plainly what I believe about the matter. Other than Mr. Ogle (and I don’t mean to drag him into any arguments; I just think he plainly stated what he believes), I don’t think anybody else in here has honestly said what he or she believes about the matter.
If you don’t believe that parts of Genesis and Job really happened, don’t just ask if I do; STATE WHAT YOU BELIEVE FOR THE RECORD!
Oh, I guess Leland could be included in the “said what they believed” category, as sad as that is.
I am not here to PROVE that God exists. I am commenting here because of some people’s insistence on proving to themselves that he doesn’t. What do you hope to accomplish by tearing down, breaking through, or tearing holes in every part of God’s Word? Are you hoping against hope that you will find part of it that isn’t true?
To those of you who are believers, what do you hope to accomplish by ceding ground on the reliability of scripture? If you are hoping to convert the atheist by “admitting” that part of scripture is nothing but allegory with a good point, you will be hoping for a long time. The irony is that I’ve been accused here of believing in fairy tales because I believe that Genesis and Job are real. If you say that you think they tell a good story and have a good moral, but are not literally true, then it is YOU who believes in a fairy tale; by definition, you believe in something that you admit is not true!
And by the way, I’m a he, not a she.
Just say why you can’t or won’t accept what the Bible says at face value. It’s time to admit what you really believe.
I believe the original scriptures were written by about whom we know little and to whom we can barely relate. I believe they were written during a period of time and in a culture that were more akin to life on Mars than our current age and culture. I believe those scriptures must be interpreted, not just read. I believe we interpret scripture first through the lens of the context in and to which it was written, then applying it to our current context. (this is why, for instance, most of our churches don’t make women wear head coverings to worship or leave their jewelry at home) I believe we are to study the function (as it would have been read in its original context) of chunks of scripture as vigorously as we do the application of certain sets of words to our lives and others.
Finally, and most importantly, I believe Scripture is more of an epic story of God rescuing the world than it is a moral code to be unlocked or mastered. The spiritual arrogance that usually accompanies the latter view of scripture has caused divisions, wars, racism, and has kept non-believers at bay since the time of Christ.
Kerry, I didn’t say I believed Job to be a fictitious character; I said you’ll find some scholars who say that he is. Certainly the scriptures you cite indicate that the biblical writers you mentioned believed he was a real man. I have no reason to think otherwise.
However, you said, “then you have just claimed that someone put words in God’s mouth that he didn’t REALLY say to a REAL man named Job.” Yes, that is more or less what I’m saying. Now, please don’t counter what I’ve just said by saying that if Job isn’t a literal transcript of dialogue then I’m saying that any dialogue in scripture is made up. Again, I ask you, who converses in poetry for long stretches at a time? (It’s not just God who speaks in poetry in Job–it’s everyone.) Is it not much more plausible that whoever wrote Job sought to relay the story of Job in poetry? Furthermore, how does the book of Job not being a literal transcription of dialogue in any way detract from the truth and power of the book?
“To those of you who are believers, what do you hope to accomplish by ceding ground on the reliability of scripture?”
“This confirms everything I thought at the beginning of this discussion. So many here claim to believe in God, yet deny the truth of what he has plainly said.”
I think you’re defining “reliability” differently than I do in this case. If you’re definition of reliability is that scripture provides a point-by-point, fact-based account of the history of the world, then, no, I don’t believe scripture is reliable in all places–Genesis 1 and Job come to mind. In regards to Genesis, I really don’t understand why so many people are bent on a literal interpretation of the creation story. I’m not “denying the truth of what he (God) has plainly said” when I question a literal interpretation of the beginning chapters of Genesis. The truth of those chapters is God created the universe; He created man to have a relationship with Him; man’s sin separated Him from God; and despite the separation that sin brought about, God did not abandon man.
I don’t really care whether God created the world in six days or whether He chose to create through a process, whether it be evolution or something else.
Now, are there portions of scripture that I believe are literal historical accounts? Certainly, I do, with the most important event being Christ’s resurrection. To paraphrase Paul, if Christ didn’t rise, then we’re all just wasting our time.
Amen, Calvin!!
Brett, I guess my main question should go something like this: Johnny is a Christian, but is grappling with several issues. You engage him and explain why you don’t believe. After several coversations, Johnny proclaims he doesn’t believe anymore, either. After both of you shake hands and offer congratulations, Johnny looks you in the eye and asks, “Now what”?
What is the atheistic response? What is the encouragement and hope that atheism now offers Johnny to keep him going day after day?
Kerry,
In regards to what I said:
“I don’t have a hard time figuring out what it is; it isn’t Christianity, it is a doctrine of demons, straight from Hell. Satan was a “liar from the beginning”, and this is just one of many that he tells.”
In regards to someone attacking you:
“No answers about how intelligent and educated you think you are, in comparison to me, who you have never met. ”
Kerry, I don’t believe we’ve met either.
I believe Jesus died showing me how to live. I believe he thought loving your neighbor as yourself trumped any belief we had about his death.
A death without hope of resurrection is more in tune with today’s reality and also inspires me much more. Jesus was so free to love without fear he could die for what he believed in and thus change the world.
If we could love without fear we could change the world as well. We could focus on the world at hand and truly live the Lord’s prayer. Now if that’s from Satan, you can kiss my heretical ass. Get to know me.
If you did, you would find I have many faults but devil worship and apathy for my fellow man are not any of them.
Sorry for the kiss my heretical ass in advance. But I had to say it.
“A death without hope of resurrection is more in tune with today’s reality”
What exactly do you mean by “today’s reality”?
Very interesting post, and timely. A recent episode of Religion and Ethics Newsweekly pointed out that there was a spate of pro-atheism books published in 2006. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week1017/perspectives.html
Related to your atheist argument #3 in your post, I once attended a presentation by Huston Smith, renowned expert on world religions, and he had a great quote. Someone asked him whether, in his opinion, religion was overall a positive or negative force in the world. His answer? “Positive, but just barely…just barely.”
In today’s world, you don’t see people being raised from the dead.
Kerry,
I’m sorry you’ve found this conversation so frustrating. But can you not see how fideism doesn’t work for every Christian believer?
Kerry,
The authority of the Bible is a topic on which volumes have been written. The best thing to do is read a number of these and educate yourself (if you haven’t already) on the complexity of the issue. Having everyone “come clean” and state what they believe is a pointless exercise and waste of blogspace. Obviously there are Christains that have a different view of the Bible than you do, and before criticizing their beliefs, I think it would be worthwhile to get a better feel for the landscape. Just to relate that topic to some current events, the last Pope made a number of statements in the 90′s about how believing in darwinian evolution is not incompatible with believing in the Bible. While I’m not sure that the Catholic church has an official postion on evolution, I think he was probably speaking for most Catholics when making those pronouncements. And they, of course, make up the majority of Christians.
Calvin,
“His evidences in nature will always appear to be proof to the believer and ridiculous to the atheist. I think he wants me to choose, without proofs, without evidences and arguments.”
“My argument for the existence of God is voiced to the extent I am changed by him to treat others with love and respect and compassion, no matter what they have done or not done. No matter whether I am talking to an atheist or a brother.”
There is an obvious contradiction here. If I understand you right, you are saying “leave rationality out of belief, because God wants the choice to ‘unencumbered’.” And then you say your best argument for God’s existence is your changed life. But someone looking at your changed life and seeing that as evidence for God’s existence, would now be applying reason to a problem you claim reason should be left out of.
C.,
Here’s an atheistic response (which is different from the atheistic response- I imagine a Objectivist would answer quite differently). If I were talking to your hypothetical Johnny, and he was raising questions, I would happily talk to him about my point of view. However, I wouldn’t necessarily try to “convert” him if I thought he . I think most people who have serious doubts about their faith hold onto it largely because of things Christians have told them: that life without their faith will be worthless, or meaningless, or they might as well kill themselves, or go raping people because there are no consquences (these are honestly all things I’ve heard Christians say they might as well do if they didn’t have faith).
For me, as a humanist, I celebrate our species’ ability to overcome, to liberate, to show compassion, to enjoy the pursuit of knowledge about the universe, etc. I might talk about finding meaning in those things- in music, art, knowledge, relationships, service, etc. Many Christian sermons on behaving morally focus on doing things not just because it’s “the right thing to do” but because it will make your life more satisfying in this world. So I would try to show Johnny through discussion or through action that a life centered on community, relationship, service, and other long-lasting pursuits is more satisfying and meaningful than the pure pursuit of instant self-gratification or consumerism. There is a definite push-and-pull between these two desires within Christianity as well.
I might also explain ways in which some Christians have answered the questions he’s raised (usually stemming from liberal theology) if I thought that that was more likely to lead Johnny to making a positive difference in the world.
I think your question about what keeps an atheist going day to day partly indicates the falsehood of a statement made (usually without really thinking it out) by some Christians: “Atheism is the easy way out,” or “they’re just doing that because they get to do whatever they want.” While this sort of hedonistic view may be accurate for some (you’d generally know if you ask them their reasons), for me at least it is not an “easy” path. The search for truth and knowledge about the world in which we live and the struggle to create and appreciate meaning in one’s own existence is a daily challenge- but it one that I embrace because it is the only way I know to live honestly. That’s what I would talk to Johnny about.
Pecs-
I don’t perceive it as a contradiction. Through my perspective, I see evidence of God in nature and many other ways. Others might see those same things as accidental, and not attributable to God in any way. Therefore, I won’t argue with an athiest that a beautiful sunrise proves the existence of God, even though I may believe it. I won’t leave rationality out of my belief, either, but I can’t demand that someone who believes there is no God be convinced based on my own rules of rationality. There are many, many questions I don’t know the answers to. What I can say in good faith, though, is that my life is different and better because I believe, and that is the only valid, personal argument I can give. It is difficult to use a text to make a proof, when the other side believes the text is a fake. On the other hand, if I treat others with honesty, respect, compassion and love, I hope the difference in me is evident to everyone.
Calvin,
I would agree that belief in God and unbelief are both rational positions. The point I was trying to make earlier is that not only are they both rational, but they are both more or less equally rational (IMHO). In other words, an aethist is no less rational than a Christian and visa-versa. Given that the God we as Christians believe in is concerned about us knowing him and relationship together, this is an especially disturbing situation. Why not make belief in him a bit more rational, if it is so important to him? I have a hard time believing that God could punish people for choosing an equally rational choice.
Pecs-
Yes. Most of the atheists I have known are very educated, rational and intelligent. (Lots of scriptures come to mind here…) I used to have some really deep discussions with a school mate in grad school, who claimed his basis for not believing was two fold: (1) suffering his dad went through with cancer, and (2) the way Christians treated others. Pretty dismal statement, really.
I personally disagree with you about the “equally rational” concept because of some threads of logic I would call the “whys”, but I won’t argue about it. Jesus, when asked what proof he would give to evidence his identity, just didn’t respond like he could have. Why not? I guess he wanted the message to be enough….unforced relationship.
Why is it so important for us Christians to convince others that they are wrong and we are right? Why do we have to have the best argument? There was a time that I had a great argument on baptism for the remission of sin. I was even able to convert Baptist to the coc and baptize them for the right reason. “If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.”
It is not us that prick the hearts of others. Maybe we are not trying to convince others but ourselves. Dr. Wray once told me that the reason Jesus was able to go to the cross was because he knew who he was. It may be that when we have to convince others that they are wrong, it is because we do not believe we are right.
Pecs, you’re 4 items are true, but you need to understand what God “wants most”. What He most wants is for all to choose Him. He has no interest in forcing His will on us.
Brett, sounds like the humanism you follow, so very closely parallels the walk of a Christian. However, your daily struggle to create meaning in your own existence will be a tough task to figure out on your own. That realization has been the turning point for so many who have given their life to Christ….the emptiness of going it alone, and on their own merits.
C.
The question is, why does he place so much value on a decision that is no more rational than the alternative? Why the high stakes? And how is it that being less hidden somehow limits our choice? When Jesus came, God was certainly more visible, but the choice to follow him or not did not simply evaporate.
Pecs,
I believe you just defined the essence of “faith”.
amen Clint..and good grief I have never seen you use so many words…