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.”
Another reason why this is one of the best blogs around. Thanks Mike for not feeling as if you need to defend God. That’s one thing I do not understand about fundamentalism or evangelical epistemologies–if God needs me to defend him, what kind of God is that?
Excellent discussion and observation. You are paving the way for green ministers like me for the future of how our churches “think about” and “practice” the Christian faith.
Randy Harris’s line, “faith is not the absence of doubt, but the absence of certainty” has stayed with me for a long time.
It is hard to remember when I first believed in God, or why I decided to do that. It was at a very young age. Over the years, everything I have learned has fit nicely into the framework of that belief. It all seems to fit and it all seams quite plausible. My experiences have confirmed and strengthened that initial faith. I’ve really never seen a compelling reason to doubt it.
For someone who started life with a different framework, coming to faith may require that they first reject their belief system’s framework, the foundation of everything they believe. That is a huge obstacle, and more so the older a person becomes, because everything they know and believe is built into that framework. There are just so many beliefs, judgments, and values that they hold which rely on that initial framework, and on what has been built on top of it over the years.
Once you get past those issues, I don’t think there is anything in the atheist’s belief system that refutes the foundation of the believer’s belief system in a compelling way. In the end, both try to explain things that we cannot see or prove. Both are based on faith.
Because I accept the Bible as true, I believe what it says about faith. As I understand scripture, God gives us faith. I don’t think it is possible for a person to persuade an atheist to become a believer unless God grants that faith. One way God gives faith is through the scriptures. In the scriptures, God gave us reasons to believe, in the form of ancient eyewitness accounts to miracles, as well as creation itself. But if a person rejects the basis God provides for initial faith, there is nothing I can do to overcome that. Only God can create faith.
Wow, there’s so much here.
The thing that jumps out at me is what you said about starting with Jesus and the story of being a Christ follower. The rest just falls into place.
My friend who I am in conversation with knows “God”, some kind of God, but is not a believer in Jesus as Christ, the son of God. I’ve been trying to figure out how to talk about the differences in our faiths.
Those books sound really good. Especially Greg Boyd’s, what a testimony about his father coming to faith at age 70!
I’ll “hang” it all on the cross. It is Jesus that makes or breaks the story.
I agree with this post.
You don’t convince people to invest in the message of the gospel by beating them over the head with evidence about God, his existence, etc. You do it by putting the gospel on display - tearing down social and economic barriers and living in open, accepting community with people who are different from you. I think that this is precisely the message of Romans 15, and it is certainly the example from the life of Jesus.
How and why Christians (including, often, myself) consistently miss it is beyond me.
Mike said, “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.” Of course, and most atheists would agree. I’m not sure exactly what Sam Harris would say, but I know that Richard Dawkins is careful to make the point that it is impossible to prove God doesn’t exist.
Many (if not most?) atheists use the term to describe “not believing that God exists,” as opposed to “believing God does not exist.” (In this sense, many self-described agnostics could also be classed as atheists.) This distinction is more than mere semantics, as one is epistemologically/ philosophically much more defensible than the other. While science/ evidence may not prove God does not exist (although it can do a pretty good job of showing that some descriptions of God, such as the one that created man from scratch instead of through evolution, are inaccurate) that doesn’t necessarily mean that belief in God is as reasonable as lack of belief. I can’t disprove the existence of any of the Hindu gods either, but that doesn’t bother me, or lead me to accepting their stories. And, I think because of the cultural background in which I grew up, if I espoused belief in Varuna or Kubera, my friends would not hesitate to demand evidence for my belief. Therefore simply stating that believers start with a story instead of rational arguments and/or evidence is still going to fall short of reaching many skeptics/seekers, like myself.
For me the hardest issues are not evidential (as Mike’s post dwells on) but motivational. What are the motives behind belief? In my own estimation the motive tends to be thanatocentric. If so, how will the believer ever look critically at his/her beliefs? Such scrutiny would be too unsettling. Thus, Freud’s critique remains valid for many: Religious faith acts like a narcotic. Many believers seem existentially drugged as opposed to living/believing authentically.
OK, I’m intrigued. I went to hear Josh McDowell this weekend (Mr. “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”). It was so thought provoking. I tend to be a lover of knowledge and knowing certain truths about the Bible is incredible to me. The part of your post where you said that arguing the changed life is not unlike any religion. I agree. McDowell really based his talk on the difference between belief and conviction. Knowing his story, I’d say you don’t have to agree with his tactics or even all of his material to be very inspired by his passion for Jesus. He really hammered home how Christians are very quick to say things like, “I believe Jesus is God’s son, I believe the Bible is the Word of God, I believe Jesus lived, died and rose…”, but when pressed, cannot say why. I could go on and on. Maybe the bottom line is that it is both: knowing the truth and then living it. I, for one, would love to hear more teaching on this. For my stage in life, the best material of the night from McDowell was about nurturing relationships. It was absolutely incredible. Bless!
You also mentioned Francis Collins. I was curious if you’ve read his book, The Language of God? I haven’t, other than a cursory flip-through at a bookstore, but from some of the reviews I’ve read, many readers were disappointed that it fails to live up to his subtitle: “A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief” (which was probably chosen by a publisher). It seems that Collins’ approach is similar to yours- relying on story, not argument.
And McGrath says: “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?” Again, this is based on a inaccurate caricature of much atheistic thought. While those who speak as McGrath describes are stretching, most of the work by intelligent atheists I’ve read makes no attempt to prove that God does not exist. Rather, they assert that there is no evidence that God does exist (whether on a case by case basis or because of epistemological limitations), and that positing such a belief in the absence of such evidence would be intellectually indefensible in contexts other than religious belief.
Like the others, I say “Thanks!” for informing and encouraging this discussion. Knowing how we should speak the word of Christ requires us to give some attention to what our world has heard, and what it might already accept.
I especially liked what you had to say about “evidence that demands a verdict.” I think it’s easy for believers to assume that what bolsters Christian confidence will necessarily lead others to faith in the first place. But those are two very different things.
By the way, your posts here got me to blogging about Karl Barth’s complete rejection of any dependence on or evangelistic use of rational arguments for the existence of God. As I try to sort it out, feedback from others is welcome.
Matt- I really like what you said: “You do it by putting the gospel on display - tearing down social and economic barriers and living in open, accepting community with people who are different from you. I think that this is precisely the message of Romans 15, and it is certainly the example from the life of Jesus.”
You might also consider though, that many (or maybe just a small number, like me) will find your approach to love, community, and service a very appealing ethic and adopt it in part or in full because we realize it brings meaning in this life, not because it brings meaning in the next, or because the objective truth claims of Christian doctrine are true.
Christianity has been a wildly successful religion because it tells a good story, and in many ways fits well with human nature- filling needs that people have and offering them a meaningful, service-driven life for those who really embrace it. That is different from saying that its claims are true, just useful. In other words, the aspects of Christianity which you hope to exemplify are bigger than just the Christian faith- aspects of each is found in Buddhism (service) and Islam (community, especially) for example. The common description of an agnostic, atheistic, or humanistic life as meaningless is simply false for many. We draw inspiration, meaning, and ethical principles from many of the same sources (tradition, experience, culture, and daily experiences) and are constrained by the “biological leash” of genetics and physical development on human nature (a coin termed by Edward O. Wilson).
While many convert to Christianity because it paints a clearer, more user-friendly picture of the meaning of life, there are also others who demand for their worldview to be both useful and true, and for those of unconvinced of the latter, the former alone- stories and examples- will not suffice. Getting over the stereotype of nonbelievers as rebellious, selfish, ignorant, or drifting in a meaningless, unsatisfied void would help us all get along a little better (and of couse, Harris will have to moderate some of his views as well :-)).
While I don’t believe we’ll ever have “proof” of God (it leaves no room for faith) I do find it interesting that the further we get into the scientific realms, the closer we get into seeing God’s design. I’m in a class at church that is going through a unique study where Christians can use science instead of fighting with it all the time. Check out more info on this website - the founder was a former atheist & astronomer who put the creation account (including an old earth theory) to the test & wound up a believer. Although much of the info. is over my head, it’s still pretty powerful stuff!
http://www.reasonstobelieve.org
Nice job. I aprreciate your 4 up front obeservations. In my mind they give the rest of your arguement credibility.
Nice to know I am not a heretic (unless you are) for making the same observations.
Great conversation today. I wish I could write more, but I do want to say this:
I’m with Richard and Brett on the thanatocentric/this life-next life issues.
Beaner- While Hugh Ross examined the evidence and came to a conclusion that you agree with, how do you reconcile the fact that many more scientists examine the evidence and conclude that he is wrong?
The continued Christian insistence to prove that the evolution in general and the evolution of homo sapiens did not occur just makes you look worse as time goes by and evidence accumulates. Thankfully, many Christians recognize this and cringe at the popularity of creationism and the “intelligent design” movements. Dumping these strands of Christian thought by the wayside is a necessity in engaging in intellectually honest conversations with nonbelievers.
If I get to choose between two faiths, I choose the faith with hope. The hard part is living it with conviction. Ignorance is bliss love is compelling.
Brett said: “You might also consider though, that many (or maybe just a small number, like me) will find your approach to love, community, and service a very appealing ethic and adopt it in part or in full because we realize it brings meaning in this life, not because it brings meaning in the next, or because the objective truth claims of Christian doctrine are true.”
Brett, this is one thing that has bothered me about most of the Christians that I know. Everything is done for the purpose of heaven. We do our best to get people to say the prayer, or get dunked into the water in order to get them into heaven when they die. We even befriend people for the stated purpose of getting them into heaven. All the while we could have been about bringing the kingdom on earth as it is in heaven by really following Jesus’ teachings. Instead we spend our time trying to convince others by aruguing them into faith; a faith that God is supposed to give us anyway?
There, I’m in the frying pan
Dang it, Mike! Now I have to go buy a couple more books. You’re the master of excerpting just enough morsels of a book to whet my appetite to the point that I can’t not buy the book. You are the “Oprah” of the blogosphere!
Mark - That’s my goal: to be the Oprah of blogosphere.
Brett - I appreciate your participation here. Richard has raised the tricky issue: that so often this is driven by our conflict over death rather than by our commitments and passion for truth. (Not that there’s anything WRONG being letting a regard for death spill over into our consideration of life!) What I was trying to say wasn’t that all atheists KNOW there is no God, but that Harris is fooling no one when he plays the innocent, “Hey, I’m just calling it like it is” card. All are faith systems.
Amy - Again, I think the material is valuable for those already on the inside. (And I’d like to believe what he’s saying today — which I have no familiarity — is far advanced beyond the stuff from my college years.)
I’m with all of you: that so much of this comes down to where one is willing to lay one’s life.
Thanks, Leland (and others).
The BIG WRAP came off my leg today. I’m now able to look at those cool new scars where holes were in my knee. In the spirit of Tom Sawyer, I might be willing to show them to others . . . for a price.
Actually, Brett, the class is about being open as Christians to be able to have an intelligent conversation with those who do NOT believe the same way we do - instead of throwing science away as being AGAINST Christianity, let’s actually learn MORE about science & see what IT has to offer and see if we can reconcile the two instead of pitting them against one another.
Another source that might be helpful for some is http://www.doesgodexist.org.
Excellent post. Very thought provoking. Thank you.
My piggybank is safe.
I find both evangelistic-ish extremes of theism/atheism arguing with certainty for their claims on truth to be of the same stuff–arrogant epistemologies. there’s no mystical confession in either school of thought, and the polarization of this discussion is perpetuated by these parties. So you’ve got zealous Christians literally wielding their swords and atheists on mission to make all faith systems (except those of their own) feel stupid.
Following up on my earlier comment about the narcotic functions of faith…
How can you know if your faith is authentic or narcotic in function?
I sometimes propose this test to students as a kind of diagnostic screener for the presence of narcotics in the faith system:
“Would life be worth living if there were no God? And, secondly, could you be happy in that life?”
If you answer (sincerely) “Yes” to both questions and still believe, your faith is most likely authentic. If, however, you answer “No” to either question your faith may be a defense mechanism.
Richard B,
In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul speaks of the resurrection and says that if there is no resurrection from the dead, our faith is worthless, and that we are of all men most pitiable.
If our lives are pitiful without a risen Savior, it seems to me that Paul would answer your questions “no”, which leads me to a counter-question:
“Was Paul’s faith just a narcotic?”
I’m thinking no…
Richard B
Is your test for Lazarus or the rich man
But Luke D.: If there there were no Resurrection, then nobody would be a Christian, which means Christians couldn’t be the most pitiable, because they wouldn’t be around.
I’m only half joking. What I mean is, given the commitments of a Christian, it requires the hope of the Resurrection to pull it off and to make it worthwhile.
Richard - Not sure I buy that.
Just to clarify, the question is more to get one thinking along the motivational lines I had mentioned.
Let’s say you do answer “No.” Then you are saying, in some way, that “Life would not be worth living” and/or “I cannot be happy” if God didn’t exist.
Well, think that through, from Harris’s or Freud’s perspective. Then ask yourself if a person who admits such needs (i.e., happiness, meaning in life) for believe can ever be taken seriously as they weigh evidence? I mean, everything for them hangs in the balance; how can they be honest, critical, curious, or authentic? Further, compared to atheists who do find life meaningful and happy we look kinda loopy.
Again, the question is to get you thinking at a deep level about your faith. That is all it is intended to do. Personally, I’ve found the question helpful. Hard, but helpful.
I think the freezing temperatures have warmed your writing neurons Mike - good stuff my man!
Richard B
If I understand you right, you are saying that a person’s faith in only authentic if said person does not need God.
Richard B
When Freud spoke of religion as an illusion, he maintained that it is fantastic structure from which a man must be set free if he is to grow to maturity; and in his treatment of the unconscious he moved toward atheism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud)
Was Freud an atheist?
After contracting cancer of the mouth in 1923 at the age of 67, he underwent over 30 operations to treat the disease, and for several years wore a painful prosthesis to seal off his mouth from his nasal cavity. In the end, Freud could no longer tolerate the pain associated with his cancer. He requested that his personal physician visit him at his London home for the purpose of helping him end his own life. Freud’s death was by a physician-assisted morphine overdose. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud )
Freud answered no to both guestions. Can he be “taken seriously”?
All faiths are defense mechanisms. They help us sleep better at night and allow us not to be in control in an uncontrollable world. That way we have an “out” when we fail and our sense of urgency is no longer urgent.
I believe our practice of self depracation allows us to do this as well. “We live in a fallen world” seems to be the source of a lot of evil. We are no longer culpable for anything in a fallen world; especially if we are not in control. Therefore we can sleep right through it.
What if we were in control? And laws which described our present reality were the basis for our control? It seems the world would be a much better place. I think this is Harris’ point.
Mike,
What a great post. I decided a while back that I was an agnostic in the truest sense of the word - one who believes that the existence of God cannot be proven. God wants all of us to be agnostics and thus to come to Him in faith. “Those who come to God must BELIEVE that he is and that he is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.” If we KNOW that he exists, we wouldn’t make this wonderful, lifelong, unfolding search.
Cindy
Clint and Luke,
You may be missing my point.
When I speak of “authenticity” and “defense mechanisms” and the “narcotic functions” of faith, I am approaching the issues existentially.
What my questions speak to are the issues of existential courage, acting in bad faith (Sartre’s “mauvaise foi”), and the courage-to-be (from Tillich). My questions about life in a God-less universe are meant to be exploratory tools to confront those issues (e.g., Are Christians existentially courageous? If they are, how would we know? Can faith even be existentially courageous?). These seem like worthy questions to put on the table. Yes?
Richard B
Yes I agree some Christians have a self serving faith (Matt. 7: 21-23). I am not sure I agree with your test questions. If a life is only suffering with no joy or peace, the only thing that makes it worth living is hope. Does this make hope dope?
A person who has everything in this life does not need God and therefore can use God as a self justifier.
I do not know that your test questions are true in all circumstances, therefore cannot be used to determine someones “authenticity”.
“Are Christians existentially courageous? If they are, how would we know? Can faith even be existentially courageous?” are great questions and should be explored. If God exists anything we challenge him with will not threaten him or change him. It can only change us. These are questions I struggle with on a regular basis because I have a dog in the hunt.
Thanks for letting a lesser man spar with you.
May I add a few rather important points to the discussion? And, let’s assume that all of us who comment on this post are folks who see the Word of God as final authority for faith and practice. I don’t mention this as an excuse for excluding evidences. Here are my points.
1. The Bible dispels the myth that there are any “honest unbelievers”. Rather, we learn that unbelievers have purposefully exchanged the truth of God for a lie. (Romans 1:25) Remarkably, even when a person has not even heard the message of Jesus and only has “natural revelation”, when he responds negatively he is condemned and “without excuse”. Unbelievers are categorically purposeful rejecters of the truth about God and that is why they are “guilty”.
2. The simple message of the person and work of Jesus is quite enough to prick the heart and bring faith to the heart of any unbeliever. (Romans 1:16, I Corinthians 2:1-5)
3. The evidence that really matters is the resurrection of Jesus. Upon that historical fact Christianity stands, and without it there is no Christianity.
4. Every responsible person either comes to the light of God’s revelation or goes away from it. Those who go away from it do so because their deeds are evil. Jesus said that, I didn’t.
Thanks Mike for the post and your sensible commentary.
Grace and Peace,
Royce Ogle
Clint,
Thanks for your charity in argument. One encounters it rarely in blogland. I too have a dog in this hunt. We are all trying to find a route to authentic faith. Perhaps my questions speak only to a particular faith experience and so should be circumscribed.
Thanks for the conversation. As iron sharpens iron…
I have a change of address.
Mike, I have added you to my blogroll @gracediges.wordpress.com.
Royce
This whole exchange just absolutely mystifies me. If there was ever a “conversation” that would benefit from the second and third chapters of 2nd Timothy, this is it.
The general consensus here is that nobody thinks that they can KNOW that God exists, they can only have FAITH that he exists. This is such a misconstrued definition of faith that one hardly knows where to begin. At least in my opinion, that is.
FAITH, as defined in scripture, is always spoken of in the following context: I KNOW that God exists, and I have FAITH that he will do what he has promised (i.e. Romans ch. 3 & 4, Hebrews 11, James 1:6, etc…). Nowhere in the Bible do I see an argument that comes across “We can’t know that God exists, so we must have faith.” When it speaks of FAITH in those things we cannot see, it is referring to the things that God has done, and the things he will do (i.e. Hebrews 11:1-3). In other words, we have FAITH that the God we KNOW exists made the worlds (though we cannot categorically state HOW), and that He will provide a place for us with him in Heaven if we do what he says (a’ la “…if it were not so, I would have told you.”).
The writers of the scripture certainly didn’t sit around theorizing with statements like “If we KNOW he exists…”. They KNEW, because they had encountered him in person (i.e. Moses, Paul, etc…). Somebody will counter with the argument that we are still operating on a leap of faith because we are working “secondhand”, with the assumption that what Moses wrote was true. Jesus had some choice words for the Pharisees about their lack of belief in what Moses had written (John 5:46)
Brett’s comment: “Thankfully, many Christians recognize this and cringe at the popularity of creationism and the “intelligent design” movements. Dumping these strands of Christian thought by the wayside is a necessity in engaging in intellectually honest conversations with nonbelievers.” Where does one start with that?
1 Timothy 6:20, for one (and not just the KJV translation).
If someone will not accept the first fact we see about God in scripture, what is the point of going any further? What is the point of hiding it, recloaking it in the devil’s language to make it more palatable to an unbeliever? I find it fascinating that Genesis, John, and the great FAITH treatise of Hebrews all start with the creation of the world (or before), and that Jesus was the instrument of that creation.
I know I’m going to be slammed mercilessly about this post (based on past experience here), but nothing about this conversation fits the description that Jesus gave of faith in Mark chapter 10 (”…as a little child…”), and seems like so much “vain babblings”, and “foolish and unlearned questions” that “produce quarrels”.
I wish that someone would tell me why they can’t (or refuse to) come as a “little child”. Why is everyone so obsessed with the arguments and “viewpoints” of unbelievers, nuanced theological conundrums postulated by questionable believers, and armchair philosophy/theology that goes nowhere but in endless circles, never arriving at the bedrock truth that God IS. Please…somebody tell me why this has to be so complicated. Is there any doubt why so many people look at us and say, “Why would I want to be a part of that? They can’t even agree on the plain written word!”.
I won’t take issue specifically with Royce’s claims because they were directed toward those for whom the Bible is a “final authority” (which wouldn’t include me). I would however ask if the other Christians in this forum agree with Royce. Are all believers dishonest? (If yes, how do you define dishonest?)
Should the message of Jesus alone convict me and everyone else, regardless of culture? Are all those who disbelieve “God’s revelation” doing so because their deeds are evil? This is rather strong language of course, and in the absence of disagreement from other posters, should I fairly assume that others agree with Royce?
I think you can understand how your responses to these questions will influence how non-Christians interpret your beliefs and interact with you. Maybe holding such beliefs could possibly get in the way of (as Matt put it) “putting the gospel on display” in one’s personal life. I might go far as to say that calling everyone who disagrees with you automatically “dishonest” without knowing them might qualify for a label of “judgmental.” Would you?
Beaner- while I agree that Reason to Believe is not as anti-science as most creationist outfits, I still see it as doing a disservice to the scientific enterprise by mixing science and faith. For example, on their Myths about RTB page, they feel the need to defend science against critics from the belief camp. RTB apparently asserts that while there are lots of transitional fossils (like hominids before humans), God didn’t use those to make humans- instead he intervened at the last minute and created man from scratch. That hardly seems scientific, much less reasonable.
So I have mixed feelings. I’m extremely happy you like Ross more than, say, Kent Hovind, but I think the subtle mixing of faith into science at Reasons to Believe may be even more insidious. If science is in anyway correlated to the free airing of opposing views (which is arguably more true in online communities than in peer-reviewed journals, where there is a requirement for sufficient evidence for an opposing view) then you’d think Ross would at least give a response or include some links to the Secular Web (read this page) as they have done for him.
Fantastic discussion.
Too many approaches to apologetics treat Christianity like an objective theory that can be studied, debated, and examined under a microscope. If it holds up to this kind of intense scrutiny, then it is worthy of belief. The problem with this is that Christianity and the God it claims to reveal is not an static object that will hold still for us. It is a subject that participates in the conversation with us. One doesn’t “understand” Christianity by holding it at arms length and studying it. One comes to understand it by inhabiting it as a living Tradition (in the best sense of the word).
Newbigin writes about this in “Proper Confidence” and his argument is built on Polanyi’s stuff (I think). It’s been a while since I’ve read it, but if I’m remembering correctly, I think Newbigin would invite a skeptic to join him in living out the way of Christ as a way of studying its validity. There’s power in the telling of the story, but its even more powerful to actually inhabit the story.
Newbigin also said that the most powerful hermeneutic of the gospel was a community of people living as if they really believed it was true.
18 “He who believes in Him (Christ) is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed” (John 3:18-20)
Who shall I believe, this or the unbveliever?
“The fool has said in his heart,
“There is no God.” (Psalm 14:1b)
Only a fool can observe the design, order, continuim, and beauty of creation and not recognize a Creator. Expressly for that fool, Christ suffered death by crucifixion, spilled His blood, so that fool could be cleansed of all sins and be made a partaker of the divine nature, which is eternal life. He offers as a free gift, forgiveness, the removal of guilt, and love without measure. He will raise from the dead those former fools who have received the forgiveness and love given to those who trust in Jesus to do what He has promised.
Jesus is the most loving being who ever lived and yet the most intolerant. “I am the way, the truth, and the life and no man comes to the father (God) but by me” are His words to mankind.
One does not have to believe the law of gravity for it to work every time. In the same way, what one believes about the Bible, Christ, and God’s redemptive plan does not change the truth. Each of us has an appointment with death, and after death the judgement. Those who have embraced Christ live forever, those who have refused His love die forever.
Crisp, clear, easy to grasp, truth.
Grace and Peace,
Royce Ogle
Royce,
“And, let’s assume that all of us who comment on this post are folks who see the Word of God as final authority for faith and practice.”
I do not accept the Bible as final authority either. By the way, final authority of what? I do like gravity however.
I don’t believe the world was created in 7 days, Christ arose from the dead (if he did and ascended, he must have frozen and asphyxiated at about 35,000 ft), he was more than a man, etc… yet I am still a Christian. Maybe a foolish one, but not because I don’t hold to the above beliefs.
Mike…you are truly a gifted opener of worm cans
A few random comments….
- There is nothing new under the sun. Read G.K. Chesterton’s “The Everlasting Man” written in 1925. Though it is written in a style that would be considered abrasive by today’s standards, it covers a great deal of the topics discussed in this thread. This book was written at a time when science was on the march and the relatively new theory of evolution had dealt a severe blow to belief in God by any thinking Englishman. This book (written by a former atheist) was instrumental in the conversion of C.S. Lewis (another former atheist). Why is it that the most powerful defenders of Christianity seem to be those who have abandoned the atheistic faith? Read The Everlasting Man….two or three times.
Having said that, I think that it is very important that we remind ourselves of exactly what it is that makes us “foolish” in the eyes of the world. It is very easy (especially here in Abilene) to forget that our belief system is viewed as foolishness by many in this world and heretical by many others. I was raised in the coC by parents who made sure we were there every Sunday (a.m. & p.m.) and Wednesday. To this day, I am at a loss to explain the complete lack of training at home or in the church to prepare me for the attacks I would encounter on my faith upon entering the world. Why do we not prepare our young people for the arguments they will encounter against the faith?…either by an atheist, or a follower of Budhism, Islam…etc. etc.? I encountered all of these completely unprepared. I watched many of my friends (even my own brother who is now a Budhist) abandon the faith because they were not prepared. Ironically, it was an elderly atheists (my employer in college) whom I credit for saving my faith….not the church. Needless to say, this was not his intention. We have to be willing to address this in church…not just in blogs.
Now having said that….let me contradict myself a little, and agree with Kerry’s comment above. Having spent a GREAT deal of time reading the opposition literature and in loving debate with friends/family members who are either atheist or pantheistic, there does come a time that one must “shake the dust” off one’s feet. Not in a judgmental or hateful way…but in a humble resignation. Otherwise, you begin to dilute your own faith in attempting to make it easier to swallow for those you love. At this point, the only evidence of any value is the fruits of the Christian life.
Furthermore, and this also speaks to Kerry’s comment….what exactly is the point of the continuing debate with Brent Keller on this subject? Brent has stated that “dumping these strands of Christian thought by the wayside is a necessity in engaging in intellectually honest conversations with nonbelievers. ” This statement is nonsense. Brent is saying that if I will first renounce every foolish belief that I hold, then we can have an honest conversation?…a conversation about what? The foolishness is exactly what I believe. I think an intellectual conversation is that last thing Brent is looking for.
In the end, much of this conversation/debate probably would continue even if we were all standing on frontier of heaven in the presence of saints. There is just such a scene in the “The Great Divorce” by C.S. Lewis involving an apostate priest’s debate with a fellow clergyman which chillingly illustrates the end result of many of these “conversations”.
Finally, I find it very enlightening that the atheist movement directs the great majority of its wrath at the Christian religion. Why is this? Surely the facts and the evidence that are available to any rational atheist today would convince them that the greatest threat to civilized society and the rights of women, children, etc. exists in the radical elements of another great eastern religion. Where are the atheistic attacks on this religion? Could it be that they are afraid to do so? If so, point made. Christianity is an easy target…but the other great religions are full of hypocrites, liars, miracles, genocides, and all of the other foolishness that is continually pointed out the history of Christendom. But it seems that Christianity is the only religion taken serious enough to be continually attacked by the atheist. I wonder why.
Thanks again Mike
What is so great about the book “Letters From Skeptic” and why it is better than “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” is that it takes the whole span of apologetics and places it within the context of a loving relationship.
The loving relationship is a given in this book. Whether or not dad converts, love is there. Openess, honesty, bluntness, compassion. There was nothing one could say to the other that would make their love any less.
So in a sense, there are two apologetics going on in this book, as opposed to just one. There was the content apologetics - logical arguments, textual criticism, etc, but then there was the process apologetics. Love waas what compelled the son to risk the conversation and then have it in a very respectful way. He was not impatient and quick to give up. He was not defiant or angry when dad didn’t convert right away.
Great way to apologetics. Get the book.
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 toda