Over at Ebon Musings, one atheist writer offers a challenge to theists who claim that all atheists are closed-minded and exhibit their own brand of fundamentalism. Although he (I’m calling the write a “he” for brevity’s sake alone) must agree that there are closed-minded atheists who are fundamentalists, I think he is right to defend the possibility that not all atheists are the same. To prove that he is open-minded, he is willing to convert if he could be convinced of the truth of any particular religion.
I would like to comment on the article. He puts two categories that proof would fall under: the first category deals with “things that would absolutely convince me of the truth of a particular religion“. He says that he would “convert on the spot” if any of these could be shown to him: verifiable fulfillment of prophecies that couldn’t have been contrived; scientific knowledge in holy books that wasn’t available at the time; miraculous occurrences, especially if brought about through prayer; any direct manifestation of the divine; aliens who believed in exactly the same religion. The second category he calls “circumstantial evidence“, which, if he was shown any of these, might cause him to rethink his position even if he doesn’t convert: a genuinely flawless and consistent holy book; a religion without internal disputes or factions; a religion who’s followers have never committed or taken part in atrocities; a religion that had a consistent record of winning its jihads and holy wars. The third category deals with things that would not convince him at all: speaking in tongues or other pseudo-miracles; people’s conversion stories; any subjective experience; the Bible Code or other numerological feats, creationism of any sort.
That’s the summary of his article. Frankly, I like it and generally agree with all his points. I don’t believe in God because of any of the items in the first category (verifiable proofs). Neither do the items in his second category (“circumstantial evidence”) impress me to stay or leave. And his third category are incidental. They don’t matter.
I totally identify with something that T.F. Torrance wrote in his important work, Theological Science:
If I may be allowed to speak personally for a moment, I find the presence and being of God bearing upon my experience and thought so powerfully that I cannot but be convinced of His overwhelming reality and rationality. To doubt the existence of God would be an act of sheer irrationality, for it would mean that my reason had become unhinged from its bond with real being. Yet in knowing God I am deeply aware that my relation to Him has been damaged, that disorder has resulted in my mind, and that it is I who obstruct knowledge of God by getting in between Him and myself, as it were. But I am also aware that His presence presses unrelentingly upon me through the disorder of my mind, for He will not let Himself be thwarted by it, challenging and repairing it, and requiring of me on my part to yield my thoughts to His healing and controlling revelation.
What Torrance writes cannot be proven or documented scientifically. “God” has pressed upon my life and my mind. It is beyond science. Beyond knowledge. Beyond proof. Like I wrote yesterday, even the most impressive and seemingly perfect arguments for or against God are limited. There is a Wisdom that is beyond all human thought and discussion. I realize that this will be frustrating to some atheists who see it as another subjective theistic cop-out and to some theists as a cowardly compromise. My response will be unsatisfying to everyone, even me. Of this other Wisdom that presses upon me, what more can be said?
The painting, “Face Emerging From Tree“, is the creation of my artist friend Tina Newlove.
Contributions to nakedpastor are greatly appreciated.
David Hayward is an artist trapped in a pastor's body, stripping to the essential.
TTM,
No problem. If you’d like to leave our little debate where it is, fair enough. I can’t say that your conclusions are without reason, but I do think your reasoning is flawed and your assumptions ill-informed. However, if, as you say, you are content with them at the moment, then that’s up to you. If you change your mind, I urge you to read about evolution from the scientists who work on it, not intelligent design advocates interpretations of it.
You are welcome at my website any time. If you ever want to resume, my contact details are on it
)
All the best.
Chris said; At this point in my life I am comfortable with my current conclusions…
Chris, excellent point. I was a bible believer for 25 years. The first 6-8 years I was fairly comfortable. The last 15+ were not so good. I think it is because of those last years that I began to look.
You are not looking, with regard to the validity of your faith. Why, because you are happy with it. If it is working for you, why would you want to investigate it further?
My faith was enjoyable only for a while. Then I started to experience many feelings of guilt, doubt, frustration, all as a result of my dissatisfaction with my own “spiritual walk”.
But for a person who feels, perhaps, a closeness with his God, why would they want to tamper (question) with that just because some stranger asks them to. Why indeed.
My girlfriend is a Christian. She attends church every Sunday morn. Once a month or so, I’ll go with her. I feel so incredibly out of place there. She is fully aware of my atheism (but holds out hope).
She and I never talk about her faith or my former faith. She is not looking. She is happy where she is. As long as she is ok with the idea of me going to hell, why would I want to tamper with her contentment.
But, and it is a large but, if she was to ever ask me some questions, start looking, for what ever reason, I would gladly, gently, express to her my thoughts on religious faith.
So, I can honestly say that I think it would be best for us all if we never connect to the internet again…unless we are looking.
ps- if anyone would like to read my short journal, perhaps to get an idea of what the thought process is of a fundamentalist believer turning into an atheist, feel free to read mine here:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rsjcmsweatt/journal_intro.htm
It is a short read due to my lack of discipline. Feedback is welcome.
lets_reason@yahoo.com
Randy, I appreciate your candor. However, you statement about my walk in faith is out of context and misses the mark by a lot. My comfort that I speak of has to do with my conclusions about evolution vs. God. It definitely doesn’t reflect my whole experience as a Christian. Far from it. I was dragged back into my faith kicking and screaming, no longer able to deny the power of God in my life.
“You are not looking, with regard to the validity of your faith. Why, because you are happy with it. If it is working for you, why would you want to investigate it further?”
On the contrary. The past year of my life has been a constant struggle to separate my doubts and my beliefs from my reason and faith. I am getting more comfortable with my faith because I have approached it from the idea that it is all false and that I shouldn’t believe any of it. So far I have ended up where I started and that is believe what every fiber of my contentiousness tells me. He is right here and I have to deal with it whether I wanted to or not. I read some of your journal and I agree with a lot of the problematic issues concerning the different denominations and man’s interpretation of the word of God and ideas about what a church should look like. I’ll save that for me and you, though. I will read more and send you an email.
Chris: On the contrary. The past year of my life has been a constant struggle to separate my doubts and my beliefs from my reason and faith.
I guess I was just going on your statement of being comfortable with your conclusions. Didn’t mean to generalize your Christian experience.
Again, I must say that I am impressed with the quality and humanity of this dialogue. If we can continue conversing without converting, I think we are on to something.
I’m with you on that one David.
Chris:
The YEC is born from the desire to come up with something science-like to support the bible, so it is because of those few pages in the bible, that you do not agree with Randy (and me).
YEC is much more full of holes than evolution. If YEC was right modern science including the fields of at least physichs, chemistry, geology, biology and astronomy would be wrong and like Randy implied those fields are integrated parts of modern medicine, computers, telecommunication, transportation (indluding spacetravel), massproduction, energyproduction, modern foodproduction etc.
And you do use your computer and the internet and probably satelite tv, transportation beyond horseriding, mobile phones etc.
You and others mention aids, flu and cold. There adaptability is really evolution in action. It is definitely not the same as a fox changing to winterdress. One fox has genes which are being expressed in the ability to change furcolor, because evolution has favoured foxes that are brown/red in sommer and white in winter. One virus-particle doesn’t change color, but as it procreates mutations in that process can make the resulting child-virus differ from the parent-virus, so that the child-virus is capable of infecting a human as well as the original host thereby opening the possibility for a new human disease. This is the probable story for the HIV/aids-virus, birdflu-virus and others.
You say that the laws of angular momentum tells us that a bigbang should mean all objects in the solarsystem should rotate in the same direction. That is plain wrong.
The main direction of rotation in a solarsystem depends on the way the original gascloud condensed. Two solarsystems born nearby each other can very well rotate in two different directions and besides that the two planes of rotation would probably be at some angle to oneanother. All this has absolutely nothing at all to do with a bigbang.
We do not know how the laws of the universe came to be, but I asure you that you do not explain anything at all by saying that a god wrote them. If I say I have a 5000 years old book claiming the Great Big Pink Unicorn with Golden Ears wrote these laws I have explained nothing. How did the GBPUwGE come into existance? How did it become so powerfull as to create universes? How can this claim help me with farming, new technology, handling natural events, avoid conflicts or understand the world around me?
If you really want to search for more facts and explanations based on facts and well-founded theories I will encourage you to search the web, libraries and museums. Here are some good places to start on evolution:
Books:
Finding Darwin’s God by Kenneth R. Miller
This book is said to be good if you are a christian trying to form an opinion on evolution, but I have not read that myself yet I should say. I intend to, though.
Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins
If you have heard that Richard Dawkins is a militant atheist, then it is wrong. Try and read his books with an open mind. You might not agree with him, but I can’t see a theist should feel offended by his writings unless they feel religious faith should be excempt from criticism and when he does that he Ãsn’t even arrogant. He just points out his opinions and points to the facts.
The web:
talkorigins.org
scienceblogs.com/pharyngula
sandwalk.blogspot.com
http://www.antievolution.org/cs
If I don’t find the time in the next couple of days to get into this discussion again I would just like to say to all of you: Thanks for a good tone and friendly exchange of opinions. If all conflicts in the world could be put on that track it would be a wonderfull world. I have learned from this experience, and to me the charm of living is to love and learn, so we are halfway there
.
Randy, it’s interesting to note that your girlfriend thinks you are going to hell. Does she also believe that you deserve to go to hell? Are you ok with that yourself? I refer to the idea that your girlfriend, who presumably loves you, may think you deserve eternal punishment. I’m not sure I would be comfortable with that. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.
Well after reading through a few dozen messages, and then getting a little tired, there seems to be a pattern, at least to my little mind.
Atheists are heartless!
We’re always knocking down others’ sentimental experiences and blowing the cold wind of logic into the warm hearths of believers’ hearts. Not necessarily in tone or by being insulting (thankfully there’s been relatively little of that from both sides), but in that we require and unashamedly DEMAND real, objective evidence.
In comparison, most of the believers’ claims I’m reading here are of the romantic variety – divine valentines. Kinda’ like that kid who tells pre-schoolers there’s no Santa Claus just to make ‘em cry.
There’s some talk about atheism being a belief system and that we CHOOSE to believe a certain way. My response is that if being an atheist means anything, it means that Reason is supreme. Not that we “worship” it but that we use it, relentlessly, ruthlessly, holding nothing too sacred for scrutiny.
It’s not a choice. I follow the FACTS wherever they lead. If the facts told me that a giant dog spat up the universe, I’d be a Caninite.
I implore everyone here to use your intellects without restraint or bias and to boldly pursue answers without fear of where the trek may lead. Learn all you can about the Bible, evolution, comparative religion, and anything else. Don’t be complacent by thinking you already know the answers – you just never know.
My two cents.
Tobe38:
I think you may have incorrectly attributed the “I am content” quote to me when it was actually stated and later amended by someone else….
By the way, though many hours passed since our last conversation, I am not giving you the cold shoulder. I spent my day in various governmental offices trying to deal with some issues. And though it wasn’t as bad as I anticipated, I’d much rather have been here conversing about and considering these issues.
Thank you for the formal invitation to your website. I’ve already looked at some things there, but didn’t announce my presence with a comment. I also appreciate your recommendations about what and how to read as I explore the evolution/creation debate further.
Regarding your last comment yesterday to me, I’ll try to answer some of the questions you asked.
I’m not sure I explained my idea about God revealing Himself bit by bit very well. In my opinion, God wants to have a personal relationship with every human being who has ever existed, exists now, or will exist. But (also in my humble opinion) He doesn’t force Himself upon anyone nor does He hide out in a corner waiting for us to come to Him. The way I see it (And I expect many–whether theist or atheist–will not see it this way.), God is like a mysterious woman in a crowded bar.
She isn’t flashing an overabundance of skin, though she isn’t wearing a burqah either. She observes the surroundings and orders a drink. She dances. She chats. She watches. She listens. And, if some attractive man should make eye contact and raise his brows, she might quickly look away and then look back to see if he is still staring at her. If he is, she might smile and lean toward him a bit. She might uncross and re-cross her legs making sure the slit in the skirt inches just a little higher. This flash of flesh intrigues him and he offers to buy her another drink.
They strike up a conversation. She may brush up against his body. His hand may linger on the small of her back. This little game of seduction fuels both of their interests and get them excited about the possibilites for further interaction.
If she glances up at him and finds his eyes have strayed to another woman, she pulls away a bit. Or she may get a little more competitive, kind of catty with this other woman, trying to prove to the chap that she’s the better alternative. Which in some cases turns him off because he doesn’t really like to be told where to look or how to choose. And in some cases he might really like that–two women fighting over him! (Yep, he’s still got it!)
This game of seduction may or may not result in a longterm relationship, but if it does, I would be willing to bet that even ten years down the road there are still things that this man and woman are learning about one another that they didn’t know previously. Even things that they would have never anticipated or expected from the one they thought they knew so well. To me, that slow unveiling–seduction, if you will, is similar to how God operates with us.
You said if God were not to put it all out there right away He is condemning millions of innocent people to death. I don’t agree. I have never seen a woman stand in a public place, remove all of her clothing, reveal herself entirely and say “Come and get it boys. What you see is what you get!” If I did, I would assume she is either drunk or desperate! And I think most men would be turned off by that lack of mystery as well (but I could be very wrong about that…since I have not always had a great track record understanding men!)
Relationships are two-sided. God has a part. We have a part. When people do not show interest in Him, why should He be held responsible for that? If someone shows interest, He responds. If someone continues to blow Him off, He may or may not respond in kind. But that doesn’t make Him disingenous, does it?
Regarding your comment about people dying because they can’t agree on who or what God is, I share your frustration and sadness. When people kill in the name of God it makes me wonder how and why God allows things to get to that point. And I pray that somehow the senseless killing will stop.
You said, that “if God is able to step in and stop all the fighting and death, but chooses not to, he is evil.” Hmmm…I don’t know how to respond to that. Really.
There is much about God I don’t understand. I know on a theoretical, doctrinal level that the blood sacrifices of animals in the Old Testament had to involve the shedding of blood because those sacrifices, commanded but not eternally sufficient to cleanse the people of sin, pointed to–and were a pre-shadowing of the shedding of the sacrifice that WAS eternally sufficient–that of Christ. But on an emotional level, it seems that God appears quite bloodthirsty and cruel.
I understand on a theoretical level that God commanded lepers and other “defective” (God’s word–not mine!) humans to live on the outskirts of society so that there would not be massive epidemics wiping out His people. But on an emotional level, it pains me to think that God himself declared some untouchable or defective or unable to approach the holiest of places.
In the Old Testament God definitely is depicted as choosing some and rejecting others. This I do not understand at all. Some Christians today–strict Calvinists–believe that God predetermines who is chosen for salvation and who is not. It seems to me, Tobe38, that you if you were a Christian, you might share this view since you have alluded to God’s unfairness in revealing Himself to some and not all. The difference is the Calvinists are okay with that and you are not. Since I don’t consider myself a Calvinist or an Arminian–I really can’t address why that is.
There is much I don’t understand about God. But I tend to believe, because of what I stated above, that is simply because He is revealing Himself to me bit by bit. Just as I would not expect to know every characteristic of a friend or lover or to explain every motivation for their behavior or to approve of every act which they commit or fail to commit, I don’t expect to know those things about God. Perhaps my expectations are too low. But my relationship with God is good–even great. Because we have shared so much…because I believe Him to be a big, teddy bear under the sometimes rough exterior…because He protects me and is there for me…because I have seen Him sacrifice for others…I cannot even conceive of Him being evil.
I agree with you that the god of Muslims is not the God I worship. I would say that our faiths shared a common ancestry…the Christian faith coming through Abraham’s son, Isaac and the Muslim faith coming through Abraham’s son, Ishmael. The religions have much in common…but I believe you are right when you say we do not share the same God.
After spending part of yeterday and today running from governmental department to department, I might have to disagree with your statement that “No human being can cause an infinite amount of suffering.” Just kidding! Sometimes I think we are all blind to the suffering each of us does cause. Even one ill-spoken word can cause someone years of unspeakable suffering. Again, I believe you are right in your assessment that God appears to disagree that the punishment should fit the crime when it comes to eternity.
From a human point of view it seems ridiculous that a human being could torture, maim, and kill others relentlessly during her lifetime or that he could sexually abuse child after child with no remorse and then upon a sincere deathbed confession of Jesus Christ as Savior, be granted eternal life, no questions asked.
It also seems quite hard to swallow that a person could spend his or her life helping the poor, counseling the down and out, building homes for Habitat for Humanity, giving millions to charitable causes, assisting those with disabilities and mental health issues, and without a sincere acceptance of Jesus Christ as Savior, be doomed to eternal condemnation and suffering, no getting out early for good behavior.
This doesn’t make sense to my human mind. But I didn’t establish the rules. God did. I can question them (which I often have), I can get pissed that God’s way of doing things means makes my friendships difficult, and I can tell God “I wouldn’t have done it that way” to which He shrugs and says, “I know. You are not me.”
I think we shall have to agree to disagree on the issue of omniscience and free will. I do not believe that one precludes the other. Perhaps I believe this in error, but at this point it is where I’m at. And I appreciate your comments which help me move further forward in understanding my own beliefs better.
On the slavery issue, I think we would both benefit from doing a bit more research before continuing the discussion. Your questions have me pondering whether I have really understood slavery as it was in Bible times and in recent years. I stand by my perspective at this point that “slavery” in the Bible was more a type of employment that was often voluntary. In fact, God commanded the Israelites to free all slaves every fourteen years or fifty years or something like that…like I said, let’s shelve that discussion for now. I can’t speak with any accuracy on the issue until I’ve done more research.
You made the comment, “If the Bible offers us the perfect morals it is often claimed to teach, IT SHOULD condemn all forms of slavery, clearly and unequivolcally.”
To that I say, “Why?”
Some in the atheist camp have suggested that Christians are unreasonable because they say “If evolution offers us the perfect explanation of how life originated and adapted to its current form, and is true, IT SHOULD, line up with the Bible’s explanation of the same.”
Christians are sometimes lambasted for demanding that evolution meet them on their terms within their frame of reference instead of going out of their frame to find the evidence. Aren’t you, by saying what the Bible, should, in your frame of reference, say, doing the same?
I thoroughly appreciate the links you provided to the skepticsannotatedbible! I haven’t had time to study them all, but think it would be interesting for Christians to read them, present counter-opinions, and see if the whole experience changes their understanding of who God is.
Thank you for continuing the dialogue, tobe38. I am really enjoying the opportunity to understand where you are coming from.
L. Neilsen,
Ok, I’ll let myself be drawn out one more time. In case you can’t tell, I have soft spot for honest skeptics.
“The YEC is born from the desire to come up with something science-like to support the bible, so it is because of those few pages in the bible, that you do not agree with Randy (and me).
YEC is much more full of holes than evolution.”
To these I said the following:…….(YEC) This theory, like evolution, can be punched full of holes.
I didn’t say I bought YEC, I referenced it as a comparison to evolution. Neither of which, I feel, stand on their own. Also, I didn’t mention the virus’s, I only responded to Randy’s proposal on this one with my own views.
On angular momentum you are not accurately restating the point I made on this. The gas cloud you bring up is useful to the discussion though. Most of the stuff I’ve read says that a planet’s moons come from the same gas cloud and therefore should spin in the same direction. But there are several moons in our solar system that spin opposite of their host. Again, not proof against evolution, but a compelling point to bring in some doubt.
Also it is not from just those few pages that I disagree with you but from many pages;
“These pages mean more to me because they are backed up by everyday life experiences. They are backed up by millions of pages produced by theologians and lay people alike for the past six thousand plus years.”
“We do not know how the laws of the universe came to be, but I asure you that you do not explain anything at all by saying that a god wrote them. If I say I have a 5000 years old book claiming the Great Big Pink Unicorn with Golden Ears wrote these laws I have explained nothing.”
Surely saying that God wrote them doesn’t explain it away, nor would I contend that it does. However, somehow the laws came to be and science can’t explain why, therefore it leaves the theory of evolution in question. I believe I found the answer outside the realm of science. Science describe behaviors in animals that can’t, yet, be scientifically explained with one word. Instinct. So I feel instinctively that there is something else at work where science fails.
As far as the books, I’ve read those and I did not find anything in them that has changed my conclusions or beliefs. I like to think of myself as open minded and willing to consider everything, but at this point I feel confident that I will be of the same opinion in the end. In all of the debates I have been involved in with atheist, no one has been able to come up with anything new that I haven’t already taken time to consider. Further, my life experiences have lead me to conclude that God does in fact exist and has considerable influence on me personally. I let you know if that changes. Thanks for adding, I’ve enjoyed it, but I think it is time to bow out of the discussion and return to my studies.
TTM,
Wow! Thank you for taking the time to write a response that was as detailed as it was candid.
Forgive me for not responding point to point. I’m confident that in terms of rationality, I can respond to most of your post in one paragraph: nearly everything you say commits the same logical fallacy – begging the question. Every argument you make stems from the assumption that God exists, and this is what you are supposed to be trying to prove.
I do love your analogy of God being a woman in a bar, but we are back to the same problems. I can perceive a woman in a bar with my senses – all of them. I can perceive a God with none of my senses (and I’m talking the 5 we know about, not speculative extras). This is a crucial difference.
In answer to your question “why?”.
Because the Bible is claimed to be morally perfect, and we know slavery is immoral. Back to logic, we can’t have it both ways. Either the Bible is not morally perfect, or slavery is not wrong.
We don’t claim that evolution is the perfect explanation, but we do claim that it is the best explanation we have. If, for the sake of argument, evolution is true, then creationism is false. True explanations don’t ‘line up’ with false explanations. Your argument is simply reversible – if Genesis offers the perfect explanation of how we were created, why doesn’t it line up with evolution?
To meet Christianity on their own terms is to do so on faith alone, without evidence. If we do this, anything goes and there can’t be a meaningful discussion. We may as well just say Santa Claus paid the tooth fairy to build us out of magic tooth glitter.
If you don’t mind me saying, I sense a lot of doubt mixed in with your faith. You even say as much yourself. You are what we tend to call a cherry picker (not derogatory) i.e. you pick the bits of the Bible you like and disregard the rest. How do you know you are picking the right bits? Why not just disregard the whole lot and decide for youself what your purpose is and what the best way to live your life is? You strike me as a very good, caring person. Do you need a God to please? A heaven to aim for and a Hell to avoid? Isn’t the satisfaction of doing the right thing because it’s the right thing enough? I think you are very honest and open minded, and I would be genuinely interested to hear your answers. My discussions with Christians don’t normally get this fa!
Do you think it’s worth carrying this on via email? I don’t really mind either way, but I feel our discussion may have gone beyond the scope of the original post.
thanks again.
Tobe38:
Since the discussion has taken some interesting twists and turns away from the original comment and an athiest’s request for proof for the existence of God, and since many of your questions asked for answers from my point of view; I felt I was within the parameters of our dialogue to present my explanations “as if” God exists.
In order to continue a meaningful discussion about the Bible and slavery, I believe we would first need an agreed upon definition of “moral” and some kind of agreement as to who determines what is moral and how that determination is made.
I think it might surprise you to know that many Christians do not consider doubt the deathknell of their personal faith. In my opinion, doubt is not necessarily the harbinger of Christian defeat. In many cases doubt drives my curiosity to learn more. And in many cases my learning only strengthens my faith. I do not want to assign doubt more value than it is due. Doubt is merely uncertainty.
I feel that sometimes non-believers use the concept of doubt to trap Christians into an untenable position. If Christians say they are “certain” of their faith– they are arrogant, intolerant, and close-minded. If they say they their belief system contains “uncertainty” they are ignorant fools who have abandoned reason.
This is only one of many reasons why Christians choose not to dialogue with atheists, agnostics, and rationalists.
Cherry-picker? I don’t think so. I do not disregard any bits of the Bible. I just don’t feel adequate yet in understanding each jot and tittle. Honestly, a man of your intellectual stature and prowess in logic needs a sparring partner with whom you are more evenly matched. I feel like a lightweight in the heavyweight division; this statement is not driven by a need to appear humble or to “earn points” with God or those longsuffering Christians still reading this thread by turning the other cheek and being meek.
With enough training, perhaps I would feel confident having another go at things in the ring with you. For the time being, I would prefer to enjoy your sport from outside the ring. But I would love a ringside seat so I might have a clear view of your fancy footwork!
I am very grateful for your standing invitation to come on over and check things out at your site. And for the special invitation to re-enter the ring via email.
I wish you the very best, tobe38. Your conversation has done much to challenge my thinking and to encourage me to boldly explore the issues we discussed. Thanks.
@ nakedpastor Again, I must say that I am impressed with the quality and humanity of this dialogue. If we can continue conversing without converting, I think we are on to something.
This is the first online conversation I’ve observed where both sides actually engaged with each other. It’s also been refreshingly troll-free. That says a lot about the quality of the online community you attract to your blog, David.
I’m reminded of some of the points Alonzo Fyfe was making in this post:
http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2007/03/priorities-and-bottom-49.html
@ Chris At this point in my life I am comfortable with my current conclusions and, barring any new earth shattering evidence or sound deliberation, I will stick to this and focus my time and energy on other disciplines and studies.
That’s not too far from my own position. I’ve been an atheist for 17 years. I’d like to think that I know what I’m talking about, although I need to be vigilant about policing my assumptions and “beliefs”.
As I stated before, I feel these debates are useless and they almost never result in the changing of anyone’s mind. I repost this over at ebon’s as well. Thanks for calling me out on that one!
I can understand why you think that these debates are useless. They certainly can consume huge amounts of time and energy. I’ve had my own clashes which have actually left me depressed for a short time.
On the other hand, if you keep a light touch and don’t try to ‘win’, it might be useful to remember that the party you’re most likely to reach isn’t the one you’re having the debate with.
schemanista,
Again, excellent point my friend! I had not considered that there are others who are probably being influenced a great deal on both sides of this issue. It tempts me to continue to engage in this debate, but I begin a new class tomorrow and I have to move on. Thanks for the authentic insight and dialog, its been a real treat.
Darren: Randy, it’s interesting to note that your girlfriend thinks you are going to hell. Does she also believe that you deserve to go to hell? Are you ok with that yourself? I refer to the idea that your girlfriend, who presumably loves you, may think you deserve eternal punishment. I’m not sure I would be comfortable with that. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.
Darren, that is probably the main source of what little contention there is in our relationship (though we have discussed it very little, so the contention is mostly in my head). She is not sold on the idea that hell awaits all unbelievers, but, at the same time, she loves her church, where that is indeed preached. Honestly, my dear Linda is a simple lady, not stupid, but I think she does not take “doctrine” as seriously as I did when I was a believer.
We both came into this relationship fully aware of our differences. I am rather disturbed that she could love and worship a God who, according to my interpretation (or possibly misinterpretation) of what the bible says, would send me to eternal torment where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth, simply because I can not find it within myself to believe in him. But I don’t think it is something she really thinks about much. She has many associations with Christians, and she can well see, and often tells me that I am a “better person” than so many of them. So, I can only hope that she is realizing that being a Christian does not make one a better person…in this life anyway
Polly:Well after reading through a few dozen messages, and then getting a little tired, there seems to be a pattern, at least to my little mind.
Atheists are heartless!
Polly, what wonderful thoughts. I have been a non believer for almost eight years now. I have wasted, I don’t know how many hours, trying to convince believers that they are wasting their time worshiping a non existent god. I am just now, in the past few weeks, coming to realize that, if I can’t contribute to another persons happiness, then I have nothing to contribute. I slip up from time to time. I even slipped recently, right here. It is taking a while for me to recognize it when it is happening. You know, some silly believer explaining why he or she is a believer
And without them even asking me to give my opinion, I chime in, attempting to shine the bright light of my incredibly vast knowledge of the innermost workings of their shallow, emotionally driven intellect. I am so full of it.
A couple weeks ago, I had to ask the vet to put a cat down. It had wondered up at my girlfriends home several months earlier, cold and starving. We added him to the three cats and four dogs that were already in residence. But poor Bootsy had contracted an always fatal virus. Linda and I tried our best to extend his life, but the vet told us he would begin to suffer. When he did, I took him in. I sat there in the waiting room, weeping like a child as Bootsy sat there looking at me, skin and bones, vacant eyes. Strangers came over to comfort us both. We had enjoyed Bootsy for only a few months before he began to show signs of the sickness. Why was I, a 49 year old man, so upset at the impending loss of a little cat that I had for only a few months? It really makes no rational sense.
While I am deeply in love with the discovery of facts, I think I am even more in love with what we may never know. Something’s I just want to be able to contemplate. When the facts are made evident, the wonder fades.
So, while I want to respond that I am not heartless, for I can feel it pumping in my chest, I must agree with you.
Randy:
I’m very sorry for your loss. Animals are a source of real ambiguity for humans. We love ‘em to tears (I’m speaking personally as well as generally) but we don’t accord them real “importance.” It’s an uneasy relationship that nevertheless benefits both immensely but the significance thereof can’t be acknowledged for some reason.
–”When the facts are made evident, the wonder fades”
Knowing HOW something works can take away some of the wonder.
An unexpected example: When I used to play classical piano music, I found that invariably, once I learned to play a piece, I enjoyed listening to it much less. It got to the point where I didn’t want to play anything I really liked.
But, when I studied the intricate interplay of the properties of various amino acids to form the kinks and folding patterns of proteins, that was immensely satisfying and introduced me to a beauty I could not have apprehended without specialized knowledge. It made me appreciate life on a whole new level – the mechanics of it.
Reason gives and Reason taketh away, blessed be Reason.
Wow… I must say that I’m just now reading these comments. I read the original post a few days back but didn’t actually follow through for the comments. I wish I had read these earlier. It has been said often in this thread that it has been a great example of engagement — and, even in my nobodiness (I just made that word up — one of my greatest gifts to mankind
), I would like to compliment the spirit (for the Christians) and attitude (for the Atheists) that is resident within the thread.
I have nothing to add because, well, I really like reading what everyone else is saying.
@ ttm:
Regarding doubts: Doubting your religion is also in my opinion a sign of capability to learn, so I think doubt is good. A good scientist will doubt hes own ideas and theories and continue to check up on facts and other developments, which can influence his own findings. Doubt on all things causes one to reexamine ones data and ideas and who knows, one might learn something new. As you say: “In many cases doubt drives my curiosity to learn more.” That is not being close-minded and it is not ignorance or abondoning reason. I certainly agree with you on this. When in doubt one should open up to reason, logic and facts.
On cherrypicking:
If you do not support stoning people working on sundays (and many other things) you do cherrypick the bible. Most christians do. And thank goodness for that.
@ Chris:
Concerning moons spinning the “wrong” way:
Well I can see I left part of my point out. The few objects (moons, asteroids or comets) doing that can be explained rather well by gravitational disruption of orbits under close encounters with other objects, collisions and captures. We might learn that our describtions of the laws of nature need further revisions, and that indeed we already know, but there is nothing indicating that any gods has a place in the universe. You might believe gods have a place, but there is no evidence for it. There is however plenty of evidence suggesting that odd orbits can be explained by the said reasons. And by the way odd orbits has very, very little to do with evolution.
And your
“These pages mean more to me because they are backed up by everyday life experiences. They are backed up by millions of pages produced by theologians and lay people alike for the past six thousand plus years.â€
still falls back on no evidence at all. 2 billion people can be wrong. No one has ever been cured by prayer, holy wells etc. for something wich couldn’t be explained by natural cures. There are still no reliable evidence for ressurection of dead people. There are no reliable evidence that Jesus even existed (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm).
The theory of evolution will be in question if we find some facts that doesn’t add up with the theory, and to the extend that that has happened the theory has been adjusted and thereby it gets better and better. That is the beauty of science. The theory of evolution fits the facts very well and any better theory will have to include fit the facts at least as well. To say that evolution is in qustion, because man can’t explain where the laws of nature comes from is quite frankly… not reasonably (I am trying to be nice here). By the same token the theory of gravity should be in qustion. If there is no evolution there is no gravity. Would you go jump of a cliff? Evolution is being observed every day! That is a fact! Look at the websites I pointed to earlier:
http://www.talkorigins.org
http://www.scienceblogs.com/pharyngula
http://www.sandwalk.blogspot.com
http://www.antievolution.org/cs
Look at what I wrote about viruses. The theory of evolution fits all those cases of factual evolution like a hand in a glove. I am sorry to be this blunt but: Evolution is a fact. Deal with it.
And why do you think this argument of not knowing has anything to do with gods? If we don’t know how something came to be or how something happened religious like to say: “God did it”. This is called the God of the Gaps.
1)
I feel this is demeaning to the human curiosity and thirst for knowledge. Should we really just sit back at say: “God did it. That is all we need to know.”? I certainly will not. I want to learn. I want to se and understand all the wonders of the world. Understanding the mystery of the formation of the solarsystem doesn’t make that any less fantastic to me (we don’t know all yet but it just gets better the more we know). To say that a god did it and leave it there seems so empty. How did she do it? With what? How does her powers work? If she can interact with our universe, we can do science on that interaction.
2)
May I remind you that this God of the Gaps has been steadily on the retreat in the last few thousand years and especially in the last couple of hundred years. Everytime science has new insight the god of the gaps must step aside on that point.
3)
How do you know it wasn’t Thor or the indian Great Spirit who did it?
What makes a christian think it was Jahve who made the universe? How do a muslim know Allah did it? How do a Hindu know it was Brahma?
By the way: Are you religious not the least troubled by the idea that you cannot all be right. In fact as far as I have seen no two religions are compatible, so at the most one will be right. And the rest goes to hell or what?
You are certainly entitled to holding your beliefs and opinions, but I hope I have clarified some things and that you will think about some of the things I have said. Be openminded and visit those websites. And go read the books, too. There is no reason to fear evolution. It is just a part of nature. Good luck with your studies.
@ Randy:
I am very sorry for your loss too. I know exactly how you feel. I am not sure it is irrational to love your cat or dog or canary. Animals including humans are to a variable degree capable of bonding to other beings. An evolutionary explanation could be that both humans, cats, dogs, cows, whatever gets off better by working together (security, comfort, stable foodsupply, pestcontrol). Relationships between species has evolved in many places in nature, so there might very well be completely rational explanations for me weeping like a child when I must say farewell to a cat of ours. Our cats certainly give us pestcontrol, love, fun, comfort and food for thougth. They are great additions to our life and our family.
I cannot agree with you that the wonder fades with discovery. That happens so rarely to me, that I cannot remember when. No, to me the wonder grows with knowledge. The fantastic workings of the stars. The way life evolves. Like Polly mentioned: The workings of proteins and the significance of their folding. The workings of computers. The growing knowledge of the details of the climate on earth fills me with awe that such a place exists (without me looking one bit for a god I should add). The more we know and the more we learn what we don’t know the more I love the universe. It is so fantastic that adding gods to the picture belittles the universe in my opinion.
@ Polly:
“Reason gives and Reason taketh away, blessed be Reason” I love that allthough I think Reason only takes away ignorance and bad arguments.
But certainly: Blessed be Reason, Amen!
And about your “heartless-post”: I think that is exactly right as seen from many religious people. They feel we try to take away their comfort. Well, I really just try to give them confidence and knowledge to break the spell.
Good points, Polly.
Oh, and blessed be the Holy Giant Canine
TTM,
Thanks for the stimulating discussion.
To all,
Thanks for your hospitality and great discussion. Well done to everyone.
This is me signing off from the debate, but you’re all welcome at my blog any time.
All the best.
L. Nielsen:
“Well, I really just try to give them confidence and knowledge to break the spell.”
Exactly, I look on it as sharing the joy.
HGC grant you prosperity.
L. Nielsen: I cannot agree with you that the wonder fades with discovery.
Perhaps with me, knowledge seems to take a little of the magic away, but it does not mean I am now completely satisfied and can sit back and watch re-runs. But for some reason, the unknown, like what is around the corner that I cannot yet see, makes me feel differently, causes some excitement than what was arond the corner behind me, can no longer provide.
But, the antisapation I experience now is so much more intense than I ever felt when I believed that God was around the corner. (sorry…no spell check)
Chris write
“The laws of angular momentum are proven repeatedly in the lab. ”
“So if the big bang happened, then several objects in our solar system are rotating in the wrong direction and thus violating these laws.”
I can’t help but laugh when I read this nonsense.
If you don’t understand that the total angular momentum of a gas cloud is an aggregate quantity, but in fact there are local variations which can give rise to counter-spinning moons, and that in any case gravitational interactions between objects can produce retro-grade orbits then how in heavens name can you pretend to understand something as complex as evolution. And in any case retrograde orbits have nothing to do with the big bang. I bet you can’t even derive the conservation of angular momentum from Newton’s laws.
As for
“Mendel’s genetics are compelling, however, they are not convincing to me. Genetics shows that the more narrow a gene pool is, the higher the likely hood that a negative mutation will occur.”
This is just gibberish!
Who decides if a mutation is “negative” or “positive.”
Random variation produces organism with differential reproductive success rates.
In fact evolution is a mathematical theorem, it HAS to happen (given the hypotheses are satisfied: self replication, transmission of characteristics, random variation, differential reproduction rates)
“Also, the AIDs virus mutation, as-well-as the flu, common cold, etc. etc, are inherent survival mechanisms the the virus possesses. Just like a fox will turn white in winter. These seem to me to be far too clever to have occurred accidentally, but rather, by clear intellectual design. ”
Yeah, and the the blind spot in your eyes is the result of design by an idiot who, curiously, saw fit when “designing” the squid’s eyeball to get the design right and so the squid has no blind spot. Of course in reality this was just “blind luck” on the squib’s part. Or maybe your god is a squid??
http://eddie.mit.edu/~jc/humor/Squid.html
If you want to bluff at science you should do a bit more homework.
I hope people are still interested in this discussion and following it. If one says that nothing will come of this, then nothing will! I’d like to see if I, having just come here, can revitalize the discussion with my replies to some of you.
For the record, I’m 20 and have been an atheist for 4-5 years. Before that, I would classify myself as having been a Methodist.
Chris:
Darwin was fearful of his big idea because he still believed in the existence of the Christian god, and was extremely uncomfortable coming up with something that went against a literal interpretation of the creation story (I think. If this is wrong or just inaccurate, would someone please correct me?). His god wasn’t nagging at him–everything he had been indoctrinated into weighed heavily upon his conscience, and whatever nagging was present would have been of the same variety that anyone else would have if they came to believe something contrary to a gamut of interconnected, important ideas they had been told. The only difference with Darwin was that his idea not only clashed with that, it clashed with the foundation of an entire worldview. You see, positing his god as the one nagging at his conscience is jumping to conclusions. We’ve learned lots about the human mind. Let’s start there. There’s a perfectly fine and simple psychological explanation. In fact, you don’t even have to have studied psychology to give the explanation I did, which makes the proposal that it was a god who was nagging at Darwin all the more embarrassing, from my point of view.
voiceofreason explained the biological element of your post much better than I can, so I’ll leave that topic to him/her (including the parts about Lucy and the T-Rex footprint).
As for feeling the presence of the Christian savior in your life… that, too, can be countered with a psychological explanation. That which we were raised to believe impacts the way we interpret things. If you were raised to believe that such a person was real and that the Bible contained theological and historical truth, it would be extremely difficult to NOT interpret things from within that framework.
Here’s another way of thinking about this, and from my perspective as someone who likes to know how things happen (i.e. looks for mechanisms). We know what humans (i.e. people) are and what they can do. There are five senses we possess that alert us to the presence of objects external to our bodies. Have you sensed Christ with any of these five senses? If not, there’s a perfectly reasonable psychological explanation, even if you were to claim that he talks to you. And see, voices need to originate from things physical (voice box, etc.). If the voice is just inside your head, then it has to be your own, as there is no evidence that people can speak telepathically. Everything you’ve claimed so far can be explained with just a little logical reasoning and/or scientific knowledge.
Regarding he Big Bang and angular momentum…. I can’t claim to be providing certainly accurate information on this, since it’s been a while since I’ve done relevant physics reading (lay books, not academic), but in the early universe (before inflation went out of control) there were irregularities that gave rise to clumping, from which the first stars and galaxies originated. “Things” were “moving” in this early stage of the universe, and this motion by different “objects” produced angluar motion in different directions, causing the first stars and galaxies to rotate in different directions. As far as rotation of objects in our solar system are concerned, that was explained by another poster quite well, and there’s nothing further I can contribute to that.
You said: “Also, Who wrote all these laws. Not man, they just discovered them.”
The presupposition that a sentient being had to have come up with these laws irritates me. First of all, the laws are our explanations, and unless you believe that God writes (a physical act), humans wrote the laws. Many of them are tentative, to boot, as they just follow from numerous observations and may also be derivations from theorems and formulae. The laws tell us how we think the universe works. Assuming, for sake of simplicity, that the universe truly does behave as our laws tell us, what you’re really asking is “who determined how each elementary existent behaves?”, which is to say “who created these elementary existents?” The existence of a thing implies that it has an identity and an aggregate of properties that are distinct from those of every other existent. But why do you ask WHO created them? If you start the quest by presupposing God, you’ll be unable to end the quest on something other than God. So begin it with the question “how does this happen–what caused it?” Well, if you ask that and are careful about your reasoning and experimentation, you’ll wind up exactly where scientists have. Let me put it this way: “From theists’ perspective, natural laws imply their god’s existence. However, all interacting and existing things must interact in a particular way, because they have a particular nature (what it means to exist), thus the ‘laws’ must exist. So no matter what, as long as things exist, theists believe there is a god. Thus, to theists, there is no scenario under which the existence of things can be attributed to something other than a god. Hence, theists beg the question.”
Humans only discover laws (laws are always human creations, by the way) if said laws existed before their discovery. No, what we discover–or rather, what we think we discover–is how things work. The laws are our attempts at objective formulations of how things work.
Sorry if I’ve come off as being an ass with this post. I’ll be working more on my tone.
It seems obvious to me that theists start with “there is a God” and if they come up with reasons that convince some people that is a “bonus”, not a requirement. I do not know anyone who has “reasoned” there way to a belief in God (except in the most crass manner – Pascals Wager for example). The decision to believe is outside their conscious awareness, as is the basis for the decision. I think there is an equivalent circumstance with atheists with regard to “reasonâ€. Without reason there is no framework for fruitful discussion but the decision to commit to reason is outside reason itself.
This is not to say that those basis for discussion are equivalent. They are not. Reason is bigger than God, unless we are so hopelessly deluded in our experience of the world that reason itself is an illusion. To some extent the God scenario depends on that being the case. Where there is an entity that has the capacity to alter any or all aspects of our world both actually and/or our experience of it, negates reason, as reason itself depends on order. Without order the rest is meaningless (or perhaps the meaning is arbitrary).
The argument becomes – if reason is primary, does God exist? What is the evidence I would except that a God exists? Those questions are not part of the process that most people have in becoming a believer in the supernatural. In my case it was when I could not explain a part of my own experience with what I currently knew. Someone supplied an answer, which happen to include God. Later, after it had become a belief, I discovered that where was an alternative description of my experience that did not depend on God. The reasons I moved away from believing in God were not simply having an alternative description of my experience – as I believed there was a God it was no longer simply a matter of changing my mind. (But that is another story).
To: Darren,
My comment “Peace unchecked is death and death is nothingness” was really a response to Michael “Peace be with you”
There was no question as to what what was supposed to mean. However in a God context what sort of Peace is he talking about? For mortals the ultimate peace is death (as in “cross my fingers and hope I will live in heaven”). The death a person can measurably expect is the loss of all bodily functions including mind. So death is nothingness.
(an earlier version has been posted elsewhere)
There are no minds. Once you’ve seen through soul, you’ve seen through mind as well. Don’t focus on the so-called individual, but on culture and its net of inter-person communication, mediated mainly by language(s).
Xianity has taught dualism borrowed from Plato and Zarathustra along with with a perspective that “reality” must be built from the “inside” out.
Accepting presuppositions which should be overturned vitiates discussions on religion and theology. Metaphysical dualism / moral dualism / mind-body dualism along with a supposed self-evident reality of self-verifying mental states — no wonder so many attempts to understand Nietzsche fail.
“Beyond Good and Evil” and “Twilight of the Idols” deserve to be approached as radical attacks upon dualism and mentalism. (Not as tracts for atheism, immorality, and physicalism!)
Xianity is a syndrome caused by dualistic delusions and epistemological hubris. The mistaken respect accorded it must be swept aside to get at underlying rot. This is the ‘revaluation of all values’ [trans. Kaufmann] sought by Nietzsche in “The Antichrist.”
eye-of-horus
copyright asserted 2007