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 a pastor artistically stripping to the essential.
The atheist writer surely deserves to be commended for attempting to be open-minded, though his requirements for proof would cause even his own belief-system to fail.
I love that quote, I’m sure you’ve posted it before. It’s worth reading again and again.
I enjoyed reading your thougthts, very rich!
thanks heidi
Dave – last year the head of the atheist association here in the UK got saved and chose Jesus! The outcry from his fellow believers because he had chosen to believe in something because he had done as this man had said.
Robbie williams, a UK singer last year wrote in a major newspaper that he had tried all the major beliefs of the world but christianity. He asked if anyone could show him a good reason to believe in God – he would! Not sure but maybe I should have a go!
I can identify with the quote you refer to. I am not convinced it is generated by an external spiritual entity.
My question is, even if it was, how do you know that this perception (which is all it really is – is it not) of (a) God is the God that is reflected in the Bible? How do you know it is not Zeus incarnate, or Osiris or any of the other Gods which aroused identical emotions in people in the past?
Unlike Heidi, I don’t commend the writer. The first two paragraphs of his article show that he is close-minded as the believers he talks about. His conditions are impossible to achieve under any belief system, whether theistic, atheistic, polytheistic, or panentheistic.
He says I will judge the eternal based on mind and matter. Belief in a spiritual existence is alogical.
I don’t follow any organized religion because there are so many, they do disagree, and are shaped by their times and interpreters. That doesn’t mean their roots in a universe of meaning is untrue. It just means people are human and will change and color their experience based on who they are and what they believe. But as Galileo is rumored to say, we can only say It moves.
Zeus and Osiris may not be the best examples of gods that could incite the same feelings as the writer had when he implied that God is not offended by the disorder of our minds etc. These gods had contemptuous human traits. I have a modest collection of books on Greek and Egyptian myths..they make great bedtime stories! I doubt they aroused identical feelings that the writer is claiming.
Rick: I agree with the writer because, in a strange kind of way, he is right. These things cannot ultimately convince me to believe in a god or not. Which leads me to insist that human thought and argument cannot aproximate God.
Jake: Anselm’s dictum, “Faith seeks understanding” makes sense to me. For me, understanding didn’t lead me to God. At a certain time, I became acutely aware of being known by God, which lead me to try to understand. I’ve since become certain that this was Jesus, whom I humbly say I’ve come to know. And the scriptures, though a human document, is the best pointer to him.
You could call me a simpleton on this topic, and you would be right, but there are a few very simplistic things that come to my mind.
It always amazes me how you can just go outside, look around and not believe in God. To think that all of this is random, to me, is completely illogical and senseless.
I also think you have to consider some things such as the many medical laws in the Old Testament that were well beyond scientific knowledge at the time, regarding what people were to eat, germs, etc. How would they just dream up all of these concepts? They were not known to other cultures of the time.
We just had a wonderful speaker at our church last week, a representative from “Jews for Jesus”. He said he did an extensive research paper in college to disprove Jesus’ divinity, and by the end of it, he had come to know that Jesus was, in fact, divine. I hope the atheists out there try to keep those minds open as he did, and come to know in their own way, in their own time.
As our family went through the loss of my son’s good friend in a tragic accident last week, we remarked on how terribly difficult it was, and how impossibly difficult it must be for atheists to go through the trials of life without the faith and hope to guide them through.
Hello all,
I’m the author of the essay this post is responding to. If I may, I’d like to offer some thoughts.
First, on Heidi’s comment:
“The atheist writer surely deserves to be commended for attempting to be open-minded, though his requirements for proof would cause even his own belief-system to fail.”
Do tell – why do you say that? The items I listed are applicable only to supernatural belief systems, which atheism is not. Atheism is, rather, the default position. It is what we should rationally conclude if no religious faith can offer persuasive evidence of its truth.
And for Rick Cockrum:
“His conditions are impossible to achieve under any belief system, whether theistic, atheistic, polytheistic, or panentheistic.”
Again, I’m puzzled by this comment. My conditions are impossible to achieve? So you’re saying it’s impossible for prayer to have any measurable effect on anything? It’s impossible for God, if he exists, to simply show up at my doorstep in a form I can perceive? It’s impossible for a god who inspires holy books to convey any knowledge beyond what was already available in the culture at the time? Not only do your statements imply that God is not omnipotent; they imply that he is completely impotent. And how is a god who cannot affect the world in any way substantially different from a god that does not exist?
“He says I will judge the eternal based on mind and matter.”
Yes, that is exactly right. And I say that for one very simple reason: mind and matter are all I have. I cannot make decisions based on evidence I cannot see, senses I do not possess, or knowledge I do not have. Of course I make decisions using my own mind based on the facts that have been presented to me. What on earth do you imagine is the alternative?
Of course, I know what you’re going to say: faith. But faith is not a means of gaining knowledge at all: it is a way to convince yourself of the truth of beliefs you already hold, nothing more.
David Hayward’s post is a good example of this. Mr. Hayward says he believes in God because he perceives God as an immediate reality not dependent upon evidence. Surely he is aware that millions of people have relied on that same method throughout history, and through it have come to diametrically and often violently opposed conclusions about the identity, nature, and desires of the being they claim to be perceiving.
The vast divisions and endless squabbling among humanity’s many religions show clearly that religious experiences do not reflect a single, unchanging reality. If they did, our beliefs would have converged by now, but they have not. In fact, religious confusion and division are more rampant than ever, and unanimity seems farther away than ever. Compare this to science, which in just a scant three hundred years (compared to the many millennia already allotted to theologians) has reached an astonishing degree of agreement about many of the most fundamental facts regarding the nature, origin and fate of the universe we live in.
Mr. Hayward, you say that God has “pressed upon your mind” in a way that is “beyond knowledge” and “beyond proof”. I invite you to consider the possibility that, fervent and sincere as your beliefs plainly are, they are mistaken. As a human being, and particularly as a Christian, I assume you agree with me that human beings are fallible, and that we can be wrong even about things which we deeply and passionately believe to be true. I propose for your consideration that this may be one of those things. Clearly you’ve had some kind of powerful experience; I would not seek to deny or downplay that. But I would politely suggest that it may not represent what you think it does.
Ebonmuse: Thanks for visiting my blog to comment. I don’t feel my beliefs are fervent and sincere, nor would I presume that I am not mistaken. However, I do know that I am known, somehow, and Jesus seems to me to be who God is. In other words, the scriptures mostly confirm what who I know, and nourishes this knowledge. We are agreed that all proofs of God are insufficient to lead to God. But we do not agree that insufficient proof must lead away from God.
Hello Ebonmuse! The reason I said what I said is that I’ve always believed that even atheism requires a type of faith in order to believe that it is the true state of things. To clarify, I would define “faith” simply as believing in something to be true. In this case it would be believing that there is no God.
With this being my personal perspective, I have a problem with thinking of atheism as the default position. It’s just another belief system or world view.
Thanks for asking, and I mean that. It’s a bonus to see this discussion go further with your added thoughts.
Dear Naked P: I also “know” deeply..deeply, I tell you, that the planet Neptune is populated by 600-foot tall talking pink elephants who will dispense endless margaritas out of their trunks should you be lucky enough to visit there. At this time, I can only offer insufficient prrof of this truth, but please — for the sake of your thirsty palate – do not lead yourself aeway from this truth.
Abundant Blessings: It always amazes me how you can just go outside, look around and not believe in God. To think that all of this is random, to me, is completely illogical and senseless.
I would consider myself illogical and senseless if I stood outside my door and thought that everything I saw around me was random.
That doesn’t get me from A to B(elief), however.
I think a point that may be confusing is whether someone who declares himself to be atheist means 1) I am convinced beyond all doubt that god does not exist (strong atheism), or 2) I have yet to hear a convincing argument or see convincing evidence for the existence of god, & until such happens I will take the default position of assuming god doesn’t exist (weak atheism).
I suspect Heidi assumes Ebonmuse is a strong atheist, while somewhere on his web pages I saw him explicitly state that he was a weak atheist.
I feel very inadequate to address the rational, scientific, and wise points articulated by Ebonmuse. I do think that being an atheist in light of the complexity of creation (both on an infinite universe-sized level and on a microscopic atomic level) requires some amount of faith in something–even if it is faith in the ability of random pieces of matter to assemble themselves into something complicated. After years of trying to present evolution as fact, scientists have yet to provide verifiable proof of recurring macro-evolution by compiling a list of missing links. If evolution could be clearly and rationally “proved” wouldn’t everyone accept it without question?
I have often wondered what happens if I die and discover (or actually don’t discover) that there is no God? What if after death, contrary to what I’ve been taught, nothing happens? And if at that point I could think or reason which, of course, atheists probably believe I would not be able to do because I would be nothing but decaying matter…I believe that I would be disappointed to not see God as I expected to. But I think I would also feel that living my life according to Biblical standards–even if they are shown to be false–would have been fulfilling and helpful to me. Yes, you read that right. If Christ and His teachings are untruth, I think I will still be satisfied to have lived my life by falsehoods. And worms will devour my flesh and that will be it.
What do you say Ebonmuse? What if you die and discover that there is a God? What if He at that point finally manifests Himself to you supernaturally? What if He says He longed for you to have faith in Him and to share a personal relationship with Him and to spend eternity with Him? Do you feel, given this new knowledge, you would be able to say that living your earthly life according to atheistic standards was satisfactory?
I am guessing that perhaps though we are very different about what we believe and hold to be true, we are very much alike in our passion and our comfort our individual systems of thought and belief. I wish you the very best as you continue to raise points we should all be raising and as you attempt to open a dialogue with those who think differently from you. You are helping us all to reevaluate our belief systems and definitions. Thank you for that.
Sorry, that should have been “our passion for and our comfort with our individual systems of thought…”
My fingers are succumbing to the weariness of a long day.
Hello all,
Interesting discussion, I’m a bit late but I’ll wade in if that’s ok?
By Heidi: “The reason I said what I said is that I’ve always believed that even atheism requires a type of faith in order to believe that it is the true state of things. To clarify, I would define “faith†simply as believing in something to be true. In this case it would be believing that there is no God.”
I’m afraid that your definition of ‘faith’ is simply wrong. Faith is “Mental acceptance of and confidence in a claim as truth without proof supporting the claim” (Wiktionary). Without proof. This is what makes atheism the default position. We are atheists because we have no evidence for any gods.
By TTM: “What if you die and discover that there is a God? What if He at that point finally manifests Himself to you supernaturally? What if He says He longed for you to have faith in Him and to share a personal relationship with Him and to spend eternity with Him? Do you feel, given this new knowledge, you would be able to say that living your earthly life according to atheistic standards was satisfactory?”
The question wasn’t addressed to me, but I’d like to answer it anyway, if you’ll be so kind. I would say to God, “If you wanted me to believe in you, why did you want me to have faith? Why didn’t you just present yourself and say, ‘hello’? Why all this faith business? You presented yourself to Moses, why not me? You’re the all powerful creator of the universe, and you know everything, so you knew when you created the universe that I wouldn’t believe in you, because that’s how you made me. Why didn’t you just create me to believe in you? And if you’re all powerful, why did you either cause or allow such horrific things to happen to your creations? Why did you let good people die of horrible diseases or be killed in earthquakes and hurricanes?” I would have more questions, than anything else.
And yes, I could say my life based on “atheistic standards” was more than satisfactory, because I based my beliefs on reason, logic and evidence, not faith, gut feelings, wishful thinking and guessing. I valued human beings in their own right, spoke out for their happiness and rights to freedom, and spoke out against their suffering.
ttm wrote
“If evolution could be clearly and rationally “proved†wouldn’t everyone accept it without question?”
In fact it was conclusively proved over 100 years ago. The problem is that many religious people feel it threatens their belief systems and so deny it.
ttm also writes
“After years of trying to present evolution as fact, scientists have yet to provide verifiable proof of recurring macro-evolution by compiling a list of missing links”
It is impossible for a highly educated person who has studied evolution to write such a statement honestly. Unfortunately in the modern world it is all too common for people to make outrageous statements which can easily be checked and discovered to be entirely false. Why THIS is so I must admit is a complete mystery to me.
Heidi said “Zeus and Osiris may not be the best examples of gods that could incite the same feelings as the writer had when he implied that God is not offended by the disorder of our minds etc. These gods had contemptuous human traits.”
So did the god of the Old Testament – angry, jealous, cruel & a mass murderer to boot!
I believe in the scentific views of the workings of the universe, because they rest on scientific evidence. I do not have faith as in blind, unsupported belief in anything. Pieces of matter can sometimes assemble themselves into something complicated, but that has nothing to do with religion or a creator. Science has shown this to be perfectly possible under the laws of physics. Science has compiled lots of lists of links between different speicies (). In fact the right word is transitional. If missing links are found, they are not missing anymore. So a missing link will allways represent a gap by definition. But how do think you explain anything by saying a gap is there because a god made it?
Scientific theories can never be proved only falsified. But if you have no falsifiing evidence and lots and lots of evidence in favor of a theory there comes a time when one must conclude that the theory is almost certainly right under the “current conditions”. With “current conditions” I mean that if we ventures into new territory (higher energies, new livingplaces, higher radiationflux, smaller scales etc.) things might chance and the theory can break down like Newtons does under high velocyties. To a scientist this is always exciting: New land and new possibilities. But remember the old theory is still usefull under the old conditions.
Evolution is proved as good as Eisteins relativity-theories () and in reality as good as any scientific theory can be. Some new additions to the theory of evolution could (like it has done before) very well make it better, or perhaps a new theory could turn up that explains things even better like it happened to Newtons theories on gravity with Einsteins theories of relativity, but rocketengineers often still use Newtons laws because they are good enough for many, many apllications. The fact is that the theory of evolution explains a lot of things and scientist are using it every day ().
And no. Everyone does not accept reality. That is why some people of religious faith do not accept the theory of evolution. They percieve it as counter to the religion and allthough the evidencescore says Religion: 0 Evolution: 10000 (at least), they cling to there religion and discounts facts. Many believers will be more rational and accept the facts without letting it break their religion.
What happenes when we die? Of course noone knows for sure, but I think we revert back to the state before we were born: Nonexistance. Like other atheists has often said: People does not seem so troubled about the billions of years of nonexistence before their birth, but most are very anxious about death and the probable nonexistance after that event.
If I die and suddenly stands before some pearlygates and a god says: “Why didn’t you believe me?” I wil say: “Lack of any kind of evidence, man!” And I would be glad for my athiestic, freethinking life.
To me religion is a prison for the mind, because religion discourage thinking outside the box. Faith without evidence is a virtue in religion, and freethinking, forming ones own opinions is generally not a seen as a good thing in religion. The priest, imam, rabbi tells you what to do, think and believe. Religion gives people a comunity but excludes people with different thoughts, so to me religion seems divisive. It risks installing hatred and bigotry against people with other takes on life, though thankfully not in all believers at all. All this doesn’t mean I think believers are evil, just that they believe things without evidence and that that can be dangerous. If I believe I can walk on air without evidence it is very likely to lead to my death, if I choose to act on that belief.
To me truth matters. And I know of only one way of knowing the truth: Examening facts and evidence and form hypothesises, theories and experiments based on that. Let others examine your results and conclusions. In time all this will condense into almost certain and objective truths. That is called science. You might get consolation or community out of religion, but I can find that with friends, family, work and science too. Religion do not give objective truths only percieved truths, wich might be good and fine for some, but not for me. Give me something from Ebonmuses list of evidence and I might chance my mind, but I have never experienced anything comming close yet.
Oh I was just going to read the comments quietly but since my name was brought up 3 times, I’ll shake the morning cobwebs from my head and try to respond.
Jim Baerg: I made no such assumption and I’m not sure that a distinction between a weak belief and a strong one is relative. I’m also not convinced that atheism is the default position. It’s still a chosen world view in that it’s how one has chosen to interpret the world around them.
tobe38: I don’t see anything in the definition of faith that you gave that is contrary to my given opinion. An atheist accepts that there is no god without proof that there is no god. Perhaps I shouldn’t have used the word “faith” because of it’s historical attachment to religious beliefs which pertain to God.
bassmanpete: Point well taken!! I’d be a fool to disagree. But if there was a contest between the gods weighing out their “good” and “bad” traits…..
This debate will go on until the end of time because every facet of society and science is open to speculation. Some things, love for example, will never be able to be scientifically proven.
Some comments on the T.F. Torrance quote :
“To doubt the existence of God would be an act of sheer irrationality, for it would mean that my reason had become unhinged from its bond with real being.”
It’s amazing how much people will distort their view of reality rather than face the possibility of being mistaken. The speaker does not realise that he is already unhinged from reality, and so twists his reality to fit in with his beliefs.
“Yet in knowing God I am deeply aware that my relation to Him has been damaged, that disorder has resulted in my mind, and that it is I who obstruct knowledge of God by getting in between Him and myself, as it were.”
Is there some hope that reality is starting to filter through?
“But I am also aware that His presence presses unrelentingly upon me through the disorder of my mind, for He will not let Himself be thwarted by it, challenging and repairing it, and requiring of me on my part to yield my thoughts to His healing and controlling revelation.”
Alas, no. Put the blinkers on, deny the evidence, and continue to believe erroneous dogma. Poor chap.
Heidi, there is a subtle difference between the statement “I do not believe there is a god” and “I believe there is no god” – atheism is in fact the former position, a lack of belief. The onus of proof is on the party making the claim, and hence the default position is to withhold belief until proven otherwise.
The latter position is impossible to prove unless we have total knowledge.
Tobe38:
I appreciate your thoughtful response to my thoughts. You said: “I would say to God, ‘If you wanted me to believe in you, why did you want me to have faith? Why didn’t you just present yourself and say, ‘hello’? Why all this faith business?”
Maybe God is saying “hello” in the things you don’t trust…the Bible, Christ, the experiences of others who do not share your definitions of truth and reasonable beliefs.
You wrote: “You presented yourself to Moses, why not me?”
How do you know God presented Himself to Moses? Have you discovered a historical document (other than the self-proclaimed word of God) which verifies this even actually occurred?
You said: “You’re the all powerful creator of the universe, and you know everything, so you knew when you created the universe that I wouldn’t believe in you, because that’s how you made me. Why didn’t you just create me to believe in you?”
I don’t think I would want to serve a God who was just a puppeteer pulling my strings. I believe that God himself values freedom and grants human beings the autonomy to accept or reject the truth He offers.
You wrote: “And yes, I could say my life based on “atheistic standards†was more than satisfactory, because I based my beliefs on reason, logic and evidence, not faith, gut feelings, wishful thinking and guessing. I valued human beings in their own right, spoke out for their happiness and rights to freedom, and spoke out against their suffering.”
Despite our differences, we have much in common, tobe38. We both have strong points of view. We both value human beings in their own right. We both want people to be happy and to be free. We both speak out against suffering. And we both are doing the best we can to find reasonable answers to the questions which have been pondered by human beings throughout the centuries.
Thank you for giving me a few things to ponder today.
Isn’t it safe to say, Darren, that no one can prove that there IS a god (even if all the facts are in), but also that no one can prove that there ISN’T (because it is possible that all the facts aren’t in)?
Well, my links to the TalkOrigins-website and the PZMeyer-blog has disappeared. Anybody in need of factual information on evolution can look here for a start:
talkorigins.org
scienceblogs.com/pharyngula
Best regards
Voice of Reason:
It’s interesting to me that secular humanists and evolutionists avoid answering straightforward questions by attacking the intelligence and sincerity of Christians. I think your implication that people of faith are under-educated fools making outrageous statements serves only to prevent honest dialogue.
Would you please provide information or links to information proving the “fact” of evolution with those of us eagerly reading this blog?
Since I will probably struggle to understand the highly intellectual and logical concepts, perhaps you wouldn’t mind attaching a dumbed down, paraphrased verson for me? If you could just explain it the way, say maybe a third grade Science book would, it would be great! (And visuals are always helpful, too! I like books with a lot of pictures. Pictures are fun!)
Thanks.
Nakedpastor:
No, it’s not safe to say that. If all the facts are in, then we have total knowledge and we can say definiteively something exists, or it does not.
ttm: your third paragraph appears to undermine your first. Are you capable of understanding evolution, or not?
Thank you L. Neilson. When I posted my comment I didn’t realize someone had already provided a link regarding evolution. I’ll have to check it out later today. But I might be back to ask you for clarification if you don’t mind.
nakedpastor:
As Darren said: “The onus of proof is on the party making the claim”
The burden of proof is on the religious. Since noone anywhere have ever produced a single piece of evidence (even just circumstanciel) there is almost certainly no gods, as Richard Dawkins puts it in The God Delusion. If you will turn the table of the burden of prrof you have to agree wtih me that the universe was created by the great pink unicorn with golden ears, because you cannot disprove that such a creature with unlimited power exists.
Well, Darren, I’m not sure. I may think I can understand it, but someone more educated might say that I don’t possess the capability. Once an instructor has labeled a student unable to move beyond existing knowledge because of a disability, the instructor’s assistance becomes useless. And what student assesses his own knowledge rightly? It’s the teacher who creates and grades the tests.
I was responding to Voice of Reason a bit tongue in cheek because as the one with the knowledge–he or she will have to plan the lesson for me unless he or she believes it is not worth the effort because it seems (from the instructor’s assessment) that I am unable to move forward in my thinking. It would be nice if VOR referred me to a source of knowledge who specializes in Special Education, but that probably won’t happen. I may just be lost in the educaitonal cracks forever…
Rational thinkesr do not have to abandon their sense of humor, do they? I suppose they do if a sense of humor cannot be quantified and verified by outside sources!
ttm, don’t be so hard on yourself. I asked if you had the capacity to understand, not the knowledge, and I’m sure you could understand the subject matter if you applied yourself to the task. Unfortunately, the religious tend to take the path of least resistance, and accept the unproven word of the mistaken or the deceitful. For those possessed of an enquiring mind, there is a natural inclination to understand, learn, and actively seek out better teachers, even if that teacher turns out to be oneself.
Thanks, Darren. Apparently we agree that those who actively seek shall find the truth.
Indeed we do, ttm. However, I’m genuinely interested to know how that spirit of enquiry manifests itself in the religious when all that seems to matter is the contents of a millenia-old book. Surely that is looking backwards, stagnating, and not forwards to new boudaries?
“I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen—not just because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.” C. S. Lewis
Here is a piece that might be of interest on this topic:
The Faith of an Atheist
A discussion with Alister McGrath
http://www.christianodyssey.org/faith/atheist.htm
One observation I’ve noticed about this discussion is that atheists are just as capable of making sweeping generalizations and faulty assumptions about Christian belief methodologies as Christians are of atheists. (not sure that’s a grammatically correct sentence??!)
nakedpastor said: Over at Ebon Musings, one atheist writer offers a challenge to theists who claim that all atheists are closed-minded and exhibit their own brand of fundamentalism. Although he (I’m calling the write a “he†for brevity’s sake alone) must agree that there are closed-minded atheists who are fundamentalists, I think he is right to defend the possibility that not all atheists are the same. To prove that he is open-minded, he is willing to convert if he could be convinced of the truth of any particular religion.
I am an atheist (the past 8 years) and former bible believer (25 years). I will forever be perplexed at believers who claim that non believers are closed minded. The very claim makes no since.
I have to ask this; if a person has faith in a god, (let’s say the God of the bible) and “knows” that their faith is based on “truth”, will they be open to the idea that their faith may be misplaced? Will they be open to the idea that the God they have faith in may not actually exist? If they are not open to that idea, can we classify them as “closed minded”?
As an atheist, I do not believe any gods (supernatural supreme beings who command and/or deserve my adoration and praise) exist. And it would take considerably more than words in a 2,000 year old book to convince me. But I could be convinced that a god does exist. I do not at this moment know what evidence I would require. I guess similar to what I would need to convince me that alien UFO’s have visited planet earth.
Honestly people, I like the idea of an afterlife. I could waste hours daydreaming about that…but I won’t, not until I receive some evidence.
Now, are there any believers here who are as open minded as I am? Are there any believers here who can honestly make the statement; “I may be believing in a myth.”
If they can’t make that statement, are they open or closed minded?
Darren:
I can understand how from your vantage point basing an entire life on an ancient manuscript seems asinine! Really…what kind of idiot would base philosophical, intellectual, sexual, financial, social, medical, and other lifestyle decisions on a musty, old, outdated book surrounded by such controversy?
I’m not sure what that book means to you, if anything, but to me it’s a loveletter from God’s hand to my heart. I want to hear what He has to say. I’m eager to read his words of encouragement and of warning. Because I feel loved by Him like I’ve never been loved before, every word from Him is precious.
I totally understand to someone outside of that kind of relationship with God, the book is mere sentiment–laughable pap. Yet, what you can’t help but see as stagnant and irrelevant, I can’t help but see as a cherished treasure which gives me hope until I can be held safe in His arms.
I have a collection of loveletters from human beings, too. And even now, years later, when I read them something in me is set aflame. Because in looking back from my current vantage point, I can see the value in those starting points even if they didn’t end in eternal love. They were the beginnings of new understandings, new boundaries, and new horizons.
Abundant Blessing:
“I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen—not just because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.†C. S. Lewis
Marvelous sentiment. It reafirms what you already believe and probably gives you a nice sensation of warmth in your solar plexus.
It’s also completely unpersuasive, like the rest of C.S. Lewis.
Here is a piece that might be of interest on this topic
I didn’t find it that interesting. Alister McGrath has barely a fingernail’s grasp on scientific epistemology and, like so many apologists, completely misundersands evolution. This was a “ho-hum” re-heating of leftover apologia. I’d be happy to dive into specifics, if you’re interested.
For some rigorous examinations of the epistemelogical underpinnings of metaphysical naturalims, try:
* “The Problem of the Soul: Two Visions of Mind and How to Reconcile Them”, Owen Flanagan
* “The Illusion of Conscious Will”, Daniel M. Wagner
and “Sense and Goodness Without God”, Richard Carrier.
Unlike most of the people who frequent this site, I’m not Christian, and a theist only occasionally. That doesn’t
Darren: Your differentiation between “I do not believe there is a god” and “I believe there is no god” would better suit an agnostic than an atheist. The first statement leaves the position open. The second statement does not, and as you say, cannot be taken as fact unless all the evidence is in – an impossibility in an infinite universe. That would tend to show that agnosticism is the default position, not atheism.
Ebonmuse: I see no reason to change what I said. Assuming there is a personal God, to demand he or she step up to your door and say “Dude, I’m for real. You’ve got to believe in me.” is like calling up your wife and saying “Jane. I don’t believe in you. Prove you’re real.” and expecting her to come running.
Again, assuming there is a personal God who is omnipotent, the ability to act doesn’t imply the necessity, or even the desire to act. You may as well start a game of chess and change the rules in the middle in random ways.
Religious groups, like materialistic groups, are composed of people. People love, hate, desire and despise. Most of the wars we no about have little to do with religion per se, much to do with wanting what someone else has, wanting to control what someone else does, or fearing someone else because they are different. Stalin didn’t kill tens of millions of his own people for religious reasons. Mao Tse Tung didn’t carry out the Cultural Revolution for religious reasons. The Romans and Alexander didn’t carry out the building of their empires for religious reasons. Asoka didn’t carry out his conquest in India for religious reasons. The list could go on. but most war has little to do with religion, even when it is painted that way.
You assume that mind and matter are all you have. All knowledge starts from experience, but all experience is colored by knowledge and assumptions. To say all I have is mind and matter, shows an assumption that matter is actually all there is, as otherwise mind would be the ghost in the machine. To believe that matter is all there is, is to believe you don’t have free will because matter does act according to law. From what I’ve seen, people do make choices. These choices are colored by their history, but not determined by them. The belief in a existence of a non-physical dimension to the universe is, to me, a pecondition for free will.
This is all air, though. There has been sufficient evidence of reincarnation to show, if not its existence, then its possibility. Most people don’t accept it. Any evidence of telepathy, changes resulting from prayer, psychic healing, is put down to coincidence. Any reports of out of body travel are labelled as delusory or dreams. What evidence for the non-physical there is, is not repeatable on demand, so it is discarded. The materialist-religious debate has been going on for millenia. It isn’t something that can be solved by discussion. The discussion can be enjoyable, and help clarify thinking, but it will never be persuasive. Each of us will make our personal decision and live their life accordingly.
In reply to the following question from ttm:
“Would you please provide information or links to information proving the “fact†of evolution with those of us eagerly reading this blog?”
By far the best introduction to the theory of evolution I have ever read is “The Blind Watchmaker”, by Richard Dawkins. Don’t be dissuaded from it by the fact that Dawkins wrote it. It is not a rant against the irrationality of religion. It is a beautifully written, logically compelling explanation of a subtle and complex subject.
Rick, “I do not believe there is a god” is not agnosticism. The agnostic statement would be something like “I do not know if there is a god”. The agnostic is someone that is ripe for an emotional misinterpretation that leads to belief, or to consider the facts at hand and come to a logical decision. Either there is a god, or there is not. As the burden of proof is on the claimant, then the natural state is atheism. Agnosticism is simply the inability or disinclination to make a decision.
Your references to non-religious wars does nothing to discount the fact that religious views have caused many wars. This is merely dodging the issue.
ttm, if the best love you have experienced is from an imaginary being whom you have never met, then I would urge that you look about you harder. There are some beautiful, kind, generous, loving people just outside your door.
“That book” is no more important to me than Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. An interesting tale, but nothing more. What distresses me is that people continue to kill and hate each other because of different interpretations of a story that claims itself to be true.
Ebonmuse: I see no reason to change what I said. Assuming there is a personal God, to demand he or she step up to your door and say “Dude, I’m for real. You’ve got to believe in me.†is like calling up your wife and saying “Jane. I don’t believe in you. Prove you’re real.†and expecting her to come running.
You’re analogy is dead on arrival. In what verifiable way does God even answer the phone to begin with, never mind refuse to come running? I’m pretty sure that if Ebon actually had a conversation with a being who he could reasonably presume was God, that would overcome most of his objections on the spot.
To believe that matter is all there is, is to believe you don’t have free will because matter does act according to law. From what I’ve seen, people do make choices. These choices are colored by their history, but not determined by them. The belief in a existence of a non-physical dimension to the universe is, to me, a pecondition for free will.
Except that
Randy said:
Now, are there any believers here who are as open minded as I am? Are there any believers here who can honestly make the statement; “I may be believing in a myth.â€
David? What say you?
Sorry. Bad edit. Please ignore everything after “on the spot”.
;o)
We all must concede that the object of our thoughts, conclusions, opinions and beliefs could be radically misunderstood and may not even exist. Agreed. But I still stand by my original post in which I quote Torrance, in agreement:
“I find the presence and being of God bearing upon my experience and thought so powerfully that I cannot but be convinced of His overwhelming reality and rationality”.
It is important that this statement says “presence and being” and not “theology of and doctrine about”.
ttm wrote
“Since I will probably struggle to understand the highly intellectual and logical concepts, perhaps you wouldn’t mind attaching a dumbed down, paraphrased verson for me? If you could just explain it the way, say maybe a third grade Science book would, it would be great! (And visuals are always helpful, too! I like books with a lot of pictures. Pictures are fun!)”
If you are at a third grade level of intellectual development then I would not like
to abuse you of belief in the tooth fairy, santa claus, or any other myths you might enjoy.
I assume you have access to the internet. There is plenty of material of the kind
you “seek.” It is dishonest of you to pretend the mateial is not easily accessible.
The truth is that you have no desire to understand evolution beacuse you see it
as a threat to your belief system. THAT is the problem.
But, Darren, I have met Him. Because of God’s pursuit of my heart and presence in my life, I must agree with Torrance and nakedpastor. He is real and I cannot be anything other than convinced.