Ask an Atheist: Religious Experience
John writes:
You mention lack of evidence is one reason why God must be a fantasy. After all, if he is God, surely he could leave some verifiable stuff around, couldn’t he?
That used to drive me crazy. Something so important, and you were just supposed to take someone’s word for it. I was in one of my attacks on a longtime Christian friend Jeff, for his ridiculous adherence to the fairy tale crutch. He said that if I really wanted to know, then to sincerely ask Jesus to come into my heart.
That night, I was walking home from the college library and I told God that I didn’t know if he existed or not. But that if he did, would Jesus please come into my heart? Ironwolf, I then felt a unique rush, a strong tingling from my head to my toes! It stunned me.
Got home, no roommate. I am excited, wanted to talk to someone. Get knock on door – it is my friend Jeff, dropping by. He never did this, and certainly not so late on a school night. Coincidence? Maybe but don’t think so.
After this, I found that I could believe. It as not a silly topic to me anymore.
My point: The way to the Lord is through your Heart, not your Head. You can’t believe unless God lets you. He does this by sending the Holy Spirit or Jesus, or whatever it was that flew into me. That is why the bible is all about Faith. Because only through Faith are you likely to be unshakable. If it was all intellectual, a better debater could change your mind. But what is in your heart, is what is real.
I was incredibly lucky, to feel that rush. Most people don’t get that. Who knows why I did? Maybe cause I was so adamant against religion. I don’t know. But your test could be does Jesus seem so mockable after you ask sincerely for Him to come in? Because if you ask sincerely, if He is there, why wouldn’t he come?
Your point is basically built on the Argument from Religious Experience.
When I read your message, the point at which red flags begin going up is where you say:
…and I told God that I didn’t know if he existed or not.
Over ten years ago I wrote an article called McNally’s Challenge, with an experiment for “true doubters.” Clearly, if you are in serious doubt as to whether God exists or not, and willing to pray about it, then you are not a considered atheist— and perhaps you never were.
Now, the biggest problem with the argument from religious experience in my opinion, is that many people from many cultures have religious experiences, and even if some of them point to a true metaphysical reality, they cannot all do so. Since they are in conflict, how can one be proven true over all the others? And, couldn’t they all be wrong?
Put another way, you say you asked Jesus to come into your heart. What if you had instead earnestly and openly asked Allah to guide you to his truth? Would you now be a Muslim? That is the honest experience of many converts to Islam. Who are you to say that you know the reality, and it is they that are deluded?
It is also quite clear to me that “beliefs” are much more malleable than people like to think. Our beliefs are shaped by culture, advertising, politics, friends, neighbors, and many other influences. The one thing that people miss in this equation is that we ourselves can also choose to change our beliefs. Indeed, you find that people into New Age mysticism are often quite open to adopting new beliefs or syncretizing them with their existing ones, pretty much on the “evidence” of how it makes them feel.
I think it comes down to a question of values. It gives me peace and tranquility to only adopt beliefs which have strong empirical support: that point to a reality outside my own skull. This is a major reason that I value science. Others do not hold that value so strongly— perhaps the fear of death keeps them searching for an afterlife until they find a system that assures them they will receive it.
One additional thought: in the Bible account, the idea that a non-believer remains untouched by God simply because they have neglected to “ask Jesus into their heart” never stopped God from directly reaching into that person’s life and revealing himself in no uncertain terms when he chose to do so. The main case-in-point here is Paul, but there are others. No Christian I know would deny that God is capable of touching even a “hardened heart” when he chooses to do so. So even though many Christians I have spoken with wish to claim that I am an atheist because my heart is hard, the account of their own Bible is against them: if God exists, and can change my heart, and has not done so, it is because God has not chosen to do so.
March 6th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Wow - good response! Very thorough. A few counterpoints. As you point out, I was an agnostic, not an athiest.
First, Obviously I cannot speak as to what happens to Muslims asking Allah into their heart. I can only relay my experience. In fact, the point that you raise - How can you be sure that your religion is the true and only one?- has plagued me for years. In fact, it kept me from deepening my faith for some 20 years. I could not, and cannot still, condemn believers of other faiths, or no faith, to Hell. In my opinion, goodness (a good heart) should rule. But I cannot reconcile that with Jesus claim that the only way to the Father is through Him. So I have elected to ignore the question and let God sort it out. I know that is a major cop-out but I cannot resolve the delima. One thing it does is keep me from evangelizing, telling people to believe in Christianity or else! (though it must not seem so to you!).
Another point to consider are the stakes we are playing for. Can you argue that anything is more important than resolving this question correctly? I cannot. God never asked me how He should set the “Get to Heaven” rules. He structured it in this way (ambigious, conflicting) and left it up to us to figure it out. So that is the ‘game’. Sure you can opt out. But who suffers if you are wrong?
I happen to choose believe that God is Love and is perfect and good. If I can’t comprehend the rules, the fault is on me. By definition, He is right. He is God, after all. Given that, I try to do my best, though I fall way short (not going to church, acting selfishly, etc., etc.). It could be I will not make the cut. It could be everyone will make the cut.
All I can do is be grateful that he actually came into my heart and pass on my true experience to others that could be searching, as I was. If my experience helps, great. If not, nothing lost.
Last point. This is the one thing each of us has to resolve or not ourselves. It is just you and God. Doesn’t matter what other people think or do. I do not mean to sound condescending because I am sure you know this. But I think it needs to be said. Others can give advice, share experience and sometimes wisdom, but at the end of the day, it is you trying to communicate with God. I hope you will set aside the logic arguments and give it a sincere try. You are playing for everything.
John
March 6th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
John,
I feel the opposite: If God has not given me enough information to “comprehend the rules,” or even enough evidence to conclusively decide that he’s playing “the game” through a particular “correct” set of beliefs, then I think the fault is on God, since if he is all-knowing and all-powerful, he knows how to reveal himself to me in a way that would work, and is capable of doing so, but has chosen not to.
Who’s definition?
If God wants something from me, he has my number.
March 7th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Well, I have made most of the points I was going to make. To address your latest points, if God is the creator of the Universe and everything in it, I would say that in the event of a conflict, He is, by anyone’s definition, right.
I mean who else would be right - you? Or Satan (if there is a third choice)? I mean, get real. You seem pretty smart. Think you are smarter than God, that you have thought of arguments that are new to God? If you concede that God has thought of your arguments and rejected them (by evidence of not obeying your ultimatums), then you think He is wrong and you are right?
I think it comes down to a mater of perspective. You no doubt know the story of three blind men trying to describe a large object to the others. One says it is a flat wall, the other says no, it is round like the trunk of a tree, a third says something else. Turns out they are describing an elephant and all are correct, given their limited perspective. Yet they are wrong in the big picture.
Like those guys, we have a relatively tiny view of the world compared to God, who can see not only past, present and future, but how all the pieces inter-relate. If He says that something should be a certain way, how can we disagree and have any justification for that position?
Also, since God is the creator and holds the keys to your eternal existance, I would think it is up to you to try to make the relationship work, not the other way around. We all die, and we all go somewhere. If there is a hereafter, then it seems to be a choice between God and Heaven or the Devil and Hell. Are you truly so indifferent as to where you wind up?
But maybe you are right. My Dad, stepdad and only sister believe as you do. Maybe there is nothing in the hereafter and those of us who believe are wasting our time.
But I personally have had too many experiences to deny Jesus’ existence. Though none were as dramatic as my initial one, the many others to me were real, unique and most came directly as the result of prayer. But I could never have seen any of it if God didn’t open my eyes first.
Well, I have said enough. Sorry to talk your ear off! As I ended my entry yesterday, I think we each are captains of our own destiny. So to each his own. Thanks for listening.
John
March 7th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
John,
So you answered my question, “Who’s definition?” first by saying “Anyone’s definition.” Then you spent pretty much the rest of your comment giving your definition of God. By your definition of God, God is always right.
However, you start by implying that anyone must define God that way. On the contrary, I define “God” by what evidence I have of him. And by such evidence, my definition of God is thus: a sadly common delusion. By this definition of God, God is not only not always right, he’s not even wrong.
March 7th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
So your definition of God as a ’sadly common delusion’ is to say there is no chance that He exists. I assume you are using the common definition of delusion as imaginary.
My conversation assumes He exists. I am asking you to make that assumption. If you were were to make this assumption, what would be your definition be then? You limit your definition to what evidence you have of Him. So are you saying that He has no qualities if you yourself have not personally observed, if He exists?
Or to put it another way, if He exists, what would you give him credit for? I assume you are saying he is failable, since you don’t like my definition of Him always being right.
So is He just right, assuming He exists, only when you agree with Him? Or do you imagine that he is just a guy(spirit) who is mistake-filled just like the rest of us? No kidding, I am curious.
Also, is our conversation part of a larger one on one of your blogs? If so, could you point out the link? I have tried but can’t find it on the links I have clicked.
John.
March 8th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
John,
I define delusion in the standard way: “a fixed, false belief.”
Um… No. Why should I assume God exists any more that I should assume that Allah exists? Or for that matter, dragons, unicorns, or fairies?
Yes.
To the extent that God’s existence can be empirically tested, no sufficient evidence of that existence has come to light. It is foolish to assume the existence of entities for which there is no sufficient evidence, for then you can assume the existence of anything.
Given the evidence, if there is some sort of supreme being, it is probably much like the deist God. The Christian idea of God is quite absurd.
As I said, I don’t assume God exists. You repeatedly asking for me to assume he exists for the sake of argument gets us nowhere.
The Gnostics did imagine a God they called the Demiurge, who basically is as “mistake-filled” as the rest of us. I do not “imagine” God is anything. The evidence I have indicates that God is a myth— i.e., a supernatural story (really, a set of stories) humans have come up with to deal with the unknown.
I haven’t had a thread devoted to the Argument from Religious Experience yet, so this is it. But it has come up in various ways in my blog before. Here are a couple of my articles that touch on the subject:
God and Delusion
Ten Christian Lunacies
March 8th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
When I asked you to assume He exists, I hope you know it was for the sake of discussion, not for your life’s beliefs. Kind of would not be consistent with Atheistic belief, would it?
But if you can’t assume He exists for discussion sake, then I take that to mean the opposite - you assume He doesn’t exist. If so, there is nothing to talk about. Because how can you hash over various attributes to a being that you give no possibility of existance. So I guess that ends the discussio. .
One point to quit on though. You say “It is foolish to assume the existence of entities for which there is no sufficient evidence, for then you can assume the existence of anything.” That would be true for Micky Mouse, the Easter Bunny, Mary Poppins, etc. But I would think that with God, there is just a bit more anecdotal, if not empirical, evidence of his existence.
There may not be hard proof today but there are a large number of recorded testimonies from people interacting with God. And is some situations where the anecdote goes far beyond the feeling I shared with you at the start. I mean people telling about having plagues thrust upon them, the parting/closing of the Red Sea, and so many other examples I would think that would carry some weight, that puts the existence of God open to at least “reasonable doubt.” Yea, they ALL could be lying. So you can’t be certain He exists. But I say there is reason to believe that He might.
Thanks for having an open mind enough to discuss this topic with me. I will check out the links you sent.
John
March 9th, 2008 at 8:11 am
John,
There is no “atheistic belief.” Atheism is not a belief system or ideology.
I neither assume God exists, nor assume God does not exist. I base my current beliefs on the evidence I have. I am always willing to change my beliefs, should new evidence come to light.
There’s a lot of anecdotal evidence for UFOs, astrology, psychic healing, ghosts, and the gods of other religions. Why should I accept Christianity over any other equally-unsubstantiated belief system?
You can believe all that if you like. I’m not here to take your faith away from you (as if I could.) But based on my own studies, the stories of the Bible carry not the imprint of divine authorship, but of human folklore and mythmaking.
March 14th, 2008 at 2:26 am
ok i`ll take the bait and for the sake of argument assume your god exists and is just like you defined him
In that case “the game” would be blackmail from him , do this or that or go to hell
No if your god would be 100% proven , i would definately not be a christian . It`s contrary to anything i believe , to anything I am .
Ofcourse he could change what makes me me beeing omnipotent and all , but he choses not to , he made me a certain way and then asks me to act against what defines me as human to please him
If for the sake of argument he exists he is a sadistic moron
March 16th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Recently discovered your site and am enjoying the occasional dip. In relation to this thread, why do believers insist that their unusual sensations (in Johnn Shuttee’s case a “tingling from my head to my toes”) are epiphanies? Any rational person would assume a physiological cause. I recall a very unusual sensation once while sitting in a vestry talking to a priest (this is twenty years ago in my more ambivalent youth). My wife wanted to look into getting our first-born christened with the Pascalesque reasoning: “just in case”. I was a bit “whatever” so went along for a chat. We got the third-degree from the priest who questioned our faith and so I launched into a fictional monologue about my beliefs. Within seconds I felt as if my head was being pulled down into my stomach and that I was falling through the floor, like there had been an increase in the force of gravity. The faithful would no doubt take this as a sign but I know full well that it was purely a chemical reaction brought on by lying to a person of authority. Lying isn’t something I do often or can do easily and so the effort results in a pump of something, maybe adrenalin, through my system and that causes a particular neurological reaction. I have had a similar feeling in moments of conflict and threatened violence.
The assumption that a tingly feeling is a visitation is really a comment on the suggestibility of the person, particularly if that person wants to believe in a deity. I look forward to the day when gene mapping identifies the gene for religious belief (possibly just a variation on the genetic nature of addictive personalities) and we can categorically point to a genetic disorder as the prime explanation for the spread of religion.