Is Belief in a God Reasonable?
This is a debate thread, so I can keep the Ron Weinland thread on topic.
The debate here can be on the Christian God specifically, other specific gods such as Allah or Vishnu, or gods in general. It’s OK if you want to say another person is being unreasonable, but I will moderate down comments that descend into ad hominem. I will also seriously consider moderating down anyone who shows willful ignorance about atheism or logical argumentation. Familiarity with the content of these links is indispensable in this regard:
• Atheism FAQ
• Constructing a Logical Argument
March 27th, 2008 at 8:18 am
Richard Saunders,
Do you care to restate your, “…perfectly and mathematically logical argument down to a perfectly reasonable question” here? I’d be happy to reconsider it.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:24 am
To rich for my blood, Ironwolf! I fold.
Lost my taste for it. I’m gonna root for Jon.
besides… I can’t take guessing what those contemptible two security words are down there any more than I already do.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:33 am
Richard Saunders,
You know, you can hit the little “swirly arrows” button down there until you get an easier pair of words?
March 27th, 2008 at 8:49 am
yeah. the software’s great, it’s me that’s the problem. I didn’t come with those swirly arrows, however. it sure come in handy at times.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:13 am
I will come and debate this slowlty but surely. If Jon and whoever else wants to. I must say I’m not as intellectual as ironwolf or jon or as well studied as most in this arena. I am serching for answers, dont care where thay come from as long as they are right. The only way i can get to the point of something being right is by studying and searching out the things in which you claim to me. I can not go on “what some one has told me”. So I will have to take time to answer most things and I will try to not get hot headed. But please no one assume because I am on the side of the Bible that I can be lumped with the belief of other bible belieers on any subject. I have a mind of my own and try to get my own conclusions, scientifically or spiritually. i am still learning everything in all areas every day. My goal is to learn persay and not just to debate what i believe in so much as to figure ou why I believe in it and make sure I AM NOT just going on what some one has just said to me. it’s a personal venture that I am willing to discuss/learn from any one. Intelligent people are intelligent regardless of what they believe in and can be learned from. (You can still learn something from ignorant and unintelligent people to.)
I will try not to take what any one says out of context or assume any one here believes this or that based what I think they believe. if I do please correct me if I do.
Trey
March 27th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Richard, I’ve had to hit the swirly deal myself many times and I have 20/40 vision. It’s a cool captcha though. I’d expect nothing less from a programming-type like Ironwolf. Heh.
Okay…
Ironwolf should be thanked for including the all-important “a” in this question. Let’s consider two principles for considering “A” god. I am open to revisions to these principles based on reasonable assertions:
Principle 1:
A specific God demands a specific theology, and with that theology, specific evidence to support it in order to be considered “reasonable.”
None of you would consider it reasonable if I told you I produced a book claiming to be written by a disciple of The Almighty Trent. This book describes the creation of a lesser god called “Jehovah”. This lesser god actually believes he is the only god, when in reality All Mighty Trent has hidden himself from Jehovah on purpose. Why? It’s Trent’s will.
Trent demands that you kill kittens for salvation. That’s all.
Of course this is ridiculous…but why? Because there is no evidence to support the specific theology.
It does not matter that it sounds “silly”. This is an invalid argument, and one that Christians use against Mormons or other faiths that sound no more ridiculous than raising people from the dead or virgins giving birth sounds to an atheist.
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
I can believe in Trent all I want. There’s nothing wrong with it, other than laws against kitten-killing. But it is unreasonable. I can cry, “It’s a matter of faith!” all day long, but it will never make it any more reasonable.
This leads us to a valid conclusion:
Principle 2:
Faith alone is insufficient as reasonable evidence for a specific God.
Let’s start there. If anyone disagrees with these principles, please say so — and, more importantly, state your reasons. I’m totally open to logical revisions.
Once we’re past this hurdle, we can discuss Deism versus “a” God, or examine a specific God’s claims if you want.
The best way to approach these discussions is in baby steps, and I’m guilty of trying to run before I crawl. ; )
Jon
March 27th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Trey,
Man, that was a great post. The search for truth is all this should be about. Kudos to you.
As for intelligence: I’ve debated both atheists (back in my ministry days) and believers these days who are brilliant — far more so than I will ever be. However, if both parties agree on the pursuit of truth at any cost, even if that cost is being tossed out of the proverbial Garden of Eden by the revelation of knowledge, or bowing down to an almighty God, we usually arrive at some form of common ground.
I’m sad to say that I’ve met far more atheists who will seriously consider a god than god-fearing men and women who would seriously consider atheism. That slants the conclusions to one side.
Trey (and everyone): If you only knew how much I wanted to bow…or, rather, to have the comfort that comes with a personal God.
I know — that does not make sense to many atheists. And, I understand their reasons why. I respect them greatly.
Just know that my understanding is not based on what I ‘want’ to believe, but rather upon what I must believe in order to remain in a state of integrity with the pursuit of truth. And, that I am entirely open to being wrong.
I will say that if I am wrong, and the Christian God is the real deal, there will be some major father/son arguments if he decides to allow me into his crib. : )
March 27th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Katie:
As for “believing” God did it — sure, that’s cool. But the Bible says to “be still and know.” The Greek words for “belief” are very strong. A good Perhaps you can address this question of “believing” versus knowing.
Jon
March 27th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Excellent principles to start with. Exactly what I would expect from an intelligent and schooled person. (I for one would have had no idea where to start).
I have to go to work but, i will be thinking about it all night and first try to give them to you based on what i believe and you can give me sound advice on my statements then i will follow what yoy said and actualy study it and come back with actual documentation. This way i can understand a little better MY belief system and make sure what I believe is what I believe and not what someone has told me my whole life. Also so i can know that there is proof or evidence on one side or the other or both. Thank you and will post back in about 8 hrs.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Jon ….
Thats all nice … and makes profound sense…. In fact I can’t really argue with someone who knows about faith and had faith at one point.
But …
Quite simply …
Ron W. is here to explain to you exactly what to look for to prove you wrong…. starting in April.
The more you make sense … the more I recognize the need for there to be a prophet … and an end times.
Thanks.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Yes, that is exactly what I want the TRUTH! No matter where it comes from. I have to know the truth! Exactly as you said ” to have a state of integrity towards the pursuit truth.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:53 am
I’m gonna regret getting on this thread, but it could be very interesting.
Should Katie care to join us, I do have a question. You said: “I personally find the idea that we all got here from some bang (or whatever) and there is no purpose for us, etc… UN reasonable. God makes much more sense — logically — to me. (If there is a creation, there is a creator — makes sense).”
The Big Bang and evolution make no claims as to our purpose or anything that profound. They are merely the best available theories to explain current data. If you want to extrapolate meaning from them, that is your prerogative, but not their fallacy.
This creation = creator logic has been sufficiently ripped to shreds before (including by my prof when I wrote a paper to that effect), but let’s assume for a moment it hasn’t.
Even if a Creator is necessitated by creation - who’s to say that creator is the personage you’ve come to associate with the Biblical God? What evidence is there in favor of Yahweh over Ra, Vishnu, or even Trent the Kittenhungry?
Just because God created us, did he have to write a book about it? Couldn’t he just leave it a mystery for us to unravel? We seem like a relatively clever lot. Surely He must have foresaw all this confusing evidence we’d find in geology that conflicts with his Sacred Book? What evidence do you have that your beliefs are anything more than a cultural relic? If I professed a belief in Ra the Sun-god, at least I can see him. He keeps us warm and fuels all natural cycles here on Earth. Not only can I see him, but I can pinpoint exactly how he serves us and why he’s so important. I could argue that life on Earth is proof of Ra, as it is his energy that sustains us.
This probably sounds silly to you, but it’s a less dramatic claim than most Christians make, and is completely valid by your parameters.
What I’m driving at is, what, in your eyes, gives the Bible validity over any other religious scripture?
March 27th, 2008 at 11:05 am
trey - I wish the best of luck to you and have to commend your courage. I’m looking forward to seeing how your discourse with Jon will play out.
My advice would be to keep in mind that if Jon gets a bit cutting, he seems to me to do it in a good-humored manner. These are probably ideas he’s been over many times in the past, so you have to expect him to posit ideas in a particularly pointed fashion.
If you take these in the spirit they were meant, you’ll begin to see the humor in some people’s folly (including yours and mine).
Most people want to be right at the beginning of a debate. I find it more palletable to be right at the end - but to do so you have to be willing to be wrong in the middle.
That’s as deep as my wisdom gets.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:40 am
I’d like to point out that while it looks like Trent the Kittenhungry may rule this thread, there are a number of other useful gods that are willing to stand in for him:
• Eris, the Goddess of the Discordians
• J.R. “Bob” Dobbs, high epopt of the Church of the Subgenius
• The Flying Spaghetti Monster
• The Invisible Pink Unicorn
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” — Stephen F. Roberts
March 27th, 2008 at 11:40 am
i’m here and willing to chat until i just cannot take it anymore at which point i am likely to get flustered and type something without thinking it through — i have already admitted to being flawed, right? But in following my faith, I will usually realize that i was wrong and apologize. happens all the time for me. : )
Believing vs knowing, jon… i don’t have any studies or data or lofty definitions for you. i see a difference here. i believe enough to make some pretty radical changes in my life based solely on that belief. a picture of my soul today is VASTLY different from a picture of my soul 10 year ago. (i use the word soul not knowing what else to use — not the physical me, but the spiritual/behavioral etc..) i can tell you that if i didn’t take my “belief” seriously, i wouldn’t dare live the same way. i think/hope that my “belief” is sufficient to fulfill the definition presented in the Hebrew/Greek words. But i am not ready to use the word KNOW, nor do i at this point think it’s appropriate for other believers to do so. I cannot explain God — if I could I certainly wouldn’t worship Him as I do. To me, trying to have this conversation is like a flea taking a course in astro physics. And, there is just no pretty way to say this, jon, and please hear my intentions behind it — that is exactly what you read like to me when you try to explain all of this. you are trying to fit the idea or the absence of God into human words — possibly why the bible fails a lot of your “tests” for consistency. he is just too big for our understanding.
if this blog is for us to “prove” our points to one another, I really am not interested. as i stated before, i NEED my faith. I need to believe that something bigger than me is assisting me in my day to day, and will be there for me at the scariest moment i can imagine — when i die.
Let me add something very personal here. I cannot speak of this without crying and being filled with anxiety, so bear with me. I hope this comes across the right way… I watched my mother die in an inimaginable amount of fear. My family is Christian, and for some reason at the point close to death, my mother had a melt down. She screamed and cried and believed with all of her heart (for that moment anyway) that she was going straight to hell. She claimed to have already “seen” her future in a dream. I was 19 and completely helpless to give her any relief from her terror. The single most frightening thing I can imagine is to die like this. I know that many of you unbelievers would think that this experience would push me away from religious belief, but it is one of the reasons, I cling the hardest to it. I do not want you to convince me. I WANT to believe that Jesus saved and forgave me. I MUST believe that He will take care of me in death. Otherwise I am in a psyche ward on Lithium till I bite it. : ) No Thanks!
March 27th, 2008 at 11:49 am
renton, honey, i am going to regret it, too, baby, right there with you!!!
“Should Katie care to join us, I do have a question. You said: “I personally find the idea that we all got here from some bang (or whatever) and there is no purpose for us, etc… UN reasonable. God makes much more sense — logically — to me. (If there is a creation, there is a creator — makes sense).”
key words: makes sense TO ME. not asking you to think the same way i do. not much of a debater, am i?
“The Big Bang and evolution make no claims as to our purpose or anything that profound. They are merely the best available theories to explain current data. If you want to extrapolate meaning from them, that is your prerogative, but not their fallacy. ”
I understand this. I think one must prove there is a god FIRST before we even talk about who He is… On this point I was speaking on the God/No God question.
“This creation = creator logic has been sufficiently ripped to shreds before (including by my prof when I wrote a paper to that effect),”
Oh I’m sure it has. But if athiests had any more “proof” that we do, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Plenty of brains have debated on both sides of this topic — I don’t claim to be a brain. But the “ripping to shreds” of this idea still depends on some presuppositions that differ from my own.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:53 am
i hope this doesn’t look like i am entering into a debate here. i have an elementary ed degree and am a 32 year old stay at home mom whose intellectual stimulation daily consists of pairing up matching socks in the laundry, figuring out how to get that dirty diaper smell out of the house, and counting calories. I am way out of my league here admittedly. : )
March 27th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Katie,
To quote Obi Wan Kenobi: “You’ve just taken your first step into a larger world.”
(Posted that to the wrong thread. Now I gotta keep ‘em straight!)
March 27th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
katie - input here from your perspective would actually be greatly appreciated. Forgive me if I seem to get condescending at points - we’ll both do well to remember what I say is just my view.
That being said - I think the key word you used is LOGICALLY, not “to me”. I’m just trying to understand your logic by pointing out what I feel is the problem with it. The objective is not to change your beliefs, just maybe to examine them a bit for our collective benefit.
I know some of them were sorta rhetorical, but if you could attempt an answer at some of the other questions I asked, I would find them very enlightening.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Hey, Renton. I think that you basically asked 2 different questions,
1. why do you believe there is a god?
2. why do you believe in the God of Abraham?
As for number 1, creation speaks to there being a creator. I know your professor would disagree with me… It’s really quite simple for me. I look around and believe that all of “this” is put together rather intricately — down to the smallest detail to maintain life. Makes since to me that someone made it so. Randomness when I open my eyes and see the world is nothing but silliness. and i know this is cliche, but it’s just how i see it. If I see a watch or a shoe, it doesn’t take much faith for me to believe that a watchmaker or cobbler made them even if I’ve never met the men. Like I said, you’ve all heard this before. Belief in God takes less faith than believing that the universe is random.
As for point 2, I’m afraid you’ll get nothing very scholarly from me either. Not that I haven’t pondered and read plenty. But there are refutes for every point and I don’t wish to read all about them again. When it gets right down to it, I believe that God put me into the family He did for a reason. He knew that they are believers. Therefore, I conclude that He for whatever reason, wanted me to believe in the God of the Bible as well. My life has been nothing but richer and more hopeful since I “met” Jesus. I have no reason to stop believing. I read here that you are in pursuit of truth at all cost, and that’s great for you. I pray nightly that God not let me be decieved — that He leads me to the truth even if that truth is uncomfortable for me. So on some level, I am with you. But this is where we part as friends. I repeat, I WANT, NEED, and MUST believe. It isn’t hurting me, only helping me. So why not just let me?
I think the church has it all wrong, personally, which is why Dubya appealed to me in the first place. At first, he answered some questions that just wouldn’t settle within me. Then, with some more digging and reading I realized that he was a raving lunatic. I think that I could join Jon in reasoning myself away from belief, but to what avail? I’ve come very close several times in my life to just throwing my hands up and turning the faith switch off. Each time, I became someone I do NOT want to be. Some of us NEED a savior, friends. I am one of them.
Renton, if I didn’t answer something you asked, just reask me. I’d be happy to continue the discussion. Just wanted to let you know that we have different goals… yours = truth at all cost mine = well being, hope, truth, but not at the cost of my first 2…
March 27th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Katie,
I want to ask this very seriously. No-one here is telling you that you must give up your faith. No-one here is gluing your eyes open and forcing you to read or participate here. But the fact that you are nonetheless gets me very curious: what do you hope to gain by being here? I’m not referring to the Weinland thread, but this one. Why go anywhere near anything like this discussion? Why read it? Why respond to it?
March 27th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
I’m claiming peer pressure sort of. : ) i almost didn’t even click on the link, but jon said something about putting his response to me on here — so i thought i’d check it out. didn’t want to be called a coward or any of the like. also, i’ll share my opinion with anyone. there were a couple of questions on this page specifically to me. thought i’d answer. that’s about it.
i didn’t really take anything from you athiests (JOKING) in the way that you were trying to convert me until that nasty little response i gave to jon. after reading a few lengthy posts that said the same thing over and over — it did start to feel like he wanted people of faith to reconsider. Perhaps I was wrong, which is why i apologized.
also, i’m not scared to read this stuff. I doubt you’ll say anything i haven’t heard, read, or thought before. i always end up right back here in my safety zone after a few sleepless nights. God has never wronged me… He’s only offered help for the wrongs I’ve done to myself. I don’t want to thumb my nose at Him.
March 27th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Katie,
Speaking for myself, and at the risk of speaking for Jon, I’d say we do want you to reconsider. But I won’t think you’re a bad person if you decide not to, or if you do reconsider and end up deciding you still believe in God.
March 27th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Off-topic.
March 27th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
WHY?????? : )
March 27th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Sue, please repost to the Weinland thread.
March 27th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Okay, great stuff one and all. Renton, as usual, your posts are insightful and enlightening. I rarely if ever mean to be ‘cutting’ — it’s not my nature. I tend to write in a curt manner because it’s easier to cover all the bases.
I take it no one disagrees with the first two principles. This is good, as it gives us a logical starting point.
I’ll address this more tomorrow, as I’m actually trying to ‘work’ today. Gasp…too bad Trent The Kittenkiller just commanded me telepathically that all true Trentites must work on Thursdays. But only in odd-numbered months. He’s a strange fellow.
Katie — sorry you had to suffer through such a traumatic experience. If it means anything at all, take peace in the knowledge that billions of Buddhists have passed away in total peace. It would strike me as reasonable that, based on the culture we are raised in, our personal end could be riddled with anxiety and fears of death, drawing upon cultural norms for either comfort or fear.
I did want to give a rebuttal to this statement from Katie, although I want to make it clear that in “no way” do I consider believing in God a negative thing, unless one takes one’s faith to the point of harming others.
As you know, this is argument from design. If intricate design begs a designer, then God — a being of unfathomable complexity, so much as to make the universe seem trivial — would demand a designer of even greater complexity. And so-on, and so-on.
Either that, or complexity requires no designer. This would relegate you to accept the theory of God “or” matter existing forever, both without the need of first cause. One of these theories (matter) fits perfectly into our understanding of how matter and energy operate. The other requires not only incredible faith, but also a determination as to what “God” is, otherwise we are left with superstition and the idea of creating gods in our own image.
However, we have a very good idea of what “matter” is, and we are learning more and more every day.
So I ask you: Which of these two scenarios is truly more “reasonable”? I would argue for matter. The theory of the universe existing “always” and without first cause demands no designer, and also fits in well with our understanding of thermodynamics (first law.)
As for design: We live in a universe of amazing chaos, with only a fraction of what we call “order” forming the life forms and material world we can see. The further we look into the quantum level, the more chaos we find. One could argue that we cannot understand the patterns within the chaos, but then one would have to explain universal phenomena that makes life impossible, which are far more numerous than those that make life possible.
That, and rabbits eat their own poo. That’s poor design, no? ; )
March 27th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Todaysfate said:
We’re back to him again? Man…
First, I hope he does prove me wrong. But that proof would have to be more than errant world events. The “tribulation” as described in Revelation (again, a book that should have never been put in the cannon…see Rev. 22:10-11
) is nothing the world could “miss”.
Do you remember the pastor who got lucky with Katrina? The reason I say “lucky” is that he “prophesied” (read: guessed) that New Orleans would be hit by a wave of water a few months prior to Katrina.
Can you imagine how ape-nuts his followers went after it actually happened?
Well, there’s more to the story. First, saying “New Orleans will be flooded” (it wasn’t the first time he predicted it) is hardly a stretch. Built under sea level with faulty levies? Yeah…real prophetic. It was the details of his account that fell short. He claimed it was “punishment for the wickedness” going on in the French Quarter. Well, hardly anyone was killed in the French Quarter. Those who ended up dead were mostly poor black folk who had no way to escape the city. Nice of God to kill those folks, eh?
He went ON to say that Houston would be hit by a hurricane. For a moment it looked as if it would. But, alas, it never did. His prediction stated that “Dallas would be overrun by fleeing Houstonians”. Trust me — I live there. Nothing happened.
The point is simply this: prophets must be 100% accurate. Biblical standard.
I love definitive proof of anything, so I hope that in May you’ll still be around to post your thoughts on this topic if Ron fails the prophet test.
March 27th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
jon, i know you brought up some things that i need to answer, but i am so exhausted that nothing intellegent will come from me tonight (not that anything all that super intellegent has come from me so far either… haha) but tonight it would be really bad. I did want to ask you what is your religious background? Thanks!
March 27th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
good read…wanna agnostic point of view, or is that too wishy washy for you guys?
March 27th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Robbi,
Of course. In fact, Jon is an agnostic. Perhaps you can discuss where you are the same and/or differ in your use of the term.
March 27th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
No worries Katie. I know the feeling. ; )
I apologize in advance for the length of this post. I know, I know…nothing new, right?
I’ve been searching from the time I was a kid. Born and raised in a Christian home. Parents were prison ministers (part-time) and great people. Masters in theological philosophy, became a youth minister and later a music minister in a nondenominational church. I always felt a deep spiritual calling and had a sincere, heart-felt belief.
About seven years ago I began to question things. There were always theological issues that I had brushed aside in favor of my feelings and what I then called “personal spiritual experiences.” Over time, the issues became too large for me to ignore. They are largely ethical, although there is (and was) some logical concerns.
Logical problems have been addressed by numerous apologists (I was one of them for a short time), but many with dubious results. Ethical problems — well, that is an issue of blind faith and a degree of rationalization I could no longer accept. The spiritual experiences? Obviously people have experience from every religion. They cannot all be correct, especially the ones that are telling you about the “one true God.”
Here’s an interesting article on the neurochemistry of belief. This certainly doesn’t rule out God or actual spiritual experiences. In fact, some believers have used this research to say, “See. That’s how God did it. We’re hardwired to believe.” But that creates a major problem with dozens of tribes in non-civilized territories that have no discernible religious beliefs at all. Nor would it account for the various “gods” people experience. You’d think if we were hardwired, the electrician would have made the circuit a bit less fuzzy:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/godonbraintrans.shtml
As odd as this sounds to a caring person (I can tell this just from your writings), my love for mankind drew me out of my faith. The pursuit of science and truth — sure, those things are important. But I could no longer in good conscious believe the things that my God chose to do and/or allow and, at the same time, truly claim to love my neighbor as myself.
But that’s me. There are many Christians who have fought their way through this issue, or simply choose to ignore it in favor of the social and spiritual comforts offered by faith and communion with like-minded believers.
When combined with the theological issues, and the horrible things I witnessed in the name of “Jesus”, it all just became too much. All the beautiful things (and there were many) could simply not make up for the negative.
That’s my background in a semi-small nutshell. : )
Jon
March 27th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Robbi:
I am either a weak atheist or a strong agnostic. No matter how you define the belief, I remain open to any data that points to truth. And, I believe there are things in the universe that will always be a mystery.
Jon
March 27th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
my belief system is this: all of us are linked spiritually. I believe we are spiritual beings with everlasting souls and this life is part of the journey….some truths are universal and some are personal…we are all connected…and we are a chain, only as strong as our weakest link, metaphorically speaking. I believe in good and I believe in evil, I have been touched by both. Believe it on not, i was athiest for many years…void of any belief system…if I did not know the answer, so what?…to a degree I still feel that way…HOWEVER, things in my life presented itself in such a way that logic could not explain…I know there is so much we do not understand, yet, for me, that’s ok as long as we keep an open mind and an open heart…I know there’s more than meets the eye…I have touched it………….I also know I am very tired right now, and I’m sure I could have been more eloquent in my words…but then again my words come from the heart and I know I’m leaving myself wide open….so go ahead, give it your best shot…
March 27th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Jon: you sound so much better in this thread because this thread is your “pulpit”…metaphorically speaking…as a matter of fact, if you told me you were a single mature man, I might have ti run away with you…sorry IW, forgot where i was…
March 27th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Robbi,
I’m sorry if this sounds trite, but when someone says, “I was an athiest [sic] for many years…” it’s always a tipoff that they were what I would call a “default atheist,” i.e., raised with little or no religious or philosophical training; as opposed to what I would call a “considered atheist,” who has really studied into both sides of the issue and come to a considered position, even if they’re willing to change it under the right conditions.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
gotta turn in…talk to tomorrow
March 27th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Robbi,
Hey, I’m happy when people find each other, however they find each other.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Robbi said:
Hmm…I’d say you were more of a Deist than an agnostic, but the definitions have always been a bit hazy to me. Open to input.
If we’re only as strong as our weakest link, then the world has always been atheistic, as there was always a time when atheists existed…or so I would imagine.
Please be more specific: Do you believe in the ‘concepts’ of good and evil, or that “good” and “evil” are forces, spirits, or actual energy?
Only a sociopath has no concept of right and wrong. It’s the specifics that are in question. To say it is “good” to love your wife and “evil” to cheat on her is the majority opinion. Some feel otherwise, but let’s go with the majority. Now, some people say it is “evil” to be married (priests are forbidden to marry in many religions). Still others insist on multiple wives, and this is “good”.
For me, killing another would be evil unless in self-defense, and then it would be neither evil ‘nor’ good. It would just be.
To use a Buddhist analogy: The glass is neither half empty or half full. The glass simply ‘is’.
You should restate that as “your present logic” could not explain. When I was five, I thought I saw a monster under my bed. I swore to my parents it was real, and to me, at that time, it was an experience beyond “logic”. Obviously as I grew and my world view expanded, my capacity for reason expanded as well.
My former wife and I fell in love at first site. This was totally beyond “logic” — until the marriage fell apart due to a mental illness. It was not her fault, obviously, but that “love” dissolved as if it were never there at all. I dove into the study of love and the neurochemistry behind it. While neurochemistry is not “love”, it is directly responsible for the feelings associated with love. Give the most loving person a lobotomy and trust me — divorce court awaits.
Again, what seemed “spiritual” was more biochemical than anything else. I still believe in love with all my heart, but now my eyes are a bit more open.
(By the way, I am referring to the “feelings” of deep love, not loving actions. Love is both a decision and an emotion.)
Many things once unexplained are now reasonably explained. This is not always true. There will always be mystery. My only caution is not to fall into the pattern of explaining every mystery as “an act of God” or some form of spiritual thing.
I agree. There are many things left unexplained, and we should always keep an open mind and heart. My only input is to give the power of your mind more credit. It is such an amazing organ, with only a fraction of its ultimate potential unlocked and understood.
We know this beyond a shadow of a doubt. We know there are areas of the brain as mysterious as deep space and almost as unexplored. Perhaps consider those areas as plausible explanations as well as something ethereal.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
ok, last post of the nite for me…I had a strong religious background…raised a Jew…but as I went on my own, I saw the total hypocracy of institutionalized religion. I never accepted Jesus as the Savior. I studied the old testament and the new, a few different religions as well…searching for the truth, or at the very least what felt right for me…I concluded, all I was searching for was my own strength, my own instincts, my own intelligence…I then was able to break free and rely on and believe in myself…I make things happen for myself..I posessed the power…I did not rely on faith of a supreme being or a higher order of things…I think that falls into the athiest category, by default or not…I really DO hate labelling!
March 27th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
wow. a possible love connection. perhaps the last thing i expected on this blog. : )
thanks, jon, for the answer to my question. I agree with Robbi that you sound so much better here on this post. Maybe it’s the personal experiences that make your beliefs sound less sterile and all fired “smart”. ; )
i completely understand how you could come to your conclusions, jon. i’ve had similar thoughts at times. I don’t judge you for your journey.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Jon: you have made so many good points, some I agree with, others I do not. However, it is apparent you are a nite person, and I am a morning person, OR you live on the other side of the world, which in that case would make you a morning person as well….ok…I’m going on and on in circles because I’m beat…long day…as engaging as you are, I will talk to you tomorrow…good nite , sleep tight!
March 28th, 2008 at 1:26 am
Hi all.
O.k. Here I go. My first stand on what i have found on my own about the God I choose to believe in after a falling out with an elder of a former church I went to, which led to me leaving all and any particular “organised religion”.
First, a little about my religious background - I started in a version of the church of Christ when I was about 14. I went caus my mom made me. I went on my own accord later because of all the gorgeous women in my sunday school class. I was then intrigued by the bible and felt compelled to learn more. As I read and learned more, ( now that I’m 30 i have realised it was more of an indoctrination of one sects “belief” of what the bible says), i was more ernest about this Christ guy. From that point i went to several different denominations including;
-Catholic, from which i actually learned nothing but rosaries and chants to when a father said something in his sermons;
-Assemblies of God, learned that my sunday school teacher, who was the pastors wife, had an Indian friend, (feather not dot), who went out to the mountains and prayed to god for a week untill He answered him with I am that I am. The pastor was a foul mouth whose favorite word was f**k;
Pentocostal, where I learned of crazy people putting hands on you while up front and rocking you back and forth, (untill they pushed you over) and said you’ve been slain in the spirit. I personally think this is poppycock and, a missuse of power. Also, I learned that women are not allowed to wear make-up, wear pants, or cut their hair. Oh yeah, I almost forgot the most important one! If your preaching, you have to scream really loud, scream really loud in tongues, and almost fall out of the pulpit every sunday even if there is only 4 people to listen to the sermon!;
Baptist, I learned that church is a social organization where the preacher is apperantly aloud to have “sexual relations” with married members of the body, (who is also married), in the pulpit on every day but sunday, get her pregnant and then have the church condone the abortion;
After the baptist church, i was against organised religion for about 8 yrs. i did private study of the bible. Had bible study with a couple of friends of mine. That is where I gained the majority of what I now believe in. We had some of the best bible studies ever and we were smoking Gods green herb while doing it. A big no,no, to many.
Church of Christ, a hardline sect of that name. I learned biblical law! you cant celebrate Christmas, Easter, or any religious holiday ordained by the Catholic church, but Halloween was ok!!!!!!!!!! explain that to non believers or family! It’s hard enough about the christmas thing let alone throw in the fact “but i still do Halloween”. Imagine the looks! I also learned that pastors can give books out, (other than the Bible), to all the women of the church secretly and specifically told not to let the husbands know about it. I also found out, (after my wife told me about it), that if you confront the elder of the church about how God does nothing in secret, that you can be cussed at and told to mind your own business!
Last but not least MY Church, Awesome it is! I am now on a journey,(and have been for two years now), of freedom to find out wh,at I and my family will believe in. In a Biblical manner of course but not doctrinal. Scary when I actualt think of it and at the same time very spiritually rewarding and mentally fulfilling. I can ask questions without stepping on some ones doctrinal toes, and search the scriptures if I have a problem with some thought that i was indoctrinated with,, that has not ever made sense to me like celebrating the lords day on sunday over what scriptures clearly state as being saturday. Or, why is good friday to easter Sunday only a day and a half when Christ was to be in the belly of the Earth for three days? Especially when He told the pharisee’s that would be His only sighn? Try asking that to a minister in any church on sunday! You will be made to feel small and moronic. Test the scriptures but dont question the doctrine.I think not!
Sorry for the lengthy history, but this is where I start my REAL journey. Discovering the truth. A specific theology, and specific evidence to support it. Studying will need to be done on my part so bare with me for responses to every ones questions as they will take a little time as I will try not to go into any thing half cocked. I will post some of my theories on principle 1 and 2 later today after I have gone to bed. I thought about this all day at work, and I am very excited to discuss all issues with every one and also excited to learn alot also. i will give my answers and study your responses and look at every thing given to me with an open mind. All i want is some DAMN truth! churches F**K you up more than any thing else I have come to believe. Its up to us as individuals to discover it, mandated even, I believe by any ones particular God. and if not then We would be drones and not thinkers.
night all Trey
March 28th, 2008 at 1:36 am
katie - first, let me thank you for sharing with us some insight into your character and for agreeing to humor us in our questions - hopefully we’ll keep them as painless as possible.
Next, let me try to explain something. Unlike Ironwolf and possibly Jon, I’m not trying to take your faith from you, rather, I’m just trying to borrow some for myself. As I’ve mentioned in other posts, I’m internally torn: the intuitive, creative, more spiritual part of me wants to believe and envies you. But the logical rational (and sometimes ethical) part of my brain keeps coming up with these objections, and can’t understand how all the believers don’t see them. When I ask a question, it’s (usually) not just to have an excuse to show how clever I am - I really want a satisfactory answer.
Which brings me to my next point. You guessed it - your answers weren’t very satisfying for me, but I think it was my fault for not emphasizing what I wanted to know. Your summation of my questioning got a little off track.
The reason I mention my failing philosophy paper wasn’t to say my prof knew everything (I guess it actually would have been a grad student marking the papers) but that I indeed went into university defending intelligent design. I read the works of some great thinkers, and when I finally banged out that paper, I thought I was going to turn the Philosophy world on its ear, I was so sure I had argued so conclusively in favor of God.
You can imagine my disappointment reading the counter. But I had to admit they were right.
Re Number 1: I’m actually willing to grant you (for now anyway) argument from design as proof of a god. If all the arguments against it out there haven’t convinced you, I’m not likely to either. This brings up another question: how hard of creationist are you? Would you say that all the animals we currently enjoy (and many we don’t anymore) were all present in their current state before the Flood, or are you willing to grant some diversification through genetic shuffling? Or was the Flood even a literal event in your conception? I guess what I’m asking is, does evolution exist, maybe to some degree, or not at all? From there we can see if Creation and Evolution are mutually exclusive.
Re Number 2: your answer to this one is hard for me to refute ’cause it sorta fits into my framework. I grew up under a form of Armstrongianism and spent most of my life wondering why I was so “blessed” with the “truth” while everyone else was ignorant. Fate or determinism seems to be the only answer to this from a theistic viewpoint… but this opens a whole other can of worms I’d like to get into by and by.
Now… back to my original questions.
I said: “Even if a Creator is necessitated by creation - who’s to say that creator is the personage you’ve come to associate with the Biblical God? What evidence is there in favor of Yahweh over Ra, Vishnu, or even Trent the Kittenhungry?”
(***I’d like to pause here to say that while I’m still waiting to see the IPU, I am considering becoming a Pastafarian, but Jon’s meta-God Trent takes the cake for the truly mindbending and disturbing.
So that’s why there’s kittens.
***)
I guess this is sorta Number 2 again, but to return to it, have you really researched and considered other major and minor religions to see if Christianity is the best one for you? I only ask because (sorry for the life story) in my adolescence I rejected my parents’ teachings and took up Wicca. At the time it resolved all my conflicts with a cruel-yet-all-loving-God. (Not to mention all the historical and scientific inaccuracies).
There was only one problem. I didn’t buy it. For as much as it appealed to me, when it came right down to it it seemed as implausible as Christianity, and held up to scientific testing about as well (magick anyone?) From an outsider’s perspective, its oversimplifications (eg the 5 elements) seemed glaringly obvious. The only answer I can give for this was that I wasn’t raised with it ingrained in me like the Bible. The Bible is synonymous with truth in this culture: we swear on it to testify in court. As Ironwolf’s quote points out, once we start actively rejecting religions, it becomes hard to draw a circle of protection (ha!) around one particular one. Re-approaching Christianity from the outside its flaws seemed just as fatal, and so I got stuck in the middle.
I was hoping you could give me some reason to pick Christianity over any other, as they all seem equally trite to me now. They all seem to be written by human authors pushing their own agenda, some more maliciously than others. Christianity is a particularly brutal species, and in accordance with evolution, it has flourished rampantly, spawning countless subspecies. More benevolent options seem to offer the same spiritual richness and comfort to other cultures, so again I ask, aside from conformity, why Christ? Where’s the appeal?
I posited a deity (Ra) that had several advantages over yours, I’ll call Yahweh (we’ve all heard Ron). Now please, imagine you’re a traveler in biblical times and you’ve come to Egypt. You chance across an Israelite and and Egyptian. The Israelite tells you all about Yahweh [insert Old Testament here] and the Egyptian tells you all about Ra [maybe he takes you for a tour of the pyramids and explains the hieroglyphs as you go - there should be one there strikingly similar to the Gospels]. You can see him up there in the sky actively giving life - he has as many if not more followers than Yahweh. You can see the largest manmade structures for 5000 years that were errected by the followers of Ra, who probably used the labor of Yahweh’s people whom they had enslaved — whoever God was, His favor seemed to be with them.
Now, be honest with yourself, what would you think, and why?
Would you really think, ‘hey, that Jew was onto something?’ Or would you go with the dominant culture of Ra? If so, would you say God wanted you to worship Ra? Or do you think you’d find it all non-sense, because you’ve never heard of God of any sort, or have your own that must be right?
I also posited a few other questions more for conversation: “Just because God created us, did he have to write a book about it?”
In your opinion, would the existence of a personal God require that he inspire scripture? Must there be a True Word of God if there is a God? If He communicates with us directly, why do we need an official book? Why isn’t our knowledge of Him innate? Or, if it’s learned, why is there only one path to Him? I imagine you’ll answer that I’d have to ask God if I wanted to understand His plan, but you must have thought of these things yourself. Is that the best answer you can give yourself?
March 28th, 2008 at 1:37 am
phew - sorry to anyone who actually reads that.
Why do I get the feeling I’m going to be writing a few essays until this gets boring?
March 28th, 2008 at 1:51 am
That’s one thing I have to hand to Ron - if you’re going to come up with something for me to mindlessly believe, he’s got a highly evolved niche species. You can see his ancestry in Armstrong and other Sabbatarians.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:04 am
renton, sorry, I said i was going to bed, and i am in a minute. I like your questions and I have some answers ( I think). I will answer in the morning. This is all food for wonderful thought! My mind is realing with answers and questions but I have to answer the two principle question first. all intelligent questions, hope my answers will work. see you all in the morning.
Trey
March 28th, 2008 at 7:13 am
Trey,
Sounds like you attend the Biblical school of hard knocks! Although I don’t say that was a pleasant experience for you at the time, it looks like it has been for the good to you in the end.
I’ll share some of my story with you. DISCLAIMER: This is not intended as my entry into this greater debate, just an FYI about who I am, since Trey and Jon have impressed me with their openness and honesty.
My father (I feel too old to call him “my dad” anymore) taught me from the Bible since I was a little child. My mother is VERY Roman Catholic. She’s Italian, so she grew up with the Latin mass and very strict faith in the priests and tradition, etc. My father joined the Worldwide Church of God years after marrying my mom (you never get too old to call you mother “mom”). Two polar opposites of faith. I shouldn’t have to say they didn’t get along very well. My father would sneak in Bible studies with me in the evening while mom took the rest of my family, who were years older than me, to teen study (CCD I think it was called) at the Catholic Church. Being Catholic myself, I learned quite a bit from him! For example - the Bible actually has words in it! (And doesn’t have to smell bad. I always hated the way ‘church things’ smelled.)
I attended Catholic school for 10 of my 12 years. Imagine secretly believing in a Saturday Sabbath under those conditions. Christmas was the worst. I would be so ridiculed for not wanting to color pictures of Santa. Now, that never stopped me from wanting presents. Hey! I was a kid!
When I was in 4th grade I asked the Nun “Why do we keep Easter when you know Jesus couldn’t have died on a Friday and returned on a Sunday?” OH MAN! She looked at me with the purest form of anger, it almost solidified and condensed into a metal, and she said “Because we DO!”
I didn’t connect the dots until years later as to why I started seeing the psychiatrist regularly after that.
I refused to go to church one fine school day after that, and she had the school psychiatrist chase me around the room for twenty minutes until he caught me and they allowed me to stand in the entranceway of the church rather than actually go in. We compromised.
When I was 14, the night before Halloween, I told my mother I was going to convert to the Worldwide Church of God. You see, my sister’s birthday was that night and my brother’s birthday was Halloween, and she was busily preparing cakes etc for that when I told her. At that time, the WCG condemned birthdays. (I know, that sounds odd, but sometimes misdirected zeal overcame their reliance on the Bible.) I tell you - this was the second time in my life I saw pure anger. Only this time it was even more potent than before. I honestly thought she was having a heart attack, her face was so red. Thank God we had solid wood cabinets because they took a serious beating! Such a waste, too, because once I saw the hypocrisy in that local WCG group I didn’t stay a full 2 years. I did eventually go back after several years of personal Bible study only to find one Mr. Ron Weinland. What luck!! Don’t get me started on him…
The night my father died, we rushed 8 hours to get there. I mean, it was so quick, they called me and said he had 12 - 24 hours left and before I could finish packing he was dead. I planned to go days before, but I caught this terrible flu and didn’t want to be the guy that killed my dad with the flu. Ya know?? So there was no time to prepare. Everyone elected me as the guy to give the eulogy since I had the most experience with religion. I had been giving sermonettes in my xCOG for a couple years, so I thought I could handle the public speaking. I whipped together a message I thought my father would agree with, since it was his funeral after all everyone else could put up with it for respect of the dead, and I rattled off all the Bible verses on death being a conscious-less state. I sounded like a kicked goose and felt like a stupid moron since I had lost my voice from the flu and could only speak in the lowest registers.
The presiding minister that we chose was an old Southern Baptist fella who debated Bible matters with my father from time to time. You see, my father didn’t attend any church, mainly because he was in a small town and there was no xCOG for him to meet with, but he’d talk Bible to anyone interested. When I finished and sat down, that old Baptists minister got up, stared out into the crowd for a bit, and started shaking his head. He said “I feel sorry for anyone who doesn’t believe in going to heaven.”
Oh my! He dissed me and my father at his own funeral. THAT takes moxy! My sisters wanted to walk out in protest. I talked them into respecting his opinion and just taking it with a grain of salt. Good thing too, we would have missed the show. He started the sing-song preaching, and the dancing around, and we thought he was going to produce a snake and all that. It was a memorable experience!
Anyhow, Trey, from a different starting point and along a different road we have both come to a very similar conclusion: read the Bible for yourself with prayer. When in conflict with religious tradition, side with the Bible’s text. Read it holistically and search ALL of the parts of a topic before drawing a conclusion.
Personally, IMHO, I believe that God left us the tools to search out the truth of the Bible. The Bible may have started close to perfect, but like all other things created it is subject to corruption, especially since forces actively work to corrupt it. And it is provable that there are errors and contradictions in many translations. No doubt. I don’t see that as proof against God, I see it as a challenge to those who really, genuinely, want to know - will we strive for it? I mean crave it like air. The solution is like a puzzle. A bit obvious here, a bit buried over there. The original can be reasonably reassembled with effort, or at least enough of it to have sufficient weight circumstantially. And for those people who live and die without it I’ve stated my position that I have found no proof for hell in its text. Not even in the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. For example, the law of refuge cities shows that the unintentional nature of these sins puts these ones under God’s special protection until the death of the High Priest (Jesus) when that offense is erased.
OR, since most people can’t possible perform or be expected to do the intense research I’ve just described, if that’s not your bag, He said, simply, “Love”. And that’ll get the job done. The simplicity in Christ.
Good travels on your journey. That goes to all! And I am outta here.
March 28th, 2008 at 8:04 am
I would like to ask a deceptively simple question.
Does anyone here believe that through logic or physical evidence, that God is a provable concept?
Understanding Circular Christian Logic 101:
Let’s try to follow my indulgent lines of reasoning here: If there actually is a Biblical Creator, and has created faith as a condition of eternal salvation, then I would not expect faith as a concept to be provable on this earth. Any hard evidence that made faith unnecessary would be kept covert as to maintain its very validity. Therefore, if there truly is a Biblical God, its very improvability except through faith is actually evidence for its very existence. Once we see some irrefutable scientific evidence, it would only serve to undermine the very premise of God as the bible purports it to be.
Let me try to syllogise that:
1) A Biblical God exists. (Allow for an admitted presupposition, in order to understand how we intellectualize things)
2) The way to Him is must be through faith, not reason according to its own rules.
3) Therefore, proving that God exists is equal to proving his nonexistence at the worst, fallibility of its Word at the least.
As illogical and inherently contradictory as that sounds, it actually makes logical sense according to “biblical truth” and syllogistic principles. Once you prove God, you have disproved its very nature: If God tells us it is unknowable by limited human means, and you find irrefutable scientific evidence for its actual existence, then you have made a liar out of him.
If there would be a creator as complex as the architect of the cosmos, I would NOT expect its reasoning to be easily understood. Like it or not, it is how many God-believers maintain their intellectual integrity.
In fact it would be one big intellectual let down.
Let the Fallacious Argumentation Accusations commence!! And may the best straw man win! : )
March 28th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Renton said:
I share these values, Renton. Just so there’s no misunderstanding. Well-said, and brother…I hear you.
If there is a difference at all, it would be my proactive desire to challenge some of these issues of faith in the name of ethical reason — not remove anyone’s faith, but to see if the faith is misplaced to begin with.
And, if I happen to be influenced by any new data or a personal experience (such as Trent the Kittenkiller is fond of creating), then I’m going to be one happy camper.
March 28th, 2008 at 8:25 am
Comment removed: preaching
You’re new around here, ain’tcha?
March 28th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Renton,
Please refrain from blasphemy. Trent is very, very sensitive — and I just heard the faint meow sounds coming from underneath my floor.
I’m just getting through some of the posts now. I’ll be posting on and off over the weekend. Love the honesty from all of you — Trey, Richard, Renton, everyone. Still reading… ; )
Trey: The church where I practiced youth ministry was in fact a Church of Christ. We could exchange horror stories. While the CoC never “forbade” Christmas or Easter, they correctly pointed out that these were originally pagan holidays, merely stolen by early Christians and adopted as their own. They hold no basis in fact — theological, that is.
You are right on the money with Halloween — another pagan holiday of a sorts, and totally ‘fine’ to participate in.
I think their reasoning (or dismal lack thereof) was due to the worship connection of the first two holidays. The same non-logic let us listen to AC/DC when Amy Grant was forbidden.
March 28th, 2008 at 8:44 am
Second question: Doper sonal experiences count toward evidence of “Is belief in a god reasonable”?
Defining parameters and definitions is the first step towards rational dialogue.
If we have a consensus on admissibility of such as evidence, I would love to hear if any of you have had an experience that you would consider spiritual, even supernatural in quality that you cannot explain away (with one too many pints).
I would also like to hear your theory on its origins, if any.
March 28th, 2008 at 8:49 am
(that should read “Do personal”, not duper sonal!!)
March 28th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Hi Sue! Thanks for the post. Great question.
If I may…
What we CAN proof as false is the support for a specific god, not the mental constructs that make belief in that god possible. Please see Principle 1 in this blog entry.
We have yet to determine the criteria for defining “God”. Which god are we referring to? Even the Bible states there are numerous gods, although Jehovah claims exclusivity as the one true God.
I remember a debate when I was in what most people would call seminary. “Since there are “false gods” as warned by the “true God”, are these actual superior beings or merely false ideas?”
Before you glance over the question, you must ask yourself why the authors warning of false gods, even naming them, would bother to do so. “Hold to no myths or false ideas about other “gods”, for there are no other gods at all” would not have been too much to ask. I’m all for clarity. ; )
You cannot understand a square circle. Heh…
I am not sure if you are stating an errant bit of reasoning purposefully in order to expose it, or if this is a legitimate question. Either way, let’s see if we can address it.
The Biblical Creator “created” faith. Hmm. He would have created the mind, but isn’t that an indirect creation of faith? Either way…
The BC (as we’ll call him) didn’t just create “faith” as a condition for salvation. We have to look at the Bible as a whole and see all the necessary steps for salvation, both past and present. This is a good challenge for any Christian — tell me how to be saved. There are at last count five different and (some) radically contradictory salvation methods in current Christian theology all taken from the same book — the Bible. Wow. You’d think something of the most utmost importance would be made crystal clear to the point of redundancy.
Nonetheless, let’s take what most Christians (excluding the CoC) believe about salvation and what’s necessary to have it.
By ‘your’ definition of the BC and what is and is not provable, the following would be impossible to prove:
1. Hearing. “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing the word of God.” No hearing, no faith. That means deaf, dumb and blind folks are SOL, doesn’t it? But I digress. “Hearing” is now something we cannot test, reason, nor prove, as it relates directly to divine salvation.
2. Faith. You cannot prove faith — it is a state of mind or, if you like, of spirit. But we are commanded to “test” our faith, so logically it must have a bar against which to test. That ‘bar’ is what we can prove or disprove as reasonable or not.
For example, if you said your “faith” demanded that you fly planes into tall towers, the ‘evidence’ for your faith would be, in part, 9/11. That’s the ‘bar’ — and that is what we must reason with. The mindset from which it was derived is only testable (proved) by the actions it produces.
Or, as John said…
3. Works. “Faith without works is dead.” So…great. Now we cannot prove the existence of works. God created works, or the ability to do good works, and this relates directly to faith. In fact, it is “evidence” of faith. So, one could argue that you could “prove” faith in God by works, but that is circular.
We could go on, but I hope the point is made. The assertion is a logical fallacy. It would be like saying we cannot judge who would be a good mate for us because we cannot “prove” love.
And why is that? Is God a God of the shadows? And what of the other criteria that MUST exist prior to faith — hearing, for one? Would he not keep “hearing the word of God” covert as well?
Here we have the crux of the logical fallacy:
1. There is a Flying Banana Monkey God.
2. FBMG’s criteria for salvation is faith in FBMG.
3. Therefore, faith in FBMG renders the existence of FBMG plausible.
If this logic helps anyone sleep at night, do let me know. ; )
I am not sure I understand this sentence, but I can save us all a few steps:
No one can prove the non-existence of anything.
For starters, you cannot prove a negative. Following that, you cannot prove that something “does not exist” based on the fact that someone will always be able to say, “As far as we know.”
The Monkey God could exist on Planet Beta 3 in the Delta Quadrant, only in another space-time continuum. And so on.
The burden of proof is always on the person who asserts a positive. “God exists.” Great…prove it. “You can’t prove it because you must first believe god exists…”
And around we go.
It makes no logical sense whatsoever, other than to say it aligns with what the Bible (grossly simplified for this discussion) says. If the Bible is unreasonable, then the entire concept falls apart.
Any assertion MUST be supported with evidence. Theological (meaning the theology is not errant, full of holes, or contrary to what we know to be factual) or otherwise.
We can start with (1) — The Biblical God exists.
Please provide the evidence for your belief.
I have already clearly pointed out, using the very book on which this belief is derived, that “faith alone” is insufficient for salvation, and in Principle 2, that faith alone is insufficient evidence.
The belief must be supported from within the source itself — the Bible. We cannot trust our feelings, intuition, or other mental variables known to change with time and circumstance. An “experience” with God can be induced in a lab (see the article link in this thread.) So, we are forced to turn to the supposed book of God itself and see if it is reasonable.
Otherwise, you might as well start calling God “Trent”. This is no less “unreasonable”.
God disagrees. “The heavens and the creation tell of his greatness.” He seems to think creation is evidence. The bible is replete with hard evidence given to unbelievers — miracles namely — to support its claims. Do these miracles, used to prove God exists, make God out to be a liar as well?
This is the “matrix” of religion:
1. God exists.
– Why?
2. You cannot understand God.
– How do you know he exists then?
3. He revealed his existence to us in his word.
– If we cannot understand God, how can we understand his word?
4. Don’t get me off track…look, you just have to believe. Then God will make it clear to you.
– Believe in what?
5. That God exists.
And on we go.
What you are presenting is a dangerous matrix. The belief in something that has eternal salvation at its core, yet demands absolute blind faith in order to obtain it.
If the results of this faith had not been so bloody over the past 2000 years, I might me more inclined to take the red pill again.
Therefore, any assumptions as to the existence of this complex, unfathomable creator would likewise be a violation of intellectual integrity. This renders any “book” written by flawed men incapable of understanding who they are even taking dictation from an absolute breach of God’s own shadowed policies.
Not to mention the commandments to “KNOW” God throughout the bible. These would be impossible commandments to follow.
Again, feel free to start at the very beginning with the necessary step of providing your evidence for the “Biblical” part of that “Biblical God.”
But first, will you grant this assumption: If the Bible can be proven to be flawed and errant, even in one place, God could not have been the author.
Unless you wish to claim that this God is imperfect.
(Hint — the bible claims one but logically proves another — logically from within the text itself, which fortunately conforms to the rules of mere mortal reasoning.)
We’ll get into that fun later. Thanks for the post.
Jon
March 28th, 2008 at 9:35 am
No, unless you want to admit as evidence the experiences of the Masai, the Druids, the ancient Greeks, and so-forth.
All religions have followers who can document their personal experiences. Likewise, a person suffering from temporal lobe epilepsy will have profound “experiences” to share that feel absolutely real.
As noted above, these experiences might not be the result of brain chemistry alone, but we know that they can be replicated by the alteration of brain chemistry. This casts a serious shadow on experiential faith as “evidence” of anything more than the way one’s mind tends to function.
March 28th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Jon
Please answer only yes or no. Is the concept of a Biblical God provable?
March 28th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Sue,
Your argument brings to mind another passage from the immortal Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy:
“I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.”
“But,” says Man, “the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that You exist, and so therefore, by Your own arguments, You don’t. Q.E.D.”
“Oh dear,” says God, “I hadn’t thought of that,” and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
“Oh, that was easy,” says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
March 28th, 2008 at 9:45 am
I:
I actually LOVE that book. Quite an apparant contradiction, aren’t I?
March 28th, 2008 at 9:48 am
P.S. The game IS fixed….get over it. lol
March 28th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Moving forward, let’s discuss biblical support.
Back to Principle 1, which no one has yet opposed to accepting as valid, we must examine the “extraordinary evidence” when saying yes or no to the rational belief in a specific god.
Irrational belief is possible of course, but it is self-defeating (see Trent the Kittenkiller.)
Rational belief may necessitate faith, but must still be supported by reasons “for” that faith.
I have no intentions of dissecting Genesis here, so you can all rest easy. : ) But a few logical problems from within Genesis may prove helpful in the discussion.
Possible Fallacy 1: Good and Evil
(I’m trying to make this as easy as possible to read, so please forgive the essay-like format. : )
Please address this question:
If neither good nor evil were concepts understood by Adam or Eve until after eating the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, exactly how would they even realize that eating of the fruit would be considered an act of consequence — what we call good or evil?
Telling someone “not” to do something carries with it perceived consequences for doing it. Even if I tell you not to do something you do not understand, such as “Do not say the word ‘alpha’ on Tuesdays”, your mind immediately addresses the command as an either/or condition and the act as one that may produce undesirable results.
The only reason this is possible is due to the fact that you understand consequential logic. You have the foundation of what a “right” and a “wrong” is, despite the fact that you may assume (rightfully) that saying “alpha” on Tuesdays is neither right nor wrong.
Without this ability to reason, the very basis of a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, you would have no way of knowing that saying it OR not saying it would produce any effect whatsoever.
It appears that God denied Adam and Eve the ability to understand good and evil, and then judged not only them but all mankind for an action deemed evil.
Is this a rational belief, or evidence to support an irrational theological premise?
Again, you cannot use the circular argument of “God’s reason is beyond man’s reason”. We have determined that we must judge a specific god’s theology from within. Using this same process, you have (either knowingly or unknowingly) deemed hundreds of gods illogical, nonsensical or barbaric.
So, in order to test these scriptures for validity, we must put them under the same reasonable scrutiny as we would, say, the gods of the Greeks or the writings of the Koran.
Adam and Eve were basically sociopaths, with no ability at all to determine right from wrong, good from evil, and therefore no way of determining that there was even such a “thing” as disobeying a command. For their transgression, which was a crime without even the frame of reference or understanding ‘of’ crime, all of mankind is born into sin.
Think through this before you reply. It’s a bit of a brain-bender.
Jon
March 28th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Sue said:
This is not a yes or no question, Sue.
If the answer is “yes”, it must be proved by those who believe it. If the answer is “no”, then it is meaningless, or begs this question:
“Please answer yes or no. Is the concept of Trent The Kittenkiller, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster, provable?”
I’ll let you answer that question with either “yes” or “no”.
March 28th, 2008 at 10:10 am
…..Jon I know this is hard for you, but it needs to be established up front, or there is no pt dissecting the minutia…
Please answer only yes or no. Is the concept of a Biblical God provable?
March 28th, 2008 at 10:16 am
For the sake of my logical sanity…
1. A biblical god must be examined based on the source material: The Bible. This same rule applies to any specific god or gods. Their validity is entirely determined by the validity of the source of their claims for existence.
2. If the Bible can be shown errant or false in its claims, this renders the belief in the Biblical god “unreasonable.” For example, would any of you believe in the Bible (and therefore in the God of the Bible) if II Opinions Chapter 4, verse 11 said:
“Behold, the Earth I created is a block of ice. Also, no man nor woman will ever be permitted to say the word “Blah” without being struck down by lightening.”
Seriously now. Would this cause you to doubt the validity of the scriptures, or at the ‘very’ least, the process by which the scriptures were assembled? Or, would you try to rationalize this absurd comments by, “Well, we may be seeing the world as a sphere by the illusion of Satan,” or, “Blah” was a metaphor for ultimate blasphemy, but Christ rendered that sin nullified on the cross!”
This is the process of irrational thought.
3. Even if this is proved to be so, you are free to believe in the unreasonable.
Hopefully this will prevent future circular arguments from being raised.
(Ironwolf, where’s our moderator? ; )
Jon
March 28th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Sue, I know this is hard for you, but it needs to be established up front…
Please answer only yes or no. Is the concept of Trent the Kittenkiller provable?
(Perhaps Ironwolf will moderate your posts in the future.)
March 28th, 2008 at 10:20 am
lol….yes or no, jon, I know you wanna say it…..
March 28th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Now now, answering a question with a question is bad form, as we all know.
Allow me to rephrase to make it a bit easier on you:
In your opinion, do you feel that the concept of a Biblical God WOULD BE according to ANY criteria, a provable concept?
Just a yes or no, if it is so circular and illogical to you, then the answer should be quite simple.
March 28th, 2008 at 10:38 am
BTW, is the concept of LOVE provable scientifically? Or can we explain that away with evolutionary expediencies and neurochemical reactions?
March 28th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Sue, the fact that you feel is a question of intellectual ‘ease’ or difficulty is insulting. Let me state that first.
Second, unlike you, I answered your question. You have not answered mine because, one must deduce, you see the obvious flaw in the question itself.
Please say this again and again to yourself: I will read and try to understand Principles 1 and 2 contained in this thread. Make this your new mantra.
As for your second question, it is has been thoroughly addressed in a dozen posts above. Either you have failed to read them, or you cannot not understand the explanation.
I have to run now, as fortunately work calls.
I will let others have fun with the statement above. It’s a doozy.
March 28th, 2008 at 10:47 am
comment removed? i’m not preaching. it bore direct weight to sue’s claim the god of the bible cannot be known by human means.
i mean, if you’re gonna claim something about the spaghetti monster, at least quote it correctly.
how do i quote on this board? ahhhh heck i’ll just cut and paste
2) The way to Him is must be through faith, not reason according to its own rules.
3) Therefore, proving that God exists is equal to proving his nonexistence at the worst, fallibility of its Word at the least.
As illogical and inherently contradictory as that sounds, it actually makes logical sense according to “biblical truth” and syllogistic principles. Once you prove God, you have disproved its very nature: If God tells us it is unknowable by limited human means, and you find irrefutable scientific evidence for its actual existence, then you have made a liar out of him.
rom 1 applies to that
March 28th, 2008 at 10:49 am
sue said this too
Defining parameters and definitions is the first step towards rational dialogue.
that was all i was doing
March 28th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Sue and Jon,
I’m going to preemptively point out here that the standard theistic response to this sort of argument is, “Yes, but you are an atheist, and atheists do not believe in God. Your world view makes the implicit or explicit assertion, “God does not exist,” and this is in fact a positive assertion. So please provide complete and authoritative justification for your assertion, and if you can’t then you are no better off than we God-believers.”
Whether we non-believers provide mountains of scientific evidence, or coldly calculated rational arguments, the believers always come back with, “yes but how do you know your science and reasoning is so great? What is the authority behind them? We have faith in our God, and that is our justification, our authority.”
This is the tu quoque (”you too”) argument, and I always expect to hear it in some form about now.
Some non-believers fall into this trap. They either beat a tactical retreat to an “agnostic” position, or bluster about how the two assertions are entirely different because one is positive and one is negative (when for our purposes they really aren’t, because to assert that something definitely does not exist requires certain knowledge just as the assertion that something does exist.) In my opinion, this “strong atheism” is not a defensible position unless the particular deity being asserted is logically contradictory and therefore impossible. However, many believers start by asserting that strong atheism is what all atheists believe, and in doing so are setting up a straw man.
A third position is “weak atheism,” which asserts that based on the evidence, a belief in God is not justified. This is a “non-assertion” assertion that is distinct from agnosticism, which asserts that “nothing can be known about God,” itself a strong negative (and indefensible) assertion. Weak atheism is simply the result of the application of skepticism to insufficient theistic claims. It’s the same position most 5-year olds would adopt if you told them with a straight face that there is an invisible green dragon living under the dining room table.
In general, these categories are not mutually exclusive. It is possible (and defensible, I believe) for one non-believing person to simultaneously be agnostic towards some theistic assertions, a strong atheist towards others, and a weak atheist towards still others.
But this still does not resolve the tu quoque argument leveled against non-believers: don’t we need an ultimate justification for our beliefs? And how do we know that authority is correct? And by what authority do we know that authority is correct?
For me, the answer takes the form of Pancritical rationalism (PCR), which is a life stance in which everything is open to criticism, including the assertion that everything is open to criticism. This is not as mind-bending as it sounds at first, and in no way prevents a person from holding beliefs or positions on various matters. But, it does require that all beliefs be held provisionally, i.e. subject to further review and revision at any time in the light of new evidence.
PCR is very different from religious faith, which always resorts to some sort of authority as the ultimate justification for belief. Under PCR, science and even rationality itself is not, nor need be, off-limits from criticism. PCR allows one to shed all dogma— it is essentially the ultimate anti-dogma, which even openly allows itself to be criticized.
March 28th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Very intersting. One question for you, it struck me when I read
:; one who is committed, attached, addicted, to no position.” — William Bartley
Is that in itself, A position? Based on certain presuppositions? Or would that just be the least of the evils?
March 28th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Sue,
Heh. After I read this the first time I actually went googling for “doper sonal experiences.”
I recently blogged about religious experience here.
My short answer can be summed up as, “Your experience is my anecdote.” It may be all you need to believe, and anecdotal evidence can sometimes point to something but scientists (and rationalists) do not take it as face value that it points towards what the anecdotes say they do for the simple reason that testing the actual evidence frequently shows the conclusions of the anecdotes to be unsupported.
March 28th, 2008 at 11:47 am
nom de plume,
A single scripture is not an argument— it is preaching. So pretend you’re sitting around having coffee with some friends. You’re just talking, not reciting the Bible. If you want to reference a scripture, we have a plug-in that automatically converts a reference to a link like this: 2 Kings 2:23-24
.
Quoting is done as in HTML, with the <blockquote> tag. If you don’t know anything about HTML tags, go look them up before using them here.
March 28th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Sue,
It’s a bit hard to understand what you mean by your question. I’ll assume you’re asking, “Is a person who is committed, attached, addicted, to no position; actually taking a position?”
Sure, why not? The point is that even that position is open to criticism.
March 28th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Sue,
I have to agree with Jon. You have posed a complex question, which is a fallacy. It presupposes, for starters, that there is a single concept of a “Biblical God” that is in question, when in fact there are many different conceptions of a “Biblical God.”
March 28th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Either God exists and you can prove it, or he doesn’t and you can’t prove it either way.
Is there a third option? He exists and you cannot prove it.
If you are open to all possibilities, then this must be merely possible, not even probable.
You tell me I have to prove it, but I only need to convince myself, ultimately. I am not dogmatic but this mere possibility intrigues me. It exists, therefore I question.
T
he chances, or probablility of this earth having all the precise requirements for life to exist are, as