People are religious.
Not “SOME people are religious.” People are religious.
In every nook and cranny of this planet, among every race and in every tongue, in every culture and climate, there is prayer, there is ritual, there is religion. So pervasive is the religiosity of people that unbelieving scientist Jesse Bering has said, “I’ve always said that I don’t believe in God, but I don’t really believe in atheists either.” Read that whole article, because it is very intriguing. Bering can’t affirm that there’s a God, but he thinks that deep down inside everyone, himself included, has a gut instinct that there is one.
Not “People, AMONG OTHER CREATURES, are religious.” People (and only people) are religious.
There’s not the least shred of evidence that any other animal prays, offers sacrifices, pens worshipful lyrics, or otherwise acts religiously. If your dog or the chimpanzees down at your local zoo share Bering’s gut instinct, there’s no indication of it.
These facts are quite easy to reconcile with Christianity. Evolution is nowhere close to explaining them. And yes, I understand that this does not prove evolution false and does not disprove atheism either, but you can understand why I watch with interest as evolutionists hurl Hail Mary passes to try to answer this question.
Some have suggested that religion evolved as an unintended consequence of “agency detection.” Agency detection is the way that we see leaves rustling and surmise that a man-eating tiger might be rustling around behind that bush. We need agency detection, the scientists say, because it keeps us from being eaten. As a side-effect, we detect agency that doesn’t exist (God) behind ordinary phenomena. Our agency detectors are too good.
And yet, there’s an obvious problem with this approach: Human beings are nowhere near the sharpest creatures on the planet when it comes to agency detection. What’s more, there’s no reason to conclude that our supposed closest relatives, chimpanzees, fall way down the agency detection ladder from us. They seem as good as we are at avoiding jaguars and determining when someone is sneaking up on them, if not better.
Others have suggested that we need religion in order to cooperate as groups (see, for example, here or here). And yet, again, chimpanzees seem to cooperate with one another well without the benefit of religious faith. Furthermore, I think it is difficult for atheists to say out of one side of their mouths that religion is the perennial source of war and bloodshed while saying out of the other side of their months that we have religion because we needed it in order to develop social cooperation.
I think that atheistic evolutionists are doomed to live with the struggles of Bering. Their theory that starts with the presumption that there is no God necessarily winds up concluding that it is the best adaptation to our world for us to believe that there is one nonetheless.
Therefore, having overlooked the times of ignorance…….
Bart, the Apostle Paul and you had the same idea. Evolution doesn’t really address much about created reality, but it does aim a lot of folks at a proposed answer,… ignorant as it is none the less. Over 2000 years… the ink has not changed much.
“Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects. 23 For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you. 24 The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; 25 nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; 26 and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, 27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’ 29 Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. 30 Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”
Dr. Barber,
I need to speak with you. Here is my email:
cbscott5512@gmail.com.
Please email me a phone number by which I may contact you (you).
BTW, chimpanzees do “cooperate with one another well.” They also argue and fight with one another rather well. Obviously, their “religion” is of a baptistic persuasion.
Heh…
I guess I doomed this post with my other one. 🙂
Even a blind chimpanzee would’ve seen that coming, Bart. 😉
And here I was watching for all the witty insights from people that would convince me to turn from my wayward atheism.
Since Dave the Slashing Editor is gone, I’ll give yall this joke in an inappropriate place, and Dave can’t do anything about it!!!! lol
“I want my rib back, Adam whispered under his breath after every argument with Eve.”
–Back Row Baptist
Have a few free moments to share more than my brief witticism from earlier.
Disclaimer: I am no anthropologist, these are just my ideas pieced together from various sources, but I think it has a high degree of probability.
The fundamental difference between humans and other animals is consciousness. While some animals display high degrees of intelligence (as with dolphins or certain great apes), none appear to cross the threshold into conscious self-awareness. While there is still a great deal we do not know about consciousness (though a lot of good work is being done in that area; Marvin Minsky remains a fellow whose work I enjoy reading or hearing from time to time, though he’s getting up there), it has generally been described as “the ability to think about thinking,” something which seems to be lacking in other animals.
That distinction is enough to give us pause any time we want to consider what differentiates our behavior from other animals. A great deal of the difference can be laid at the feet of conscious reflection – including religion.
Animals can be trained and can learn by experience to expect certain things from their environment, but this does not make them reflective of their environment. You mentioned agency detection; while it is true that many other animals do this better than us, as far as we know no other animals reflect on it. We see the leaves move and can think about why. We know that a pineapple flying through the air requires some sort of agency, and we are able to reflect on the movement of the sun and wonder what agency is behind it. We correlate experiences – often sloppily which leads to a fair amount of error through false assumptions, but errors of a sort that don’t tend to hinder our day-to-day survival.
We are able to reflect on the fact that we have various ways of controlling the world around us, as well as various ways of bribing, manipulating, cajoling, or convincing other people to act in our favor, so as our primitive ancestors reflected on the agencies that must be in charge of the wind and rain, it is reasonable to suspect that they thought those forces could also be manipulated. Thus arose the first glimmerings of ritual. Since the forces controlling sun and moon, wind and rain were by nature invisible, ritual developed a mystical aspect. We currently are able to trace a growing sophistication in religious views down through the ages, so we see where cultures developed increasingly complex ideas about the gods they thought were in control of their daily lives. Such a progression is even apparent in the Bible, leading to theological explanations such as progressive revelation, but progressive revelation is nothing more than the cultural development of religion just as we see take place in other cultures.
Thus it is possible – indeed, easy and natural – to understand the development of religion without having to appeal to the presupposition that God must have done it.
Chris, those are old themes.
There is nothing all that witty that can change your thinking. Truth is not a thing to submit itself to evolution as the Apostle Paul was getting at to those fellows only two thousands years or so ago.
“We currently are able to trace a growing sophistication in religious views down through the ages, so we see where cultures developed increasingly complex ideas about the gods they thought were in control of their daily lives.” Growing sophistication was traceable since the creation of Adam…..It appears you are attempting to see history in a new light. Maybe that is a religious experience in and of itself.
“Truth is not a thing to submit itself to evolution”
Yes and no. Truth doesn’t change, per se, but our understanding of truth does. In addition, culture changes, cultural beliefs change, whether or not they are true. Religion is one of those cultural beliefs that changes over time. This is even true of Christianity – the Christianity of today is not the Christianity of 500, 1000, 2000 years ago.
“Growing sophistication was traceable since the creation of Adam”
I don’t even know what you mean by that bit.
Chris, you are correct to say “Truth does not change”… the “per se” is your get out of reality card, but none the less, I do agree with the comment that Truth does not change.
Christianity today is absolutely the same as the Christianity revealed by Christ in His resurrection. I think you may mean that man’s attempt to dress up Christianity has changed since Christ’s resurrection….if that is what you meant, I could agree whole heartedly.
Man has continual grown in what we perceive as sophistication since the creation of Adam. That is overtly obvious.
“the ‘per se’ is your get out of reality card”
Wow, seriously? You will try to distort me on two little words? The ‘per se’ was explained by my very next statement: our understanding changes. What we insisted was true yesterday we understand differently today. It was once dogma that the earth was the center of everything. We now know better. For some people, it continues to be dogma that God created the world in six days, but there again, we now know better. Truth doesn’t change, understanding does.
Regarding the changes in Christianity, it makes Christians warm and fuzzy to claim that the Christianity of today is the same as the Christianity of Jesus and Paul, but it is a claim without credibility. It is a dogmatic assertion not supported by the tools of history. The Bible itself displays development. Even in the short time period of the NT, the later writings display a greater sophistication of beliefs than the earlier writings. Even though today’s theology is informed by the Bible, it is also heavily shaped and influenced by two thousand years of theological and cultural development.
Chris, you wrote the two little words, not me. Don’t act so defensive.
“Regarding the changes in Christianity, it makes Christians warm and fuzzy to claim that the Christianity of today is the same as the Christianity of Jesus and Paul, but it is a claim without credibility.”
This statement you make is more than likely the way you figured out that you were never born again. There for a while you were trying to defend being a Christian, and now an atheist. The truth of that matter is that those two realities do not cross paths for the same person. I would think by now you understand that mimicking some sort of Christian action is not really being born again. Those types of actions, not of the real substance, mitigates clearly against your argument here as well.
Dogma and truth seem difficult for you to sort out.
There is no doubt that the penal substitutionary death of Jesus and His conquering of sin and death is a historic factual reality. Some will know it to be true, others will deny it to be true, and others will deny and try to change the fact of its existence. It is clear, Christianity has not changed, in fact, it is exactly on course.
Yes, I wrote those two little words, but it was you who chose to do with them things I did not mean.
“I would think by now you understand that mimicking some sort of Christian action is not really being born again.”
I readily confess that I was never born again. Furthermore, I will note that no one has ever been born again. There is no such phenomena. I also understand that within many forms of Christianity, it is impossible for someone to lose their salvation, so if a person “turns atheist” it means they never really were a Christian. All I can do is tell you that I was as committed to Christ, as sure of my new birth, as grateful to God for salvation, as committed to what I thought was the inspired, inerrant truth of the Bible, as anyone here. I was as Christian as a person can be. I know your theology will not allow you to believe me, but that is your problem, not mine.
“There is no doubt that the penal substitutionary death of Jesus and His conquering of sin and death is a historic factual reality.”
Words of dogma, not truth. The claim of faith, not the claim of evidence. It is possible that there was a person named Jesus who gathered followers that thought he was the Messiah. It is possible that he even died on the cross. But even that much cannot be proven – the evidence is extremely scant. I don’t really have an opinion about his existence, I don’t think it matters since even if he did exist, it is clear enough that he was not God.
Chris,
“All I can do is tell you that I was as committed to Christ, as sure of my new birth, as grateful to God for salvation, as committed to what I thought was the inspired, inerrant truth of the Bible, as anyone here”
As the guy on the ESPN football show would say,.. “not so fast!”
The same argument that you have with truth is well illustrated with what you have penned above. Your highest truth appears to be you alone, or in and of yourself, the “per se” is evidence of how you handle the word …truth.
Your history is quickly becoming abbreviated as well,…relative to Jesus.
Chris,
One thing that has amused me any time I recount my Christian days is that someone finds some way to poke holes in it. It’s always different, but reveals a common action: looking for some way to conclude, “Ahh, there’s the problem! See, he really wasn’t a Christian!” But as you know, no testimony communicates fully what happens when one becomes a Christian or continues as a Christian, and my brief comments here aren’t even an attempt at a testimony but serve as the briefest of summaries. The attempt to poke holes in such a brief account reflects the insecurity of the poker, not the flaws of the pokee.
Chris,
I overlooked how you again tried to force my “per se” to mean what it did not mean. Such intellectual dishonesty of your part. You reflect your religion well.
Ok Chris, you have done better than this in the past. I’ll try to explain further. When you used the words “per se” (in and of itself), that only revealed your basis for definition.
For instance. It appears that truth to you, emanates from you, changes if you need it to change, etc…. i.e. “per se” (in and of itself).
The truth I am describing is not from me, does not need to change, etc…. i.e. is not “per se” in the same sense that you remark. This non-changeable truth I speak about has set me free from the “per se” of life. So, you see, its not about me, or my reflection of religion at all.
This goes to the heart of Bart’s article. Evolutionary theory falls short and is in the same frame as you describe to be the “development of religion”. Your starting point is way to late.
Chris,
Between you and Mike, I despair at the ability of people to read and understand the English language.
Chris Johnson,
Roberts is a poser. In fact, its likely that in a short time his views may very well again evolve into something different than we see here recently. One with no anchor of truth is like a small fishing boat tossed at sea during a hurricane.
His obvious idol of worship is his own percieved intellect – therefore he’ll follow wherever that may lead him.
It’s like nailing hello to a wall.
jello….but hello might work too…lol
Chris…don’t despair, just improve your logic and repent. Repentance and logic are a good thing!
Tarheel, I am not convinced that Chris Roberts is so much a poser at this point. He appears to be and individual that is extremely religious.
I’ve seen and met with others that claim atheism, and Chris doesn’t fit that mold very well.
Exactly, he’s posing in a way that he thinks shows off his idol of worship….his self percieved intellect.
If he does not fit the mold of an “atheist,” then the word blasphemy seems to fit even better. To know the truth and reject it forthright grieves God’s Spirit in a way that intensifies His wrath.
I only respond to him to let others that might stumble upon his rantings know that intelligent, rational, scientifically oriented individuals have come to much different conclusions in regard to faith and science, and the foundational truth of God’s existence.
As Bart’s post implies, there is a reason atheists are such a small minority. It is a “foolish” and self-centered approach to life.
Jack, I think you are correct. Chris Roberts has not been ambiguous about his intentions. He is against the church, and his actions (in what he has written) are highly religious.
Anyone that has studied logic, and the sciences as you have mentioned earlier, certainly will understand the weakness of many of his arguments. You are right to speak up. Real atheist’s like Singer, et.al. are much less religious in their assault. Singer for instance is the leading atheist of our time, and has written on why some humans should be allowed to live and others should not…. an ultimate outcome of evolution theory. Singer is dangerous to the weak minded individuals that fall into his cult, as he imagines a society that is highly ambivalent to the weak.
We should all pray that God will change Chris’ heart, and show him great mercy!
Chris J. You are correct. Most atheists, especially the more intellectually focused, are not very religious about life.
Regardless of how anti-Christian an atheist may or may not be, it is futile to try to give them intellectual arguments to lead them to faith. We give intellectual arguments to keep them from leading others away from the faith.
Atheism is not an intellectual world-view, it is a moral one. Atheism is a response to God–howbeit a negative response. It is simply one cloak that a believer may wear.
Ironically, atheists are perhaps the most deceived. They have deceived themselves by believing they are making an intellectual decision when in fact they are making a moral decision
Most non-believers recognize this to one degree or another. They understand that how they live does not match God’s moral and righteous requirements. In fact, I’ve spoken with more than a few non-believers who fully intend (in their own mind) to one day give up their sin and surrender to the Lord.
Of course, the problem with 11th hour conversions is that so many die at 10:30.
Chris,
While I’ll ignore most of the self-congratulatory silliness of the last few comments, something you said does merit response. You mention Singer as “the leading atheist of our time” and imply that compared to people like him, I am not a real atheist. Is it thus far to say that since none of you are on the level of, say, Billy Graham or John Piper that none of you are real Christians?
Chris, the point I was making of you and Singer, is that your content appears nothing like Singer at all. Maybe you can prove me wrong as you move along with your comments, but as of now your content is not the same….thankfully for you.
If Billy Graham and John Piper speak of the gospel, then it would appear their content is the same as what I espouse.
Chris,
I am not all that familiar with Singer, but I know I’ve never heard him presented as a representative of common atheist belief. There are many others more representative of atheism today, though it is just as difficult to speak of A Representative Atheist as it is to speak of A Representative Christian. Some of the traditionalists around here would not like me pointing to Piper as a representative Christian. Others wouldn’t like the reference to Graham. Some think Rick Warren the consummate Christian, others think him an apostate. I could continue, but you get my point. Just as there is diversity among Christians, there is diversity among atheists, but even with that diversity, Singer strikes me as something of an outlier with regard to his views.
I don’t think it is tenable to make it a learned behavior or a reasoned conclusion—viz., we are capable of conscious reflection, and that reflection led us to become religious. Here is where that approach fails, in my opinion:
1. It fails to account for Bering’s gut instinct. This phenomenon is not unique to Bering. A few years ago I was involved in an accident in which a young man lost his life. His father and stepmother were card-carrying, go-to-meeting atheists (they really did have an atheist meeting they attended regularly). So, these folks were serious about their atheism. She confided in me, however, that she felt a pull toward “this God stuff” during the tragedy, however disappointed she might be with herself for the inclination. Bering is not merely being a sentimentalist when he says that he doesn’t believe in atheists. He’s not talking about learning (he thinks he has learned beyond theism) or reasoning; he’s talking about instinct. The proper scientific way to refer to this is to say that human beings are instinctually theistic, not that we have learned or reasoned to theism.
2. It fails to account for the universality of religion. Religious faith has developed and endured among races and cultures that are utterly separated from one another. If there’s anything we can tell about our learning and reasoning, it’s that the outcomes there are not inexorable. Different people come to different conclusions. But when it comes to the question of whether there is something immaterial to whom we are accountable for our behavior, every human culture has concluded the same thing, even in spite of the fact that this conclusion goes against their own interests for hedonistic liberty.
3. It fails to account for the present-day difficulty in establishing and maintaining atheism. I’ve been to Cuba. I haven’t been to Russia or China, but I know people who have. Serious attempts have been made to move people past theism, and they haven’t worked. Even in the West, where people are deeply offended by the teachings of Christ, the most popular destination for those who reject “organized religion” is “none” rather than “atheist.” “Spiritual, but not religious” is as much an indulgence of the religious instinct as is a trip to a Buddhist shrine. Why? Why is atheism such a fragile plant? Why must you cultivate it so hard to get it to sprout (not talking about your experience, but about the universal phenomenon). Is it not because you are fighting against a human instinct when you advocate for atheism? It cannot be because of mere obstinance—some notion that people’s religious conclusions cannot be changed, since recorded history reveals so many occasions when entire cultures have made radical changes in their religious beliefs. The case for atheism has been around for a long time, yet it struggles so hard to get traction!
4. From all that we know about even the most primitive of religions, they are not primarily oriented toward the manipulation of natural phenomena. Rather, the common denominator is that they all suggest that people are accountable to someone for their behavior. Most of the time they involve much more elaborate descriptions of postmortem judgment than of quotidian rainfall. As is the case with both Bering and the stepmother in my story, it is when confronted with death that we are most reliably confronted with our religious instinct. Theories, therefore, that start from the manipulation of physical phenomena to explain religious faith are not, in my opinion, dealing with the data as they are. The cooperation-based approaches are more accurate, here, attempting as they do to link the religious instinct to some reproductive advantage gained when people sense accountability for their actions and therefore behave in ways more conducive to cooperation. Those approaches face their own problems, but they have a far more accurate grasp of the fundamental elements of the human religious instinct.
Bart,
Humans are complex. Our actions and reactions can never be boiled down to one small set of explanations. I agree with you that the items in your list cannot readily be accounted for by the explanation I gave – but my explanation was not intended to cover every aspect of religious belief. But even with our complexity, I think the items in your list reflect similar phenomena that are not all that difficult to identify. Namely:
1. On Bering, there are any number of reasons why he may reject God but also reject atheism. Some of those reasons are briefly mentioned in my other responses below, so I won’t belabor the point with him.
On your story about the atheist parents, I’m a little surprised you would include that as an argument. Parents have just lost their son – who could possibly be surprised to find that they “felt a pull toward ‘this God stuff’ during the tragedy”? Almost every religion offers some sort of hope for an afterlife. Does it really require an explanation why even atheist parents would feel a longing for this hope at the loss of their son?
Speaking of the afterlife of religions, there are two simple points to be made: one, no one wants to die, and religion offers a way to escape that. Two, humans are correlating machines. We base everything off of what we know (which is why the gods so often look so much like us, particularly when least developed by a culture; the God of Christianity still appears quite human, though 2000 years of theological attempts to work out the kinks with the Bible have changed him somewhat). We know nothing about non-existence. No human being has ever experienced non-existence. All of our experience is with existence. All our lives, we are faced with our existence. Because we have difficulty conceiving of anything outside our experience, there is no difficulty understanding why we might assume something like an afterlife. But with the cessation of the body, an afterlife requires some sort of explanation. Lo and behold, the belief system about invisible deities is also able to offer some sort of explanation for now invisible people.
2. Continuing where I left off – since all people operate this way, as correlating machines that cannot conceive of non-existence, this factors into the universality of religion. But my original explanation also factors into the universality of religion. People’s minds work in very similar ways. Cultures derive different beliefs, but those beliefs originate through similar causes: the search for an explanation of otherwise inexplicable phenomena.
And it is not true that “when it comes to the question of whether there is something immaterial to whom we are accountable for our behavior, every human culture has concluded the same thing” – while there are certain common threads to most of the religions in the world, there is also incredible diversity. When cultures meet and mingle, that diversity begins to narrow, an obvious consequence of sharing ideas.
“even in spite of the fact that this conclusion goes against their own interests for hedonistic liberty.”
I’m not sure how that follows. Christianity is a pretty morally restrictive religion (as are its parent Judaism and stepchild Islam) but most religions do not share their restrictions. Just read 1 Corinthians to learn about the hedonistic religions of old Rome. Is it hedonistically restrictive to belong to a religion whose chief method of worship involves temple prostitutes?
3. That present-day difficulty is not hard to account for. Most of the account has already been given in these comments, though we can add some additional pieces. It pretty much does not matter what subject you choose, it is difficult to change people’s minds. The more a person is invested in a belief, the harder it is to bring about a change. That goes for anything under the sun. Religious beliefs involve a number of fundamental and foundational ideas. The more influence a belief has on someone, the harder it is to change that belief because you are no longer changing one belief, but many. Back in my Christian days, my Christianity – my devotion to Christ – was at the core of everything I did. Not all people experience this level of commitment with their religion, but in general even the least committed adherent will have many beliefs influenced by their religious belief. A tree with deep roots is difficult to uproot, and religion weaves many tendrils throughout individual thought.
Add to that the many various cognitive shortcuts humans take which lead us to rest too easily and too quickly on what we think we already know (see Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow for more – the book has nothing to do with religion but perhaps played a bigger role than any other one thing in my turn to atheism. Just yesterday an article was released touching on many of the same things; read it to whet your appetite for Kahneman’s book: http://www.skeptic.com/insight/more-on-why-smart-people-are-not-always-rational/ )
People continue to have the experiences that led our distant ancestors to create religions in the first place. Add to that our tens or hundreds of thousands of years of cultural history of religion, it should surprise no one that it takes such work to get people to realize religion has no validity.
4. Yes and no. The fundamental idea is gaining the favor of the gods while avoiding their wrath. Get them to provide good weather; get them to give a bountiful harvest; get them to grant many children; get them to open the doors to a rewarding afterlife. The rituals are meant to manipulate the gods, whether in this life or the next. By the time of more developed Judaism, then the rise of Christianity, this reached the point of the gods themselves telling us what we have to do to make them happy (though that aspect is not altogether missing from older religions; still, those older or more primitive religions tend to be more characterized by capricious gods and uncertain means of appeasement).
So I think it is fine to say the religions involved finding favor while avoiding wrath, the goal of this pursuit involved day-to-day life just as much – if not more – than concerns for the afterlife.
Bering can’t affirm that there’s a God, but he thinks that deep down inside everyone, himself included, has a gut instinct that there is one.
Bering, like every one of us, has enough information from the world around him, his own constitution and his own experience to be “without excuse” (Rom. 1:20) for knowing that God exists. Paul doesn’t mince words here, and neither did the great Reformation thinkers like Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli. There is a sensus divinatus within each one of us as created beings because of being made in the image of a personal Creator who instilled it there.
Evolution, the secularist’s origins myth, is slowly losing it’s long held reign in the minds of rational thinkers. Thus the push to some kind of religious experience in a ‘new age’ or Eastern mystical sort of way; a refuge, a move toward irrationalism, that once again, ultimately disappoints.
Steve,
I think you may misunderstand the trend happening in society. People are not turning from evolution to a vague spirituality; people are turning from defined religions (like Christianity) to vague spirituality. Meanwhile, atheism seems to be on the rise. It is still a very small minority, but from what I have seen (I have no numbers to back this up) more and more people are embracing it.
Evolution is another matter, but even there we see more people accepting it. More Christians are looking for ways to make evolution “work” with the Bible (a futile task, in my opinion; the Bible fundamentally fails the science test) because they know they can evade evolution no longer. I am surprised at how many apologists adopt old-earth views, even accepting some form of evolution. And my assumption is that those “spiritual but not religious” types hold to a scientific understanding of the world, even if they are not yet ready to make the jump all the way from religion to atheism.
Chris, I know you make no pretense of being objective. Your views have been made clear in many posts.
I spent three years writing my Master’s degree thesis in regard to theology and quantum physics. I’d like to see your proof that the Bible, “fundamentally fails the science test.”
Thank you for sharing your research.
Jack,
Having a view does not negate objectivity. On the other hand, having a belief system with a religious text that is the standard of what must be believed does tend to get in the way of objectivity.
As for the rest of your snark, you already know where the Bible fails the science test. I could present a list, but what’s the point? You already know many of the things I will say, and I already know the ways you will attempt to evade the obvious conclusion.
Chris, your response is typical of the kind of responses I’ve watched you make on this blog. It does not really bother me that you don’t like me, because you and I are on equal ground–just two specks in a vast cosmos.
Of course you say you can list evidence of where the Bible fails the science test. And, of course, this list is very old, but not near as old as the the Bible’s scientific perspective.
Let me give just one example of how your premise is incorrect. Modern science at the time of Einstein faced a massive crisis. It was a crisis that Einstein spent the bulk of his life trying to resolve. That crisis was this: scientific theory was at odds with scientific fact. Science held that the world (cosmos) was “eternal” (steady state theory). The evidence then being developed on various tracks from General Relativity, then Special Relativity, and continuing with cosmic radiation discoveries did not reconcile with scientific theory.
Einstein even added a “fudge factor” that he later regretted to make his mathematical calculations fit the prevailing theory of a steady state. Of course, the weight of scientific evidence would eventually bring down the scientific house of cards.
Using your description: “science failed the science test.”
However, the phenomenological perspective of the Bible (Biblical empirical perspective) was that the cosmos had a beginning.
So, which perspective received a “failing” grade.
I could debate you in regard to how the Bible’s phenomenological perspective, or to misuse he word, “scientific” perspective, receives a perfect score on any scientific question you can pose.
Having spent three years of intense study which included experts (and I mean really smart experts( from every religious persuasion, including radical atheists, I am confident that your statement that the Bible “fundamentally fails the science test” is a gratuitous assertion with no evidential foundation.
I am not writing this to persuade you of the evidence because you have made a moral choice to live according to your assumption of human autonomy. You want to be the master of your destiny. That is your choice.
I want others to realize, what most here already do realize, that making a statement against the Bible is not in and of itself proof of anything other than the world-view of the one making the statement.
“It does not really bother me that you don’t like me”
? I don’t even know you. I have no feelings toward you one way or the other.
It is strange that you mention Einstein’s fudge factor. While it is true that Einstein regretted it, the irony is that physicists later added it back: dark energy. And you’re right that theories have changed. No one holds to steady state any longer. This is the way science works. We form hypotheses, sometimes these are confirmed, sometimes they aren’t. Either way, we learn something and knowledge advances. The way we know the steady state theory was inaccurate is because we have learned new things. We do not yet know whether or not the universe had an actual beginning. We know the big bang happened, but don’t know what, if anything, was going on prior to the big bang (I wrote about this on my blog just recently: http://www.thebookofwonder.org/2014/10/universe-begin-big-bang/ ). The Bible’s claim that there was a beginning may or may not be accurate, but even if that part proves to be true, it would be where any accuracy in the creation account comes to an end.
While there is a lot left to be discovered and much we do not know, there are a lot of things we do know – a whole lot more than we knew just a few decades ago. There are also things we discovered long ago that we have continued to refine through the years. Evolution is no longer a question mark. We know it happened. The evidence from multiple disciplines is conclusive, and its predictions validate it time and again. That said, even though Darwin was right about a lot regarding evolution, our knowledge about it has been greatly refined since his time. Even though we now know a lot about evolution, we still have a lot to learn. But in the same way that we are unlikely to revoke our knowledge of gravity any time soon (another area of knowledge that has been greatly refined since its original discovery – with many thanks to Einstein for adding to our knowledge of gravity), it is highly unlikely that anything will come along to disprove evolution. It is in the category of established science. We also know the earth is old. Very old. Very, very old. Multiple fields of evidence confirm that for us beyond any doubt.
In all of this, a particular trend reveals itself: scientific understanding advances. What doesn’t advance is religious understanding. There are Christians who believe in an old earth and those who believe in a young earth. There are those who are Calvinists, those who are Arminian, and those who are Pelagian. There are Baptists who insist the KJV is the only version we are allowed to use, and those who believe the NLT is a good translation. There are those who believe in original sin and those who reject it. Pick literally _any_ theological belief, and there are those who hold different positions. What’s more, the same debates over the same issues have been taking place for 2000 years. There is no way to resolve those issues. Despite the Christian claim of objective revelation, Christianity does not have an objective source with which to establish what is or is not true. Science does. Scientists often disagree about various fields of study, but eventually conclusions are drawn from the available evidence. The things scientists debate today are largely not the same as the things they debated 100 years ago. Those old disagreements have been resolved and science has advanced and the world has been the beneficiary (for the most part, though science has also paved the way for lovely gems like nuclear bombs and telemarketing).
And as we both know, your three years of intense study doesn’t do anything to demonstrate which position is actually true. There are lots of well educated people on either side of this debate – though it is worth noting that the number of atheist scientists is disproportionally high.
“you have made a moral choice to live according to your assumption of human autonomy. You want to be the master of your destiny.”
If you are saying what I think you are saying, this is another one of those silly claims Christians like to make about atheists. Christians just cannot seem to come to grips with the fact that people can arrive at atheism through reason alone. My turn to atheism came when I considered the evidence and realized there is simply no evidence for God. It had nothing to do with a desire to be master of my destiny. It had nothing to do with any of the other causes Christians often claim for atheism: I wasn’t hurt by anyone in the church; I wasn’t let down by God; I wasn’t attempting to justify sin in my life; etc, etc. I finally considered the question objectively without simply grasping the common Christian answers to challenges. It is noteworthy that Christianity rarely takes the same approach when trying to make converts. Conversion almost always happens through some sort of emotional appeal: make people feel bad about their sin; make people feel fear about the afterlife; make people feel like life would be hopeless without God, etc. The most common case is much more straightforward: people become Christian because it was the religion of their parents. I’m sure there are exceptions to these, there may be people who became Christian primarily through intellectual consideration (C. S. Lewis might be one such exception; I’ll need to reread his conversion account), but we know such exceptions would be rare.
It seems to me that atheism is an unfounded belief.
And that it borders on the irrational seeing how its major premise: that there is no god, is based on a negative idea: how do they know there isn’t a god -they do not.
The evidence is inconclusive but the atheist makes a faith based choice to declare their belief.
And though they might say the Christian does the same thing, they fail to realize that just because certain evidence is not available to them does not mean that there isn’t any conclusive evidence at all.
“…seeing how its major premise: that there is no god, is based on a negative idea…”
It depends on who you talk to and how carefully they are trying to articulate their position, but often atheists will not describe their belief as you have. The claim is not, “There is no God,” but, “I don’t believe in God.” I will at times deliver the firmer statement, “there is no God,” but if called for clarification will note that I do not believe in God, I see no evidence for God, but should such evidence be presented, I will consider it and I may yet be proven wrong. Is it possible that God exists? Yes, it’s possible. But I have no reason to believe he exists. The burden of proof remains firmly on the side of the theist. The atheist need prove nothing, except perhaps to show that the evidence claimed by theists is no evidence at all.
Chris,
Thanks for the reply.
When you say that you don’t believe in God, you are more precisely saying that you do not believe there is a god.
But yet an intelligent articulate person as yourself hedged somewhat there as if there is a difference between “I don’t believe in god”, and “there is no god.”
Thus my point stands: you have a belief unfounded by facts which stands on nothing but a negative assertion.
A less ‘faith’ based position and a more intellectual position is to be simply agnostic, declaring that, even as you have in a way, that you find no evidence for a ‘god’, but there could be one.
So why do you WANT to be an atheist?
Mike,
You don’t think there is a difference between “I don’t believe in God” and “there is no God”?
“A less ‘faith’ based position and a more intellectual position is to be simply agnostic”
This is one of the peculiar claims that gets made from time to time. Why do Christians want people to be agnostic rather than atheist? Philosophically, agnosticism is not a simple claim of “I don’t know” but a more direct claim of “we cannot know whether or not there is a God”. And at any rate I call myself an atheist because, well, I do not believe in God. Further, I think agnosticism is ultimately not very useful. If God existed but we could never know of his existence, we might as well just be atheists for all the difference his existence would make.
“So why do you WANT to be an atheist?”
See the end of my response to Jack at https://sbcvoices.com/why-are-people-religious-can-evolution-provide-an-answer/#comment-265362
Chris,
From Wikipedia:
Types of agnosticism[edit]
A person calling oneself ‘agnostic’ is stating that they have no opinion on the existence of God, as there is no definitive evidence for or against. Agnosticism has, however, more recently been subdivided into several categories. Variations include:
Agnostic atheism
The view of those who do not believe in the existence of any deity, but do not claim to know if a deity does or does not exist.[21][22][23]
Agnostic theism
The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence.[21]
Apathetic or pragmatic agnosticism
The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest.[24][25]
Strong agnosticism (also called “hard”, “closed”, “strict”, or “permanent agnosticism”)
The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, “I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you.”[26][27][28]
Weak agnosticism (also called “soft”, “open”, “empirical”, or “temporal agnosticism”)
The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until evidence, if any, becomes available. A weak agnostic would say, “I don’t know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out.”[26][27][28]
Chris,
Also from Wikipedia:
Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of God, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable.[1][2][3] According to the philosopher William L. Rowe, in the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.[2]
~~~~~~
I think a ‘strong agnostic’ position is just as intellectually bankrupt as atheism. The strong agnostic goes beyond the principle of agnosticism and enters into a metaphysical realm unsupported by the intellect.
Granted, there are various debates on the best way to define agnosticism. I view it the way I defined it above. At any rate, whatever you choose to call it, I do not believe in God.
Chris,
Now on the idea that the theist has the burden of proof.
If, as Christianity puts forth, that belief in God is possible only through faith, then there is no conclusive proof for His existence outside of faith. Thus it is un-proveable. Or as Martin Luther would say, God is hidden and only grasped by faith.
Of course on the flip side, the anti-theist, the atheist, has no burden of proof either. Since God can’t be proved, why burden do they have?
None if they were agnostic. But rather, you don’t believe in God! Which means you don’t believe there is a god. But you say it like there is a God but one you don’t trust. That is because you are anti-god.
Now I don’t believe there are unicorns. But I am really agnostic in that there could be a unicorn, I just don’t care. I am not anti-unicorn. But you care about the god issue.
But yet you declare there is no god! I don’t care about unicorns or yeti or loch ness monsters or a host of things that I don’t believe exist. But if they do exist, I still don’t care. But why should I bother about non existing entities? But you care and you care without any intellectual backing, but simply on a negative what… a negative feeling? Or what do you base your belief on as opposed to and beyond agnosticism?
Mike, it doesn’t matter how often or how loudly you yell, it doesn’t make it so. The burden of proof is not on the person who does not believe, it is on the person who believes. You claim there is a God; prove it to me and I will believe you. I’m glad you concede that there is no way to prove God. Since there is no proof, I don’t believe your claim that he exists.
I do have a question about faith that I have yet to see an answer to but I will save it for now.
Chris Roberts,
I’ll not try to go back and forth with you on the matter of your atheism. I will just make a couple of book suggestions.
If you are able to give rational reply to the issues laid out in David Bentley Hart’s book The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss Yale University Press, 2013, then you have earned your atheism well. Rational reply to Hans Kung’s book Does God Exist? will also provide your atheism with stronger logical credentials.
David (Not Adrian’s Son) Rogers
Chris,
Why is the burden of proof on the one who believes in God?
Because you say it is?
Sorry, not good enough.
And its hypocritical.
You believe there is no god and yet deny any burden of proof for your belief.
Now there are reasons for our beliefs but these reasons are not proof. But to say that one belief must prove their belief while the other believer does not is a cop out.
Now I am not yelling. But I am seeking to show you the error of your train of thought in this matter. Your position is not intellectually based. Your believing is based not on positive knowledge but simply on a denial or on negativity.
You think there is no god so it must be true.
[as if everything you think is the way of reality!]
Mike,
Frankly I can’t believe this even has to be addressed, but the burden is on the person making the claim. You are claiming God exists, you have a burden to prove it. Even if there was a burden on me, that does not lessen the burden on you. In my case, my claim is simple, “I do not believe in God.” There is no proof needed for that belief. I do not have to prove to you that I do not believe in God any more than I have to prove to you that I do not believe in unicorns. But like God, I acknowledge that it is possible for unicorns to exist somewhere, but if you want me to believe in unicorns, you will have to prove their existence.
That said, there is a definite claim I am willing to make. I will not say, “God does not exist,” but I will say, “the Christian God does not exist.” Proving that the Christian God does not exist does not take too much trouble, so I’ll briefly summarize some of the more compelling points: many of the Bible’s claims irreconcilably clash with what we know about the world. From creation to the flood to babel, we know things didn’t go down like that. There are many Christians who realize the Bible’s claims cannot be reconciled with science, so they adopt a more metaphorical approach to those passages. But as you and I know, the Bible does not permit a metaphorical view on these passages.
In addition to its science problem, there is also the promise problem. The Bible tells us to expect many things from God, namely in relation to the work of the Spirit in believers, and the way God answers prayer. Since we don’t see any of these things come to pass, we have further reason to conclude that the Bible’s claims fall flat. There is this little thing called “confirmation bias” which is a huge problem for humans when trying to determine things about reality, and thanks to confirmation bias, many Christians manage to convince themselves that they do indeed have evidence of answered prayer or the work of the Spirit, but it is amazing how little verification (read: none) we have of such things.
There are other ways to approach the problems with the Christian God: his atrocities in the Old Testament (divinely sanctioned rape (Judges 5:30) and slavery; genocide; etc); inconsistencies or outright contradictions in the text (one of the leading causes of all the theological battles out there); claims about historical events for which we have no evidence (the exodus, for instance; I am aware of some things we’ve found which some scholars claim support the exodus, but the claim is tenuous at best); etc, etc.
Now, I am sure none of this will convince you. I doubt very much that anything would convince you. There is a certain religious attitude that doesn’t care what the evidence or argument, the person will believe what he believes no matter what. This was put on public display by Ken Ham in his debate with Bill Nye when Ham on a few occasions indicated that there was nothing that could get him to question his belief.
David,
Added to my to-read list. No telling if or when I’ll actually get to them; my list is pretty long. Currently enjoying “Annals of the Former World”, a fascinating book on geology by John McPhee. Also reading Dinesh D’Souza’s painful “Life After Death: The Evidence”.
One recommendation for you: not a religious book (unfortunately I’ve never read a pro-atheism book so I don’t know which ones are worth recommending), but one of my favorite science books: Wonderful Life by Stephen J Gould on the Burgess Shale discovery.
Chris,
“Frankly I can’t believe this even has to be addressed, but the burden is on the person making the claim.”
And you claim that there is no God.
So quit playing the hypocrite Chris.
There is plenty of evidence that points to the existence of God, it just doesn’t prove it to an unbeliever.
And the Christian position is that God can only be apprehended by faith and not by evidence. So we flat out deny that God’s existence can be proved by evidence.
But you have a belief as well. You believe that there is no God. By your own words the burden of proof is on you.
Thanks for the recommendation.
Chris,
Now when you became a ‘christian’ you did so for the wrong reasons.
The reason why mere human reasonings can not and will not persuade a true believer to abandon his faith is the true and right reason why one becomes and is a Christian: they have had an encounter with God. If you have an encounter with God, you are no longer an atheist.
Mike,
What is the nature of that encounter, emotional or intellectual? Not that the two have to be mutually exclusive, but typically when Christians talk about an encounter with God, the description of that alleged encounter is chiefly emotional. My point still stands.
Chris,
What point?
You made a claim and by your own words you have the burden of proof.
We make a claim and also declare that our faith is the proof [to us]. We have no need to prove God to you.
And the majority of Christians, possibly all of them, can not put their experience of the One Beyond into earthy words. The experience is emotional, and intellectual, but above all, spiritual.
Mike,
To repeat myself yet again. When I say, “I do not believe in God,” there is no burden of proof on me. When I say, “The Christian God does not exist,” there is a burden of proof, and I offered a summary of that proof above. When you say, “I believe in God,” the burden of proof is on you to prove that claim. You cannot avoid the burden of proof by appealing to faith, all you can do is acknowledge that though you have the burden of proof, it is not something you are able to satisfy.
Chris,
Quit playing the hypocrite.
When you say you don’t believe in God, you are saying that there is no God. You are making a claim about God. Are you an atheist or an agnostic?
You say atheist. Thus you are making a claim about God, that there is not one. You are NOT saying there is a gd but you don’t trust him. You are saying that there is no god. That is your claim.
Now you also claim that the one who makes a claim has the burden of proof to substantiate the claim. I disagree. What rulebook do you find that in? LOL!
But since you believe that to be true, and you claim that there is no God then you need to substantiate your claim.
Or let me ask you straight up:
Which do you claim that there is a god or that there isn’t a god?
Well let me help you with your answer since you are knee deep in an Egyptian river, you claim there is no god.
So prove it.
Mike,
It does not matter how many times you repeat your claim, it’s still just as false. When I say, “I don’t believe in God,” I mean, “I don’t believe in God.”
As for proof, I have already summarized for you the case against the Christian God. Based on my claims, I am obligated to do nothing more. You haven’t offered anything in support of your claim except, “Because faith!” which obviously does not meet the burden of proof.
I’ll say nothing more along this particular line because we’re just repeating ourselves.
You know, Chris, I think if you are not willing to assert that God does not exist, you’re probably more of an agnostic than an atheist. Your “I don’t believe in God” must be the equivalent of one of these two statements, don’t you think?
1. I believe that God does not exist (in which case I’m willing to assert as much), or merely…
2. I am not confident that God exists (or even, I am FAR from confident that God exists, in which case I’m saying that I am unwilling to assert God’s non-existence in any positive, declarative sense, but I am also not in any way prepared to assert that there is a God or might be a God)
So, the person unwilling to make either assertion—that there is a God or that there is not a God—is an agnostic, don’t you think?
Bart,
First, no. Second, why do Christians so often try to turn atheists into agnostics?
🙂
I’m certainly not trying to turn you into an agnostic. Settling on terminology doesn’t make you anything any different from what you are. I’m not trying to insult you. Although I’d love to change your perspective, I’m not even trying to change you by suggesting this terminology.
I’m merely trying to describe you.
Accurately.
So, although I’m a Christian, a pastor, a geek, and a longwinded so-and-so, I’m also a little OCD when it comes to language.
Perhaps instead you could just say, “I’m an atheist, but I’m prepared to defend agnosticism”?
Terms help us understand.
An atheist claims there is no god or gods.
An agnostic says he doesn’t know if there is a god or not.
The only claim that the agnostic makes is about themselves: they don’t know [and maybe they don’t care].
The atheist claims there is no god which shows that their belief is not based on intellect, for how can they know such a thing, rather they just think it is true. Their claim is about more than themselves, for it is about the reality of life for all people in every time.
Now from an atheist’s POV, any claim like that, whether it be theirs or a Christian’s claim to believe in God, it is based on how each feels the truth of reality actually is. Neither can prove to the other the belief they hold is valid.
From a Christian’s POV, their faith is based on an experience with God while the atheists belief is based on a belief in their self. And while some called Christian hold a belief in God based on their own feelings, that feeling will not stand the test of time and they will leave the faith, since one’s feeling alone is not enough to hold them to they pass away.
Bart,
The nature of this debate necessitates a little bit of straining with terms. Mike earlier wants to believe that the burden of proof is on atheists to prove that there is no God. This is a ridiculous claim which leads to the need for a more granular articulation of the atheist position than should otherwise be necessary. But the distinction is not arbitrary, nor have I invented it. Look up hard atheism versus soft atheism; the position I’m holding here is soft atheism. And to name someone who is actually representative of atheism (as opposed to Chris’s attempt to make Singer the poster boy), Daniel Dennett – atheist extraordinaire – is a soft atheist. Even Christianity’s favorite atheist, Richard Dawkins, is a soft atheist, saying things like “there is probably no God” rather than “there is no God” (ie: “We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can’t disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, like those other fantasies that we can’t disprove, we can say that God is very very improbable.” – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl_b_32164.html )
Further, atheism is in some ways a response to religious claims. Most people don’t identify themselves in terms of their belief – or lack of belief – in unicorns, but then we do not have major social structures teaching people that unicorns are real and have a wonderful plan for your life. I daresay that without religion, atheism wouldn’t exist as a thing. People would be as carefree regarding God as we are regarding unicorns. But if someone were to come to you today and say, “The Great Unicorn loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life but will cast you into the fires of Ponyville forever if you do not receive his mercy,” you would likely respond with something like, “What? That’s crazy. What possible proof do you have?” If our new friend the Unicornian responded the way many Christians respond, he would say, “No, my friend. It is you who must prove to me that I am wrong.” But of course that is not the way reason works. While I cannot prove to you that The Great Unicorn does not exist, I have absolutely no reason to believe in him and will challenge the Unicornian claim until actual reason is provided.
Just so with Christianity. If the Christian wants to claim there is a God, that’s all well and good. But the Christian better be ready to prove that claim. The burden is not on the person who thinks an idea wrong, it is on the person claiming the idea to begin with. That said, atheists such as Dawkins nonetheless offer reasons why the universe leads us to believe “there almost certainly is no God” and, as I noted elsewhere in this discussion, why the Christian God certainly does not exist.
So I am an atheist who does not believe in God. I also do not believe in unicorns. I do not have to prove either position to you; rather, my position is simply a rejection of your position. The burden is on the Christian making the claim that God is real, it is not on the person rejecting that claim for lack of evidence.
Mike,
Again, it doesn’t matter how often or how loudly you insist, your declaration doesn’t make it so. I realize you want to shoehorn atheism into a tight corner that seems to be more convenient for your attacks, but it cannot work because your claims are simply not true. Furthermore, by your way of verifying the veracity of Christianity, you might as well also declare that Islam is true and Hinduism is true and Zoroastrianism is true and… In other words, the way you describe your confidence in Christ is no different than the sort of claims offered by adherents to other religions. Lo and behold! All religions must therefore be true! …or maybe, just maybe, we need evidence if we are to believe the claims made by any of them. And at any rate, I have already given you the framework for realizing why your particular choice of deity is not real.
Chris,
Hello to you.
have I been any louder than your denials? lol
But more important than our disagreement on that subject is that you are not getting it when it comes to what we proclaim.
We don’t expect you or EVEN WANT you to believe us simply because we claim it is true.
That is how you started out with us and then left us, because you believed men. And believing men is not how one becomes a Christian.
We don’t proclaim the truth so you will believe us, but so God can use that truth to, if He so chooses, to save you.
Have a great day Chris.
Mike,
Except once again you try to force your claim on a situation, but it does not hold up. Once upon a time, I believed the God of the Bible. Later, I realized he wasn’t there. Again, I know it’s convenient – indeed, mandated by your text – for you to believe I never was a Christian, but your claim is at odds with reality.
This will be my last response to you on this thread (didn’t I say that once before? Curse my faulty memory.)
Chris,
I just don’t know what you mean, that I’m trying to “force your [my] claim on a situation.”
I’m not forcing anything. I am stating what I believe.
Once upon a time you believed the God of the Bible like you now don’t believe. You would say different? You believed NOT because you experienced God but because of your own feelings based on whatever reasons you found to support those reasons.
And now you don’t believe because you feel differently and for different reasons. Would you say different?
Now some people go on roller coasters or go through ‘haunted’ houses because it ‘scares’ them or gives them a thrill, but neither do anything for me. But who am I to say that they don’t experience anything? My first girlfriend was kissed on the cheek by a pop star, but should I deny his existence because I never met him?
My testimony, and not mine alone but every true believer testifies as well, that we have a personal relationship with God. You are free to be skeptical but just giving our testimony is not forcing anything on you.
I just color you confused.
Chris,
Actually, if you look around (I think), you’ll find a lot of people who are equating soft atheism with agnosticism.
I don’t care about the rhetorical advantages or disadvantages conveyed. In fact, I’ll own my own version of the solution I suggested to you: In this very post, I’m a Christian, but I’m prepared to defend theism. “Proving” that there is a God is no proof that God is as Jesus described.
At the very most, the things I have highlighted here suggest that it is the natural state of mankind to have religious faith and that it is difficult to demonstrate this feature of humanity to be a mere side effect of some other human capability. That certainly comes nowhere close to demonstrating Christianity.
I have no intellectual problem whatsoever with the idea that a person’s beliefs go beyond what he can prove. Thus, I do not find it important to argue with you about who has the burden of proof or who does not. Let’s face it: In the way the world really works, the burden of proof always falls upon…THE OTHER GUY. We don’t change our minds unless the other guy meets whatever burden of proof we have imposed upon him.
Chris,
You continue in denial.
An atheist is one who doesn’t believe that a god or gods exist. So you are just playing with words to find a escape from your other words.
Simply look up the word ‘believe’ and apply the definitions given to it with your negative ‘not’. There is only one possible for an atheist: that you are denying the existence of a god or gods.
And besides that claim you also claim that the burden of proof is on the theists to prove their is a god. But when questioned about that, you offered no proof of the validity of that claim.
So yeah, we are done here. I only hope you see yourself for the hypocrite you are playing.
mike
Mike, the burden of proof argument is a common argument from atheists.
In the first instance, and atheist is correct. Initially the one making the positive claim would have the burden of proof.
However, when the evidence is given, then the burden of truth shifts to the atheist. They forget this part. Simply denying theistic claims without proof is gratuitous.
As a theist, I can account with much evidence that there is sufficient reason to believe that contingent things came from a Necessary thing.
The Necessary Being is described in many ways but even many, many scientists (though not all) agree there has to be some singularity from which plurality arises.
I state that God accounts for all that is and I have a bookshelves full of my evidence. Therefore, atheists upon denying my proof, must show proof of how something came from nothing.
Good luck with that.
Jack,
Thanks for the info.
But I am not offering an argument.
I am offering a proclamation, that Jesus is the crucified risen Lord of all and that all have sinned and deserved God’s wrath except if they trust and believe in Jesus.
I am not seeking to prove this proclamation.
The argument starts with a claim from the atheist when they say I can’t know that what I proclaim is true. I choose not to engage the argument at all.
Like a witness, my role is not to argue the case, but to state what I know and have perceived.
As far as the shareable evidence goes, it will never prove the case.
God’s blessings,
mike
Jack,
Not that you will disagree with what I am saying, but to elaborate.
We don’t want people becoming Christians based on our arguments or even our proclamations.
we read in 1st Cor. 2:
And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. 3 I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, 4 and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.
Rather we want new convert’s faith to rest on the power of God through the work of the Spirit in their heart and mind. Now they need to hear the Gospel proclaimed, Romans 10:
14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? 15 How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!”
But if they just believe because we put forth a good argument and/or a stirring emotional appeal, then we end up with a person in the pew, and in the case of Mr. Roberts, a person in the pulpit, who isn’t really a believer. Their faith, and his faith, rested on man’s wisdom [even if it is their own] and not on the power of God.
I am not saying there isn’t a place for apologetics for there is. But when we confuse the good reasons for trusting God with how a person comes to trust God, we compromise our mission.
-mike
Jack,
You said,
“In the first instance, and atheist is correct. Initially the one making the positive claim would have the burden of proof.”
What rulebook is that written in?
Here is my claim: I have had an experience with God. My proof will be known to all at His second coming. If I did not have an experience with God and [a] there is one, I will be shown to be a liar. Or [b] there is no second coming, and, well no one will care anyhow.
Chris Roberts,
A person with an experience is never at the mercy of someone with an argument.
I will not argue with you about Christ, but I would like to share just a few experiences with you. You might even remember me saying what I’m about to share.
When I lived back in the mountains of Eastern Ky. I lived right on the side of a mountain. One fall we had a big forest fire, the sky was filled with smoke, and burning leaves were being blown by the wind onto my porch. Here is my simple prayer. Dear God, this home is all I have, would you please spare it. In just a few minutes it came a shower of rain. It rained just enough to put the fire. If there is no God that created all things, what are the odds of that happening after I prayed.
On another occasion my car broke down about five miles from my home. I started walking back home to get some tools. Along the way a dog started it’s attack on me. Every tooth the dog had was showing, the hair along it’s back was standing straight up, it was a big dog with a horrible sounding growl. When it got about twenty feet from me I said In Jesus name stop! I didn’t even say it out loud. Immediately the dog locked all four legs, and just walked off. What are the odds of the dog stopping as soon as I called on Jesus.
Chris, I can tell a lot of stories just like this. My answered prayer is not why I follow Christ. God called to me late one night and I answered with an open heart. God made known to me I needed to be saved, all I could do was weep and say forgive me Lord. God saved me that night. I have been standing for him about 37 years now. I haven’t given up yet, I don’t want to give up, and God will not let me give up, I have tried. Jesus is everything to me, I don’t want anything else.
Chris, just one last story and I will hush. I had some folks come to me and ask if I would visit their mother who is in the hospital. She was an elderly lady with a blood clot in her brain. She was in the ICU when I found her. The doctors had given up on her and was going to let her die. I introduced myself to her and asked if she believed in the power of prayer. She said yes I do. I prayed for her that day. The lady died, five years later. Glory to God!!!
Chris, once a person has salvation they cannot quit, God will not allow them to. I hope God will call to you, when he does you will not be able to resist.
Jess,
As Mike said, stories are subjective. They are also quite subject to confirmation bias. In addition, for every alleged answered prayer, there are a million stories of prayers unanswered. How many people prayed for their homes to be spared, only to see them go up in smoke? How many people prayed for their loved one’s healing, only to see them succumb to sickness? Etc, etc. There will always be exceptions to the terrible circumstances in life – the home the tornado jumps over, the person that recovers from serious illness, etc, but such exceptions do not give evidence to God. Claims of answered prayer are far too much the exception for them to serve as evidence of anything. In addition, I’m willing to bet they are exceptions even for you, but confirmation bias usually masks – or finds alternative explanations for – any experiences that do not match our expectations.
Chris,
All my prayers are not answered, I’ll be the first to admit that. I will not allow myself to say that God will not answer prayer, because he already showed me that he does. It may not be what I want all the time but one thing is for sure it will be what I need. I believe in blind faith, I cannot see where I’m going but God does. He will put just the right obstacles in my way to direct me in the right path.
I didn’t make a believer out of myself. God made a believer out of me. It’s about him and all about him.
I shared some true life experiences with you because they were true, In hopes that some how you would realize that God is not dead. God may not exist to you, but he certainly exists to me, and no amount of words will ever change that. Chris, nothing you say will stop me from praying for you. I don’t know when it will happen, but I believe God will speak to you and you will not be able to resist. Your situation is not new to me.
Mike, many take a presuppositional approach to apologetics. I lean that way though I would not probably qualify fully for a membership card.
The problem always arises between the avenues of knowledge and proof. I can “know” much more than I can prove.
For example: I can tell my doctor that I feel pain in my stomach. I know the pain is there. He can run all kinds of tests and not be able to account for the pain evidentially. It hurts just the same. In fact, they can treat the pain they can’t even prove is there.
Proof is not reality. Many atheists make that assumption. Proof is secondary to reality.
I agree with your approach to atheists on a blog. It is not very productive.
As I said before I do not respond to be productive, but to be protective should someone pass by the blog and see an atheists argument masquerading as truth.
Everyone is presuppositional, whether they admit it or not – aren’t they?
Tarheel, at least that’s what the presuppositionalists presume!
Touché ????
Why did my smilie face turn into question marks?
Freudian slip?
Jess,
Experiences are subjective. If they do not line up with the Word of God, then they are subject to an argument.
Mike,
I really don’t care how subjective my experiences are. If they don’t line up to your standards or what you believe, that’s just too bad. Doubters like you are what is wrong with the church now. You need to rid yourself of that head full of knowledge and get a heart full of Jesus.
I really don’t want to communicate with you. I wasn’t even talking to you. Go argue with someone else.
Jess,
How sweet.
So if someone is high on weed and ‘experiences god’ and ‘god’ tells them to sin, I guess I am a hater and what is wrong with the church because i say that the person is wrong despite their experience?
This is an open forum Jess. You weren’t asked to communicate but you didn’t need to be asked. Neither do I need to be asked to respond to the half truth you spouted.
But why the hateful response?
Are you having a bad day? i will assume so and pray for you brother.
May His blessings fill your heart and soul,
mike
Jess,
I wasn’t commenting on your experiences but on your opening statement:
“A person with an experience is never at the mercy of someone with an argument.”
This is not always true, as my example showed.
blessings from the Lord,
mike
All knowledge is subjective. The fact that 10,000 subjects experience the same phenomenon does not make that phenomenon any less subjective.
Objectivity is a philosophical concept but not something anyone can access directly. We need a “self” (subject) to know anything.
Jess’s subjective knowledge of the improbable connection of an event to his prayer is not less knowledge than 2 + 2 = 4. It is a different kind of knowledge.
We need many types of knowledge to gain a broader, deeper perspective on what lies behind (metaphysics) what we see.
I am not just being philosophical but attempting to validate experience as an important component of knowledge.
See Plato’s Cave Analogy for a helpful understanding between perception and reality.