Since loosing my faith, a number of Christians that I’ve interacted with through email have implored me not to give up on God, with comments such as: “nothing and no-one should stop you from serving God”, “God still loves you”, and “I would plead with you to continue to follow Christ”. I know that those who wrote these comments mean well, and I truly appreciate their concern. However, I’m always somewhat perplexed when I read these kind of comments, simply because they are based on a faulty premise: the premise that I, an atheist, still believe – deep down inside – that there is actually a God out there who wants me to serve or follow him; that there is a supernatural being who I can “go back” to.
If I’m a person who still believes in God (as some Christians would believe), why don’t I follow him? Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, in their apologetic work I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, provide an answer that fits well with this faulty premise. When speaking about atheists, they write:
“. . . many believe that accepting the truth of Christianity would require them [atheists] to change their thinking, friends, priorities, lifestyle, or morals, and they are not quite willing to give up control over their lives in order to make those changes” (pg 30).
So, according to the Christian paradigm, I, an ex-Christian and atheist, still believe, deep down inside, that there is indeed a God out there, and atheism is simply an excuse for me to live a life free from the moral constraints that God has imposed on humans.
Is this true?
The simple answer is no.
Let me spell this out clearly: I did not leave Christianity because I wanted to snub God or his laws, or because I wanted to live a life of reckless abandon. I did not leave because I was angry with God, or for any other emotional reason. I left Christianity simply because I stopped believing the incredible claims of the Bible. I did not reject God as an actual, personal being (like a wife rejects her husband). Rather, I rejected the concept of God (like a growing child rejects the concept of Santa Claus). I did not turn away from God; I simply stopped believing in his existence. This is the subtle difference that some Christians have difficulty grasping.
How can I be angry at something I don’t believe exists? How can I reject the love of a being I don’t even seriously consider as being real? When a Christian asks me a question like: “Why did you turn your back on God’s love?”, I do not have an answer. It is like someone asking me: “Why did you turn your back on Apollo’s love?” The question makes no sense to me, simply because it assumes that I still have some sort of belief in the supernatural being under discussion. How can I turn away from God when I don’t even believe that there is something to turn away from in the first place?
In order to reject the love of a specific being – or express any kind of emotion associated with that being – you have to first acquire the prerequisite of belief in the existence of that being. Without this belief as a foundation, all talk of said being in terms of relationship, emotional rejection or anger is meaningless.
Welcome! This blog covers my thoughts and struggles as an ex-Christian. If you like, read my introductory post. I've also written two "concluding" posts on why I no longer post here that often. Feel free to comment!
13 comments:
I receive comments like this all the time, from my parents, my sister, and those who knew me as a child. They ask "what happened to you to make you lose your faith?" I usually respond with "what happened to you that makes you beleive?"
Yeah, my favourite is "don't blame God for the Christians; you must've left because of the church". No, I didn't. I rejected to concept, not the church or the 'God' of it.
I suppose it's difficult to understand. See, atheism requires at least some logical cognition; theism on the other hand, requires blind, illogical faith. Which do you think will end up as mainstream?
As always, excellent entry my friend.
Nice blog you got here! Keep up the good work!
I completely agree with you and with Dar's reply of "what happened to you that makes you beleive?" Why is free will such a bad thing! Why do so many Christians feel it is their personal duty to "save" us?
The realization that the christian faith hinges upon my ability to believe that a "talking snake" influenced a woman which led to the supposed fall of mankind into sin, is certainly one of the major stumbling blocks for me.
Sin, by the way, from which we can only be saved if we believe that a snake talked in the first place.
Evidence of evil is not necessarily evidence of sin. I was brought up in the Christian religion... I'm still not altogether sure what 'sin' is. I believe in good and evil - indeed, you only have to look at the world to do that - but I don't believe that either one is unnatural as such. Of course, attaining good in the world is something to which we should all aspire, but where is the line between 'evil' and 'sin'?
Surely, for sin to have occurred in the first place, evil must already have existed. Eve didn't invent evil by eating a banned piece of fruit, did she? As far as I understand the legend, the consumption of that fruit simply opened her eyes to the evil that already existed in the world. So I don't see that evil is evidence of sin (whatever sin really is). Perhaps sin is encouraged by evil; perhaps evil is brought about by sin - but they are not one and the same.
In order to believe in the 'fall' of mankind into sin, you also have to believe that mankind had somewhere to fall from in the first place. Personally, I don't believe that. I don't believe that mankind was, at any time, a perfect species free from sin and the effects of evil in the world. I believe the rejection of evil can only be a good thing, and seeking a purely good life is a noble goal, but I don't believe humanity 'fell' from anywhere in order to have to get back to an evil-free existence. Good and evil have always existed side by side. The concept of good itself would have no meaning whatsoever if there was no concept of evil to contrast with and highlight it.
Thanks for your detailed reply. :)
My point regarding good and evil was, basically, that if there was no evil in the world, no one would appreciate good. I'm not saying that you can't have a good act unless there is an evil one to counterbalance it... I'm saying that if everything in the world was purely good, and there wasn't a negative thought, influence, or action in the entire universe, how would we appreciate the good that was present? If good was simply 'the way things are', it wouldn't be remarkable or noteworthy or even noticeable. It would just be. Perhaps the world would be beautiful and running smoothly and full of contented people, but is there any purpose to any of this if no one can appreciate it? I'm not suggesting there's a right or wrong answer here - it's just something worth considering.
At it's root all sin is choosing our way over God's way.
Indeed. This is what I understand sin to be in terms of what I was taught as a child (and I didn't mean to imply that I have no real concept of what sin supposedly is - I just have difficulty grasping its definition). Christians, and possibly other religions, define sin as being something that goes against God's will. But surely, sin is then relative? I do not, personally, think that any human being has the right to suppose what God's will is. The Ten Commandments seem to be the only example in the Bible of an absolute, direct-from-God definition of how to behave. But they aren't a full list of moral dilemmas. They don't give a full account of how God would wish humanity to react in every situation. And other Biblical examples of rights and wrongs seem mainly, to me, to be based on the traditions and customs of the time or on the opinions of people writing the Bible's chapters. Even when the entire Bible is taken at face value to be the pure Word of God, problems arise as to what defines 'God's will'. Not only in terms of translation and interpretation, but in terms of the actual laws of the time, the Bible cannot present a fully comprehensive list of what God does and doesn't want.
If we're talking basic morals here, then most people have a pretty clear view of what's right and wrong. But many religious people take instances from the Bible and declare something a 'sin', when it is often up to the individual's decision as to whether such a thing is 'sinful' or not. Is a lady wearing makeup 'sinful'? Is eating bacon 'sinful? Is wearing mixed fabrics 'sinful'? These are all ancient laws recorded in the Old Testament. If a modern person recognises the fact that such things are no longer relevant to our society, does that also give them free reign to decide what other Biblical teachings are no longer relevant? In which case, how do we determine 'God's will'?
I may be losing my thread here slightly, but my main point is that certain so-called 'sins' are up to individuals to determine. If I wear a bikini to the beach, some people might call me 'sinful'. Do I consider myself to be causing dismay to the ruler of the universe by doing so? No. I don't consider such a trivial thing a sin. If I see a person killing an animal for pleasure, I consider such a thing horrific, and would consider myself to have 'sinned' if I could ever do such a thing. But Christian hunters aren't exactly a rare breed, are they? Do they consider their recreational activities 'sinful'? Any God I might choose to worship would be dismayed by anything being killed purely for the pleasure of another being. But this is obviously not always considered a concern to others.
So... to sum up this lengthy missive, I do not necessarily believe that sin is something that is absolute. If, as you say, it's anything that chooses a person's way over God's way, that all depends on the definition of 'God's way'. And everyone seems to have their own idea about what the 'way of God' is. I do not consider women wearing skimpy clothes to be 'evil'. Unnecessary, perhaps. Foolish, maybe. But evil? No. However, I do consider any act of killing for pleasure to be an evil thing. But not everyone would agree with me. So if sin is relative to the person in question, and evil can be also, who draws the line? I have yet to see any definitive and absolute answers from God on this one.
r10B/skywolf
A few quick comments/thoughts:
1. The concept of heaven I have been taught is that it will be pure joy, without evil and sin. But if it takes evil and sin to appreciate and know joy, how will we have joy in heaven?
2. Be careful in quoting Deuteronomy; it contains too many stories and messages of violence and wrath and punishment, and if you accept the "good" quotes why shouldn't you also accept the violent ones?
3. Bible quotes to atheists have as much meaning as if you were saying, "Zues says...," or "Oden says..." And if you accept the bible as inspired, how do you choose between it and the Koran, Greek mythology, The Book of Mormon, and all of the others?
Jim
One of the biggest surprises in my christian walk, has been my occasional need to Apologize for God. Actually appologizing for what appears to be neglect on His part. Why is this? I do not know, but I find myself holding a faith that I can not always defend. It would be nice if God actually spoke for Himself...
"One of the biggest surprises in my christian walk, has been my occasional need to Apologize for God. Actually appologizing for what appears to be neglect on His part."
Exactly. I have lately begun to see the Old Testament as a history of a politician drunk with power, and the New Testament as a very shrewd marketing tactic to change His image. Which isn't as cynical as it sounds, and here's why: it was brilliant. I always wondered about the verse about no one coming to the Father except through Christ. A friend of mine says it never made sense to him that Christ would have made such a blanket statement and I would have agreed with him until recently.
What I've come to believe instead is that its meaning is this: God appears to be such a bastard sometimes that were it NOT for Jesus' "damage control," we'd have nothing to do with Him, period. I'm at a point where God really the jealous lover He said He was and it's mostly like a bad marriage, and the only reason I stay is the child. Christ gets me every time.
So all I ever say to God anymore is, "Smart move. Seriously."
'I did not reject God as an actual, personal being (like a wife rejects her husband). Rather, I rejected the concept of God (like a growing child rejects the concept of Santa Claus).'
To be honest, I've done _both_.
I don't believe in him, and think a tribe of Iron Age Middle-Eastern sheepherders believing they know the truest, deepest nature of reality to be the _height_ of arrogance. (Though, like you, I'm an... agnostictheist? While I don't believe, it's less a 'there is no god!' and more a 'damn, those are some mighty tall claims you're makin' there, got any evidence or can I get back to lookin' and waitin' for real answers?')
And, furthermore, if the sheepherders are right, and a being does exist as described in the bible... I would resort to physical violence (probably get splattered, but it's more about making my opinion known). Seriously, he's an asshole - judgemental, narrow-minded, hypocritical, attention whoring murderous sociopath. God, as described in his own bible, is evil by the standards of modern morality, so if he existed, I'd still reject him.
Though, that's me, and as long as he doesn't exist, I won't be obliged by my own moral code to take action against him, and everyone else can believe what they will - so long as they don't try to push belief, or behaviour mandated by said belief, on anyone else.
(Yeah, I just now discovered your blog and am replying to a four-year-old article. No idea why, and sorry for the thread necromancy. ^^; )
quote from above:
"3. Bible quotes to atheists have as much meaning as if you were saying, "Zues says...," or "Oden says..." And if you accept the bible as inspired, how do you choose between it and the Koran, Greek mythology, The Book of Mormon, and all of the others?"
This is actually the main reason for me to leave Islam (and not entering christianity or any other religion). The problem is, we are living so many years after all of this has happened and it is based on assumed revelation to people we don't even know, no matter how much inspiring the texts may be. According to Islam, all the doubts and suffering you, Kevin, are going through in leaving your faith wouldn't even matter since both christians and atheists will go to hell, atheists for not recognising God, christians for committing shirk (associating Jesus with God). According to Christianity it would be the other way around, my failure to recognize Jesus as the Son of God would lead me to hell. Well, I am a simple gal just wanting to do good, don't want to offend God or anything but how on earth am I supposed to know which one of the both (only talking about two of the many) would be the truth? There is no way for me to know. You can say well ask God for guidance, I did so many times, many people do and some of them turn into Christians, others into Muslims. This simple fact, and the statistics of most people simply turning into the belief system of their parents, tells me that it is more probable that God isn't at work here, it's simply man-made or whatever. Christians will tell you belief is a matter of choice and maybe of fighting against disbelief, muslims will tell you the same. So in reality it isn't that simple and we are all relying on texts written down (and supposedly inspired by God) of centuries ago. The absurdity of being punished for simply believing with all your heart for something else than the truth to be true, led me to become an agnostic.
How can I be angry at something I don’t believe exists? How can I reject the love of a being I don’t even seriously consider as being real?
Atheists are usually very proud (pride was the great sin of the devil) about their "freethinking".
They feel morally superior to those of us who try to follow the Church's teachings as found in the bible.
They say that they "think for themselves", as though that is some kind of virtue. Hitler thought for himself, as did Stalin.
Believe me, salvation is not a do-it - yourself activity. You won't ever get into heaven singing "I Did It My Way", for sure.
And the real problem with freethinking is that it always seems to degenerate into "me-thinking".
In other words, the ego takes over, and the thought of doing for others out of love always seems to take a back seat to "What's in it for me?"
Remember, as CS Lewis once said, "Hell is full of people who said "My Will Be Done".
Heaven is full of people who said "Thy Will Be Done."
Proverbs 3:5 says it best - Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not rely on your own insight.
Post a Comment