The God of conservative Christianity asks that I first believe in him before he initiates a relationship with me. Why this prerequisite? Not only does he set this as a requirement, but he also holds accountable those who do not believe in him. According to conservative Christianity, a mass murderer who has accepted Jesus will go to heaven, but a person who has a lived a moral life caring for others, but who has not accepted the Gospel, will go to hell (John 20:29 and John 3:16). It makes no sense to me why the personal, mundane and victimless action of belief (or unbelief) is such a big deal to the creator of the universe.
As Richard Dawkins writes in The God Delusion (page 104):
But why, in any case, do we so readily accept the idea that the one thing you must do if you want to please God is believe in him? What’s so special about believing? Isn’t it just as likely that God would reward kindness, or generosity, or humility? Or sincerity?
Martin Luther King, Jr., in his great speech in Washington, DC, on 28 August 1963, spelt out his dream of a land where his children would not be judged by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character. He realised, as many of us do, how unjust it is to use skin colour, over and above character, as a way to measure a person. Isn’t it just as unjust to judge someone by the thoughts that they hold, over and above what they are as individuals? This was one of the great stumbling blocks that I faced as a struggling Christian: I couldn’t understand why believing in stuff like the cross, Jesus, and the Trinity was so important to salvation, seemingly more important than goodness, kindness or honesty. God may not be a racist, but he certainly seems to discriminate along lines of belief.
Richard Carrier, also concerned by this aspect of conservative Christian theology, writes in Sense and Goodness without God (page 17):
The good judge others by their character, not by their beliefs, and punish deeds, not thoughts, and punish only to teach, not to torture.
I’m with Carrier here: when I left Christianity, I decided that thoughts are not as important as deeds; that when I meet a person for the first time, I should evaluate that person according to who they are as individuals, and how they treat other people – not according to their skin colour, sexual orientation, or religious beliefs.
Why doesn’t God do the same?
48 comments:
Haven't your heard it? God is dead.
Devil, The.
It seems that "conservative" Christianity has put some warped thoughts about wat "belief" is all about in you head. In real Christianity belief and deeds go together.
I'm also an ex-Christian. Ex minister's wife too. I look back at some of the nonsensical beliefs I used to have and wonder where my brain went for all those years. I believe it's all quite insidious actually and that Christianity according to church doctrine amounts to little more than brainwashing, and very dangerous brainwashing when in the hands of fundamentalists. It's amazing when out from under the influence, people manage to start thinking for themselves again. I think that Jesus of Nazareth was a great spiritual teacher and set us some worthy challenges. He'd probably be groaning, head in hands if he could see the corruptive, hypocritical and dangerous nonsense the church has made of his message.
The God of conservative Christianity asks that I first believe in him before he initiates a relationship with me. Why this prerequisite?
You're kidding, right? Common sense would tell you that acknowledging another's existence is required for any kind of relationship with them. Of course, God can make Himself known to unbelievers; He has done so from ancient times to the present. Still, mere acknowledgement necessarily precedes a relationship.
(Dawkins): But why, in any case, do we so readily accept the idea that the one thing you must do if you want to please God is believe in him?...Isn’t it just as likely that God would reward kindness [or] generosity [or] humility [or] sincerity?
I think Dawkins would agree that our knowledge of any God would be limited to what He revealed to us since we could not comprehend Him unaided. Read Matthew 25:34-46, The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats. What criteria does Jesus use to separate those who will live forever with him from those who won't? How does this fit with Dawkins' assertion?
Isn’t it just as unjust to judge someone by the thoughts that they hold, over and above what they are as individuals [as it is to judge them by their skin color]?
Skin color has no effect on a person's character, but their thoughts do. In fact our character, who we are as individuals, is determined in large part, if not in totality, by our thoughts and beliefs. A foundational principle of psychology is that people's motives drive their actions. As fallible humans, we can't confidently judge (inner) motives so (outward) actions are our criteria. We would judge more fairly if we judged motives, but we can't. God can and does. (1 Sam. 16:7b).
Why doesn’t God do the same [as MLK and Kevin]
I wonder if Reverend King thought that he was better than God?
magdalene...I think that Jesus of Nazareth was a great spiritual teacher and set us some worthy challenges.
Why do you think that Jesus was a great spiritual teacher? What are the worthy challenges he set for us? What makes you think he set them? What makes them worthy?
Sorry...two more things for magdalene
[Jesus would] probably be groaning, head in hands if he could see the corruptive, hypocritical and dangerous nonsense the church has made of his message.
How do you know what his message was?
What was it?
I'd rather stick to Kevin's topic, but since lui has tossed me such a softball just can't resist taking a swing.
I have no doubt that the vast majority of elite scientists are atheists or agnostics. The vast majority of just about every profession are atheists or agnostics. Can you prove to me that scientists have a firmer grasp of ultimate truth than artists or economists or line cooks?
I have no more idea than you do about the religious beliefs of the each of the members of the Royal Society or the National Academy of Sciences. I do know the very foundations of modern science and the scientific method were laid by men of faith like Roger Bacon, Thomas Acquinas, and William of Ockham. And that we all owe thanks, respect, and possibly even our lives to men like Pascal, Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, and Pasteur? Even Darwin had his Asa Gray.
I've recently read two books by highly-regarded contemporary scientists who are Christians; God's Universe by Owen Gingerich and The Language of God by Francis Collins who are both in a very good position to intercept and analyse any evidence for God, and they come to other conclusions.
So if your point were merely that most scientists are not theists, you would probably be right. But your point seems to be that anybody with an ounce of working gray matter would drop their notion of a omniscient, omnipotent, personal God after their first college bio class. About this your are most definitely wrong.
Let me close with a quote from a scientist from the atheist-agnostic camp, Steven J. Gould:
"To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth million time: science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm or deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists. If some of our crowd have made untoward statements claiming that Darwinism disproves God, then I will find Mrs. McInerney and have their knuckles rapped for it."
Later he adds..."Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs—and equally compatible with atheism."
lui said: Why are you showing me this? Are you trying to tell me that scientists have nothing to say about God's existence unless those scientists are also theists?
I don't think that the God Question is actually a scientific one - its a philosophical question. Science can most certainly *undermine* the 'Case for God' by continually providing Naturalistic explanations for phenomena but it doesn't directly address the core issue. It is outside it's remit (and rightly so).
Evolution in particular does not disprove the existence of God. Many Christians certainly believe in both without too much effort. What Evolution can do is explain - very well indeed - the amazing diversity of life on Earth. It provides a very detailed natural explanation of what we see around us. Though it does not directly address the God Question it provides an alternative explanation to Genesis and various so-called 'Design theories' that crop up from time to time.
Science can help to provide negative evidence for Gods existence but I doubt if Science alone can actually disprove it - even if such a proof is possible.
Oh, as an aside I am of the firm belief that Science has nothing to be 'forgiven' for by any Church or Religious belief system.
lui...These "men of faith" had to struggle against the prevailing religious orthodoxy of their time lest they be labelled heretics.
Really? I think you're assuming the Galileo incident was typical. It wasn't. Even so, I'm not defending the Church, but God, who, from time to time, has very little to do with the Church.
they weren't facilitated by the religious establishment
Again, really? I think the church facilitated much of the art and science between Constantine and the Marquis de Launy.
and it doesn't follow that their scientific discoveries flowed from their religious faith
Right. It flowed from their inquisitive, insightful and highy intelligent minds. Did they turn off their minds when they thought about God? There's every reason to think they didn't.
My point is not that Christian scientists can prove God's existence, but that your assertion—nobody who understands how nature works believes in God—is plainly wrong.
cyberkitten...Science can help to provide negative evidence for Gods existence...
Possibly, for those who think God must necessarily act upon nature only in unexplainable ways.
For example, as a child I imagined that when God parted the Red Sea for Moses and company, that a big invisible pair of hands dammed the water causing it to rise up as if held back by glass walls with all the little fishies bumping their noses up against it. But the Exodus account gives a natural explanation: strong winds blowing all night. So if winds blew all night and dried a path through the swampy Sea of Reeds, must I conclude God had nothing to do with it?
Science has also provided evidence against atheistic presumptions, e.g., the Steady State Theory. Remember, Einstein added his notorious "fudge factor" soley to avoid the theistic implications. To his credit, he ultimately let the evidence speak, and though he never embraced any form of Judeo-Christian theism it was not his understanding of science that held him back.
lui...I forgot something...
Gould's Non-Overlapping Magesteria was possibly his attempt to bend over backwards to religious irrationality as a conciliatory gesture.
Possibly, but very unlikely. With post-Enlightenment academia openly hostile to religion, why would an academic feel the need to perform any kind of conciliatory gesture?
Anyway, I and many Christians I know tend to agree with Dawkins that Christianity properly understood conflicts with the idea of completely non-overlapping magisteria.
Thank you all for your thought provoking comments.
Fred Schoeman wrote:
In real Christianity belief and deeds go together.
Thanks for popping by, Fred. If deeds and belief go together, then would I, as a good, moral atheist, go to heaven?
Laughing Boy wrote:
Common sense would tell you that acknowledging another's existence is required for any kind of relationship with them.
Yes, but no-one else uses this as a deciding factor for punishment or reward.
God can make Himself known to unbelievers; He has done so from ancient times to the present.
The problem here lies with the fact that God’s existence is not obvious. If it were, would Christianity really need the army of apologists and evangelists that it currently has at its disposal? When I met my wife for the first time, I immediately acknowledged her existence, because her existence was obvious. There was no need for an apologist or evangelist to use philosophy, science or emotion in order to persuade me that my wife exists.
So not only does God allow doubt regarding his existence, but he also uses belief or unbelief as a deciding factor for punishment or reward. Is this truly fair?
Skin color has no effect on a person's character, but their thoughts do.
To a certain extent, yes. But in my post I’m focussing more on religious beliefs. I would argue that we can’t use someone’s religious beliefs (or lack thereof) as a measure of their character.
Kevin, you would not think of trying to install a word processor on your computer if it had no operating sytem, would you? Then why try to read the Scriptures without belief? Belief is the operating system that must be within you, your operating system. The Scriptures are the programs. When you read the Scriptures(install the program) and try to understand the Scriptures (use the program), you get output in your life. The Holy Spirit gives guidance through interactions with your spirit to ensure that the results are not corrupted by manmade stuff.--Daniel
So webmaster - you have to believe *first*?
How is that possible? Where does the belief come from in the first place?
cyberkittem belief comes from understanding that one has the ability to doubt and, exercising free will, choosing not to doubt. According to Scripture, that ability to doubt or not to doubt is available between birth and death.--webmaster
Thanks for that webmaster.
Personally I have the ability to doubt - and chose to continue to doubt.
Hey Kevin.
Sigh.....where to start first. Let's get webmaster out the way first, then I'll tackle laughing boy.
Webmaster. Since you decided to use the technical analogy, allow me to do the same. Firstly, no. I would not attempt to install a word processor on a machine without an operating system. If push came to shove, I'd use a typewriter instead ;~). But to elaborate on your proposed theory, before one needs an operating system, one needs a language, or a code. Without the code, you have no operating system. If belief is the operating system, then it needs a universal code to integrate with. If belief is absent or does not work, it is the code's fault. So those who do not believe have therefor been designed with an inherent flaw. If you did not install your word processing software correctly, is it the computer's fault that it doesn't work? Of course not. If I do not believe, would it not be ridiculous to punish me if I had been created with an inherent fault? Absolutely. If I do not understand the bible, it is God's design flaw, not mine. In any event, your analogy doesn't work because we all have the same DNA makeup, we are all built in the same way with the same working parts. Our brains function, for the most part, in the same ways, and unless you are claiming that faith rewires our brains in order that our perception can be altered, then I have the ability to understand the bible just as much as you do. And if you are claiming that belief rewires our minds and changes our perceptions, then why did God not hardwire that into our design? It seems like an awful lot of wasted time in the design rooms of Heaven to gift us with the ability to reason and think in a logical way, in the hope that once we encounter belief, we'll be rewired.
"The Holy Spirit gives guidance through interactions with your spirit to ensure that the results are not corrupted by manmade stuff"
But Daniel, the results are ALWAYS corrupted. Isn't that the point of Heaven? Of the Resurrection of the Faithful? That once we don our new robes, only then will we be unable to sin? Seems to me the Holy Spirit is doing a lousy job.
As for cyberkitten's perfectly valid question as to the origins of belief, your answer is severely lacking. You say that belief comes from the ability gifted to us by free-will to doubt or not to doubt? So then why is it that you claim belief is not to doubt? Surely by your answer, to doubt would be just as valid a belief? Ah, but God says not to doubt is belief. So belief originates from God. As for this free will Xians cling so lovingly to, when are you going to realise that if you believe the Xian God exists, you DO NOT have free will. The bible is a history of the ongoing interference of God. God warns Noah, God impregnates Mary, God helps the Israelites win battle after battle, He stops the sun, he parts the Red Sea......do I need to continue? How can it possibly be free will when God stacks the odds? Why does God not inscribe upon the walls of the Grand Canyon "I exist and the bible is my true word to the nations", and then move the Grand Canyon to Japan? The stock regurgitation is because that would nullify the need for faith and it would interfere with free will. Don't you understand? Only the atheist is truly free.
I'll close off this comment, and answer laughing boy in the next.
paul, everyone does have the same ability to understand God. It's built into all of us humans, hardwired in as both sentience and intelligence, spirit and mind. All we have to do is look around and ask questions. As we progress, we come to the knowledge that Scripture has been given to guide us in our search as the program that needs to be installed. Scripture speaks to our mind at first, then, if we are able to overcome doubt and continue to seek, Scripture, together with the Spirit of God, begins to speak to our spirit. It is from this conversation that belief (choosing not to doubt) comes. Once we believe, we begin to act on our belief (and everyone believes in something). If we choose to believe in the God of the Bible, we act on such precepts as "Thou shall not kill" and others that the Spirit will highlight in our being as we seek to be one with God. Can I prove this? Only in my own life. In that one case, I have proof for me.--webmaster
paul, free will does exist, but in limited form for individuals. Individuals can choose to ignore or disregard an omnipotent God between birth and death, in this "space-time" reality that we can perceive, but not otherwise. Thus, the purpose of this life for individuals is to choose to be for or against God. However, God also uses nations, exercising his will over nations in history rather dramatically from time to time, as Scripture records (and foretells). One such event has happened in recent times to show that God is still in control (but not in the Grand Canyon as you requested, in Jerusalem instead). I've placed a file online at http://www.sixdaywar.co.uk/Daniel8.pdf that gives an example of how God is active in history today, as foretold long ago, while still allowing for free will for individuals. I hope you will consider what it says.--webmaster
Webmaster.
Firstly, please clarify something for me. This 'template', if you will, does this combination of spirit and mind and sentience point us toward the God of Xianity? Because the way in which you have structured your comment leads me to believe that you are advocating an 'all roads and all froms of spirituality lead to God' approach. If my assumption is wrong, I apologise, but then your claim would be that this 'template' points to the Xian God. What evidence do you have to back that claim up? Why would a Muslim, who also uses his soul and spirit and mind to know Allah, be wrong? And if you are indeed saying that 'all roads lead' then you clearly have a major deficiency in your understanding of religious doctrine in many forms of religion. Both Xianity and Islam make it absolutely clear that there is only ONE path to God.
And what is this 'spirit' you speak of? Where does it reside? What is its function? I don't refer to the Holy Spirit, but the concept of a spirit or a soul that crops up in so much religious literature. I know where the mind resides, I know its function. Why place more credence in something I have no evidence of? Again I ask, why give me the ability to reason and rationalize when in order to achieve enlightenment or eternal life, I am expected to just 'have faith'?
And if you have proof in your own life, please share it with the rest of us. You must truly be a unique individual, as God has answered your prayers when he has failed so many others. So, do tell. What is this proof? How can it be proof if it is only relevant to you? And again, why whenever a non-believer raises these questions, do we get the same answers over and over. You can only prove it in your own life, yet you expect everyone else to believe the same things? Please show me just ONE example where God has done something in your life that has no other explanation.
I hate to break it to you, but you don't really have proof for yourself. You may have the illusion of a particular experience, but not proof. God and His message should not only make sense when read through the framework of the bible. If He claims that he has revealed Himself in his creation, we should see the evidence there as well.
Sorry, you don't get to play God for me by telling me what I have and don't have proof of. That's for me to decide, and only me. Same with you. Only you can decide what is a "proof" for you, so I can't give you proof, only evidence, and only that from Scripture as far as I know. I can share what I know is true for me, but that does not mean you must believe or even consider what I say. Remember, it's all free will, at least in this life.
Sorry, webmaster, did not notice your other comment. Am replying to that now.
Thanks for the link, it makes for interesting reading. But, there is an underlying flaw in your logic. Let's just say that this is truly a prophecy fulfilled. History has thousands of examples of prophets or psychics foretelling the future, and how in some instances they have proved inerringly accurate. This is not a proof for the existance of God, only an unexplained phenomenon. Spontaneous combustion is also an inexplained phenomenon, is this also evidence for God? Are not the most famous of 'seers' famous precisely because of the success rate of their prophecies being fulfilled? One example of prophesy fulfilled does not a true prophet make.
And besides, The Alexander Prophecy document makes some rather large assumptions. Firstly, it assumes that 'two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings' means Passovers. I can follow the logic that attempts to convince one of that, but I remain unconvinced. Why not just say 2300 Passovers?
Secondly, it assumes that the 'he-goat' prophecy refers to Alexander the Great. How do you arrive at that? It also assumes that the calendar we use now was the same then, which is false. 334 BC was not 334 BC then, we backdate. Be wary of numbers. It is easy to rearrange names and dates to arrive at the origin we want. Google George Bush is the antichrist, and you'll find a website that gives a myriad or calculations to show that George Bush an 666 are linked in every instance and in every way. It's all just smoke and mirrors.
And besides, I fail to see how that ties in to free will. We do not exist to be for God or against Him. If I had been the ancestor of a tribe decimated by the Israelites, woman and children butchered by the direct influence of God, I would most certainly be against this God responsible for so much grief in the history of my people. Again with the stacked dice. An omniscient God would know what his actions would bring upon His creation, yet He would still punish this descendant for being 'against God'? How is that free will? How do I choose to be against God if I don't believe he exists?
ps LB, will post my response to you tomorrow.
"Sorry, you don't get to play God for me by telling me what I have and don't have proof of. That's for me to decide, and only me. Same with you. Only you can decide what is a "proof" for you, so I can't give you proof, only evidence, and only that from Scripture as far as I know. I can share what I know is true for me, but that does not mean you must believe or even consider what I say. Remember, it's all free will, at least in this life."
But webmaster, then why are you on this site? Why are you commenting? Why are you disagreeing with those of us who do not believe in a God? Why are you trying to convince us of our errors? If I am wrong, I will have to face the consequences of my actions, you won't. If you are wrong, you will never know, you will no longer exist, just sweet oblivion. I risk far more than you do, for I risk the absence of God in the afterlife. Do you think I would arrive at my atheism lightly? That I would not torture myself and my thoughts night after night until finally breaking the chains of this religious fog that has blinded me for so long?
Either proof and evidence are universal, or nothing is true. If you have proof for yourself, then it should hold under my scrutiny and that of others, or it is not proof. If it is as you say, then you may as well start questioning how anyone knows that anyone exists. That line of thought only leads to futility.
paul, I have shared what I know is true for me. That's all I can do, so I'll leave it at that. After all, I'm not responsible for your soul, you are. Best wishes with your search.
webmaster said: everyone does have the same ability to understand God. It's built into all of us humans, hardwired in as both sentience and intelligence, spirit and mind.
If that is the case how is it that although most people have believed in some kind of 'God' they have consistently believed in *different* Gods throughout history. If God (by which I assume you mean the Christian version) 'hardwired' us in the way you suggest then why don't we all believe in the *same* God and how do you explain people like me who don't believe in *any* God?
webmaster said: All we have to do is look around and ask questions.
Except that both Science and Philosophy do that and normally come to very different answers than theists do....
Hey Kevin.
it's been a long time bro. This was another excellent post.
modernist Christians indeed do value factual thought over what your describe - or over what i might describe as "heart".
i could never reconcile the sheep and the goats... a story with resonance that transcends any one faith tradition - with what i heard from the pulpit.
"Love God, Love Others" isn't that hard.
peace
Webmaster, thank you for your concern, and your honesty. It was never my intention to attempt to bludgeon you into silence, only to test my own views and challenge my preconceived ideas. If you are happy and have found peace in your own life, that's great.
All I am saying is that either you remain enclosed within your own truth, or your truth is one that you believe should be held by all. You can't have it both ways. If you choose to challenge something that Kevin has said on this website, then you need to be prepared to defend that challenge. We are as passionate about what we believe as you are about your own belief; don't be offended when we tackle you head-on.
I wish you nothing but the best for your life.
This has got nothing to do with this post, but I don't know where else to put it!
I have a blog, and I live in South Africa. If it's not too presumptuous of me, could we link to each others blogs? Freethinking people seem hard to come by in this country, any help we can give each other should be welcomed!
Thanks, looking forward to reading more of your posts!
Kevin...
...no-one else uses this as a deciding factor for punishment or reward. [and later] So not only does God allow doubt regarding his existence, but he also uses belief or unbelief as a deciding factor for punishment or reward. Is this truly fair?
What if the relationship itself is the reward and the lack of it is the punishment? If that’s the case it’s not about fairness, it’s just the inevitable outcome.
The problem here lies with the fact that God’s existence is not obvious.
Well, true, since God is a spirit He’s not as obvious to my physical senses as the person sitting next to me on the metro, but I think it’s wrong to assume that atheism is the proper default premise. Not everyone—in fact very few—have any trouble acknowledging the supernatural. A passage in a book I’m currently reading is relevant here (and it brought you immediately to mind):
“At a recent conference in Oxford, which brought together leading Christian writers and statesmen from across the world, I had the opportunity of exploring some of the themes of this book with some senior Christians from Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania. They found themselves having some difficulty appreciating the plausibility or attraction of atheism. From their African perspective, everything about the natural world and human existence proclaimed the existence of a spiritual reality. The sense of a divine presence within nature and human experience was self-evident.
“Significantly, my colleagues commented that the only part of Africa in which atheism had secured any meaningful presence was the highly Westernized…nation of South Africa; even then, the movement seems to be limited to the white population.”
— Alister McGrath, “The Twilight of Atheism” p. 205-6 (emphasis mine)
So not only does God allow doubt...
How could God not “allow” doubt? Descartes thought long and hard about it and came to the conclusion that his ability to doubt was the only thing he could be sure of, the only thing that made him certain of his own existence.
Here’s the big question for you Kevin: What could God do to prove to you, beyond any possibility of doubt, that He exists?
army of apologists...
We don't need apologists because God is dim or vague, but because the Western, post-Enlightenment, materialist worldview has blinded people.
I would argue that we can’t use someone’s religious beliefs...as a measure of their character.
If the Chaldeans wanted the gods to bless their new house, according to their religious beliefs, they killed one of their children and buried them inside a wall. Was only the act of killing of the child wrong, not the belief behind it? What if they held to such belief but did not actually act on it? Would that not indicate some other more deeply held belief was in play?
Say for example that a Chaldean wanted to marry my daughter. This guy had not yet killed any children, but I know that he is serious about his religious beliefs, and let’s say he was a really nice guy and he treated my daughter very well. I sit him down and asked him if he would go through with this abominable ritual, and he say he believed he would. You are telling me that since I can’t use religious beliefs to measure character I should have no issues inviting him into my family.
...or lack thereof...
Not believing in God = Believing there is no God, which is a religious belief.
laughing boy said: We don't need apologists because God is dim or vague, but because the Western, post-Enlightenment, materialist worldview has blinded people.
Or maybe it opened people's eyes to the truth of the matter that there *is* no God?
laughing boy said: Not believing in God = Believing there is no God, which is a religious belief.
Not true. Not believing in something does not equal believing that something does not exist.
I can say with confidence that I do not believe that God exists purely on the lack of evidence to support the position of His existence. I would, however, be a brave man to say (with confidence) that I believe - or know as some people assert - that God does not exist. To be confident of such a position I would need to have positive evidence of Gods *lack* of existence which, at least to my mind, is also pretty thin on the ground. It is indeed possible to work backwards from theists various assertions about God but this does not, in itself, disprove His existence.
It may be *theoretically* possible to disprove Gods existence but I haven't seen a compelling argument put forward that I have enough confidence in to adopt as my own. Therefore as an atheist I (largely) confine myself to the statement that I do not believe in His existence but cannot say that I believe that He does not exist. They are certainly not the same thing in my mind and (I suspect) in the minds of many other atheists either.
BTW - To say that atheism is a religious belief is not only wrong but rather funny too. It's a fairly common 'mistake' though!
cyberkitten...
So you have to believe *first*? How is that possible?
Sure. We do it all the time.
cyberkitten...Personally I have the ability to doubt - and chose to continue to doubt.
I contend that "continuing to doubt" is not a default neutral position. Why is the burden of proof on the believer in God rather than the believer in no God? If, as Gould claimed, science gives us no definitive answer either way then science does not put the theist in the dock. Additionally, the vast majority of humanity throughout time has believed in God. Atheism is relatively modern and it has been and continues to be a minority view, even where atheism was institutionalized and enforced at gunpoint. So my question to cyberkitten is where does your belief come from in the first place?
A saw the following while posting...
To say that atheism is a religious belief is not only wrong but rather funny too. It's a fairly common 'mistake' though!
Any opinion about God is necessarily religious. I'll consider your most recent post more thoroughly before I comment any further.
Nice talking to you.
laughing boy said: Why is the burden of proof on the believer in God rather than the believer in no God?
Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If someone holds a position which says that 'X' exists then it is up to the proposer the *show* that 'X' exists. It is not up to the sceptic to show that he is wrong. If that was the case we would spend 110% of our time attempting to *disprove* things. Its not how rational enquiry operates.
laughing boy said: If, as Gould claimed, science gives us no definitive answer either way then science does not put the theist in the dock.
I agree. Science has very little to say directly on the existence of God question. It does have things to say about other aspects of the God question but, as far as I am concerned, Science in itself has not disproved the existence of God or anywhere near that.
laughing boy said: Additionally, the vast majority of humanity throughout time has believed in God.
Correct - but that doesn't answer the God question. It just states that most people throughout pretty much all of written history have believed in various types of divine being(s). It doesn't have anything to say about if their beliefs were correct - just that they had them.
laughing boy said: Atheism is relatively modern and it has been and continues to be a minority view.
Kind of true. There have being atheists throught all of history - but what we could call modern atheism originated in the mid-18th Century. Globally it certainly is the minority view. Not so in Europe though.
laughing boy said: Any opinion about God is necessarily religious.
That's simply not true. To say that I don't believe you when you assert that there *is* a God is not a religious opinion. It is a simple sceptical statement.
laughing boy said: Nice talking to you.
Ditto. I hope that we can keep our exchanges of opinion civilised.
laughing boy said: So my question to cyberkitten is where does your belief come from in the first place?
Sorry - missed this one....
I presume you mean my belief that God does not exist? Except that this is *not* my belief.
I do not believe that God exists because of the amazing lack of evidence to support that position. This does not mean that I believe that God does *not* exist. It may be that there is evidence that I have not yet come across which might change my mind. But in the meantime....
Unless you meant something else..........?
[To cyberkitten, since I'm home waiting the the refrigerator repairman (who was supposed to be here hours ago; now I'll have to take a vacation day) in a house without air conditioning (it's another week before that gets replaced) and it's 85 and climbing with 70% humidity. Could be a lot worse.
I haven't read your latest, latest post(s) which I'm sure are fine rebuttals, but hopefully what follows is not rendered pointless. This is all for now, we are posting over each other, and my keyboard's getting sticky.]
***
Not believing in something does not equal believing that something does not exist.
I don't equate "belief" with "certainty". Let's not equivocate on terms. What can we be certain about? I am confident but not certain God does exist, you are confident but not certain He does not. I believe one direction you believe the other. From a practical perspective the beliefs that you believe strongly enough to act on (or build a worldview on) are the ones that matter, even if you wouldn't claim certainty. (Beliefs you don't believe strongly enough to act on can hardly qualify as beliefs.) If you act as if you "don't believe" in God are you any different than the person who acts as if they "believe there is no God".
If you tell me, "I don't believe I can trust you" or if you say, "I believe I can't trust you" what's the difference in all but the most absurdly academic way? Either way you don't do what I suggest. The consequences of not trusting me are pretty mild compared the the consequences of not trusting God—and that's not because I'm nice and God's mean, but because with God the stakes are so high.
So I come back to a modified form of Kevin's original question. If Kevin acted as if He believed in God even though he doesn't, shouldn't God be OK with that? If not, why not? (See Dawkin's in God Delusion on Pascal's Wager.)
laughing boy said: What can we be certain about? I am confident but not certain God does exist, you are confident but not certain He does not.
I am confident enough due to the lack of any (and I do mean 'any') credible evidence that my *lack of belief* in God stands on pretty solid ground. This is, in my opinion, different enough from saying that I am confident that God does not exist for them to be two very different answers. The first is a negative sceptical position. The second is a much more positive postion.
To believe in something especially in a BIG something like the God question must mean (IMO) that you have decided on good solid evidence either to believe that God exists or to believe that He doesn't. As far as I am concerned that evidence (in either direction) does not exist. Therefore, as there is insufficient evidence to believe in God - my position is one of a *lack* of belief, not one of positive believing that God does *not* exist. You may not like the fact that I have separated the two statements but I consider them to be very different animals - though I am from time to time sloppy in my use of language that I may stray over the boundary between the two.
laughing boy said: The consequences of not trusting me are pretty mild compared the the consequences of not trusting God—and that's not because I'm nice and God's mean, but because with God the stakes are so high.
Actually that cuts no ice with me - as, since I do not believe in God, the "stakes" you mention do not exist. I cannot 'upset' something or someone who I don't believe in. Am I angering Zeus or Thor for not believing in them too? Obviously not as they're mythical. So why should not believing in other Gods carry any risks?
laughing boy said: So I come back to a modified form of Kevin's original question. If Kevin acted as if He believed in God even though he doesn't, shouldn't God be OK with that? If not, why not?
Well I presume that God doesn't like liars and Charlatans? God whould *know* that the person pretending to believe in Him was faking it - right? So there seems little point in even trying it. Pascal's Wager is for cowards, covering their bets "just in case" that God exists. Talk about being hypocritical! Should we 'believe' in every God "just in case" they're the real deal? I think we could both agree that this would be a ridiculous thing to attempt.
Oooh! Work keeps me away for one day, and I come back to this! It really is great to see ideas and positions being thrashed around like this, without things degenerating to name-calling and abuse.
LB, am still working on a response to your initial comments on this post, but I couldn't resist responding to this section in particular:
""“At a recent conference in Oxford, which brought together leading Christian writers and statesmen from across the world, I had the opportunity of exploring some of the themes of this book with some senior Christians from Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania. They found themselves having some difficulty appreciating the plausibility or attraction of atheism. From their African perspective, everything about the natural world and human existence proclaimed the existence of a spiritual reality. The sense of a divine presence within nature and human experience was self-evident."
Now, as a white South African, I believe I can comment on this with more insight than most. Firstly, lui raised many valid points with regard to the level of education of the average African, and the history of Africa. The major flaw in your argument lb is that majority is not indicitive of truth. You raised that point yourself when discussing line cooks and scientists. Ancestor worship is a huge part of many African religions, a system of belief that is handed down from generation to generation, with some rather scary penalties that come from attempting to question its validity. Magic and witch doctors are also rife within many African religions, a practice which has given birth to some extremely dangerous and ludicrous ideas, such as the fact that Aids can be cured by having sex with a baby, because a baby is virginal. Organ theft, amputations without consent....there are things that occur behind closed doors that are dark and dangerous.
If you're going to say that an accurate assumption as to the existence of God and the spirit world can be made from a study of Africa, then you also need to acknowledge the role of magic and witchcraft. You can't extract the good and pretend that the bad does not exist. Why is atheism most popular with white South Africans? As lui said, because they have been afforded a better education, and proper access to educational resources. Within the Xhosa and Zulu nations, young men have to go through an initiation to indicate their entrance into manhood. Many deaths occur as a result of leaving these boys alone in the bush for days, without access to proper nutrition and medicine, and also as a result of circumcisions performed with unsterilised equipment (a blunt knife in many instances) and without the proper know how. Is this God's gift to a continent that are supposedly more 'in tune' with Him than many others?
For as far back as we have a history, there have been nations of people who thought various natural phenomena were 'obvious' examples of God's existence. Lightning, the Sun, the Moon. At certain points in history, to claim that these could be explained in a rational manner would have been greeted with laughter. Everybody knows that the Moon is a Goddess with amazing powers. Look what she does to the sea! She must be mighty indeed.
Have I made my point?
Hi all. First time posting. I appreciate the civil discussion here, and I hope that I can add to it. Since I'm coming in a bit late, I'd just like to address a few points to Kevin:
I don't believe that "the God of conservative Christianity" asks that we first believe in him before he initiates a relationship with us. On the contrary, I think he's always trying to initiate a relationship with us, but when we "believe" in him, that is when we are acknowledging that relationship and pledge to grow in the relationship with him.
I'd like to add John 14:6 to your scripture references. Jesus says that the only way to God is through Jesus. If Jesus IS the Truth, then you have to follow the rules, so to speak. When I was younger, I was a Boy Scout. You know one of the requirements to be a Boy Scout? You have to be a boy. If a girl came and said, "Look, I'm an expert camper, I can catch a 12" Bass with a twig and shoelace, I can tie a square knot with one hand blindfolded...", she's still going to be denied membership. Why? Because she doesn't met the number one requirement, she's not a boy. I guess Heaven is a bit like that, it's a private club. ;-) If belief is your ticket to heaven, deeds are your... promotion. Once you have that relationship, you are going to strive to continue to please God with that "good moral life caring for others." A mass murderer who has begun that relationship, in theory, should start to transform into that sweet and innocent person that you are so fond of.
To Dawkins, I'd respond that believing in Him is not the one thing you must do to please him. It just starts there.
I agree with you that we can't use someone's religious beliefs as a measure of their character, and God is not either. He's not saying you are bad person because you don't believe in Him, you're just not accepted in his "club." Would you invite someone into your house for the rest of eternity that doesn't acknowledge you, regardless of their credentials?
Thanks for your time.
Hi Kevin
I agree with all that you've written here - and in that agreement, I remain a Christian :) I like John Mayer's lyric:
"Belief is a beautiful armour but makes for the heaviest sword." When belief is a means of power (think colonisation) we perpetuate a violent way of relating with others. When our message is "Believe the things I believe before I can like/trust/love you" then something is warped.
I like Jesus's emphasis on action: "You are my friends if you *do* what I command." And James: "Faith without works is useless."
I dislike the same view of the Gospel that you dislike (believe in Jesus so you can go to heaven after you die) and I'm beginning to see that the Gospel is muuuuuuch broader than that. When Jesus prays in the Lord's Prayer, "Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven," that's a prayer which calls the pray-er to action. And it's a Gospel (read: Good News) which has something to say about the here and now.
To answer your last question: I think God *does* do the same. See "The Last Battle" and how Aslan deals with the servant of Tash.
I haven’t read all the comments yet, so please forgive me if these points have already been covered.
Laughing Boy wrote:
How could God not “allow” doubt?
I will respond by asking: how can my wife not ‘allow’ doubt of her existence? Easy. She just has to stand in front of me and say hello. And this is a simple act that my fallible, mortal wife can perform, but the great God of the universe is somehow unable (or unwilling) to do.
Well, true, since God is a spirit He’s not as obvious to my physical senses as the person sitting next to me on the metro
But can you show any evidence that the spiritual realm exists? Is this not an ad hoc answer: answering one mystery (why can’t we see God) with another mystery (because he is in some inexplicable spiritual form)?
We don't need apologists because God is dim or vague, but because the Western, post-Enlightenment, materialist worldview has blinded people.
And it’s quite strange that before the Enlightenment, God had no problem showing his presence to many people (in the form of burning bushes, incredible miracles, booming voices, great fiery crosses in the sky, etc). The ‘materialist world view’ that you speak of has scared off all the trolls, fairies, angels, demons, miracles and other supernatural entities/activities that people of ancient times claimed to have seen on a regular basis. God has also has become more quite. I often ponder why all these beings (including God) reduced their activities since the dawn of modern science. Could it be that they didn’t exist in the first place, and it’s our view of the world that’s changed?
If the Chaldeans wanted the gods to bless their new house, according to their religious beliefs, they killed one of their children and buried them inside a wall.
Good response. I will admit that you are right. But I will narrow down the scope further: can we judge a person according to their belief in God (or lack thereof). I guess this is what I’m actually aiming it. Sorry, I should have been more specific in my original post.
Not believing in God = Believing there is no God, which is a religious belief.
To borrow a famous quote: “If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color.”
Thanks again for your comments Laughing Boy. I admire the fact that you are defending your position despite all the debate. You challenge my thinking, and I appreciate your comments. So please stick around.
Thehappster wrote:
Would you invite someone into your house for the rest of eternity that doesn't acknowledge you, regardless of their credentials?
Welcome! I hope you that we hear more from you on this blog.
To answer your questions: yes I would invite the person in, if it meant saving them from eternal suffering. I would put my insecure ego aside. That’s what compassion is, isn’t it? Putting your feelings aside to help others?
The image of God you have portrayed here is a childish God who creates petty rules, and who banishes people who simply ‘do not acknowledge him’. I would have thought God would have been more mature than that.
Roger wrote:
To answer your last question: I think God *does* do the same. See "The Last Battle" and how Aslan deals with the servant of Tash.
Hi Roger. Thanks for your thought provoking comment. I realise that there are many Christian interpretations of this problem, that is why I made it clear that it was the ‘conservative’ (or traditional) view. I guess that is what we have in common - we both have rejected various conservative views that were taught to us. I like your take on this.
All the best
Kevin
Kevin...
She just has to stand in front of me and say hello...
Your wife can provide pretty solid evidence that she exists by appearing right in front of you, but can she be sure that you will believe your own eyes? Could you prove to anyone else that she exists because she appeared to you? Is it unreasonable for me to believe Cori exists since she's never appeared in front of me? Suppose she could flit around the world in the blink of an eye and appear to everyone who questioned her existence, would it be encumbent on her to do so? You probably think I should already be fairly confident she exists. Why is that? You may say God's existence is so much more important, but importance is not relevant to the principle of epistemic verification.
Let’s say it’s not Cori’s existence that’s in question, but her love for you. How can she prove that so as to not allow doubt? Can her love appear in front of you so that you could see it and touch it and fit it into your definition of what’s real?
But can you show any evidence that the spiritual realm exists?
I assume you require non-spiritual evidence that the spiritual world exists. You define reality to exclude non-physical possibilities and then ask me to give evidence of the non-physical that accords with your definition? I’d be wasting my time and yours.
And it’s quite strange that before the Enlightenment, God had no problem showing his presence to many people...
Kind of an understatement to call OT events pre-Enlightenment, don’t you think? Events such as you mentioned tapered off long before the Enlightenment and for reasons that are not at all strange but well understood in orthodox Christian theology and which have nothing to do with the expansion of science (whose foundation, as you know, was laid primarily by theists, usually Christian). The reason: They are no longer necessary. Revelation was completed in Christ. We have the complete Word of God. No burning bushes, booming voices, etc. are needed. Our view of the world has changed, for sure. So has how God reveals Himself to us.
BTW: There are still many claims of miracles around the world, including in the most highly educated, industrialized, and science-saturated cultures. I am very skeptical (almost outright dismissive) of such claims due to the reasons I just mentioned. But, since I am not—like self-described “free-thinkers”—confined to the materialist box, I can consider all the evidence and entertain any conclusion.
To borrow a famous quote: “If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color.”
Famous and inaccurate. On driver's licenses and other forms of identification that describe a person's physical characteristics, bald is valid value for the hair color field. So, in a very commonly accepted sense, bald is a hair color.
Regardless, I did not say atheism was a religion, but that it entails a religious belief, which I would define as that which requires a decision regarding a religious concept. God is, minimally, a religious concept (and for atheists God is perhaps nothing but a religious concept). Therefore any belief or opinion about God is necessarily a religious one.
Thanks again for your comments ...
That’s nice to hear, thank you. I get a lot from my conversations here. I only hope that I occasionally do justice to the ideas I am attempting to convey.
Let's just say that God is 'compassionate' and 'mature' enough to allow people in based on the fact that they led a 'moral' life. But, this is what scares me then... Where is the dividing line? How good is good enough? Does he grade on a curve? Do I have to be Mother Theresa? Do I have to compare my good works to yours, and always make sure that I have one-up? Darn! If I would've held the door open for one more elderly lady. Or if only I had picked up that gum wrapper that I stepped over. And, since it seems that although we all roughly have the same moral structure, there are many variances. Whose moral code are we rated against? Doesn't it make God a 'bigger' entity if, regardless of what we have done, we are allowed in his presence with only one requirement... that we believe in him? Moral people are not perfect people. Who has the right to say that only based on their works should they be invited in? Back to your house... by what moral code would you decide who was good enough, and who wasn't good enough, to avoid 'eternal suffering'?
Kevin, while commenting on your subsequent post I drifted into something more relevent to this one. If I can paraphrase this topic's title...
Why are atheists so concerned about their unbeliefs?
I'd think a person with your obvious positive qualities (and I am most definitely not being sarcastic) would quickly get bored writing about what he considers nonsense.
Do you have other blogs where you invest as much time and energy discussing other things you find equally absurd as God, e.g. trolls and fairies? (I'm sure you'd get some lively conversations in those circles!)
Mind you, I'm glad that you have this engaging blog. I like reading what you have to say and I'd miss you deeply if you took my "advice" and got on with your life. I'm just curious as to why what you don't believe seems so important to you.
Amen to thehappster. Though I'm assuming you are glossing over a point of Christian theology that I also glossed over—God isn't looking for theists. Accepting the existence of a Supreme Being, even the Judeo-Christian Supreme Being, is not what's called for. We must believe in Christ and what His death accomplished for us.
Just thought that after 40+ comments, clarification was in order.
In other words, the "spiritual realm" is forever beyond scrutiny and it's rather impolite for anyone to even inquire about it and ask for something to corroborate it that goes beyond your personal introspection.
You're putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that if you close yourself off to a possibility, regardless of how offensive it is to your philosophy, you can't pretend to be letting the evidence speak for itself. Naturalism is a philosophy, not a prerequisite for science. When held as an a priori parameter, it is a hinderance.
...if new accounting and logistics methods were developed by the Nazis as part of their Jew-exterminating [and may I add atheist-based] bureaucracy, it would go no further towards vindicating Nazism in any way.
You are correct. But it would work against the claim that Nazi's can know nothing about accounting and if they did they wouldn't be Nazi's, which is more to the point of those conversations.
I'm sorry to say, it all seems rather "convenient".
That might be true if I were tacking new ideas ad hoc onto old texts, but I'm not. These old texts were written long before the Enlightenment and they made this point perfectly clear.
Would you have been outright dismissive towards such claims had you been living in Biblical times?
Probably. I don't know for sure what mindset I would have if I lived thousands of years ago. I would probably dismiss, at least initially, things that were outside my common understanding just like many biblical characters did. Miracles and divine interaction are outside everybody's common understanding and should be greeted with skepticism by rational people at any point in history.
Defined like that, it's hardly worth mentioning because it's completely uncontroversial.
Right. Stating that atheism is a religious belief is uncontroversial.
That makes him small and petty, because then the only criterion he uses to judge people's worth is simply belief...
What aspect of peoples worth does God judge? God is not judging people's existential worth, I don't think. But I think you mean moral worth, and if He judges our moral worth we'd all come up short as thehappster says, which leads to...
...which any thug or lowlife is capable of.
a) Thank God.
b) But you're not?
...many people DO believe in nonsense, and that gives people like Kevin the impetus to write on why they consider it such, given the damage that nonsense can wreak on human welfare
First, what damage has religion wreaked on human welfare that atheism hasn't matched or exceeded when it had the chance? (85-100 million dead under communism. See the The Black Book of Communism.) Atheists are seemingly blind to the failings of their own system. Nobody else is. That's a big hurdle. And furthermore, what atheist institutions are even remotely challenging religious ones in rendering humanitarian aid?
You have falsely equated the atheist's non-belief in God with his non-belief in trolls and fairies, and assumed that, given that he regards them both as nonsense, then he should "therefore" see them as being of equal import.
Actually, Kevin equated them not me, but nonetheless you have a point.
Just surfing through on the BlogFlux ring...
Not all Christianity says that you must believe first before He initiates a relationship with you; quite the contrary. Except He regenerate the "dead-in-sin" spirit of man to be *able* to respond, we don't.
You are obviously a deep thinker, but you're actually trying to create God in your image. Do you see that?
I can testify that He *is* a true God, that Jesus is the true Savior and that the Holy Spirit is a true teacher!
And He saved me while I was yet His enemy. He did the same out of love for Saul/Paul. He can do the same for you. A prayer spoken for you...
Are you really considering the personal testimonies of people from various religions? Are you trying to decide which religion among many to follow? This is good news, lui! Otherwise your response seems a tad disingenuous.
I have one question..........why is everyone argueing about God's existance? TO All that keep trying to prove he doesnt exists.........Why dont you ask God to show you...Because he said ask......Unless you are afraid of what you might be shown. God doesnt need anyone to defend him, So why are you arguing with created beings?. Argue with the CREATER he can best tell and show you about himself. Yes I believe God has a sense of humor, Just reading all this I get a good laugh. He isnt moved at all by our unbelief in him.
(sigh) With friends like these...
'paul, everyone does have the same ability to understand God. It's built into all of us humans, hardwired in as both sentience and intelligence, spirit and mind. All we have to do is look around and ask questions. As we progress, we come to the knowledge that Scripture has been given to guide us in our search as the program that needs to be installed. Scripture speaks to our mind at first, then, if we are able to overcome doubt and continue to seek, Scripture, together with the Spirit of God, begins to speak to our spirit. It is from this conversation that belief (choosing not to doubt) comes. Once we believe, we begin to act on our belief (and everyone believes in something). If we choose to believe in the God of the Bible, we act on such precepts as "Thou shall not kill" and others that the Spirit will highlight in our being as we seek to be one with God. Can I prove this? Only in my own life. In that one case, I have proof for me.--webmaster'
Actually this first part about the hardwiring is what is called in Islam 'fitrah'. It says that every human being is in fact given this innate belief in God, somewhere he remembers it but his life causes him to forget. This is why in arab people are called insaan, it means the ones who have forgotten. So this is the part that agrees with you. The second part actually tells that you are going to hell, since you associate partners with God. I don't mean to offend you in any way, just to show you that it isn't as simple as that, apparently according to any religion yes God exists but there is also the extra claim that they alone have the right scripture telling them how to translate this inspiration to reality.
Post a Comment