The Daily Dog: religion.
People are always seeing the Virgin Mary in tree bark and oil stains, why not in a Ridgeback? I mean no blaspheme. I’m just saying.
Speaking of, it may interest some of you to know that I just finished reading ‘Mere Christianity’ by C.S. Lewis. John Hawkins sent it off my Amazon Wish List for my birthday and as I’ve already told him, it was a truly fine gift.
The value in a book like that is not necessarily that it’ll turn any atheist or agnostic into a Christian, but I don’t think that was Lewis’ goal in any case. What a book like that is 100% successful at doing, for me at least, is explaining why intelligent people choose Christianity.
I’ll be perfectly honest: I’ve spent many, many years refusing to accept the idea that a truly rational, reasonable, smart adult could sincerely believe in any religion, including Christianity. It’s not that I didn’t try; I did. I used to spend hours “debating” with my dad on his back patio about this very subject. The reason he was never able to convince me is that those conversations happened when I was about 22 to 25 years old and still fantastically smug and sure that I’d figured things out that other people hadn’t because I was so much more introspective and thoughtful and all that happy horseshit.
(To put it into perspective, around that same time I also argued with my dad about whether or not it was any big deal that Bill Clinton was a lying sack of lies. I took the “no” stance. I thought I was being appropriately cynical but really I was being an intractable idiot.)
Anyway, what I always thought was my second biggest trump card was that there are so many Christians who are bad people (the primary trump card being the abject suffering of children throughout time and throughout the world). So many losers and assholes and liars calling themselves Christian, particularly certain ministers and preachers I’d known growing up. Dad told me again and again and again that the mistake I was making was that I hated the message because of the messenger and that one of the marks of a true adult is that they stop doing that, and instead analyze the message itself. Well, I didn’t bother doing that until lately, and do you want to know something? I really have been an arrogant prick about religion. I have. I own it.
That doesn’t mean I’ve decided Christianity is the One True Religion and that I’ve been wrong about everything. I still have legitimate and reasonable questions and issues with any organized religion. What it does mean is that after reading Lewis, I genuinely feel compelled to apologize to certain people (including many of you from past comment threads about religion) for assuming you simply hadn’t thought things through enough and that’s why you are Christians. There are plenty of people like that, but this morning I went back and read those threads, and didn’t come across a single one of you saying that you were Christian just because it’s what your mama told you. Which is what I always assumed, wrongly.
I’ll even go one step further and admit that I’ve realized lately that part of my problem with the whole subject was that I was doing exactly what I so very much HATE for other people to do: projecting. I assumed the majority of you who are Christian were such because either someone told you to be or more to the point, because you didn’t know any better, simply because you had not bothered to do the research. Well, hello. My name is Rachl Lukis and guess what? I hadn’t bothered to do the research.
One line from Lewis’ book that actually made me laugh out loud (at myself) was that if people “cannot understand books written for grown-ups, they should not talk about them”. I’ve mentioned before that I’ve read the Bible a couple of times, but the thing is, I didn’t read it as a real grown-up. The last time I read it, I was actively looking for faults to prove that I was right. I wasn’t truly being objective and considering it in a historical or scholarly context.
It’s difficult to articulate on a blog why I’m even bothering trying to learn about Christianity now because as I’ve mentioned before, I hate being misunderstood. The truth is that I am not exactly seeking salvation or God or anything like that, and frankly if I were, I would not talk about it with virtual strangers at this stage of the game. At this moment, my biggest aim is simply trying to relieve myself of the terrifying feeling I’ve had for years that I live in a society full of and run by people who believe a theology I don’t believe in, and that therefore I am surrounded by crazy people. It’s a bit of cognitive dissonance that I simply couldn’t take anymore.
Is my dad a crazy person? Are 90% of the people who read my blog crazy people? Are most of my friends crazy people? If I think Christianity is crazy, then the only answer to those questions is YES. But it just never added up. I had to know how they could believe something that I do not think is real and somehow not be crazy. That’s why I started asking about it here and why I started reading books like the Lewis one. And I have to tell you that the mission has been accomplished. It’s not even remotely “crazy” to believe in Christianity, and Christians have perfectly sound reasons to believe what they do, even if I disagree with some of their conclusions.
This probably deserves a better and more insightful post than this, but I’ve found that it’s best just to dump these thoughts out when I have them rather than try to formulate some brilliant essay. I just read the last few pages of the book while fixing supper for my piglets, and then that pic of Sunny made me think of Mary, and well there you have it. Truth is, after reading the Lewis book and some other stuff online over the last few weeks, and then going back and reading my own posts about religion, I felt like an ass for being so flippant, smug, and dismissive in the past. I really did. And since I think it’s awesome when people admit things like that, I decided to be awesome and admit things like that.
Hmmmmm…, do the underlying messages resonate, but the dogma grates?
May 6th, 2008 at 8:22 pmESTWell, when Romney was a big topic here, the most articulate Christians here were the Mormons. I don’t know much about the Church of Latter DaY Saints, but judging from those who belong to it, it must be a pretty good deal.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:28 pmESTAnd I try to take that tact with most religions.
As For myself, I am of the fanatical bent in my own religion. Which doesn’t win me any friends, but screw’em.
Ah Rachel, just because someones a Christian doesn’t mean they can’t be crazy too. I’m livin’, breathin’ proof!
The truth is, one of the things that bothers me most about some other Christians is that they*don’t* ask those questions. How can someone claim to believe in God and yet not be changed by that belief? How can they claim that the Bible is His word and yet spend so little time actually studying it?
How’s Rupert doing? Is he getting used to the transition?
May 6th, 2008 at 8:32 pmESTRachel, I’m a Christian, and I didn’t think you were being a smugass. You were questioning, and you were direct but respectful about it, and you thanked your contributors for participating. No problem.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:40 pmESTWow. Nice. Lewis scores again, always good to see.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:40 pmESTFantastic post - one only a “real person” aka a grown up could write. Good on ya.
ps. I wrote a fairly similar post about Cloverfield the other day. I found a huge disconnect between the movie I watched and the movie the guys in the commentary thought they’d made.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:47 pmESTRachel,
You’ve always been an insightful and often hilarious observer of the many moronic things humans do. Your questioning of Christianity has never been offensive to myself, and I dare say, most of your readership. I realize that my faith may be different from yours, and that’s okay. You are an intelligent, thoughtful lady, and it is a positive step to see you make such a bold move. Most people are too self-absorbed to ever admit any kind of personal failing. That you openly wore your own “failure” on your sleeve is a sign of an incredible personal ethic and integrity. The world needs more people like that…you can make it so when you become Supreme Leader of Earth.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:50 pmESTAll hail our Supreme Leader.
I just want to hug ya. But I’m not a hugger.
Good on ya!
Oh and I never thought you were being smug before either. No worries!
May 6th, 2008 at 8:53 pmESTI think that’s a beautiful picture of Sunny.
And as a Catholic, I think the Blessed Mother would agree too. Dogs give us the same kind of unconditional love that Mary, and of course God, gives us. I see the love of God in my pets’ love and loyalty towards me.
Believe it or not, Christians, and even God Himself have a sense of humor. They’re not as stern and serious all the time as most believe. A sense of humor has saved me from being a most miserable person. And I consider that a gift from Him.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:56 pmESTRachel - God certainly doesn’t mind questions. After all, He gave us curiosity, which lets us form the questions, and free will, which gives us the guts to ask.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:01 pmEST(BTW, Mere Christianity was one of the books I read that brought me back to my faith.)
I just read “The Problem of Pain” by Lewis this year, and yeah, he makes a compelling argument for why intelligent people believe in Christianity. I’m in the same position you are, but I reached it a while ago - if you choose to believe something, for whatever reason, that’s fine, that’s your choice, whatever makes you happy; just respect my choice as I respect yours. That’s why I took this religion class, which had me reading that book. It caused me to have many more questions, but it awakened my interest in reading more, which I haven’t done in nearly 10 years.
I’d highly suggest you read it. If you’d like to discuss it, I’d be willing to do so, from an agnostic to…whatever it is you are. “A Grief Observed” and “Mere Christianity” are next on my list of theological books, simply because I really like how Lewis expresses his beliefs about everything but Heaven…he cops out on that quite a bit…lol.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:12 pmESTI was raised Catholic, my brother is a priest. I was educated at a Catholic university and am no stranger to theology presented by very intelligent, well-educated people.
But it doesn’t matter how you couch the philosophy. Truths aren’t changed by wishing them so.
If Albert Einstein had claimed that two plus two equals five, the fact that he is a very smart man doesn’t change that he would be wrong.
Good old Albert may have been sincere in saying that there is a god, but he was wrong. As was Lewis. Nice guy, I’m sure, but not correct. His personal life was pretty weird, too. But that’s beside the point.
Now we have someone here telling us that a magical being has a sense of humor, and says so with a straight face and an air of authority. There’s no attempt to explain how this characteristic is known, especially since there is ZERO evidence in any christian scripture of a sense of humor. But this is how beliefs are propagated. I’m sure someone has written an intellectual treatise justifying their wish in a god with a sense of humor.
Your instincts are correct, Rachl. Don’t be waylaid by sophisticated language into accepting that these ideas are not wrong.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:14 pmESTI just think it’s nice to see someone be so thoughtful and open about where they’re at. Thanks.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:14 pmESTRachel,
There is a book by Lee Strobel called The Case For Christ: A Journalists Personal Investigation of the Evidence of Jesus. I think it might answer some of your questions. If I knew how, I’d buy you a copy and send it to you.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:15 pmESTActually, Skyler, the Wedding at Cana story is as funny as hell.
Jesus and friends come to the wedding and the wine runs short. His mother says to him “They have no wine,” and any mother can hear the unspoken subtext of “My friends are being embarrassed because YOU brought that wine-swilling gang with you, and now they don’t have enough…” Jesus puts her off: “What is that to me?” but instead of continuing to argue with him, Mary does an end-run around him by turning to the servants and saying, “Do whatever he tells you.” At which point Jesus no doubt sighed (you can’t get ahead of Mother) and performed his first public miracle.
And we know Jesus made at least one pun. The line usually translated “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my church” is a pun in both Greek and Aramaic. And anyway, morose and scowling people don’t usually develop the kind of following that Jesus had in his lifetime, which leads me to believe that spending time with him must have been quite pleasant and occasionally downright fun.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:27 pmESTIt’s always nice to see somebody look at religion rationally. *thumbs up*
I must however comment on the picture of Sunny. Specifically, the decidedly not-Christian statue directly behind her. I had to laugh. A lot. A whole lot.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:34 pmESTWell, Anne B., that’s quite a stretch. But if it works for you . . .
May 6th, 2008 at 9:35 pmESTI want to second Donali about God having a sense of humor. Proof?
The Platypus
Puberty
May 6th, 2008 at 9:36 pmESTI love C. S. Lewis. I read Mere Christianity year before last, I think. I’ve got Surprised By Joy here somewhere. I haven’t read too many of his non-fiction works, and they’re gems. I need to make the time to read them, I’m always glad when I do.
I have faith, which Skyler apparently does not, due in part to my upbringing but also my life experiences. I was raised Presbyterian, but I’ve not been to church in — let me think — probably 26 years. I’ve seen enough in 51 years to know there is a God — whatever you may call Him, or Her — that when someone says they need “proof” I can only assume they haven’t been paying attention. The proof is all around us. Some choose not to see.
I believe God has a sense of humor, because what else explains the existence of porcupines? Or armadillos?
May 6th, 2008 at 9:38 pmESTDude. You HAVE to read my sister’s post for tomorrow. It’s called Lions and Christians and Bears and it’s all about the assholes that can be found in the Campus Christian groups who try to force you into Christianity. Even when you say you are in fact already Christian.
OK. Sorry to jack you post, but it was relevant.
I’m going to have to check out that book. I’ve never read anything by him.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:42 pmESTI second the “wow” from above. Forget the conclusion or even the topic for a sec. Rachel, your humility and honesty are breathtakingly refreshing.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:43 pmESTHappy day, Rachel. C.S. Lewis was himself converted by J.R.R. Tolkien, and has gently shown the Light to many people. Whether or not you ever embrace Christianity, you know where we come from. That’s a sweet, sweet thing.
I also think the Wedding at Cana is hilarious. And Noah and his Ark was pretty darned funny, if you think about it.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:44 pmESTInterestingly enough, Skyler, the late Bishop Fulton Sheen said the “divine sense of humor” was that “nothing matters, except the salvation of souls.” Something to chew on.
Wachel, that’s a good point about reading the Bible as an adult and having a different understanding. I didn’t understand much until I went to college and studied scripture in a couple classes. I haven’t read Mere Christianity yet but I loved The Screwtape Letters–and Peter Kreeft’s update The Snakebite Letters (I think that was the title).
IIRC the mom in Miracle on 34th Street tells her daughter, “Faith is believing in something when reason tells you not to,” or something like that. I guess it does smack of crazy.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:44 pmESTSkyler, the irony is amusing. The statement “there is no God” requires faith beyond mere logic just as the statement “there is a God” requires faith beyond mere logic.
That said, in the spirit of the thread, let us discuss God and humor. Obviously, from your personal beliefs, there is no God, therefore nothing exists to have a sense of humor. It is a pointless argument. There is no God, so god isn’t kind, there is no God, so God isn’t omnipotent. It seems a waste of time to have that discussion. So instead, for the time being and for the sake of discussion, I’ll ask you to grant the premise of God, and since I’m Christian, I’ll approach this from Christian God. Please, for now, grant this premise.
In the Christian world, God is the creator of the the universe, in all its glory, beauty, variation, and majesty. Nothing exists, but for God. He created man, man with free will. From our fall we have had an influence on the world, creating things God did not create, but using the intellect and ingredients he gave us, to do so. We look around, and we see funny things. We see things that make us laugh. Some times it is an animal doing something cute, or silly. Sometimes it is more crass. Have you ever seen anything, away from the influence of Man that made you laugh (like a baby dear slipping in the mud by a watering hole in the mountains)? God made those things.
Sure, you can posit that it is mere coincidence, that it is man’s sense of humor that filters the factual happening of an event into something humorous relative to man. It however doesn’t take much of a reach to believe that God has a sense of humor and can make things funny, or see things as funny too. From the Christian perspective, we were made in His image (God the father, not Christ, obviously). There are different theologies involved about whether this means God is an upright quadraped, about 1.8 meters tall, or instead the image we share with him is our sentience, those qualities that make us human and distinct from the rest of nature.
Humor is one of those qualities. We love, God Loves, we have anger, God has anger, we have joy, God has joy. God, in the bible, is declared to share most of our emotional states (I use most because I am not a biblical scholar and want to leave wiggle room), so it doesn’t require a large leap to end up believing He has a sense of humor.
I’ll try to rephrase, because I don’t know if I made my point well. For those of us who see the influence of God all about us, those of us with faith in Something (opposed to faith in Nothing), it is a simple observational extrapolation to deduce that He has a sense of humor, not a large leap by those who want to believe it.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:55 pmESTQuoth the Ninja from Ask A Ninja.com:
“Everyone is a weirdo freak. Except you, which makes you a weirdo freak.”
May 6th, 2008 at 10:17 pmESTChristianity is stupid. You were right the first time.
C.S. Lewis is the best of the Christian apologetics, but he still has a weak argument. He starts with the axiom that because men have a sense of morality — wildly different in different cultures at different times — this sense of right and wrong means it must have been placed in us somehow (true) by God (not true) — a basic sense of morality, with individual variation, can easily be explained as inherited traits of social animals.
He later goes on to his arguments for Chritianity vs. the other religions.
I’ll issue you and everyone a challenge. I’ve read the Bible and Mere Christianity so I think I’ve done my part.
I want you to watch 3 short videos and then tell me whether you believe Christianity is true:
Video 1: Jesus vs. the Old Testament
Video 2: Where’s Yahweh
Video 3: Debunking Christian Apologists: C.S. Lewis
…
May 6th, 2008 at 10:18 pmEST… and these 4:
Video 4: Top 10 Reason’s to Reject Pascal’s Wager
Video 5: Jesus Hates Democracy!
Video 6: Jesus Loves Slavery
Video 7: Two Greatest Fears
If you still believe it’s true, okay. I’d like you to explain why.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:18 pmESTMay reason, love, and your innate human decency allow you to chart your path in the most advantageous way to you, for those you care about, and for the betterment of mankind.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:20 pmESTWell, thanks to Maggie, that surely ain’t no virgin! (…and stop calling her Shirley)
May 6th, 2008 at 10:22 pmESTWOW. Seriously, this is an impressive post.
I have been reading you for years and sometimes I would be a bit hurt by some of what you wrote about Christians… but I do think you are being way to hard on yourself. If youa re really an ass about it I wouldn’t have been reading you all this time.
I will share a quote from Fulton Sheen that I think applies
I think that often this can be expanded to all of Christianity.
Sometimes some Christians are total asses about their faith and so it is fairly easy to see how people are unwilling to consider the possibility that all Christians are not idiot. I am a Christian (Catholic) and even I feel that way sometimes.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:23 pmESTChris_RC,
To those who want to believe despite all lack of evidence, everything convinces them. They are incapable of understanding that their perception does not create reality.
But the truth is that reality exists independent of your perceiving it. Therefore, when that deer slips and falls, it has nothing to do with you. It’s just a deer slipping and falling. That you find it funny is simply your way of interpreting what happened, but your laughing at its misfortune is not proof of magic.
It’s a bit maddening when people say that recognizing that there is no magical being is itself proof of a magical being existing. It requires no “faith.” It simply is true, regardless of perception. That is either a correct statement or a false statement. All rational proof points to it being true. Wishful thinking makes people ignore rational proof, and wishful thinking is very powerful.
I applaud Rachl for reading and learning more about theology. But I would warn her that the likes of Lewis and others are not really the ones to be bothered by. They are otherwise rational and well-meaning and wouldn’t hurt a fly. They tend to be very tolerant of other beliefs, and that’s the best we can hope for. Because nothing will ever convince them that they are wrong. And that’s fine.
It’s the intolerant ones, the ones who insist that others believe as they do that are the problem. It’s not just the jihadists. It’s also the bible thumpers who would fire a person for having different beliefs. It’s the boss that insists that you go to their church. It’s the town that looks askance at those not attending services, and forces others to observe their sharia law, oops, I meant dry laws or blue laws. It’s the masses of voters that only vote for “evangelicals” no matter their other evidence of being very unsavory (yeah, Huckabee, that’s you). It’s the bigoted believers that are scary.
Lewis isn’t one of that type. But he allows them to claim a false intellectual pedigree that sounds nice, but is corrupted by them to foster intolerance and worse.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:23 pmESTSunny’s looking radiant this fine day, pious, if you well.
I daresay God would smile…if I may be so presumptuous.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:23 pmESTI wonder if Skyler realizes the irony of his argument. He says that God does not exist but offers no proof, then claims we must reject the claim that God has a sense of humor because there is no proof.
And BTW, God DOES have a sense of humor. Just look at the platypus.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:25 pmESTWhy on Earth should we explain anything to someone who starts his argument off by calling us stupid?
May 6th, 2008 at 10:26 pmESTPuny Wannabe but ain’t,
I’m not attempting to offer proofs here because this isn’t the time or place. And I have no interest in converting anyone. It’s none of my business and it’s virtually impossible.
And there is no requirement to prove a negative.
I try my best to ignore you, I would appreciate the same in return.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:34 pmEST“You are fishermen. Come with me and I will make you fishers OF men!” is also a play on words. (I think it worked a little bit better in Aramaic.)
Thanks, Rachel. I appreciate your acknowledging that it is possible to reach faith through reason. I get very tired of being told that I am an ignorant dupe. I wasn’t raised in the church and spent a lot of time reading and studying before I became a Christian. And I still read and study. As Lewis says, Christianity demands intellectual commitment as well as faith.
And now, back to reading That Hideous Strength.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:37 pmESTI didn’t call YOU stupid. I called CHRISTIANITY stupid. And most certainly did not call GOD stupid.
Now, you may or may not be stupid — I don’t know. I know I realize the Bible is untrue.
On the subject of stupidity, you understand:
“us” ≠ “Christianity”
… right?
Anyway, don’t explain it to me. Just watch the videos. I think deep down you know the Bible cannot be true, not literally, and that’s why you will not watch the videos even though you may offer me — and will offer yourself — some other lame excuse.
Prove me wrong if you will. Then you’ll have the info to explain it to me if you want.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:38 pmESTPrecisely. You’re making claims without proof, while criticizing us for making claims without proof.
Hypocrite.
Then don’t argue a negative.
But you’re so entertaining when you’re angry.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:39 pmESTOh, I see. You’re not calling Christians stupid, you’re just ridiculing their entire belief system as stupid.
Which is…different…somehow…I guess.
I assume from the Youtube videos you linked that you are Jewish. Would you appreciate it if I called your belief system “stupid” and implied that you were stupid for believing in it?
Why should I? You’ll just tell me my proof is “stupid” and swagger to and fro like you’ve won the argument.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:42 pmESTRachel, you are truly awesome. I am impressed. It’s rare when a person admits her own shortcomings. You are blessed with the gift of humility. It’s not a small thing…
None of us Christians ever bothered to question why you had trouble with Christianity - BECAUSE WE ALL DO. We all just appreciated your God-given talent for satire and humor. And you are usually correct when you call hypocrites to the carpet.
A separation of the message from the messenger is a key element to any real knowledge/appreciation for the past - and we all have always known where you are coming from.
For me, I am not exactly a perfect Christian, because I have big problems with much of the story. But I do believe, in a secular way - that Christ was probably the bravest man who ever lived. I mean - who stands up to the High Priests AND the Romans - absolutely refuses to recant a single word in order to spare his own life - at a time when the consequences for doing so means that a gruesome execution is inevitable? Yeah, “Blessed are the merciful” and “Blessed are the peacemakers” are messages that people shouldn’t hear. Far too dangerous…
The answer is fairly simple - he was a man who knew that he had an important point to make. He reminded his people (who lived under the occupation of a conquering army) that God had not abandoned them - and that God loves everyone. Understanding and forgiveness are NECESSARY. This applied to enemies as well.
What is absolutely true is that he was killed for saying so. It’s a matter worth pondering. If there is such a thing as divinity, maybe this is it, in stark simplicity?
At any rate, it remains true that his words alone (ignoring the miracles, real or fiction) were earth-shaking propositions at the time. Western Civilization developed largely due to his new “philosophy.”
At the very least, and in my humble opinion, the man ought to be admired. There was a time when we all could recognize bravery.
But today ignorance and mockery are so much easier. The lazy and the arrogant do this.
Your father is not crazy (and never was).
May 6th, 2008 at 10:48 pmESTSkyler
One, the statement “There is no God” can not be proven. Logically the statement “There is a God” can fail to be proven, meaning you don’t believe in God. That is logically consistent. Believing there is no God, requires evidence that isn’t there. You may have evidence to convince you some, or all, elements of any particular faith’s take on God are false. But logically that can only lead to the conclusion that “their God does not exist as they believe it too.” Not the conclusion that “There is no God.” I don’t know of anyone has ever said that the belief that there is no God (for ease of conversation if nothing else I’m going to paraphrase your repeated deliberate use of magical being) proves there is a God. All that belief proves is that you faith beyond mere logic. That you are choosing to believe something for what ever reason, that the evidence does not support, can not support.
It is logic 101, you can not prove a negative. You can prove positive the logical opposite of something, but you can’t prove a negative. “There is no God” can’t be proven. (Logically its opposite can’t be proven either, that is the point of faith). Logically any evidence that “There is a God” might be disproven, which only means that other’s have failed to make their argument, not that you have proven yours. I’m not saying you have to believe there is a God. But if you are going to claim the mantle of fact and pure reason, the only position you can claim is that you have insufficient proof of God, or a god, or any god, and therefore do not believe the conclusions of others.
You also may have missed my point (or I yours, also likely). From your earlier post excerpt
The impression I have here is that you are saying people who are already Christian (from what ever belief in flawed data you posit) are struggling to justify their wish that God has a sense of humor. The only point I was making is that, from a Christian world view, we believe God as a sense of humor from what we witness, not that we seek to witness things in hopes of proving God has a sense of humor.
I was asking you to grant a rhetorical premise and discuss from there (since you proposed the scenario where Christians were trying to force their God to fit their view of him as having humor). You wouldn’t. That is of course your choice. But to merely keep saying “there is no God and all believers are stupid” (a paraphrase of your remarks, but I believe a fair one) especially in a thread where the point is honest discussion about it, is from where I’m sitting, petulent at best, intentionally insulting at worst.
I do not wish to ascribe any malicious intent to you, but it is hard to escape that impression. As will all forms of communication, it is possible that we simply missed each other’s point and heard something different than was said. If it seems I am arguing against a straw man, than I mis-understood your premise and invite respectful clarification.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:49 pmESTExactly.
Except for the word “entire”.
Christianity isn’t their “entire” belief system. Humans are far more complex. No person literally lives by the Bible, however much they try (and most don’t). It would be impossible because it contradicts itself.
Correct.
I am not. Why would you possibly make such a leap?
It wouldn’t offend me at my core.
I understand you already DO consider my belief system “stupid” or worse. I deny the person who you believe I must accept in order to get into heaven (and… probably more importantly… avoid hell a concept popularized by he, but strangely absent from the Old Testament) said much of what he is alleged to have said, and further believe the Gospel accounts are fabrications, and poorly written two dimensional ones at that (with some decent points made at times). I think you’re religion is based on a combination of ignorance and fraud.
Are you telling me you BELIEVE my beliefs are “smart”? By definition, you have to believe I’m terribly deluded, evidence to the contrary be damned. And I don’t have to believe anything but where the evidence takes me.
It wouldn’t faze me. I know objectively that I’m more knowledgeable on certain subjects than you, and the reverse is true, I assume. This time, undoubtedly correctly.
By the way, why do you conclude I must be Jewish? The person in the video’s nose? His last name of “Armstrong”? His first name if “Lance” (no relation to the cyclist)? His philosophy of Deism?
What great bit of evidence lead you to conclude I’m Jewish?
How’s your viewing going?
May 6th, 2008 at 10:51 pmESTMay 6th, 2008 at 10:53 pmEST
“And since I think it’s awesome when people admit things like that, I decided to be awesome and admit things like that.”
I think it worked.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:55 pmESTSo you admit to calling Christians stupid by implication? Thank you.
Your first link talks about how the Old Testament debunks the New Testament (I didn’t actually watch them because I refuse to be a party to anti-Christian bigotry). Is my assumption really such a “leap”?
Then you’re a liar.
And you seriously expect us to engage you in a rational discussion?
You are a bigot, Christoph. And so is the man in your videos. I will not be witness to bigotry.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:57 pmEST(This got stuck in moderation for some reason, don’t know why, but it keeps happening to me at the most annoying times. I’m trying to edit the text, so if it suddenly seems jarring, it is because I had to change a clause drastically to get the post through.)
Christoph and Skyler,
Is your interpretation that all Christian’s follow the ideal of Biblical in-errancy? There are many denominations, we are not one homogeneous mass. There are many Dogmas, many creeds, many sects. Few ascribe to strict biblical in-errancy. I will not speak directly for any sect, but personally I recognize that Christ frequently used metaphor to teach and instruct. I don’t see why his dad wouldn’t have done the same.
But at least one of you seems to have dropped the pretext of respectful dialog. You actively intend insult. What is the point of that other than to amuse yourself by flaming Christians? That is honest curiosity by the way, not a rhetorical question.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:01 pmESTRachel,
Despite being quite a bit older than you, and, I assume, having had a lot more exposure to church, I find myself in about the same situation as yourself when it comes to Christianity. I’ve read a number of Lewis’ books, including Mere Christianity, and find them quite compelling. I would recommend Surprised By Joy, detailing how he came to be a believer.
Another author you might want to check out is Francis Schaeffer, especially a work entitled How Should We Then Live? In that book he traces the flow (decline?) of Western culture, and the stages it has gone through. Even though it pre-dates our current conflict with Islam, it goes a long ways towards explaining our seeming impotence in dealing with that situation. Ironically, despite the fact that he writes from the perspective of a Christian, this particular book could have almost been written by Ayn Rand.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:02 pmESTSomehow, in that picture, Sunny looks more like the Egyptian sphinx than the Virgin Mary to me.
YMMV
May 6th, 2008 at 11:05 pmESTChris_rc,
No, that’s not fair at all. I said they are wrong, I didn’t say that they were stupid. In fact, I implied that Lewis and others such as Aquinas are quite smart. I know my brother is smart.
There’s a big difference between being wrong and being stupid.
As for the proof issue: Chris, is there an invisible monster sitting on your desk? No? Can you prove that? If not, why do you think it’s not there?
The answer is that with the totality of evidence, and the interpolation of all human experience, you can be certain, not simply believe, that there is not an invisible monster on your desk. The same holds for other magical beings. There is no reason to believe it, therefore the wild creation of such a conclusion is baseless and requires no belief to reject.
That you disagree is your right, but it requires no “belief” to reject that which has no basis.
But these are tired old arguments and no one will be convinced to change their minds.
The important thing is to have as close an understanding of right and wrong as possible, no matter what you ascribe that understanding to. If you treat people decently, that’s all good whether you’re muslim, atheist, budhist, or christian of whatever flavor.
But once you start inflicting an incorrect understanding of right and wrong on others, then a line has been crossed that should not be tolerated. That’s partly why Rupert is heading to Iraq.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:05 pmEST“I also think the Wedding at Cana is hilarious. And Noah and his Ark was pretty darned funny, if you think about it.”
I agree with Bonnie. God drowning all those people and animals, that is fukkin’ hilarious! At least some of those people were innoncent, and torturing innoncent people always makes me giggle. And don’t even get me started on cancer! That’s the funniest shit ever! Ha!
May 6th, 2008 at 11:06 pmESTFanniep,
So what you’re saying is “Bad stuff happened, therefore nothing can ever be funny”?
May 6th, 2008 at 11:09 pmESTSklyer, first there is a post of mine stuck in moderation at 11:01 PM. Nothing bad in it, but I get hit by that occasionally.
You are borrowing from Sagan (or are having a parallel thought, his was a Dragon in a Garage). Here is where your allegory falls short. Christian’s are saying God exists, not that he is sitting on your desk (other than the tenant of faith about him being omnipresent, but that is a separate issue). To enter your frame. I can fairly say with in your rules that there is no invisible monster sitting on my desk (in any relevant means, any claim I make against its existence on my desk can be argued against by applying no power, useful when dealing with omnipotence). However, logically, I can not say, that in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE there is no invisible creature. Monster is a pointless name to instill the creature with malicious or harmful intent.
I don’t believe that there are any invisible creatures (note, the word BELIEVE), because no evidence has been presented me to make the case for their existence. However, I will not say “There are no invisible creatures in the universe.” Because there is no way to know that. It would require presumption of the highest degree, arrogance rivaling that of your hypothetical boss that requires his employees to attend his church.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:16 pmESTThe wonderful thing about Christianity is forgiveness.
There was no way you could have offended any of us, Rachel. We had already forgiven you.
…well, at least I did.
I’m what you would call a non-practicing Catholic. I don’t go to services, but I do regularly read the Bible and pray. I always defend this on the basis that Jesus proscribed against prayer in public.
I used to go to mass regularly, when the services were at 8pm on a Saturday night and officiated by the former president of my alma mater (a Catholic university). I go on special events like Easter and Good Friday and all, but not every Sunday.
I will say that I find many Protestants’ hostility towards Catholicism very problematic.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:16 pmEST[sorry about the double post]
May 6th, 2008 at 11:21 pmESTotcconan, may I suggest that we leave the Catholic vs. Protestant discussion for another thread, this one is contentious enough. I’ll say I agree, the hostillity shouldn’t be there. Neither should there be the oft observed hostility of many Catholics towards protestants. There are many mutually exclusive articles of faith that are worth of discussion between the two groups (and with in the various forms of protestantism, or those who claim it), but none of that needs hostility, so I’ll back you on that.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:22 pmEST“So what you’re saying is “Bad stuff happened, therefore nothing can ever be funny”?”
No, not at all. Bad stuff happens, and lots of things are funny. Like you. But God killing and torturing lots of innocent people when he doesn’t need to is not funny. People unjustly suffering is not funny. Can I offer proof that God doesn’t exist? No; not in the same way that I can give a proof of the Pythagorean Theorem. But I can give you an argument that seems to provide very strong evidence that God does not exist:
1. Assume that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God can prevent all pointless suffering.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows where all the pointless suffering is.
4. If God is omnibenevolent, then God wants to eliminate all of the pointless suffering.
5. But there is pointless suffering in the world.
C. Therefore, there is no God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
I don’t think that 1 through 5 leads to a strict contradiction, and, therefore, that argument is not a proof, in the mathematical or logical sense. But those premises seem to provide good evidence that there is no God. Unless you reject that God is omnibenevoleent and believe that God is a dick with a sense of humor. That kind of God might exist.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:23 pmESTTo Skylar and Christoph, et al:
I think you have many valid points to make - that your thoughts are at times squarely opposed to mine is certainly OK.
For all you Christians out there, you are either comfortable in your faith or you are not. I don’t mind a friendly argument at all. I look at it as a chance to maybe learn something. But when we descend into name-calling, what’s the point?
Neither I, nor any of my Christian friends take the bible literally. The dangers in that can be seen readily by witnessing the discussions here - there is so much miscommunication and talking past each other, it’s a wonder anything at all is ever understood.
I am a huge fan of Ayn Rand (an atheist) and I am indebted to her intellect. But I think that she was not perfect…and she was no Jefferson. I am quite familiar with her terms, and most of the rules of logic.
I have taken issue before at the idea that “you cannot prove a negative.” So, ignoring, the religious discussion for the moment, can you tell me in logical terms why this must be so? I have posted an answer to this axiom here before - relying on the law of identity for proof.
It could be that I am wrong, and would welcome your criticism.
Please note, I am foremost an admirer of Christ for what he stood for, and I think his integrity is a thing worth honoring. And I simply don’t understand people who are so willing to laughingly dismiss the life he lived, simply due to the notion that some choose to believe he was divine. I am reluctant to be a Jesus-basher.
But organized religion is wholly a different matter.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:26 pmESTWhat? No damn cuss-words in a blog post? Hinky.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:27 pmESTSagan? I only know two things about Sagan; one is that he wrote “Cosmos” which I enjoyed as a youngster and the other is that his well deserved nickname when I worked at Apple Computer was BHA (b**t hole astronomer).
I don’t intend to convince you, Chris, it’s not going to happen. I’m just saying that I don’t require belief to know with certainty that the omnipotent being in your garage/world does not exist. I am not saying that there isn’t a being somewhere in the universe that is very powerful, but not omnipotent or omniscient, and not anywhere near us or influencing our existence. And I even doubt that much.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:29 pmESTfanniep, your flow can’t get past stage one.
omnibenevolence is not a universal claim I have ever seen or heard before, and I have been attending church and talking to people of other denominations and faiths since at least kindegarten. That he is benevolent is frequently stated. That he loves is frequently stated. That he gave us free will is frequently stated. He can not do all you suggest he should as an omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent God and still allow us free will. Put another way, in the biblical sense, he did exactly as you say, until Man chose to disobey him (using his free will).
God was willing to all that you suggest if Man was willing to follow but one commandment, do not eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. We ate of the tree, we then knew of good, and knew of evil. Evil, knowing it, truly, means knowing bad things. Your statement isn’t mathematical proof, you are right, but it also isn’t good proof that the Abrahamic God doesn’t exist.
It is a decent argument against the existence of a singular god that I’ve never heard mentioned before.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:29 pmESTOh, mightysamurai, now here’s where I prove you’re a liar, hardly a rare quality among people including Christians. Fortunately, you have the luxury in glorifying your sin because your Saviour’s blood will wash you clean. I, on the other hand, have no such false comfort, so I’m judged merely on whether I tell the truth or not.
This is what you say when I answer “Exactly” (with a caveat that you omit) to your question:
I don’t believe Christians are stupid. The very idea of that offends me. I know, love, and respect many people who are Christians. I believe Christianity is stupid, much the same as if a person had an incorrect theory on any topic (I’ve held several at times: all people have).
But you’re an intellectually dishonest person, so the intentionally lying misstatement of my answer to your question suited you.
Ah, I see. Because, in a discussion about whether Christianity is true or not, ONLY a Jew would point out contradictions between what Jesus “said” and the Old Testament. No one other than a Jew would be in the slightest interested in that.
Indeed, people who point out discrepancies between the Old Testament and new are most likely Jews… despite the fact that millions of non-believers have pointed these out over centuries and today.
Yes, showing you have a tendency toward bigotry, and stupidity.
Regarding my answer that “it wouldn’t offend me to my core” if you thought my belief system was stupid, that, indeed, I assume you must already think so because you have a different belief system that you believe explains the path to every person’s salvation, among other mysteries, you say:
You know my “core” so well you call me a liar — with certainty, no less — when I say it doesn’t offend me that you would find my ideas stupid. It doesn’t offend me more than would a marxist disagreeing with me on taxation policy or a flat Earther (as in the Bible
) disagreeing with me on cosmology. It hardly offends me to my core. Amuses, mostly, exasperates at worst, and very rarely threatens, but ONLY if the other person intends to act crazily based on their beliefs. Which happens on occasion, but rarely.
So you called me a liar falsely, unlike when I did so, truthfully.
When I said I think your religion is based on a combination of ignorance and fraud, you asked:
That’s an interesting question. Do I expect YOU to engage in a rational discussion? Hardly. Some Christians of the mold of, say, C.S. Lewis among others? Sure.
Now how could one do so? Well, one would apply the scientific method. “I don’t THINK my religion is based on ignorance and fraud, but let’s take a look at that. Let’s apply knowledge and look at the evidence.”
I.e., a rational discussion.
Rejecting (or accepting) something after looking at the evidence is not bigotry, it’s reason. The Bible is great evidence and I, having looked at it, find it preposterous.
Having not watched it and assumed I, and presumably he, are Jews, I’m sure you would know.
Or to any kind of evidence like explained in those videos or rational discussion, it would seen.
I’ll give you my opinion as to why. “mightysamurai”, you are a coward.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:31 pmESTfrigger, you have me confused with someone else, I believe. I’m an admirer of Rand as well.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:32 pmESTNonsense. Benevolence does not mean preventing anyone from ever suffering.
Surely you would agree that a parent is benevolent toward his/her child, right? Right. But should a parent prevent his/her child from ever experiencing any suffering? No they should not. That’s a recipe for a spoiled child. The world isn’t fair. We are not guaranteed justice until we reach the kingdom of Heaven. We can pray for justice on Earth and try to dispense it ourselves, but we have to accept that we won’t always get it.
Certainly God could end all injustice and suffering in an instant, but that would rob us of free will and remove the entire point to human existence.
Also, if you believe in the concept of Original Sin then the suffering experienced by humankind is our penance for the sins of Adam and Eve.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:34 pmESTHere’s the “belief” problem simplified. Granted it is by an admitted moron, but a crafty one.
There is definitely a right answer to whether God exists or not, pick one. You will be forced to stick with your answer, until at least the time of your death. At that time, I am guessing that your question is answered anyway.
While you live, if you determine that there is no God, your problem is completely solved, if you decide there is one, then pick a way to worship that God.
There will be a final exam. Maybe.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:35 pmESTfanniep:
All of your assumptions indicate a notion that believers in God necessarily believe in a God with the attributes you have cited. I think it’s more complicated than that, but we have neither the time nor space for the debate.
But to put it briefly, in a nutshell: I suppose I am a Deist, much like Jefferson. God may very well be omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnidexterous, omnidirectional, Dodge Omni 024, on and on…
But we have free will - which would, in theory, require God to stay out of our messes, despite all his omnithings.
But you are right in assuming, that if I accept your premises, that your conclusion is logically correct.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:37 pmESTRachel-
I almost never comment on any blogs anywhere, but I just couldn’t let this post go without remarking on it. You have summed up perfectly where I am right now regarding religion in general and Christianity specifically. I had all the same conversations in my early twenties as you say you did. I had the same smug attitude and wondered how sane, apparently rational people could believe the things they do. Honestly I still have a hard time understanding how they could really believe any specifics that are a little too fantastical, but I begin to understand the greater meaning of the message as a whole. More importantly I am beginning to see how Christianity is more that just a slickly marketed set of moral guidelines, and is instead the foundation upon which almost all of western civilization, including modern science, is built. Anyway, I just wanted to thank you for putting my thoughts into words for me.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:40 pmESTChris, you’re right. The argument doesn’t work if you accept that God’s not omnibenevolent. But many (most?) Christians want to say that God is perfect, including all good. Like I said, if you want to say that God’s a dick, then the argument is not persuasive. But I don’t think you can say that God is just benevolent, if you believe that he is all powerful. Suppose that Bob could prevent just one innocent person, call him Steve, from suffering a terrible, agonizing death, and it wouldn’t take Bob any effort. Normally, Bob’s a good guy, but he just decides not save Steve. Then Bob’s a dick in my book. And it seems that God does this all the time. He has the power to effortlessly prevent all of the pointless suffering (and not all suffering is pointless) that has ever occurred. So if there is just one instance of pointless suffering, then God is a dick. And the free will defense just doesn’t work. Even assuming that all of the moral evil that occurs due to the free will of humans is worth it (which I doubt), there is the problem of natural evil. Birth defects, cancer, Alzheimer’s are just a few that come to mind.
But I like your response. I just wish more people would admit that God is an asshole, if he exists.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:40 pmESTSkyler, you don’t want to discuss it, that is fine. I’m not trying to convert you (here anyway
). The monster on the desk was your construct not mine. You were using it to try to shot the futility of proving a negative. Read my posts before you brought up the monster, I already discussed that. But I have to disagree with your assertion, from pure reason and logic, an omnipotent God can not be disproved. That is the nature of omnipotence. I have not tried or intended to prove to you, logically, that God exists (with a funny bone or not). I have merely tried to defend logic. Omnipotence is rationally tricky. Any claim made that should constrain the omnipotent being can be sidestepped, of course, because the being is omnipotent.
Call the use of omnipotence a rhetorical trick. A means of escape, of ducking conversation, what ever. But logically you can not prove that no omnipotent being exists. Thus to say “No omnipotent being exists” requires faith beyond logic. Believing (whether you think it true, factual, or not) a conclusion not 100% supported by logic requires faith.
Now for all the claims you made about him not existing in “my world” (I’m sorry to correct you here, but it is our world), you can say, based on your observations, and all rationality brought to bare, that this being is irrelevant to this existence. Logically that is a supported conclusion because there has been insufficient evidence offered to prove his relevance. Existence is a separate issue.
We may have to agree to disagree here though. I’m not trying to convince you of God. You don’t intend to convince me of his non-existance. Where we are arguing is where logic can take you, and from there what conclusions can be claimed. If we can not grant each other’s premise on even logic, so be it. We can still be civil about it, and respectful of each other, which is kind of Rachel’s point in this whole thing.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:44 pmESTOh, and I almost forgot this tidbit. People that do not believe in God certainly try to make a point that God has to be a dick.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:44 pmEST“Nonsense. Benevolence does not mean preventing anyone from ever suffering.”
Fallacy of equivocation. I said ‘omnibenevolent’, not ‘benevolent’. Please see my previous post.
Frigger- thoughtful post, but I have to disagree. Again, even setting aside the free will defense, there’s the problem of natural evil that leads to pointless suffering.
Cheers!
May 6th, 2008 at 11:45 pmESTSorry for the confusion Skylar -
to be more clear, I was fairly certain that you were an admirer of Rand, and that you were not an admirer of Christianity. Am I correct on that point? I just thought some Christians here were dismissing your views too easily, when actually, counterpoints are often good things that ought to be faced.
I am an admirer of both Rand and Christ, which, to many folks, is an impossible task.
And Acquinas was quite good. Aristotle too.
I only wished to point out that you had fair points to make about the Christian faith. I think my admiration for Christ actually grew after pondering the thoughts of the opposition.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:45 pmESTI don’t necessarily pull all of my Christian faith from my belief in Jesus and Scripture, but the impasse that I believe science has reached. I know this is shaky ground to base a scientifically semi-unprovable belief on, but it has worked for my grandfather for 75 years. Jesus was certainly a revolutionary figure in many ways, and his deeds mysterious and wonderful. But tangible items always seem to trump my emotional attachment to faith. We’ve whittled science down to the atom, the smallest possible existing physical entity. Yet somehow my mind can’t wrap itself around the finite. To me, it only makes sense that there is the infinite. And how can we come to possibly comprehend even the smallest part of the infinite? The revelation of itself in a way that can connect to the human mind. My two cents.
I take a cynical approach to organized religion, while still being a decently committed Catholic. Taking everything with a grain of salt and using my own mind to try and decipher dogma definitely helps. And my faith continues to build.
Ironically, I can’t stand to read C.S. Lewis. Too ADD for me.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:45 pmESTNo, you just think the entire Christian religion is stupid.
And that’s….different…..I guess.
Yes I do. Because that’s exactly what you are.
EVERYONE takes offense when their core beliefs are insulted. Whether you act on that offense or lash out at the offender is another matter, but either way it doesn’t change the fact that you take offense. To claim you don’t take offense at all is a lie, because all humans take offense when their beliefs are insulted.
Except you’re not rejecting or accepting a position, you are ridiculing an entire belief system as “stupid”.
That is intolerance towards opinions or attitudes different from one’s own. The textbook definition of bigotry.
You have to act rationally before you can expect people to engage you in a rational discussion.
Calling Christianity “stupid” is not a rational argument. I refuse to engage you rationally until you apologize and retract your bigoted and irrational statement.
And you’re a bigot. So I guess we’re even.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:46 pmESTfanniep, it’s worse than that if you’re talking about the Christian/Jewish/Muslim God. Watch the “Rape in the Bible” video above. And mightysammurai, in particular, we’re he courageous enough, and smarter than he appears, could really benefit from the “Where’s Yahweh?” video before discussing God’s omnipotence.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:46 pmESTYou’re going to quibble over terminology now?
May 6th, 2008 at 11:48 pmESTChristoph,
I haven’t watched the videos you’ve cited, but if you are talking about the passages concerning how a woman should be punished if she is raped in the city because she didn’t cry out, then I hear you. I’m trying to be fairly generous, but I agree with you: If God exists, then he is more than a dick. He is the most immoral person (in the broadest sense) that has ever existed.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:51 pmESTThis might be a useful place to drop in an hilarious line I spotted on JerryPournelle.com:
I’m not much of a believer myself, but this seems like a handy caution to have at the back of a non-believer’s mind. I think one could substitute “atheism” for “evolution” without obscuring the meaning of the quote.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:52 pmESTI’ll ‘quibble’ over terminology when you shift terms in order to address my argument. There’s a big difference between ‘benevolent’ and ‘omnibenevolent’, just like there’s a big difference between ‘potent’ and ‘omnipotent’. My boyfriend is potent, but that asshole isn’t omnipotent.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:53 pmESTSure, my CORE beliefs.
For example, I believe paedophilia is wrong, even though the Bible is silent on this. I believe rape is wrong, even though the Bible advocates this. I believe slavery is wrong, even though the Bible advocates it far more than it denounces it. I believe in democracy, even though Jesus supported the divine rights of kings.
So, MAYBE if you get near some of my core beliefs you’ll have some semblance of a point. For the first time in this discussion.
However, my views on cosmology, God, etc., are all evidence driven. I’ve changed them with time as I gained knowledge and thought about things. Your saying you think these beliefs are stupid is going to make me mad is wrong.
Now, if you start telling me that God was right to order certain rapes, then maybe I’ll get pissed at you… although more likely I will look at you with horror and disgust as opposed to the mere contempt I have for you.
As for the rest of your comment, it’s too stupid to give attention to. I don’t say all Christians are stupid. I say you are, as well as being a bigot (amusingly enough), and a coward.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:54 pmESTSo I guess that’s a “no” to my implied question of “Are you going to address the rest of my post?”
May 6th, 2008 at 11:54 pmESTThere are many examples from the Bible covered, although I don’t remember that being one of them. I’m more talking about God ordering Jews to rape war slaves, after killing women who’ve had sex before, and keeping the virgins for their wives or, if the sex experience was unsatisfactory, letting them go.
Among other examples.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:56 pmESTDude, at this point I’ll be hard pressed if I can bother to read it.
How’s your viewing going?
May 6th, 2008 at 11:58 pmEST“If something looks implausible, it probably is.”
Good point. Christianity writ large is the belief that a magical super-hero spit into some dirt to make hoomans, cursed them for eating some silly fruit, and then tortured and murdered his kid in order to save us from being burned alive in a lake of fire, even though when he made us, he knew we would eat that fruit.
I like this game. Me likey.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:59 pmESTThen you obviously have not read the Bible.
Matthew 18:6 (New International Version)
“But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”
The Bible does no such thing, and in fact expressly forbids this.
Proof? I’d love to see the passage that says “You must own slaves.”
And this proves the Bible is anti-democracy…how exactly?
The Founding Fathers never advocated that King George be cast off his throne. I guess they must not have believed in democracy either.
Be honest, have you ever cracked open a Bible before? Or did you just watch your little Youtube videos and think “Golly, that dude sounds awful smart. He must be right!”
May 7th, 2008 at 12:01 amESTHow’s your apology going?
May 7th, 2008 at 12:01 amESTI must take exception to your last point, fanniep. That’s only one of the two creation myths in Genesis. I don’t think you’re being fair by not lampooning both, contradictory, myths from chapters 1 and 2 of the bible, the hideous, ghastly book that it is.
Thank God and/or nature this is not the source of human morality.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:02 amESTChristoph, here’s the passage I was thinking of, but I think yours might be even better.
If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.
Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)
May 7th, 2008 at 12:02 amESTThis from the person who claims to want a rational discussion.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:04 amESTChris_rc said,
I’m confused. What am I not discussing?
May 7th, 2008 at 12:04 amESTFanniep, I believe you are creating false dichotomy: perfect omni benevolence or total dick.
This is a strictly Christian response to your 1-5 as regards benevolence, and omni-benevolence. With in the the realm of the Christian faith, life on earth is but a blip of eternity. We all die. We all have the potential (thanks to Christ’s sacrifice) to spend that eternity in Heaven with God. Those living on earth can’t see eternity, so we place emphasis on hear and now, thinking that our suffering matters. God recognizes the infinite eternity beyond the here and now, our suffering, while significant to us, is irrelevant to that, and is often required for us to believe in his Son and join him in heaven upon our death.
Put another way, true omnibenevolence would be to ensure our long term best cause. This is Heaven. Can’t get there with out death.
Looking at your analogy with Bob and Steve. Would a benevolent being ever incarcerate, and restrain some one, poke them, prod them, render them unconscious, force objects into their body?
This is why free will is relevant, so long as it exists. Steve’s free will may be to die. He may spend every waking moment trying to die. Trying to hurt himself. Trying to hurt others so that they will kill him. Now Bob comes along. He respects free will, he values free will, he created free will. The only way to stop the gruesome death of Steve (which you posit is a bad thing) is to lock him away, in a straight jacket, in a room with padded walls. But he refuses food and water, trying if nothing else will work, to starve to death. The only way to keep him alive now is to force feed him. Tubes down the throat or needeles in the veins. he resits, struggles, he must be sedated.
Where is the benevolence, look at the torture Bob must put Steve through to prevent the gruesome end Steve searches for.
This is the example of the obsurd, but it illustrates a case where benevolence, short of omnibenevolence, is insufficient, with out requiring the individual to be a dick or an asshole.
Biblically, original sin knew we must know evil (that was the sin, choosing not to listen to God, but instead to know good and evil). This evil can be the willful evil of man, or your so called natural evil.
I however, should have gone to bed an hour ago. So I must sign off the thread for the night (I hope to have the time to come usefully back to it tomorrow).
May 7th, 2008 at 12:05 amESTOK fanniep, I fear that you will draw me into a lengthy discussion that I can ill afford… with the workday starting in just a few hours…
But as I said before, free-will (if we believe we have it) implies that any Deity (if one exists) to not meddle in our affairs. This is a point that you have already indicated that you understand and probably agree with. It’s a simple logical assertion. Point conceded?
As to “natural evil,” this is a concept that troubles me, logically. Life exists. Life evolves. Some forms of life are parasitical. Some forms of life are viruses. They developed, through history, just as we have. But as these other life forms (that are not sentient) cause disease, and sometimes suffering - does not make them “evil.” By definition, they cannot be “evil” because “evil” implies knowledge and consciousness and intent, right? These things are simply in existence. Concepts of good and evil should not obtain, in a metaphysical sense - (though the discussion changes if we simply define “evil” as something that is detrimental to our health or livelihood).
What about other diseases, not caused by the aforementioned? When our own DNA just short-circuits which causes birth defects, auto-immune diseases, etc and then pain and suffering?
I suppose then that your belief that God does not exist rests on this? At least an omnibenevolent God? I am not sure, this is a guess. My assertion that the deity does not intervene so as to preserve our free will, means that there are a gazillion other consequences too resulting from said non-intervention. This is where the time and space necessary for the debate becomes untenable.
Would appreciate more input please. Thank you.
By the way, have you seen Ben Stein’s movie, “No Intelligence Allowed?”
Good stuff.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:06 amESTChristoph, you’re one step ahead of me again. I wish more people noted the two creation stories and how they contradict. For some reason, I thought “super-hero spit into some dirt to make hoomans” was a bit funnier than “super-hero made man and woman at the same time” but your point is well taken.
Sometimes God makes something out of something (e.g., rib into a woman), and sometimes BAM!, he just makes shit out of thin air. I love that goofy bastard.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:06 amESTYou might like it even more, were you to make a good-faith effort to address a point raised in good faith, know-it-all.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:15 amESTChristoph and fanniep,
The details of the bible are largely irrelevent to any argument about christianity or belief in god. For every so-called flaw in that tome any believer will easily refute it by any number of means, such as saying that it was a simple parable, or that it was corrected by later beliefs, or that your interpretation is incorrect, etc.
When people believe in a magic being, all other beliefs are inconsequential and can be suitably bent to one’s desires, such as ascribing humor to a god that has no text or tradition indicating humor. Simply putting a current cultural context onto what was originally very sober conversations, or pointing out the oddity of certain animals, they can perceive an anthropromorphic sense of humor in an omnipotent being.
You can always find flaws in the Bible. They are largely uninteresting because they don’t matter to the overall structure of the belief system. And besides, those videos are terrible.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:16 amESTfanniep, I love you woman (man). I got to go. Remember, religion aside, life is about being good, accomplishing goals, having sex, raising children, wine (Jesus — if he existed — was right here), laughter, making fun of morons, and all the things which God has put us on this Earth to do.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:19 amESTYou guys are all reminding me of this webcomic:
xkcd
I hate to be “that” person, but you’re arguing in the comment section of a blog. I’ve been there, done that, got the tee shirt, still do it sometimes, but think about it: you’re arguing about RELIGION in the comment section of a blog. I know you all want to be heard, but in this case, I’m going to respectfully suggest that, for the sake of your blood pressure, you just let this one go. If you’re secure in your own opinion, there’s no need to try to convince anyone else - if you’ve truly made the right choice for yourself, you’ll know eventually, so why worry about others if they’re so vehemently against your perspective?
I mean, you’re free to tell me to go to hell, too, but I had to lay that out there, because while I find this amusing, I can’t imagine that the folks who have this being emailed to them via the comment-follow option are very amused.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:22 amESTRachel,
Great post! I read Mere Christianity again this year and passed it on to my know it all 20 something daughter. I think it is just young women in their 20s that are know it alls…never fathers.
Normally, you have a very funny and respectful group of commenters…it apears that some woke up this morning and had a bowl of TROLL A LOT cereal for breakfast and starting sounding like the “progressives” at DD, Daily KOS, Huff-in Puff, etc.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:31 amESTRachel,
Thank you for this generous post. You’ve previously commented that you couldn’t say anything about Christianity without Christians calling you arrogant or condescending or somesuch(disclosure: I was one of those voices, and sometimes I went too far in my accusations). At present, it turns out you could not say anything about Christianity without later accusing yourself! Such fun.
I don’t want to jinx it, but I like the religion posts the best. Partly b/c - though I shoot my mouth off in your comments - I am still learning about Christian doctrine and belief. The comments to the posts have been lively, and I’ve even gained new perspectives while reading them.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:39 amESTChristoph, after watching the first video you reference, it is plain to me that this person who made the video doesn’t see the bigger picture. The concept that is missed is that the Old Testament was given to the chosen people to establish Gods authority as the divine creator. It also established the Law of God for the people to follow in order for Jesus to be able to contrast God’s forgiving grace against the “old” way of following(being bound by) the law. The New Testament is given to provide the blueprint of salvation through grace, not blind adherence to the law that God gave previously.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:39 amESTIn other words, there is no contradiction. There is instead the revelation of God’s plan to allow sinners to come to repentance through the gift of God. That gift being the life , death, and resurrection of his only Son in order to pay the penalty for the world’s sin. The two testaments are supposed to be different because God knows that we humans are incapable of fully obeying His laws because of our sinful nature. We can only be Saved by grace because even after we accept his gift of salvation we are still sinful and will continue to sin. So the New Testament lets us know that He understands this and forgives us anyway. He knows that we are incapable of fulfilling the exact letter of the law and extends us the gift of grace to make up for our failings.
I will watch the other videos as I have time, and will post further comments afterwards.
PS; This is my first time commenting here, even though I have been reading for some time now. I have found this to be an entertaining, quite funny, and very respectful place with a wide ranging group of people and opinions. Our esteemed Mistress Rachel(Supreme Leader) is intelligent, witty and respectful in her posts at all times. It is what makes it so enjoyable to read her posts.
This comment thread has proven to me yet again that the only thing as annoying as a self-righteous Christian is a self-righteous Atheist… and, hell, I am a self-righteous Atheist!
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - Christianity isn’t about reason. You can’t rationally prove that God exists. Since the universe is infinitely big (or close enough to make no difference), you also can’t conclusively prove that God doesn’t exist - the most you can do is claim that, to the best of your knowledge, according to the evidence you have seen, that you have determined that God doesn’t exist. What Christianity, or, really, any religion is about, is emotion. It’s about not feeling alone, feeling like you’re a part of something much bigger than yourself, feeling like, no matter how bad your life gets, that there is a plan for you, and that it will be all right.
Personally, that’s not for me. Frankly, trying to live like that, letting that emotional side of me take control, has historically and consistently led to disappointment and failure for me. On the other hand, forcing my rational side to take control has consistently led to success and peace in my life. In short, what provides emotional security for me is to let my brain do the heavy work, not my heart, which is why religion isn’t for me. Not everyone has had the same track record I have had, though, nor is everyone wired the same way as I am, so I’m not going to hold it against anyone if they choose a different path.
Please note that I’m not saying that only people that don’t use their brains are religious. On the contrary, many people use their brains to make the rational decision to believe in a religion. It could be something as simple and mundane as the support structure of the organization, or it could be something as metaphysically grand as the idea that everything in the universe has to come from somewhere, and the one thing that seems to consistently answer that question for them is God, Yahweh, Allah, or whatever the Hindus call that giant tortoise at the bottom. Others, meanwhile, make a different set of rational decisions and come up with different conclusions. As long as neither side gets particularly militant about the other and neither side decides to arbitrarily decide that the other side is inherently stupid and worthless, we’ll be okay. The instant one side decides that the other side is so wrong that it’s not worth listening to them, though, is the instant we’re going to have some problems. It could start as innocuous as just wandering into random threads on the Internet and ridiculing everyone who disagrees with you. It could finish with something as extreme as trying to blow up everyone who disagrees with you. It could settle somewhere in between. Either way, no good possibly comes of it - neither side gains understanding of the other, nor does either side particularly care to gain any understanding of the other.
In short, some of you believe in God, I don’t, we each have our reasons for that, and life goes on. From where I’m sitting, those of you that believe in God are missing something. Those of you that believe in God think I’m missing something. We’re probably both right, and that’s okay. As long as you let me make my own choices, I’ll let you make your own choices. Simple as that.
On that note, I’m going to ponder the metaphysical nature of Christians feeding atheist trolls on the Internet and what that means in the greater epistemological schema of things…
May 7th, 2008 at 12:41 amESTIn my 20’s I was so smart I could have written a book “the world according to me” but after my 30’s each year seemed to blow more holes in my understanding and at this rate by the time I die I’m sure I’ll know absolutely nothing. I used to think I had God all figured out but then it dawned on me that I’d never even figured out how to record a show with my VCR, it still blinks 12:00 and the damn thing is now obsolete. I know Al Gore invented the internet but really how does it work and exactly WHO is entering all the information on the web. Surely someone smart enough to understand God would know that…. Why do I never see a tomato hornworm UNTIL I plant a tomato and then here they come. Where are they coming from, down the street, the next town? Are they smelling my plants or what? Everyday I’m flummoxed by “ordinary” things….. Yet I’m going to understand God and the Universe? I no longer think so. I’m typing on a computer I don’t understand, talking on a cell phone I don’t understand, watching a political fiasco unfold I REALLY don’t understand, and I’ve gotten pretty comfortable finally accepting that God IS whether I understand it or not.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:56 amESTThank you, RichardL, for your reply and committment to watch those videos. They certainly provide food for thought and a starting place for research, including of specific parts of the Bible.
I understand Mr. Armstrong’s tone may not suit everyone anymore than it always suits me. It seems to me, however, that he has the better of the argument.
There are many problems I have with that, including the fact that the New Testament seems hardly to be a proper fulfilment of the Old. In so many places, claims of the New Testament are directly refuted by the Old. Indeed, while not one of the refutations I’m referring to, it invents concepts like Hell not present in the Old and is, in that way, far more barbaric. I’m referring to Jesus, of course.
However, aside from what I see as the numerous contradictions in the Bible and places where it does not record the natural world, history, and chronology accurately, my main problem with the God of the Bible is a far more basic one.
Morality.
IF the God of the Old Testament is true — for example, a God that would say it’s even allowed, much less direct me, to slay innocent women who are missing their hymen, and take their virginal sisters and daughters as sex partners… wives or tossing them out of the home at my discretion… this is evil.
I won’t follow that God, regardless of how powerful he is. He can destroy me. Fine. But I won’t have nothing to do with him and I’m not going to give him any worship.
There so many other examples I could give, like Abraham and Isaac, and the other whose details slip my mind now, but the general who agreed with God he would sacrifice the first person to greet him at his household if he should win a certain military battle, which naturally caused him to kill his innocent daughter.
The Old Testament doesn’t even portray Yahweh as omnipotent. Nor close to it. In many specific cases.
The New and Old Testament appear different because of the different influences on each, which aren’t from “God” but from surrounding cultures, religious ideas, philosophies, stories, etc. Yes, the New Testament is somewhat related to the Old Testament; however, I would argue it is back engineered.
In the final analysis, any God which threatens me into loving him will find little love. Further, I doubt the Creator of the world, if there is one, really cares about my singing songs to him and grovelling. S/He’d probably just as soon I went out and did something positive.
To my mind, that is enough for the simple reason is it’s all I’m capable of and, further, it’s useful on its face.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:14 amESTThat’s all very well and good, David Colborne, however I’m willing to say a blog post on a high and diverse readership blog about Mere Christianity — a book about atheism vs. theism and theism vs. Christianity — is going to spark debate, even confrontation.
Attempting to refute someone’s position, even lampoon someone’s position, isn’t being a “troll”. It is what it is which is legitimate discussion.
I’m willing to have civil conversations with people while expressing my conclusion – after many years of thought — that Christianity IS stupid and a thorough study of the Bible discredits it. When the incredible quantity and severity of contradictions is pointed out, the morality advocated by God disclosed, one by one, to a believer who agrees to face them, the usual response is something about not being able to take it literally, you must have faith, believing in the Bible comforts me, or something along those lines.
These are hardly intelligent arguments. I acknowledge anyone’s right to believe them, but I certainly won’t describe the religion as anything other than what it is: false.
I absolutely will let people make their own choices. My disagreeing with them and presenting my views in writing hardly impinges anyone’s right to their religion and beliefs, something I strongly support.
Debating, persuading, even deriding ≠ forcing someone to do or believe something they don’t want to do or think. It is a good faith effort to bring certain facts and ideas into people’s mind and call into question what I believe are faulty ones.
It is the Bible that threatens force — indeed, internal torture — to those who don’t believe what it says. And to add insult to injury, it doesn’t even give a consistent set of beliefs for those who are afraid enough of eternal Hell to bend their knee to the Lord(s).
It gives multiple examples of where God kills people for not believing in the right prophets, etc., for example Moses.
I don’t use or even threaten force to win a debate over religion and philosophy. Both the Old and New Testament of the Bible — Judaism and Christianity (and Islam for good measure) do.
The worst thing I ever did is say the above belief system is stupid. And I only used that word applied to a person once he’d clearly demonstrated it. Even if this was a terrible thing to do, it’s small potatoes compared to telling children they’ll burn in Hell if they don’t follow Christian beliefs. So, kindly, don’t talk to me about not letting others make their own choices. It’s hardly something I’m guilty of.
Christians claim to compete for people’s souls. I compete for people’s minds, something which definitely exists. I encourage them to think for themselves and not blindly believe. I also encourage them to take responsibility for all their own actions and, for that matter, live righteously, something the Bible itself assures us people are — and are not — able to achieve on Earth.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:25 amESTRachel, this is a very well-thought out post and I really appreciate it.
To fanniep, Christoph and others who have discussed the question of the very nature of God (big meanie in the sky or not?), there is a novel called The Shack by William Young that deals with this very issue. It is an absolutely riveting read, and fairly short, published last year and available in paperback and in libraries.
And I really think that is the bottom line of these comments - we want to know whether or not there is a God. And if we do believe God exists, then we want to know what His essential nature is. And that’s where most of the debate enters in.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:46 amESTThen study nature, Deanna, not an easily discredited ludicrous book.
I read the free Amazon preview of that novel. It sounds insane.
Because, apparently, his nature is to torture us for all of eternity if we don’t accept the version of Jesus given by Paul and John, but not so much Mathew, Mark, and Luke, and follow this theology advanced with doctored evidence, like the work of Josephus which Christians largely forged, according to leading Christian apologetics who insist parts of it are probably still true, that contradicts the Old Testament of the bible relentlessly, and other parts of the New Testament, with contradictions all over damn place in fact…
… and it’s also his nature to grant us eternal reward if one was just finished murdering a stranger and raping her child, but then repented and accepted Jesus — if he ever existed — as one’s Saviour.
So, yes, the nature of God is very important because if I’m to believe the Christian version(s) of God, he’s an evil bastard whom I despise.
Fortunately, I do not believe such nonsense and it’s unfortunate you do.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:50 amESTAnd that is where we have the essential break of faith, Christoph. You consider it unfortunate, I do not. I don’t see how my personal faith detracts from my life at all - I think it enhances it. And I don’t see how my faith detracts from your life, either. We live in a free society, where you can believe what you choose without the government enforcing a belief system on to you.
Interestingly, in the novel you so hastily discredited, the author puts forth the theory that all of mankind has been redeemed, so all of mankind will “go to heaven” (which is not the terminology used in the book) - the question becomes the quality of life and relationship one has on earth with God.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:10 amESTWhich sounds slightly less insane than the Bible, but it contradicts the Bible. At any rate, you’re talking about the amount of angels that can fit on the head of a pin. It’s nonsense.
IF that book is correct, then my saying it’s nonsense is all part of my path to Heaven. Josef Fritzl sure chose an interesting path, didn’t he?
Heck, I like the concept of Hell, were it applied justly. Jesus — if he existed, however, would apply it unjustly, even perversely.
Out of curiosity, Deanna, I’ve read a preview of that book, which is all I can do tonight. Which videos among the 7 I recommended above have you watched?
May 7th, 2008 at 3:17 amESTI watched the C.S. Lewis one, since that was the initial point of the post.
For something purporting to be a “debunking,” it does a surprisingly poor job of it. The speaker addresses exactly ONE point from Mere Christianity at the very beginning, with a brief mention at the very end of a second one, which he doesn’t fully explore. After stating that Lewis’ initial argument of a moral compass is false, the speaker’s reasons for it being false is that since all Christians don’t agree with each other, and Muslims don’t agree with Christians, there can never be “real truth”? And that’s all he has? As an English writing tutor, I’d give this speaker a “D” for presenting a thesis and then not backing it up with consistent supporting facts and quality arguments. Granted, this is a 3 and a half minute video on YouTube, but since you were really promoting these videos, I really expected to see a very concise “fisking”, as it were, of the actual book, not poor analogies to self-help dating books. Maybe the other videos are better at presenting this point of view - I don’t know. I am on the West Coast, so it’s not as late here as the time stamp on the comments says it is, but I will have to get up and make breakfast for my kids in a very few hours, so I can’t sit and watch them all.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:39 amESTI’m glad you watched one, Deanna.
C.S. Lewis made about as strong an argument for Christianity as it’s possible to make, a fact Armstrong in the video readily acknowledged.
You may give a D for presentation — but Lewis’ argument isn’t sound. He assumes axiomatically if we have a sense of morality and if all men basically have it, therefore, we were given it by a higher power.
This is so lacking. All worker ants are willing to work and die for the queen and hive, but it proves no higher power, merely a refined social system. The question is who or what did the refining.
The other videos are far stronger critiques of Christianity. I respect Lewis — I adore his writing (fiction) — but despite recently receiving a copy of Mere Christianity in the mail along with a handwritten letter from a pastor whom I’m friends with, who explained how this book stopped him from studying philosophy and turned him toward theology, and despite him being the same religion and denomination as the woman I want to marry, I consider C.S. Lewis’s arguments unpersuasive.
One problem I have is I demand morality and I’m strongly moved by right and wrong. Oh, I’m not always moral. But I’m more moral than God as revealed in the Bible.
I can’t accept that immorality as something to follow. The evidence doesn’t lead me to either.
I’m on the west coast too, I know the time, so have a great sleep.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:58 amESTHere’s an interesting quote from Mein Kampf:†
.
† See the source for this anti-Semitic passage. It’s actually Titus 1:10-16.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:12 amESTSo many hipocritical Christians out there who are really retarded, but I see spirituality as being different than religion. Rachel, just remember the feeling of looking at Michelangelo’s sculptures.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:27 amESTThat man can do that with his spirit and 2 hands is proof enough of the something divine.
The drawback of even trying to take the bible literally is that we don’t know if the translation is correct. How many times has it been translated and changed and changed?
The one problem non-believers have is that their basic assumption is that God must be measurable under the laws of the physical universe or else can’t exist. How can something that is part of the physical universe have created it as if He was external to the physical universe? It isn’t possible.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:27 amESTRachel, I love you, but I will be honest and say that I did pick up on the attitudes you were projecting, and I did not let you off the hook. I hated it because it made you look like so many other pseudo-thinkers who bore the shit outta me. I knew you were better than that.
And now, you’ve redeemed yourself! (another religious concept!) In fact, your mere quest for and love of honesty makes you smarter than many who set themselves up as “smart.”
So now I am reconsidering allowing you into my life as Supreme Ruler of everything funny. Which, btw, most anti-Christian humor falls so flat because nobody’s done the research. So, y’know, the more you know, the funnier you can be.
My brother the priest(which would be a helluva good tv show, you have no idea), tells the absolute best jokes about God, relatively speaking.
May 7th, 2008 at 6:42 amESTBeing a non-christian who was raised lutheran, all I will say is this: I have no problem with people finding their Path and following it. What I have a problem with is the unswerving assertion that the rest of us are, by our choosing a different Path, lost souls in need of salvation or punishment. That goes for any religion with such a mindset.
May 7th, 2008 at 6:48 amESTGee, make a post about religion, and all kinds of heated arguments break out. Who’d a thunk it?
Anyway, if the world is dominated by Christians, and Christians are insane, just remember this:
It’s insane to be sane in an insane world.
Just sayin’…
Now, where did I leave my tin-foil beanie? I hear the voices again, and I don’t want them reading my thoughts…
May 7th, 2008 at 7:01 amESTRachel,
May 7th, 2008 at 8:09 amESTYay!
I love this post! Don’t throw Mere Christianity away or pass it on. Save it and read it again in a couple years. You’ll find all kinds of new stuff that didn’t pop out at you the first time.
If you know somebody who might benefit from reading it, get them their own copy.
I also recommend reading ” The Problem of Pain” also by C.S. Lewis. It addresses the concern about horrible things happening to children since time immemorial. It is a crunchy read but worth the effort.
I am happy you are looking at Christianity as an adult! It’s hard.
Rachel,
be careful with C.S. Lewis.
click here to see what I’m talking about.
He’s not what you think.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:13 amESTI enjoyed your post Rachel. Sadly the thread almost immediately degraded into a flame war. My hope for everyone is that as we contemplate infinity we can remain open, grow, and learn from our observations.
There are many very smart people that vehemently decry people with religious faith. Richard Dawkins for example (so called “Darwin’s Rottweiler”). If you’d like to read some really bigoted diatribes pick up any book by Richard Dawkins at your local library and you’ll get what you’re looking for.
The existence of God cannot be proven scientifically. We base the whole of our lives on science and proof - we’re trained in this from a young age and every day of our lives. That makes seeking answers about God a very difficult search - it requires us to shift the paradigm of our normal approach to thought, proof and truth.
The search for God has to be taken up spiritually rather than intellectually. I will never have evidence to show you that God exists. I can only experience it myself and tell you that. You are free to believe and do as you will.
-
What I find ironic is that Dawkins himself is filled with faith based beliefs. About 20 years or so ago scientists discovered that objects in the universe did not behave the way they should based on Einstein and Newton. Galaxies (and the larger universe) simply did not obey the laws and theories upon which much of modern science is based.
So what did they do? They invented an unknown, unobserved, invisible force - a god - called dark matter. They calculated that it made up 95% (or so, they diddle with the numbers here fairly often) of the universe. Everything we can see and touch, all the stars, planets, moons and galaxies - everything - is, according to current theory, roughly 5% of the universe.
That is the definition of faith. An invisible, unprovable, unknown force of enormous power holding the universe together.
Later they revised this and decided there were actually 2 such forces, dark energy and dark matter, one holding things together and one pushing them apart.
And since then they’ve spent 10’s of billions of your tax dollars trying to detect these things that cannot be seen, detected or observed in any way, that can only be inferred to exist based on the effect they seem to be having on visible objects on an unimaginably enormous scale.
It seems it is too much to expect them to consider that their underlying theories are flawed.
To this day nobody has detected dark matter or dark energy and this year and next governments all over the world will spend more billions of (your) taxpayer scratch attempting to prove their existence.
-
I have proven the existence of God to my satisfaction. I know it spiritually.
YMMV, up to you. Free will and all that.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:18 amESTI have not read the previous 117 posts, nor do I plan on it. I just wanted to thank you for the respect that you have shown in posting this. That is a truly amazing book and I personally know that it has changed a lot of lives, regardless in what form it changed them. It looks like it did it again. Again, thank you for the apology, not that it was really needed. It’s just nice to not be chastised for what I believe.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:35 amESTThis is an amzing thread. Moderately snarky, but then again, we’re at Wachel’s Place.
I can only add a couple of thoughts.
At a particularly difficult time in my life, someone said to me:
“What makes you think GOD has to prove His existence to YOU?”
What struck me was the way it illustrated the arrogance of human nature.
At another time, when I said churches were full of hypocrites, I heard, “Then you’ll fit right in!”
And you know? They were right. I do fit right in.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:39 amESTWow Rachel! Awesome post and I appreciate the sentiment. I’m not going to get into the argument that has broken out in the comments. I would like to explain something though. Christians want to convert others out of love for them. It is precisely because we do not want to see someone we love punished. My heart breaks for unbelievers. I’ve no hatred there. I know unbelievers disagree and may think I am misguided. I’m okay with that. I don’t need human validation of my faith. So what if I am wrong? My faith has given me comfort and increased my compassion. CS Lewis knows the right answer now and he isn’t writing about it now.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:44 amESTChristoph, your insistence that the bible is the basis of christianity is a bit absurd. Only the tiniest minority of christians take the bible literally, with Catholics pretty much ignoring almost all of it. When you attack the bible, about 80% of belivers don’t really care about inconsistencies. Your insistence that you have “proven” it to be “ludicrous” is entirely irrelevent to any discussion on the merits of believing in god or being christian. It just doesn’t matter one bit.
Once someone believes in the magical being, all other beliefs are secondary and can be taken or denied at will. This can be done through scholarly research and intellectual treatises, or it can be completely emotional and devoid of rational explanation.
It’s the belief in the magical being that comes first, and trust me, you can’t change anyone’s mind on that, especially by using logic.
I only object to people claiming that not believing requires the same belief. But this won’t really stop either, I suppose, because to admit that truth would require admitting that faith requires no reason, and many people can’t stomach that, despite that many religions require faith to be blind and devoid of reason.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:46 amESTI don’t have time to read all 117 comments so I’m sure what I’ll say has been said before but I am a moron so what do you want from me?
I read Mere Christianity about 2 years ago and have since labelled myself “a bad Christian.” Reading it made me feel that, while not perfect, you can make a fully LOGICAL defense of Christianity. Unlike many other philosophies of life it has the benefit of being rational AND has a proven track record of success and prospertiy.
Those two things together are hard to dismiss no matter how cyinical you are.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:47 amESTWow, that’s a lot of comments, and I know I’m late to the party and haven’t read all of them, but if you’re interested in other books on Christianity “Orthodoxy” by G.K. Chesterton is great.
I, like you, have been a declared atheist for a long time, but I grant Christianity a lot more slack than most of my non-religious friends.
The more I read intelligent books by obviously brilliant people who happen to be Christian, the more respect I have for them…
May 7th, 2008 at 8:50 amESTLet me recommend Don Knuth’s book “3:16″.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:53 amESTI is his attempt to do a survey of the bible in a new way, which is no big deal in itself, but a) it’s Don Knuth, for god’s sake, and 2) each verse is accompanied by a calligraphic poster (reduced in the book, sadly) done by a different calligrapher. Don once described it as “what I did over my summer at Adobe”. Anyway, I think it’s great.
Glad to hear you liked the book, Rachel. I’ll agree with others and say you never offended me or acted like an ass, at least not from what I read. I appreciate Lewis and his approach to apologetics, but I want to add (not necessarily for your benefit) that trying to reason your way to faith in God will prove ultimately futile. His ways are above our ways and His thoughts above our thoughts. God is rational and the universe reveals this about Him, as we are constantly discovering new intricacies in His design. Fundamentally, though, salvation will depend on whether you value God more than yourself, enough so that you surrender your will to His. By this understanding there are many (too many) professing “Christians” who will never taste everlasting life, exactly as the Bible teaches.
I’m grateful that God is reasonable, but it wasn’t intellectual rationality that convinced me. It was the simple realization that I am a fallen sinner and I need a Savior. Any religion can help you be a “better” person–as if there’s saving merit in being relatively less sinful. The vast majority of people love themselves more than God, so false paths abound (Oprah, I’m looking your way). The problem with sin is not that it makes people behave badly, no that’s a side effect. The problem with sin is that it forces God’s hand to kill the sinner, forever. Jesus solved that problem by dying in my place. That’s what drew me to God. I love Him because He first loved me and died to prove it.
He’ll send people to Hell if He must, and it’s certainly no more than I deserve. However, I believe that God promised to save me, and I am confident in His ability to do it.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:57 amESTThank you, Rachel. Apology accepted, with thanks and and gratitude. It is so nice to see -refreshing, even- someone such as yourself -agnostic- admitting that us Christians can be shown to be thinkers as well. Hats off to you, young lady!!
May 7th, 2008 at 8:59 amESTRachel, thank you sincerely for that beautiful, unflinchingly honest post.
I didn’t become a Christian because someone told me to, (in fact I was a lot like you said you were), but because I had a profound revelation of something that I could not ignore.
To attempt to live that truth (albiet quite badly, because I suck, really ) has definitely cost me the respect and friendship of people whose esteem I valued; and, as most Christians know, also earns one the contempt of popular culture. Not to whine, or anything (while whining), but this has been painful.
Still, I know what I know, in a way of knowing that is difficult to explain, and cannot do otherwise. Thanks again for your beautiful post.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:06 amESTShannon, I’ve quoted your mindblowingly stupid comment in its entirety.
A couple things: The Bible tells us it is true, which, of course could be a mistranslation.
The one problem non-believers have? Excuse me fowl woman. The problem believers have is, having given mankind reason and the ability to examine and understand things using his or her mind, God deigns to torture us in eternity should we use these minds to come to any conclusion other than what the Bible says is true — when it clearly isn’t, literally.
So unless we accept it despite its numerous and apparent flaws, barbarous evil attributed to God, etc., we are fucked.
That’s such a hideous, evil concept I dismiss it out of hand. You should too. And why not? Even you acknowledge the Bible is bullshit.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:09 amESTDon’t worry, newhire, you don’t suck as bad as the Bible does or your God as depicted in it does.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:11 amESTDr. Feelgood, you’re a nut.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:12 amESTChristoph Says:
Don’t worry, newhire, you don’t suck as bad as the Bible does or your God as depicted in it does
Well, that was a low blow. I hope you feel better for it.
Sincerely, NH
May 7th, 2008 at 9:30 amESTGood post (as usual) Rachel … you do know how to get the comments flowing.
Since I don’t believe in Christoph, Skyler and famniep … have they ceased to exist yet? Good. Glad that worked so well.
To tie this thread in with a previous one … I was watching Dr. Who last Friday … and there was a interesting event that I thought of when reading fanniep’s first comment … the Doctor had to choose whether to let the world be destroyed by the baddies, or sacrifice the 20,000 residents of Pompei. That puts an interesting (to me) light on
since we have only one side of the story from the bible … no one has a clue WHY, although there’s a lot of guesses.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:33 amESTChris_rc,
I finally saw your 11:01 post that was moderated. I have nothing to do with Christoph, who has the most ironic name, don’t you think?
Christoph is trying to anger people and is stuck on the idea that the Bible must be taken literally or not at all, and that is a ridiculous stance.
His insistence that others view his videos is like the communist or chomskyist on the street corner who keeps insisting that you read his pamphlets.
Christoph (and those videos he’s promoting) has a sophomoric understanding of christianity that is precisely what Rachel was rejecting. He’s missing the entire point of the blog post.
I’m not with him.
Very intelligent people, much more intelligent than anyone who would read this blog, have believed in a magical being and clothed that belief in very intelligent and well thought out arguments. Of that there is no doubt. In addition, many very emotional people have devloped powerful emotional responses to justify their belief in magical beings.
But being very intelligent or very emotional does not make one infallible. Like I said, if Einstein said 2 and 2 are 5, he’d be wrong, no matter how smart he is or how hard he tried to prove it.
C.S. Lewis may use fine language to explain why he believes as he does, but in the end it still comes down to a complete lack of proof and a desire to believe despite any proof.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:37 amESTThanks Christoph. Your profile of me is dead on. Furthermore, you have now gained infinite credibility with everyone regarding everything you’ve ever said. Your authority on any subject is beyond question. I bow before your superior wisdom, knowledge, and understanding in all things. I renounce my faith in g-d and choose to follow you wherever you may lead, even to certain death and destruction. You alone know my innermost thoughts better than I know myself. May you be praised before all peoples throughout the ages. I’ve seen the light! Please save me from my nuttiness! [/do I really have to say it?]
Do you have something more substantial to say, or would you rather continue to prove my contention that most people love only themselves?
On second thought, save it. I won’t engage in half-wit semantic arguments with would-be character assassins. Please feel free to speak with me again when you’re able to refrain from ad-hominem attacks.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:44 amESTActually, NewHire, it was a compliment. However, if you can read the God of the Bible, both Old Testament with his mass and selected murders, orders to slaughter and rape, etc., or the New Testament with threats to cast all non-believers into a burning lake of fire and you don’t see that as problematic… then I will say you aren’t as nearly evil as the God in your Bible, but your beliefs are plenty evil.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:45 amESTSkyler:
I’ve admitted the entire time through this thread that faith is separate from reason. I admit freely that I have no logically rational reason to believe what I believe. It is faith, not demonstrable fact. I admit that freely, and frequently. Admitting this is easy, in fact rational as well.
I think I may have found the disconnect in our communication (or semantics). Not believing in God is a different logical condition then believing there is no God. Logically, rationally, God isn’t proven, so you don’t believe in Him, him, it, them, or any of the various god’s brought forth by those of faith. That is an entirely different case than believing and asserting as fact that “there is no God.”
Not believing in God requires absolutely no faith, you are right about that. However believing in the statement “There is No God” does require faith (not religion, not dogma, not necessarily the same belief that those of who do believe posess, but some form of faith).
There are two statements “There is a God” and “There is No God.” Logically neither is proven, so to adopt one of these as your core understanding requires faiths beyond pure reason and logic. Pure reason and logic recognizes that it can’t be, or is not yet, proven, for either statement. Pure reason and logic rejects the idea that it is necessary to claim one or the other.
I suppose this may be a matter of fundamental paradigm, where your position states that you have to believe statement A or B, and don’t have the option not to believe either, where my position says pure logic forces you to accept neither, for they are both unproven.
As far as listing what we object: Christianity is made of people, if Christianity is stupid, as you claim, then you can’t escape that you are necessarily calling those people, at some level, stupid. You may not want to admit this. You may not wish to insult so many people, but you do, and you really can’t deny it.
If you find it not rational, say so. You’d be right, it isn’t based on reason. Leave the claims of Stupidity out of it, and I thin you’ll do better. I don’t have problems with people having irrational beliefs. Likewise I don’t have a problem that your belief in NoGod is irrational.
I merely find it ironic, that possessing an irrational belief, you deride as stupid (again, at least in part, if not in entirety) others for having irrational belief.
I suppose the most objectionable (as in “I only object to…”) part of your comments to me is that you’re claiming Logic and Reason support your statement. I have a very high regard for Logic and Reason, and thus don’t try to sully the concepts (or the conversation), by claiming that they support my faith.
The one thing I have discovered over the years though is that fundamental paradigms can not really be shifted by any external means. If you don’t accept my possibility about A or B vs Neither A or B, then obviously I’m not going to convince you. We’ve state our cases fairly well, and I believe that at this point it is up to those reading this dialog to decide who has made the better case.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:46 amESTDr. Feelgood:
… will in fact be your end. Unless you were somehow planning on escaping it? Oh right, you are. With fairy tales.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:47 amESTProof that God has a sense of humor: Mentioning His name in a blog post generates 300 comments about whether He exists or not. Good show. And I say this as an atheist.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:49 amESTEdited this post by mistake.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:49 amESTRachel,
I’ll reply before wading through the comment thread which, I see, is pretty darned large.
Kudos for reading Mere Christianity. I’ve found Lewis to be one of the best, most thoughtful and articulate proponents of Christianity. he clearly articulates what many of us-okay, ME- think and believe as it pertains to Christianity, but are not always clearly able to state.
I will assume, before reading this thread, that the comments have devolved into the standard atheist-theist back and forth (”Prove there’s a God!” “I’m not trying to prove there’s a God, I’m simply trying to show you why I believe what I believe.” “Then you’re stupid!” “Well, you’re an asshole!”), which convinces no one and accomplishes nothing. However, I applaud your efforts to try and understand where some of us are coming from rather than operating under the a priori assumption that we’re stupid.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:53 amESTFirst, thanks to all of you who appreciated my post. I appreciate you, too.
What I DO NOT APPRECIATE, Christoph,is someone new coming in here and insulting my regular commenters, especially on this subject.
I didn’t say anything when you engaged MightySamurai because MightySamurai can handle it and was talking right back at you. But then you had to go and call Shannon in AZ a “fowl woman” (it’s foul, by the way) and to call her comment “mindblowingly stupid”. She wasn’t even talking to you or being in any way contentious. Yet you attacked.
Uh-huh. End of the line. You’re done now.
It would have been nice if you’d been able to state your opinions without insulting people who I consider friends of mine, because possibly you ultimately do have some solid arguments. But it’s all in the presentation and if you can’t hold up your end of a debate without calling people stupid and foul, you don’t get to play here.
I’m not banning you yet but one more comment like that and I will. There are plenty of places on the web where you can go to have as hostile a debate as you please. This is not one of those places.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:54 amESTSkyler, in the hours since that post was written (the one at 11:01) you have clearly separated yourself from Christoph. Don’t worry, I’m not clumping you in with him, at least not any more ;). Since then he has also separated himself from you, embracing the flamer (as in one who throws flames, no gay reference intended) aspect I was asking about.
I’m stuck in your our paradigm difference I suppose. You are right about the 2 + 2 = 5 error, regardless of who claims it. I can’t grant the premise that this serves as as suitable allegory for faith. Put another way, God is 4. 2 + 2 = 4. That is right, no matter who claims it is wrong. You are claiming 2 + 2 = 5, and are thus wrong. This brings us back to the fundamental paradigm thing discussed in my rather long winded post above (which I was writing while your other comments about 11:01 posted).
May 7th, 2008 at 9:55 amESTRachel, Christianity is stupid. To the degree that you believe the evil and immoral Bible, to that limited degree, you are stupid, your other intelligent attributes notwithsanding.
On balance you may be, and probably are, intelligent. But the small part of your which would believe that abysmal book is dumb as a post.
No he can’t. The man’s an intellectual coward. And yeah, I believe you when you say he’s a friend of yours.
[Bye, Christoph. Your reading skills have proven to be poor, or you just don't know how to use my archives. I don't believe the Bible to be the Word of God, you arrogant asshole. But here's the thing: even if I did, you'd still be an asshole. You simply REFUSE to stop calling people stupid for believing something that has nothing to do with you, does not affect you in any way, and is none of your fucking business. That makes you an asshole and, frankly, brings into question YOUR intelligence.
Because if you really wanted to "win" a debate like this or even if you really wanted to sway people to your arguments, you would do it without calling them names. Do you even realize that you have just provided everyone here with one more reason not to take people like yourself seriously? It doesn't even matter what your POINT is. Do you get that? Do you understand that if you had in fact been arguing the opposite stance, and were yourself a Christian, the exact same outcome would occur? I deleted two comments from another thread that were written BY CHRISTIANS because they said some rude shit about non-Christians. I don't care what your actual opinion is and I would have enjoyed hearing it throughout this thread if you just hadn't been such an insufferable prick about it.
-Rachel]
May 7th, 2008 at 9:58 amESTRachel, that is funny about Christoph, I didn’t even think it was a typo, I was just trying to figure out why he was saying she was like a bird. I just figured I didn’t get the joke.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:01 amESTI’d rather be an intellectual coward than a self-righteous bigot.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:04 amESTChris_rc said,
I’ve never said that. I’ve repeatedly said the opposite.
And I think I have succeeded in my purpose in debating with you because you now agree with what is the sticking point between us, what you’re calling a fundamental paradigm. Thanks for a civil discussion.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:05 amESTSigh. Now that I’ve read all the comments, I see that my prediction is, sadly, right on target.
I see that Rachel is threatening someone with the mighty Ban Hammer. I hope that the comments here don’t evolve into the sinkhole of ad hominem attacks and shouting that caused Rachel to shut down comments on her old blog. Reading the back and forth here is entertaining. Arguing respectfully with people that I completely disagree with is fun. Calling each other retarded, or bigoted, or stupid, or insane? Heck, that’s what the Kos Kidz do. I would hope that we’re better than that.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:10 amESTmightysamurai, I encourage you to disengage. Christoph is playing the Black Knight–totally dismembered, yet still thinks he has the advantage (”I’ll bite your legs off…you yellow bastards!”).
Pearls before swine, y’know.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:11 amESTAh well, you know me. Can’t resist kicking the trolls when they’re down. Mea culpa.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:18 amESTChristians say if I don’t believe Jesus is the Son of God (despite evidence in the Bible itself, many parts of it, contradicting this) I will be cast into a lake of fire and tortured throughout eternity.
I say Christianity is stupid and believing the above after studying the Bible and its absurdity/immorality makes a person stupid in this one area up to a limited point, and refusing to study the Bible objectively makes one an intellectual coward.
Yes, obviously what I’ve said is far worse than than what the Bible says.
eternal torture < saying Christianity is stupid
You Christians are so much more moral than I. Threats of eternal torture told to children no less for non-compliance with an absurd deity. Bleh.
You can ban me if you want or I’ll simply refrain from commenting. It’s your call. I enjoy many of your posts, including this one, but it’s your site.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:20 amESTChristoph,
There is an old saying that my grandmother used to tell us. I think its very appropriate for you at this time.
“Its better to have people think you’re a fool, than to open your mouth and prove them right.”
If you wanted people to watch those videos, its easier to do that by asking their opinion(s) about it, rather than totally trashing their belief system. I also note that you have taken a lot of the Christian Scripture out of context, (When you quote Titus…There’s this thing called hermeneutic studies…I’d recommend it for you)
In closing, Bite me. Your entire dumping on anyone who thinks/believes differently than you do, is nothing more than a pseudo-intellectual attempt at compensating for something.
I will not engage any debate with you further as I have stated my peace.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:24 amESTChristoph:
I have to admit, I have never met an Atheist who bases his disbelief in an Entity based on his hate for said Entity.
That kind of twisted reasoning must keep you up at night.
Zoloft. It’s a wonderful drug.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:26 amESTThere’s a nugget in there for most liberals who feel inclined to offer their opinion on the Constitution.
Hey Rachel: I for one appreciate your candor. The 90% of us weren’t reading this post thinking “we’ve finally broken through to her” but instead, I think the honest pursuit of truth is perhaps the most noble–and for that, I applaud you.
I spent two years solid sharing my faith and beliefs with others, and if there’s one common thread among those who “find” Christ, it’s the innate desire–for one’s self–to know the truthfulness of any given message. When the pursuit is done for any other means, it usually bears no fruit–or at least fruit that loses its taste quite quickly.
It would seem that any messenger would be content to have his or her message judged on its merits–not on those of said messenger. Your Dad sounds like an incredibly insightful and wise man. I’m sure I’ll need to co-opt his wisdom as my children grow. Hopefully this messenger will match the message closely enough to help them make the right choices for themselves.
Again, thanks for your candor and honesty. I think that’s why people read you so “religiously.”
May 7th, 2008 at 10:26 amEST> “The problem believers have is, having given mankind reason and the ability to examine and understand things using his or her mind, God deigns to torture us in eternity should we use these minds to come to any conclusion other than what the Bible says is true — when it clearly isn’t, literally.”
Not all believers believe that God plans to “torture” people in eternity. Everyone has the freedom to shape his own soul as he chooses. If a person eats six Big Macs a day, is God torturing him with fatness? If a person drinks a fifth of tequila before retiring, is his hangover the next morning a punishment from God? If a person dies with a shriveled, petty soul that’s the spiritual equivalent of a naked portrait of Mr. Burns, then that’s what he takes with him. No torture involved.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:34 amESTGoddamnit, people. Stop feeding the trolls!
May 7th, 2008 at 10:37 amESTI think I’ll just stick with pantheistic multiple-personality solipsism.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:37 amESTTo DaveW:
Nicely done, but don’t forget the Big Bang and that whole something out of nothing.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:39 amESTBan Hammer!
Ban Hammer!
Ban Hammer!
Show ‘em there may or may not be a God, but there is a Sherriff. And her name is Rachl Lukis.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:43 amESTChristoph, I watched the rest of the videos this morning. They are thought provoking but not convincing in any way. I believe that this whole matter boils down to one simple thing. Do you believe, or do you not? Debating the words of the Bible without putting them in the proper context is futile. The Old Testament was written at a time when war and conquest were the norm and peoples views of life were more primitive. Today we have advanced in our understanding of our world and have left behind many of those primitive views. One thing remains which is a constant and that is the existence of both good (God) and evil(the devil). I believe that both are real and that a battle is being waged between them for our souls. That is why so many people are searching for answers and not finding satisfying answers, because for the most part people have forgotten or denied the existence of the devil and do not take evil into account in their search. I believe that if the devil gets added into the mix then God gets a fairer examination as to the validity of what He says through His word the Bible.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:55 amESTThank-you for the great post Rachel.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:57 amESTAs far as God having a sense of humor, as much as I enjoy it, I think that sex is the perfect proof.
RichardL, I think I’m banned or soon will be. In case this sneaks through pre-ban, here goes:
I couldn’t have put it better myself.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:02 amESTAnyway, on to more pleasant things.
I love the pic of Sunny. She has such a look of benevolence and peace about her.
Psalms 23:1
May 7th, 2008 at 11:12 amEST1 Ceiling Cat iz mai sheprd (which is funni if u knowz teh joek about herdin catz LOL.)
He givz me evrithin I need.
As with anything, there are those (from in and outside the religion) that provide clarity and those that ‘muddy the water.’ Clear away all the misrepresentation and misunderstanding and I suggest that orthodox Christianity is a strong competitor in the marketplace of worldviews.
Christian logic flows a different set of presuppositions about the nature of cosmos/ethics/etc. than those of naturalism/atheism, or any other worldview for that matter. Even appreciating the Christian evidences requires a different set of presuppositions; a Christian mindset, if you will. The Christian position is that while different, these presuppositions, and the faith (conclusion) that it leads too, do no damage to reason, rationality or logic. Indeed, that they are more reasonable, rational and logical that the alternatives.
That being said, +1 on Francis Schaeffer. He along with C.S. Lewis, are two of the best popular Protestant Christian apologists of the 20th century.
Cheers,
May 7th, 2008 at 11:41 amESTJG
Rachel, I commend you for having the courage to stand up and say you were wrong (not about Christianity being the only truth, but about your reactions to Christianity in general).
After reading through this entire comment thread, I can’t help but be amazed at how civil everybody remained (except Christoph). I may disagree with Skylar, but he never said anything that made me feel like a moron for believing in God.
I’ve been called stupid, brainwashed, and told I’m going to Hell before and I can assure you that I don’t appreciate it at all and find that it only further causes me to disregard whatever message might be contained under the insults. I’ve been told what I believe by people who haven’t bothered to actually study what I believe and then had them project their own beliefs into mine. I’m all for civil debate, but name-calling is neither civil nor a reasonable part of any debate.
In my own life I’ve come to the conclusion that all I can do is live according to my own beliefs and let others have their own beliefs. My greatest appreciation is not for friends who share my beliefs, but for friends who don’t share my beliefs but don’t knock me down for it, either.
Cosmo, I may be totally off-base, but does the phrase “single’s ward” mean anything to you?
May 7th, 2008 at 11:46 amESTSigh… so much hate, can only lead to misery. If they would only open their minds to the possibility.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:56 amESTThere is no God. Only Rachel.
Our blogger, which art in Texas,
May 7th, 2008 at 12:02 pmESTHallowed be thy name.
Thy ridgeback come,
Thy will be done, in blog,
As it is in the ‘Net.
Give us this day our Daily Hate,
And forgive us our comments as we forgive them that comment against us,
And lead us not into vegetarianism,
But deliver us into pork treats.
For thine is the blog, and the power, and the helmet, for ever and ever.
Amen.
Christ was a good man, and a brother to all men (man and/or woman).
My father, when he was alive, possessed the qualities of ‘my God’: Had his rules, allowed the choice to follow them, and loved unconditionally.
“flippant, smug, and dismissive ” is why I keep coming back.
Great post, and quite the comment assortment too.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:02 pmESTThank you, Rachel.
You blasted me once (well, blast may be a strong term) when I tried to answer a question you posed indirectly in one of your posts (I think on abortion). Your response to it was a bit on the angry side, and made me think you didn’t even read it, or glossed over it right off the bat and never bothered to understand it. We’re all guilty of that one at one time or another.
For the record, I don’t claim to be Christian, I don’t go to church. I grew up in church, in a Christian family, here in the Bible Belt. As a result, I know Christians, I know how they think, I understand how they see things. I also know they are some of the most generous, kind people in the world. Of course there are those who are overzealous, of course bad apples pop up. There are 2 billion Christians in the world; how can you not have every flavor of nut surface? Like CS Lewis, Mark Gabriel once wrote in discussing Islam and Christianity, that you can’t judge a religion by what some of it’s people do (the messengers), but by what it teaches (the message). That’s pretty spot on.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:04 pmESTNever heard of it. I’ll ask my home teacher. *wink*
Deanna: probably seen this already, but enjoy: http://www.lolcatbible.com
May 7th, 2008 at 12:08 pmESTLOL! That is just what is needed on this thread right now - a little levity and - dare I say it? - HUMOR.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:09 pmESTI really have been an arrogant prick about religion. I have. I own it.
*************************
Hmmmm…that took guts. Kudos.
I have to say that the reasons I am a Christian is the same reason you looked to not be one; couple that with (IMHO) those who do have faith of any kind have hope. Hope that things will get better, hope that life will be sweeter, whatever the end game is-they have hope in the future. Those who do not have any faith have no hope and hang their desire for life to be different in some way on humans…big, big mistake. Because they are human, for the most part, they KNOW what a let down that can be and how undependable MOST people can be. That is the primary difference between the left and the right. Those on the right are predominantly Christian conservatives while the left is littered with atheist, agnostics, no religions, splinter religions, Kabalists (that IS not a religion) and others who rely on humans to determine fate as opposed to a “God.” That is why the left is home to socialists, Marxist, and communists: those who believe “God is dead.”
I would rather place my faith in God than a human any day of the week.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:12 pmESTLOL. Someone needs to make me a Ban Hammer graphic.
David Colborne, you are a damn genius. Somehow I shall work your poem into my sidebar.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:14 pmESTIf I had Photoshop, I’d make one for you. Maybe Allahpundit or Aaron the Rantblogger can make one for you. Those guys are top shelf.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:35 pmESTRachel, I honestly never knew you considered Christians to be crazy. I recognized your lack of belief, even confusion as to why anyone would believe, but it never came across as “you people are nuts!”
As for those “Bible Study” videos…I wish I could insert a sound file of raucous laughter. It almost parodies itself. They are full of half-quotes, misrepresentations, and conclusions that, if expressed algebraically, would read something like “X+Y=Z, therefore M=B.”
May 7th, 2008 at 12:40 pmESTAlthough I don’t believe, I’m with wonder woman, how do those damned worms know when I put my tomatos out?
May 7th, 2008 at 1:20 pmESTUm, the worms, caterpillars, don’t. They are laid by moths. The moths can fly around and find tomatoes.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:23 pmESTSee, before I was all worried about making Rachel the Supreme Ruler and all. Now, I’m totally cool with it.
I don’t care if she doesn’t believe what I believe, I just want to be able to believe what I want without being ridiculed, mocked, or called dumb. Especially if I’m not inflicting my personal beliefs on other.
AKA: I’m not interested in talking to you about it, so why do you keep insisting on telling me that I’m wrong?
Now you have my vote.
Not that it’s worth anything, really.
Excellent post, moreso than usual.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:46 pmESTCommenting on a few comments, in reverse order….
False. Proving there is no God requires evidence that isn’t there. As has been said, you can’t prove a negative. There is evidence that there is no God, which is plenty on which to base belief in such.
Skyler said:
Skyler — as a fellow atheist, I have to call this for the lie it is. If you were “trying [your] best to ignore” them, and wanted them to ignore you, you would not keep coming back for more. What you are doing, in light of that statement, is akin to standing on a busy streetcorner shouting “Don’t look at me!’ at the top of your lungs.
Yeah, especially when Bill Cosby tells it.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:58 pmESTH-m-m-m…Here’s an idea, how about, instead of reading/watching man’s take on God and Bible study, why not just read the actual book itself, minus the biased and dishonest personal twists, and SEE WHAT IT SAYS!!
The idea that puny, blind little self-worshippers, unable to solve their own mortality, baldness, the mystery of mutually repellent forces of the atoms that are the base of all that is material, who can’t get themselves past the moon to even SEE whether there is a Deity, should unilaterally pronounce the “God does not exist!” is the quintescent arrogance. We haven’t even catelogued all the species extinct or extant on our own little globe but “THERE IS NO GOD”? Right!
The blind men have pronounced that because they can’t see Him, God doesn’t exist…Now that is wisdom I really want to follow!
May 7th, 2008 at 2:06 pmESTStephen, you misunderstood. I’m trying to ignore a specific individual who posts here, no one else.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:10 pmESTI really want to trust the judgment(NOT)of people who have spent their lives trying to be anywhere but where God might show up to tell me there “is no God”, and I will then pronounce myself “enlightened of thought” and fit to lead other blind men around to “truth” and clarity of thought…
May 7th, 2008 at 2:11 pmESTStephen_R you just confirmed my point. There is limited evidence, not proof. You have a belief, based in that evidence, that the universe is a certain way, but no proof. Therefore the statement “There is no God” requires faith. The statement “There is a God” requires faith too, and once you get into specific details of theology, even more faith may be required. I believe the fallacy is constraining yourself or others to believe one of those two statements.
In other words you proved my point, a conclusion not specifically founded in the evidence, requires faith. Not dogma, not theology, no doctrine, but faith.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:22 pmESTA free clue: The fastest route to the truth is admission of ignorance(and subsequent honest efforts to correct it). Another route is to intellectually root out the most undesirable possibility in the full range of same, and odds are high that THAT possibility is the truth.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:24 pmESTBut Chris_rc, the two “faiths” as you call them are of entirely different degrees.
Your faith requires creating something in your mind that has no basis or evidence in the natural world. (Claiming to see a god in the sunrise or other natural phenomenon doesn’t count.)
Our “faith” as you call it, requires merely that we not create something without evidence. You might call this “faith” but it really isn’t. It’s understanding the universe, and interpreting the evidence based on all else that we know. By your definition of “faith” we would need “faith” to understand any part of existence, and that is too extreme a view of epistemology.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:30 pmESTMost excellent post and thread. The last ‘religon’ post inspired me to check out Lewis’ non-fiction. I’ve since read The Screwtape letters (especially liked the added article written in 1961 on the decline of education which was spot on and even more relevant today), The Problem of Pain (wish I wouldn’t have returned it to the library so quickly and read it again first), and now have Mere Christianity in hand but haven’t started it yet. Suprised by Joy will be next.
I never felt disparaged by Rachel’s attitude toward Christians, but am glad to see an open mind and willingness to learn more. We are, after all, mere humans and therefore not all-knowing (except of course for Christoph). Learning and questioning and understanding and respectfulness of others are all good things! That’s one of the main reasons I just LOVE this blog!!!!!
Oh, and David Colborne, your prayer is freaking brilliant!!! Don’t know what your beliefs are, but it’s just proof that Christians have a sense of humor ’cause I laughed my ass off. A different religon (guess which one?) would issue a death sentence for such blasphome.
Thanks for slamming the door on Christoph, Rachel. It was time.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:35 pmESTMan am I glad I read the comments all the way through. Christoph’s banning was much sweeter as a result.
All hail Empwess Wachel!
May 7th, 2008 at 2:49 pmESTSkyler, I never said that believing in NoGod requires the same level or degree of faith as believing in God, merely that it does require faith. Paraphrasing your earlier remarks, “I know for a fact there is no God. That is the truth.” You can know for a fact that gravity acts between objects. It is demonstrable. It requires no faith. You can know for a fact that the earth rotates, and that it orbits the Sun, there is verifiable repeatable proof of this. There is plenty of room in “existence” to understand much of it and require no faith.
My point is that it is simply not possible to prove the statement “there is no God.” Therefore believing it requires moving beyond Logic and Reason into faith. I personally find arguing the degree to which we have each abandoned pure logic and reason to be pointless. I merely found it amusing that we were being called stupid (in part) for engaging in irrationality, when you were doing the same. Rationality, in this case anyway, is purely binary. If you are leaving logic and reason behind, for what ever reason, then it doesn’t matter if you aren’t leaving it as far behind as others. That is what I found amusing earlier.
We are reentering the paradigm thing, so I don’t want to spend too much time simply repeating myself, or causing you to.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:49 pmESTSunny’s face looks thinner. It really does.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:58 pmESTPrecisely. A good summation.
When it comes to the question of “Does God exist?”, one cannot argue “There is no evidence that God exists, therefore God does not exist.” This statement presents itself as being grounded in science, but in fact it isn’t. A true scientist NEVER asserts that X does not exist because no one has found evidence of the existence of X. He would only assert that the evidence we have at this time does not support the existence of X.
As they say, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
After having read The God Fuse over a year ago (and if Christoph is still hanging around I suggest he read it as well), I came to realize that a lot of my assumptions about the beliefs of “non-theists” (for lack of a better catch-all term for atheists/agnostics/etc.) were false. One example from The God Fuse still sticks out in my mind:
This quote is particularly poignant to me because there was a time not so long ago when I used to do that very thing.
When I was younger I used to be a non-theist. I wasn’t exactly an atheist because I found it highly implausible that there was nothing out there beyond our own meager existence but I couldn’t find any truth in any religion I came across (aside from a brief dabbling in Wiccanism, but that was right after my dad died and I was experiencing some serious emotional turmoil, don’t judge me). The problem was that a lot of my opposition to religion in general and Christianity in specific at that time was based on a series of flawed premises such as:
1. Intellectual dishonesty (i.e., claiming that all Christians are bad based on the actions of a few)
2. Poor reasoning (i.e., “All religions claim their god is the One True God, therefore there cannot be a One True God!” “Some Christians have done bad things, therefore Christianity must be a lie!”)
3. Ignorance of what the Bible says (i.e., the oft-repeated belief that the Bible justifies wanton killing of gays, non-Christians, etc.)
4. Ignorance of what Christians actually believe (i.e., the oft-repeated belief that all Christians hate science and want to plunge us all back into the Dark Ages)
Deep down I think I always knew that my beliefs were based on nonsense, but confronting that would have meant admitting that many of my core beliefs were wrong (and who wants to do that?) so I convinced myself I was right. In other words, I didn’t believe because I didn’t WANT to believe. Later on I had a religious experience (the details of which I am not inclined to discuss on this thread) that made me realize how poorly founded my previous beliefs were and eventually led to me finding my faith in Christ.
Unfortunately, one of the results of this conversion was that I came to look back on my past beliefs with disdain. I started to think, “If my disbelief in God was just petty, intentional rebellion against Christians, the same must be true for every other person who claims not to believe in God.” Ironically I started acting a lot like Christoph, ridiculing atheism and atheists as “stupid”, claiming atheism was “insane”, “immoral”, “ludicrous”, and “evil”, and so on in that fashion. And because I treated atheists with ridicule instead of respect, they responded to me in kind, which of course only reinforced my perception of atheists as stubborn children who didn’t believe in God because they just didn’t WANT to believe in God.
Since then I’d like to think I’ve become a bit wiser. I still believe that atheism is wrong and that people who don’t believe in God are endangering their souls, but I recognize now that the average atheist doesn’t deny the existence of God because they’re a bunch of stubborn children, but because they honestly don’t believe in God. And therefore, treating an honest atheist as a stubborn child rather than engaging them in rational discussion is counter-productive.
ANYWAY…
The point of this already overly-long post is that we all need to keep in mind that this religion vs. atheism debate is unlike any other debate on Earth. It’s not like debating economics or healthcare where a position can be backed up by solid and objective evidence. In those debates it’s okay to respond to someone by saying “You’re a fucktard!” because, in the end, the facts determine the winner. The truth will out, and reality will ultimately vindicate whoever was truly right.
But the religion vs. atheism debate is not like that. There are no solid and objective facts to be had in this debate, and none of us will ever know what the truth is until we finally croak and go on to our eternal reward, whatever that turns out to be. But at that point it won’t matter because we’ll all be dead.
So if we’re going to have this debate now, we’ve got to stop constantly giving each other the proverbial middle finger and then acting all surprised with our opponents respond in kind.
May 7th, 2008 at 5:06 pmESTDavid Colborne iz teh awsum (12:02 p.m.). That took me straight back to serving as an acolyte at St. Luke’s Episcopal Church. Danke.
May 7th, 2008 at 5:10 pmESTAfter reading most (not all) of the posts, I have to send sincere kudos to WW for her comment. This is, for me, the most profound comment in this place. I am right. there.
And Rachl, dear, I am so impressed with your entire train of thought. You have inspired me to read CS Lewis, something I have resisted doing, despite my family’s prodding for many years. I don’t know when I will get around to it, but when I do, it’ll be because if Wachel can do, so can I.
May 7th, 2008 at 5:37 pmESTRachel,
I enjoyed your post (and your blog in general). I ordered some books on Amazon through your link so I hope you got credit.
I was raised a Lutheran and considered going to seminary for a while but became a banker instead (closely related…eh?).
My dear Thai wife has converted me to Buddhism over the past 25 years and I am very happy with it. My biggest problem with Christianity was the aspect of organized religion. Buddhism is much more an introverted religion and suits me more than the more structured religions.
I’m glad to see that you have come to the realization that religion is not evil or stupid but is a reflection of humans seeking a greater meaning in their lives.
I lived in the Middle East for many years and saw, firsthand, the evils that blind acceptance of religious doctrine can spawn.
I wish you and Rupert all the love and joy that life can bring you and I will light a joss stick for him whenever I go to the temple.
May 7th, 2008 at 6:59 pmESTI guess that’s a question of your definition of faith. I cannot prove that there is not a giant unicorn living at the center of the Earth. Nor can you. However, I feel quite confident in saying that there is, in fact, not a giant unicorn living at the center of the Earth.
I don’t consider this an act of faith; it is an act of reason: in that I have no reason to believe that there is such a thing, and in turn no reason to invent such a belief.
There is evidence to suggest that human beings like to invent Gods where there are none to be found. Unless you believe in Zeus, and Odin, you must agree with that on some level.
To be clear — I have no particular interest in convincing anyone that God does not exist. I am interested in the flipside of what Rachel is saying about C. S. Lewis — that people who believe in God respect that it is possible to be an atheist and not be crazy/deviant/wicked; that in fact, one can be an atheist and be a perfectly intelligent and reasonable person.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:11 pmESTLOL.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:28 pmESTExcept you can’t say it isn’t there. You can only say that you see no evidence that it’s there.
It’s not as big a leap of faith as saying a giant unicorn lives at the center of the Earth, but it’s still a leap of faith.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:24 pmESTThe development of religion worldwide is a very complicated topic. It does no one any good to oversimplify it this way.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:37 pmESTWell, we do know that giant unicorns would need a food source and there’s strong reason to believe there isn’t one at the center of the earth. Study indicates that the core of the earth is molten, with sustained temperatures well in excess of the 160F degree limit for known life. Moreover, no one has actually ever seen or cataloged a unicorn specimen. I’d say we have plenty of reason to disbelieve the giant unicorn hypothesis.
God is the other way around
The expansion of space strongly indicates that all matter and energy had an origin, therefore a Source. God by nature transcends space-time and is not subject to the limitations of our perception. In spite of this, He made Himself human, appeared in history as the Man Jesus, allowed Himself to be (undeniably) killed and then physically rose from a stone tomb and appeared before many eyewitnesses for a period of around 40 days. The records of His life and its historical ramifications are preserved to this day, both in the Bible and in corroborating external documents.
The history is compelling. It would seem that the burden of proof is on the skeptic to demonstrate that Jesus did NOT rise from the tomb, facts being what they are and all. To my knowledge (and I’ve studied quite a bit) no plausible alternative explains the resurrection better than that it simply happened that way it’s recorded. What do you do with Jesus?
The apostles saw Him, they touched Him. The lived with Him for three years. They witnessed His works and wrote them down. When given the opportunity to recant, each apostle to a man (save John) bore their testimony to gruesome deaths. They’re either fools, liars, or true witnesses. Take your pick. Adversaries who lived at the time of these writings were powerless to refute them. Oh what arrogance to think we have more insight than they.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:05 pmESTMy favorite quote by anybody was said by a Russian scientist (can’t remember his name). He said:
“I believe God rules the world through science.”
That may not be the exact quote; I read it a few years ago and haven’t been able to find it since.
Edit: Did a bit more digging and actually found it.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:57 pmESTHi Rachel.
Wow.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:49 pmESTCongrats Rachel. Very moving post.
As far as belief in God or lack of belief, I’m one of those annoying people who took care of that about 2 years ago. When you’re prayed for and instantly healed, that kinda thing closes certain doors of doubt.
The funny thing is, with all the stories Christians can tell of genuine miracles in their lives, it’s never enough.
The doubters are shaking their heads at me even now, I’m sure.
In any case, I seriously doubt anyone’s mind has ever been changed from an argument on the Internet about:
1. Religion
May 7th, 2008 at 10:56 pmEST2. A political stance or
3. Which Star Trek captain was the best
richtermarc, of course no one was ever convinced by 3, no one needs it, it is obviously Picard
May 7th, 2008 at 10:59 pmESTWow. I take a day off to celebrate my daughter’s birthday and miss ALL THE FUN. What an ass clown that Cristoph was. Rachel–I am planning on picking up a copy of Mere Christianity to read at leisure now that I have my M.A. done. Thanks for a scintillating conversation, folks. As always I enjoy the intellectual give and take. I learn so much here EVERY DAY.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:55 pmESTThanks for banning Christoph. People like him deliberately try to flame up passions to drag people into conflict.
I have often changed my opinions on things based on new data. Some people can’t and insist others are wrong for not thinking like them. And sometimes, those lacking data don’t realize they are lacking the data and just assume the other person is an idiot.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:14 amESTFirst!
Sorry — couldn’t resist (Mt.19:30; Mk.10:31; Lk.13:30).
Rachel — thank you for founding this feast for thought! Hideous trolls notwithstanding, there was a lot of really excellent discussion!
I think I’ve managed to agree with just about all the reasonable arguments at one time or another in my journey from child-of-Christians, all the way out to “If God is God, He is not Good; If God is Good, He is not God,” and back again to a church-free Christian belief. I used to think Christianity was a religion for old people. I’ve since come to believe that actually? It’s for people who are finally old enough!
I’ve just been rereading old Clive Staples myself, because one of the offspring has lately expressed a desire to be home-baptized — couldn’t think of a better source for prep (outside the obvious, of course!).
Skyler — Heh! I’m glad to know you believe that it’s possible to be a Christian and a good man!
May 8th, 2008 at 2:22 amESTI guess I’ll toss this in since it has come up at in a few comments.
Its true that some Christians believe there is a hell and that hell is a place where errant souls are sent to suffer and burn for all eternity. It is also true that many do not believe this, and that for many Christians the concept of hell is instead expressed as something more along the lines of permanent separation from God. The suffering then, is not a physical pain but a spiritual suffering due to separation from the Almighty after death.
Its also true that some fundamentalist types do not believe in the theory of evolution. However, some have no problem accepting that God could create life through various means that we do not know or understand very well, including evolution.
I could go on. I personally do not have a problem with the creation story of 7 days, translating 7 days to be something akin to ‘7 units of time’. Who am I to say on what time scale God operates? What is a “day” to God?
Some of these thoughts were a barrier to me for decades. What I had to learn is that I cannot get to God with my mind. I had to learn to use my inner voice, my spirit, learn to “think” with that part of myself, before I could come to believe in God. This is something that even small children can do but adults like me can have enormous difficulty with.
Getting caught up in chasing God with your mind is a fool’s errand.
-
Here’s an experiment you can try if you are an unbeliever and you have the guts. Pick something you don’t like about yourself, something very fundamental and basic. Maybe you have an anxiety problem, or maybe you don’t like the way you express your anger (like me).
Now every time you feel yourself experiencing that problem, just silently close your eyes and ask God to relieve it, to help you calm down, to help you express yourself in a way that others will find helpful and courteous or whatever.
Try that a few times over a period of weeks. Then, a month or so later, ask yourself if anything has changed.
OK, now spend the next 20-30 years telling yourself it isn’t God at work in your life, that you are brainwashing yourself, or that there is some subconscious thing or other going on. Assuming you are a real hard head like me that is.
Or better yet, realize that you have just proven the existence of God, practice it some more and explore what’s going on.
-
Oh. Don’t pray for a Mercedes unless you want God to give you a $ 2,000 per month car payment.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:49 amESTI remain as skeptical as ever, but any belief which inspires beauty such as this should never be scorned.
[The link is to a video on GodTube of a man who chose to compete in an IronMan/triathlon, carrying his quadriplegic son the entire way. Go ahead and watch it without crying, tough guys.]
May 8th, 2008 at 9:06 amESTDamn you, Carbo, for making me tear up at work.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:19 amEST“I have spoke with the tongues of angels
I have held the hand of a devil
It was warm in the night
I was cold as a stone
But I still haven’t found what I’m looking for “
May 8th, 2008 at 11:10 amESTDigression — sorry — but for anyone who doubts the wry wit of Jesus:
Try reading the “road to Emmaus” whilst visualizing that moment in The Wrong Trousers when Feathers pops the glove off his head and Wallace says, “It’s You!”
And anyhow, taking oneself too seriously is original sin — you can’t help laughing at yourself when you’ve stopped trying to natter a problem to death and just taken a moment to “Be still and know!”
May 8th, 2008 at 12:55 pmESTHi, everyone! Yes, I have a sense of humor. However, I am also getting ticked, and I am taking notes! I forget who said it (so much for the infallibilty thing) but someone once said “If you don’t believe there is a God, you had better be right!”
Forget the notes. You are all loved and forgiven. Yes, even you who have my Son’s name!
Welcome, Wachel! You are a good person.
Take care now!
May 8th, 2008 at 5:54 pmESTWonderful, honest post. You so rock.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:02 pmESTSimilar to my story too, with twists. I was raised by a smart, non-militant atheist single mom. She didn’t talk much about religion but it was pretty clear her take was that it was inexplicable that intelligent people could REALLY believe such things. And that religion had no obvious purpose other than to pass judgment on others and suck all the fun out of life.
I had a similar view. Since my middle name is “Logical” (jk), I rejected all organized religion as untenable. Mainly I just figured that those who professed religion were self-deluded, or unthinking, or just kinda nuts in some way that I would never understand.
Then, for whatever reason, I picked up C.S. Lewis’ The Problem Of Pain, and had the exact same reaction as you did to him. Wow! Someone with a mind as fine as his could, and did, believe. I recommend that book if you care to read any more of Lewis. Because of him, I allowed myself to consider belief without thinking that I would first need a lobotomy.
I’m a half-assed Christian now. My reason for having any religious faith being, I’ve had experiences my whole life that seem so deeply joyous as to suggest otherworldliness. Imagine my “surprise” when I read Lewis’ Surprised by Joy and found that he was describing the exact same thing—and that this joy, this maybe-magic, is the original impetus of his search for faith. I know it’s the well-spring for mine. I think you feel some of this when, for instance, you become enraptured with Battlestar Galactica. Perhaps something amazing IS out there…
Having been an atheist, I have no illusions that atheists are stubborn or stupid or extra-sinful or even wrong. What a pleasure to read that you would basically think the same of me now.
Again with the multiple responses…
couch1971 Says:
I think it’s hatred for the theory, as in “The God described in is evil. Even if he existed, who would want to worship him?” (I’m not arguing it, just shedding some light.)
DaveW Says:
It’s not faith — the word here is “theory”.
Your kind of argument reduces the word “faith” to the point of meaninglessness. There’s a point where you can say that nothing is ever proven. You have five fingers on each hand, you say? That’s an act of faith — you have faith in the evidence of your own eyes. It’s reducto ad absurdum to point at a scientific theory and call it a “god” because it is unproven.
I have “faith” in logic, and reason; but that is nothing like the “faith” that allows somebody to believe in an omnipotent, omniscient being.
Arguments like pretty much this entire comments section remind me of that famous cartoon where the scientist is in front of a chalkboard with mathematical equations all over it, and in the middle of it all is a circle with “and then a miracle happens” written in it, then more equations. That scientist is free to believe his conclusion, but he is mistaken to call it “logic” beyond that circle. That circle is religious faith — right or wrong, it requires a leap of reasoning that goes beyond anything that qualifies as “science”.
Dr. Feelgood Says:
HAHAHAHAHA! Bravo! (Or if I were British… “Well Bowled!”)
I can only counter by saying that no one in modern day has confirmably seen or cataloged a God specimen. :p
Oh, and did I mention giant unicorns breathe magma? Little known fact.
For anybody still reading this thread — if you haven’t seen it, I _highly_ recommend watching the movie Contact, starring Jodie Foster and… that surfer dude. No, not him — the other one. Possibly the best and most even-handed reflection on religion, atheism, and faith that Hollywood has ever produced. Both thought-provoking and highly respectful of both sides (which ain’t easy).
May 8th, 2008 at 7:42 pmESTRachel, it is so very rare to find this type of intellectual honesty. You have honor and courage.
Re your comment about (formerly) assuming Christians were so because Mom (or someone) told them so: we were raised atheist/agnostic. In our teens, my sister and I decided to go to the local church to see what it was about, and stayed, ended up being baptized and joining. Dad always refused to come to church whenever we had events since he had strong feelings about being a hypocrite. Meh.
At this point, I believe in the God of the Bible, but am ambivalent between Judaism and Christianity. Don’t really think it matters either way.
However, CS Lewis is worth reading. With respect to your concern about the imperfect humans who profess religion (and Christianity in particular), I really recommend “The Screwtape Letters” (right up your alley). If still interested, “The Great Divorce” is also classic.
Thanks for doing what you do. And I do believe Jesus wants you to keep humiliating the Ridgeback.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:16 pmESTExactly right. In fact this silly argument is how Descartes starts his Meditations on First Philosophy. He insistst that he can’t know that his hand exists in front of him and decides that this is totally unworkable. Since to not know anything would prevent one from making any kind of conclusion (and in his case not get paid as he was on retainer to the Tsar at the time, IIRC) he had to make an assumption. He decided to assume, cogito ergo sum. I think therefore I am.
But of course it’s an idiotic dicta because it’s not necessary to make that assumption. We exist. We have evidence of it. We may not be infallible in our observations, but we are able to make some conclusions within the limits of our senses. We don’t need to assume we exist, we can bloody well know it.
Of course, later philosophers were not to be out done and decided to conclude that we can’t perceive the universe, or that the universe is perceived incorrectly, or that there are multiple universes, or that there is no universe. All very popular ideas spouted from the head of Zeus by 19th century mostly German philosophers.
They’re wrong. We exist, of that there is no doubt, or we can see if you disagree after being punched in the nose. We know we exist, we know that magic does not exist.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:48 pmESTRachel, great post. You are more humble than I’ll ever be. I may have to check check out Lewis’ book.
As for Christoph, I’ve seen him on lots of comments sections. Whenever the subject of Christianity comes up, he immediately starts calling everyone stupid. I’ve seen him on hot air and elsewhere. Whether his points are valid or not is meaningless. He causes arguments for the sake of it and declares himself superior to all. In short, he’s a troll.
May 8th, 2008 at 11:42 pmESTThank you Rachel. I am gob-smacked by your post, I so rarely see anyone taking such an open minded position.
Kudos to you.
If someone does not become a Christian, then it is between them and their maker. I have no desire to push anyone - I believe God has given them free-will and I must respect that.
What does bother me is that the atheists increasingly see Christians as retarded, without ever understanding the journey to faith that I (and many others) have travelled. A journey that has involved confronting most of the atheistic criticisms of religion, scripture, the Church etc.
It has not been a journey I have taken lightly and at the end of it I am still humbled by my inability to really know the truth with any great certainty (unlike Skyler and others who seem to think they have a perfect view of reality).
You don’t know how much I appreciate you for being willing to open-mindedly investigate a position that you had (probably for very good reasons) previously discounted. This is humanity (and humility) at its best.
May 9th, 2008 at 5:10 amESTBriefly, on Hell:
May 9th, 2008 at 6:10 amESTNot all Christians believe Hell is permanent, let alone purposeful “torture” designed by God.
Again with the C.S. Lewis….The Great Divorce describes a theory of Hell that is the only one that makes sense to me.
Also, Universalism is a doctrine that holds that ALL people will be saved one day. There is plenty of support in the Bible for that proposition, for those who are interested. Just check out the various websites devoted to Universalism.
There is NO evidence that there is a Giant Unicorn living in the center of the earth, or that there is an invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster lurking about either.
May 9th, 2008 at 6:20 amESTThere is SOME evidence to be had, both empirically and theoretically, that there is a Creator and that it is possible to have some relationship with said Creator.
Therefore, it is a bit of a leap of faith to assert that there is no God. And it is certainly a leap of faith to conclude that there is a God.
Please no one jump on me with the assertion that there is no proof of God, because I’ve already conceded that.
Rachel:
(Full disclosure first - I am a Christian) Best wishes on your search for knowledge. Honest inquiry is always good, especially with an open mind as you exhibit. I trust you will learn things of value even if you conclude that you disagree with Lewis.
I know a number of atheists and agnostics, and to the best of my ability to judge they are not at all crazy for their having chosen to be an atheist or an agnostic. Certainly not just because they disagree with me. So I understand what you are saying when you mention you no longer want to assume insanity for those who disagree with you.
Regardless of any other results of your research, you will be a wiser person in building relationships with others from the effort.
Craig
May 9th, 2008 at 7:17 amESTOther simple books that present rational Christianity (in my humble opinion):
I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Norman Geisler & Frank Turek
Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig
Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton
Scaling the Secular City by J. P. Moreland
In Defense of Theology by Gordon H. Clark
The God Who Is There by Francis A. Schaeffer
Surprised by Joy by CS Leiws
Can Man Live Without God by Ravi Zacharias
This was a good post. Thank you.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:01 amESTThank you.
This christian has been guilty of quite alot of smuggness myself. It is an easy trap when there are things you don’t know, and don’t even know that you don’t know them.
Our infighting and sqabbles probably don’t help non-believers ignore the messengers for the message. Thank you again for trying. I think many christians would benefit from reading more of Lewis than the narnia books. I also recommend A Grief Observed and The Great Divorce.
I don’t think atheists/agnostics are necessarily crazy or evil, but some of the reasons they espouse for their lack of belief may be.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:14 amESTI started reading the comments, and noticed that the thread had been hijacked by some adult children named Skyler and Christoph. I have chosen to ignore other comments and leave my own, because debating with children only makes you sound like one.
Okay. Rachel, kudos to you for acknowledging a possible shortcoming and apologizing to those you sincerely did not mean to offend. Also, I love Mere Christianity. Lewis was a skeptic who found faith, and he articulated his understanding of that faith very well.
However you choose to accept it, I wish you God’s peace.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:13 pmESTTwo possibly relevant quotes from GK Chesterton’s Orthodoxy:
“Imagination does not breed insanity. Exactly what does breed insanity is reason. Poets do not go mad; but chess-players do. Mathematicians go mad, and cashiers; but creative artists very seldom. I am not, as will be seen, in any sense attacking logic: I only say that this danger does lie in logic, not in imagination.”
“The sane man knows that he has a touch of the beast, a touch of the devil, a touch of the saint, a touch of the citizen. Nay, the really sane man knows that he has a touch of the madman. But the materialist’s world is quite simple and solid, just as the madman is quite sure he is sane.”
Blessings on your journeys.
May 9th, 2008 at 2:01 pmESTJohn, I’ve insulted no one here, and you’re out of line. Please crawl back to wherever you came from.
May 9th, 2008 at 2:47 pmESTYou might find these links interesting –
Leading Christian Myths:
http://www.tektonics.org/af/christianmyths.html
Christian Answers in a Nutshell:
May 9th, 2008 at 4:24 pmESThttp://www.tektonics.org/nutshell/nutshellhub.html
Rachel:
A wonderfully refreshing and honest post. And the ‘dogma’ pic is great! Wherever your exploration takes you, do enjoy the journey!
A loyal orthodox Anglican reader.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:16 pmESTGetting beyond the in-comment squabbling for a moment — Rachel, this was an excellent post. Intellectual honesty of this calibre is astonishingly rare. There is something in the human psyche that turns belief into part of one’s identity, and that makes acknowledging the validity of contrary beliefs very difficult for many.
Obviously I believe they are _mistaken_, but I have never thought that theists were any sort of crazy. (Well, some of them are, or course…. ;p)
May 10th, 2008 at 3:15 pmESTTwo nights ago my wife and I watched “Beyond Narna” on DVD, which relates how Lewis made his decision to become a Christian. The English actor playing Lewis did an outstanding job. I highly recommend the DVD. We obtained it from Netflix.
In “The Case for Christ” Lee Strobel presents solid EVIDENCE for the person and claims of Jesus Christ. I also highly recommend Strobel’s book.
May 14th, 2008 at 12:03 amESTRachel
May 22nd, 2008 at 1:34 pmESTfor one I admire those who have taken lots of time to keep their blogs thoughtful and current. That being said, even from my agnostic days, I always loved reading C. S. Lewis. Yes, Mere Christianity is one of the most popular, but The Great Divorce, Miracles, Abolition of Man, his sci fi trilogy, and of course the Chronicles of Narnia, have all helped me grow as a person. He’s more down to earth than say Francis Schaeffer or John Warwick Montgomery.