tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18122417285972057742024-02-07T20:02:50.688-05:00Respectful AtheistRespectful Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03303760970096374936noreply@blogger.comBlogger70125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812241728597205774.post-72581681294036826072013-03-31T21:00:00.002-04:002013-04-15T18:50:18.878-04:00The Future Of This Blog<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgguO0QYag-TCf1honhb6Z1IDOSkjRO0fdzrBiG5UTRxchte-8sOMFgm8p_6QZO8Krig-49OjAQL5o84ZVAM29N5m0-wpvHX_UswTC73PRgih21ar4N0grUIqE9PEgKHdIZJoB2Wsgyi70/s1600/pic1-a47.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="148" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgguO0QYag-TCf1honhb6Z1IDOSkjRO0fdzrBiG5UTRxchte-8sOMFgm8p_6QZO8Krig-49OjAQL5o84ZVAM29N5m0-wpvHX_UswTC73PRgih21ar4N0grUIqE9PEgKHdIZJoB2Wsgyi70/s200/pic1-a47.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
I feel as if I should explain why I haven't been blogging much lately. The simple and straightforward truth is, I just haven't felt like writing. I'm slowly losing interest in the endeavour, I guess, although I'm not sure entirely why (or if/when my interest will return). <br />
<br />
I started this blog because I wanted to document my de-conversion experience, or at least hit on some of the highlights. I knew that I would forget many of the details, as time continued to pass, especially as it relates to my <i>internal</i> dialogue during the de-conversion process itself. (I have an admittedly terrible memory, on pretty much everything. :))<br />
<br />
Also, my kids aren't old enough yet to grasp the gravity of Daddy not believing in god anymore. They understand, intellectually speaking, that Daddy and Mommy don't believe in god, and Grammy and Grampy do, but to them it just doesn't seem like a big deal at all. I realize a time is coming when they will truly *get* how big of a deal religion is though, in this world, and I know they will wonder, at that point, why I changed my mind. And that's <b>*really*</b> the reason I started this website. I guess a small part of me also felt as if I needed to get some things off my chest.<br />
<br />
Why am I losing interest now? I've been doing a lot of pondering on that, and I think it's primarily because I have a sizeable <a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Live%20and%20Let%20Live" target="_blank">live and let live</a> component to my personality. It's true that I have come to believe humanity would be better off without religion, in the grand scheme of things, but I don't agree that religion poisons "everything" (as Christopher Hitchens would say). I think Sam Harris had it basically right when he argued, in effect, that one of the core problems with religion is that it gives people <a href="http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/do-we-really-need-bad-reasons-to-be-good/" target="_blank"><i>bad reasons</i> to do <i>good things</i></a>...and this is especially egregious because better reasons are in fact <b><i>available</i></b> (humanist ones). Many of the Christians that I know personally believe in doing good works, but their motivations are intractably tied up in "the gospel". I now believe this gospel is false, in the sense that I no longer believe Jesus was god, and such, *<i>yet I still share in their desire to do good works for my fellow man*</i>. Lately, this desire has simply been superseding my desire to be "right", by proving to Christians their religion is false (at times this seems like a nearly impossible task anyway).<br />
<br />
Having said all of that, I am still passionately interested in pursuing the truth. I do find myself thinking "<i>I should write a post about that</i>", quite often actually, and I have no shortage of ideas (or half written posts!). It's just the <i>desire</i> is waning, and I'm not sure when it will return. <br />
<br />
At this stage, allow me to simply say a heartfelt *<b>thank you*</b>, to those who have read and commented thus far. If you care deeply about the big questions in life, like I do, than I very much consider you to be part of my in-group. I don't care if you count yourself an atheist, a Christian, or something else entirely. I'd like to think we're all just doing our best, to figure things out, and that's an endeavour best approached in community.<br />
<br />
I do <i><u>not</u></i> intend to shut down this blog, and I <i><u>do</u></i> think I'll eventually write more often again. I'm just not sure when, or exactly how often. I don't want to force myself to write. I <b>want to want</b> to write and, for these past few months, I just haven't been feeling it.<br />
<br />
So, I hope you'll stick around, or at least check in for new material every few weeks or so. <br />
<br />
I've never wanted to be the sort of person who shoved my opinions down people's throats and, on occasion, I fear that I have fallen into that trap here on this blog (although hopefully not<i> too </i>often). <br />
With the exception of maybe one or two mean commenters (who are pretty easy to identify) I have appreciated everyone's questions, challenges, and support, a great deal. I hope you feel as if this has been a safe place to explore those big questions together, and to both encourage and challenge one another along the way. Respectful Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03303760970096374936noreply@blogger.com23tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812241728597205774.post-85053377596441170102013-01-09T17:48:00.002-05:002013-01-09T17:50:53.149-05:00Why I Am Not A Liberal ChristianLast time around I discussed some of my reasons for believing that liberal Christians are closer to the truth than conservative ones are. In this post I'd like to extend that theme, by honing in on my reasons for additionally rejecting <i>liberal</i> versions of the Christian faith. <br />
<br />
In reading de-conversion stories, I've noticed that many formerly evangelical believers make something of a pit stop, if you will, in liberal Christianity. Some of them (such as Bart Ehrman) even stay there for a number of years, before moving on to their ultimate destination; often agnosticism or atheism. I suspect this pit stop happens in part because letting go of god is incredibly hard, especially when you've had a treasured "personal relationship with Jesus". Also, conservative Christianity is relatively easy to disprove, most notably the variety that holds strongly to the inerrancy of the Bible, and the literal historicity of the Bible's various tall tales. Liberal Christianity, on the other hand, is much more difficult (if not downright impossible) to falsify.<br />
<br />
Many of the things that atheists and agnostics rightly reject about the Bible, are rejected by liberal Christians too. On one hand, this is what makes the option so attractive for those who grow disillusioned with evangelicalism. At a certain point in the de-conversion journey, you inevitably find yourself yourself thinking thoughts like, "<i>Hey, maybe I could just flush all of this bullshit, but still remain a Christian. Wouldn't that be awesome!?!</i>". It seems, on the surface, to be an appealing compromise when you're feeling caught in the middle of two (diametrically opposed) worlds. <br />
<br />
Having said that, I guess I am one of those atheists who just passed right by liberal Christianity. No pit stop for me. I did seriously consider it, for a while, but I can't honestly say that I was ever really convinced by the arguments or rationale.<br />
<br />
Without further ado, here are three of the primary reasons I rejected liberal Christianity...<br />
<br />
Reason #1, <b>I found no convincing reason to believe in liberal Christian theology</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Frankly, I'm not sure that many liberal Christians *<i>have</i>* much of a theology (or perhaps some just don't view theology as being very important). I realize they endorse moral action, but <i>so do most atheists</i>. In fact, <a href="http://respectfulatheist.blogspot.ca/2012/08/christ-like-atheism.html" target="_blank">as I've discussed previously</a>, I still heartily embrace many so called "Christian values" myself. The difference, of course, is that I now do so for unambiguously secular reasons.<br />
<br />
One (rather well known) liberal Christian, who shall remain nameless, told me in private correspondence, "<i>I do not believe that Jesus rose from the dead, but <b>I do find a lot of meaning in the symbol of of his resurrection</b></i>". My first reaction was, "<i>whoa, that sounds pretty deep". </i>It was followed rather quickly though by my second reaction, namely, "<i>what the hell does that <u>mean</u> exactly?</i>". It reminds me a lot of what Julia Sweeney says, in her "<a href="http://respectfulatheist.blogspot.ca/2012/04/bad-weekend-for-our-sins.html" target="_blank">Letting Go Of God</a>" monologue, regarding the suggestion that Jesus' resurrection is "psychologically true"...<br />
<br />
"<i>But what about other stories on the same theme? I mean, what about Persephone going down into the under world...that's psychologically true too then, I suppose. Or what about stories from the Iliad, or Darth Vader, or The Little Engine That Could...those are 'psychologically true' stories; aren't they??</i>"<br />
<br />
And therein lies the heart of the problem, as I see it, with liberal Christian theology. They seem to find "meaning", all through the Bible, but it's unclear to me: a) what this meaning is, and b) how (or if) it is unique to the Bible. <br />
<br />
This leads me to my second point...<br />
<br />
Reason #2, <b>I found no convincing reason to believe that god, if he/she/it exists, had anything whatsoever to do with the Bible</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
When atheists pick apart the Bible, they are very often accused of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. *Of course* the Bible is not inerrant, the liberal Christians will say; what thinking person would believe such a thing anyway? <br />
<br />
Laying aside the fact that a large number of Christians <i><b>do</b></i> believe such a thing, the deeper issue (with the Bible) still remains unaddressed. Once we can agree that it contains errors, historical inaccuracies, outright fabrications, and so on, the next question then centers on what reasons someone would have for believing that a god inspired its writing at the outset. Please pay careful attention to my wording here. Notice that I am <i>not</i> asking if the Christian God dictated the words to the Biblical authors <i>verbatim</i>. I realize that liberal Christians acknowledge different (and even conflicting) perspectives within the canon. No, what I am asking instead is what positive reasons there are for believing that the Christian God had ANYTHING to do with Bible.<br />
<br />
Does someone want to take a shot at that one?<br />
<br />
Typically the silence from liberal Christians, to this more nuanced question, is downright eerie. It leads me to conclude that they simply don't have a good answer. And, if god indeed had nothing to do with the Bible, there are an awful lot of people who should probably re-think orienting their entire lives around its instructions. <br />
<br />
On a side note, as I see it, this is also the root problem with the various pro-gay & anti-gay arguments between Christians. *It doesn't really matter what the Bible says, or doesn't say, about homosexuality, if there is no convincing reason to believe that the book is divinely inspired.* <br />
<br />
Reason #3, <b>I found no convincing reason to believe that god exists in the first place</b><br />
<br />
It's important for me to clarify that I do not claim to know for certain that a god does not exist. This is a strikingly common misperception about atheists. Most of us infidels have at least some level of agnosticism on that question. Contrary to popular belief, a "no gods exist" assertion is not required (or even implied) by the term atheist. I won't belabor the point here but, if you find that last sentence confusing, please read my post called "<a href="http://respectfulatheist.blogspot.ca/2012/03/atheist-or-agnostic.html" target="_blank">Atheist Or Agnostic?</a>" for further clarification.<br />
<br />
Simply put, at the end of the day, I strongly <i>suspect</i> that no gods exist at all. And certainly not the sort of omni-god (<a href="http://respectfulatheist.blogspot.ca/2012/01/does-yahweh-exist.html" target="_blank">such as Yahweh</a>) who supposedly intervenes in the physical world.<br />
<br />
Let me also be quick to point out, in conclusion, that I fully realize and acknowledge how ambiguous the term "liberal Christian" is generally. This is why, in discussion with believers of a more liberal persuasion, I usually begin by trying to get a better handle on what exactly it is that they <i>personally</i> believe (about god, the Bible, and so on). It is only afterward that I can get much of a sense for where specifically our disagreements lie, <i>if we even have any</i>. For example, I know at least one liberal Christian who rejects nearly every major point of Christian theology, in so far as I can tell. He doesn't believe that Jesus died for our sins, he doesn't believe in hell, or that Jesus was born of a virgin and performed miracles. He even admits, when pressed, to also being agnostic about god's existence. For him, to be Christian simply means to live his life with hope, or something like that, and to stand alongside those raised in the Christian tradition through the centuries. But if <i>that's</i> all it takes, to be "Christian", than you might as well say that I am one too. At this level it seems to boil down to essentially a game of terminology semantics, or perhaps just a personal label preference thing. Personally, I no longer felt comfortable in using the word Christian, to describe myself, once I lost faith in what I viewed to be the major tenants of the Christian religion (like those represented in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles'_Creed" target="_blank">Apostles' Creed</a>).<br />
<br />
To my fellow de-converts; did you make a pit stop, in liberal Christianity, on your road to atheism? Why or why not? And to the liberal Christians who read this; am I misunderstanding (or misrepresenting) your views? If so, how?Respectful Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03303760970096374936noreply@blogger.com27tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812241728597205774.post-70967201181653885492012-11-23T20:49:00.000-05:002012-11-23T23:25:24.048-05:00Reality Has A Well-Known Liberal Bias<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHFc_n4G_kT40-dfYhfH0cu2zo0Fg9r2O2nMHxxzrCUZzCbjgdCcf6UO84MMY4rPHLFTBrOQrzcsz30AU_mgln28IRr-4e7sZVdjyw2YheRnxl-cCAafGkNP3ZyLf5ui-mlddoKd63NiY/s1600/colbert.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHFc_n4G_kT40-dfYhfH0cu2zo0Fg9r2O2nMHxxzrCUZzCbjgdCcf6UO84MMY4rPHLFTBrOQrzcsz30AU_mgln28IRr-4e7sZVdjyw2YheRnxl-cCAafGkNP3ZyLf5ui-mlddoKd63NiY/s320/colbert.jpg" width="240" /></a></div>
The title of this post comes from (the brilliant comedian) Stephen Colbert. For those who may not be familiar with the quote, it's something he said, back in 2006, at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Colbert_at_the_2006_White_House_Correspondents'_Association_Dinner" target="_blank">the White House Correspondents' Dinner</a>. In speaking about President George W. Bush, Colbert remarked as follows...<br />
<br />
"<i>Now, I know there are some polls out there saying this man has a 32 percent approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in reality. And reality has a well-known liberal bias.</i>"<br />
<br />
As with much of Colbert's work, the genius of this comment lies in how closely it aligns with the way conservatives <i>actually</i> see "reality". For example, growing up, I was told repeatedly that the media has a "liberal bias". It's something I still hear Christians say routinely today. Heck, maybe the media <i>does</i> have a liberal bias. Certainly it *<i>could*</i> be true, at least in theory, that people drawn to careers in journalism tend to lean to the left end of the political spectrum (or perhaps they move to the left over time). It would be interesting to see some hard research on that issue. At the same time, I do find it suspicious that many of these same people, who claim the media has a liberal bias, are unwilling to admit that Fox News has a conservative bias. In their minds, Fox just tells it like it is. <br />
<br />
Having said that, by way of setup, allow me to switch gears a little. I've managed, thus far, to stay completely away from politics on this website. I don't intend to change that now. What I'd like to do instead, in what follows, is apply and discuss this concept in the context of "liberal" vs. "conservative" <i>Christianity</i>. I've been thinking a lot lately about the differences between conservative and liberal versions of faith, and how they compare and contrast to my current atheism. Could it be the case that, when it comes to Christianity, the truth (or "reality") has a liberal bias? To put it a different way, <i>are liberal Christians closer to the truth than conservative ones</i>? This might seem like an odd thing, for an atheist like me to be pondering on, but so be it. <br />
<br />
Being that I grew up in a strongly evangelical household, liberal Christians have always been something of an enigma. While I was a Christian, I pretty much just thought they were guilty of not taking the Bible seriously enough. Incidentally, this is still essentially how a lot of conservative Christians view liberal believers. Now that I've done more research, on the Bible itself, I can see that, at least in certain select cases, liberal Christianity is (surprisingly) the result of taking the Bible <i><b>more</b></i> seriously. I think Thom Stark does an excellent job, of making this case, in his book "The Human Faces of God: What Scripture Reveals When It Gets God Wrong (and Why Inerrancy Tries to Hide It)". Who would ever want to say, with a straight face, that Stark doesn't take the Bible "seriously"? (Only people who haven't read the book.) In my estimation, Stark understands the salient issues much <i>better</i>, than even many of his fellow scholars do, and his so called "liberal" theological views clearly stem <i>directly <u>from</u></i> that deep familiarity. By this same logic, one could easily (and, I think, fairly effectively) argue that conservative Christianity is often connected to a <i>poor</i> understanding of the problems inherent to the Biblical texts themselves (among other things).<br />
<br />
So, that said, my answer to the aforementioned question, would be "yes". The more I think about it, the more I become convinced that liberal Christians are indeed closer to the truth, about Christianity <i>itself</i>, than are conservative ones. When I read Mark Driscoll I agree with very little of what he has to say. When I read Rob Bell I agree with much more. And when I read Thom Stark I agree with more still. In other words, on a sliding scale of conservative vs. liberal, the extent to which I agree with Christian writers is positively correlated with their level of liberalism. <br />
<br />
After I came to this realization, I began to actively seek out lines of evidence that would counter my conclusion. Being as I'm now keenly aware of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias" target="_blank">confirmation bias</a>, I never again want to fall into the all too common trap of believing something to be true primarily because I would <i>prefer</i> it to be true. I want my opinions to line up with <i>empirical</i> facts about the nature of reality, wherever and whenever possible. And in those instances where such evidence cannot or has not been obtained, for whatever reason, I am personally committed to holding those particular opinions with a much larger grain of salt.<br />
<br />
While I was still thinking on all of this <a href="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.ca/2012/05/what-happens-when-evangelicals-attract.html" target="_blank">I ran into a piece</a>, over at Debunking Christianity, that would seem, at least on the face of it, to provide empirical evidence <i>in support</i> of my prior conclusions. The article was about two University professors, that I had never heard of before (Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne) and the stir they have created recently at Lincoln Christian University. Frankly, I have little interest in the finer details of their story, but the long and the short of it is they have apparently endorsed views that just weren't conservative enough to keep them out of trouble. Now, if you've been paying close attention, you may feel (as I did) that you've heard this all before. Why is it, I wondered, that University professors, and other eminent Bible scholars, keep getting themselves into so much hot water? Didn't something similar happen to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Licona" target="_blank">Mike Licona</a>? And <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Enns" target="_blank">Peter Enns</a>? And now <a href="http://religionatthemargins.com/2012/09/the-affair-of-mr-blowers-and-the-blog-of-the-three-young-men-a-response-to-christopher-rollston%E2%80%99s-cultured-despisers/" target="_blank">Christopher Rollston</a>? I realize that all of these incidents involve different Biblical issues, and I don't intend to obscure the numerous and important distinctions between the various cases. But, in taking a step back, to look at the broader picture, I can't help but notice that there is a much larger point to be made here. Namely, <i>there is a trend toward liberalism, among Universities that pursue the best scholars to teach for them. </i>You might say that those Christian Universities, who want to attract the brightest, are playing with fire, if they also desire to remain acceptably conservative theologically speaking (perhaps within certain predetermined boundaries).<br />
<br />
But the deeper question is <b>why</b> might such a trend, toward liberalism, exist in the first place? I believe it's because the truth *<i><u>about</u> <u>Christianity</u>*</i> has a liberal bias. Loftus puts it this way, employing his usual combative style (but making an excellent point)...<br />
<br />
"<i>This is the trend folks, toward liberalism. IT DOES NOT WORK IN REVERSE. You never see a liberal college gradually become a conservative one. It only happens by firings or starting new colleges. The gradual trend over time is towards liberalism, which takes place naturally as scholars interact with other scholars. Kick against the goads all you want to. It's the trend. The only way to stay conservative is to cut yourself off from the wider scholarship at large. But then you'll just be talking to yourselves and be ignored by others. Scholars cannot allow themselves to do this and still be recognized as scholars. They must interact with the wider scholarly community. So the choice is to either have scholars and risk upsetting your constituents thereby being forced to fire them, or basically be culturally irrelevant as a University. But what University worthy of the name can stand for that? None should.</i>"<br />
<br />
It could also be noted that this makes sense of the fact that many formerly Christian Universities have become, over a long period of time, essentially secular institutions. I suspect a move to the left happens quite organically, <i>because that's where the evidence leads</i>. I still remember how surprised I was, as a teenager, when I found out that some of America's top Universities were initially founded as Christian institutions. Think Yale or Harvard. At the time it made me sad, because I thought they were straying from "the truth". Looking back, I wonder why it never occurred to me that the exact opposite might be the case. Maybe they strayed from their Christian roots <i><b>because</b></i> of their commitment to the truth. It's funny how time & education can change your perspective on things.<br />
<br />
Had I encountered the above information, while still a Christian, I probably would have either: a) denied it, b) brushed it off, or c) blamed it on the devil (and/or man's sinful nature). After all, the Bible says that Satan is the "<a href="http://bible.cc/ephesians/2-2.htm" target="_blank"><i>prince of the power of the air</i></a>". In other words, he supposedly controls a lot of things (and people) here on planet Earth. Most unbelievers don't mean to help out the devil, they just don't realize that Jesus said "<a href="http://bible.cc/matthew/12-30.htm" target="_blank"><i>he who is not with me is against me</i></a>". Poor suckers. They're in Satan's service and they don't even realize it. One of my favorite Bible verses also used to be <a href="http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/1-25.htm" target="_blank">1 Corinthians 1:25</a>, which says, "<i>For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom...</i>". This struck me as profound, back then, even though it's really just saying that a god, assuming one exists in the first place, would naturally be smarter than us people are (seems kind of obvious now). <br />
<br />
I could go on, but I think you get the idea. If you're a conservative (aka committed evangelical) Christian, I sincerely hope you won't make the same mistakes that I did. I made them for 25 long years. Please consider alternative viewpoints honestly and fully. I might recommend starting with <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Human-Faces-God-Scripture/dp/160899323X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1353718166&sr=8-1&keywords=Thom+Stark" target="_blank">Stark's book</a>.<br />
<br />
At this point, you might be wondering why I consider myself an atheist, instead of a liberal Christian. After all, I've said nary a critical word about them here. It's a good question, and one that I'll endeavor to answer in my next post.Respectful Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03303760970096374936noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812241728597205774.post-90393502789661967742012-11-10T12:08:00.000-05:002012-11-10T19:18:19.584-05:00Faith, Doubt, And The Power Of Positive ThinkingA loose acquaintance of mine recently got into a bad traffic accident. You might call him a "friend of a friend of a friend"; we don't really know each other, very well, but we travel in similar circles.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, it appears as if he may now be paralyzed. Obviously, it's a tough situation but, from what I hear, he is maintaining an extremely positive (even cheery) attitude in the hospital. For the record, and lest I be accused of implying otherwise, I think this is downright awesome. There is a great wisdom in learning to accept those things, in life, that we cannot control. It reminds me of a saying that my mother taught me, when I was younger;<br />
<br />
"<i>God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,</i><br />
<i>The courage to change the things I can,</i><br />
<i>And the wisdom to know the difference.</i>"<br />
<br />
I now realize that this is what's known as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serenity_Prayer" target="_blank">serenity prayer</a> but, as a kid, it just seemed like another one of those deep things my mom said (she said a lot of those). Of course, today, as an atheist, I no longer believe that it's god who grants serenity. The truth is, it comes from <i>within <b>us</b></i>. <br />
<br />
A few days ago, I became privy to an update on this acquaintance of mine. The message, in part, read as follows...<br />
<br />
"<i>...(he has) inspired many with his faith and total trust in the Lord as he seeks to honor Him while clawing his way back. The most beautiful part of this is the fact that he knows the Lord has never changed in the midst of this.</i>"<br />
<br />
As I was reading the update, and the above section in particular, it hit me that <i>Christians routinely confuse the ideas of faith and positivity</i>. <b>In the mind of the Christian, persistent faith and trust in god, even in the face of great tragedy, is equated with internal strength and fortitude</b>. <br />
<br />
In similar scenarios, you will often hear believers speak of how so and so has been a real "witness", to the doctors and nurses. In other words, their positive attitude has caused the medical staff to wonder about (or even envy) their Christian faith. This is part and parcel to being "salt and light", to "the world", a great source of pride for the believer.<br />
<br />
But, let's suppose, for a moment, that you or I were to become suddenly paralyzed (or we received some other devastating medical diagnosis). We would be faced with two basic cognitive choices, in the aftermath of such terrible news: a) believe that god has a plan and, as such, that we were paralyzed "<a href="http://respectfulatheist.blogspot.ca/2012/08/empty-platitudes.html" target="_blank">for a reason</a>", or b) believe that we were paralyzed simply due to a freak accident (no plan, no reason, it just sucks). <br />
<br />
Now, which one of these things is <i>easier</i> to believe? I'm not asking which one is better, or which one you personally believe, I'm asking which one is <b>easier</b> to believe. (Go back, and read them again, before answering too quickly.)<br />
<br />
It seems clear, when reflected upon in this way, that many would admit it's probably easier (at least for most people) to believe that their paralysis (or what have you) is all part of god's ultimate plan in some mysterious way. If this is the case though, than why is maintaining faith in god viewed as a sign of <i>strength</i> in such situations? Wouldn't losing your faith actually take <i>more</i> strength, according to this same logic? After all, then you would have to fully admit that it's up to you, to make the best out of your really difficult situation. No miraculous healing will come, and there is no grand plan from above.<br />
<br />
At this point, one might be inclined to see the latter option as depressing. Is it even realistic, to expect that someone could maintain a positive attitude, while viewing it in this way?<br />
<br />
<i><b>Yes</b>. </i>I'm certainly not claiming it's easy, but many have proven that it can be done.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBLdZg3ImN-QTQ45RPnKQMso8acE_EeRNxIysLaYxzMGv_Col-j6U4GY_ZCeCr5glZsB1No5g2BnAa4Y4rofvRM8q1LSPhBSTN14LG6FKF7RmuK2c_Y10LGjYFQ5w-dVS5R4nwzhlimRo/s1600/cnnreeve.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBLdZg3ImN-QTQ45RPnKQMso8acE_EeRNxIysLaYxzMGv_Col-j6U4GY_ZCeCr5glZsB1No5g2BnAa4Y4rofvRM8q1LSPhBSTN14LG6FKF7RmuK2c_Y10LGjYFQ5w-dVS5R4nwzhlimRo/s320/cnnreeve.jpg" width="267" /></a></div>
Allow me to offer up Christopher Reeve, as just one shining example. I greatly admired (the late) Reeve, for displaying to the world a stellar attitude, despite his significant health challenges. I have nothing but the highest respect for those who, like Reeve, steadfastly refuse to feel sorry for themselves. Incidentally, Christopher Hitchens handled himself with a similar grace, during his final days. I think it's pretty clear that <i>strength comes the inside</i>, as I have claimed, and it actually has nothing to do with the supernatural at all. Having said that, I <i>do</i> think that believing in god can make it much <i>easier</i> for someone to come to terms (internally) with such tragedies. I don't fault Christians for this. I understand the appeal, of believing as they do, in particular since I once believed it myself. <br />
<br />
All of this does imply, however, that religious belief acts as something of a crutch, or at least that it provides great emotional comfort, since it infuses meaning into things which would (otherwise) seem senseless and random (making them feel even <i>more</i> tragic). It's one of the factors that makes faith so prevalent, and difficult to shake off, especially for those experiencing a lot of hard knocks in life. Staring reality square in the face can be pretty daunting. Incidentally, I've written a little already about how (I believe) faith acts as an emotional coping mechanism, <a href="http://respectfulatheist.blogspot.ca/2012/06/giving-god-credit.html" target="_blank">right here</a>, but it's a topic I will likely return to again and again.<br />
<br />
For now, let's circle back to the question I started with; <i>why do Christians equate faith with internal strength</i>? I think the answer is found by taking a step back to examine, more broadly, how Christians see the world from the outset. When they trumpet the fact that so and so continued believing, even after something admittedly awful, what they're really saying is that he or she persisted in their faith <i>despite evidence that might seem to suggest the contrary</i>. In other words, they're continuously affirming, to one another, that even though such and such may *seem* random (or meaningless), it's really not what it seems. It's akin to saying, "<i>our in-group believes that god has all things under his control, so we're going to esteem you verbally, for still believing in that, despite what you're going through right now</i>". It is for this same reason they will often admonish one another, with faith affirming platitudes such as "<i>keep the faith!</i>", as if doing so were just inherently a good thing. This assumption, that religious faith is <i>always</i> good and right, by its very nature, is simply never challenged inside the Christian bubble.<br />
<br />
My goal, in this post, has been to untangle the concepts of faith and positivity. As it happens, I think the same sort of confusion exists, on the flip side, regarding the concepts of <i>skepticism</i> and <i>negativity</i> (or cynicism). I consider myself to be a skeptic, and proud of it, but I am not a "negative person", nor am I cynical in any way (admittedly, I can be sarcastic sometimes :)). Doubt is not a bad thing, it's a sign of intellectual maturity, so a skeptic should never be accused of bringing negativity into a discussion (simply because they have introduced doubt into the given equation).Respectful Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03303760970096374936noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812241728597205774.post-34134324044937227562012-10-19T18:40:00.000-04:002012-10-19T18:41:28.525-04:00The Problem With Pascal's Wager<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/xIErAz-ZO-I?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
Respectful Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03303760970096374936noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812241728597205774.post-72960848495727090472012-10-14T15:28:00.003-04:002012-10-14T21:26:40.438-04:00Repent And Believe<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgG0YymjKlg1Nat5_OKnphM4vYXh43Gt42TAVd29Ss7zD5W2zNbYnN9uFtyDh9aJ649ZEmg4K1dxFKGFnrkec-2ltohZF1J2kJZJm-C4Qv85k6YMcl7xsiX1FabdiI8taSrr5QXec0xNrQ/s1600/asset_upload_file188_12278.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgG0YymjKlg1Nat5_OKnphM4vYXh43Gt42TAVd29Ss7zD5W2zNbYnN9uFtyDh9aJ649ZEmg4K1dxFKGFnrkec-2ltohZF1J2kJZJm-C4Qv85k6YMcl7xsiX1FabdiI8taSrr5QXec0xNrQ/s200/asset_upload_file188_12278.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
Recently, I attended an evangelistic outreach type meeting. Y'know, the kind where they hold an invitation, at the end of the service, and ask people to come forward to "accept Jesus as their lord and personal savior". It's the first such event I have attended, since becoming an atheist nearly 3 years ago now. <br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As you might well imagine, such experiences strike me a lot differently than they used to. For example, I couldn't help but notice how strongly the evening, as a whole, played to people's emotions. Was church always like this, I wondered? Perhaps it was, and I have just forgotten all too quickly. Somehow that world feels so foreign to me already. Quite frankly, a few of the personal stories, shared that night, were downright gut wrenching. Anybody with half a heart would have been profoundly moved, by certain aspects, <i>and I was</i>. It served to remind me, rather poignantly, of something I already knew (but sometimes forget); namely, that a lot of people come initially to belief in Jesus because of how it makes them <i><b>feel</b></i>. I've written about this dynamic before, <a href="http://respectfulatheist.blogspot.ca/2011/12/roots-of-faith.html" target="_blank">right here</a>, but it was a good reminder nonetheless.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It was the invitation itself though, that really grabbed my attention. There was nothing unusual about it, per se, in fact you might even say it was pretty ordinary (as far as invitations to accept Christ go). The preacher focused heavily on the guilt that we all should feel, for having done bad things in our lives, and then moved straight into the "Jesus can forgive you" clincher. The line that I remember most, went roughly something like this, "<i>by coming forward tonight you are saying to God 'I repent of my sins, and I believe that Jesus was your son</i>'". As the preacher continued on with his plea, it occurred to me that this simple line of his encapsulates one of my single biggest objections to the Christian faith. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Let's look at the line again, and see if you can guess what I will take issue with. (Keep in mind these probably weren't his exact words, but it matters not to my general point.) Here it is again, "<i>by coming forward tonight you are saying to God, 'I repent of my sins, AND I BELIEVE THAT JESUS WAS YOUR SON</i>'". Let me state my objection plainly...</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b><i>The preacher was pitching repentance but, in so doing, he was smuggling intellectual assent through the back door. </i></b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Now, you might be tempted to ask, so what? What exactly is the difference anyway, between repentance and "intellectual assent"? I might have asked the same question, only a few short years ago. Let's think about it for a moment. When Christians speak of the need for "repentance", what they basically mean is that the given person needs to feel badly for falling short of God's perfection. So, to "repent" is to turn around, admit your wrongdoing, and head in the other direction. That's essentially it. But what on earth does this have to do with the purely historical proposition that Jesus was God's son? I'll tell you what...<i>nothing whatsoever.</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
On the rare occasion I bring this objection up to Christians, they tend to say something along the lines of "<i>well, it's impossible to repent to someone that you don't believe in</i>". True enough. <i>But this is precisely my point</i>. Intellectual assent (belief) is a non-negotiable, according to basic Christian theology. It may not be the <i>only</i> thing needed for salvation since, after all, "<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+2%3A14-26&version=NIV" target="_blank">even the demons believe</a>" (that there is one god), but it's certainly <i>one of</i> the required elements. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Allow me to further illustrate my point...let's suppose that someone is generally o.k. with the idea that we're all imperfect, but they have serious doubts about whether or not Jesus was God, rose from the dead, or performed miracles etc. Can such a person make it to heaven, without changing their mind on the factual claims? I have yet to meet a single Christian who answers "yes" to this question (in fact, most give it a resounding "no"). In other words, a lack of intellectual assent (aka belief) precludes you from being a Christian. Right? <b>But the preacher said nary a word, during the course of the sermon, about why we should believe the proposition that Jesus was God's son</b>. <u>Not</u> <u>one</u> <u>word</u>. After all, Jesus could well have been something else, like just a man, yes? So, what gives him (the preacher) the right to insist that people intellectually assent to something they haven't properly investigated; especially something so incredibly important, and controversial? Isn't this bordering on the irresponsible? Was he meaning to implicitly suggest that unbelievers go home, read up on the relevant research, and then come to an informed conclusion, on their own, when they feel ready to do so? Quite the contrary! In fact, he implored the audience members to make an <i>immediate</i> decision, to "<i>accept or reject</i>" Jesus, before it was too late for their very souls. What's worst of all, to me, is that he did it under the pretext that they were merely admitting to having done some bad things in life. (Who hasn't?) <br />
<br />
To be perfectly clear, I don't mean to imply there was deceitful intent, in the way the gospel was presented that evening. On the contrary, I think the preacher's message was actually quite representative of how the Christian message is very <i>typically</i> packaged. I've heard hundreds of salvation sermons throughout the years and, as best as I can recall, only a tiny handful of them have so much as *<i>mentioned*</i> issues relevant to the historical claims of Christianity. Even in those rare instances, often the "facts" are given a shallow, Lee Strobel-ish sort of treatment. It may sound impressive enough, to the totally uninitiated, but (unsurprisingly) the counter arguments are rarely broached in any serious way, if broached at all. (I led many people to Christ myself, while I was a believer, and usually via "<a href="http://www.gotquestions.org/Romans-road-salvation.html" target="_blank">The Romans Road</a>".)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I couldn't help but wonder, as people stepped out to get "saved", how many of them were versant in the historical research pertaining to Jesus. Had they sufficiently considered, for example, the evidence pointing to him as a failed apocalyptic prophet? (For a taste, see <a href="http://respectfulatheist.blogspot.ca/2011/09/was-jesus-wrong.html" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://respectfulatheist.blogspot.ca/2011/09/was-jesus-wrong-part-2.html" target="_blank">here</a>, and <a href="http://respectfulatheist.blogspot.ca/2011/09/man-of-his-time.html" target="_blank">here</a>.) I strongly doubt it. In fact, I doubt that most of them would even have known what an apocalyptic prophet was. Regardless, <b>they were tacitly assenting to the belief that Jesus was God's son </b><b><i>by going forward. </i></b>Given that the sermon focused almost exclusively on repentance, the brute reality is these sorts of intellectual questions were, rather ironically, likely the furthest thing from their minds in that moment. <br />
<br />
In Christianity, the belief often just comes as part of <i>the package deal</i>.</div>
Respectful Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03303760970096374936noreply@blogger.com17tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812241728597205774.post-59223828801530697802012-10-08T16:01:00.000-04:002012-10-09T07:55:55.707-04:00Hearing From GodSeptember tends to be one of my busiest months of the year, if not my busiest, which is why it's been so long since my last post. I will (hopefully) be able to put a little more effort in here, moving forward.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This time around I'd like to offer a few of my current thoughts on how Christians <i>hear from god</i>. You see, I have a Christian friend who recently experienced a major professional disappointment. I don't want to get into the details but, suffice it to say, a project they were working on did not turn out the way they had hoped and expected it would. I did my best to be encouraging, even complimentary, since I felt they had done an excellent job on the project (regardless of the outcome).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But here was the really interesting part...in subsequent conversations my friend indicated that, despite the initial disappointment, she was ultimately o.k. with the failure of the project itself. What was confusing her now was one question, and one question only, namely "where is god in all of this?" (Her words.) I had to admire her candor, and willingness to be vulnerable. After positing this question, my friend shared with me about how she felt god had spoken very clearly to her, during a Christian event, telling her to move forward with this particular project. Prior to that point, she said, her focus had simply been elsewhere. In other words, she would not have pursued the project, to begin with, had she not felt that god was literally telling her to do so. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So, what happened? In my observation, there are three ways (possibly more) that Christians internally process these sorts of scenarios. Let's look at each of them, in turn, and then I'll offer a few thoughts of my own...</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>I Didn't Hear From God Correctly</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I suppose one possibility is that my friend simply didn't hear from God correctly. Perhaps the physical sensations, that she says she felt, were nothing more than a chill in the air because the room temperature was too cold that night. Or maybe the devil was trying to deceive her, by pretending to be god. I hear Satan does that sort of thing sometimes. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgixkujKZ3sx2c3Bduz4ix19BGqAR7MhtV9XHGByGO3Sg3IT4AFLAjuMNfpEXvzXbThS6K72NQ8AChtIqpKZsVn77ccvRKMCpyL7G-H1UGDrCwqiF0csfb9Bu6415P-TWd_sJt8aXnnuqI/s1600/hearing-gods-voice_1.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgixkujKZ3sx2c3Bduz4ix19BGqAR7MhtV9XHGByGO3Sg3IT4AFLAjuMNfpEXvzXbThS6K72NQ8AChtIqpKZsVn77ccvRKMCpyL7G-H1UGDrCwqiF0csfb9Bu6415P-TWd_sJt8aXnnuqI/s1600/hearing-gods-voice_1.gif" /></a></div>
<div>
<b>God Wanted To Teach Me Something</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Another extremely common response, in the wake of such disappointments, is to claim that god's ultimate goal was to teach the believer something. It <i>is</i> true, after all, that we often learn and grow as a result of our failures. Would any reasonable person want to deny this? On top of that, according to the Christian worldview, god's ultimate goal is to mold us into his character. Given this, the "success", of this or that earthly initiative, is not really his main concern at the end of the day (even though it might sometimes be ours).<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<b>God Wanted To Test My Obedience</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Even in those cases where the believer might feel as if they didn't consciously learn anything, from the experience, they still have an out. It remains possible, even after every other potential avenue has been exhausted, that god simply wanted to test the given believer's willingness to obey. Would my friend follow through, on what god had clearly asked her to do, or wouldn't she? The choice was hers to make (and god was watching). Perhaps this whole situation was primarily intended as a test of her faith.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So why do I, as an atheist, and former Christian, now reject each of these interpretations? Let's go through them again...</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>I Didn't Hear From God Correctly</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The problem with this one, as I see it, lies in the fact that there are no unambiguous "hearing from god" criteria, in Christian circles. I mean, how is one to know whether or not they are hearing from god "correctly"? Isn't it something of a crap shoot? (Excuse the term.) Believers will typically encourage one another to match these sorts of personal revelations to the Bible (to be sure they are, at the very least, not anti-Biblical) but, other than that, how is one to know? <i>Can a Christian ever be entirely confident that they have indeed heard from god?</i> If so, how?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>God Wanted To Teach Me Something</b></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
This is especially tricky because, as I already pointed out, we <i>do</i> often learn things through failure. There's no doubt about that. In my friend's case though, the project in question was actually quite similar to one they had undertaken previously. As such, even after it was over, my friend didn't feel as if they had learned anything new, per se. They pursued it anyway because, in their perception, god told them to pursue it, period.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>God Wanted To Test My Obedience</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Christians have this bizarre way of taking things that "should" cause them to doubt, and flipping them around into faith building exercises. For example, if God feels silent, in your daily quiet time, it's not because he isn't there. It's because he wants to see if you will still remain faithful, <i>even in the midst of the silence</i>. Or, when a loved one dies of cancer, god is quietly asking, "will you trust me now?"</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
When caught up in this mode of thinking, as I once was, there is literally *nothing* that counts as a strike against your faith. You've re-structured <u>all</u> of life's events, both good and bad, into a giant faith affirming, totally unfalsifiable paradigm. It's not unlike the way Christians view god's potential answers to prayer; namely, <a href="http://respectfulatheist.blogspot.ca/2011/07/even-more-questions.html" target="_blank">yes, no, or wait</a>. But given that those are the only three options, <i>even in theory</i>, how would a believer <b>ever</b> come to the conclusion that prayer doesn't work? Perhaps it explains, in part, why so few of them <i>do</i> come to that conclusion. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I'd like to close by telling you what I suspect really happened, in my friend's case. I'm not claiming to know for absolute certain, of course, but if you'll humor me I'd like to give it a whirl...</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I think my friend probably felt torn, about whether or not to pursue this new project, but was leaning in the "no" direction initially. The clock was ticking, on the potential for implementation of the project, so on one level they knew that a decision would need to be made on it fairly soon. Something was said, during the course of the evening, that my friend took to be a word straight from god to them. Every Christian knows what I'm talking about here. It's like you are the only one in the room and, somehow or another, god has given the speaker just the right words to say. Those words were meant for you, of that there is no doubt in your mind. God not only wanted you to attend the given event, he even orchestrated in advance the words that would be spoken (knowing, of course, that you would be there). This is pretty rad stuff.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Circling back to my friend, these words caused an emotional reaction in her, at a deep level, leading to physical shivers and the whole deal. I believe most of this happens beneath the level of conscious awareness. Due to her worldview, she naturally interpreted her reaction as a primarily spiritual (rather than primarily emotional) experience...in effect, <i>it was god telling her to pursue the project</i>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I should also point out that, from my purview now, this sort of thing is another clear example of <a href="http://respectfulatheist.blogspot.ca/2012/03/patternicity.html" target="_blank">patternicity</a> + <a href="http://respectfulatheist.blogspot.ca/2012/03/agenticity.html" target="_blank">agenticity</a>. The speaker in question likely said something reasonably vague, that could be applied to any number of situations. (Think fortune cookies, horoscopes, or even the prophecies of Nostradamus.) Depending on their emotional state, many in the audience (perhaps not all) will hear these words and apply it (internally) to their own situation(s). This first part is called patternicity. In other words, they have established a connection between what was said, however general, and a very specific and personal situation. The second step, of course, is to attribute this new mental connection to an agent; namely, in this case, the Christian god that the audience members already believe in. So, the full pattern goes like this: a) vague, but inspiring, statement made, b) vague statement internally applied to personal situation(s) = c) god must be speaking to me, through one of my fellow human beings, about my personal situation. <b>In short, <i>it's a false pattern applied to an intentional agent</i></b>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I don't realistically expect Christians to immediately abandon their worldview, if/when they get confused about whether or not god has spoken to them in a particular scenario. My goals here are a little more modest. What I <i>would</i> like, and don't see as unreasonable, is for them to at least <i><b>consider</b></i> the fact that <i>natural explanations *might* be more plausible</i>. <i>Maybe</i> god's voice is confusing because he doesn't speak at all. And <i>maybe</i> he doesn't speak because he isn't real. <i>Maybe</i> your perceived "relationship with god" is a product of factors internal to your brain, and nothing beyond that. <i>Maybe, just maybe, </i>it has always been this way. <br />
<br />
I realize it's still a very tall order. (Believe me, I've been there.) </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
These are the things I wanted desperately to say to my friend, but couldn't, since she believes that I am still a Christian. Instead, I just did my best to be supportive, and I shied away from offering the sorts of pat answers I suspected she was getting from some of her other friends.</div>
Respectful Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03303760970096374936noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812241728597205774.post-61085535014929188222012-08-24T18:29:00.000-04:002012-08-25T07:56:03.594-04:00Christ-Like AtheismNow that I'm an atheist, I can't help but notice that a lot of believers strongly associate particular virtues with Christianity. Some of these laudable attributes have become <i><b>so</b></i> closely tied to the Christian faith, in fact, that some people have difficulty even recognizing the distinction between Christian beliefs and "Christian values". In their minds, Christianity is a package deal. What I mean to say is, "Christian values" have become bound, intractably, to the belief that Jesus was god, that he rose from the dead, and so on and so forth. If you accept one (Christian beliefs), in so doing you accept the other ("Christian values"); and if you reject one (Christian beliefs), it is assumed that you have also rejected the other ("Christian values"). Or so the thinking goes. <br />
<br />
But, does Christianity really have ownership over these values? <br />
<br />
Clearly not, because I am an atheist who <b><i>still believes</i></b> in many of these (so called) "Christian" ideas. Is this merely because I was raised in a Christian home and culture? And does it also make me a Christian (or Christian-ish) atheist? Is such a thing even possible? Let me offer some examples, so you can see what I mean; three concepts; commonly associated with Christianity, that I still adhere to...<br />
<br />
<b>Forgiveness</b><br />
<br />
I was taken aback, a few weeks ago, while browsing another atheist's blog (not one from my blog roll). The author, whose name I can't even remember, was listing off certain elements of Christianity that they now repudiate. A little dramatic, perhaps, but fair enough. I agreed with the content of everything they were saying. That is, until they happened to throw <i>forgiveness</i> into the mix. Whoa. Wait a second here. You reject <i>forgiveness</i>? Why exactly? <br />
<br />
Don't get me wrong, I'm open to the suggestion that forgiveness *might* be a bad idea. But I strongly suspect that Christians have it exactly right, when they extol forgiveness as a virtue. I would need to hear a pretty solid argument that it's not, before just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In the absence of such a well formulated case, it seemed to me that this might be precisely what the atheist blogger in question was doing.<br />
<br />
Having said that, I do think that a lot of people misunderstand forgiveness. As I see it, forgiveness is not about releasing the offender from responsibility for their actions. Rather, it's about releasing <b>you</b> from the resentment that resides in your heart; this resentment is, quite possibly, rotting away at your insides anyway. A number of studies have shown that people who forgive report less health problems. They are also happier.<br />
<br />
And forgiveness doesn't imply that what the offender did was o.k., as if you had somehow sanctioned their actions by releasing your anger. You can forgive someone, fully and completely, but still not wish to ever so much as see or be associated with that person again.<br />
<br />
Now, I obviously no longer believe that we are commanded, by a supreme being, to forgive (lest we not be forgiven ourselves, <a href="http://bible.cc/luke/6-37.htm" target="_blank">like the Bible threatens</a>). Doesn't such a threat cheapen forgiveness anyway? <br />
<br />
But I still think forgiveness is a pretty darn good idea, at least most of the time; and I don't need to believe Jesus rose from the dead to see that.<br />
<br />
<b>Serving Others</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgroOd-p3ukBWBU8w4fF7hC-PN1eTeJJwLb6l-Qw9ryDHZXTSxUSg8iEDkOK7PtY5IrPQZLQonzIpq1frCGfiaI2uz3ScbtXdeu6j89aOjraY2Hb3XH7zAbS_FCS9BfqIy7rK7rV4enJTw/s1600/serve.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgroOd-p3ukBWBU8w4fF7hC-PN1eTeJJwLb6l-Qw9ryDHZXTSxUSg8iEDkOK7PtY5IrPQZLQonzIpq1frCGfiaI2uz3ScbtXdeu6j89aOjraY2Hb3XH7zAbS_FCS9BfqIy7rK7rV4enJTw/s200/serve.png" width="200" /></a></div>
I won't spend a lot of time here because, in so far as I can tell, most atheists are completely with me on this issue. It's one of the things I appreciate most about blogs like "<a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/" target="_blank">Friendly Atheist</a>", for example. Hemant frequently spotlights atheist humanitarian initiatives, of one form or another, and I say the more the better. This is precisely the sort of thing that atheists need to become known for, in my view, <i>if we are to change the public's perception of atheism</i>. (Need I remind anyone that polls generally show we are not viewed favorably by society at large?)<br />
<br />
I have often wished that there were more secular organizations offering the equivalent of the church mission trip. These trips, even though they often last only a few days or weeks, have given many a Christian a sense of real purpose and meaning (especially young people). <i>Atheists need to make it abundantly clear that you need not buy into the Christian worldview to have such purpose</i>. You can serve the poor without proselytizing. In fact, you don't even have to do it "in the name of Jesus". How about doing it simply in the name of compassion and empathy for your fellow man? What's wrong with that? Is any additional motivation really needed? (Side note--If anyone does know of atheist organizations, that offer something comparable to the church mission trip, please enlighten me in the comments section below.)<br />
<br />
When atheists show, through their <b>actions</b>, that they are good people it has a weird (cognitive dissonance) effect on Christians. It becomes increasingly difficult to imagine that someone *deserves* to burn in hell, for all eternity, when every time you see them they are on their knees serving food to the poor (or something equally awesome). This is a dynamic that I have previously termed "<a href="http://respectfulatheist.blogspot.ca/2012/02/ellen-effect.html" target="_blank">The Ellen Effect</a>". <br />
<br />
Let me also point out quickly that serving others goes well beyond charity work. It applies in the business world (serving the customer), in marriage (serving our spouse), and so on. <br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>I still believe in service</i>, and that leads me nicely to my final point.<br />
<br />
<b>Humility</b><br />
<b><br /></b>Humility is one of those things that's challenging to write about. As soon as someone begins to wax eloquent, on the topic of humility, they run the very legitimate risk of being accused of arrogance. It's like the old joke, about the guy who wrote the book, "101 Ways To Be Humble...And How I Achieved It".<br />
<br />
So, I do not intend to claim, or even imply, that I am a humble person myself. But I do want to make the point that I still very much <i>believe in the concept </i>of humility. Nothing will cause me to gain (or lose) respect for someone, more quickly, than the perception of humility (or the lack thereof) in that individual. It's a character trait that I greatly admire.<br />
<br />
So, there you have it--forgiveness, serving others, and humility--three "Christian" values that I still believe in. In my opinion, the emphasis Christians place on these attributes, and others I haven't mentioned, is representative of the very best that Christianity has to offer the world today. <br />
<br />
What's my point, you ask? Well, I have two of them, and with those I will close...<br />
<b><i><br /></i></b>
My first point is that "Christian values", such as the three I've listed here, have nothing to do with the claim that Jesus was god. Let me say that again; <b>"Christian values" have nothing to do with whether or not Christianity's core assertions are true</b>. This might seem obvious, and it is, but it needs to be said out loud because many Christians assume that it's <i>their values</i> us skeptics are rejecting at root (instead of <i>their beliefs</i>). This is a hidden subtext in statements like, "he's just rebelling against god", but it's completely ass backwards. As I have just explained, I <i>still</i> accept many "Christian values", but I think I've also made it clear, in previous posts, that I fully reject Christianity's historical claims.<br />
<i><b><br /></b></i>
My second, and I think most important, point is this...what many people refer to as "Christian values" are not unique to Christianity. <b>"Christian values" are only considered "Christian values" because, over time, certain concepts have become attached at the hip to the Christian message</b>. Is forgiveness discussed in the Bible? <a href="http://bible.cc/matthew/18-22.htm" target="_blank">Sure</a>! But that doesn't mean it's an exclusively Christian idea. In fact, nearly every religion teaches on forgiveness. Humility is also seen as a virtue in numerous religious and philosophical traditions. Christianity has co-opted plenty of good ideas, but that doesn't mean Yahweh or Jesus invented them (yet this is precisely what some believers think).<br />
<br />
This hit me like a ton of bricks, a few weeks ago, when a friend told me that, of all the Christians he knew, I reminded him the most of Jesus. (He never would have said this, of course, had he known he was actually talking to an atheist.) My first internal reaction was, "wow, what an incredible compliment". My second, almost immediately after, was, "hold on a minute, something's not right here". As I thought about it more, I realized that what he meant to convey is he sees in me characteristics he finds admirable. In other words, my friend was simply assuming (wrongly, I think) that Jesus was the embodiment of all things commendable in human behavior. According to this logic, if you are kind, gracious, forgiving, or whatever it might happen to be, this automatically means you are "like Jesus". It's the ultimate conflation of "Christian values" and Christian beliefs. I suspect that most Christians think this way about Jesus. Sometimes they will also take it a step further; picking up on something that Jesus said or did, in the gospels, and then attempting to frame that thing as if it were his central message while here on Earth ("Jesus was '<i>all about</i>' serving the poor, didn't you know?").<br />
<br />
So, as it turns out, the title of this post is something of a misnomer. To say that someone is "Christ-like', is to assume: a) that Jesus was in fact "the Christ", and b) that Jesus had the very best character traits any human being could ever aspire to. I don't happen to think either of those things are true. Respectful Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03303760970096374936noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812241728597205774.post-20550665748203836572012-08-13T19:35:00.001-04:002012-08-21T19:34:30.882-04:00Does God Heal?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQX4Cg-Ct7Ktn7-HCdzTjSFuEajQaYK2rSaQq4vhQ3sROvp5bcX5-Xpc9CXTD_rQwHOWG4Pq8fqSWOpruxn8Wf0dAfJ-oSJmSgRUtS7mbd_cuKcHk-dUGyNZD80CxBldLHclXrmmNJzco/s1600/bennyhinninindia_thumb.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="226" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQX4Cg-Ct7Ktn7-HCdzTjSFuEajQaYK2rSaQq4vhQ3sROvp5bcX5-Xpc9CXTD_rQwHOWG4Pq8fqSWOpruxn8Wf0dAfJ-oSJmSgRUtS7mbd_cuKcHk-dUGyNZD80CxBldLHclXrmmNJzco/s320/bennyhinninindia_thumb.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
I didn't realize, until well after my de-conversion, how often Christians use the word "miracle"...it seems to be especially prevalent in relation to <i>physical healing</i>. Miracle is just another one of those words that you grow accustomed to hearing, when you're part of the Christian subculture, so it doesn't really draw mental red flags in the way that it probably should. <br />
<br />
Under the category of "million dollar questions", here's a biggie; <i>do physical healing miracles happen today</i>?<br />
<br />
I certainly can't *prove* that they don't, but let me just say instead that I am no longer convinced miracles exist as a real entity in <b><i>any</i> supernatural</b> (god directed) sense at all; <i>or that they <u>ever</u> have</i>. <br />
<br />
It seems to me a sizable chunk of evangelicals are already skeptical of the so called faith healers, such as Benny Hinn or Todd Bentley, and well they should be (even though both of these guys have large followings; Hinn in particular). Given their already controversial nature, even <i>within</i> Christian circles, I'm not going to waste much time commenting on that movement (despite the Hinn photo above).<br />
<br />
Instead, I'd like to discuss briefly the very broadly accepted Christian belief that god regularly heals people <i>as a result of the prayers of their friends and family</i>. If you are a Christian, chances are high you believe this to your very core. You probably know someone, or even several people, who have received a "miracle" by way of god's physical healing. <br />
<br />
There are two such cases, that have come to my attention quite organically, which will serve to illustrate my recent observations in this respect. In both of these cases it was the word "miracle" (or "miraculous"), which initially grabbed my attention and got me to thinking. Before I jump into it, let me be quick to admit that anecdotes never *<i>prove*</i> anything, one way or the other (and we could trade them back and forth all day). So my intention here is simply to use these two cases as a springboard for further thought & analysis, specifically on the issue of god's supposed involvement in physical healing. <br />
<br />
I should also mention that these cases represent people I know personally.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b><u>Case #1</u></b><br />
<b><br /></b>
A few months back, I went to the website of a Christian leader (an individual who is incidentally sort of a mini-celebrity, in certain limited circles). I don't want to get into the specifics, so as not to reveal her exact identity, but there was a line in her biography that really leapt off the screen. It said that she was "<i>miraculously healed of a terminal illness</i>". Wow. That sounds really cool, and it certainly helps to give her story some serious street cred. (*Note to those who weren't raised in a Christian home...in Christian culture, the more stuff that you've been "saved from", the cooler you are considered to be. It's an odd dynamic.) <br />
<br />
As it happened, she actually also mentioned the name of the illness, but only in passing, so I decided to look it up on wikipedia. You may have trouble believing this, but I always try to keep an open mind about these sorts of stories. I realize, on one level, that I could be wrong about atheism. I sincerely don't think I am wrong, but I am not so arrogant as to rule out the very possibility. Maybe I was right before, and Christianity is true? If that's the case, I want to be the first to find out. This is, in part, why I retain a certain curiosity about statements like the one contained in her bio.<br />
<br />
Anyway, to my genuine surprise, the wikipedia article included the following line, "<i><b>remission can be achieved in up to 60-80% of cases</b></i>". <br />
<br />
Huh? <br />
<br />
How could she not have mentioned this?? <br />
<br />
If "<i>remission can be achieved in up to 60-80% of cases</i>", than why did she refer to the healing as "miraculous"? This is extremely confusing to someone like me. <br />
<br />
The ironic thing is it actually would have been <i>more</i> "miraculous", if you want to put it in that way, if she had <i><b>not</b></i> gone into remission after treatment. If remission is achieved<i> "in up to 60-80% of cases</i>", the odds were actually in her favor!!<br />
<br />
See my problem there? <br />
<br />
<b><u>Case #2</u></b><br />
<br />
Although it bugged me a little, at the time, I quickly forgot about case number 1 and moved on with my life. That is, until a few weeks later, when I had a prolonged conversation with another Christian who also threw out the word "miracle"; and once again in reference to a personal illness. While my other friends, who were also a part of the conversation, were busy saying how awesome they thought that was (and relating their own stories of god's healing of their own friends/family members), I took it upon myself to ask her what the name of her sickness had been. I also expressed to her my sincere congratulations, on the fact that she was o.k. now, and I did my best to divert away from the god talk. I simply wanted to connect with her on a human level, but she was pretty intent on bringing god into the dialogue at every opportunity.<br />
<br />
Later that day, I decided once again to look up the given sickness on wikipedia. In this case, it was actually something, quite rare, that I had not even heard of before. Could it be that this woman had experienced a genuine "miracle", I wondered to myself, as she had claimed?<br />
<br />
As you've probably guessed by now, much as it had before, wikipedia told a very, very different story. Included, in the article regarding her illness, was the following line, "<i>the cure rate...is around 90-95%</i>". Yes, you read that right, "<i><b>the cure rate...is around 90-95%</b></i>"!!! I have to tell you, I nearly fell out of my chair when I read that line. This woman seemed to me to be a perfectly *normal* Christian, if you know what I mean, and my (intelligent!) friends seemed also to believe that she had experienced a legitimate "miracle". <br />
<br />
But why?<br />
<br />
I received a clue, a few days later, in a seemingly unrelated conversation with one of these same friends. As she expressed it to me, her personal belief is that it is preferable to always "<a href="http://respectfulatheist.blogspot.ca/2012/06/giving-god-credit.html" target="_blank">give god the credit</a>" for something good in your life, even if he might not be responsible for it. Far better to thank god, and be wrong, than to not thank him at all she would say. My suspicion is this sort of (in my opinion) warped thinking stems from the Bible itself. And I think it may explain, at least in part, why it is so extremely difficult to divest everyday Christians of the "miracle" type language they use ever so casually (and irresponsibly). When my friend said this, Proverbs 3:6 came immediately to my mind, "<i><b>in all your ways acknowledge him</b>, and he will make your paths straight</i>". Could it be, that Christians are desperate to "acknowledge" god, in "all things", because they believe they are commanded to do so? I think this may well be the case. The problem, of course, is that it tends to lead to a highly credulous approach, as illustrated above, to "all things" that their god *<i><b>might</b></i>* have been responsible for. This, to me, is a major flaw in my friend's logic.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5NSPqgg7LN93sO61HtGGr7UQS87sLKxDG_fcflZPEpFziiHw6bDEzhzpVJwDsOY2Hz8fA0rLv8nm40YUUh-aD62sYaBOaaxjuOWke6vXtpH-mfzxaDP1Fa7FBXzKkpQf80ZdeecAtmKo/s1600/amputee_1568096c.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5NSPqgg7LN93sO61HtGGr7UQS87sLKxDG_fcflZPEpFziiHw6bDEzhzpVJwDsOY2Hz8fA0rLv8nm40YUUh-aD62sYaBOaaxjuOWke6vXtpH-mfzxaDP1Fa7FBXzKkpQf80ZdeecAtmKo/s320/amputee_1568096c.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Christians will sometimes falsely say that there is no amount of evidence that will convince a skeptic to believe in god (or, in my case, to believe in god <i>again</i>). We skeptics are simply determined, they will say, to persist in our unbelief. I was just accused of this myself (under the comments section of <a href="http://respectfulatheist.blogspot.ca/2012/01/is-heaven-for-real.html" target="_blank">this post</a>). <i>But it's an entirely false charge</i>. There are in fact many, many things that would convince me Christianity is true. I would be happy to provide specific examples, if you're interested in hearing them.<br />
<br />
But it occurs to me there is a flip side to that coin...<i><b>perhaps there is no amount of de-bunking that will convince some believers they are mistaken</b></i>. In other words, no matter how many "miracles" are explained, and shown to be (plausibly) quite natural events, these brand of believers will always cling to the hope that at least *some* genuine miracles still take place. It may not be this particular story or that particular story, which qualify as a miracle, but until skeptics are able to explain away literally <i>every</i> potential miracle, the *possibility* remains that supernatural miracles are real. But how could skeptics ever accept this massive challenge? We can't, of course, and it is irrational of such believers to even expect us to do so. <u style="font-style: italic;">Doubt</u> <i><u>and</u></i> <i><u>skepticism</u></i> <i><u>are</u></i> <u style="font-style: italic;">not</u> <u style="font-style: italic;">signs</u> <u style="font-style: italic;">of</u> <u style="font-style: italic;">weakness</u>, despite what you may have been told. They represent the mature approach, as Michael Shermer demonstrates in his excellent book, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Believing-Brain-Conspiracies---How-Construct/dp/1250008808/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1344898822&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Believing+Brain" target="_blank">The Believing Brain</a>" (see, for example, the Shermer quote <a href="http://respectfulatheist.blogspot.ca/2012/03/agenticity.html" target="_blank">at the end of this post</a>).<br />
<br />
So here's my bottom line...when Christians say something was a "miracle", what they often really mean is that it was <b><i>unexplained</i></b>. Do people sometimes recover, from physical illnesses, where the odds are much lower than "60-80%", or "90-95%", in their favor? Even when the odds are stacked strongly against them? Of course they do...<i>sometimes</i>...but often they don't. You can't count only the healing <i>hits</i>, chalk the misses up to god's sovereignty (or ignore them completely), and then call it "evidence" for god's involvement. It just doesn't work that way. <i>Unexplained</i> recoveries happen every day. We should expect them, because the odds are never 100% in either direction.<br />
<br />
You can believe that god is responsible, for your mother's/aunt's/sister's/best friend's physical healing, if you want to insist on doing so, but I sincerely hope the above will help you to understand, if even just a little, why former believers like me no longer find this stuff very convincing.<br />
<br />
I would leave the believer with one final question, to ponder. <a href="http://respectfulatheist.blogspot.ca/2011/07/even-more-questions.html" target="_blank">It is a question that haunted me</a>, during my de-conversion, and it eventually helped to engineer a major shift in my thinking. The question is simply this, "<a href="http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/" target="_blank">why won't god heal amputees</a>"? <br />
<br />
Do you have an answer?<br />
<br />
Please think about it.Respectful Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03303760970096374936noreply@blogger.com27tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812241728597205774.post-16406758044635926362012-08-02T21:37:00.000-04:002012-08-03T17:56:39.479-04:00Empty PlatitudesThe longer I am an atheist, the more I realize how much I have truly changed (and am <i>still</i> changing). As I said to my wife, the other day, what I am coming to recognize lately is that I have a burgeoning passion for, what one might generally term, <i>critical thinking skills</i>. I'm not sure if I even thought of critical thinking as a skill, per se (as in something that needs to be developed/strengthened), while I was a Christian, but I can see now that it is <b><i>precisely</i></b> that. In some ways this new found passion of mine is also broadening my palette, because lately I am equally bothered by <u>all</u> manner of poor thinking (whether or not it has anything to do with my background in Christianity). What I mean to say is the changes in me are not *just* about my leaving the Christian faith, as if that complete worldview shift weren't dramatic enough; they go much deeper.<br />
<br />
That said, in this post I'd like to discuss three common examples of (what I deem to be) poor thinking in society. These are views (most?) people seem to endorse that, in so far as I can tell, just don't stand up to scrutiny. <br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br />
<b>What Doesn't Kill You Will Only Make You Stronger</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQvgis3eEjumWyNSygpeWDiUBiLftfBst52k6pamkevwpjW9IPv-TGr1Ml7YjXvK2V_YkEmgejx7a_ESNDqNZJGDCLbsCute5QLrbiPonV4kCR3esO3s52VKFNZnC2b4g7w3xLkUI5Uw4/s1600/Kelly-Clarkson.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQvgis3eEjumWyNSygpeWDiUBiLftfBst52k6pamkevwpjW9IPv-TGr1Ml7YjXvK2V_YkEmgejx7a_ESNDqNZJGDCLbsCute5QLrbiPonV4kCR3esO3s52VKFNZnC2b4g7w3xLkUI5Uw4/s200/Kelly-Clarkson.jpg" width="165" /></a></div>
This is one of those phrases that we hear <i>all the time</i>. Even Kelly Clarkson has a hit <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn676-fLq7I" target="_blank">song about it</a>. But what do people really intend to communicate, when they say it to someone they care about? Well, first off, I think it's clear that they are <i>not</i> talking here about <i>physical</i> strength. If someone is in a horrible car accident, for example, but it "doesn't kill them", it seems to be quite obvious (and uncontroversial) that the person in question may additionally not be "stronger" for having had the experience (in fact, they might end up in a coma, or a wheelchair...etc.). So, we can safely scratch physical strength off the list of possible meanings.<br />
<br />
No, what most people intend to say instead is that difficult experiences make you <i>emotionally</i> stronger. And this is where things get tricky because, for the most part, I actually <i>agree</i> with this sentiment. I <i>myself</i> experienced some abuse, as a child, and today I firmly believe that I am stronger (in certain ways), than I might otherwise have been, specifically <b>because</b> of the abuse. How crazy is that?! I suspect that many others, who were abused, would say similar things.<br />
<br />
But is it <i>always</i> true, emotionally speaking, that "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger"? No. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case" target="_blank">Terri Schiavo</a> wasn't killed, by her initial collapse, but did it in any way make her "stronger"? I think one would be pretty hard pressed to make that case. Or how about people living with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amyotrophic_lateral_sclerosis" target="_blank">ALS</a>, such as Stephen Hawking? Would Hawking have been a weaker (or less brilliant) man, had it not been for the diagnosis? Again, I would have to say the answer here is probably "no". <br />
<br />
Sadly, some Christians would thoughtlessly espouse a philosophy, similar to Norman Geisler's, that has certain people pegged as essentially <a href="http://respectfulatheist.blogspot.ca/2012/05/collateral-damage.html" target="_blank">collateral</a> <a href="http://respectfulatheist.blogspot.ca/2012/06/collateral-damage-part-2.html" target="_blank">damage</a> in god's grand scheme (although it's doubtful they would dare use that term). If this is correct than god's ultimate goal, in cases like these, could be to actually make <i><b>other people</b></i> stronger (friends or family, for example). This sort of thinking turns god into a demented sicko, who uses his children in (quite frankly) pretty despicable ways. It makes us all mere pawns in his chess game.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<b>All Things Work Together For Good</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
This is the only one, of my three examples, that is discussed <i>directly</i> in the Bible. The whole verse goes as follows, "<i>And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose</i>" (Romans 8:28, KJV). Incidentally, it's one of the many, many verses I memorized, back in the day, when I went through the <a href="http://awana.org/on/demandware.store/Sites-Awana-Site/default/Default-Start" target="_blank">Awana</a> program. <br />
<br />
There are two catches here. Notice, first off, that the verse only promises that "all things work together for good" <b><i>to them that love God</i></b>. This provides the perfect out, for Christians, when discussing the general concept in relation to non-Christians. After all, the Bible never even promised that all things would work together for good for us wretched heathens.<br />
<br />
But, even among believers, it seems clear that *all* things <i><b>still</b></i> don't work together for good. How about the couple who loses their only child, to a stray gunshot in a bad neighborhood? Will that 8 year old's death "work together for good"? Now wait just a doggone minute, I can almost hear the Christians saying, how could <b><i>I</i></b> possibly know that it <u>won't</u> work together for good? Well...I don't <i>know</i> that, but remember that <i>I'm</i> not the one making the bold claim here. I'm simply saying that the evidence would seem to suggest that ALL things do not work together for good (even for Christians) in ALL situations. The onus of proof now lies on the Christian, to attempt to demonstrate otherwise. <b><i>I need not prove your belief to be completely impossible, for it to be highly improbable</i></b>. As John Loftus has often pointed out, this is an entirely unreasonable standard.<br />
<br />
This brings me to the second catch; <i>heaven</i>. I've noticed that, on this issue, and numerous others, Christians use heaven as the ultimate escape clause. If you argue effectively that something they believe doesn't hold water, they run immediately to the "but all will be made right in heaven someday" cop out defense. It's a variation on what I have previously called <a href="http://respectfulatheist.blogspot.ca/2012/03/playing-faith-card.html" target="_blank"><b>playing the faith card</b></a>. But where is the evidence that heaven even exists? (Are books like "<a href="http://respectfulatheist.blogspot.ca/2012/01/is-heaven-for-real.html" target="_blank">Heaven Is For Real</a>" the best that Christians have got?)<br />
<br />
This also raises another interesting question...does eternal punishment, for unbelievers, somehow also work into something "good" in god's eyes? Or does he only apply this principle to his chosen elect? Either way, I'm curious as to how sending <a href="http://respectfulatheist.blogspot.ca/2011/11/whats-so-special-about-belief.html" target="_blank">sincere unbelievers</a> to hell, for all eternity, might (even in theory) work into the necessarily "good" plan that god supposedly has in place. You'll have to forgive me if I find literally <i><b>any</b></i> master plan, that includes never ending punishment as one of its tenants, to be just a little confusing and extremely hard to swallow. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<b>Everything Happens For A Reason</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHy3gdQXQBMZIsIG_4rBXETgEayrQ9zdtnK05YFPCWbqKuigpEnXWTM1DkelPuds7eHdcQ-3LZmSYQiMxXXO5g4fIde_qbWfQGkz62vuluIlnYgjYF2k6s8zygk1_OVQWwD-FCj26EdKg/s1600/Justin-Bieber.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHy3gdQXQBMZIsIG_4rBXETgEayrQ9zdtnK05YFPCWbqKuigpEnXWTM1DkelPuds7eHdcQ-3LZmSYQiMxXXO5g4fIde_qbWfQGkz62vuluIlnYgjYF2k6s8zygk1_OVQWwD-FCj26EdKg/s200/Justin-Bieber.png" width="193" /></a></div>
This one feels like *the mother* of all false beliefs, and I'd venture to say it's also among those that bother us atheists the most. Few people seem willing to accept the idea that seemingly random events in life are...well...random! Come hell or high water, we desperately want there to be a reason behind every little (and big) unfortunate thing that happens. Even Justin Bieber once famously said that <i><a href="http://www.avclub.com/articles/rolling-stone-clarifies-that-justin-bieber-doesnt,52008/" target="_blank">rape happens for a reason</a></i>. He has no clue what that reason might be, of course, and the truth is Bieber was merely parroting something that falls perfectly in line with his Christian worldview anyway. (So it was a little unfair of us to blame him for simply saying it out loud.) If god truly intervenes in the world though (and, if he doesn't, than why bother praying?), indeed it <i>does</i> follow logically to think that "everything happens for a reason". Having said that, if ever there were a statement that had nearly ridiculous shit loads of evidence stacked <i>against</i> it, this would be the one. Does every tsunami, earthquake, holocaust, infant death, accidental drowning, freak accident, and so on, happen "for a reason"? If so, this brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "God works in mysterious ways" (which, as it happens, is itself another totally empty platitude). I now believe this "everything happens for a reason" business to be simply another manifestation of <a href="http://respectfulatheist.blogspot.ca/2012/03/agenticity.html" target="_blank">agenticity</a>. As the thinking goes, if someone is up there controlling everything, than seemingly random events must not be random at all. Never mind what the evidence points to, you just have to take it on faith. (Surprise, surprise.)<br />
<br />
As I wrap up, I'd like to circle back, ever so briefly, to make an additional comment on my second platitude; "all things work together for good". I want to make it clear that, in one sense, I <i>do</i> believe that terrible things <u>can</u> work together for good; <i>but only when <b>we</b>, as human beings, choose to make it so</i>. Let's re-visit the example I gave, of the child who dies from a stray bullet...is there any way in which this event could ever be used "for good"? Well, yes, actually there is. Let's say the parents of that child decide to travel the country, telling their son's story and speaking out against gun violence. Truly, this would be a "good" outcome, and something that resulted indirectly from an otherwise horrific situation. But does this mean that ALL things work together for good? Of course not. And it certainly doesn't mean that the child died "for a reason" either. In fact some parents, who lose a child prematurely, are unable to even muster the strength to continue on with their own lives. How utterly sad.<br />
<br />
At the risk of ending on a cheesy note, allow me to use this opportunity to remind my fellow unbelievers that we need to rally around one another during the tough times in life. It really is all <i>up to us</i>, at the end of the day, so let's make as much "good" as we can out of the lot that we happen to be dealt.</div>Respectful Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03303760970096374936noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812241728597205774.post-81303562449898336652012-07-22T13:25:00.000-04:002012-07-23T18:45:10.491-04:00Soul Mates<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_rzAXexB1vAgDHSRBajgSnQfvgV-4yMTG7-E61QQAeEhWI4u_8NiTxXIaiOaENOIMB6HehzgmOpyE-YsRu-OvMbXHM7vyM6buyQJAJFTHRqwk0P77U_ktt8yqIRfZI06xJJZ3k_jSols/s1600/EmilyMaynard.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="209" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_rzAXexB1vAgDHSRBajgSnQfvgV-4yMTG7-E61QQAeEhWI4u_8NiTxXIaiOaENOIMB6HehzgmOpyE-YsRu-OvMbXHM7vyM6buyQJAJFTHRqwk0P77U_ktt8yqIRfZI06xJJZ3k_jSols/s320/EmilyMaynard.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
I have a confession to make. I watch The Bachelorette faithfully (don't judge me). I realize guys aren't *supposed* to like this show, or so I've heard, but it's my guilty pleasure. I think I enjoy it primarily because I've always had a strong interest in psychology, especially as it relates to the complicated dynamics of interpersonal relationships. I'm fascinated by the way in which the guys (or girls) interact, in "the house", as they compete to win the heart of the Bachelorette (or Bachelor). It's like watching survival of the fittest <i>in action</i>. <br />
<br />
The other thing I find interesting is the way in which The Bachelor/Bachelorette, in this case Emily Maynard, goes about making their decision as to who they will pick in the end. In nearly every season, the given star of the show comments on how they are falling (or have fallen) in love with <i>more than one person</i> <b>at the same time</b>. This always seems to come as a total shock to their system, the implication being that there must be something terribly unnatural about having feelings of love for several people simultaneously. In Emily's case, the cognitive dissonance that results leads her straight into a period of deep confusion, during which time she considers the idea these conflicted feelings may <i>themselves</i> serve as proof that <b>both</b> of her top two guys are in fact wrong for her. In other words, as the thinking goes, if one candidate is not very clearly better, than each of the others, something just must not be right (because it's not <i>supposed</i> to feel this way). Sadly, there are others, close to Emily, who encourage this type of thinking, which only ads to her confusion for a time. She *should* feel much more strongly for the guy she is *supposed* to choose, because that is the one guy she is *meant* to be with...right? <br />
<br />
Wrong.<br />
<br />
I personally think the widespread belief in soul mates is just another example of <a href="http://respectfulatheist.blogspot.ca/2012/03/agenticity.html" target="_blank">agenticity</a>. Let's think more about this for a moment. What are the chances that 30 random guys/girls, from all across the country (assumedly chosen by the show's producers), will just so happen to include the given Bachelor/Bachelorette's "soul mate"? First off, <i>this could only be true if god exists, and involves himself in such things</i>. He would necessarily need to be guiding the hands of the producer's, as they narrow the field, to be certain that Emily's soul mate makes their final cut. If there is a god, and he is loving and personal, than it follows logically that he would have one person set aside for each of us to marry (unless, of course, he intends for you to stay single forever). As mere mortals it becomes our only job, at that point, to <i>find and recognize that special person</i>. But I think The Bachelorette itself clearly shows the dating process to be much more complex and nuanced than this sort of top down style of reasoning would suggest it to be. In fact, as I referenced above, the whole scenario is also much more driven by a survival of the fittest type thrust than many would ever care to admit. (Remember, a significant percentage of the American public doesn't even believe in evolution. I imagine that some of those same people are fans of the Bachelorette, so of course they aren't going to think of it in these terms.) <br />
<br />
As I see it, modern day Internet dating websites, such as <a href="http://www.eharmony.com/" target="_blank">eHarmony</a>, would also seem to suggest that god has not chosen one person for each of us to be with. These sites work, to the extent that they do, because they match people on dozens and dozens and dozens of criteria points. Compatibility is often the end result of this (rather involved) screening process. It doesn't always work perfectly, of course, but sometimes it does work and that's the point. Could someone please remind me again how & where it is that god becomes involved in things like The Bachelorette and eHarmony? <i>If god is indeed trying to help us find our "soul mates", than he would need to be doing an awful lot of micro-managing</i>.<br />
<br />
It IS possible to fall in love with more than one person, at the exact same time, and we should expect nothing less when we engineer such bizarre scenarios. In our culture, it's not considered normal to date 30 people at once (in fact, it's generally frowned upon!), so it's just that we don't often see these dynamics in action. The truth is there is no one person who is *meant* to be with you or I forever. I know this all sounds terribly unromantic of me to say. <b>Please understand that I say it as a guy who is very happily married, and plans to remain so until the day that he dies</b>. But isn't this more romantic (than believing in the idea of "soul mates") anyway? I'd much rather marry someone who promises to stick with me, through thick and thin, even when their feelings wax and wane. You can't "fall out of love", because love is not a feeling to begin with...<i>it's a choice</i>. I realize that choice is driven by feelings, and I wouldn't have it any other way, <i>but it's still a choice</i> at the end of the day.<br />
<br />
We tend not to give ourselves enough credit; Maynard included. She need not deny, or be in any way embarrassed, about the fact that she fell for more than one guy on the show. Sometimes there is no *one* right way to go, even in cases where there is a choice that clearly needs to be made. This is my larger point. I think we all hope that she will make her choice (as spoilers would indicate that she does) and live happily ever after. And those people who would have had Emily doubt herself, simply because her love has not been directed at one man exclusively, are very well meaning but misguided. What Emily needs to do instead is make a rational choice....based on her feelings, yes, <i>but also based on her head</i>. If she ultimately decides, on her own, that neither of these guys is right for her, than so be it. Relationships are tough, perhaps especially so when they begin in such a highly manufactured (and overly romanticized) fashion. I wish her all the best in the future and, come next season of The Bachelor/Bachelorette, I'm sure I'll be sucked in once again.Respectful Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03303760970096374936noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812241728597205774.post-5150306065664597792012-07-16T12:39:00.001-04:002012-07-16T18:30:18.607-04:00I Still Like The Bible<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5mzBPBGqgvyrwqWGgGMZpW0Q4OvdBiPXbhJ8uSSMMwSA8h48ZZ9byN934ns6Md7HaM3-eCqObIWQGSABt94Qzv5EWkFrrKhLvOyr42qN0KCl7D51h39ARuKoNnCrMCu7OFBdHol4DvHQ/s1600/Bible.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="198" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5mzBPBGqgvyrwqWGgGMZpW0Q4OvdBiPXbhJ8uSSMMwSA8h48ZZ9byN934ns6Md7HaM3-eCqObIWQGSABt94Qzv5EWkFrrKhLvOyr42qN0KCl7D51h39ARuKoNnCrMCu7OFBdHol4DvHQ/s200/Bible.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
I admit the title of this post is somewhat misleading since, the full truth is, I still like *<i>some*</i> of the Bible. However, when phrased in that more nuanced (and admittedly precise) way, it just doesn't seem to have the same ring to it.<br />
<br />
Atheists have nearly made a sport of ragging on the Bible, <i>and I think rightly so</i>, but in this post I will attempt to show the flip side of that same coin. I want to push back against the understandable misunderstanding, held by some Christians, that atheists <i>hate</i> the Bible and, as such, cast aside everything it says as a matter of atheist principle. This simply isn't true. <br />
<br />
It's been some time now since I rejected the hypothesis that the Bible is the "word of God". In fact, I've written against that idea on numerous occasions already. One might even say it's been one of my persistent themes on this blog.<br />
<br />
But, as I have gained more intellectual distance, from my old beliefs, I have come to realize that there are still some things in the Bible that I very much appreciate. Let me offer three examples, and these will suffice to make my point...<br />
<u><b><br /></b></u><br />
<u><b>The Book of Proverbs</b></u><br />
<br />
I remember <a href="http://www.respectfulatheist.blogspot.ca/2011/07/confirmation-bias.html" target="_blank">my Dad</a> (a pastor) telling me, many years ago, that the book of Proverbs spoke only of <i>likelihoods</i>. At the time I thought this a little strange, since essentially my Dad was admitting that there are clear statements, found in the Holy Bible, that may <i>seem</i> like promises at first blush (especially to the untrained eye), but really they were never intended to be promises to start with. I mean, when you think about it, a keen sense of <i>observation</i> is all that's needed to write about mere <i>likelihoods</i>. So, where exactly does <a href="http://respectfulatheist.blogspot.ca/2012/01/does-yahweh-exist.html" target="_blank">Yahweh</a> come into play? A good illustration of this dynamic is found in Proverbs 22:6, "<i>Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.</i>" (KJV) Clearly, this isn't a promise. One need only look around at all of the children who "depart" from their parents ways. Many of them do come back, mind you, to something at least <i>resembling</i> their parents ways, so I still think the axiom is worthwhile in a more general sense.<br />
<br />
Of course, now that I am older, and much better read, I realize that the book of Proverbs is basic wisdom literature. Nothing more, nothing less. As wikipedia states, a proverb itself is "<i>a simple and concrete saying popularly known and repeated, which expresses a truth, based on common sense or the practical experience of humanity</i>". (In what sense then, is the book of Proverbs "the word of God?") <br />
<br />
With that little misunderstanding out of the way, I must say that, even as an atheist, I still love the book of Proverbs. Probably my favorite verse comes in Proverbs 15:1, "<i>A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.</i>" (NIV) As far as wisdom sayings go, this is great stuff. I can't tell you the number of times I have applied it in everyday life. For example, at my place of employment, I am the unfortunate one who gets to deal with customer complaints if/when they arise. It's not an official part of my job description, it's just that my colleagues have figured out that I'm really good at it (lucky me) so I am frequently elected to respond. Proverbs 15:1 has become indispensable to me, at times like this, and it comes often to my mind. I've found that, when interacting with an angry person, the absolute worst thing you can do is return anger for anger. The "secret" to talking someone down, if there is one, is to thank them (sincerely) for their feedback, show that you clearly understand things from their point of view, and then, calmly and rationally, explain where it is that they may be misguided. Nine times out of ten, when handled in this manner, you can take the wind out of a complainer's sails (and, to my surprise, often even convince them that they were the one in the wrong to begin with). <br />
<br />
In other words, "a gentle answer turns away wrath...". It really does work, and I'm not ashamed to admit that <i>I learned this from the Bible</i>.<br />
<br />
<br />
<u><b>1 Corinthians 13 (the "love chapter")</b></u><br />
<br />
The first thing to note, when talking about 1 Corinthians 13, is that this passage is actually about spiritual gifts, not romantic love (despite its popularity at weddings).<br />
<br />
Even still, what a great description of love it is (and love is something that is notoriously hard to capture in words). Starting at verse 4, "<i>Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs...</i>". Excellent!<br />
<br />
Think of the divorces that might have been avoided, for example, if both husband and wife had lived according to the creed, "keep no record of wrongs". Or think of the spousal abuse that could be prevented if the perpetrators truly *got* the fact that love "is not easily angered", "is not proud", and "does not dishonor others". <br />
<br />
When my kids are old enough to enter into romantic relationships, I can think of no better chapter (in <i><b>any</b></i> book) to read to them, than 1 Corinthians 13. <br />
<br />
"Love is patient, love is kind", can I hear an atheist "amen"?!?<br />
<b><u><br /></u></b><br />
<b><u>Jesus and the Woman Taken in Adultery</u></b><br />
<br />
I still remember how shocked and disappointed I was, to discover that this wonderful story (found in John 8:1-11) does not appear in the original manuscripts of the gospel of John. Did this event actually happen, while Jesus was on earth, or does it merely represent things that later Christians believe Jesus <i>stood for</i>? I'm not sure that any of us knows the answer to that question (or that we ever will).<br />
<br />
Even still, it's always been one of my very favorite Jesus stories. Still today, when I am dialoging with Christians about the various problems with the Bible (contradictions, historical inaccuracies, and so on), I find myself quite reticent to use this story as an example of New Testament difficulties. I don't want them to lose faith in it, I guess, since I personally like the picture of Jesus that it paints. In other words, if they're going to continue believing in Jesus anyway, these verses represent <i>the sort of Jesus</i> I want them believing in. "<i>Let he who is without sin cast the first stone</i>". This is classic stuff, and for good reason. It is true that I no longer believe in the concept of "sin", per se, but I still acknowledge of course (as do all atheists) that there are pro-social and anti-social behaviors. I would like to live in the sort of society where we take the log out of our own eye, before attempting to remove the speck from our brother's eye (to use another Biblical reference). <br />
<br />
Well as I said, at the beginning, my goal in this post is not to take back anything that I have previously said about the Bible. I still don't think it's "God's word" or, frankly, that God had anything to do with it at all. <i>If you believe that he did, the onus of proof rests firmly on you</i>. This is a point that I have made, and attempted to convincingly demonstrate, numerous times over. But, in my zeal to debunk my old belief system, I would never want to give the impression that I have some sort of hate on for the Bible and/or for God. It may be that some atheists do feel this way; I certainly can't speak for all of them. But, even in those cases, I suspect the hate is mostly reserved for what the Bible represents, and how it has been used over the years and still is today (to justify all sorts of bigotry, violence etc.). This is also something I have written about previously and, if god <i>does</i> exist, than Christians need to grapple with the uncomfortable fact that <a href="http://respectfulatheist.blogspot.ca/2012/05/gods-communication-skills.html" target="_blank"><b>he himself is partly to blame</b></a>. Having said that, contrary to what some might think, it's literally impossible for a thoughtful atheist to hate God. Since atheists no longer have faith in his very existence, it would be something akin to hating the tooth fairy. <i>Imaginary beings, in and of themselves, tend not to elicit strong emotion</i> (unless/until other people use them for destructive ends).<br />
<br />
The challenge for me, moving forward, will be in passing these good principles along to my children without using the "God said it" shortcut that the Bible provides for Christians. Some days I'm not sure if I'm up to the challenge (parenting can be a scary endeavor), but I'm going to give it everything I've got.<br />
<br />
To the atheists reading this blog, are there other Bible passages that you still like? What is it about them that you appreciate?Respectful Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03303760970096374936noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812241728597205774.post-29152382682873510032012-06-24T15:00:00.003-04:002012-07-16T09:57:23.095-04:00Public Witnessing Opportunities<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjI8K0-Ib6APn1PPHc8-pQX3nb9ZscWTJQPbwXBa6ObTAizKiNJLgzM45DnAljfSk2Eb5SQ9oX4LdGkAC-Sxw8b8E5kH5lWAslHfipgUBK-t-nKvYL4YUZDOgB9-YmTJ18JfD8SJANQ8EU/s1600/images.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="102" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjI8K0-Ib6APn1PPHc8-pQX3nb9ZscWTJQPbwXBa6ObTAizKiNJLgzM45DnAljfSk2Eb5SQ9oX4LdGkAC-Sxw8b8E5kH5lWAslHfipgUBK-t-nKvYL4YUZDOgB9-YmTJ18JfD8SJANQ8EU/s200/images.jpeg" width="200" /></a></div>
In this post I'd like to offer a few additional musings, on a theme that I loosely alluded to last time; namely the very strong urge, among Christians, to publicly "witness for Christ". I can't be the only one to have noticed that believers, by and large, are <i>nearly obsessed with it</i>. (Full disclosure***I used to be too.)<br />
<br />
A number of years ago, while I was still a Christian, there was a large amount of buzz re: a pop band called <a href="http://www.sixpencehq.com/" target="_blank">Sixpence None The Richer</a>. You see, Sixpence None the Richer, or simply "Sixpence", is a Christian group. You'd never know it, from their best known song "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8N-qO3sPMjc" target="_blank">Kiss Me</a>", but it's true. They had a quasi-successful run, in the Christian music world, before exploding on to the larger scene around the late 90's. As a result of their new prominence, lead singer Leigh Nash was invited to chat a little with David Letterman. Here's what happened...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<object class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" data-thumbnail-src="http://2.gvt0.com/vi/qJDldjmb_04/0.jpg" height="266" width="320"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qJDldjmb_04&fs=1&source=uds" />
<param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" />
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" />
<embed width="320" height="266" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qJDldjmb_04&fs=1&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object></div>
<br />
Now, as you can see, Letterman threw the door wide open for Nash to talk about her faith, if only but for a brief moment. I've actually got to hand it to her for staying on message, amidst all of the interruptions and distractions. Come to think of it I always liked Sixpence actually and, in certain ways, I still do. Anyway Nash said her piece, Letterman agreed that it was a "beautiful" sentiment, and that was it. No big deal, right? Well, if that's what you think, than oh how wrong you are :). Had you been a Christian, at the time, you would have realized that this was in fact a HUGE deal. A <i>cool</i> Christian artist, now respected by the mainstream music world, mentioned <i>C.S. Lewis</i> on national TV; not only that, but she gave a "clear presentation of the gospel message"! You would have thought, from the reaction of Sixpence's Christian fans, that secular viewers the world over were falling on their faces that night, in front of the TV, giving their lives to Christ right then and there. Had they stopped to really think about it, of course, these same Christians would have freely admitted how ridiculous this sounds. It's just that strong emotion has a way of preventing rational analysis. As a Christian, all you feel certain of is that it's an awesome witnessing opportunity that God can (somehow?) use for his glory and benefit; and that's about as much thought as you put into it (then it's forgotten until the next witnessing opportunity comes along).<br />
<br />
Looking back, I realize how completely silly it was for us to get <i>even slightly</i> excited about what Leigh Nash said on Letterman that night. <b>It was barely noteworthy, but you never would have known that *<i>from within the Christian bubble*</i></b>.<br />
<br />
Of course, this same sort of thing still goes on today. The recent Tim Tebow phenomenon is the most obvious example. There are plenty of others. Christians also get pretty pumped when <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6G0U8Vg6nY" target="_blank">Christians songs are performed on American Idol</a>. I've additionally noticed that my believing friends are more inclined to follow (and root for) the Christian performers who happen to make it into the top 12. And if a "Christian artist" is invited to perform on the Grammy's, that's an even bigger deal. Such a thing, on the rare occasions it happens, becomes a major topic of conversation & post-analysis for several days afterward.<br />
<br />
But there is a question that rarely occurs to Christians in these sorts of scenarios; <b>what do public professions of faith <u><i>accomplish</i></u></b>? <br />
<br />
Anyone? <br />
<br />
My belief now is that they accomplish nothing at all, except they excite and energize the "in-group" members (fellow Christians). This, and this alone, is the <i>true result</i>. At the end of the day, it's just sort of neat to think that some really famous person holds to your worldview. <br />
<br />
It's also worth pointing out that in-group/out-group dynamics are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_and_outgroups" target="_blank">a clear development of evolution</a>, yet many of the Christians who are most prone to this sort of in-group favoritism don't themselves even believe in evolution (oh, the irony)!<br />
<br />
All of this would be well and good, I suppose, were Christians to <i><b>realize</b></i> that it was just about in-group dynamics, and probably nothing more. There's certainly nothing wrong with that. You witness the same sort of dynamics at play, among atheists, when <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ng99hnxQmoI" target="_blank">Ricky Gervais plugs his atheism</a> at the end of the Golden Globe's. We're just happy to have atheism mentioned, because it shows that he's "one of us". But I don't think that most Christians would be willing to fully concede that this is what it's truly about. I suspect the majority of them sincerely believe, as I once did, that ground is somehow being mysteriously taken for Christ in the public sphere. Is there any hard evidence to suggest that proclamations of faith lead anyone closer to accepting that Jesus was God and he died for your sins? No, there certainly isn't to my knowledge. And why should there be?<br />
<br />
Now, I suppose it could be argued that celebrity witnessing opportunities provide a sort of reverse peer pressure, especially for impressionable young people who are already being pulled away by "the world". After all, teens often idolize rock stars and athletes, and it can't hurt for them to know that there are some cool Christians out there. But if this is actually true it would only further illustrate a dangerous phenomenon that I've discussed on this blog before; namely that, in my observation, <a href="http://respectfulatheist.blogspot.ca/2011/12/roots-of-faith.html" target="_blank">Christians tend to convert for an assortment of emotional (rather than intellectual) reasons</a>. Do we really want to be teaching our kids to make massive life decisions, about their worldview, based on what others happen to think? I certainly would never want my children to embrace atheism, simply because it was the "in" thing to do or because some celebrity they liked was an atheist.<br />
<br />
What Christians also fail to remember, in the heat of the moment, is that <b>most non-Christians (at least here in the Western world) are already familiar with the Christian message</b>. They've very likely considered Christianity previously, and have their own (often very private) reasons for not embracing it. So the mere mention of C.S. Lewis, or John 3:16, or how God helped you win your award, will probably have absolutely zero effect on the general public. Zero. If you want to promote your faith anyway, go nuts, but please don't fool yourself into thinking that it equates to an influential witnessing opportunity the Holy Spirit is using in people's lives. It may get your fellow Christians talking, but that's about it.Respectful Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03303760970096374936noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812241728597205774.post-69850146700548885242012-06-15T23:09:00.001-04:002012-06-17T11:12:11.822-04:00Giving God The Credit<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuHH58TPqFDbeymmfUnh7cPMpeOE-Yn06OIyWr-qozTMBevhubo8se7KeLF0KAJjGofIMDZKy1vrON2-OCKdRXvOhTKgEiSgv9rs8Di1WHgc2ReRBPqmRYto48j7wRpHmiFt6T-4qn2jE/s1600/DownloadedFile.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuHH58TPqFDbeymmfUnh7cPMpeOE-Yn06OIyWr-qozTMBevhubo8se7KeLF0KAJjGofIMDZKy1vrON2-OCKdRXvOhTKgEiSgv9rs8Di1WHgc2ReRBPqmRYto48j7wRpHmiFt6T-4qn2jE/s1600/DownloadedFile.jpeg" /></a></div>
I'm a sucker for real life murder mysteries; like the ones they feature on <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032600/" target="_blank">Dateline NBC</a> week in and week out. I think I've seen all the episodes. It's just fun for me to try and figure out "whodunit" (my wife finds these shows a bit creepy, but she tolerates them if there's nothing else on TV).<br />
<br />
Recently, I watched one about an innocent man; convicted of murder, in part because of a false confession, some thirty years ago. I can't remember his name, but frankly (and sadly) it's a story I've heard dozens of times before. If there's one thing I've learned, through watching so many of these programs, it's to <i>never</i> confess to a crime that you didn't commit. I don't care if the police lock you in a tiny room, for days on end, or engage in verbal and/or physical abuse...never, ever, ever just tell them "what they want to hear", if it's not what really happened. (To be clear, I'm not implying police regularly do this sort of thing.) It can take you a lifetime to have a false confession turned over, even in the face of <i>overwhelming</i> evidence demonstrating your innocence.<br />
<br />
Anyway, in this case, I couldn't help but notice that the suspect (and his mother) seized every possible opportunity to promote their Christian faith on camera. "Glory to God!", he exclaimed upon finally being released from prison. Who could blame him?<br />
<br />
What's completely fascinating to me now though, as an atheist, is the psychology that lies behind these platitudes. Why do people insist on giving God the credit, and <i><b>especially so</b></i> in truly horrible situations? The more horrible the circumstance is, the higher the apparent propensity to believe that God is somehow working through and in it all. It doesn't make sense. I mean, this guy spent 29 years of his life in prison, for a crime he clearly didn't commit. Yet, upon his release, the first thing he can think to say is "praise God!". Why? On one level, I suppose it's simply because that's what he believes. But I'm inclined to think that it's a lot more than "just" that.<br />
<br />
While I was a Christian I never really understood what people meant when they said that faith is a crutch. I think I get it now. Let's really think about this guy's predicament. Here he is, rotting away in prison, year after year, decade after decade, all the while <b>knowing</b> that it's a complete travesty of justice. <u>He doesn't deserve to be there</u>. It's one thing to suspect, that someone may be innocent; but it's an entirely different matter to <i>know</i> it for an absolute fact. <i>Innocent prisoners <b>know</b> they are truly innocent, even if they can't convince a single other person</i>. How do you maintain a positive outlook day after day, and keep hope alive, when the whole world (or at least the justice system) seems to be conspiring against you? When analyzed in this way, I think the urge to evoke God makes perfect sense. Sometimes you've just *<i>got*</i> to believe that there is a larger plan at work; that, somehow or another, even your misfortunes are "meant to be" in the grand scheme of things. It's the only way you can stay sane, so you grab on to that hope and hold tightly for everything you're worth. The world may have let you down, but God is still in control at the end of the day. He's got your back to the finish line and beyond.<br />
<br />
Naturally, what doesn't occur to someone, at a time like this, is how utterly illogical this entire thought pattern is. What about those innocent prisoners who will <i>never</i> be released? Did God not hear <i>their</i> prayers? Why on earth would he bother to facilitate the release of one innocent prisoner, but allow hundreds (probably thousands) of other innocent prisoners to spend their entire lives locked up? There are also plenty of examples of people who have been executed, by the state, and only later found out to be innocent. How much do you want to bet that most of those death row inmates believed in heaven by the time they died? The human desire for justice is incredibly powerful and, if we can't receive that justice "down here", we're damn sure going to insist on believing that it will happen "up there". <i>It's a coping mechanism</i>.<br />
<br />
Watching this episode also made me think about how <i>we too</i> have been wrongly convicted. We've been wrongly convicted by Christianity. No one deserves to be punished eternally; not even Adolf Hitler himself. It's deeply messed up to think that a supposedly just God would demand, on threat of never ending damnation, that we believe some very particular things about a 2, 000 year old story; especially one that contradicts itself all over the place (and stems from an age of rampant superstition). Sometimes I wonder to myself, why couldn't I see this before? I was a born again Christian for more than <i>25 years</i>, but it's only since <i>leaving</i> the faith that <a href="http://respectfulatheist.blogspot.ca/2011/12/what-it-feels-like.html" target="_blank">I feel as if <i>my brain</i> has been released from prison</a>.<br />
<br />
The other problem with giving God the credit of course is that it robs from those who genuinely deserve it. The real heroes, in the above situation, are this guy's lawyers. They worked tirelessly, through ridiculous shit loads of red tape, to get an innocent man out of prison. <br />
<br />
That's good enough for me.Respectful Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03303760970096374936noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812241728597205774.post-71712050573183623512012-06-10T10:14:00.000-04:002012-06-11T01:02:44.233-04:00Collateral Damage, Part 2<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg20AeYmPkl2bR3nSze9y6-6ioAAWDjhPTCgE1EaFYHjXbo9v1rPEcK4LDl5OVoes0NFLsJedDJGEjTPhJRo7wWVeuCQagvfv1MwA59Bepvlkd8qCSnAjEWBB9Wtk8ZgAp8ffZT08yswB8/s1600/landslide-victim-006.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="192" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg20AeYmPkl2bR3nSze9y6-6ioAAWDjhPTCgE1EaFYHjXbo9v1rPEcK4LDl5OVoes0NFLsJedDJGEjTPhJRo7wWVeuCQagvfv1MwA59Bepvlkd8qCSnAjEWBB9Wtk8ZgAp8ffZT08yswB8/s320/landslide-victim-006.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
What follows is the second half, of my review of Norman L. Geisler's "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/If-God-Why-Evil-Question/dp/0764208128/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1339354164&sr=8-1" target="_blank">If God, Why Evil</a>". If you haven't read <a href="http://www.respectfulatheist.blogspot.ca/2012/05/collateral-damage.html" target="_blank">part one</a>, please do so now. We have a lot to cover, so let's not waste any time...<br />
<u><br /></u><br />
<u>Chapter 6, "The Avoidability of Evil":</u><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br />
In this chapter Geisler attempts to answer the question, why did God not choose to make a better world? He suggests five possibilities:<br />
<br />
1. No world at all;<br />
2. A world with no free creatures in it;<br />
3. A world with free creatures who could not sin;<br />
4. A world with free creatures who would not sin;<br />
5. A world with free creatures who would sin, but all would be saved.<br />
<br />
Geisler's basic approach, in cases one through four, is to argue that these worlds are <i><u>not</u></i> in fact morally better. <br />
<br />
In case number 3 he (finally) addresses the argument that I raised, in my discussion of chapter 3, namely, why did God not just create heaven to begin with? His answer is nothing, if not gutsy, "<i>...some things cannot be created directly; some things can be produced only through a process. Again, patience is produced through the process of tribulation (Romans 5:3 KJV). Trial forms character (James 1:2), and there can be no sense of forgiveness without sin. In short, God has to create free creatures who could sin before He could produce free creatures who can't sin...God had to give us lower freedom (freedom to do evil) in order to achieve a higher freedom for us (freedom from evil).</i>" <br />
<br />
Wow. So let's take the example of a child who dies from starvation in Africa. According to Geisler God's purpose, in allowing this to happen, is to build character through suffering. Just for a moment let's suppose this were true. Let's suppose that God is trying to teach the mother, of that starving child, patience, or trust, or some such noble thing. As despicable as that sounds, even on the face of it, there is a yet bigger problem. <i>Doesn't this turn the child into nothing more than a meaningless pawn in God's (rather sick) system</i>? Was the child <i><u>also</u></i> supposed to be refined (morally) through the process of <b>their own</b> starvation? Was God's ultimate goal merely to turn them into a better person, through suffering, so that they would be ready for the sort of (perfect) freedom heaven offers? This seems to be precisely what Geisler is saying, and it makes me physically ill.<br />
<br />
Let's skip forward to number 5, where he argues, "<i>a free world where all would be saved may not be actually achievable</i>". This one word, <u>achievable</u>, is very key to Geisler's argument; and, in fact, to the premise of the entire book. "<i>A world with even one person in hell would not be the best world conceivable. But granting that creatures are truly free, a world with an untold number of people in hell may be the best world achievable. This is because not everything logically possible is actually attainable.</i>" In other words, sure, perhaps you or I could <i>conceive</i> of a better world, but that doesn't mean it's achievable!<br />
<br />
Geisler sums up chapter 6 as follows, "<i>This present world is not the best of all possible worlds, but it is the best of all possible ways to the best of all achievable worlds.</i>"<br />
<br />
And lest you accuse God of an "ends justifies the means" ethic remember, as we established in chapter 3, "<i>God is not producing or promoting evil means, to attain a good end. He is permitting them.</i>" <br />
<br />
Poor God, you've really got to feel sorry for the guy. This was clearly the best he could "achieve". Cut him some slack, won't you?<br />
<u><br /></u><br />
<u>Chapter 7, "The Problem of Physical Evil":</u></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br />
If all moral evil can be explained by free choice, as Geisler believes it can, than how to explain "physical evil"? After all, "<i>no one wills a lightning strike or a tsunami...</i>".<br />
<br />
Geisler's solution is to try and connect <b><i>all</i></b> physical evil to free moral agents, either directly or indirectly, come hell or high water. And when he can't blame it on humans he resorts to, you guessed it, <i>evil spirits </i>(demons). "<i>Some have suggested that these spirits could be behind the other physical evils not attributable to human free choices (e.g., see Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil).</i>" <br />
<br />
How convenient.<br />
<br />
"<i>According to one view, Adam's sin alone could account for all physical evils. Add to that the evils inflicted by Satan and evil spirits and one need look no further for the possible explanation of all physical evil.</i>" <br />
<br />
Of course, in order to do so, one must completely ignore (as Geisler does) modern scientific evidence against Adam & Eve. In fact it now seems quite clear, to anyone versed on the issue, that they didn't exist. One must also try really hard to forget totally about the fact that there is not one shred of credible evidence suggesting the existence of invisible beings like Satan, demons, or, for that matter, angels of any kind.<br />
<u><br /></u><br />
<u>Chapter 8, "Miracles and Evil":</u></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br />
Even if evil is the result of free choice, God could still intervene to prevent undesirable physical consequences; so why doesn't he? "<i>For example, every time a would-be murderer attempted to kill an innocent person, God could intercept the bullet before it hit its victim. Every knife used in an attempted assault could be miraculously turned into jelly. In every attempted choking, the noose could be turned into a noodle. All poison aimed at killing someone could be chemically neutralized, and so on.</i>"<br />
<br />
Geisler formulates the argument this way:<br />
<br />
1. If God is all-powerful, He could supernaturally intervene to stop all physical evils. <br />
2. If God is all-good, He would miraculously intervene to stop all physical evils.<br />
3. There is much physical evil that God does not intervene to stop.<br />
4. Hence there is no all-powerful and all-loving God.<br />
<br />
He concedes points 1 and 3, but he spends a fair bit of time trying to refute number 2. In doing so, Geisler gives numerous reasons that God does not always miraculously prevent physical evil. Included in his list are things like, "It is not possible to have a regular miraculous interruption of the natural order", "constant miracles would defeat the conditions for moral improvement", and, my personal favorite, "continued miraculous intervention would eliminate an important pre-condition for achieving the best world possible". In other words, "<i>No pain. no gain. Without danger, the virtue of courage cannot be developed. Without trials and tribulations we can have no patience. God has to permit sin before we can experience forgiveness. Higher order virtues are dependant on allowing lower-order evils.</i>". This last sentence is probably one of the most important, in the entire book, since it cuts to the heart of Geisler's overall case. But even if one fully accepts the suggestion, that evil can be used to refine us, and create "higher order virtues", how does that account for the especially gratuitous examples? How about the child who dies of cancer? Or the one who is locked in a basement dungeon, year after year, and repeatedly raped by some crazy sicko? According to Geisler these children, and others like them, are just ***<b>God's collateral damage***</b>; an unfortunate side effect of his much larger plan to ultimately create the best "conceivable world" (in heaven). Geisler claims that God <i>already does</i> stop as much suffering as he possibly could...to stop even one more person's suffering would somehow destroy his master plan. <br />
<br />
Do I even need to explain why I find this objectionable (and utterly unbelievable)?<br />
<u><br /></u><br />
<u>Chapter 9, "The Problem of Eternal Evil (Hell)":</u></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br />
I've written before, about <a href="http://respectfulatheist.blogspot.ca/2011/12/burn-in-hell.html" target="_blank">some of my problems with an eternal hell</a>, so I'll do my best to be quick here. In this chapter Geisler discusses his reasons for rejecting various of the "category alternatives", to an eternal hell (ie. "rehabilitationism", or "annihilationism" etc.).<br />
<br />
Before he even gets into this discussion though, Geisler engages in more circular logic, arguing for things like, "Jesus affirmed the existence of Hell", "The Bible affirms there is a Hell", "The Cross Of Christ Implies Hell", and so on. I need not refute these individually or, frankly, even comment on them at all since, as I say, they are entirely circular on his part. It matters not to me that the Bible teaches there is an eternal hell, for example, since I no longer accept the Bible as either authoritative or necessarily correct on any given issue. Let's move on.<br />
<br />
Most of Geisler's arguments, or should I say counter-arguments, in this chapter center completely around the premise (popularized by CS Lewis), that the gates of hell are "locked from the inside". Everyone in hell is continuing in their rebellion against God, thus they still deserve to be there (and this will remain the case eternally). But does Geisler really believe that <i><u>not</u> <u>one</u></i> of the people in hell will realize the error of their ways and cry out for mercy? Actually, yes he does! From within Geisler's impenetrable bubble, there is literally no one on the face of the planet who rejects Christianity for intellectual reasons. All unbelievers are living in willful rebellion against a God they know exists. Period. As he states, near the end of the chapter, "<i>All who go to hell could have avoided going there if they had chosen to do so. No pagan anywhere is without clear light from God so that he is without excuse.</i>" Since I reject this premise (and, to be honest, have difficulty even taking it seriously), I need not refute the rest of Geisler's points. Pretty much his entire argument, in chapter 9, hangs and is built on this.<br />
<br />
So, in the interests of brevity, allow me to simply offer <i>myself</i> as a refutation...<br />
<br />
<i><b>I, Respectful Atheist, rejected Christianity for intellectual reasons. I am not in rebellion against God, nor do I hold any acrimony against him or my Christian experience. If it turns out that I am wrong, in my honest assessment of the factual claims of Christianity, I will indeed cry out for mercy in hell, admitting fully the error of my ways and asking for God's forgiveness. </b></i><br />
<br />
Geisler only has two choices remaining: a) call me a liar, or b) revise his argument. Truth be told, there are probably millions of people who reject Christianity for very similar (ie. mostly intellectual) reasons. They, like me, are just not convinced that Jesus was the Messiah, the Bible was inspired by God, and so on and so forth. To Geisler, this is tantamount to bald faced "rebellion", and it deserves eternal punishment.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<u>Chapter 10, "What About Those Who Have Never Heard?"</u>:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
In Geisler's final chapter he speaks to the eternal fate of those ("multimillions") who have died, or will die, without ever having so much as heard about the gospel of Christ. Are they condemned to hell also?<br />
<br />
"<i>There are two basic responses to this question by orthodox Christians: inclusivism and exclusivism. The first view (inclusivism) claims that while no one can be saved apart from the work of Christ, they can be saved without knowing about that work, providing they meet certain prerequisites. The second view (exclusivism) holds that they cannot be saved apart from the work of Christ, nor can they be saved without knowing about the work (called the gospel) and believing in it.</i>" <br />
<br />
If inclusivism is true, evangelical churches need to seriously re-think their approach to missions work. According to this view it would be better for someone to <b>never know</b> about the gospel, than to hear and reject it. A person in this first situation (never having heard) may still find themselves in heaven but, in the second (hearing and rejecting), they are <i>surely</i> condemned to hell. The problem is, statistically speaking, the majority of people who hear the gospel <i>do</i> reject it, so this makes missionaries, and those who support them financially, foolhardy at best. <b>It's like playing Russian roulette with people's eternal souls</b>. It would be far more compassionate to allow the unreached people groups to <i>remain</i> unreached, if inclusivim were true. In any event, Geisler is an exclusivist, so I need not say anything further about inclusivism.<br />
<br />
"<i>For exclusivists, the problem of those who have never heard has an even greater intensity. How can God be all-loving if He condemns people to eternal hell who have not even had a chance to hear the plan of salvation?</i>" Geisler answers this question with four points. I'll comment on each briefly.<br />
<br />
1. Everyone Has General Revelation in Nature.<br />
<br />
The Bible says that unbelievers are "<i>without excuse</i>", because God has "<i>been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made...</i>". I suppose this would be a reasonable argument, were it not for the fact that science has progressed in leaps and bounds, over the past few thousand years, calling this very premise into serious question. In "Bible times", there was little (if any) rational alternative, to "God did it", but this just isn't the case today. As Richard Dawkins is famous for saying, "<i>after Darwin, you can be an intellectually fulfilled atheist</i>". So, it seems to me that, contra what the Bible says, us heathens in fact have some pretty great "<i>excuses</i>" for not believing.<br />
<br />
2. No One Can Be Saved Apart From the Knowledge of Christ.<br />
<br />
Uhhh. Isn't Geisler just re-stating his conclusion here, using slightly different wording? How is this even an "argument" at all? (Back to that circular logic thing again.) Next point please.<br />
<br />
3. Everyone Who Seeks God Finds God.<br />
<br />
This is perhaps the most dubious of Geisler's four points. What proof does he have, for such a bold claim? I can certainly understand how it would make him <i>feel</i> better, but there is no good <i>reason</i> to believe it to be true. Besides, there are many who "seek" God, but do NOT find him. For example, there are large numbers of atheists who, like myself, arrived at their current beliefs only after seeking God and finding nothing. Geisler makes no attempt to defend this claim (other than quoting Bible verses...surprise, surprise).<br />
<br />
4. God Has Many Ways to Get the Message to Those Who Seek Him.<br />
<br />
Geisler wraps up his final chapter with another blanket statement that he is unable to demonstrate (just a couple of anecdotes, and more Bible verses). Perhaps it is fitting.<br />
<br />
"If God, Why Evil?" closes with three appendixes; "Animal Death Before Adam", "Evidence for the Existence of God" and "A Critique of The Shack". I won't take up any more of your precious time, by analyzing these sections. They're not part of Geisler's core argument and, frankly, I think I've said more than enough in response already (especially for a book that runs less than 175 pages in total).<br />
<br />
If you've read both parts, of my review, you might have the impression that I think this is a terrible book. <i>I don't</i>. Geisler does a fair job here, of defending the Christian perspective on suffering and evil. It's as good as most anyone could probably do (as I pointed out, at the beginning of part 1, Geisler is no dummy). But therein lies my broader point, and the reason I even took the time to put together this review; at the end of the day, after the ink is spilled and all the hand waving is done, <i><b>the problem of evil still stands</b></i>. It remains a highly potent objection to the Christian faith (arguably the most potent of all), and Geisler's book does nothing to change that fact.</div>Respectful Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03303760970096374936noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812241728597205774.post-56732579369262085072012-05-21T14:48:00.000-04:002012-05-21T15:27:46.885-04:00Collateral Damage<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgs2K4TMPEFCqmvYANlSO4ZMFAy9y30l9I6sEiFTvnd8q-MeJxE5dGwXy9Ng9fyxboKmvKSYRd6FPK6uNgVW9tdtVIHEKciQ0h_7jNii8PgxqOFsuYh00DstkSwTawqNIc8agvoQqFFst8/s1600/Image.asp.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgs2K4TMPEFCqmvYANlSO4ZMFAy9y30l9I6sEiFTvnd8q-MeJxE5dGwXy9Ng9fyxboKmvKSYRd6FPK6uNgVW9tdtVIHEKciQ0h_7jNii8PgxqOFsuYh00DstkSwTawqNIc8agvoQqFFst8/s200/Image.asp.jpeg" width="128" /></a></div>
Norman L. Geisler is a giant in the world of Christian apologetics. He has taught at the university and graduate levels for more than 50 years, has spoken and debated all over the world, and is author or co-author of more than 70 books.<br />
<br />
It is for this reason that I decided to read Geisler's recent book, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/If-God-Why-Evil-Question/dp/0764208128/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&qid=1337611224&sr=8-14" target="_blank">If God, Why Evil?</a>". As the back cover says, "<i>The problem of evil is perhaps the most difficult question the Christian must face. If God is all-good and all-powerful, why is there suffering in the world? Can't God put an end to murder, rape, and starvation? What about earthquakes, hurricanes and tsunamis? Why couldn't a perfect God have made a perfect world</i>?" <br />
<br />
Among those who have given hearty endorsements to the book are Franklin Graham, Gary R. Habermas, Ravi Zacharias, and Lee Strobel. For example, Strobel says, "<i>This is classic Geisler--brilliant, incisive, succinct, convincing. He's one of the great defenders of Christianity</i>."<br />
<br />
So, does "If God, Why Evil?" present "a new way" to think about the question, as the subtitle states? I'll present my review in two parts; covering chapters 1 through 5 in this post, and 6 through 10 in the next. The title, "Collateral Damage", will make sense once I am totally done. Let's jump right into it.<br />
<br />
<u>Chapter 1, "Three Views on Evil":</u><br />
<br />
Geisler begins by saying that there are three basic answers to the overall problem...<br />
<br />
"<i>Pantheism affirms God and denies evil.</i><br />
<i>Atheism affirms evil and denies God.</i><br />
<i>Theism affirms both God and evil.</i>"<br />
<br />
After dismissing pantheism, with little more than a wave of his hand (fine by me), Geisler comments, with nearly as much brevity, on atheism. The thrust of his case here seems to be that, "<i>we can't know something is unjust unless we know what is just. But if there is a moral law demanding that we ought always to be just, this leads us right back to a Moral Lawgiver.</i>" I've never found this to be a terribly convincing argument, and Geisler makes little attempt to defend it. As conscious beings, we can look around and see that some of our fellow creatures are experiencing great pain, for no apparent reason, and others great pleasure. Why do we need a "moral lawgiver" to conclude that one situation is preferable to the other?<br />
<br />
Geisler closes the chapter with a ridiculous illustration about a theist and an atheist walking in the woods. They come across a glass ball, about eight feet in diameter, and agree that someone or something must have put it there. But, "<i>if we make the ball as big as the whole universe: would it still need a cause</i>?". I guess, in Geisler's mind, this is a real "gotcha" type moment. But, of course, we know the glass ball was put there by "someone or something" because, hello, it's a glass ball! Humans know how glass is made, and many of us have seen it in action. Have scientists discovered something akin to a "Big Bang", for glass balls, suggesting that they might have come about through entirely natural means? No, they haven't. The whole argument is just silly. Does Geisler really think that glass balls are perfectly synonymous with the universe? It seems he does.<br />
<br />
<u>Chapter 2, "The Nature of Evil":</u><br />
<br />
In this chapter Geisler attempts to argue against the idea that God "created evil". After all, the Bible does say that God created <i>all things</i>. His answer, basically, is to deny that evil is a "thing". So, much like a wound, evil exists only as a privation or corruption of something else (ie. a wound needs an arm to exist). I do not intend to argue against this line of thought, but I do find it humorous to watch the way in which Geisler plays with words. (He has to, in order to make his arguments work.) For example, in trying to deny that Satan is "totally evil", he claims that "<i>yes, he (Satan) is evil in a moral sense, but not in a metaphysical sense. Just like fallen humans still have God's image, even so Satan has the remnants of good that God gave to him as a created angel</i>."<br />
<br />
<u>Chapter 3, "The Origin of Evil":</u><br />
<br />
If God is absolutely perfect, and God cannot create anything imperfect, than why is there evil? How can absolute good be the source of evil? Geisler thinks the answer lies in free will. Even a perfect creature is capable of evil, he says. "<i>Apart from the saints in heaven (who have it relatively), only God absolutely has the freedom not to choose evil. The highest freedom is the freedom from evil, not the freedom of doing evil. Here on earth, while we're still making our ultimate choice as to whether we'll do our will or God's will, we must have choice; otherwise we would be robots, puppets, or automatons</i>." <br />
<br />
But, what does Geisler mean exactly when he says that those in heaven have "relative" freedom? He doesn't explain it any further at this point. Are those in heaven, "robots, puppets, or automatons"? Surely Geisler doesn't think so. And if this heavenly freedom is better, than the sort of freedom we have on earth, why did God not create it to start with? Is God not capable of such a thing? He is all-powerful, is he not? After all, as Geisler himself says, "<b>the highest freedom</b> is the freedom from evil". This will come up again, in chapter 6, so we'll re-visit the argument then.<br />
<br />
According to Geisler, "<i>God made evil possible by creating free creatures; they are responsible for making it actual</i>." To this I would simply respond, so what? It's like saying that when I took my child to the home of a known rapist, for a little sleepover party, I only made the subsequent evil "possible". After all, I'm not the one who made the rape "actual"; that part, of course, is completely the rapists fault. Right? So I guess I'm off the hook. Hardly! God is still responsible for making evil possible, even if we grant Geisler's entire argument.<br />
<br />
<u>Chapter 4, "The Persistence of Evil":</u><br />
<br />
Geisler begins chapter 4 by stating "the argument from the persistence of evil" this way...<br />
<br />
1. If God is all-good, He would destroy evil.<br />
2. If God is all-powerful, He could destroy evil.<br />
3. But evil is not destroyed.<br />
4. Therefore, no such God exists.<br />
<br />
After some equivocation re: the word "destroy", Geisler replaces it with the word "defeat". At that point his question becomes, "<i>Can God defeat evil without destroying freedom?</i>". Yes, Geisler says, because God will surely <i>one day</i> defeat evil. "<i>Because if God is all-good, He wants to defeat it, and if He is all-powerful, He is able to defeat it. Therefore, evil will one day be defeated.</i>" In other words, "if Christianity is true, which I've already decided it is, this is the only viable option I am left with". Of course, Geisler would never say it in quite those words.<br />
<br />
Notice as well that he doesn't yet attempt to explain why God does not "defeat" evil <i>right now</i>. (We'll get to his views on that in the second half of the book.) Instead he just makes a bold, question begging assertion, namely that God will defeat evil <i>someday</i>. How does Geisler know this? He doesn't, but it must be true because it's literally the only conclusion he can think of that is consistent with his Christian worldview. <b> In other words, he takes it on faith</b>.<br />
<br />
<u>Chapter 5, "The Purpose of Evil":</u><br />
<br />
Geisler begins chapter 5 by admitting that an "all-good" God must have a good purpose for <u>all</u> suffering. "<i>If He didn't, then he wouldn't be an all-good God</i>." I have to give Geisler credit for at least facing up to the logical conclusion, his ideology requires, in this respect. Can he defend it?<br />
<br />
Over the next several pages he tries to insist, in a variety of ways, that there simply <i>mus</i>t be a good purpose for all suffering. There just has to be! He gives reasons such as: a) that we don't know a good purpose for some evil does not mean there is no good purpose for it, b) it should not be expected that we know the purpose for everything, and c) an infinitely good mind knows a good purpose for everything.<br />
<br />
This paragraph, in particular, jumped out at me, "<i>Not only can no mortal assert with confidence that there can be no good purpose for some suffering (because we do not know it), but we can affirm with certainty that God does know the good purpose for all suffering and other evils. Why? Because God is omniscient, and an all-knowing mind knows everything. Further, God is omnibenevolent, and an all-good God has a good purpose for everything He does or permits. Hence we know for sure that there is a good purpose for all suffering--including the apparently unjust or innocent kinds--even if we do not know it.</i>"<br />
<br />
This is circular logic in action folks. Geisler might as well just say, "I know my worldview is correct, because my worldview is correct". And notice how he employs words like "certainty" and "for sure". There is nary a doubt in Geisler's mind, about what he is asserting, even though he has given virtually no good evidence for it. He is also conflating the probable and the possible. Technically I agree that, "<i>no mortal can assert with confidence that there can be no good purpose for some suffering</i>", but the problem is we're not arguing about what's merely "possible" here. The fact still remains that the atheist's view remains far more <b>probable</b>, than Geisler's view, given the evidence we have to work with. <br />
<br />
So Geisler admits, in a somewhat roundabout way, that Christians simply don't know the reason for all suffering. He is perfectly fine with this, because his Christian faith tells him that God knows the reason. It's as simple as that. Does he expect non-believers to find this rationale convincing? <br />
<br />
Hey, here's a thought...maybe gratuitous suffering really is gratuitous. Maybe, when toddlers suffer and die from cancer or starvation, it isn't part of a master plan. Maybe it just sucks. Full stop. Maybe the simplest explanation (that there is no God overseeing it all) is the correct one. Geisler is not prepared to consider this option because he has already decided that <i>there must be a reason</i>. It's the only possibility he is willing to even entertain. I, Norman Geisler, am utterly convinced that Christianity is true; <i><b>therefore</b></i>, there is a reason for all suffering.<br />
<br />
This brings me to the halfway point, of "If God, Why Evil?", so I'll pick it up right here next time for a discussion of chapters 6 through 10.Respectful Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03303760970096374936noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812241728597205774.post-28294703226297323142012-05-13T20:33:00.001-04:002012-05-16T05:25:52.034-04:00Some Thoughts On Tone<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvRBUN9uX7Hb1UZjJ1TJOPC1j39hdGXaukXbXyYKx5UZAlvKjftLlRLXSVhhVhnY78purZALcx6-8FGQ1frZgdRoD1y7ZdTi-apoqAiD1kviJGbLef6ApTYfFeykKLGahyphenhyphenV36AmXEVdU8/s1600/angry-atheist-accuser.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="209" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvRBUN9uX7Hb1UZjJ1TJOPC1j39hdGXaukXbXyYKx5UZAlvKjftLlRLXSVhhVhnY78purZALcx6-8FGQ1frZgdRoD1y7ZdTi-apoqAiD1kviJGbLef6ApTYfFeykKLGahyphenhyphenV36AmXEVdU8/s320/angry-atheist-accuser.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
I've always been the sort of person who values substance over style. Whatever the cause, in my mind, there exists a fairly unambiguous demarcation between <i><b>what</b></i> someone says and <i><b>how</b></i> they say it. I can nearly always separate these two elements, in order to consider them individually, and usually with very little (if any) conscious effort.<br />
<br />
Early on in my marriage, this attribute tended to get me into trouble from time to time. I remember saying to my wife, on at least a handful of occasions, "<i>for right now, I want you to just listen to <b>what</b> I'm saying and ignore <b>how</b> I'm saying it</i>". This seemed to be a nearly impossible task for her. At first, I found that exasperating; why couldn't she allow me to be a little rude sometimes, when I was angry, but still hear and respond to the actual words that were coming out of my mouth?! Finally it clicked with me that, for her, the "how" WAS the greater issue. <i>She wasn't ready to hear the <b>what</b> because she couldn't get past the <b>how</b></i>. In other words, my tone mattered a great deal; more than I had initially realized. Over time, I came to view a careful and deliberate tone as, essentially, a <u>prerequisite</u> to any fruitful conversation. <br />
<br />
I think this personal anecdote has application in the atheist movement. Atheists, by their very nature, are <i>content focused</i>. And this is perhaps especially true for those of us who used to be deeply committed to faith. To reject a "personal relationship with Jesus", that you once heartily embraced, is to, in effect, de-emphasize your <i>own</i> emotional triggers (God loves me and has a special plan for my life, I know I'll see my grandmother in heaven someday etc.) in favor of a heavier emphasis on the rational and the empirical (the evidence doesn't support these conclusions, therefore I must reject them, and so on and so forth).<br />
<br />
I believe that a lot Christians have the same problem, with many atheists, that my wife used to have with me during certain of our disagreements. <b>They can't hear <i>what</i> atheists are saying, because of <i>how</i> atheists are expressing themselves</b>. Now, some might take issue with my use of the word "can't" here. Surely Christians are mentally <i>capable</i> of separating style from substance, aren't they? Maybe such believers just don't <i>want</i> to consider what atheists are saying, so they use <i>how</i> something is being said as an excuse to dismiss it. I happen to think this is exactly true, but it only further underscores my point. My fellow atheist, do you want Christians to ruminate on the <i>content</i> of what you say, or would you rather they focus on (what they don't like about) your style? You have to make up your mind. If your goal is to reach across the divide, as mine is, than you need to pay close attention to tone.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao0k9qDsOvs" target="_blank">Dan Savage's recent talk</a> will serve to be a great illustration of my main premise. I recently overheard some Christian friends of mine discussing his comments. At first, I actually got a little excited about it...how will they respond to Savage's contention that the Bible contains "<i>bullshit</i>", I wondered? What specific evidence will they bring up, to counter this claim, and show the reliability of the Bible? Or how about his suggestion that "<i>we can learn to ignore</i>" what the Bible says about homosexuality, just as we have done with the issue of slavery? Notice that each of these thoughts is <i>content</i> focused.<br />
<br />
But, as you've probably guessed by now, fully 100% of the interaction, between my Christian friends, focused on Savage's <i>tone</i>. Not <i>once</i> did they so much as even bring up the potential merits, or lack thereof, of literally anything that he had to say. <i>They talked exclusively about <b>how</b> he said it</i>. To put this another way, <i><b>Savage's tone distracted from his message</b></i>. This is immensely frustrating to someone in my shoes. When the believer can (justifiably) accuse their opponent of being rude or, in this case, even hypocritical <i>it feels like nothing short of a checkmate to them</i>. It really does. In the believer's mind they have "won" the argument right then and there. As Dr. Phil often says, <i>perception is reality</i>. Their reality, in this case, was a "win" for team Christian (who stood by their convictions by walking out on Savage) and a "loss" for team atheist (who just proved, once again, how hateful and spiteful they are).<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/04/29/dan-savage-points-out-the-hypocrisy-in-the-bible-so-young-journalists-walk-out-on-him/" target="_blank">Friendly Atheist hit the nail on the head</a>, "<i>...when you're giving a talk about how gay people get treated like shit, don't use words like 'pansy-assed' to describe the reaction of the kids walking out on you - it just makes you look like a bully yourself, even if you're not</i>." <br />
<br />
Exactly. <br />
<br />
I also agree completely, with people such as Greta Christina, who say that <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Atheists-Angry-Things-Godless-ebook/dp/B007MCMKV6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1336953077&sr=8-1" target="_blank">atheists have legitimate reasons to be angry</a>. There's no question about it. But, as Christian speaker and author <a href="http://www.johnmaxwell.com/" target="_blank">John C. Maxwell</a> points out, "<i>people don't care how much you know, until they know how much you care</i>". This may sound a little cheesy, and frankly it is, <i><b>but it's also true</b></i>. <br />
<br />
Dan Savage made some valid points, that Christians ought to really think about, but sadly they're very unlikely to do so simply because he didn't choose his words carefully. <br />
<br />
So, to the atheist, I would close by asking you to reflect on your personal goals. Do you want Christians to consider the things that you say? If so, you've got to keep your emotions in check. To not do so is to heavily reinforce the prominent "angry atheist" stereotype, in the mind of the Christian, which is a close cousin to the terribly misguided "<i>deep down they know there's a God, and are just rebelling against him</i>" line of thought. It's akin to shooting yourself in the foot.<br />
<br />
To the Christian, I would ask you to look beyond your gut reaction to controversial comments, like those made by Savage, to hear <i>what</i> is really being said. It might be something worth taking seriously. If you focus on the <i>how</i>, to the exclusion of the <i>what</i>, you are simply <i>distracting yourself</i> from deeper thought on the issues at hand.<i> </i>And Savage is right about those.Respectful Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03303760970096374936noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812241728597205774.post-14229097755347154812012-05-01T18:07:00.000-04:002012-05-01T18:10:00.574-04:00God's Communication SkillsIn this post I'd like to further extend and defend an argument, that I barely touched on last time, regarding God's utter failure to communicate his will effectively to mankind. Simply put, if God does exist, he has <i>horrible</i> communication skills. As such he is culpable, at least in part, for the atrocities, and otherwise unfortunate misapplications, of his supposedly perfect word.<br />
<br />
Robert G. Ingersoll said, "<i>Every (Christian) sect is a certificate that God has not plainly revealed His will to man. To each reader the Bible conveys a different meaning. About the meaning of this book, called a revelation, there have been ages of war and centuries of sword and flame. If written by an infinite God, He must have known that these results must follow...</i>".<br />
<br />
Now wait just a minute, you might say, God is not to blame when people fail to understand the Bible "correctly". The atrocities, referenced above, were committed by fallen, sinful, humans; it's not God's fault! Well, first off, what proof do you have for the biased assumption (held by most modern day Christians) that believers, of previous eras, were misunderstanding the Bible? Had you or I lived when they did, odds are that we would have interpreted relevant verses in precisely the same manner. We are <b>all</b> products of the culture we were born into, whether we like it or not. As Voltaire once famously observed, "<i>Every man is a creature of the age in which he lives, and few are able to raise themselves above the ideas of the time.</i>" To disagree with Voltaire on this point, is to either: a) hold an overly high opinion of yourself, or b) engage in a variation of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronological_snobbery" target="_blank">chronological snobbery</a>.<br />
<br />
There are very specific passages, in the Old Testament, that have been used by Christians over the centuries to...advocate a theocracy, condemn homosexuality, ban interracial marriage, repress scientific investigation, justify racism, justify slavery, justify polygamy, prohibit masturbation, prohibit contraception, deny (life saving) blood transfusions, suppress women, suppress religious freedom and speech, kill "witches", murder heretics, and so on and so on and so on. <br />
<br />
And let us not forget that the Bible is also partly (if not mostly) to blame for the longstanding land conflicts in the Middle East. (How many have died as a result of this alone?) Don't even get me started on the religious wars. <br />
<br />
Does the New Testament fare any better? Not really...<br />
<br />
"<i>There are harsh demands when it comes to conditions allowable for divorce, which say nothing about divorcing a spouse for verbal and/or physical abuse. There are harsh sayings about hating one's parents that cultists have used in brainwashing their young converts, since they seek to separate rebellious youths from parental oversight. There are guilt producing texts like the unforgivable sin of blasphemy, which has forced many believers to wonder if they had committed this prior to converting. Expressed in the NT we find racism, and even anti-Semitism...We find the virtues of faith to be more important in the NT too, which has led many believers into some bizarre fatal doomsday cults. We find texts on prayer that have led Christians to pray in faith to be healed rather than go to the hospital. Many children have died because their parents refused to take them to a doctor for easily treatable medical problems. We find texts that offer sexually repressing advice--including what many Christians see as the denigration of homosexuality. We find chauvinistic passages that tell us women are to be silent in the churches, and that they should submit to and obey their husbands. We find disturbing passages that slaves are supposed to obey their masters, which helped sustain the status quo. Then there's the church's ultimate threat of hell in the lake of fire...Even if Christians reinterpret such passages to mean something other than what they appear to say, God is still proven to be one of the worst communicators in history. All of this could have been prevented and clarified right from the start, and to the benefit of countless people, by even an average communicator, much less one with the alleged talents of a god.</i>" (John Loftus, from "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Christian-Delusion-Faith-Fails/dp/1616141689/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1335847668&sr=8-1" target="_blank">The Christian Delusion</a>". I have removed verse references to shorten the quote.)<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
Caltech cosmologist and physicist <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_M._Carroll" target="_blank">Sean Carroll</a> recently made a very similar point, to the one I am making here, in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulykALV2FQ8" target="_blank">this debate</a>. I like the way he put it...</div>
<br />
..."<i>a lot of people talk about the problem of evil, my favorite problem is 'the problem of instructions'. I am personally a textbook author, I have read www.amazon.com reviews of my textbook. But if I were God my textbook would be perfect. If God existed, the one thing, if there were an omnipotent being that cared about us here on earth, I would expect clear instructions. I would expect a book that I knew exactly what it said, it was clear that it was right, and I would be able to follow it. If God did not exist, I would expect all sorts of different books, they would contradict each other, some of them would be brilliant in parts, they would be silly in other parts, they would be uplifting in parts, they would be very depressing in other parts. They would be edited collections, they would be personal memoirs, and they would all disagree with each other. Which of these two theories fits the data?</i>"<br />
<br />
Look...I get it. I really do. Christians desperately want to place the blame on human beings, not on God. To do the latter is very uncomfortable, for the believer, to say the least. And actually, in a weird sort of way, I agree completely that humans are to blame for all of these things. <i>But only because I think it quite likely that God doesn't exist in the first place</i>! What I am saying is <b>if</b> <a href="http://respectfulatheist.blogspot.ca/2012/01/does-yahweh-exist.html" target="_blank">Yahweh</a> <i>does</i> exist, then he <i>necessarily</i> bears some of the blame since he has been (and continues to be) a terrible communicator. And what about the Holy Spirit? Why has he never stepped in to clear things up? As I've asserted numerous times over, even in the relatively short life of this blog, the Bible is not the "word of God". The evidence for this conclusion is nothing short of overwhelming. <br />
<br />
I'll give Loftus the last word...<br />
<br />
"<i>One would think with very good reasons that an omniscient God...would be the best communicator in all of history. One would expect he would express his will in a crystal clear fashion with an eye on how believers might misunderstand it. Or, he would have created us so that we could understand what is being communicated. Even if not, one would expect that the Holy Spirit would do his job better. That God did not do this strongly disconfirms the hypothesis that the Bible was inspired by him. </i><i>Today's Christians say the churches of the past that committed atrocities were wrong. And that's correct. They were wrong. But not for the reasons stated. They claim the Christians of the past were wrong because they misinterpreted the Bible. The truth is that they were wrong to believe the Bible in the first place. They were wrong just like Christians of today are wrong, and just like the Christians of the future will be, too. My contention is that there is not a single statement in the Bible that reveals a divine mind behind the human authors. Everything in it can be more credibly explained by the hypothesis that it's just the musings of an ancient, superstitious, barbaric people--period.</i>"Respectful Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03303760970096374936noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812241728597205774.post-38303331925698741292012-04-28T20:25:00.000-04:002012-04-29T08:23:46.788-04:00What God WantsThis post will be something of a loose sequel to my previous thoughts, <a href="http://respectfulatheist.blogspot.ca/2012/01/christian-bubble.html" target="_blank">on Joyce Meyer</a>, which generated some interesting conversation.<br />
<br />
I've noticed an additional quirk, of Joyce's, that certainly isn't unique to her. She quite frequently speaks of what "God wants" (or desires/commands etc.). Often she'll preface the comment in question by also saying something like "I believe", "I really believe", or "I really believe, with all of my heart"; after which point she proceeds to speak, quite confidently and comfortably, on God's behalf. Are people more likely to buy into what Meyer is saying, if she "really believes" it? What's the point of even mentioning this? <i><b>Of course</b></i> you believe what you're about to assert; if you didn't, you wouldn't be saying it in the first place. Then again, perhaps it's true that parishioners more eagerly embrace things that their pastors and, in this case, celebrity speakers "really believe, with all of (their) heart". Somehow it seems "extra" true if the person, delivering the message, feels and believes it deep down in the pits of their soul. Even still, I find that phrasing a little odd, and bordering on the illogical, especially considering how often she employs it. Does "really believing" something make it any more likely to be true? <a href="http://www.amazon.com/On-Being-Certain-Believing-Right/dp/031254152X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1335654724&sr=8-1" target="_blank">Hardly</a>. <br />
<br />
Recently, as these thoughts were still floating around in the back on my mind somewhere, I stumbled into a book called "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/God-Wants-You-Happy-Discovering/dp/0736949461/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1335627018&sr=1-3" target="_blank">God Wants You to Be Happy</a>". My first inclination was to dismiss it, as nothing more than a fringe title, perhaps authored by someone who held to some mildly unorthodox Protestant views. But then I noticed an endorsement, on the front cover, from none other than Ruth Graham (the Rev. Billy Graham's daughter). She says, "<i>If you want to know happiness as God intends it, read this book!</i>". (Side note: A few years ago I met and conversed with Ruth and, although <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Every-Pew-Sits-Broken-Heart/dp/0310290791/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1335656235&sr=8-3" target="_blank">she's been through a lot in her life</a>, many Christians I know personally speak highly of her current ministry.) I flipped to the inside cover and, lo and behold, more endorsements from people that I would consider to be very much in the mainstream of evangelical thought (ie. <a href="http://www.drleman.com/store/" target="_blank">Dr. Kevin Leman</a> & <a href="http://withoutwax.tv/" target="_blank">Pete Wilson</a>).<br />
<br />
What strikes me about this, once again, is the whole notion of <i><b>speaking for God</b></i>. Christians do it <i>routinely</i>. It's another one of those weird dynamics that I didn't pick up on, while I was still a believer, since I guess it just seemed so normal at the time. Some Christians, of course, will disagree with the specific notion that God wants you to be happy and, perhaps, they will even be able to muster up a few Bible verses to "contradict" it. I would have been inclined to do so myself, in fact, only just a few short years ago. <i>But I now think this approach entirely misses the forest for the trees.</i><br />
<br />
Here's the problem...the Bible says <i>all sorts</i> of things and, on occasion, even contradictory things on the exact same topic. So it just doesn't work, when arguing about theology, to use the Bible as though it were a weapon. This is the deeper conundrum that Christians face, without even realizing it, as they continue daily in their misguided attempts to speak "for" God to one another. Years ago, for example, I remember trying to sort through <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism" target="_blank">Calvinism</a> & <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism" target="_blank">Arminianism</a>. These two doctrines are very clearly at odds, and I really wanted to know which one was correct. Can a believer lose their salvation (as Arminianism would suggest), or can't they (as Calvinism would suggest)? Does everyone have an equal shot at salvation (as Arminianism would suggest) or does God elect (either some or all) believers ahead of time (as Calvinism would suggest)? Believe it or not the conclusion I came to, after much investigation, is that the Bible actually teaches <i>both</i> doctrines. That's right! <b>Both</b> sides can be justified Biblically, and quite amply I might add. At the time I chalked it up to God's ways being mysterious, and I never worried myself with the issue again.<br />
<br />
This is just one example. There are hundreds more I could have used. So, believer, before you come against one of your own, who claims to be speaking on God's behalf, just remember that they likely have Biblical justification for what they are saying. And there are probably also Biblical arguments against certain of <i>your</i> Christian beliefs. I'm willing to grant that it's "possible" one of you is simply wrong, and the other right, but I want you to think about this...is that the <b>most likely</b> scenario? Or is it, dare I say it, more likely that the Bible simply contradicts itself? Are you willing to consider that possibility? (I'm not even asking you to assent to it, only to <i>consider</i> it. Will you?) Perhaps the Bible <i>itself</i> is partly to blame for the fact that there are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations" target="_blank">38, 000 Christian denominations</a> in the world today. As John Loftus says, in chapter 7 of "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Christian-Delusion-Faith-Fails/dp/1616141689/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1335659010&sr=8-1" target="_blank">The Christian Delusion</a>", "What We've Got Here Is a Failure to Communicate" (on God's behalf).<br />
<br />
If you're indeed willing to entertain the latter thought, and most Christians won't, let me follow it up by asking you this...supposing it were true that the Bible has legitimate contradictions, <i>in what sense</i> would it then be "the word of God"? Wouldn't genuine contradictions, <i>even one</i>, demonstrate that it wasn't a perfect book? If not, how many real contradictions would be required to demonstrate this? 10? 100? 1000? 10, 000? And, if it's not a perfect book, why do you believe that God had <i><b>anything</b></i> to do with it at all? The onus of proof is now firmly on you, as the believer, to demonstrate to the rest of us that the Bible is somehow of divine origin. <i>All signs point in the other direction. </i><br />
<br />
So the next time you hear a preacher say "God wants" this or that I want you to take notice. Stop, and wonder to yourself how it is that <i>they know</i> what God wants. A Bible verse, even one that seems to back up their particular claim, won't cut it. Unless God has ordained the very words of each and every individual Biblical author (as many Christians in fact believe) the whole premise of speaking for God falls totally to pieces. Simply "believing", that you're somehow in the loop on God's desires, is not enough. You have to ground those beliefs with actual evidence.Respectful Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03303760970096374936noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812241728597205774.post-59289017557332729722012-04-23T20:32:00.000-04:002012-04-28T21:13:22.869-04:00On Being Ignorant<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">I've noticed a common theme among de-conversion stories. Well, actually, there are several common themes; but the one I am speaking of here is becoming acutely (and even painfully) aware <i>of your own ignorance</i>. Christianity has a way of making its adherents feel as if they already grasp the really "big stuff". As an unintended result many Christians slowly lose curiosity and, over an extended period of time, become unintentionally <i>ignorant of their own burgeoning ignorance</i></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"><br /></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">Now, please don't misunderstand me. I'm sincerely not trying to throw rocks. This isn't an atheist's way of trash talking believers. It's just that I used to be something of a "go to" Christian myself; believed, by churchgoing friends & associates, to be very well informed. They still think of me this way. And in some ways I <i>was</i> (and am) well informed, on Biblical/theological arguments & issues; y'know, the "big stuff". </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"><br /></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">However, looking back, I now realize that I used to be remarkably <i>uninformed</i> re: a large number of other <b>areas <i>that are quite relevant to Christian belief</i></b>; for example, I knew next to nothing about recent findings in biblical criticism, archaeology, evolution, or cosmology. These fields, and many others I haven't named, are inexorably connected, to the claims made by Christianity, yet I knew very little about <i>any</i> of them. I think this is common in Christian circles. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">It's a subtle thread of anti-intellectualism that lies essentially hidden, but runs through to the very heart of Christian culture, seeping out in a variety of ways. I've been mentally noting some examples, over these past few months, as they come quite organically to my attention (remember, as an "in the closet" atheist, I am still surrounded by Christians day in and day out in the workplace). </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"><br /></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">Here is my top 5:</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"><b>5) "All you need is this book"</b></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"><b><br />
</b></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">Christians believe the Bible is the ultimate guidebook to EVERYTHING. It's not that they don't read other books (although some of them don't); it's just that they assume the Bible speaks <b><i>more</i></b> wisely, to <i>every</i> topic it touches, than a "regular" book possibly ever could. If you doubt this, just go to your local Christian bookstore and read the back cover of a few dozen Christian books. It doesn't matter the subject; sex, love, marriage, dating, parenting, you name it...it is simply <i>assumed</i> that the Bible contains greater wisdom, on the issue at hand, than literally any other book on the face of the planet. Why would someone who believes this bother reading a large number of non-Christian books, by so called "experts", on topics the Bible already speaks clearly to? They can't possibly match up.</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"><b>4) "It's too long to read" (just tell me the conclusion so I can judge it immediately)</b></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"><b><br />
</b></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">I work with a very bright (and talented) Christian girl, in her twenties, who generally refuses to read anything that is more than a few paragraphs long. She frequently deletes e-mails, or even bows out of staff conversations, <i>simply because they would require her to read too much background material</i>. I'm not kidding. At the same time, this girl is <b>extremely</b> confident in her beliefs on spiritual matters. She knows that she knows that she knows that Jesus is the only way, and the Bible is the word of God. I have never seen her display so much as a whiff of doubt re: her Christian beliefs. Has she ever read a skeptical book? Nope. I don't believe so. Does she properly understand the theory of evolution? Absolutely not. But yet she knows she's right! About all of it! </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">How does she "know" this exactly?? </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"><br /></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">You can't learn if you don't read. A lot. For certain personality types reading feels like work, yes, <i>but it's worth the investment</i>. And <b>the more you read the more you learn</b>. <i>Popular culture won't teach you what books can teach you</i>. </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">Sorry. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"><b>3) "Just trust"</b></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"><b><br />
</b></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"><a href="http://respectfulatheist.blogspot.ca/2011/11/whats-so-special-about-belief.html" target="_blank">I've spoken before</a>, about the manner in which Christians conflate the ideas of belief and trust (as if they were precisely the same thing). In fact, I consider it to be one of the most important posts that I've done on this blog to date. So I won't repeat myself. I'll just add that when Christians urge unbelievers to "just trust" they are, in so doing, asking the atheist to dumb things down. It's like saying "those are all really great questions, many of which we can't actually answer, but if you'll 'just trust' it will all be o.k."</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"><br /></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">And as I've posited previously, on numerous occasions, what sort of God would condemn people to eternal punishment because of <b>honest intellectual doubt</b>? </span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">Only a monster would do such a thing. <u>Please</u> <u>think</u> <u>honestly</u> <u>about</u> <u>that</u>.</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"><b>2) "I'm offended!"</b></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"><b><br />
</b></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">There has been much talk, in the atheist community, about how to best handle it when believers play the "I am offended!" card; and some of them play it often. My own view is that people should be treated with respect (unless/until they prove themselves unworthy of that respect). Having said that I also agree with the observation, made most notably by Richard Dawkins, that religion has been <i>unfairly</i> accorded a <b>special</b> place in our society. A person's religious beliefs should not be viewed as untouchable, as in free from critique, anymore so than their beliefs on politics or literally any other topic.</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">I've also noticed that when Christians say "I'm offended!", it's often just their slick way of trying to shut the current conversation down. You can see this, for example, in the q&a section of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJmKxTB7Twg" target="_blank">this debate</a>. Several believers made their way to the microphone, deeply emotional, with the express purpose of registering their offense at Richard Carrier's well thought out ideas. Never mind the evidence he presented. Who cares about that? Doggone it they just wanted him to know how "offended!" they were! </span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"><br /></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">And in so doing it became crystal clear, to the rest of us, that they didn't truly understand the arguments that were being made to begin with. How unfortunate. </span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"><br /></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"><b>1) "We need more humility"</b></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"><b><br />
</b></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"><a href="http://www.respectfulatheist.blogspot.ca/2012/03/atheist-or-agnostic.html" target="_blank">I've also spoken before</a> about how I consider humility to be one of the single greatest virtues. I really do. So why am I throwing an appeal for humility in with a list of things that supposedly promote ignorance? I think it comes down to what is meant by the word humility. What I'm objecting to is the use of the word "humility" as a stand in for "ignorance". For example, I have sometimes heard Christians say things like "well, the truth is none of us know how it all began so I just think <b>we need more humility</b>". What are the implications of this comment? It might as well read, "well, the truth is none of us know how it all began <i>so why bother trying to figure it out</i>." See the problem there? To be perfectly clear I think it's good for us to acknowledge that we haven't figured everything out. Not even close. In fact, there are probably things that we'll <i>never</i> be able to figure out. All scientists realize this. But it shouldn't stop us from pursuing the really tough questions with vigor. What's ironic is that it's Christians themselves who hold the less humble worldview generally (see the Sam Harris quote in the second to last paragraph of <a href="http://www.respectfulatheist.blogspot.ca/2012/02/letter-to-christian-nation-part-2.html" target="_blank">this post</a>).</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"><br /></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">As I said, off the top, my goal in this post is not just to rag on Christians. I'm trying to make a point. And, of course, it goes without saying that there are some believers who are well versed in areas outside of Christian theology. But I believe these Christians are the exception, not the rule, <i>especially</i> in evangelical circles. </span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"><br /></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">By this point I've probably read a few hundred de-conversion stories, and <i>awareness of one's own ignorance</i></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003366; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"> is perhaps the single most common theme. <b>I now know how little I know</b>. And I know a whole heck of a lot more than I used to. But I make it a point to learn a little more each day. It's one of the main differences between the man I was, as a Christian, and the person I strive to be today.</span></span>Respectful Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03303760970096374936noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812241728597205774.post-77702240280176644672012-04-04T18:45:00.016-04:002013-01-09T18:03:29.523-05:00A Bad Weekend For Our Sins<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVE5Nb72tl7Um1k_J0gxHl02eSPfvJCXekcpZt4U7b7xSDkRDfdpUNjtd0JgLZPI6tegaYrGTg6XvT14fifKSUQikBALWHaLcnQMBeKx2UJCf2B5Jw7iCT3JSvNlHwSOUidU85IP3bfcE/s1600/letting.go.of.god-julia.sweeney.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVE5Nb72tl7Um1k_J0gxHl02eSPfvJCXekcpZt4U7b7xSDkRDfdpUNjtd0JgLZPI6tegaYrGTg6XvT14fifKSUQikBALWHaLcnQMBeKx2UJCf2B5Jw7iCT3JSvNlHwSOUidU85IP3bfcE/s200/letting.go.of.god-julia.sweeney.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
Recently I re-watched a DVD that was of tremendous encouragement to me, during my de-conversion a few years ago. I'm normally not a fan of monologues, but <a href="http://juliasweeney.blogspot.ca/" target="_blank">Julia Sweeney</a>'s "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Letting-Go-God-Julia-Sweeney/dp/B001J21JRQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333294312&sr=8-1" target="_blank">Letting Go of God</a>" is a noteworthy exception. She somehow manages to turn life's most serious topics (religion, sickness, death, doubt etc.) into things we can all laugh about together. As reviewer Ira Glass put it, "...<i>against all common sense, Julia is making something funny that has no business being funny</i>".<br />
<br />
This one woman play tells the story of Julia's own personal quest for truth (she was raised Catholic, but I won't spoil the ending for you). She manages to make numerous piercing insights throughout, all the while maintaining a lighthearted tone. Honestly, I don't know how she does it but, she pulls it off in spades. There is nary so much as a hint of bitterness in Julia's delivery and, for this reason, I would even feel comfortable in recommending the DVD to Christians. In fact my wife was still a strong believer, when we first watched it together, although I was in the early stages of doubt.<br />
<br />
Near the beginning, Julia recounts a hilarious "pitch", given by a couple of Mormon boys who came to her home. She follows it up this way...<br />
<br />
"<i>I initially felt really superior to these boys...and smug in my more conventional faith...but then the more I thought about it the more I had to be honest with myself...if someone came to my door and I was hearing Catholic theology and dogma for the very first time, and they said, 'we believe that God impregnated a very young girl, without the use of intercourse, and the fact that she was a virgin is maniacally important to us, and she had a baby and that's the son of God', I mean I would think that was equally ridiculous. I'm just so used to to <b>that</b> story.</i>"<br />
<br />
Even though Julia doesn't buy any of the tales, told by these Mormon boys, she admires their dedication. So, shortly after this visit, she joins a Bible study which ultimately leaves her with more questions than answers. Early on in the play she recalls the experience, describing in remarkable clarity her burgeoning thoughts on everything from the Noah story, to Sodom & Gomorrah, Abraham & Isaac, Jephthah, The Ten Commandments, Jesus' parables, his "family values", the letters of Paul, the book of Revelation, and so on and so on. <br />
<br />
Julia recounts her mother's reaction, to all of these nagging questions about the Bible, this way...<br />
<br />
"<i>My mother said, 'Julie, I just ignore what I don't like. Why would you do something Honey like go read the Bible cover to cover if you weren't just looking for reasons to get upset. You make your life so much harder than it has to be Honey.</i>'"<br />
<br />
This really hit home with me since it was my own attempt to read through the Bible, literally cover to cover, <a href="http://www.respectfulatheist.blogspot.ca/2011/07/how-it-all-started.html" target="_blank">that kickstarted my doubts</a>. Her mother's comments also typify what my wife & I have now termed "the ostrich approach" to faith. Don't bother with the hard questions; just "choose" to believe and then stick your head in the sand when you're presented with information that appears to counter those beliefs.<br />
<br />
I won't attempt to provide a full review of Julia's play here. The content is much too varied, and richly presented, so more than anything I really just want you to watch it yourself (you can hear the audio for free, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qixXRkCNrtE" target="_blank">starting right here</a>, or you can purchase it <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Letting-Go-God-Julia-Sweeney/dp/B001J21JRQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333577178&sr=8-1" target="_blank">on Amazon</a>). <br />
<br />
I find myself reflecting, here at Easter time, on Julia's thoughts surrounding the death of Jesus. By this point in the story she had already begun to have serious doubts about the historicity of some of the Bible's accounts. It is then that she discovers the work of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/History-God-000-Year-Judaism-Christianity/dp/0345384563/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1333295829&sr=8-3" target="_blank">Karen Armstrong</a>, and is introduced to the idea that the Bible may be "psychologically true". Her comments next are excellent...<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
"<i>So when I went to Mass on Easter Sunday that year, I felt I had this new positive attitude. I knew the correct way to look at the stories. Historical accuracy was not important...what was important was that they triggered us somehow, very deep in our psyche, because they were psychologically true. But as I sat there in Mass I thought...what does that really mean? Psychologically true. I mean, Jesus' death and resurrection; death and re-birth. O.k., I get it, psychologically true enough. But what about other stories on the same theme? I mean, what about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persephone" target="_blank">Persephone</a> going down into the under world...that's psychologically true too then, I suppose. Or what about stories from the Iliad, or Darth Vader, or the Little Engine That Could...those are 'psychologically true' stories; aren't they??</i></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<i><br />
</i></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<i>And what's so psychologically true about atonement? We were taught that Jesus died for our sins, based on this idea of atonement, or that somebody else can pay for the sins of other people. For the first time after going to church, basically my entire life, I considered the idea that God sent his son to earth, to suffer and die for our sins. Why? I mean, first of all, you can say that Jesus suffered but y'know he didn't suffer any more than a lot of people have suffered. I could think of examples in my own family...my brother Mike, who had cancer. He suffered unspeakably for a very long time...eyelids freezing open and his eyes drying up. Canker sores all over his throat and he couldn't swallow. Weeks, and then months, of gut wrenching vomiting and nausea before he finally died.</i>"</div>
<br />
The first time I heard this presentation I was bowled over by Julia's (very memorable) phrase that Jesus, in effect, had a really "bad weekend" for our sins. That couldn't be true...could it? It had never occurred to me before that perhaps there were people on earth who had actually suffered <b><i>more</i></b> than Jesus. Also, if <i>I</i> had been God, and I knew that all of humanity would be condemned to <a href="http://respectfulatheist.blogspot.ca/2011/12/burn-in-hell.html" target="_blank"><u><i>eternal</i></u> punishment</a> (because their sin had offended my perfection), would I have sent <i>my</i> own son to die for them? YES! I <i>would</i> have; especially if it were "the only way". If any one of us would have done the same, simply as an outgrowth of our compassion, what's the big deal? And why do people need to accept the historicity of this event in order to get to heaven; and on such questionable evidence?!?<br />
<br />
These are the sorts of thoughts that were running through my head, at about that time. They only compounded the doubts that I was already having. Of course, later, I would come to believe that Jesus was <a href="http://respectfulatheist.blogspot.ca/2011/09/man-of-his-time.html" target="_blank">only a man</a>. He hadn't died for our sins, to begin with, and he wasn't God. <br />
<br />
But all of this presents an interesting quandary, for us former Christians, most notably around Easter (and Christmas) time. How can we still feel like participants in the celebration? As Julia points out, the initial temptation is to grab and hold tightly, even as it slips through your very fingers...<br />
<br />
"<i>So, I tried to concentrate on what I <b>did</b> like about the church. The stained glass windows are pretty. The light in the church, the religious art. The songs...not the words to the songs exactly...but the melodies are nice...</i>" <br />
<br />
Will I be going to church this Easter? No. I suppose I would, if I lived closer to my parents. Or if my wife was still a believer. At the end of the day I think it is that sense of community, even extended church "family", that makes me miss church just a little at times like this. I can no longer bring myself to give intellectual assent, to the creeds that underlie the occasion, but I still understand the appeal on an emotional level. I believe it was Bart Ehrman who pointed out that one of the more uncomfortable aspects, of no longer being a Christian, <i>is having no one to thank</i>. <br />
<br />
I can relate to that.<br />
<br />
So let's love on those around our own table, this Easter, and remind them how much they mean to us. Soak in those good moments because, unfortunately, they won't last forever. And, to my fellow unbelievers, remember that although there may not be any meaning <u>to</u> life, there is certainly meaning <u>in</u> life." But it's up to us. Let's <i>create</i> some of that meaning, for those and the ones we love this weekend. <br />
<br />
Happy Easter everyone.Respectful Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03303760970096374936noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812241728597205774.post-34812930834261855802012-03-23T20:57:00.016-04:002012-03-23T23:11:42.118-04:00AgenticityLet's re-visit the story I told last time about the hominid who hears a rustle in the grass. You'll recall that the pressing question was whether the sound was caused by the wind, or a dangerous predator. This is a crucial distinction, on several levels, but note that there is a key difference present in this scenario that we haven't yet discussed...the wind is inanimate, but a dangerous predator is an <i><b>intentional agent</b></i>.<br />
<br />
<b>Agenticity="the tendency to infuse patterns with meaning, intention, and agency."</b><br />
<br />
"<i>Examples of agenticity abound...Children believe that the sun can think and follows them around, and when asked to draw a picture of the sun they often add a smiley face to give agency to it...A third of transplant patients believe that the donor's personality or essence is transplanted with the organ...most people say they would never wear the sweater of a murderer, showing great disgust at the very thought, as if some of the murderer's evil would rub off in the material of the sweater.</i>"<br />
<br />
As you can see these two concepts, patternicity and agenticity, are very interesting individually; but <i>together</i> I believe they have <b>huge</b> explanatory power. Coming to understand their prominence, in our thinking, was a major "aha" moment, for me personally, and I have unwittingly witnessed this cognitive combo in action literally hundreds of times (in those around me as well as myself) since then. <br />
<br />
"<i>As large-brained hominids with a developed cortex and a 'theory of mind'--the capacity to be aware of such mental states as desires and intentions in both ourselves and others...we often impart the patterns we find with agency and intention, and believe that these intentional agents control the world, sometimes invisibly from the top down, instead of bottom-up causal laws and randomness that makes up much of our world. Souls, spirits, ghosts, gods, demons, angels, aliens, intelligent designers, government conspiracists, and all manner of invisible agents with power and intention are believed to haunt our world and control our lives. Combined with our propensity to find meaningful patterns in both meaningful and meaningless noise, patternicity and agenticity form the cognitive basis of shamanism, paganism, animism, polytheism, monotheism, and all modes of Old and New Age spiritualisms and much more...<b>There is now substantial evidence from cognitive neuroscience that humans readily find patterns and impart agency to them</b>.</i>" (bolding mine)<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwlkfeaRsrptjHjIInWeaDPHCs7WiApcpT3BhKfnWR1IHoKyCb9NRjlgwpf3-mfA91GjzyLWSf3ueZlOxIYmramdNZ8mQyNRGlhvFwmaoRXlIzyxrG_qRBB3GIN4eJH9CHx5P97XRhrYo/s1600/god-hands-in-clouds.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="224" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwlkfeaRsrptjHjIInWeaDPHCs7WiApcpT3BhKfnWR1IHoKyCb9NRjlgwpf3-mfA91GjzyLWSf3ueZlOxIYmramdNZ8mQyNRGlhvFwmaoRXlIzyxrG_qRBB3GIN4eJH9CHx5P97XRhrYo/s320/god-hands-in-clouds.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
Let me bring this a little closer to home, by using the rest of this post to hone in on a small sampling of ways in which patternicity + agenticity are heavily at work in modern day Christianity. I'll start with a really easy example...let's suppose that there is a terrible hurricane and, in the days that follow, Pat Robertson opines that it is more than likely a sign of God's judgement on the homosexuals, who happen to live in the affected area, and those who so brazenly support them. The logic, in Pat's mind, goes something like this:<br />
<br />
<b><u>Patternicity</u></b>--There are a lot of homosexuals living in the city where there was just a hurricane; this can't be a coincidence! <br />
<u><b>Agenticity</b></u>--The God that I believe in strongly opposes homosexuality; he may have sent this hurricane to warn us to repent and turn from our wicked ways!<br />
<br />
In a weird sort of way, this actually makes sense. It's not a non sequitir, if you grant that Robertson's God exists. It <i>is</i> however totally <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability">unfalsifiable</a></i>. There will never come a point where Christians can say, with 100% certainty, that Pat Robertson's hypothesis on hurricanes is incorrect. Most Christians will reject his assertion out of hand however, simply because they don't like the sort of God it implies. <b>But there is a much better reason to reject it</b>, and therein lies the rub. More on that in a minute.<br />
<br />
Let's move on to a much more controversial example; <i>answers to prayer</i>. Are they real? Let's break down the logic again:<br />
<br />
<b><u>Patternicity</u></b>--I prayed about something that was worrying me last night and my situation improved today (this can't be a coincidence)!<br />
<br />
<b><u>Agenticity</u></b>--My God answers prayers, because he loves me! Prayer works!<br />
<br />
First off recall that, as discussed last time, <b>the propensity to find patterns goes up when people feel a lack of control</b>. <i>Christians tend to pray most fervently when they are feeling precisely this way (ie. stressed about something)</i>. This means they're perfectly primed, ahead of time, to find what they're already looking for and expecting in faith (plus they count only the hits; ignoring the misses). And here again there is no way to prove, in any sort of absolute sense, that these two items are not indeed connected (the prayer and the improvement in the situation at hand). So why do I think the connection should be rejected? Let's move on to a third example, and then I'll answer the question more directly. <br />
<br />
Here are some song lyrics, from popular Christian singer (and former American Idol contestant) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandisa">Mandisa</a>:<br />
<br />
<i>Have you ever heard a love song, that set your spirit free?</i><br />
<i>Have you ever watched a sunrise and felt you could not breathe?</i><br />
<i>What if it's Him.</i><br />
<i>What if it's God speaking.</i><br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
<i>Have you ever cried a tear that you could not explain?</i><br />
<i>Have you ever met a stranger who already knew your name?</i><br />
<i>What if its Him.</i><br />
<i>What if it's God speaking.</i><br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
<i>Who knows how He'll get ahold of us?</i><br />
<i>Get our attention to prove He is enough.</i><br />
<i>He'll do, and He'll use whatever He wants to.</i><br />
<i>To tell us, I love You.</i><br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
<i>Have you ever lost a loved one</i><br />
<i>Who you thought should still be here?</i><br />
<i>Do you know what it feels like</i><br />
<i>to be tangled up in fear?</i><br />
<i>What if He's somehow involved?</i><br />
<i>What if He's speaking through it all?</i><br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
<i>Who knows how He'll get ahold of us?</i><br />
<i>Get our attention to prove He is enough.</i><br />
<i>He'll do and He'll use whatever he wants to</i><br />
<i>To tell us, I love you.</i><br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
<i>His ways are higher.</i><br />
<i>His ways are better.</i><br />
<i>Though sometimes strange.</i><br />
<i>What could be stranger than God in a manger?</i><br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
<i>Who knows how He'll get ahold of us?</i><br />
<i>Get our attention to prove He is enough.</i><br />
<i>Who knows how He'll get ahold of you?</i><br />
<i>Get your attention to prove He is enough.</i><br />
<i>He'll do and He'll use whatever He wants to.</i><br />
<i>To tell us I love you.</i><br />
<i>God is speaking, I love you.</i><br />
<br />
(If you must hear it <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZI2gOBvBHk">click here</a>.)<br />
<br />
Notice how this song is absolutely dripping with patternicity + agenticity. The lyrics even attempt to, in effect, <i>build a cumulative case</i>, for the reality of these patterns. She begins by saying things like "what if" He's involved and working through it all. By the end, the lyrics grow more confident; "God IS speaking" (oh, and just in case you weren't sure what He was saying, it's "I love you."). Remember too that God works in strange ways because, after all, "what could be stranger than God in a manger." <b>False/anecdotal patterns + agenticity = a nearly perfect (and highly emotional) ballad for believers.</b> No doubt many of them have been stirred to tears, while listening to this song, imagining all of the (deceptively "normal") situations that God was probably attempting to speak through in their own lives (if only they'd been paying closer attention!).<br />
<br />
Let me wrap up by getting to the real point that I am trying to make here. How do we sort out false patterns from real ones? <i>The best method we have is science</i>. <b>The above patterns should all be rejected because they are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc">ad hoc</a></b>. There is simply no good reason to believe that an "intentional agent" is involved at all. Because of our strong inclination to make Type I errors (false positives), and then to further ascribe agency to them, it stands to reason that we should approach such matters with a high degree of initial skepticism. Prayer, for example, HAS been scientifically tested...numerous times in fact...and it <i>consistently</i> fails such tests. It didn't have to be this way. God could have made the prayers of Christians more demonstrably effective than the prayers of Muslims. Think of what a powerful testimony that would be! So, unless God is deliberately trying to hide from humankind (and, if so, than how could it be in any way "just" for him to punish unbelievers <a href="http://www.respectfulatheist.blogspot.ca/2011/12/burn-in-hell.html">in an eternal hell</a>?), the conclusion is inescapable...<i><b><u>prayer</u> <u>doesn't</u> <u>work</u></b></i>. Unfortunately, we did not evolve what Shermer calls a "Baloney Detection Network" in the brain, to distinguish between true and false patterns. This is precisely why science, with it's self-correcting mechanisms (ie. peer review), is so incredibly important.<br />
<br />
Keep in mind that each of the above are merely examples, of patternity + agenticity in Christianity...there are many, many more areas I could have analyzed (including belief in the existence of a "Holy Spirit", an invisible agent who supposedly talks to Christians inside their heads).<br />
<br />
Belief is natural. Skepticism is difficult. It can be uncomfortable to <i>not</i> believe things. I'll close with what is my favorite paragraph in the entire book; the big takeaway, for me, from "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Believing-Brain-Conspiracies---How-Construct/dp/0805091254/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1332550579&sr=8-1">The Believing Brain</a>"...<br />
<br />
"...<i>research supports what I call <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza">Spinoza's</a> conjecture: belief comes quickly and naturally, skepticism is slow and unnatural, and most people have a low tolerance for ambiguity. The scientific principle that a claim is untrue unless proven otherwise runs counter to our natural tendency to accept as true that which we can comprehend quickly. Thus it is that <b>we should reward skepticism and disbelief, and champion those willing to change their mind in the teeth of new evidence</b>. Instead, most social institutions--most notably those in religion, politics, and economics--reward belief in the doctrines of the faith or party or ideology, punish those who challenge the authority of the leaders, and discourage uncertainty and especially skepticism.</i>" (bolding mine)Respectful Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03303760970096374936noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812241728597205774.post-54224140460310571192012-03-19T16:28:00.004-04:002012-03-19T17:52:02.091-04:00Patternicity<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZms_otX70CapoXCmGy-M68P5MH16LTrOEwAy1BeVatzjoHs5HEdKSSDA1IuIiIGyGY0lfNQkKa2O0SkHYBY43av-oTzSNy6TwEta1XLAXFjqV1buKhN8xurHg9vQfggzGhpGshfhbhtw/s1600/b144HB_lg.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZms_otX70CapoXCmGy-M68P5MH16LTrOEwAy1BeVatzjoHs5HEdKSSDA1IuIiIGyGY0lfNQkKa2O0SkHYBY43av-oTzSNy6TwEta1XLAXFjqV1buKhN8xurHg9vQfggzGhpGshfhbhtw/s200/b144HB_lg.png" width="131" /></a></div>There are a handful of others, who played heavily into my de-conversion, that I have thus far barely mentioned here on the Respectful Atheist blog. One such person is <a href="http://www.michaelshermer.com/">Michael Shermer</a>. Shermer is precisely the sort of atheist that I desire to be; calm, level headed, friendly, patient, and skeptical without being cynical. (To see just how incredibly patient Shermer is <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_CLIGJW6Ic">watch this</a>.) I honestly can't remember how I first encountered his work. It may have been that I simply looked him up, after hearing that he was a famous skeptic who used to be a Christian. I have tended to feel a strong bond, with former Christians, since only they truly "get" what it is like to embrace faith and then to change your mind completely.<br />
<br />
Anyway, it's neither here nor there. I will seek to remedy the situation, over these next few posts, by discussing an admittedly tiny fragment of Shermer's work. More specifically, I would like to examine the concepts of "patternicity" & "agenticity". When I am done I will do my best to tie it all together, in terms of how these two ideas have influenced my own thinking on spiritual matters. For simplicities sake, all of my quotes will come from Shermer's excellent book "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Believing-Brain-Conspiracies---How-Construct/dp/0805091254/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1332182816&sr=8-1">The Believing Brain</a>" (where he covers patternicity and agenticity in back to back chapters).<br />
<br />
Let's begin with a definition: <b>patternicity="<i>the tendency to find meaningful patterns in both meaningful and meaningless noise</i>"</b>.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><br />
We are pattern seeking primates; descendants of those who who were most successful at what's sometimes called "association learning". In other words, we see patterns. Lots and lots and lots of patterns. And we see them everywhere. It's just part of how we learn. As Shermer says, "<i>we can no more eliminate superstitious learning than we can eliminate all learning</i>". Not all of these perceived patterns are real, however, and there are two types of related errors:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEji8V1MCtALKvyoG3JGPG3Fawia6qkL_m6OBM0OB7wv8XmOUrhD7Dfu64eztcVEOEW-tREdk9N1UZreN6KZKvF69jD4_n0UGbmPwCj9eYED8o33-0ffldTtL5FSOYYDPF-c8h33WGYsBxs/s1600/clip_image0055.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="129" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEji8V1MCtALKvyoG3JGPG3Fawia6qkL_m6OBM0OB7wv8XmOUrhD7Dfu64eztcVEOEW-tREdk9N1UZreN6KZKvF69jD4_n0UGbmPwCj9eYED8o33-0ffldTtL5FSOYYDPF-c8h33WGYsBxs/s200/clip_image0055.png" width="200" /></a></div><b>Type I Error (false positive)--believing a pattern is real when it's not (finding a nonexistent pattern)</b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
<b>Type II Error (false negative)--not believing a pattern is real when it is (not recognizing a real pattern)</b><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
We tend to make a large number of type I errors. Why? The answer lies in evolution. Let's suppose that you are a hominid, taking a walk, a few million years ago. You hear a rustle in the grass. Is it a dangerous predator? It could be. Then again, maybe it's just the wind. If you determine it's a dangerous predator, but it's not, no real harm is done (a type I error). However, if you assume it to be the wind, and it turns out to be a dangerous predator, you're lunch (a type II error). Natural selection has favored strategies that make many <i>incorrect</i> causal associations in order to establish those that are essential for survival and reproduction. To put it a different way, people believe weird things because of our evolved need to believe non-weird things. <br />
<br />
With a sufficient amount of information (or time) we could surely determine more accurately the true cause of that rustle in the grass. Right? True enough. "<i>The problem is that assessing the difference between a Type I and Type II error is highly problematic--especially in the split second timing that often determined the difference between life and death in our ancestral environments--<b>so the default position is to assume that all patterns are real</b>; that is, assume that all rustles in the grass are dangerous predators and not the wind.</i>" (bolding mine)<br />
<br />
Have you ever noticed that your first gut reaction, to an unexpected sound in the middle of the night, is to think that an intruder has entered your home? It is usually only <i><b>after</b></i> you take a moment, to allow your rational brain to kick in, that you realize the chances of it being something else (probably much less scary) are significantly higher. How many people hear weird sounds in the middle of the night, at least from time to time? (Millions.) And how many of those weird sounds <i>actually</i> turn out to be dangerous intruders? (By comparison, only a tiny fragment.) Because of evolution our default setting is to make a type I error (false positive). This is the same reason that children so often see "faces" in their closet (when it's really just the clothes or a shadow). We have evolved to see patterns, many of which are not actually there. <br />
<br />
This tendency, in the direction of assuming initially that all perceived patterns are real, has been scientifically demonstrated many times over (in both human and non human subjects). For example, in one experiment, pigeons were taught to peck at two keys to receive grain through a food hopper. The researchers discovered that if they randomly delivered the food reinforcement, whatever the pigeon happened to be doing, just before the delivery of the food, would be repeated the next time. The results, as you can imagine, were rather humorous. Before pecking the key some pigeons would spin around once to the left, others would turn counter-clockwise, or hop side to side, whatever they thought would bring the food. None of this had the slightest impact on the food delivery schedule of course; which was entirely random. These odd behaviors were almost always repeated in the same part of the cage, and they were generally oriented toward some feature of the cage. The birds in this experiment were developing a superstition; or, as Shermer calls it, <i>pigeon patternicity</i>. <br />
<br />
Or how about (human) babies? "<i>When an infant observes the cooing happy face of its mother or father, the face acts as a sign stimulus that initiates the innate releasing mechanism in its brain to trigger the fixed action pattern of smiling back, thereby setting up a symphony of parent-child staring and cooing and smiling--and bonding attachment. <b>It need not even be a real face</b>. Two black dots on a cardboard cutout elicit a smile in infants, although one dot does not, indicating that the newborn brain is preconditioned by evolution to look for and find the simplest pattern of a face by two to four data points: two eyes, a nose, and a mouth, which may even be represented as two dots, a vertical line, and a horizontal line. Facial-recognition software was built into our brains by evolution because of the importance of the face in establishing and maintaining relationships, reading emotions, and determining trust in social interactions.</i>" (bolding mine)<br />
<br />
There are dozens of other examples, such as "<i>...the human enjoyment of artificial sweeteners as well as with our modern problem of obesity. In the natural environment, (A) sweet and rich foods are strongly associated with (B) nutritious and rare. Therefore, we gravitate to any and all foods that are sweet and rich, and because they were once rare we have no satiation network in the brain that tells us to shut off the hunger mechanism, so we eat as much as we can of them. On the other end of the taste spectrum, there is the well-known taste aversion effect--one-trial learning--where the pairing of a food or drink with severe nausea and vomiting often results in a long-term aversion for that food or drink.</i>"<br />
<br />
I think you get the idea. <br />
<br />
It's also worth noting that research demonstrates <b>the propensity to find patterns goes up when people feel a lack of control</b>. Shermer uses a sports analogy to illustrate the point. Why is it that, in baseball, superstitious behaviors & beliefs always seem to exhibit themselves <i>in batters</i>, but never (or rarely) <i>in fielders</i>? Perhaps it is because fielders are successful 90% to 95% of the time, but <i>even the best batters</i> fail 7 out of 10 times. The patternicity (if I wear the same pair of socks every time I go up to bat I will be more successful) is the batter's way of trying to regain control over the situation. "<i>Lacking control is highly aversive, and one fundamental way we can bolster our sense of control is to understand what's going on. So we instinctively seek out patterns to regain control--even if those patterns are illusory.</i>"<br />
<br />
At this point you might be asking yourself, "what's the point?". "Where is this Respectful Atheist guy going with all of this?" Somewhere, I promise. For now though, I simply want to establish the point that patternicity is real. And it ties in directly with what I will cover next time, "agenticity". As promised, when I am done outlining both concepts, I will connect all of the dots and offer some additional personal reflections.Respectful Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03303760970096374936noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812241728597205774.post-60929281946748780432012-03-13T13:37:00.006-04:002012-03-13T17:15:05.793-04:00Atheist Or Agnostic?<div>Given the topic of my last few posts, now feels like a good time to clarify my current position. I haven't been trying to hide it, per se, I guess I've just been so caught up in discussing other things that I've not paused long enough to state it plainly.</div><div><br />
</div><div>After losing my faith in Christianity, and with the concept of faith generally, I went through a period of time where I was unsure what I should call myself. I felt strongly that it would no longer be appropriate to use the term "Christian", but what was the alternative? <i>Former</i> Christian? Skeptic? Agnostic? Atheist? I didn't know. </div><div><br />
</div><div>For a while I toyed heavily with the term agnostic. I liked the fact that agnostic implies a certain humility, in the minds of most people, because frankly I've always considered humility to be one of the greatest virtues (and I still feel this way). At the same time, there were also things that I didn't like about the word. When it would come up in casual conversation, that so and so claimed to be an agnostic, I noticed that my Christian friends would automatically have certain impressions. For one, they viewed an agnostic as someone who just couldn't seem to make up their mind. A waffler. Worse still, the additional assumption was made that any and all agnostics hadn't really thought very much about the deeper questions in life. I knew this wasn't true of me. In fact, in so far as I could tell, I had spent more time thinking about those things than most Christians that I personally knew. Even still, the hidden implication remained that an agnostic was someone who needed to think more, so they could get off the fence!</div><div><br />
</div><div>I also had problems with the term atheist. As a Christian, it had always been my belief that an atheist was someone who claimed to know for sure that there was "no god". I certainly wasn't claiming this. In fact, at the time, it felt arrogant to me. With such a vast universe (or even multiverse!) how could tiny peons, like us, possibly claim to "know"? </div><div><br />
</div><div>As I began to investigate the terminology further, I came to realize that <i>both my friends and I had been mistaken</i>. Below I would like to share with you, what I learned, and then I will close by telling you where I stand. </div><div><br />
</div><div>Firstly, it's important to understand (and most people don't) that gnosticism/agnosticism and theism/atheism deal with <i>two different spheres</i>. The former two deal with the realm of <b>knowledge</b>, and the latter two with <b>belief</b>. "Getting" this distinction is the key, I think, to a proper understanding. Once it really clicked, for me, my remaining questions and concerns faded away rather quickly. Let's break it down...<br />
<br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><i><u>A gnostic</u>--claims to <b>know</b> whether or not there is a god</i></div><div><i><br />
</i></div><div><i><u>An agnostic</u>--claims <b>not to know</b> whether or not there is a god (or that we cannot know)</i></div><div><i><br />
</i></div><div><i><u>A theist</u>--<b>believes</b> in a god</i></div><div><i><br />
</i></div><div><i><u>An atheist</u>--<b>does not believe</b> in a god</i><br />
<br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div>As you may have picked up on, from the above definitions, the terms gnostic & agnostic are not mutually exclusive with the terms theist & atheist. Let's break it down even further...<br />
<br />
</div><div><br />
</div><i><u>A gnostic theist</u>--<b>Claims to know</b> that there is a God <b>and believes</b> in a god</i><br />
<div><i><br />
</i></div><div><i><u>An agnostic theist</u>--<b>Claims not to know</b> whether or not there is a God, <b>but believes</b> in a god</i></div><div><i><br />
</i></div><div><i><u>A gnostic atheist</u>--<b>Claims to know</b> that there is not a God <b>and does not believe</b> in a god (sometimes called a "positive", "hard" or "strong" atheist)</i></div><div><i><br />
</i></div><div><i><u>An agnostic atheist</u>--<b>Claims not to know</b> whether or not there is a God, <b>but does not believe</b> in a god (sometimes called a "negative", "soft" or "weak" atheist)</i><br />
<br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div>Every one of us, whether we realize it or not, falls into one of these four categories (unless you have no position of any kind). Simply ask yourself, "do I claim to <i>know</i> whether or not there is a god?". If your answer is "yes", you are a gnostic; if "no", you are an agnostic. And then, "do I <i>believe</i> in a god?". If your answer is "yes", you are a theist; if "no", you are an atheist.</div><div><br />
</div><div>Most people don't use this sort of dual terminology, when describing themselves, in everyday discourse (to do so would be a bit clunky). So when someone claims to be an "atheist", for example, it simply means on its own that they lack active belief in a god. Nothing more. Contrary to popular notions, agnosticism is not a halfway point between atheism and theism. Many atheists are also agnostics and vice versa.</div><div><br />
</div><div>With that said, I am an agnostic atheist. Where do you fall on the continuum?<br />
<br />
I hope I've explained this clearly but, if you're still confused, I would encourage you to check out <a href="http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/">this link</a> for an even fuller (and more visual) breakdown. </div>Respectful Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03303760970096374936noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812241728597205774.post-55241652564041333942012-03-08T20:06:00.006-05:002012-03-08T22:18:31.573-05:00Do Atheists Need Faith?<div style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 8px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 8px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">Since becoming an atheist I've been thinking a lot about faith. As a Christian I was taught that faith is a good thing; a VERY good thing. In fact, in Christianity, it's one of the three biggies ("<a href="http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-13.htm">faith, hope and love...</a>").<br />
<br />
I can still remember what it felt like when I first encountered the mere suggestion, during my de-conversion, that faith might not be a positive attribute after all. The very thought of it was startling (and deeply disturbing) to me. You mean there are actually people who think it's <i>bad</i> to have faith?! <b>Sane</b> people?<br />
<br />
As I began to analyze it, more and more, I ultimately came to the conclusion that faith is, by and large, something to be avoided wherever possible. Yes, you read that last sentence correctly. To repeat, <b>I now believe that faith is something to be <i>avoided</i></b>. <br />
<br />
Below, I will do my best to explain cogently why I would ever say such a scandalous thing.<br />
<br />
First, let's begin with a quick clarification. I've noticed that discussions about faith have a tendency to get bogged down in semantics. I think this is partly due to the fact that the word faith itself has several different definitions. For the purposes of this post I'd like to hone in on definition number 2, <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith">according to dictionary.com</a>, "belief that is not based on proof". To be clear, I have no significant problem with some of the other definitions of the word faith (such as definition number 1, "confidence or trust in a person or thing"). More on that later.<br />
<br />
Let's get back to my original question...is it necessary, or even healthy, for any of us to cleave to a "belief that is not based on proof"? Ever?? No. Absolutely not. Christian, can you think of any <b>other</b> area in life, <i>besides religion</i>, where "belief without proof" is beneficial in some way? Just one example?<br />
<br />
Take your time.<br />
<br />
Now, notice that I did not title this post "do atheists <i><u>have</u></i> faith". I'm certain there are plenty of atheists who hold firmly to all sorts of unsupported beliefs. My point is that they <b>shouldn't</b>. Faith, in this second sense of the word, is simply not required nor is it helpful.<br />
<br />
I once interacted with a Christian who "played the faith card" by accusing atheists of having "faith" in The Big Bang Theory. To illustrate she linked to a document which contained numerous highly technical, and supposedly unresolved, problems with the theory. What she failed to realize is that such an objection is completely irrelevant to the atheist. It can't even get off the ground, because we do not hold to The Big Bang Theory in a manner that is comparable to the way in which she holds to the Christian religion. If The Big Bang were disproved tomorrow, it wouldn't phase us skeptics. Our core beliefs would remain fully intact. I do "<i>believe"</i> in the Big Bang theory, mind you, but only because it's the best explanation we've got (and, despite what she claimed, there is <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html">an abundance of evidence in its favor</a>). I don't have "faith" in it by any means. She further viewed our unwillingness to debate it point by point as a rhetorical win, for her side, when in fact it was simple humility (and respect for proper scientists) that kept us from taking this approach. What she should have been doing instead is seeking out <a href="http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101005220106AAlpi10">a physicist or a cosmologist</a>. Did she?<i style="font-weight: bold;"> </i>I sincerely hope so, but I doubt it. <br />
<br />
Also, as I discussed last time, Christianity does not win by default <i><u>even</u> <u>if</u></i> our best minds are unable to explain where The Universe came from. Atheists/agnostics are completely o.k. with answering "I don't know", whenever and wherever necessary; can Christians say the same? <br />
<br />
My current belief is that it's perfectly alright to have varying degrees of certainty about pretty well anything and everything. For example, I feel around 99% certain that I will wake up tomorrow morning. I am a relatively young man, without any significant health problems (that I am aware of), and it is pretty rare for people like me to die suddenly in the middle of the night. I am about 75% sure that I won't have to replace either one of my aging cars within the next year. I feel roundabout 60% sure that it will rain tomorrow. (Or at least that's what the meteorologist says.) Should I be feeling the need to use faith, to "top up" any of these beliefs? Let's say someone is 51% convinced that Jesus died for their sins, but 49% of them doubts it (pretending, for the moment, that such a thing could be accurately measured); do they squeeze into eternal bliss by the skin of their teeth? And what if you flip those numbers the other way? Does such a person merit <i>eternal</i> punishment, with no chance of reprieve, but "just barely"? The absurdities, in the Christian worldview, only deepen the more that you allow yourself to ponder on such conundrums. <br />
<br />
Some Christians will object to my points above by claiming that they hold exclusively to the "trust" definition of faith. Atheists need not believe anything on insufficient evidence, they will say, they need only have "faith" (aka "trust") in God. This is utterly nonsensical, of course, because it's meaningless to ask someone to "trust" in something that they don't even believe exists. Do you "trust" the Tooth Fairy? How about Santa Claus? Bigfoot? Or perhaps you prefer to "trust" in space aliens? <br />
<br />
I'm sure I will wind up coming back to this subject again sometime, perhaps several times, so I'll leave you for now with those initial thoughts. I'd like to close with the following discussion, from "<a href="http://www.atheist-experience.com/">The Atheist Experience</a>" TV show, since it illustrates quite nicely the difference in perspective between atheists and Christians on this issue (and be sure to stay tuned until the very end for a special surprise...). </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/87GE4kEyND0?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>Respectful Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03303760970096374936noreply@blogger.com3