On several occasions, I’ve heard Christians allude to this or that Christian expert who can out-argue any non-believer and their criticisms of Christianity. The underlying subtext of these claims seems to be: “You can out-argue me, but only because you’re a skilled and intelligent debater. If you get two equally intelligent and skilled debaters in a room, the Christian side will always win because it has the facts to support it.” Lee Strobel is one of those popular Christian authors that Christians point to. I have a copy of Strobel’s “The Case for Faith: A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianity” on my desk, and had once read roughly a third of the book before getting tired of reading his bad arguments.
One of the things Strobel does is write this book like some kind of novel. He’s like some sort of detective, running across the country to get this or that bit of information (even though it’s obvious a phone interview would’ve been just as effective – except for building suspense). His interviews are drastically condensed into this or that bit of “wisdom”, and it’s obvious that his interviews is being recounted through his Christian filters and recollections.
The Introduction
Strobel recounts the stories of Charles Templeton and Billy Graham. They were friends, and Templeton had a crisis of faith – eventually becoming an outspoken agnostic and author (see his book, “Farewell to God: My Reasons for Rejecting the Christian Faith”). Graham, on the other hand, couldn’t answer the intellectual problems raised by Templeton, and one night, he falls to his knees and decides to ignore all the doubts and simply believe in Christianity. (I talk about this in an earlier post: “Kurt Wise and the Religious Lobotomy”.) Needless to say, I thought Templeton’s position was the rational intelligent one, and Graham’s decision to simply shut off his brain and believe in religion was (to use Templeton’s words) “intellectual suicide”.
Stobel has an interview with Templeton, who is an old man beginning to suffer from Alzheimer’s at this point. Templeton argues that Christianity cannot be true, raising the question of suffering in the world – and one particular example:
“It was a picture of a black woman in Northern Africa,” he explained. “They were experiencing a devastating drought. And she was holding her dead baby in her arms and looking up to heaven with the most forlorn expression. I looked at it and I thought, ‘Is it possible to believe that there is a loving or caring Creator when all this woman needed was rain?'”
As he emphasized the word rain, his bushy gray eyebrows shot up and his arms gestured toward heaven as if beckoning for a response.
“How could a loving God do this to that woman?” he implored as he got more animated, moving to the edge of his chair. “Who runs the rain? I don’t; you don’t. He does — or that’s what I thought. But when I saw that photograph, I immediately knew it was not possible for this to happen and for there to be a loving God. There was no way. Who else but a fiend could destroy a baby and virtually kill its mother with agony — what all that was needed was rain?” (p.16-17)
At the same time, Templeton also expresses great admiration for Jesus:
“He was”, Templeton began, “the greatest human being who has ever lived. He was a moral genius. His ethical sense was unique. He was the intrinsically wisest person that I’ve ever encountered in my life or in my readings…”
I was taken aback. “You sound like you really care about him,” I said.
“Well, yes, he’s the most important thing in my life,” came his reply. “I … I … I,” he stuttered, searching for the right word, “I know it may sound strange, but I have to say … I adore him!”
…
as his voice began to crack, “I … miss … him!” (p.21-22)
While Strobel never says it in his book, I couldn’t help but think he was playing on C.S. Lewis’ popular God-shaped-hole idea (google: 66,800 hits) – i.e. creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for these desires exists. In other words, if you desire for a kind, benevolent invisible deity to watch over you – then it must be true that this being exists; if you desire an afterlife for you and your family, then an afterlife – or a way to gain an afterlife – must exist. (C.S. Lewis argument sounds a lot dumber when you put it that way.)
Strobel bemoans the fact that intellectual hurdles (as Templeton argues) stand in the way of believing.
Throughout the book, Strobel likes to take on this “I’m a hard-headed journalist” persona. For example, after his interview with Templeton, Strobel recounts a conversation with his wife:
Leslie nodded. “You have been [on the same path as Templeton],” she said. “You’re both writers, you’ve both been skeptics.” Then she added with a smile, “And you’re both too hardheaded to buy into faith until you’re sure it’s not riddled with holes.” (p.29)
And then on the very next page:
I was sincerely interested in determining whether [the most knowledgeable and ardent defenders of Christianity] had rational answers to “The Big Eight [objections to Christianity].” I wanted to give them ample opportunity to spell out their reasoning and evidence in detail so that, in the end, I could evaluate whether their positions made sense. Most of all, I wanted to find out whether God was telling the truth when he said, “You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.” (p.30-31)
He constantly reinforces the “I’m a hard-hitting skeptic” idea throughout the book. He acts like he’s going to sincerely ask the hard questions of Christianity, and even raises the stakes by saying things like “I wanted to find out whether God was telling the truth“. Really? At the time the book was published, he had been a Christian for almost 20 years, he’s a pastor who’s authored a bunch of pro-Christian books, a son who’s a biblical studies graduate, and he’s seriously going to ask whether “God was telling the truth”? It’s patently ridiculous. I can’t help but laugh out loud at this kind of faux skepticism (evidently crafted to build credibility and suspense). His whole persona makes sense when you think about his relationship to his audience, though. He’s writing these books for Christians, telling them that he’s not going to pull any punches, and the benefit of this strategy is that the readers get to convince themselves that this no-holds-barred writer gets continually knocked over with the pro-Christian position. I can’t help but imagine a grown man play-fighting with a child. He flexes and grunts, but then feigns shock and surprise as the child “knocks him down” repeatedly. That’s Strobel’s performance in his books.
What are “The Big Eight” objections to Christianity?
* If there’s a loving God, why does this pain-wracked world groan under so much suffering and evil?
* If the miracles of God contradict science, then how can any rational person believe that they’re true?
* If God really created the universe, why does the persuasive evidence of science compel so many to conclude that the unguided process of evolution accounts for life?
* If God is morally pure, how can he sanction the slaughter of innocent children as the Old Testament says he did?
* If Jesus is the only way to heaven, then what about the millions of people who have never heard of him?
* If God cares about the people he created, how could he consign so many of them to an eternity of torture in hell just because they didn’t believe the right things about him?
* If God is the ultimate overseer of the church, why has it been rife with hypocrisy and brutality throughout the ages?
* If I’m still plagued by doubts, then is it still possible to be a Christian?
Objection #1: Since Evil and Suffering Exist, a Loving God Cannot
Strobel talks to Peter John Kreeft (Philosophy PhD and author of “Making Sense out of Suffering”), and relays Templeton’s argument involving the African woman suffering from a drought, her dead child still in her arms. Kreeft seizes on Templeton’s words: “I immediately knew it was not possible for this to happen and for there to be a loving God” complaining about the absoluteness of the statement. Admittedly, I thought the same thing about Templeton’s statement the the first time I read it – that it was excessively absolute, and that opened him up for attack. Kreeft says:
“[T]o say there’s no possibility that a loving God who knows far more than we do, including about our future, could possibly tolerate such evil as Templeton sees in Africa — well, that strikes me as intellectually arrogant.”
That took me aback. “Really?” I asked. “How so?”
“How can a mere finite human be sure that infinite wisdom would not tolerate certain short-range evils in order for more long-range goods that we couldn’t foresee?” he asked. … “Look at it this way,” he said. “Would you agree that the difference between us and God is greater than the difference between us and, say, a bear?”
I nodded.
“Okay, then imagine a bear in a trap and a hunter who, out of sympathy, wants to liberate him. He tries to win the bear’s confidence, but he can’t do it, so he has to shoot the bear full of drugs. The bear, however, thinks this is an attack and that the hunter is trying to kill him. He doesn’t realize that this is being done out of compassion. … [The Bear would be] convinced that the hunter was his enemy who was out to cause him suffering and pain. But the bear would be wrong. He reaches this incorrect conclusion because he’s not a human being. … how can anyone be certain that’s not an analogy between us and God?” (p.43-44)
Now, I’ve heard the God-is-to-humans as Humans-are-to-animals analogy used before, and I don’t believe it. The other time I heard this analogy used was in church, where the pastor explained that humans were like a bunch of sparrows caught in a barn, and God had to become a sparrow to show them the way out of the barn. Similarly, God had to become a human in order to teach humans how to live. The major problem with this analogy is this: humans have no common language with animals. We *cannot* communicate with them, except with body language. On the other hand, assuming Christianity is true, then: (1) God is omnipotent – and therefore *can* communicate with us, (2) There are 39 books in the Old Testament which were “written by God”, (3) There are numerous occasions claimed in the Bible where God sends angels to talk to people – and they seem to have *no* problem understanding these angels. On the other hand, bears and sparrows literally have no spoken language. The reason the bear in a trap doesn’t understand is because we cannot communicate with him. The reason we don’t understand suffering is not because we cannot understand God, but because God chooses not to communicate.
Now, he could argue that the bear isn’t smart enough to understand, just as humans aren’t smart enough to understand God’s reasons for permitting suffering, but that argument is undercut by the fact that God could simply tell people “Don’t worry, I have a reason” without trying to spell out the deeper reasons. That wouldn’t require much brain power to understand, and I’m quite certain humans are capable of comprehending it. Instead, we get silence. To get around this problem, he could argue that God’s silence and our confusion in the face of suffering is essential for bringing about the (assumed) long-term benefit. It’s a “test of faith”, some might argue, although that argument doesn’t make much sense when we’re talking about the suffering of non-Christians.
At this point, I should point out the fact that what Strobel is looking for, and what I am looking for are two different things. Strobel is looking for a loophole so that the existence of evil does not disprove God’s existence. What I am looking for is to find the most reasonable explanation of the existence of evil. My explanation: that God doesn’t exist, or God doesn’t care seems to make the most sense of the situation. Out different positions can be illustrated by this scene from Dumb and Dumber:
Lloyd: What are the chances of a guy like you and a girl like me… ending up together?
Mary: Not good.
Lloyd: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?
Mary: I’d say more like one out of a million.
Lloyd: So you’re telling me there’s a chance.
Stobel is Lloyd. He’s not looking for the most reasonable explanation. He’s just looking for a way to argue against the claim that evil completely eliminates the possibility of the Christian God’s existence. For Strobel, there is a vast difference between “one in a million” and “impossible”.
Personally, I don’t actually buy this argument. I call it like I see it, and I shouldn’t be expected to take “hidden variables” into my calculation that are going to make everything better (i.e. in the afterlife, where none of us can see). To claim that everything gets made better by a benevolent deity in some place no one can see is as thin as claiming that a malevolent deity is giving us a decent life on earth so that we will truly be horrified by our pain and suffering in the afterlife.
Kreeft goes on:
“Only in a world where faith is difficult can faith exist. I don’t have faith in two plus two equals four or in the noonday sun… You have to make an effort of faith to find [God]… And if that weren’t so, if there were something more or less than clues, it’s difficult for me to understand how we could really be free to make a choice about him… If we had no evidence at all, you could never get there. God gives us just enough evidence so that those who want him can have him.” (p.44)
This is simply ridiculous. It could just as easily be said by a cultist arguing for the divinity of David Koresh. Hey – Koresh isn’t going to do some miracles to prove his divinity; you have to have faith; he gives you just enough evidence, etc. – thereby putting the ball in your court when it legitimately belongs in theirs. It’s a great strategy for any false religion or cult because it absolves them of actually presenting good evidence. Further, why must we be free to “make a choice about him”? I think the primary issue here is obedience. Someone could know God exists, and yet be disobedient. Somehow, Kreeft manages to conflate “free will” with deciding whether or not the Christian God exists. Further, according to the Bible, God literally took away many people’s uncertainty about his existence; plenty of Biblical figures allegedly had encounters with God or angels.
But, then Kreeft really goes off the deep end:
“Besides, the evidence of evil and suffering can go both ways — it can actually be used in favor of God. … If Templeton is right in responding to these events with outrage, that presupposes there really is a difference between good and evil. The fact that he’s using the standard of good to judge evil — the fact that he’s saying quite rightly that this horrible suffering isn’t what ought to be — means that he has a notion of what ought to be; that this notion corresponds to something real; and that there is, therefore, a reality called the Supreme Good. Well, that’s another name for God.”
That sounded suspiciously like philosophical sleight of hand. Warily, I summarized Kreeft’s point to see if I understood it. “You mean that unintentionally Templeton may be testifying to the reality of God because by recognizing evil he’s assuming there’s an objective standard on which it’s based?” (p.46)
I’m often confounded by the stupidity that theists will confidently assert when talking about religion. It’s like they drop a good 50 points off of their IQ whenever they talk about it. Other than the fact that he’s essentially arguing that empathy cannot exist unless there is a supremely good deity in charge, the most obvious problem is that you can’t talk about God being good unless there is an objective concept of “good” which exists independently of God. But, if objective concepts of good and evil exist independently of God, then God isn’t the standard, and God’s existence makes no difference to our concepts of good and evil whatsoever. Essentially what Kreeft is arguing here is “might makes right”: good is whatever God says it is – an argument that undergraduate students debunk as an exercise in philosophy class. When Strobel says that it “sounded suspiciously like philosophical sleight of hand”, that’s because it is philosophical sleight of hand.
“Are there any other ways in which you believe evil works against atheism?” I asked.
“Yes, there are,” he replied. “If there is no Creator an therefore no moment of creation, then everything is the result of evolution. If there was no beginning or first cause, then the universe must have always existed. That means the universe has been evolving for an infinite amount of time — and, by now, everything should already be perfect. There would have been plenty of time for evolution to have finished and evil to have been vanquished. But there still is evil and suffering and imperfection — and that proves the atheist wrong about the universe.” (p.47)
Yikes. And this guy is a philosophy professor? No wonder so many people reject evolution – they are completely clueless about what it is and what it means. Evolution is not concerned with “morality” or the elimination of evil in the universe, and the mechanism of evolution will never lead to perfection or eliminate evil. Further, even if we were to assume an infinitely old universe, that doesn’t imply that evolution has has been working for an infinite amount of time. While I’m not asserting this to be true, consider the possibility that the universe goes through cycles of expansion and collapse. If we assume collapse results in the elimination of all life, then the universe could be infinitely old, and yet, evolutionary mechanisms would only work for X billion years before being reset by the “Big Crunch”.
“Then atheism,’ I said, “is an inadequate answer to the problem of evil?”
“It’s an easy answer — maybe, if I may use the word, a cheap answer,” he said. “Atheism is cheap on people, because it snobbishly says nine out of ten people through history have been wrong about God and have had a lie at the core of their hearts.”
“Think about that. How is it possible that over ninety percent of all the human beings who have ever lived — usually in far more painful circumstances than we — could believe in God? The objective evidence, just looking at the balance of pleasure and suffering in the world, would not seem to justify believing in an absolutely good God. Yet this has been almost universally believed. (p.47-48)
What craziness. Atheism is “snobbishness”? Just because a majority of people believe something doesn’t mean it’s true, and saying they are wrong doesn’t make you a “snob” or that your viewpoint is “cheap on people”. People also believed the earth was flat, diseases were caused by demons, etc. Could you imagine this guy living in the time of Galileo? He’d be standing there talking about Galileo’s “snobbery” for asserting that everyone was wrong about geocentrism. I think there are good psychological explanations for the spread of the “benevolent God” religions. Further, what he says is factually incorrect. He claims that over 90% of all the people who have ever lived believed in an absolutely good God. Really? There’s the Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Zoroastrians who believe in a benevolent God. That’s slightly more than half of the global population. Hindus are polytheists. Buddhists are agnostic about gods, but say that gods can’t help you achieve enlightenment anyway. The majority of China and Russia is atheist or agnostic. Further, the Christian-Muslim-Jewish religions are currently at their peak. If you stepped back two thousand years into the past, you can only count Jews and Zoroastrians – which might be in the single-digits as a percentage of global population. To say that over 90% of the people who ever lived believed in “an absolutely good God”, is flat-out wrong.
So far, Strobel has been doing exactly what I described in the beginning of this post: raising virtually no objections at all to Kreeft’s arguments, yet Strobel wants people to take him seriously as a tough-minded skeptic. Remember, the words of Strobel’s wife earlier? “And you’re both too hardheaded to buy into faith until you’re sure it’s not riddled with holes.” Yeah, right. Apparently, Strobel never met a Christian argument he didn’t like. Strobel loves to paint himself as a skeptic, but actions speak far louder than words.
Next: The non-believers review of “The Case for Faith” – part 1.5 >
That was a good write up – thanks.
It seems to me the entire Christian argument, as presented in this book, is just a case of shifting the burden of proof. If the starving woman in Africa doesn’t disprove the Christian God, then the Christian God must be real. But they still haven’t given us a reason to suppose the Christian story is true. And such an extraordinary (and patently absurd) claim would require pretty strong evidence for a rational person to consider it seriously. Anyway, I look forward to reading you deal with the rest of these “Big Eight” arguments.
Lee Strobel in his book, The Case For Faith, addresses questions posed by a Christian believer who lost his faith. I believe the answers he found, speak volumes to others who have had experienced a Christian faith conversion but read as words of foolishness or folly to those without faith.
Christ the Wisdom and Power of God
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”
Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
– 1 Corinthians 1:18-24
Certainly it’s logically consistent either to believe or not believe in a benevolent god. But to support the benevolent god position, there are simply too many rationalizations that have to be thrown in. Existence of evil? Man’s sinful nature. Existence of animal suffering? God has a master plan that we can’t understand. Creation of humans when god had foreknowledge of all the suffering to come? Ditto the master plan.
To support the no-god position, you just have to accept that some things may not need a cause (Big Bang)
It seems to me the real reason that people believe in a god is that someone told them when they were children. It’s too hard emotionally to give it up.
But to me, belief in a benevolent god just doesn’t pass Occam’s test: too many unnecessary entities, too complicated explanations, too little evidence supporting it.
It would be salutary for Kreeft to think through the implications of what he says here. It is true that the majority of humans have believed (and continue to believe) in supernatural agents; but the nature of the agents believed in has changed immensely, radically, over time. Let’s agree that most people in history lived “in far more painful circumstances than we”. What sorts of God/s did they believe in? Take the ancient Greeks: their gods were capricious, often cruel, occasionally kindly; they acknowledged no duty of care towards humanity, and would indeed happily see us extinct (Zeus wanted us all dead, and would have succeeded if Prometheus hadn’t stolen fire to gift us; and look what Zeus then did to Prometheus!). If they took a fancy to an attractive youth they had no qualms about abducting and sexually assaulting them. They took human form to fight in wars out of sheer delight in slaughtering people. And so on … now one thing you can say about this theogony is that it at least reflects humanity’s experience of living in the cosmos, a universe that is occasionally kind (rains and shines sun on our crops, say), but is more usually indifferently cruel (the myriad opportunities for pain and suffering), and is above all capricious.
The problem comes when humans want to posit not just supernatural agents as the true working of the cosmos, but infinitely good, benign and caring supernatural agents; it’s a problem because everyday experience teaches us that the cosmos isn’t like that. Attempts to square the circle (God is good, but the Devil has mucked things up) only work if you adopt a Manichean position; because if God is all-powerful then he could prevent the Devil from doing evil; and his tacit permission is tantamount to active commission. But contemporary Christianity has no truck with Manicheanism.
Strobel actually converted me,
from a Chri-curious agnostic to an atheist.
In 2003, my Christian friend tried to convert me with some abhorrent tomes, such as Morris’ “Creation Science” and some works by dog-beater Dobson. At the end, she brought out the big guns: Strobel.
Basically Strobels strateg’y is as follows: Bring up legitimate problems with Christianity the average reader has likely never heard before, then present really, really weak arguments for why those problems don’t matter and why (of all possibilities) the Christian God is the answer to life, the universe, and everything.
It was Strobel who taught me there is no historical Jesus, that the Gospels were writen anonymously, that the Gospels were copied from eachother, that the Gospels are inconsistant with eachother, that the Romans often used ropes in crucifixtion, that bribery (to take a loved one down early) was rampant, and so people found “miraculously” alive after their crucifixtion was surprisingly commonplace. It was Strobel who taught me about the dozens of other messianic cults at the time, and the up to 19 other would-be Christs who are actualy a part of the historical record, but part of no surviving religion.
Thank you, Strobel, for removing all doubts and confirming once and for all that Christianity is nothing more than ancient bullshit lifted from even more ancient bullshit.
the Romans often used ropes in crucifixtion, that bribery (to take a loved one down early) was rampant, and so people found “miraculously” alive after their crucifixtion was surprisingly commonplace. It was Strobel who taught me about the dozens of other messianic cults at the time, and the up to 19 other would-be Christs who are actualy a part of the historical record, but part of no surviving religion.
Were these issues that he raised in The Case for Christ, or something? I haven’t read any of his other books.
I assume it was Case for Christ: I got the whole gift set at once over four years ago and it’s all filed under “Epic Fail” in my head now.
KREEFT
Okay, then imagine a bear in a trap and a hunter who, out of sympathy, wants to liberate him.
CARR
Ok, why does God allow animals to die in traps, when Kreeft claims the god-like thing for a god to do would be to free them?
It is Kreeft’s own analogy.
He claims God is like a human who frees animals so they do not die in traps.
So why does this alleged god not do this god-like deed?
Why do animals still die in traps when Kreeft is adamant that freeing animals from traps is very much the sort of admirable behaviour that is just like what his alleged god does?
Jason Failes:
I assume it was Case for Christ: I got the whole gift set at once over four years ago and it’s all filed under “Epic Fail” in my head now.
It’s actually “The Case for Faith”, but it’s written by the same author: Lee Strobel.
Why do most of these comments ooze bitterness? If Jesus Christ isn’t really alive today as the Bible claims, then there is really no need to get upset about others who believe he is…even if their arguments have holes in them.
> Why do most of these comments ooze bitterness?
I think it’s the fact that we’re being lied to (both about the validity of the religion and the evidence that it’s true), that atheists are demonized by the religious establishment, that religious leaders have unwarranted authority, and that religion affects so much of our world including our politics, laws, and science (like the creation/ID/evolution controversy).
tinyfrog, Thanks for your response.
“that atheists are demonized by the religious establishment”
Just as Christians or theists in general tend to over-generalize the thoughts and feelings of atheists, this too is an over-generalization of the “religious establishment.” I don’t look at you as a demon and there are many Christians who don’t assume you to be a bad character as those who do.
“that religious leaders have unwarranted authority”
Of what authority do you speak? If it is authority in the church, which is as far as most religious authority extends, then it shouldn’t bother you as I assume as an atheist you don’t go to church. If it is political power, then you may have a point…to an extent. The problem with calling said power “unwarranted” (at least in the USA) is that those who are in power got there because the majority (even if only slight) voted for them. Were an atheist to be elected to political power, it would not be unwarranted power simply on the merit that I disagree with his ultimate conclusions about the universe and who created it. That day is probably not long in coming, so take heart.
“that religion affects so much of our world including…”
How can this be avoided? Most people in the world believe there is a God…even if their beliefs about him are misguided or incomplete. I find it interesting that you mention the creation/evolution controversy…as the evolution side of the field clearly has a stronghold in our education system. Creation isn’t even offered as an option anymore.
I have to disagree with our dear friend in the post above me. While it is good of you to respect the positions of belief of other people, you are most likely in the minority, or an exceedingly silent majority. While you may somewhat respect the religious freedoms of the individual, many do not. I got into a shouting match with someone who, knowing nothing of the story, claimed that the producers of the Golden Compass movie should be criminally prosecuted for making it into a kids movie (despite the fact that the books are considered children’s fantasy).
I also doubt that an atheist would soon be elected to office. I had to sit silently in my Sociology class while three jingoist pro-black power students accuse atheist of all of the crimes and character flaws hat the KKK claims infect non-caucasians. I doubt anyone wants to elect an “overweight” “racist” “anti-American” “anti-Education” “over-sexed” “immoral” “monster.”
As for your comment to evolution winning in schools – hardly. Biology teachers make it a point to mention -all- theories of life development in class. My biology teacher makes it a point to talk about holes in evolution – much to my discomfort. You also seem to be under the delusion that evolution and God are mutually exclusive. The theory of evolution does not say that God cannot exist – it provides a possible answer to what the world would be like without God. It also gives us tools for God to use to make the planet’s ultra-diverse ecosystem. There is no Christ-Darwin dichotomy, that is a fabrication of power hungry mega-pastors and right wing politicians who fear losing what power they have gained. I suggest you look up theistic-evolution, a belief that many devout Christians hold.
The problem is not people who are elected who happen to be religious. The problem is the people who once elected attempt to force their moral and philosophical beliefs upon the rest of us. The problem is the people who use their supposed faith as a political club. The debate on prayer is not about kids being able to pray on their own time in school – that is already allowed. It is about people trying to force all of your sons and daughters to pray to their pet version of the Christian god.
I’m sorry if I’m highjacking this conversation, but I wanted to add my two cents.
Nyronus,
Is “highjacking” a conversation in the blog world even possible? 🙂 If anyone is adding unwelcome thoughts, it is probably me! Concerning your comments:
“The problem is the people who once elected attempt to force their moral and philosophical beliefs upon the rest of us.”
-Agreed. History has proven that even groups (and unfortunately, especially Christianity) that try to force the whole of society to follow their way of doing things is ultimately disasterous. I think it would be equally dangerous for atheists to force their way of thinking on gov’t and ultimately the people.
“The problem is the people who use their supposed faith as a political club.” – Agreed, to an extent. No one is politics that I’m aware of lobbies in such a way that they don’t attempt to “force their moral and philosophical beliefs upon the rest of us.” Ultimately, there would be no purpose in being a politician if you didn’t then use what you believe to be true and right to lead our country…or any other country for that matter. While the majority of politicians may lay some sort of claim to Christianity or faith in God of some kind, they are nonetheless still elected. Those who don’t believe in God or at very minimum hold different ethical standards are also elected. I didn’t vote for them and may not appreciate their standards, but the process is pretty fair…at least more fair than in most countries.
“The debate on prayer is not about kids being able to pray on their own time in school – that is already allowed.” – Most Christians I know already realize this. For this I’m actually glad. I might be in the minority of Christians who doesn’t think we should fight to mandate prayer in schools. This concept leads to abuse of gov’t. I certainly don’t want gov’t to force relgious practices upon my children that are not founded in the Bible, so I’d rather they didn’t mandate any practices at all. At least for this Christian, I stay out of that debate because I’m fine with where the solution is at this point.
“Biology teachers make it a point to mention -all- theories of life development in class. ” – “Mention” is the operative word here. I have no doubt that creation is mentioned as a theory, but it is not “taught.” Evolution is taught. I’ve read the text books. The underlying assumption in most of them is that we are a product of evolution.
“My biology teacher makes it a point to talk about holes in evolution – much to my discomfort.” – Such a teacher is becoming increasingly more rare from any perspective in the discussion. Christians are just as guilty of being one-sided or at least too narrow-minded in their approach.
“You also seem to be under the delusion that evolution and God are mutually exclusive.” – I’m not sure what left you with that impression as I did not go into any detail on my beliefs within that debate.
“The theory of evolution does not say that God cannot exist – it provides a possible answer to what the world would be like without God.” In the average person’s mind it does. I’m glad you are open to such a possiblity. My personal view is that God ultimately created the universe. I do not deny that evolution is happening on some level, but I do not think that evidence of evolution ultimately must lead to the conclusion that man evolved from some other species or that our earth is millions or billions of years old.
If you really want to know what I believe…I believe that God created the heavens and the earth. He created man in his own image…a special creation (indeed it is impossible to argue that we aren’t unique among all of earths creatures). What God created he called “good.” It didn’t need any improvement. The problem came when man chose to sin. Sin ultimately destorys what is perfect. It not only causes death (because God said it would) in humans but affects all of creation as well. I think it altogether possible that the evolution we see could very well be due to not improvements in what exists, but a deterioration of it.
I’m not a scientist and obviously that theory is loaded with my presumptions about how life originated, but it does tend to offer some solution to both “sides” of the argument…solutions that better fit with what the Bible teaches than theistic-evolutionists generally tend to offer. I believe it is important to see that God created man in his own image and saw that what he created was good, because that is what God says is true (ultimately a bad argument in your mind I’m sure).
Any theory of evolution has to also, in my mind, take into account what God says is true. In my mind there is quite a bit of latitude in the Creation account in Genesis. None of us were there when life began…no matter where we stand within the creation/evolution spectrum. We have to go with what the actual evidence shows us. I think the evidence shows us that evolving from nothing is impossible, but it also shows us that denying evolution of any kind is wishful thinking on the part of many.
“you are most likely in the minority, or an exceedingly silent majority.” – I think the latter is, unfortunately, more true. As is true in all of life, the squeeky wheel gets the oil. Everyone hears the squeeky wheel. Christianity has as many, if not more of them, than belief systems. Atheists have them as well. Many Christians today are quite tolerant of other’s beliefs…in fact maybe even a bit more than our Scriptures allow. It’s the vocal minority that tends to be heard and, unfortunately, often influences the rest of us.
“I got into a shouting match with someone who, knowing nothing of the story…” – This is unfortunate and all to common. Too many people, Christian, atheist or otherwise, argue vehemently for positions on things they know nothing about. I’m sure I’ve been guilty of such at times. I think it is human to be passionate about things and sometimes we do so without regard to what is actually true…as if somehow being passionate about it actually makes it true. Anyway, if the person claimed to be a Christian, I apologize on her behalf. Though Christians reading my Bible ought not get into shouting matches with anyone. That’s not what Christ taught us to do.
Anyway, good, thought provoking post, friend. I’m glad you entered the discussion that I also barged in on! I hope you come back. I’m glad I did.
…as the evolution side of the field clearly has a stronghold in our education system. Creation isn’t even offered as an option anymore.
Well, that doesn’t mean it isn’t influencing things. Many teachers and schools don’t teach evolution for fear of offending parents. I also think all the time, money and effort spent on the debate is not money well spent. AIG has an operating budget of $10 million a year, and I just can’t help but see that money as being wasted on stirring up controversy which requires time, money and effort to combat. Further, there’s the frequent court cases that ends up soaking up lots of time and money as well.
Anyway, I’m not that critical of moderate, rational Christians. They’re still wrong, it’s just not that big of a deal — although there’s always a danger of moderates turning into fundamentalists. For example, my parents are fundamentalist, whereas my grandparents are more moderate. How do you stop the moderates (or the children of moderates) from becoming fundamentalists? I’m not sure if you can.
Fundamentalists tend to strongly trust their own “in-group” and distrust the “out-group”. I see many people’s votes being affected by “who’s the better Christian” – as if that’s a litmus test for a good leader, or they think God guides them. I still remember that Pat Robertson (the televangelist) got 25% of the votes in the 1988 Iowa caucus. The only possible conclusion is that people simply trusted him as a political leader because he was “a man of God”. Of course, from my perspective, he’s just some guy following a religion, he has no special claim on truth, he’s divisive, and he thinks all his ideas are God’s ideas – which enables him to confidently bungle things. Bush follows a similar pattern: he got votes because he was more “godly”, and his foreign policy was affected by the fact that “God told him” this or that, and he expects miracles to happen, rather than handling the situation rationally.
Example:
“God would tell me, ‘George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan’. And I did. And then God would tell me ‘George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq’. And I did.” … “And now, again, I feel God’s words coming to me, ‘Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East’. And, by God, I’m gonna do it.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa
Of course, the more fundamentalist Pat Robertson opposes a Palestinian state (even claiming that Arial Sharon’s stroke was a punishment from God to prevent a Palestinian state). Many of the Christian fundamentalists are staunchly pro-Israel (probably moreso than any other group in the United States today), to the point of inflaming the whole situation. To quote John Hagee: “The sleeping giant of Christian Zionism has awakened.” To understand how this looks to me – imagine if President Bush converted to Islam and started talking about how Allah and the spirit of Mohammed are guiding him. Imagine if Muslim clerics were suddenly influential in the US and started convincing people to change the foreign policy to be partisan, pro-Islamic, and anti-Israel.
So that’s some of the problems fundamentalist religious belief causes. Some other examples include: my recent post about a family that prayed instead of taking their diabetic daughter to a hospital – resulting in death, my post about African families kicking out their children or killing them because they are “witches”, or news stories about “exorcisms” resulting in death. On those topics, the website http://whatstheharm.net/religiousfundamentalism.html http://whatstheharm.net/faithhealing.html provides many examples.
Repetitions said:
“Why do most of these comments ooze bitterness? If Jesus Christ isn’t really alive today as the Bible claims, then there is really no need to get upset about others who believe he is…even if their arguments have holes in them.”
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html
Any more questions?
We aren’t mad at some old fable, and we certainly aren’t mad at a nonexistent God. It’s that we have to continuously swim against the current just to keep the North America from regressing back into medieval nonsense. Every day, we have to fight some idiot on a school board, or go over a new piece of legislation with a fine-toothed comb to find the sneaky little bit of code placed in there to make some theocrat’s wet-dream come true, or be extra super specially careful not to mention evolution too much in a biology class (of all places!). Every god damn day we’re out there fighting for a society that supports all of its members equally FROM other members of the same society who would make it a society that cares only for those who believe exactly what they themselves believe.
As someone who is going to sites like this, I’m surprised you even bothered to ask such a question. It’s like that old This Modern World cartoon where scientists object to teaching “The Stork Theory” in sex ed, and opponents wail “Why do they hate the stork so much?”
Jason,
Yes, I still have one question: Do you really think that all Christians are responsible for the dumb things that Christina points out in her blog?
If you do then you are only looking from one vantage point. I’ll admit, I only read about half of her post, but I stopped because I realized something…they are all incidents that Christina is dumping on Christians as a whole. I, personally, would not do or say the things that she is angry about. In fact, I’m just as angry as Christina is that Christians have said and done those things. Most of the Christians I know do not practice their faith like that.
It is true that Christians throughout history have been guilty of awful evil. It is also true that they have done much good in the world as well. Most of us strive to do good rather than be Christian Nazis.
“As someone who is going to sites like this, I’m surprised you even bothered to ask such a question.” – If you don’t want Christians to ask questions, then why write these things? Is it only for the benefit of other atheists? You all write with so much passion, which is good, but if you want to convince others of your point of view or to conduct themselves in a more responsible way, then I think it would be wise for you to invite questions…especially from those of us who are trying to be friendly and sincere in our desire to understand.
Tinyfrog,
It seems as though you are also guilty of being angry at Christians in general simply because a segment of them are obnoxious. Even within the group of people that call themselves “fundamentalists” there are much more normal Christians than you point out. Fundamentalist is a loaded term with a broad range of meaning. You are angry at the Nazi like version of this term. Most fundamentalists fit into the category simply because they have a systematic set of beliefs about God and how to live in this world…but those beliefs don’t translate into crazy actions that make us all go “What?!?!?” I know some people who would call themselves fundamentalists but if their kid was sick they’d definitely take them to the Dr. I don’t know any fundamentalists who would kill their kid for doing something wrong…even witchcraft (I’m not saying they don’t exist…I’m simply making the point that within that group their is a more radical side to it…a side to which most of them don’t belong). Most Christians would not fit in this category at all. Unfortunately, the more vocal of the fundamentalists has gained some political clout. I along with you wish that they did not have as much clout as they do.
Muslims are in the same camp. Though I disagree with their belief system, I know that the majority of them are very peaceful people who live very moral lives. The fact that radical Muslim groups are blowing up buildings, planes and the like should not be a reflection on the group as a whole. I’m mad at the ones who blow stuff up to advance their cause, not the ones that live according to their belief system without harming others.
That I wish the wacko fundamentalists didn’t have so much political clout doesn’t change the fact that it is unfair to be angry at all Christians because of this vocal minority (which is admittedly pretty large…but this is due to the fact that 1/3 of the world and probably at least 1/2 of all Americans claim to be Christians…thus the vocal minority can still be quite large).
I like to read atheist blogs because it forces me to think about what I believe and ask questions that are hard to answer. Unfortunately, I keep running across the same thing…anger at the whole of Christianity. I’m not saying you shouldn’t be angry at all of the things on Christina’s page (per Jason’s comment), but I am saying your anger needs to be qualified if you want anyone but fellow atheists to listen. Btw, I’m still listening even though I think your criticism is too general.
Monotony,
I understand your point of view. Its something we over at Common ground have just recently been discussing
(you are welcome to join us of course).
However here is the point. What jason and greta have pointed out that while you may think they fundamentalist don’t act crazy, or even moderate christians, they do. As crazy as you may perceive fundamental Muslims do.
Its around 75% of the US is christian. Get this: 65% of them don’t understand or believe evolution (which should not be a question of belief, but of evidence), 65% of them think studying and working with nanotechnology is immoral, 65% of them wouldn’t vote for an atheist regardless of their positions. I talk about this here a little, with supporting links for my numbers.
To be clear… far less than 75% of the Us population, is fundamentalist or evengelical. So why these high numbers?
Here is another crazy act. they often voted for George bush, despite clearly predictable results, based on one topic alone: abortion (well that gay marriage nonsense didnt help). That is an insane thing to do. Going to war was fortold, 9/11 made it easier. He started out right, then based on no evidence, just like religious folks, took an action that ruined our economy and made world security worse. That is why failing to use evidence for your beleifs is a bad, “crazy” thing to do.
Choosing a politician to represent you based on one topic says you are a one dimensional person. I’m not saying you did that, I’m saying that was widespread.
These are just of few of the things that I would call “crazy”. yeah, they may take their children to the hospital if they are sick, but in the same day they will perform other actions that puts us as a society in danger.
to be clear: I am NOT angry at christianity or christians. I am angry that powerful christians influence this society in a way that keeps us down, limiting our freewill by spreading ignorance. I am most atheists could care less that you beleive in something unprovable. I am angry that your beleifs influence our society in a way that favors only your beleifs.
I fhtis were another country it would be powerful jews doing it, or powerful muslims. Religious stranglehold on our society is bad for us, it makes our politicians treat us like cows. It provides opium for everyone, instead of getting them to think of us as people, it gets them to think of us as one team or another.
We will do better, and advance further, and take better care of our people when evidence is what rules us.
Monotonous… I just caught some of your previous comments:
“Of what authority do you speak? If it is authority in the church, which is as far as most religious authority extends”
No, and that is the point (you got to it later, i’m not trying to quot mine you)
Nothing pisses me off more than this
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070608/27857_Bible-Backed_Christians_Debate_Global_Warming_Before_Senate.htm
Why are religious leaders being asked anything about what to do about global warming? In a senate meeting? What an incredible waste of time! Look at them all pointing to the same book with different interpretations. This has the appearance of being a totally imbecilic meeting. I’m not saying these are dumb people, i’m saying they are, and should be, completely irrelevant in this matter, except in how to motivate their troops.
This is just one example, every week, there are more. So when you say they have no authority, this is clearly not the case. They are intertwined with our government completely.
Monotonous,
See? here is this weeks item to piss me off.
http://www.injesus.com/index.php?module=message&task=view&MID=MB007EEH&GroupID=0A007FOT
Congress is going to have to hear from these people, who continue to think that a story based on no evidence belongs in a science class. They could be spending time, making our high school science program more competitive with the rest of the world, but instead, we have to argue whether or not we want to dilute it with mythology and legend.
This is an argument that should truly be over by now..but no, they will just keep bringing it back up until everyone is exhausted.
Techskeptic,
All very good points. I see what you are saying and for the most part agree with you. I think that those who are using their religious authority to lobby have the right to do so and it would be against our freedom to strip them of that right, but I’m not going to sit here and say that it isn’t a waste of time and resources better spent. I can only promise that I, as a Christian, won’t go to D.C. and lobby for such an agenda. I can also promise that I’ll use my sphere of influence (meager though it is) to help schools instead of create problems.
and it is extremely unlikely that you are the sort of Christian that pisses me off. I just happen to think you are wrong and are wasting your time with that stuff, but that totally besides the point. 🙂
So while individual actions of groups and people set me off with their presumption of Christianity being the ‘right’ way to live your lives, for the most part we as a country are OK with religion, so far.
My contention is that we would be better than OK if we teach our kids the value of evidence, how you asses observational evidence and how you use Carl Sagans baloney detection kit. If after all that someone finds a decent defense of a God hypothesis, I’m all for it. But right now, blind faith leads us in a bad direction. We are stagnating. We humans have the capacity for great love, great vision and great achievement. Only by assessing ourselves and our actions based on real evidence do we have a chance to move forward and adapt to change. If we continue to be attached to very old worldviews while our technology advances, we are screwed.
So while I don’t hate christians, or religious people, I see that this paradigm is going to put our society in the backwater. Its high time to try something new.
But it can not be mandated, mandating atheism is like mandating religion, its the removal of free will, if someone wants to worship a bottle of canola oil, fine by me, as long as they arent forcing anyone else to do it.
But indoctrinating children as they showed on Jesus Camp, or here is the same as limiting free will. Dawkins calls it child abuse, I wont go that far, but it is teaching something absolutely and knowingly wrong to kids who dont have the capacity yet to truly understand how to parse nonsense from reality. Worse, they are calling it science.
Neither you nor I will be here in 100 years, my daughter might. But if we as a society continue to base our actions and reactions of a 2000 year old, irrelevant book with respect to modern technology and challenges, we are doomed. We will see the rise of more progressive, evidence based countries. I’m not talking about the sheer numbers of China. Im talking about Denmark and New Zealand who have chosen to route their economies to deal with better and self sufficient energy resources, taking care of their populations in ways that would never fly in this country, and accepting the individual ramifications of those choice, something we are unwilling to do.
I also understand that you can not just stop believing in God any more that I can start. Tiny Frog here did it, and a few others, but it is rare. Childhood indoctrination is an incredibly hard thing to get over, especially when your entire community partakes in the same thing. I wonder how much evidence it would take for you to realize the complete needlessness of a God? I know what it would take for me to believe in a God (then we would have to sort out which one it is, and if there are more or not).
It seems as though you are also guilty of being angry at Christians in general simply because a segment of them are obnoxious.
I don’t understand how you came to the conclusion that I am “angry at Christians in general”. Was it the part where I said that “I’m not that critical of moderate, rational Christians. They’re still wrong, it’s just not that big of a deal”?
Even within the group of people that call themselves “fundamentalists” there are much more normal Christians than you point out. Fundamentalist is a loaded term with a broad range of meaning. You are angry at the Nazi like version of this term. Most fundamentalists fit into the category simply because they have a systematic set of beliefs about God and how to live in this world…
My definition of fundamentalist is simply that they place too much emphasis on Bible = truth, and ignore contradicting evidence. This takes a variety of forms, extreme versions are snake handling, witch hunts, and reliance on faith-healing (to the exclusion of medicine). Young Earth Creationism, and the idea that the godly politician is the one whom God will guide is another. Simply saying “they have a systematic set of beliefs about God and how to live in this world” glosses over the issue because it doesn’t really articulate the situation – it just generalizes it to the point that you can’t have an opinion.
Anyway, I think you’re just being oversensitive about the whole thing. My main interest is not beleaguering Christians, but finding and pointing out logical problems in religious beliefs. Dissection of religious ideas and ideas in general is more of a puzzle for me. In other words, when I’m looking at these things, I’m looking at the data and idea; I’m not out to “get” the believer. Yes, I suppose pointing out the fallacy of religious belief might be offensive to some people, but I don’t go out of my way to make them listen to me. Also, I think religious people do the same thing: if asked, they would say that most people’s existing religious beliefs are wrong.
Techskeptic,
That was a very thoughtful response and a VERY cool video. I didn’t know that was possible.
“I wonder how much evidence it would take for you to realize the complete needlessness of a God?”
It would take an awful lot…something that science cannot hope to offer (because you cannot put it into a test tube). As I’ve said before, I’m quite open to the study of evolution and the fact that it is a reality. That it happens does not, however, preclude the existence of God. Evolution has not shown where or how it all started. That things evolve is a given, but life cannot evolve from nothing. The universe had to have a starting point (even if it was just one atomic particle). It can’t just exist. I will believe in the needlessness of God when science PROVES (not theorizes or postulates) the beginning of all things from absolutely nothing. For me it is harder to believe that we evolved from nothing than to believe that God created it all. So, until proven otherwise, I’ll continue to take the Bible at its word…”God created the heavens and the earth.” How he chose to do so and how long it took is a matter for further discussion…and a valid one at that.
I do agree with you that Christians ought not to ignore the findings of science when making decisions that affect us all. Too often they assume their own view of the world is God’s view. In my opinion, science is discovering God’s view of the world (to which I’m sure you disagree, but we can still be friends). I think it is also wise for us to not assume we have learned everything there is to learn about science. Many a generation thought they knew it all, but they didn’t…neither do we.
As for lightening, as way cool as that video was, is it impossible to imagine that thunder sounds just the way God wants it to? Personally, I love the sound and wouldn’t change it for anything. As for writing in the sky, why does he have to do it that way? Assuming for a moment that God exists, can’t he write about himself in a human language and communicate about himself through human culture if he so chooses?
Tinyfrog,
“Anyway, I think you’re just being oversensitive about the whole thing.” – You are probably right about that. I’m sorry. I sensed anger in general in your writing, but I’ll take your word for it…that you’re only angry at the Christian crazies who refuse to use their brain.
Monotony (such a depressing handle),
So much to respond to. I know a lot of christians who are on board with evolution (but a scary amount of this country is not). I also don;t see why evolution is such an issue for many religious people.
But it looks like you do something that I find everywhere with religious people. you pick and choose part of the bible to match what you ‘feel’ is right. This means you don’t need that bible at all, you are just using it to justify or have spelled out what is already inside of you.
For example, you are on board with evolution, which means you probably are throwing out most of genesis, since the order, timeline and mechanism by which life appeared on the planet does not match either version that genesis describes. However you are cool with the “Let there be light” part. I am presuming that you are cool with the 10 commandments part, but perhaps not with the not eating shrimp, wearing mixed linens commandments. You may not even be cool with the gay=bad part, because many Christians pick and choose around that part too.
I don’t know you from a can of paint, but perhaps you are anti-abortion, even though not once in the bible does it say that life starts at conception. Maybe you are not anti-abortion for that very same reason and can actually see how legal abortions provide many benefits to our society.
MY point is that as long as you are picking and choosing you way through the bible, then your arguments are not any stronger than a literalist about what is right and wrong morally, as long as you use the bible as the source of your morality. The fundamentalist will have a stronger argument for they are taking the book at its word the whole way through.
The atheist has the same morality as anyone else, as most people do, even small tribes in south america. This makes it pretty damn clear that a religious text, regardless of religion has zippo to do with morality. Clearly it has zippo to do with biology. same for cosmology. Even history for the most part. So what are you left with?
So while the atheist will argue based on logic, the good of humanity as a whole and philosophy, and the fundamentalist argues from one of many literal interpretations of a religious text, where does that leave the picker-and-chooser? I’m not saying than the fundamentalist is ‘better’ in one regard or another (far from it), i’m just talking about the strength of argument.
It funny to me that you say the universe had to have a starting point but don’t assign the same mechanics and boundaries to a god. Why is there no starting point for God? Who made God? Why can a god be forever and the universe not be cyclical…expanding and contracting forever? Why is there not something physically larger than a universe that could exist, that bore our universe like how supernovas can bear stars? There is nothing saying that time, energy and gravity all dont behave differently at time near initial conditions. We know, in fact, that all three behave differently at high speeds and at small distances…so why not at high gravities and high energy densities? So to say that getting something from nothing is impossible (a common misguided arguement from creationists all over the world), is completely ignoring the fact that physical constants and newtonian physics become innacurate models of the universe at extremes of speed, gravity, size and mass.
As for the video, my point was that if God was out there, and she really wanted people to believe in her, it should be a simple task for her to make herself clear (i’m being open minded about the sex of the god… although if there is only one and it doesnt reproduce, why does it have a sex at all?). Thunder might be nice, but since every single aspect of thunder can be explained by natural phenomenon and physics, there is no reason to ascribe it to a god. If the thunder played mario bros music, there is no naturalistic explanation for that, and I’d be on board…with some questions.
Sure god could write his stuff in a human language and through human culture, but with what purpose? to blur the evidence for its existence? What would be the point of doing that? If your intention is to have followers that you care about, why wouldn’t you be clear? If your intention is to have ‘children’ that need to work stuff out on their own, why bother at all with a book, when all the children have already been programmed with the morality? Why would you submit your evidence and rules to to the spelling, grammatical, translational and political changes of man?
There are so many holes in the idea that christianity (a minority of the world population) is correct in their assessment of what god wants, that it kind of silly to presume any of it is correct to any degree (i’m not being intentionally offensive, i dont really know how better to write that). The mere act of picking and choosing your way through the bible, discounts the document as any repository of factual information or moral wisdom.
I’ll take “I don’t know yet” over “God did it” anyday.
BTW,
I truly beleive, with limited evidence (its out there, I’m not gonna gather links, Time and Discover both did large articles on this), that god belief is genetic. I don’t think you can help it any more than I can help requiring evidence before I take on the huge burden of dealing with a god. I know you dont see it as a burden, But I do. If I were to beleive in a god, I would need to understand a lot because the God model of a universe could be everything from laizzes faire to tyrannical. If theres going to be a God, how do I know that Osama isnt right?
Anyway, the idea that willingness to not require evidence for a parent figure is a genetic disposition explains why Tiny Frog is capable of leaving a tight group with strong religious beliefs. Or how Amanda, can go from fundamentalist to something a little more cerebral.
It also explains why there are so few atheists (5-15% depending on which surveys you look at). Its about the same amount of the population who are gay, clearly a trait that just happens, but may not be one that provides any benefit to the species. The god model has been very successful at coordinating peoples activites for our survival (depending on the charisma and intellect of the religious leader).
I just think we are capable of doing better than that if we just try to stop freely following genetic forces, like we have been able to with sex and violence for the most part.
My point is that no matter what I write here, I doubt your willingness to beleive in god with alter. You will simply find other rationalizations and arguments from incredulity to stay with yuor beleifs. I dont think you can help it. I just hope to reduce any thoughts that religious folks have (not you, clearly) that atheism=immoral=bad people.
Techskeptic,
“Monotony (such a depressing handle),” – …skeptic isn’t much more uplifting. 🙂
Being that the overall thrust of your arguments seem to be around the fact that I “pick and choose” what parts of the Bible I believe in, what made you think I do said “picking and choosing?” The fact is that I believe the creation account is true…all if it. I just don’t see how evolution can’t fit into the scheme of creation…whatever the scope of evolution might be.
Some of your sarcastic comments make it very obvious that you understand as little about the Bible that I trust in as I do about science that you trust in.
“I truly beleive…that god belief is genetic.” So do I, but I also believe God created the gene code, so it makes sense. Obviously, your next argument will be about some aspect of the gene code that causes people to murder or some other agreeably immoral thing. I don’t believe God created the gene code with those issues. Sin destroys life as we know it including the gene code, but alas we can’t agree on the spiritual side of the universe. 🙂
Well, I find what you have to say intruiging, and I’ll come back and read/write some more later. My 2 year old is acting up, so I need to go see what the deal is!
I “pick and choose” what parts of the Bible I believe in, what made you think I do said “picking and choosing?”
Well, do you eat shrimp? I see a little goatee, you arent shaving are you?
Email and blog comments happen to be a really crappy way of communicating because tone and body language are left out. I don;’t think I wrote anything sarcastic, but clearly you took it that way, because your tone has changed. I had no intention of offending you. knowing this, i hope you’ll take another stab at responding to my many coments, for I am actually interested in your moderate views on these things (I usually just hear literalist views)
My point was that you take evolution as a truth, presumably due to the enormous amount of evidence for it, and you are cool with the idea that God made the evolutionary process happened, and perhaps is guiding it. But if this is true then how can you possibly accept Genesis without said picking and choosing? There are two completely different accounts of the order of things (one where humans were created after animals Gen 1:25-27, and another saying the humans came first Gen 2:18-19, one with man and woman created at the same time ,and one with the woman after the man) and neither of them match the evolutionary process (i.e. animals are still being ‘created’ due to evolutionary forces.
Sin destroys life as we know it including the gene code,
Thats a bold claim. Also relatively easy (but expensive) to verify with modern equipment. We have the map of 5 people already, we could ask them to sin, lets say have them break the first 4 commandments, repeatedly, and then remap them, see if the genetic code changes. Do you expect this would happen? If not (and I would not), how exactly do you mean that that sin causes corruption of the genetic code?
I have an 17 month old daughter who I am completely crazy about. I fully understand the overwhelming desire to make them happy and end even the slightest suffering they may have.
BTW, I do not see the description or word “skeptic” as being anything but uplifting. I wish we lived in a world where skepticism was the norm.
Techskeptic,
Aren’t daughters the best? Mine is actually 22 months old. She talks up a storm and is the most beautiful little girl ever. I’m actually a stay-at-home dad and I love it. We are expecting another girl on July 1st. Life will get even more interesting then!
Yes, the internet can be challenging to correctly interpret emotions, so I apologize if I took comments to be sarcastic and they were not intended to be. However, I was not offended by the sarcastic comments. I think sarcasm can be quite funny if used in good taste. I was merely trying to return a little sarcasm myself. Sorry if it came across in poor taste. I was going for the humorous variety of sarcasm. Anyway, if you search hard enough you can probably find other ways to contact me. I’d be happy to talk to you via other formats. That’s all I’ll say about that. 🙂
I’ve been extremely busy with a number of things these days, but wanted you to know that I am thinking about all that you’ve said. I know where I stand on most things you talk about, but the answers are not always short. I could write as much as has already been written on this post (and I don’t really have the time to do that all at once)! I also feel kind of bad to be taking the comments in the post possibly in a direction tiny frog didn’t intend for them to go…as my comments have tended to veer away from the book he was reviewing (which I have not yet read).
In any case, as long as tiny frog is okay with it, I’m okay with continuing to come back here to talk. If he’d rather we take this discussion elsewhere, I can start a discussion on my blog for us. In any case, if it takes me a little longer than normal to respond between comments, it’s because life happens!
Apologies from me too tiny frog, for going off topic.
I guess I’d just like to invite you over here. you can participate if you like. Its a few theists and atheists who post on various subjects, and we discuss em. Its challenging at times. But its probably a more relevant place than mucking up Tiny Frog’s comments.
Of course you are also invited Tiny frog, we could always use another atheist! Sorry to use you comment boards like this. You are welcome to use mine, although I’m not sure what good it’ll do, as I am quite sure yo have more readers than i. LOL.
Monotony, I couldnt find contact info at your blog. I might be blind.
Techskeptic,
I will join your discussion. Thanks for the invite!
As for my other contact info…hint: check my website links. I think you made passing reference to one of them in a comment above. Pardon me for not listing the info here…spam bots and all!
“Do you really think that all Christians are responsible for the dumb things that Christina points out in her blog?”
No, my concerns are entirely political. You could believe that the oak tree in your back yard is your lord and savior for all I care. It’s only when you lobby to have oaky design taught in biology classes and start lobbying to get Oak iconography on courtroom steps that I would really care. (The fellow who writes the Dispatches from the Culture Wars Blog has a very similar philosophy to myself).
Other than that, although I would like religion to be eliminated via a displacement by factual knowledge (like eliminating illiteracy basically), you clearly have the right to believe anything you want and to teach your kids anything you believe (Even though it is terribly immoral to teach your children factually incorrect myths as truth, I’ve grown older and more cynical and realized it makes me and my children more competitive in the global market.)
““As someone who is going to sites like this, I’m surprised you even bothered to ask such a question.” – If you don’t want Christians to ask questions, then why write these things?”
I think you’re missing the point of what I wrote. I meant, it’s a question that indicates that you don’t know what the atheists on this site are really concerned about. The vitriol comes from the political end of things. As for Strobel, I think people here are personally offended by his intellectual dishonesty, but intellectually just feel the need to set the record straight. Hence the Storkist analogy: We would intellectually just point out that there’s no evidence of storkist baby-delivery (just as there is neither evidence for any particular God, nor Jesus), and as a separate issue get a little pissed at people who are pushing the idea politically. Hence the question “Why do they hate the Stork so much” is as off-topic as asking “Why do most of these comments ooze bitterness? If Jesus Christ isn’t really alive today as the Bible claims, then there is really no need to get upset about others who believe he is”
I love poking holes in Strobel’s arguments about as much as I like poking holes in bad theoretical physics, but I’m only angry that he’s giving false assurance to the next generation of political evangelicals to believe that their messiah really existed, their book was really inspired by God, it’s absolutely complete and inerrant, and you can do no wrong if you follow it.
I’m glad you didn’t turn into a fundamentalist or an evangelical. I’m glad whenever anyone joins the reality-based community, but it’s a little bit like a noncancerous cell in a smoker’s body trying to tell me smoking is ok, because that cell, and all the one’s around it, turned out fine. Think that’s an analogous stretch? Well, reread your Bible (I have: painful, boring, violent and strange) and then tell me that believing in it literally will not, inevitably, lead to political extremism and social anachronism amongst its members.
Jason,
“Well, reread your Bible (I have: painful, boring, violent and strange) and then tell me that believing in it literally will not, inevitably, lead to political extremism and social anachronism amongst its members.”
Actually, when I read my bible literally, it tells me to respect the government that is in place over me, because God put them there for a reason. (Romans 13:1-7) Obviously, you’d disagree with the reasoning, but the fact remains that the Christian position is not one of political extremism, but submission. In effect, what happens in the government is neither here nor there for a Christian. We are to respect the gov’t regardless of who is in control. Keep in mind this was written to an audience who was under the authority of the Roman gov’t…who at the time hated Christians and killed them just for being Christians.
I would agree with you that Christians should not force their way into making decisions for the government. Such activism is not biblical. We are instructed to do good in our society and to stay on good terms with the government…not start an internal battle. Clearly, many professed Christians are ignoring these teachings in the Bible. Even you missed them…must have been the boredom. 🙂
Matt
In part one of the first criticism, you state the following:
How does that debunk exactly?
> How does that debunk exactly?
I’m unclear on your question. You’re asking how does my comment debunk “might makes right”? Or how is it possible that “might makes right” can be “debunked”?
I’ll keep my eye on your response, but I just mean it in exactly the context you used it. Undergrad philosophy students debunk Kreeft’s assertion in a pop quiz or something, and I’m just curious how they do so.
I mentioned the part about undergrads debunking that argument because I remember having this discussion in my first college philosophy class.
How does someone shoot down ‘might makes right’? Well, if God is the definition of good, then it’s pointless to even call God ‘good’ because there is no definition outside of God. So, let’s say that the devil creates a universe. He is ‘god’ of that universe. Does that mean he can arbitrarily define “good” for people living inside that universe? If the devil said, “kill your friends, and steal everything you can grab”, then does that make it right? If our definition of “good” is whatever God says it is, then what would “God is good” even mean? That God does what he says we should do? Or that God does what he does? Or that God is acting like himself? If so, then all gods would be “good” regardless of how evil they actually were. It would also be nonsensical for polytheists to divide gods into “good” and “evil” beings, since they would either all be good by definition (regardless of their actions), or maybe only the most powerful god would be “good” and all other gods would be “good” or “evil” based on how their actions matched him. Anyway, the point is that the “might makes right” idea means that the definition of “good” is arbitrary.
Alternatively, we could say that “God is good” because he conforms to an objective standard of good — perhaps he is helpful, unselfish, wishes the best for others, etc. But, if there is an objective definition of God which is outside God, then you no longer need God to define what “good” is. (Although, that’s not exactly the question you were asking.)
Anyway, you can read about “might makes right” in Plato’s Republic:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Plato+might+makes+right
Thanks for the info.
Thrasymachus seemed to take that stance that the powerful dictate morals, but we know to be untrue. It’s easy to see that all of humanity has this sense of right and wrong. However they may define it, the motivations of people’s actions behind what they consider right or wrong are fairly similar thoughout even human history.
I took the stance that God does in fact dictate what is right and wrong, and perhaps even personifies this himself. This being the case, God could turn it all upside down at will if He wanted to. I held that this ability comes pragmatically from the standpoint that God’s opinion simply outlives our own. Our valuations are temproal, and therefore of little value. God’s evaluation is eternal and therefore has eternal significance.
So you could define “good” as whatever God considers good, and “bad” as whatever God considers bad. I happen to think we come pre-wired with a moral point of view that emulates His anyway.
And how is lee strobel going to convert atheists, marry us? to have a belief compared to facts is the lowest form of brainwashing that there is. even a lie has facts a belief is total nonsense, lower then the lie.. something your low IQ mommy told you because she did not have an education.
there was no alphabet 2000 years ago with the symbols or sounds for any of the names in the bible or book of mormon. neither Mormon or jesus ever exsisted. we do not translate names the sound would stay the same. the fact that our english alphabet with the theromes and vowel laws is from 1892 and on. if it is furniture, jeweler or the bible and it says made in England before 1892 it is a fake.
king james is from shakspeare . the first copywritted bible in usa the congression libary says amy j kling burley idaho 1945. If Lee was an atheist he would have operated on theromatic application of fact not his wifes conversion.people who use reasoning do not desend to neanderthal type behavior. they educate their wife and become normal atheist.
its like a christian pretending to be a biker. never would a biker be or pretend to have faith h rides a harley they need facts no amount of praying will keep it running.. there is no christain bikers only christaian who pretend they are bikers. the word christian with the ian suffix denotes places not persons a biker could figure that out.
just like the word or name Jesus there was no word christ or christian.
the paper of the bible and book of mormon with a ph of 4.7 rather then 7.4 is unfit to touch and the chinnese pointed that out sept 12 1954. and no item , name or situation was available during the time periods the bible or book of mormon was to have been of. .its called working against public education in china they kill your worthless ass.and call it treasion. here we laugh and say get a job and an education and grow the @#$ up. thank you John Cunningham
While the issue of evil at first does seem troublesome, I find it to actually be one of the major reasons I have to acknowledge a God does indeed exist. If we look objectively, the argument goes like this: there is evil in the world, God claims to be loving and kind and all-powerful, and yet God doesn’t stop evil; thus, God can’t exist because if He did, He would have stopped the evil and suffering in the world.
At first glance it seems very convincing; however, I can no longer intellectually accept that argument as an acceptable attack against God’s existence. Here’s why.
What is evil? How do we define the word evil? If there is no God, and there is no supernatural explanation for anything, then we are all merely a freak accident of nature. Thus, if we are just an accident, then this concept of good and evil and “morality” is nothing but a farce. So if we successfully throw God out of the picture and say He does not exist, we must also throw out this concept of morality. Because without God, what is morality? It is nothing more than doing what I want to do. Because there are thus no moral absolutes. If we can get 51% of people to sign up to something, it should be considered moral fact. If I can force my will upon others, I should do so, because there is no objective wrong with my actions. So if God does not exist, then neither does evil. It’s as simple as that. One cannot use the term evil in an objective sense without a Law-giver, a Being Who is above us Who gave us rules for living our lives.
So if we throw God out we also must throw out morality, and accept that good/evil are nothing more than a figment of our imaginations, and we are each left to define good/evil as we see fit. And I would thus define “good” as watching people suffer and die, so the argument that the events in Africa are “bad” is ridiculous in my self-created worldview.
But I don’t think any rational person can say that evil does not exist. I cannot deny the fact that there are absolutes in this life, and I firmly accept there are moral absolutes as well. But where do these moral absolutes come from? If from a freak of accident in nature, then they are not binding and I am morally free to do whatever I want. Hence, morality and “good” and “evil” only truly make sense with a God in the picture.
For instance, let’s say that God is indeed good, kind, loving, merciful, and just. He is all of those things. It is unfair to claim God is love and then proceed to present a list of demands to God, saying God would do these things if He truly loved us. God is also just and righteous. God’s justice and His mercy are both characteristics of Himself that balance each other out.
So let us say that we want God to stop all evil and suffering (which is a result of evil). Yes, we want God to stop ALL EVIL. But who’s definition of “evil” is God going to use? Man’s definition, or God’s definition? I submit that God, being the Creator, is going to use HIS definition of evil. And when God lays out His definition of righteousness and evil in the Bible, we clearly see that all of humanity, in God’s eyes, is extremely wicked. We can’t fathom that because we see ourselves through our own eyes. But when we look at ourselves the way God sees us, we get a different picture. God defines evil as murder, lying, adultery, rape, evil thoughts, gossiping, slander, hatred, blaspheming His name, and a long list of other things. So if God were to completely stop all evil, how would He accomplish it? God would have to annihilate ALL HUMANITY because we are ALL EVIL. So, do we really want God to stop evil, right now? I don’t. I, for one, am glad that God is being merciful and not giving me what I justly deserve right now.
So I cannot intellectually claim that the existence of evil dictates that God does not exist. On the contrary, I find the issue of evil only makes sense if there is a God to define right/wrong for us.
But then how do we understand the suffering that happens to people who we claim are innocent? The short answer is that this physical existence is not all there is, and God never promised this life would be perfect. God does promise absolute justice and judgment, but in the next life, not this one. If this physical existence were all there was, then yes, I would feel very justified in saying that God is not WORTHY of my love. But, this is not all there is. The Bible makes it clear that this life is just a vapor, a short test, before eternity. What we do in this life last eternal effects. In light of that, suffering does not seem as severe as it did before. Why are those people in Africa starving? Evil and suffering are a result of sin and rebellion against mankind. The Bible recounts that mankind chose to rebel against God, and God cursed man and the earth. Death, disease, suffering are a result of the curse we brought upon ourselves. It may not seem fair that we are born into a sinful world, but that’s how it is. It’s like two empires at war, and you’re born as a citizen of one empire. You are, in a sense, born “into” a war by virtue of your birthright and citizenship. That’s how humanity is. We are “born” into a war against God. We have a sinful nature passed on by birth, and our own sinful actions confirm we are rebels against God. So why should God stop evil and suffering in a world full of rebels who are fighting against Him? Why should God aid His enemies?
If anything, non-Christians have no right to claim God should care for them. In fact, Christians should be the only ones who claim that. Yet a mature Christian understands that this life is not all there is, so he will not view suffering the same way others will. All suffering will be done away with when God ends it and ends humanities rebellion. It is God’s MERCY that is occurring right now, allowing us to choose to repent of our rebellion and submit ourselves to God, because God does indeed own us and is our Master.
I know this was long, but I felt it was necessary to fully develop the idea. To claim God does not exist is to state that evil is thus a figment of man’s imagination as well. However, I think any rational person acknowledges that evil does indeed exist. So how do we explain the existence of God and evil? Because God is being merciful and not destroying ALL evil, which would result in the annihilation of all humanity because we are all rebels against God. This world is not all there is; there is an afterlife, where all wrongs will be righted and God will established absolute justice. Evil is running its course now but will be brought to justice in God’s timing. I cannot, as an intelligent person, claim that evil does not exist. I see it all around me. And yet I cannot, as an intelligent person, deny that God exists, because to do so would be to deny that evil exists. If you use the word “evil” in an absolute sense, you assume the existence of a God. I see no other satisfactory explanation.