Zondervan recently invited two atheist bloggers to read Chuck Colson's latest book The Faith and enter into a dialogue with Chuck about his book.
Russell Glasser with The Atheist Experience wrote Chuck a 25 paragraph question after he read The Faith, which you can view in full on his blog at this link.
Below is part 2 of Chuck Colson's reply:
Mr. Glasser,
I hope you will forgive me for being so delayed in replying to your full letter. I wanted to get an answer off to you right away about the study done by the University of Pennsylvania, and the disputed methodology. If it didn’t satisfy you, I hope my explanation at least made some sense to you. The results, in any event, were produced by agreed-upon guidelines between the state, Prison Fellowship, and the researchers. As I mentioned in my previous reply, however, we have continued to get that kind of recidivism statistic in the eight units that we operate in America today.
Let me take the second question you raised, and that is slavery. I have made the argument in the book that the Christian church has opposed slavery from the beginning. In no way did I mean to imply that there haven’t been Christians who have been disobedient to the Scripture and the teachings of the church. There have been all through history. There are millions today who claim to be followers of Christ but who do not follow Christ’s commands. All of us, even the strongest believers, are under the effects of the Fall.
I also cannot justify the words of the Old Testament. It was a recognition by God to His covenant people of a practice that was wide-spread at that time in every culture, that His people would encounter. But it is in no way carried forward into the New Testament. My argument, remember, turns on the teachings of the Christian church and the New Testament.
To the contrary, as I pointed out in the book, portions of the New Testament condemn slave-trading, and the position of the church has been very consistent through the years. Most of the great human rights campaigns have been led by Christians, or perhaps more precisely, many Christians have been involved in them. It is because we believe strongly that every human being is created in the image of God, and thus at every stage of life, regardless of race, color or creed, every human being is entitled to full God-given dignity.
There are 1.9 billion Christians in the world today. You cannot judge Jesus Christ by the behavior of any one of them or any group of them, for that matter. You have to take Christ’s teachings as we have them, as they have been interpreted and understood through the years, and look at the overwhelming evidence of those who have obeyed as opposed to the evidence of those who did not. It’s worth noting that Thomas Aquinas labeled slavery a sin, and no fewer than four popes condemned the Atlantic slave trade as so in the first century.
I understand fully your reaction to the kind of absolutism that can be attributed to a fundamentalist Muslim, or for that matter to a strain of Christian thought, minority though it is, that is equally unyielding. There is a fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity, one best articulated by St. Augustine and his writings on the free will that God gives us. As Rodney Stark writes in his book The Victory of Reason, it was Augustine’s influence that gave Christians the liberty to use reason when interpreting their faith. (We even find evidences of this argument in second century apologists.) You might want to read the book, because Stark makes a very compelling case in my mind that Christianity’s embrace of reason was why it was able to influence western civilization in such a positive way. Muslims, on the other hand, have no such liberty. The word of the Qur’an must be taken literally—tragically, since there are parts of it that proscribe violence or there are those zealots who read it in such a way—which attempts to justify taking innocent life in pursuit of Islam. There are other profound differences, which I’m sure you realize, between a religion which at least in modern times practices separation of church and state in a pluralistic society and one which is theocratic.
But again, do all Christians live this way? No. Of course there are hypocrites within the Church, but the point is we call them hypocrites because they are not acting consistently with the teachings of Christ. When we fail to abide by these teachings, when we fail to be peacemakers, when we fail to seek reconciliation, we need to repent before God. I remarked in the book that Pope John Paul II had made this a specific mandate of the church, that we apologize for the sins of the past, repent, and mend our ways. I think the capacity to do that is a great credit to the church and to the faith we follow.
You write that one of the main things motivating your atheism is the fact that you cannot see any compelling reason to believe in God, and you cannot regard faith as reliably as you can empirical evidence in discerning truth. I suspect you’ve come under the influence of the fact-value distinction, which modernity introduced, largely influenced by the teachings of Immanuel Kant. I would strongly recommend that you read Pope Benedict’s lecture at Regensburg, which received so much publicity because he quoted an ancient cleric who condemned Islam for its violence. The press, of course, made much of that, but totally overlooked the lecture that Benedict gave to the West. In a relatively short speech, he summarized the great shift that has taken place in western thinking as a result of the Enlightenment and now postmodernism. Benedict’s case is the same one I would make, and that is that reason always has to rest on faith. That’s what gives it the objective standards to appeal to. What happened in the Enlightenment and what we call modernity was the abandonment of the faith presuppositions, leaving reason naked, cold, and ultimately without a foundation. It was this rejection of sterile reason that has led us to the postmodern era, which rejects both faith and reason.
But the fact-value distinction is false. All thought begins with faith. All intellectual inquiry begins with certain presuppositions. These by necessity are made without evidence and have to be taken on faith. The idea that evidence is superior to faith as a root to knowledge is one of those presuppositions: it is unproven and non-provable. So it must be taken as a priori; that is, prior to experience, or in other words, on faith.
I tried to make this point in chapter 2 of my book. When you attempt to answer the question ‘Where have we come from?’ you make either a theist or a naturalistic faith assumption. No one was present at the time of the creation with a video camera, so we must make certain presuppositions, the validity of which can then be subjected to the evidence. For example, it is a fair question to ask whether there are signs of intelligence in the universe, as Einstein believed, or whether it is completely a void, simply the product of chance mutations over billions of years. Darwin’s theory—and it is that—was that the variation within species which he observed could lead to the emergence of new species, and that extrapolated back, could account for the origin of life. And he made predictions based on this, such as that it would be possible to breed new species; and that innumerable transitionary fossils showing gradual change would be discovered; none of which has come to pass. Yet on the basis of naturalistic presuppositions—a faith position—he had to make this argument, and scientists who share that faith position must also support it.
Secondly, as you search for the evidence that either supports or challenges your presupposition, why would you be limited to only physical evidence, the kind that can be measured scientifically? Can you not come to logical conclusions based on patterns of human behavior? Is not the capacity for love, though you cannot see it, something which can be objectively (though not scientifically) measured?
I have argued in other writings that there is a basis to empirically validate differing worldviews. (You might want to look at my book, written with Nancy Pearcey, titled How Now Shall We Live? written in 1999, Tyndale Publishing). In it is suggested a four-part grid by which all worldviews can be tested. The grid consists of how one answers the questions: where we came from, (the Christian, of course, believes in creation); why is there sin and suffering in our midst? (the Christian’s answer is because of the Fall); is there any way out, any redemption? (for the Christian, of course, that is the shed blood of Christ on the cross as He took the punishment for our sins); and what is my purpose for living?
I just spent this past weekend with a chart, looking at how Islam answers those questions, how secular naturalism answers them, how eastern religions answer them, and how Christianity answers them. Christian apologists, I think with considerable justification, can make the argument that the Christian worldview produces the most rational answers and provides for the most rational way to live life. (I use the term rational here the same way I used it in debating Dawkins’ point, again in chapter 2) The apologists go on to say that all other worldviews can be shown to be irrational.
The grid operates like a roadmap. If you go to mapquest.com and ask for a road map for a trip from Austin to Dallas, and you follow it, and it takes you to El Paso, you would know that was not a true map. Similarly, if you decide to live your life according to a worldview which does not result in you finding meaning, hope, and purpose, then would it not be fair to conclude that it’s an erroneous map or track for human behavior? Could you not say that it does not adequately answer those four questions? If you follow the correspondence theory of truth, which I’m sure you do, you would look at those four views, or any others you choose, and come to certain judgments as to which ones work best. I’m not suggesting pragmatism; I’m suggesting that we should see which comes closest to the way things really are.
I see this as entirely consistent with the scientific method. It is looking at different hypotheses, eliminating those that are not correct, leaving you with one that is. I have spent a lot of time studying this, and the consequences of various other worldviews such as Marxism, Freudianism, and similar ideologies. This probably is why I feel so strongly and perhaps have come off as sounding arrogant in the book. I apologize for that.
I also apologize for the fact that you believe I have lumped unbelievers in with postmodernists and radical Islam. I certainly didn’t intend to do that. Postmodernism and radical Islam have common intellectual roots, as I argued in chapter 15, and I think that both those worldviews are in stark contrast to the principles of the Judeo-Christian civilization. But again, that shouldn’t make us enemies, as you put it in your letter.
If you read my entire book, you will realize that I argued hard for Christians to reconcile their differences with one another and with others. I couldn’t agree with you more that war is only an option when all else fails—that is, when it is waged in the just war tradition, which means that it must be undertaken only as a last resort, and that innocent life must be protected. That is quite different from crashing airliners into buildings.
There is one final point I’d like to respond to. You’re making the assumption that for God to be God, or for you to believe in Him, He must reveal Himself by giving us evidence which by reason would establish His existence. But why should the God who created everything that is explain Himself? What would compel such a God to do that? A God great enough to create the heavens and earth, and all of life in it, is a God who has no obligation to explain why He created us. In fact, He has a good reason not to. I believe it was Aquinas who argued that if God could be known to us by reason, we would take Him for granted; He would be no different than the tree that one could see from one’s office.
The more important question is why would God create us? Christians believe He created us so that He would have people in a love relationship with Him. But if we could prove the existence of God, we wouldn’t have to have faith; and without faith we couldn’t love God. This is an argument that C. S. Lewis made very powerfully. So the very thing you want, that is, evidence that proves the existence of God, is the very thing that if you had it, would prevent your worship of the God who created you. I wrote about this in a book called The Good Life, which you also might enjoy reading.
Believe me, I really do enjoy an honest dialogue. I think all humans are in search of the truth, and the only way that we’re ever going to find it is by engaging in these kinds of conversations. They’re very helpful, and I do hope you’ll forgive me if I have not seemed in my writing to welcome them. I not only welcome them, I agree with Aquinas that civilization advances by conversation.
Thank you for taking the time to read my book, and for writing.
—Chuck Colson
Learn more about The Faith by Chuck Colson and Howard Fickett.
Also of Interest
- Read Chuck Colson's First Post in the Atheist Bloggers Dialogue
- Take The Christian Atheist Quiz to find out if you believe God exists but act like he doesn't.
43 Responses to Chuck Colson’s The Faith Atheist Bloggers Dialogue, post #2
Martin Wagner August 5, 2008
I am a colleague of Russell Glasser’s over at The Atheist Experience blog, and I was also sent a copy of “The Faith,” though I have yet to find time to read and review it. However, I would like to respond to some points in Mr. Colson’s response above. I don’t have time to go through all of it, but I will start with the first of many points that struck me as exceedingly flawed.
Mr. Colson writes: “The idea that evidence is superior to faith as a root to knowledge is one of those presuppositions: it is unproven and non-provable. So it must be taken as a priori; that is, prior to experience, or in other words, on faith.”
It may be accurate to say that knowledge is a subset of belief, in that most human knowledge did have its roots in a particular belief a person may have had. For example, the explorers in the Age of Discovery were motivated to find new lands, which they did, based on a belief that there must be new lands over the horizon.
However, Mr. Colson adopts a extreme variant of this position that is simply over the top and borders on outright solipsism. Starting from the notion that belief inspires and directs knowledge, he fails to recognize — indeed, he dismisses as irrelevant — the important factor that distinguishes valid truth claims from invalid ones: evidence. Instead, Mr. Colson attempts to redefine the very act of reason in such a way so as to allow claims completely unsupported by evidence to enjoy equal weight as those supported by a body of evidence.
This is tantamount to a rejection of the very process of science itself. If he truly takes the view that evidence is not better than faith (which I take to mean “believe what you want”) in determining truth claims, then I fail to see how Mr. Colson proposes to tell fact from fantasy in any way, shape or form. If one rejects evidence that thoroughly, then, as a commenter on the AE blog has pointed out, Mr. Colson is in no position to reject the statement “God is a ham sandwich wrapped in tinfoil,” or to discourage a person who has decided he has faith that he can flap his arms and fly from jumping off a tall building in order to give it a try.
I will offer more rebuttals to other arguments of Mr. Colson’s when I have more time, either here or at the Atheist Experience blog. (And while I hope this comment is allowed to remain here, I’ll post it to the AE blog as well, in the event it is not.) But for now, I will make one more correction. Mr. Colson writes, “…innumerable transitionary fossils showing gradual change would be discovered; none of which has come to pass.” This is false. Transitional fossils are everywhere in the fossil record. I would invite Mr. Colson to fill the gaps in his education by reading this page, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html , as well as any number of current biology texts, which will also explain how speciation has been amply observed by scientists. I would also charitably advise Mr. Colson that one is usually better served criticizing science from a position of knowledge, not ignorance, and that he would not come across so poorly in future debates, online or otherwise, if he made sure first to get his facts about science from legitimate scientific sources, rather than reasserting long-refuted canards. Of course, he would have to adjust his thinking to take the concept of evidence more seriously than he currently does. But that’d be a good idea, too.
Zurahn August 6, 2008
Are you honestly going to attempt to reject evolutionary biology? Do you understand what that actually entails? It’s not just a matter of how we view the tree of life; it means a rejection of genetics, phylogenetics, palaeontology, chemistry, pharmacology, taxonomy, even history with domestication and selective breeding.
You also mischaracterize the scientific method on several occasions, including a misunderstanding of the scientific use of of the word ‘theory.’
The scientific method is as follows:
-Observation
-Hypothesis
-Testing
-Falsification
-Peer review
Evolution was never a matter of “faith,” the closest thing is hypothesis, which scientists assume is incorrect from the outset and is pretty much the starting point and not the end. If it fails at any point, it is rejected.
A fact is an observed, verifiable occurrence.
A theory describes a set of facts.
A theory, by definition, can NEVER become a fact; it can only be further and further supported by evidence. Something is only referred to as a theory afer it passes the scientific method and is accepted throughout the community as a well-supported model with shown results.
Oh, and one last thing, the definition for biological evolution is different now than when it was proposed 150 years ago. The modern definition is the change in the frequency of alleles over time.
So my question again is, are you seriously suggesting the rejection of the theory of evolution?
Martin Wagner August 6, 2008
A further response. Mr. Colson writes: “The more important question is why would God create us? Christians believe He created us so that He would have people in a love relationship with Him. But if we could prove the existence of God, we wouldn’t have to have faith; and without faith we couldn’t love God. This is an argument that C. S. Lewis made very powerfully.”
As I haven’t been through all of Lewis’s apologetics, my mind reels at how he could present a powerful argument for such a silly idea. Essentially the claim is: if you know something exists, instead of simply having faith in its existence, you cannot love it. Logically then it would follow that no married person in the world loves their spouses, because the existence of those people is easily proved by their physical presence in each other’s lives. QED: since you can prove the existence of your spouse, you need not have faith, and without faith, you cannot love your spouse.
Bizarre, to say the least.
Martin Wagner August 6, 2008
I’d now like to respond to this passage in which Mr. Colson makes a series of assertions about the nature of God that, I’m afraid, don’t do his God many favors. Mr. Colson writes, “You’re making the assumption that for God to be God, or for you to believe in Him, He must reveal Himself by giving us evidence which by reason would establish His existence. But why should the God who created everything that is explain Himself? What would compel such a God to do that?”
Gosh, what about that crazy little thing called LOVE? Over and over Christians try to tell us that God is love, that he loves us and wants a personal relationship with us, etc. etc. And yet when asked, entirely reasonably, to reveal his existence to us unambiguously, suddenly we’re the ones being unreasonable! This is kind of hard to swallow in light of the fact this God purportedly sentences anyone who doesn’t believe in or worship him to his satisfaction to eternal torture in Hell!
Ironically, just a few paragraphs above, Mr. Colson asks rhetorically, “Is not the capacity for love, though you cannot see it, something which can be objectively (though not scientifically) measured?” Yes, it is (though he’s confused on his terms — the ways in which the emotions of love manifest in observable behavior IS something science can study). And I would suggest that one measure of the capacity for love is that one does not deceive the object of one’s love, that one does not hide that which should not and does not need to be hidden, that one treats the object of one’s love with generosity, kindness and above all, RESPECT.
It is not an act of respect — let alone love — to condemn someone to a horrible punishment simply for doubting your existence when you have categorically refused to reveal your existence. That you are a universe-creating deity is irrelevant to the issue. If your argument is that God, being God, doesn’t owe anybody anything, because HE’S GOD, SO SHUT UP, then why should human beings with reasoning capacity respond to THAT kind of arrogance with love and respect ourselves? To do so would only be a dishonest love borne out of fear. Mr. Colson is arguing for God as nothing more than a tyrant, an authoritarian thug and despot. Is this really the message he hopes will persuade atheists?
So in reply to Mr. Colson’s question, “But why should the God who created everything that is explain Himself?” my response is simple: If God really loved us, he would.
Yet Mr. Colson goes on with more arguments in favor of God’s authoritarianism and privilege, as if these were praiseworthy qualities.
“A God great enough to create the heavens and earth, and all of life in it, is a God who has no obligation to explain why He created us. In fact, He has a good reason not to. I believe it was Aquinas who argued that if God could be known to us by reason, we would take Him for granted; He would be no different than the tree that one could see from one’s office.”
Well, I would argue that God DOES have such an obligation, especially if the penalty for not being a member of his fan club is eternity in the lake of fire. But I cannot imagine who would consider this silly point of Aquinas’s to be a “good reason” for not revealing himself. It is hardly the case that any person alive holds all of the things they know to exist on some sort of even plateau of worth. Any parent knows that their own children exist; unless they are really horrible parents, that fact certainly does not mean they are as indifferent to their children as they are to a tree.
And doesn’t it seem curiously insecure of God to worry about being “taken for granted,” when, just a moment ago, Mr. Colson was arguing for God’s being SO magnificent and SO glorious and SO divinely important and powerful and magisterial in his universe-creating awesomeness that the very idea of revealing himself to us puny humans was simply too far beneath his notice to be anything but absurd? Haven’t I seen this before? Oz the Great and Terrible, was it? Bluster, bluster, bluster…but pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
I’d suggest in future, Mr. Colson should consider amending his apologetics so that he doesn’t make the rather devastating mistake of following up a bout of “God’s too big and awesome and important to reveal himself to mere mortals” with “But really…he’s scared you’ll ignore him”!
Keith August 6, 2008
Micro evolution is well documented and supported. Macro evolution is a different story. It takes more faith to believe in macro evolution than does to believe in a God who created the universe.
Keith August 6, 2008
God has revealed himself in creation and through his Word. His love and respect for humanity are clearly seen in the story of the prodigal son. Free will to believe or not believe; free will to take what has been given as a gift and use it as we see fit; free will to be a follower or not.
We are all tainted by Adam’s rebellion, and therefore stand condemned. Yet even then God has paid the price in Jesus and offered us an opportunity to be restored. That’s the essence of biblical Christianity. Perhaps not intellectually palatable or scientifically provable, but certainly reasonable and supportable.
rx314 August 6, 2008
Mr. Wagner has done a fairly good job of giving a reply. However I feel the need to add a few myself.
Colson said: “I also cannot justify the words of the Old Testament….” Good start! Because you can’t justify all the stuff supporting the institution of slavery in the Bible (along with a lot of other things also, but that can wait for another post). Many things can be said about this, but the most important one, in my opinion, it that such things provide evidence that this particular God is not the all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving, etc… entity that is claimed. Additionally, it can not be claimed that the Bible and the God of the Bible are the giver of clear and unambiguous rules of Good vs. Bad morality for us creatures to hear and obey. If parts of the Bible indicate to many that slavery is good and ordained by God (as many ministers in the South did prior to the Civil War — and probably after the Civil War too!) and other people find that the Bible indicates to them the opposite is the case, then the Bible doesn’t seem to have been of much use really in deciding Good vs Bad morality here. In fact, this shows that it was men, we mere mortals, that had to use our own judgment. So when Colson said: “…I have made the argument in the book that the Christian church has opposed slavery from the beginning….”, well Mr. Colson can make this claim, but that does not make this claim, or any other claim Mr. Colson feels to advance, true. I say the evidence in this case is fairly clear that Mr. Colson’s claim is false. By the way, doesn’t Jesus say somewhere something like “Slaves obey your Masters?” — Could a reasonable mind conclude that the concepts of “Slaves” and “Masters” remain valid accordingly? Could Jesus have made a more clear cut statement along the lines of something like: “Slavery is wrong. Don’t do it.” There seems to be a number of places in the Bible were matters of less importance get such a statement — like not wearing garments of two different types of material, or eating shellfish, or not working on Sunday, etc…, etc…, etc….
Question: In the Book of Job, the bottom line is indeed the basic “I’m God and I can do any thing I want with you Job” — this is a piece of evidence that Mr. Colson’s claims that God can do as he pleases. Does this make it moral? Does God’s betting on Job with Satan make provide evidence of any other moral insights into this God? Does the collateral damage to Job’s family have any moral implications? Have you thought about it long and hard all you believers? In your “Bible Study” did you consider several different lines of thought on this story? (My impression of “Bible Study” for the story of Job or any other parts of the Bible lead me to believe that very little critical analysis is really done in “Bible Study” classes).
Question: According to the Bible, has God ever revealed Himself to any of his Creations? Did those God revealed Himself to become robots incapable of rejecting Him? Hummm? According to the plot, did not Satan and a significant portion of the Angels in Heaven (in the presence of God Himself) rebel with Satan? How can this be? Are there other examples? What convoluted explanations do believers make up to cover these cases that seem to be a defect in their “He can’t provide evidence because to do so would remove free will etc…” argument?
A few quick other observations (in no particular order):
A previous poster said: “God has revealed himself in creation and through his Word…”
Nope. That is not established fact. Just about any of the current (or past) followers of the many religions {Jehovah, Allah, Oden, Zeus, etc…} can make (many have made) this empty, subjective assertion.
A previous poster said: “We are all tainted by Adam’s rebellion…”
Nope. Sorry, believe in inherited guilt is wrong, it is immoral to hold anyone for the wrong someone else did. We do not imprison the family members of someone that breaks the law — that is wrong. A God that lays claim to being all powerful, all loving, etc… that lays claim to dispensing justice that also invokes the concept of inherited sin is barbaric and is no dispenser of justice or is just too morally weak to do better (and thus not all powerful or all loving etc.). Moreover, if Adam’s biological structure (e.g. DNA) or circumstance Adam was subjected to by the Creator is the motivator of behavior that the same Creator finds objectionable (e.g. survival instinct, reproduction, curiosity, doubt due to lack of observable reason and evidence, etc…), then this is the Creator finding fault with Himself, not Adam!
Well, that’s enough. Except one last thing, Mr. Colson never really addressed if the method to analyze his program was fair or not (independent of what was agreed to, was it a valid exercise to determine the effectiveness of his program — I conclude that the method was flawed as Mr. Glasser suggested in his comments).
Martin Wagner August 6, 2008
Keith: There is fundamentally no difference between microevolution and macroevolution, and the claim that one has evidence while the other does not is simply another creationist canard. I encourage you, as I did Mr. Colson, to read the actual scientific literature, so that you can make sure your statements about evolution are coming from a position of knowledge and not ignorance. On the subject of macroevolution you can start here.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Another less long-winded response to Mr. Colson’s “God cannot reveal himself” statement I could have made is that, according to Scripture, this is what God is supposed to have done quite explicitly in the case of Paul’s revelation on the road to Damascus in Acts. Saul of Tarsus was not merely a nonbeliever but an active persecutor of Christians, and God revealed his existence to him to only unambiguously but rather forcefully. And yet it’s supposedly unreasonable for modern atheists to request the same degree of revelation. Keith’s assertion that God reveals himself through creation can be shown for the weak idea that it is by the fact that any believer in any deity could make exactly the same claim. The Flying Spaghetti Monster created us all, and he is revealed through creation.
Keith August 6, 2008
Martin: Hey, I’ll plead ignorance on the gross details of evolution. I have yet to see any substantial species-to-species transformation evidence, but perhaps the site will tell me somethng new.
I would appreciate it if you took my argument about the existance of God in its entirety. God revealed himself through creation AND his Word.
Martin Wagner August 6, 2008
Keith, you can also try here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
As to the other, more concrete examples would be helpful than just that “God revealed himself through creation AND his Word,” which again could be seen as a fairly vague, blanket statement that any religion could offer. “Wotan revealed himself through creation AND his Word.” “Ahura Mazda revealed himself through creation AND his Word.” See what I’m getting at?
Stephen, Austin, TX August 6, 2008
Christians,
If human free will is so important to God, why would he attempt to manipulate it through the carrot of Heaven and the stick of Hell? Why would he deny the will of myself and others for him to remove ambiguity of his existence, so we can make a better-informed decision about whether or not he is worthy of human regard?
According to the story of Adam and Eve in the garden described in the Bible, God did not want them to exercise their free will to acquire a moral conscience by eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The very act of exercising free will in order to gain the knowledge necessary to make good decisions was, as Keith put it, “Adam’s rebellion,” the original sin, for which God supposedly condemns us all, independent of our will or the exercise thereof.
Imagine a man living in a log cabin in the woods, who tells his children, “Don’t go outside, or wolves will eat you!” One day while he’s off collecting firewood, they decide step outside into the sunshine, to feel the breeze and sniff the flowers for the first time in their young lives. When the father returns, he smells fresh air on his kids and interrogates them, ultimately declaring, “You’ll have to mop the floor and wash the dishes for the rest of your lives! Forget the wolves; the next time you step outside, I’ll kill you myself!”
Ah, you say, but God has graciously provided a way for us to exercise our free will, and get out of this awful predicament. All we have to do is believe that Jesus, who is also God and the Holy Spirit, copulated with his mother in order to become incarnate, so he could sacrifice himself to himself as a work-around for the predicament he created himself – and all you have to do is believe it!
Going back to the former analogy, suppose the father came home with a baby one day. Then, right in front of his kids, he tossed the baby into the fire, telling them, “Okay, now you can go outside whenever you like. Just believe that my sacrifice of this baby will keep the wolves satisfied!”
Yay, God! He’s so rational, and he loves us so much! Why would anyone rebel against such a wonderful guy?
In the end, though, what sacrifice did Jesus really make? He supposedly resurrected and went back to being God. One of the defining characteristics of death is, it’s permanent. If it’s not permanent, it isn’t death. So, either Jesus really died, in which case he’s not God, or he resurrected, in which case he didn’t sacrifice himself through death. At most, he suffered a weekend of inconvenience.
I submit that Christianity cannot possibly be the, “one, true faith.” Never mind the utter lack of real-world evidence of God’s existence; Christianity is not even self-consistent.
I submit also that, even if a God worthy of human regard existed, he would not use the scrawlings of ancient goat herders as his medium of choice for conveying the most important message in the Universe. Rather, it seems more likely that he would etch it in the stones of the Earth, and weave it into the very fabric of the Universe. The closer we look at nature, though, the less evidence we see of God, and the more evidence we see that the Universe doesn’t care about us one way or another. I can only conclude, then, that if God exists, he doesn’t want us to believe in him.
That’s God’s Truth.
Keith August 6, 2008
Martin: Taking a couple of steps back, if God is, and if he has revealed himself, how has he revealed himself? In answer to these questions, I believe (yes, faith), based on the evidence I see in the Bible itself, archeological evidence, the evidence of changed lives, the evidence of the human condition, etc. that God as revealed himself in the Hebrew Old Testament and the Christian New Testament. No other religion or belief system that I’ve studied (and I’ve studied all the major ones and then some as I’m sure you have) has captured observable reality in a way that approaches what I see in the Scriptures.
I don’t expect to win any arguments here, I’m just stating what I believe and why. Whether or not evolution is factual really has no bearing on this; that’s a secondary issue.
Thanks for the comments.
Keith August 6, 2008
Stephen: If there is no God, then life is a meaningless, amoral existance. I don’t buy that. You’ve probably already seen this, but http://www.reasons.org/ provides some interesting counters to your statements about the advancement of science and evidence of God’s existance.
Martin Wagner August 6, 2008
Keith: I appreciate your views, and your willingness to admit your subjective input into how you developed them. Coming from outside the faith, it can be difficult for the unconverted to judge whether the believer is simply filtering his observations of the world through those views, or if in fact the religious views are being confirmed by observations in such a way that anyone can reach the same conclusions independently (a la the scientific method). Personal experience in the end doesn’t really help me out from an evidentiary standpoint, as I’ve had people who were into LSD talk about how their lives had been changed for the better by the experience and that I was really missing something special by not trying it out myself. And from my own perspective, the human condition is not so admirable, given all the pain and suffering in the world, that any sort of omnibenevolent god is a credible idea to me. Whatever the case, you were nice enough to share your ideas and so I’m just explaining some of mine in reply.
rx314 August 6, 2008
Stephen of Austin, TX said: “In the end, though, what sacrifice did Jesus really make?…”
I have always liked this question. When someone says “Jesus died for our sins”, it should always comes to mind to ask in reply “Is Jesus dead?” and then ask “Who made a bigger sacrifice, Jesus or the soldier who throws himself on a grenade to save his platoon buddies?”
Stephen of Austin, Tx. said: “The closer we look at nature, though, the less evidence we see of God, and the more evidence we see that the Universe doesn’t care about us one way or another.”
Very strange, here is another scientist named Steve from Austin, Tx. that has also made such observations:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/archive/design/weinberg_designer.html
————————————————————————–
Stephen, Austin, TX August 6, 2008
Keith,
On what basis do you claim that if there is no God, then life is a meaningless, amoral existence? I don’t buy that, either. Despite no longer believing in any God or gods, I find plenty of meaning in my life, and my behavior is more morally correct than when I believed, as Chuck and his band of convicts profess to believe, that we’re all helpless victims of sin. Without God or “sin” to hide behind, I must assume full responsibility for my own actions.
Conversely, if God exists and created us for his own inscrutable purposes, what meaning is there to life? To (yawn) assuage God’s insecurities through expressions of blind faith and obsequious worship?
What about interacting with real people, building real relationships and sharing real experiences? What about procreating? What about being a productive member of society? Life has plenty of meaning without God. I pity those who honestly believe their lives are sad, sorry little vestiges in the absence of an imaginary friend to justify their existence.
I feel equally sorry for those who distrust their empathy and reasoning ability to such a degree that they are certain they would be immoral, or amoral, without someone telling them exactly what to do. That’s not living, it’s psychological self-abuse.
We’ve known since the days of Epicurus, ca. 300 BCE, that all logically possible deities are necessarily either unwilling or unable to prevent bad things from happening sometimes. If unable, they are impotent. If unwilling, whether due to apathy or malevolence, they are not benevolent. Similarly, as all possible deities appear unable to prevent good things from happening sometimes, we can rule out malevolent deities. Whether unwilling or unable, we can readily see, all around us every day, that all possible deities are irrelevant. What is the functional difference between an irrelevant deity, and one which does not exist?
I’m not necessarily saying there are no gods, I’m just saying we can prove that all possible gods are necessarily irrelevant with respect to the Universe we inhabit. Whether any gods exist or not, it behooves us to assume they don’t, and thereby accept full responsibility for ourselves and our predicament.
(Hint: there’s a whole branch of theology, known as “theodicy”, that is supposed to address this problem, which is known as the Problem of Evil. The product of over two millennia of theodicy is not a refutation, but a handful of ways to restate the problem so its conclusiveness is less obvious; in other words, euphemisms.)
Stephen, Austin, TX August 6, 2008
In keeping with Russell’s questioning of the honesty of reporting of the study’s outcome, and Martin’s observations about the apparent shortcomings of the God of Mr. Colson, it occurs to me that even the apparently inflated claims of a reduction from 20% to 8% recidivism is still unflattering of an alleged Almighty, in that it suggests God’s Divine Plan for Solving the Problem of Inherent Sinfulness Once and for All, only works about 60% of the times it’s applied. That’s awful, from an engineering perspective. If only 60% of bridges remained standing after a year, who would use them?
Keith August 6, 2008
Martin: Thank you. I can appreciate and respect your perspective as well. I would like to note that my views are only partially subjective. There are several categories of evidence that lead me to my conclusions.
Our dire human condition strongly supports the Christian worldview. Without God’s involvement, we would have analiated one another centuries ago, like Cain took out Able. I attribute all good found in this world to God.
Thanks again for the comments. I need to bow out of the discussion and get some work done (once I address a couple other comments, that is).
Keith August 6, 2008
Stephen: How have you objectively identified what is moral? How have you objectively identified what is meaningful?
Keith August 6, 2008
Stephen: In regard to your comment about the study, human nature being what it is (as identified in Paul’s writings), living a life of faith is not an easy prospect. It’s no surprise that some don’t follow through (the New Testament record has several examples). The bridge analogy just doesn’t hold up (sorry–had to throw that in). Life in Christ is a divine cooperative (i.e., we have responsibility to do our part, and God does his part). You have to admit, the relatively low recitivism rate does point to the fact that Prison Fellowship must be doing something well when compared to other programs. What is that something?
Okay, I’m done. I need to get some work done. Thanks for the comments.
Martin Wagner August 6, 2008
Keith wrote: “Without God’s involvement, we would have analiated one another centuries ago, like Cain took out Able. I attribute all good found in this world to God.”
Just as any proponent of any religion would attribute “all good” in the world to their god, too.
Considering the amount of evil that has been done throughout history in the name of the Christian God — the wars and crusades, the pogroms, the punishment of heretics, etc. — it certainly seems that not only do the most devout believers in God do their fair share of annihilating, but that the God to whom you attribute “all good” hasn’t seen fit to put a stop to any of it. (This is not to say that plenty of wars haven’t been fought for non-religious motives, far from it. It’s just to point out that the religious aren’t in any way less likely to be warlike.) Also, re-read some of your own scriptures to get your God’s perspective on annihilation. I have a feeling the Midianites would hardly agree that God has brought peace.
Quite a lot of annihilating has been done in the name of God, Keith, and it’s folly to think otherwise. If you’re going to attribute all good in the world to God, you’ll need to explain why God has never intervened to put a stop to the evil done in his name. I’d suggest that without the arrival of the secular Enlightenment several centuries ago, with its principles of human rights at the fore, humanity would have been very likely to have annihilated itself by now, indeed.
Also, this point: “You have to admit, the relatively low recitivism rate does point to the fact that Prison Fellowship must be doing something well when compared to other programs. What is that something?”
As has been pointed out at the link below, Colson’s prison ministry has apparently been fudging the numbers to exaggerate its claims of success:
http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/2008/05/chuck-colsons-dubious-prison-statistics.html
Keith August 7, 2008
Martin: I’m not disputing history; the relationship between war and religion is a no brainer. It’s also a no-brainer that messed up people will do things in the name of a god that are contrary to the teachings of that god. Also, to claim God has not intervened to stop some evil is not provable. I stand by what I wrote.
The questions of evil and why God annihilated people groups in the OT are challenging. Christians have been debating these questions for centuries (see “Show Them No Mercy: 4 Views on God and Canaanite Genocide” for more on part of this debate).
I’m not going to pretend to have all the answers (not even close). But perhaps allowing evil to exist serves a greater purpose? Perhaps evil is allowed to exist as long as there is hope for the perpetrators of evil? Perhaps there is a line, that once crossed, requires swift justice to preserve the lives and futures of others?
Perhaps there were some mistakes made with the stats. I’ll have to check it out.
Thanks again for the comments.
Martin Wagner August 7, 2008
Keith: “Also, to claim God has not intervened to stop some evil is not provable.”
Only insofar as God himself is an unfalsifiable and unprovable concept. But still, God’s missed some remarkable opportunities to show humanity he’s got our backs, hasn’t he? The Holocaust, 9/11, earthquakes, tsunamis. The list is huge. A huge glowing disembodied hand blocking the airplanes from colliding with the WTC towers would have gone a long way towards shutting up the atheists of the world, let alone saving 3000 innocent lives.
Keith: “Perhaps evil is allowed to exist as long as there is hope for the perpetrators of evil?”
If evil acts only caused direct harm to their perpetrators, then a lot of this sort of theodicy would be on better footing. Unfortunately, when you bring the fact of innocent victims into the picture, it’s harder to swallow the idea that, say, God allows a child to be raped so that there may be hope for the rapist.
Keith August 7, 2008
Martin: You raise difficult and legitimate questions. And, as I said before, I don’t have all the answers. All I can say is I believe the God of the Bible is love and goodness personified. There are many things I don’t understand or find it difficult to understand, but I believe it’s possible that my finite mortal brain can’t see all reasons behind why an eternal, infinite being who transcends time and space does or doesn’t do some things.
I could get into the whole discussion of what constitutes “evil,” and how you’ve somehow arrived at an objective way to identify it, but I’m wondering … have you ever asked “God” to reveal himself to you? Not in a demanding sort of way, but in a sincere, I’d-like-to-know-if-you’re-really-there-and-if-you’re-really-who-Christ-followers-say-you-are way? Perhaps it’s anathema to even ask the question, but I’m going to ask anyway. No offense intended, and you don’t need to respond.
Xena August 7, 2008
“You have to admit, the relatively low recitivism rate does point to the fact that Prison Fellowship must be doing something well when compared to other programs. What is that something?”
Getting people a job.
Martin Wagner August 7, 2008
Keith, if the God of the Bible is “love and goodness” personified, why does he condemn people to eternal torment for failing to love him back? It seems to me that you’re working on a definition of “love and goodness” that denudes those concepts of meaning. And these shouldn’t be things beyond the grasp of “mortal, finite” minds (don’t sell yourself short, guy!). Indeed, if there were aspects of God’s character and behavior that required a hyper-advanced mind humans don’t possess to comprehend, and yet we were all at risk for rather harsh, infinite penalties for not comprehending them, I don’t see how that would redound to God’s good and loving nature either.
I’m not trying to pile on, Keith. I just want you to be versed in some common atheist objections to Christian apologetics. Later.
Stephen Rogers August 8, 2008
Keith:
I asked you to explain, “On what basis do you claim that if there is no God, then life is a meaningless, amoral existence?”
I turned around your hitherto unsupported assertion by asking, “Conversely, if God exists and created us for his own inscrutable purposes, what meaning is there to life?”
I asked a series of questions regarding your inexplicable dismissal of things that I consider very meaningful in life.
In the context of the Problem of Evil and its impact on the relevance of all logically possible deities, I asked, “What is the functional difference between an irrelevant deity, and one which does not exist?”
You addressed none of my questions. Instead, you sought to sidetrack the conversation by asking, “Stephen: How have you objectively identified what is moral? How have you objectively identified what is meaningful?”
Although I have no obligation to answer your questions (as you have not extended the courtesy of addressing mine), I will do so anyway, if only to illustrate to other readers that I am more thoughtful and considerate than you are.
I do not believe morality and meaning are objective at all, or can be objectively identified. Meaning is something each of us assigns to our own lives, so it is necessarily subjective. Unimaginative people often adopt meanings that others assign to them instead of coming up with their own, but they, and they alone, are ultimately responsible for the meaning they accept for themselves.
Morality, however, is an inherently social phenomenon. A man stranded alone on a desert island has no use for morals or morality. If there is even one other person with him, however, they will have to come to some agreement about how they expect to treat each other and be treated. This social contract is the basis for morality, and it changes from place to place and time to time, depending upon the pressing needs of each society in each place and time. Case in point, the Bible condones pillaging, genocide and slavery (provided, of course, that the enemy is “wicked”), whereas today, these things are broadly frowned upon. Different time, different circumstances, different morality.
Now please address my questions before asking any more, or I will deem you immoral, on the basis that you are not willing to do for others as they are willing to do for you.
Stephen August 8, 2008
Keith:
I apologize for being a bit testy in my last reply. I sometimes become frustrated when my side of a conversation appears to be cavalierly ignored or dismissed. I would still like to know your answers to the questions I previously asked, though.
This question wasn’t directed at me, but I’d like to provide my answer for it anyway: “I’m wondering … have you ever asked “God” to reveal himself to you? Not in a demanding sort of way, but in a sincere, I’d-like-to-know-if-you’re-really-there-and-if-you’re-really-who-Christ-followers-say-you-are way? Perhaps it’s anathema to even ask the question, but I’m going to ask anyway. No offense intended, and you don’t need to respond.”
Like many (perhaps most) of the atheists I know, I grew up in a Christian family, and was a devout believer for most of my childhood and all of my adolescence. During my college years, I served in several ministries, including counselor at a Christian summer camp, and missionary work in Mexico and Papua New Guinea. In addition to the usual recitations during Sunday school, sermons and Bible study groups, I read the Bible cover to cover, twice. During that roughly two-decade span, I asked God to reveal himself to me many, many times. As such, the short answer to your question, as it applies to me, is “yes”.
Despite this Christianity-saturated background, I suffered from the same haze of uncertainty and mystery and finite mentality that you seem to be experiencing. While serving in the jungle, it occurred to me that if I was going to be a missionary, it was very, very important to have a solid grasp of the Truth, whatever that turned out to be, before attempting to relay my beliefs to others. I prayed sincerely for wisdom and guidance in this pursuit of greater understanding. I summoned the courage to tackle the difficult questions with honesty and integrity, fully confident that doing so would ultimately corroborate the beliefs I already held. (Arguably, everyone who has been a believer for more than a couple of years should have that degree of faith.)
Thus, I embarked on a long, tortuous spiritual journey that unfolded over the course of about eight years. My quest was successful; my prayer for wisdom and guidance had been answered. I discovered the Truth about God. The thing is, the conclusion was not at all what I expected it to be at the outset.
I won’t step you through the reasoning which led to my atheism; it’s a journey you’ll have to take yourself when you gain enough faith to tackle the difficult questions with honesty and integrity. That was a one-way road, in that the reasons I stopped believing are different from the reasons I continue to disbelieve. Those who would seek to change my mind about God must address the latter, starting with the Problem of Evil. I regard the fact that crimes and prisons exist at all as very compelling evidence that an “all good, all powerful” God is not a relevant component of the real world.
If you lean on a God who isn’t there, you’ll fall right through. Rather than distracting ourselves and diverting our resources in the name of bogus entities, realms and events, I think our time and effort would be better spent developing real-world solutions to real-world problems.
Helping former convicts find jobs appears to be a somewhat effective method of reducing the recidivism rate. If the entire religious portion of Chuck’s program was discarded, and it focused on simply helping convicts reintegrate themselves as productive members of society, I would expect to see no loss of efficacy whatsoever, and maybe even some improvement.
Keith August 10, 2008
Martin: Understood. And I will explain from the perspective of the Christian world view as best as I can. I don’t consider myself an apologist, but I can address my faith and reasons why I believe what I believe.
Justice is also part of God’s nature. In the Christian world view, the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). Like many inmates in today’s prison system, we tend to minimize our crimes and justify our attitudes and actions. Every part of our being is tainted by sin, and, in the Christian world view, we need to saturate our thinking in God’s word to help us better “see” (Hebrews 4:12; 2 Peter 1:19-21). Christians are in a constant battle with the old nature (Ephesians 4:22-24), yet striving to become more like Jesus (Philippians 2:5-8; Ephesians 2:10) through the power of the Holy Spirit.
You may debate the harshness of the penalty for rejecting God’s rule, but I’m convinced we don’t fully understand how utterly sinful sin is, and how utterly beyond hope we truly are outside of Christ. We were created to exist for eternity, so if we choose rebellion, there is no place for us in the kingdom of God outside of Christ.
So it’s not a matter of minimizing the gift of the mind and reason. Rather, for the Christian it’s a matter of keeping the mind and reason in perspective. As Paul said, “But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith….” (see Philippians 3:7-11).
So it’s not a matter of grasping every aspect of God. Rather, it’s a matter of grasping the essential elements and accepting them by faith. If the gift is to be for all people, then the essential elements need to be simple enough for a child to grasp.
Again, I’m not trying to win an argument here, I’m just trying to explain what I believe as best as I can.
Keith August 10, 2008
Stephen: Apology accepted. I chose to address what I saw as surprising to me. It was hard to distinguish the rest of what you wrote as genuine questions or merely rhetorical, which is why I did not respond to the questions. I apologize if this offended you.
Stephen wrote: “On what basis do you claim that if there is no God, then life is a meaningless, amoral existence?” The logical conclusion of atheism is no ultimate meaning. As you mentioned in a later comment, you can have a system of meaning and morality, but it’s entirely temporal and subjective. Therefore, if I determine killing other people makes my life meaningful, you have no objective basis for challenging my moral system, regardless of how superior you believe your system to be. Honestly I didn’t think I needed to support the statement.
Meaning for the Christian comes in overcoming evil with good (Romans 12:21), doing good works (Ephesians 2:10), encouraging others to become followers of Jesus (Matthew 28:18-20), and seeking to build God’s kingdom and walk in his commands (Matthew 6:33). Morality comes from the commands found in the Scriptures, as I’m sure you’re aware having read the Bible yourself.
I believe I have tried to addressed the problem of evil in an earlier comment (not in depth, of course). Suffice it to say, it’s a problem for the Christian, but it’s not a deal breaker for me as it is for you. I’m a bit surprised, however, at your comments about personal responsibility, which is supported by the Scriptures. Perhaps it’s a matter of extent or degree of responsibility.
As far as the question, “What is the functional difference between an irrelevant deity, and one which does not exist?” is concerned, there is no functional difference. But I don’t see the God of the Bible fitting into either category.
Thank you for sharing your journey. My journey has been quite different. Although I was raised in a nominal Christian home, I was a self-described agnostic, doing very well in college, achieving all the goals I had set for myself, and partying hearty. However, I found no fulfillment or happiness in my achievements or antics, which led me to serious questions about the meaning of life. I reasoned that if there was a God and he created me, he should have some say as to what I do with my life. So as an experiment, I tossed up a prayer that went something like this, “God, if you’re there, show me what you want me to do with my life.”
Shortly thereafter, I asked a female co-worker to accompany me to the company Christmas party (I had a part-time job at a garment manufacturer while going to school). I had the opportunity to go with the hottest girl in the place, who had shown considerable interest in me, but I inexplicably asked another girl (if you had know me then, you’d have thought I’d lost my mind not jumping at the chance to go out with the hot girl). That night my date told me about her Christian faith. I thought she was wacked out. But there was something different about her life that attracted me. She had a sense of purpose, a peace, and an inexplicable joy. So, I asked her to accompany me to a concert later that week. She, however, had tickets to hear some Christian band (The Imperials) the same night. So, I returned my symphony tickets and went with her.
At the concert I spotted an enemy from high school (no small feat in a 5000 + seat auditorium). This guy was known for pulling stunts, and I figured he was there to disrupt the concert. Unfortunately (or fortunately), the guy spotted me and came over. The first thing he said to me was, “Praise the Lord, Keith, when did you get saved?” I had no clue what he was talking about. Today I know he was asking me when I had become a follower of Jesus. I was stunned by how the guy had changed. That night we left the auditorium as friends.
One other peculiar thing happened that night. I was often put off by different Christian groups claiming to have “the truth” or claiming to be the “true church.” That night I saw people from many different slices of the Christian pie all there under one banner. I was perplexed.
That night my date asked me if I wanted to go with her and her roommate to a Christmas presentation at her roommate’s church. I accepted. But as the day approached, I was getting more and more unsettled about this whole experience. It was all too weird, nonsensical, and internally disruptive. When the night arrived, I determined that I would not go to the presentation, but that I would stop by her apartment. In my mind I had no intention of hanging out with this girl or her weird friends beyond that night.
Just as I was about to leave her apartment, her roommate called and said that she was in trouble in a local store parking lot. My date’s car was broken down, so we jumped into my car and raced over to where my date’s roommate was at. She greeted us carrying bags of groceries with tears streaming down her face—she had locked her keys in the car.
Okay…no problem. I’ll just do the coat hanger trick and we’ll be on our way. Well, the new-fangled lock mechanism wasn’t well suited to my skill, so I took the girls back to their apartment and suggested they call a locksmith in the morning (it was Sunday evening). As I was leaving for the second time, I overheard the girls express their disappointment at missing the Christmas presentation. So, I offered to take them.
Soon I found myself sitting in a church sensing a presence I had never sensed before (yes, I know there’s a lot of subjective stuff here, but please bear with me). It was a Christmas musical program called The Singing Christmas Tree. During one of the songs, the name “Jesus” appeared in the star above the center tree. All I knew at this point is that I stood in rebellion against God, and that Jesus was the only one who could help me (later I learned about the theological details of my experience from the Bible). I walked out of that church a changed man. I had an inexplicable hunger for reading the Bible, my family was freaked out, and I lost a lot of old friends, but I consider it all a small price to pay.
That was 28 years ago. Life hasn’t been a walk in the park by any means, but over time my faith has deepened, my relationship with God has become stronger, and I’ve become a better, more productive member of society. Not perfect by any means (never will be in this life), but heading in the right direction. I’m still leaning, and I haven’t fallen through yet. On the contrary, I’ve been kept from falling through.
Stephen, Austin, TX August 11, 2008
Keith:
You’re still making the false and unsupported assumption that atheism necessarily leads to meaninglessness and amorality. “The logical conclusion of atheism is no ultimate meaning.” My personal experience, and eight years of careful logical reasoning as an atheist, have not led me to this conclusion. You said, “Honestly I didn’t think I needed to support the statement,” but you do. You really, really do.
Your source of meaning and moral standards are no more objective than mine, you just don’t realize it yet. There’s nothing inherently wrong with personally-assigned meaning, or morality based upon social agreement. If your Bible says pillaging and genocide are acceptable (Numbers 31), and instructs you in the proper method of raping your enemy (Deut. 21:10-14), it is still up to you, with your entirely subjective sense of compassion, coupled with sound reasoning, to accept, ignore, deny, dismiss or reject these kinds of passages according to prevailing social standards of morality, for your own, entirely subjective purposes.
This gets into what is known as the Euthyphro dilemma: http://www.moralphilosophy.info/euthyphrodilemma.html
The question is, does God command the good because it is good, or is it good because it is commanded by God? If the former, then the good exists independent of God, and he is just a messenger of sorts. If the latter, then God’s commands are completely arbitrary, such that rape and genocide would be entirely morally acceptable if and when God commanded them.
So you see, when you say atheism leads to meaninglessness and amorality, you have no idea what you’re talking about. There’s no more objective, ultimate meaning to be found in praising mythical figures or propagating the underlying myth than in simply enjoying the company of fellow human beings. The moral dictates of the Bible are no more objectively correct than the legal dictates of a secular government, as both are the products of social consensus. (Do you have any idea how many fallible human beings had a hand in the production of the Bible?)
Go back and re-read your story. Notice that the series of events and observations that led you to believe were not at all objective. You asked a girl out, but don’t know why. You perceived the name “Jesus” in the star at the top of the tree, but don’t know why. You judged for yourself that you stood in rebellion against God, and that Jesus could help you. You felt a hunger to read the Bible. All of this happened within the confines of your own mind, subject to your own imperfect thoughts and subjective feelings, even though, at the time, you claim you were an amoral agnostic with a meaningless existence.
Are you starting to see how ridiculous your assertion is? Are you starting to realize just how thoroughly you need to support it?
Editor August 11, 2008
Stephen: I don’t think the statement I’ve made is false at all: it’s a logical conclusion. but I can see that I’m wasting my time (and you are probably wasting yours). I was hoping to engage in a civil discussion, but I can see that’s not going to happen. I genuinely wish you the best.
Stephen, Austin, TX August 11, 2008
Keith:
By the way, I think you also owe me an apology, for asserting, sight unseen and without supporting evidence, that I am immoral and my life is ultimately meaningless.
I should also mention that your offhand dismissal of the Problem of Evil, right after I said, “Those who would seek to change my mind about God must address… the Problem of Evil,” demonstrates that you are not really serious about encouraging others to become followers of Jesus. Do you really think you can fool your God into believing you care about the fate of unbelievers, when it’s so obvious to unbelievers that you don’t? That your attempts to proselytize are just a dog and pony show to make yourself look better? I suppose you can probably fool yourself and/or your fellow Christians. Is that your real motive?
When you take the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20; 1 Peter 3:15-16) as seriously as I did in Papua New Guinea, then you might have some basis for claiming that encouraging others to become followers of Jesus is part of what you consider the ultimate meaning of life. Until then, you’re just in it for yourself.
Stephen, Austin, TX August 11, 2008
Keith/Editor:
“I don’t think the statement I’ve made is false at all: it’s a logical conclusion.”
Can you please provide the logical argument that led you to this conclusion, then?
Stephen, Austin, TX August 11, 2008
Keith:
Yet again, I find myself having a lot of follow-up thoughts to your last post. When you have asked questions, I have answered them. When I have made appeals to logic, I have laid out the logical arguments behind them (Problem of Evil, Euthyphro’s Dilemma). Getting you to support your assertions about “logical conclusions”, however, is like pulling teeth. If there is any limitation in our ability to engage in a civil discussion, it is wholly your doing. If you can’t back up your “logical conclusions” with a logical argument, I, and anyone who happens to be following this thread, is free to assume you don’t have any logical basis at all for your claims. Again, you might be able to fool yourself, but you will find it harder to fool me. If your intention was to try to fool me into believing in God again, or accepting that you might have a rational, objective basis for doing so, then you’re right – that’s not going to happen. Not until you step up to the plate with a logical argument to back your “logical” conclusions.
Stephen, Austin, TX August 11, 2008
Keith:
I think I can make an even stronger argument. The claim I disputed was, “If there is no God, then life is a meaningless, amoral existance.”
Let’s apply the principle of reciprocity, also known as the Golden Rule. Suppose I were to assert, “If there is a God, then the meaning of life is to rape and kill.” How would you feel about that? Would you be offended?
Suppose you objected, saying, “You’re wrong. I believe in God, but I don’t rape or kill. Why would you say something like that?” Suppose I then responded, “It’s a logical conclusion. I don’t have to support my claim.” How would you feel? Respected? Valued as a person? Would you be swayed by this “logic”?
You may not fully appreciate the degree to which your statement insults non-believers. When you want to know what atheists think and how they feel, you should ask an atheist, not brazenly dismiss their thoughts and feelings as irrelevant and continue to assert your prejudices. That’s not logic. That’s bigotry, rooted in ignorance. It is a dangerous lie, which promotes an unwarranted distrust of unbelievers, including me.
I conclude, therefore, that your beliefs have done nothing to teach you the value of understanding or compassion. Your beliefs don’t make you any better than the rest of us, so it’s incredibly insulting for you to go around pretending that you are. I think I have been remarkably patient with you, given the circumstances. I await your apology, and your promise to catch yourself before spreading such hateful lies in the future.
rx314 August 12, 2008
It appears to me that Stephen took this more seriously than Keith did.
Stephen has asked good questions and has responded to the issues in well articulated and direct responses (sometimes very pointed respones).
Keith, on the other hand, indeed had to be pushed into answering questions — and even then, despite claiming it is all “logic”, it really was subjective analysis from his biased point of view. For example, I also take issue with Keith’s subjective claim “If there is no God, then life is a meaningless, amoral existance.” — perhaps Keith would feel *his* life is meaningless and he would live an amoral existance, OK, but *Keith* is NOT everybody. Most people, including atheist, enjoy life and find meaning in their family, friends, work, sports, music, hobbies, etc. Addtionally, people considering their lives can find moral systems that can enhance their enjoyment in life while enhancing enjoyment others can find in life at the same time very naturally (i.e. civil societies can happen!). Other posters here have expressed it better than my poor attempt.
Stephen asked earlier:
“In the end, though, what sacrifice did Jesus really make? He supposedly resurrected and went back to being God. One of the defining characteristics of death is, it’s permanent. If it’s not permanent, it isn’t death. So, either Jesus really died, in which case he’s not God, or he resurrected, in which case he didn’t sacrifice himself through death. At most, he suffered a weekend of inconvenience.”
I would have thought a Xian, such as Keith indicates seems to have indicated he is, are any Xians that are serious, would have jumped *all* over this pointed question and would have provided a thoughtful and reasoned reply thus perhaps saving a “lost” atheist. But alas, none have. I’m not surprised really — this is not the kind of questions Xians, like Keith, for example, get exposed to in “Bible Study” classes. “Bible Study” is less critical analysis than it is just indoctination and brain-washing. That is also true of the other “Holy” texts like in Islam, or Hinduism, Scientology, etc.
Keith August 14, 2008
Thanks for the comment, rx314. My intention was never to get pulled into a debate, nor was it to engage in a bashing session. Therefore, I’m not going to address Stephan’s statements and questions. There are volumes of material written over the centuries that address many of the questions Stephan raises.
I will concede one thing to Stephen, and that is in all fairness I should provide a logical framework for the statement that I made about atheism. I realized after reviewing what I wrote that I left out a key concept in my statement. I apologize for that, and for the role my statement played in turning the discussion into a debate.
Statement: Atheism has no universal framework for meaning
1. Meaning is determined by the individual or by a society
2. Individuals often have vastly different views of what is meaningful
3. Societies often have vastly different views of what is meaningful
4. What is meaningful often changes in both individuals and in societies over time
5. Therefore there is no basis for defining what is meaningful to an individual or a society outside of a single individual or a single society at a particular point in time.
6. Therefore, there is no universal framework for defining meaning in the atheist worldview.
Statement: Atheism has no universal framework for morality (i.e., is amoral)
1. Morality is determined by the individual or by a society
2. Individuals often have vastly different views of what is moral
3. Societies often have vastly different views of what is moral
4. What is moral often changes in both individuals and in societies over time
5. Therefore there is no basis for defining what is moral to an individual or a society outside of a single individual or a single society at a particular point in time.
6. Therefore, there is no universal framework for defining meaning in the atheist worldview.
So I should have said, “If there is no God, life is a meaningless, amoral existence outside the confines of an individual or a society at any particular point in time.”
Is this accurate from your perspective?
To discuss worldviews and why one believes in a particular way has some value in the context of a blog, and I am willing to answer the best I can as to how I address these from the Christian worldview, as I did with Martin.
Martin Wagner August 14, 2008
Keith, the problem you have with your above syllogisms (both of them) is that point 5 does not necessarily result from point 4. The fact that whatever moral precepts or concepts of “meaning” people live by may only be applicable to the standards of their present society or culture does not mean those precepts have no basis. They may have a basis we disagree with, and even find appalling and evil (and when we do, we fight them, as happened in WW2). Moreover, point 1 ignores a salient fact, which is that the moral precepts a society adheres to are most often determined by that society for reasons having to do with the success and survival of that society. People don’t just make up laws and apply them whether they work or not. Actions have consequences, and if your laws aren’t contributing to your society’s success, they get changed.
This can and does lead to societies where great evil is done, to be sure, but those kinds of societies usually collapse (as with modern communist countries) or evolve into something better (as happened when the theocratic control the Church had enjoyed through the Middle Ages gave way to the Enlightenment).
The conclusion that there is no “universal framework for defining meaning in the atheist worldview” is a big red herring, as it assumes, falsely, that a “universal framework” (which you leave undefined, but which I think I can safely conclude leads to “a God handing you a list of do’s and don’ts”) is needed to determine meaning or morals. I don’t think the word “meaning” means what you think it means. And the sentence “If there is no God, life is a meaningless, amoral existence outside the confines of an individual or a society at any particular point in time” is absurd, considering that “outside the confines of an individual or a society at any particular point in time,” there is no life at all. You’ve ironically conceded that societies and individuals do not, in fact, need a God to enjoy a moral, meaningful existence.
I would suggest even Christians do not have a “universal framework” to determine their morals, since many Christian societies in the past freely engaged in practices like slavery which civilized people today consider the greatest possible evil. Also, you would probably call the cops if a 50 year old man showed up at your door to propose to your 14 year old daughter. But in medieval Europe, these kinds of marriage arrangements were the norm. And these were the most hardcore Christian societies the world has ever seen. Even “godly” morals have a habit of adapting with the times.
Finally, Keith, let me suggest that if you don’t intend to get into debates, be careful about making assertions regarding what you think atheism is or is not, if there are atheists around who will challenge you and you’re not prepared to address their challenges. We represent the real “No Spin Zone,” and we will be pretty relentless in asking you to support any claims you make we take issue with. Yes, sometimes we can get heated if we think our questions or points are being dodged or ignored (we’re only human), but we’re really only trying to get at answers.
Keith August 15, 2008
Martin,
Thanks for the comments. Yeah, 20-20 hindsight says I should not have made that assertion, and I did (and do) take responsibility for that. I, too, am human.
Thank you also for your insightful comments on my assertion. I’ve learned a great deal about atheist thinking in this exchange. I may follow with additional thoughts/questions in the future, but right now I’ve got some work to get done.
Keith August 15, 2008
Stephen: You were right about the assertion I made: I didn’t know what I was talking about. I should have done my homework and expected a debate. My mistake. I apologize.
Stephen August 15, 2008
Keith:
Thank you for exhibiting the personal integrity to explain your assertions in greater detail, and assume responsibility for them. You have my forgiveness, my respect, and even my admiration. I am impressed!
I agree with Martin’s analysis, but wanted to add that the existence of some 3,000 denominations of Christianity – all of which claim to draw from the Bible, but none of which agree with each other on all points of doctrine – seems to undermine the notion that universal knowledge, meaning or morality can be drawn from the Bible. From my current perspective, it appears that religious individuals and groups develop meaning and morality in the same context-dependent ways atheists do, but then take the additional step of seeking to justify their conclusions through selective interpretation and emphasis of certain scriptures over others. This process partially alleviates the burden of assuming personal responsibility for one’s convictions by redirecting attention to an external source which is widely presumed to be authoritative. The downside is, this habitual reliance upon diversion and distraction seems to lead to sloppy reasoning. I find careful reasoning about independently verifiable evidence to be a more reliable, more accountable method for discovering truth.
Of course, you may disagree, and you are free to do so. Maybe the Bible has some epistemological advantage over hard evidence and cold logic that I have not previously considered. I look forward to any additional thoughts or questions you may have.
Kazim March 13, 2009
For the record, I’ve responded to this and two other posts in a three-part reply at:
http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/2009/02/kazims-compiled-responses-to-chuck.html