Saturday, March 31, 2007

Evangelism by Atheists and by Christians

One definition of evangelise is to "cause to adopt a new or different faith." In the broadest terms I would propose that this would mean that an unbeliever who encourages a believer to leave the Christian faith in favor of faith in a purposeless, naturalist world is evangelising. I know that this last could be seen as bordering on fighting words, but I don't mean it to be. It is just one more case of trying to take an evenhanded look at the issue. I suggest that in general there is no difference between my effort to convert someone to faith, and an atheist's effort to convert someone to no faith.

On the other hand, I would argue that there are consequential differences. Some of these might even have ethical implications.

I think it can be fairly argued that, at least in America, there are huge benefits to being a Christian. In fact, atheists seem to commonly feel that they are victimized by their minority status in this country: Can't be president, money says God, etc. So, to the extent that being a part of the majority has advantage, being a Christian has at least that one.

In addition, joining something usually has great benefits for humans. It might be Rotary, the PTA, or a book club, but getting together with others who share common ideas, goals, and such is generally good. Joining a church can be said to offer some additional benefits with regard to care and nurture, community sharing of resources, accountability, and a steady flow of teaching on subjects almost 100% of the population would agree are good: love, forgiveness, peace, golden rule, helping the poor. Excellent evidence that church going has benefits is that so many do it.

There are some pretty clear other health and well being aspects to belief in the Christian faith. I won't detail them here, but most of us know what the claims are.

To the extent that an atheist or unbeliever of any kind intentionally attempts to persuade a believer to stop believing and quit his church, these benefits all stop. They might be able, in some cases, to be replaced by Rotary, classes on love, etc., but there is great risk that the end of a person's involvement in church can be detrimental.

Of course, since no one knows or is likely to find out if there really is a Heaven or Hell, the evangelistic atheist also strips that person of his hope of heaven and of heaven itself (if there is one.)

The Christian evangelist, on the other hand, is pretty clear that bringing a person into the fold will imbue them with all the above benefits, plus heaven. If there turns out to be a black void instead of heaven, no one gets hurt.

I almost hate to use the analogy, but it kind of reminds me of the teacher or aunt who decides to take the initiative in telling a 4 year-old that there is no Santa, while the parents were planning on doing so at 8. My fear of using this analogy is obvious, but in the case of Santa, no one suggests there is a real being. In the case of God, many believe He exists, and no one can prove he doesn't. So the person who takes the intiative to destroy faith does so only because, like the teacher or aunt, he thinks it is important to expose the truth (as he or she understands it.)

Whadya think?

Thursday, March 29, 2007

My Own Personal Miracle

A major issue that divides believers and those who don't is the issue of miracles. Bernardo has mentioned somewhere here that a miracle to him would be seeing a severed limb miraculously regrow before his eyes. The amazing Randi has offered $1,000,000 to anyone who can prove that a miracle happened (subject to a fair number of restrictions.) What is a miracle? The definition is a bit elusive. Following is a glimpse at something that may not rise to Bernardo's, Randi's, or even the Catholic Church standards, but it strays way outside the bounds of the likely or the expected.

I have an undergrad degree in psych with a specialization in human sexual response. In fact, I almost wrote a book with my professor to debunk "Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Sex." But instead it was off to law school, then into business. I stayed up on sexuality issues, but only as a hobby. : )

23 years later I'm having a little tiff with my wife. I pray for God to show me how to resolve the dispute. Out of the absolute blue, I feel an urging to write a book on teen sexuality. My sense it that this is a directive from God. It is Sept 1992. I have written 3 bicycle industry books, and just finished my first national book on business. It is counterproductive to the writing side of my career to do this book. More business books would be smarter. And importantly, I have had no inclination, thought, or intention to write a book on this subject before that moment.
My credentials were not really substantial enough to expect anyone to publish such a book.

Part of the prayer suggests an urgency to have this book to market by the next Summer. This means research, write, find a publisher, and go through the normal one year lag from completing the manuscript to the actual publication in less than 10 months.

I begin the research and writing while running by business, taking care of my family, and flogging the other books already on the market. The manuscript is almost complete in March, but Warner Books (my publisher) isn't interested. My agent isn't interested either.

I'm very close to self-publishing the book when I do a live and in-person interview on a local Christian talk radio show for my business book. The host would not normally have even talked about a business book, but did so because he wanted to help out with the future sex book. Most of these interviews are done by phone, and this one could have been, but it was only 40 minutes from my office, so I go.

After my interview, I go to my car and turn the radio to the show so I can hear the next guest. This guest spends the first five minutes of the show explaining that his publisher took his completed manuscript to market in 3 months. This information would have been totally useless and boring to anyone on the planet except me. It is hard to imagine one other person in that audience having any knowledge or interest in how long it takes a manuscript to get to market after it is in galleys.

I called the publisher that afternoon. The receptionist was out, so the phone was answered by none other than the editor-in-chief. We discussed the project. I overnighted a manuscript. The next day he overnighted a contract. This just doesn't happen - ever.

In September the book was published. Sales were very poor. However, I did over 200 radio interviews and three television interviews from that book. One of the TV events was with Geraldo on his old daytime show. I was the expert against bisexuality. That show was repeated 7 times, and likely seen by 15,000,000 or so people. Total number of people who probably heard my main premise about promiscuity through TV, radio, seminars, and reviews - Over 20,000,000.

Just a whole bunch of crazy coincidences? A fluke? Or God intended?

The Reason We Don't Have Miracles on a Regular Basis

A guest post from a comment. See her blog.

I would argue that if something is of value (like a miracle - ed) it is valuable because it is not easy to obtain. Precious jewels would be one example. It takes effort and sometimes costs a life to search for some gems or jewels.

Why would people risk thier life to dive deep in the sea to find a particular pearl in a particular cave that is known to be a trap if the silt is stirred by even a ripple of water? That is beyond me...my husband is the diver not me! Anyway.. there is some payoff at the end, something in the experience that makes it worth it.

I believe that God knows the heart of man. He doesn't jump through hoops. How many miracles would it take? How many supernatural acts would convince the world? Using Israel as an example..even though you gentlemen may not agree that the Exodus and other biblical accounts happened... they were the recipients of many supernatural events and still doubted continually. I do the same thing.

In human relationships, in mine anyway, I don't give very much energy to people who are wanting something from me w/o desiring to give much in return. I will help people if they need it but as far as investing time and energy, I save that for people who I can have fellowship with.

The best way for God to reveal himself, in my opinion, is to wait for a person to truly seek to know him, not what he can do - but his being. After a person is in that place they are ready to really listen and hear. Then he can reveal himself. Like the experience of Moses, God was in the quiet, not the obvious. The real transformation of a person's being is the best revelation of God in the world that I have found.

I did have an experience very similar to Saul's on the road to Damascus but it wasn't quick and I was not seeking for answers, just the being I hoped existed and was about to give up on. Christianity came later.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Path to Personal Perception of Truth

An individual person cannot know what is absolutely true. Yikes! Who would think I would make such a claim? While we must act as if the apple we are about to eat is an apple and edible and full of good things, we can't possibly know that for absolutely certain. Rather, we arrive at these conclusions by the sum of all the evidence that we have at that moment. We have personally eaten items in the past that look, feel, and appear in every way to be similar enough to that which is in front of us to conclude that it is an apple.

We have purchased these items from the same store as these were purchased, and have not become sick or died in the past. The store has a good reputation, as does the little label on the apple. We hope that no one sadist has adulterated the apple, switched the label, or otherwise tampered with it.

We were told by our parents, teachers, and things we have read that apples are good for you, and that in fact we should eat one every day.

This combination of sensory evidence, experience evidence, brand evidence, and trusted opinion of others evidence is enough for us to reach a conclusion about the truth of the above proposition. It may be patently untrue for dozens of obvious reasons. It is a very good wax replica. It has a massive worm inside. Science has not yet discovered the link between apples and brain tumors. Etc.

If new evidence enters the picture (think Alar), we may change our opinion quite quickly from what has seemed to be clear truth to either questioning or downright rejection of the old belief. The new evidence may be some startling new discovery, or it may just be the process of gaining greater and greater amounts of information about a subject. It should be obvious to folks on both sides that more knowledge may actually lead a person further from objective truth, in that lots of highly educated folks on very narrow subjects have vastly different views.

As anon said in a comment below, emotions can enter into the equation, also, but the stronger the evidence the more difficult it is to allow emotion to control the perception of truth. Of course, we all know people who are at the extreme edge of this curve in either direction.

But this is why I continue to insist that an atheist, agnostic, Christian, or Muslim reaches their personal perception of truth by the same method, even if unique personalities may give more weight to one kind of evidence or emotion than another. If I understand Bernardo correctly, he would add in that we may have developed a general world view as a result of our nature or nurture that may substantially color how we reach these conclusions. But bottom line, the personal perception of truth is fluid on all subjects including God, and comes down to the sum total of a person's response to the evidence that they have at that moment.

Sunday, March 25, 2007

The Tipping Point Revisited

Here, earlier, and at an atheist blog, I exposed my own experience of going through tipping points. First was my initial clear personal decision to accept Christ at age 17. Then my decision to leave the church at 21. Later, I tipped to being an agnostic about agnosticism, but was clearly a Darwinist. Finally at age 35, I tipped back to fully embracing Christianity.

In both of these places where I exposed my own journey, I continued by offering what I imagined might tip me back to Naturalism or away from belief in God. Then I suggested self-examination by visitors with the goal that they might be able to imagine what would tip them in one direction or another. Through either failure of imagination, lack of interest in transparency, or concern about giving aid and comfort to the enemy, very few stepped up to the plate.

Here is a short list of what I believe are the primary tipping points that draw people to Jesus. Future posts will elaborate on some of these.

  1. Parents believed in God. With no big obstacles to making that belief personal, so at some age around 17, most kids brought up in the church make personal/mature decisions to believe.
  2. A major life crisis occurs and the individual is unable to find a solution to end the pain or fear or hurt. Someone suggests God or they know enough already to reach out to God.
  3. A love interest is a believer. The individual desires to know all about their lover, so goes to church, listens to preaching, empathizes with love interest, makes decision to draw close to love interest by making decision for God.
  4. An influential person in the life of the individual is a believer. The individual is sold on the benefits or the "truth" of the gospel.
  5. The individual is merely invited by friends to church or an event and through exposure to the church, makes a decision.
  6. The individual has personal interaction with a believer or observes believers who he then admires. He asks for information or they provide him with information about God.
  7. Similarly, the individual is provided with some kind of help from a Christian organization, and through this contact gains information or relationship values that create a tipping point.

In most of the above cases, it is assumed the individual has some or even a lot of knowledge about God prior to the influence which "tips" them.

Is your experience different? What might a similar list look like for tipping one out of the faith? I will post that second list in a few days, but would like to see your ideas first.

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Debate? - What Debate? by Bernardo

Different people have different requirements for what the universe is supposed to be like. If I present someone a certain interpretation of the universe, then this person might reject my interpretation because my interpretation does not meet the requirements for that person's universe. A person's requirements might include "The universe is naturalistic", "If the supernatural exists, we cannot know it", "The universe was deliberately created by a divine being with a plan", "God loves us", "People have souls", and "The Bible is true in a way other texts are not", just to give a handful of possible examples. Sometimes I refer to these requirements as "axioms" or "assumptions" – they are the starting point, the foundation onto which a structure of belief (a world view) can be built. These axioms may appear to be supported by evidence, but in truth people believe them because they "feel" true in the first place.

Obviously, atheists have certain axioms they like. Not all atheists like the same axioms, but they tend to be pretty similar axioms, when it comes to the purpose (if any) and nature of the universe and of the intelligent species in it. Christians also tend to like certain axioms. These axioms are not all the same (just think of the differences between the beliefs of a liberal Christian in the Northwest and a fundamentalist Christian in the South), but they do tend to include related axioms, and they do tend to not include many of the axioms shared by most atheists.

Here's where the fun starts: Many Christians seem to be convinced that their axioms are right, that their axioms are "truth". Similarly, many atheists seem to be convinced that the Christians' axioms are utter foolishness, and that any "reasonable, logical, educated" person would prefer the typical atheist axioms over the typical Christian axioms.

I believe that this approach leaves plenty of room for discrimination and prejudice and bigotry, but little room for empathy or real understanding. Besides, this approach is incorrect. It is incorrect because it seems to forget the fact (a fact that Christians AND atheists admit) that neither set of axioms is provable or testable. A reasonable person can look at the world we live in, study many things about it, and decide to be a Christian. The things we see in the world around us can fit into the conclusions one draws from the Christian axioms. Also, a reasonable person can look at the world we live in, study many things about it, and decide to be an atheist. The things we see in the world around us can fit into the conclusions one draws from the atheist axioms.

What Debate - Part 2

Both sides of the God vs nogod debate love to point out the "evidence" that supports their beliefs. This is BS, whether it's Behe doing it or Dawkins doing it. Sure, some things may seem hard to explain if you restrict yourself to a naturalist world view (such as the human mind, and the origins of many complex but effective biological structures and systems), and some things may seem hard to explain if you restrict yourself to a "The Bible is true" / "God loves us" point of view (such as all the injustice and unnecessary suffering in the world, the self-contradictory nature of Jesus, or the discrepancies between history (and natural history) as told in the Bible and as deduced from archaeological/scientific observations). But the fact is, all those things CAN be explained/rationalized into the axiomatic system of your choice. So yes, I strongly belief that the axioms you pick are a matter of personal preference. Neither set of axioms can be disproven. Both atheism and Christianity are self-consistent and can explain all the things we see in the world around us. It is impossible to prove that one set is "right" and the other is "wrong". These axioms are simply not testable. You choose whichever ones work for you.

Why do some people prefer the atheist axioms and other people prefer the Christian axioms? I don't know. You'd have to ask them. Many factors are probably involved, like upbringing, education (physics/math/engineering vs art/history/literature), maybe even genetics. But one thing is for sure: To some people, the atheist axioms seem more elegant, more satisfying, more believable, and make for a preferable world. And to some other people, the Christian axioms seem more elegant, more satisfying, more believable, and make for a preferable world. I really don't think there's a way to say that one of those groups is right and the other is wrong.

(Some atheists say that the preference for those foolish religious axioms is a byproduct of evolution, as are most things about the brain. On top of that, the persistence of these axioms over time is a result of the evolution and "aggressive marketing" of churches, of the memetic engineering that churches are so good at. Personally I think these atheists have excellent points. Still, I don't think that these points will make the religious axioms seem any less true to religious people, despite the optimism shown in the title of the most famous book about this topic ).

Saturday, March 17, 2007

What Debate - Part 3

But fans of one set of axioms often point out that a conclusion or model derived from the opposite set of axioms fails to explain something about the world we observe. This brings me to the last point I want to make in this post. Remember that these axioms correspond to requirements. So different people have different requirements for what a satisfactory explanation of the universe must be. This means that a Christian "God did it"-style explanation will not satisfy an atheist – an atheist will claim that this is no explanation at all. And an atheist's "it just happened naturally via mechanisms described by math and physical law"-style explanation will not satisfy a Christian – a Christian will claim that this is no explanation at all.

For example, how did life come from non-life?

An atheist would probably give an explanation that goes along the lines of Dawkins' "survival machines" idea, best explained in his essay "The Replicators", which is the third chapter of "The Selfish Gene". To try and summarize that entire chapter into one sentence gives us something like the following: Once self-replicating molecules came around (and, of course, this only needs to have happened once), they competed for resources until the necessary building blocks were used up, and then some random mutations enabled them to "eat" each other, and then some random mutations allowed for self-preserving defense mechanisms, and so on, leading to the prokaryotic cell… or something along these lines. In other words, given that we live in a world where chemistry is possible, it is almost inevitable that life would form.
A Christian would probably focus his explanation on the idea that God created the universe as an environment where life could form, and then set things up (or miraculously acted) in such a way that life did form. (I do apologize if I don't do the Christian view justice. Please believe me when I say I am trying to be as fair as I can).
The Christian may not be satisfied with the atheist's idea that life appeared, and then evolved, through "accidents", without a purpose, for no reason. The atheist may not be satisfied with the Christian's idea that life was deliberately made by a Creator for some reason - because, then, the problem shifts to the origin of the Creator, which could not even be speculated about. To the Christian, the development of the world could not have been an accident. To the atheist, the natural world was all accidents until intelligence (decision-making with foresight) came along sometime in the last million years.
(In fact, I think that what anchors most people to theism is the thought that the world as a whole would have no meaning if it were not deliberately created as part of a plan, and so the atheist world view simply cannot be correct, because the world must have meaning).
To the atheist, one preferred axiom might be "Intelligence is nothing more than a certain pattern of stuff" - a certain very complex kind of chemistry that embodies within itself a model of the world around it and of itself. To the Christian, one preferred axiom might be "Stuff can only exist if it is deliberately created by an intelligence". Surely you can see the incompatibility between those axioms, and the fact that neither axiom can be proven or disproven.
I hope you can see why I think we would all benefit from understanding that the other side is not "wrong", that they are just working on a different set of assumptions, and that there is no way to say that one set of assumptions is better than the other. You may say that the evidence is more elegantly explained by your assumptions, but that's because you have different requirements for what a satisfying explanation is - Christian explanations must address "why" things are the way they are (for what possible purpose), and atheist explanations must address "how" things got the way they are (through what possible naturalistic processes). The Christian vs atheist "debate" focuses on things that the opponent's world view has a little more trouble explaining, and ignores the fact that different people have different expectations for the explanations they find satisfying, and that neither side can be disproven - so in the end, you just believe what works for you, but you can't expect it to work for everyone. Each side should be aiming to convince the other of the validity of their axioms, not of the truth of the consequences of those axioms. It's quite frustrating, really.

Friday, March 16, 2007

Happiness vs Joy

While this topic is not specific to the debate of God vs No God, it is such a fundamental part of the Christian story that I think it should at least be on the table, clearly stated.

What difference does it make, really, whether God exists or not? How are our lives impacted by the question of whether we are merely an advanced animal or children of God implanted with a spiritual something called soul? Should we care whether there is any purpose to our existence, or if there is a purpose, whether a Maker has anything to say about that purpose? And in some kind of overarching way, how does any of this effect what seem to be fundamental things humans seek: food, shelter, clothing, avoidance of pain, love, significance, understanding, knowledge, etc.

Our American forefathers included the pursuit of happiness in the top three things we should be guaranteed as a people. Happiness is a good thing, and worth seeking and protecting, at least it seems so on the surface. But it can turn into the famous bumper sticker, "He who dies with the most toys, wins."

I don't pretend to be an expert at this from either a secular psychology pov or a theological one. And I find myself conflicted at times with certain aspects of the issue. But since it's my blog, allow me to indulge myself a bit.

Happiness is primarily self seeking, aimed at satisfying our own need to feel good. We might be happy when eating a favorite food, shopping for clothes or a new boat, working in our garden, or helping a charity. It is the kind of feeling that lasts for as long as it takes with a potential afterglow and a good memory. We help somebody out. We may feel happy while we are doing the work, still have good feelings about what we have done later that day or for a few days after. At some point, the happiness from that effort fades away. Months or even years later we might have reason to reflect back on that moment and get some of the feeling back.

Happiness, however, can be very fleeting, and can easily be defeated by other events, disappointment, our emotional state, fatigue, overindulgence, etc.

Now comes joy. Best stated by Paul in the NT when he said that he had been rich, poor, large and in charge, in prison, and gone through a whole bunch of other trials, but that through everything he was content in his circumstances (intentionally loose paraphrasing.) It is my belief that this is the ultimate best bet for humans, and that it has always been what the Bible has been proposing. Do this, this, and this. Avoid this, this, and this, and you will have great joy.

That would seem to be less anxiety about such things as acquiring money, things, applause, even professional success. Less drama in the raising of kids and comparing achievements with other adoring parents. Less interest in overconsumption of foods, sex, television, gossip, power, or other methods we use to lessen pain or avoid dealing with stuff. No interest in mind-deadening substances. No enticement to join cults.

Why am I conflicted about any of this? A certain level of anxiety (broadest definition of the term) should produce better results in anything we do; competition in the marketplace, for instance, or in sports, or even in this blog. Some level of pain generates a certain amount of empathy that is useful in helping others. Things like that. Enough from me.

The Wedge Document - Let's Get It Out in the LIght

It would appear that the wedge documents has done more than almost any other published work to cause naturalists, humanists, and others to become angry with or question the motives of the leaders of the ID movement, and by extension others who would like to see the trend towards humanism in our schools and laws reversed. The document is long, so I am only showing the goals here, and for now, I will only speak to one of them, as this has been an issue for Kit and others in comments elsewhere on this blog. Feel free to discuss other aspects of the Wedge Document here, as well.

Governing Goals

  • To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
  • To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

Five Year Goals

  • To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
  • To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
  • To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.

Twenty Year Goals

  • To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
  • To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.
  • To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

The concern of many seems to be that those who are behind the wedge document are interested in imposing their views on everyone else, and that these views are theistic. My answer is a short one. Everyone is interested in their views being imposed on the rest of us to some degree or other. Even the desire to end a rule is the imposition of a view. In this case it is clear that ever since Dewey introduced humanistic principles into the schools, we have been moving as a nation in the direction of humanism and a way from objective ideas of morality. Are those objective ideas of morality religiously based? Some are. But as stated on other posts, if my world view is based on moral absolutes, I certainly have the right to vote my opinion. If your view is based on your understanding of the current science on a subject, you have the right to vote your opinion.

A theocracy, on the other hand, is where the church and clergy are in charge. We can all pray that this never happens here. Our form of government allows for my pov to provide the basis of my vote, even if I'm an unconvicted mass murderer. May it always be thus.

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Descrimination Against Atheists by Bernardo

Christian asked:

"Can you explain more about how society is unfair toward atheists?"

Bernardo responded:

It's pretty subtle, and I admit I am overly sensitive to it. But here's one example: If you're an atheist, good luck getting elected.

Another example is how, by putting "In God We Trust" everywhere and "So help me God" at the end of oaths and having prayers during meetings and speeches, the US government implies that if you don't believe in God, you are not as much of an American, that monotheism is somehow officially "right". Politicians play up their religiosity as much as they can, not caring about alienating atheists. Atheists feel alienated from the government in general, since the government supports theism. Saying that America is a Christian nation, and ending a speech with statements that only Christians would like, is about as politically correct as saying that America is a white nation, or ending a speech with statements that only white people would like.

I mean, America was founded by white people, and most Americans are white, and it was the morals and hard work of white people that shaped America to be what it is today, so what's wrong with plastering the money and the walls of government buildings with statements about the superiority and importance of white people and white people's morals? If others don't like this, they can just leave!

The previous paragraph was not meant literally, but if you replace "white" with "Christian", you get exactly what a lot of people say. However, just because you're a majority, and just because people of your group have always been in power in the US, doesn't mean that you get to be politically incorrect (i.e. disrespectful) towards minorities.

And then there are incidents like this one, which I know are not representative of the bigger picture, but when I hear about them I am filled with suspicious anger at theists (the kind of suspicious anger that I hear most black people experience a lot of the time). When I hear about stuff like this, I have to resist the impulse to go online and shout angry things at theists. I think that most Christians are not bigots like this, but it's not like statistics on Christian bigotry are easy to come by.

Saturday, March 10, 2007

Real Atheists

Many who post and comment here and profess disbelief in God are clear about their agnosticism. I found this interview question by Razib and answer from Justin Barrett which sheds a bit more light on the distinction.

2) In your book "Why Would Anyone Believe in God?" you answer the question why people believe in God. More specifically, why the majority of humans believe in God or Gods. As an atheist, I have to ask, why don't I believe in God? Or, more seriously, do you believe that there are cognitive reasons why some people are just biased to be atheists? I actually emailed Robert N. McCauley about his conjecture that autistics might be 'natural' atheists because of their lack of social intelligence, but he responded that he hadn't stumbled upon any hard empirical confirmation of this hunch...yet. Do you know something we don't?

As self-proclaimed atheist Jesse Bering has observed it can be very hard to identify true atheists. He even suspects that they comprise a very tiny number of people. By true atheists, I mean people that consistently hold no belief (cognitive commitment that motivates behavior) in superhuman agency. Lots of people say they don't believe in superhuman agency (including gods and ghosts) but will still modify their behaviors around cemeteries on spooky nights ("just in case"). I also run into plenty of people who say they don't believe in God but they really have chosen to act as if they don't believe in God because they are angry with God or don't like God. With these qualifications in place, certainly there are a number of factors that might predispose individuals to become atheists. As I agree with McCauley that theory of mind or social intelligence plays a critical role in theism, those who are weaker in these areas (relative to other higher-order reasoning) might be less disposed toward theism. I find it suggestive that women-who tend to have stronger social intelligence-tend to be more religious than men; and men are disproportionately represented among self-proclaimed atheists. Autism has been referred to as a severe form of "male-brainedness," I believe by Simon Baron-Cohen. I suspect social and environmental factors are even more important in supporting atheism, and I speculate on these in my book.

Thursday, March 08, 2007

God Is The Same Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow

I will admit to having desired a better explanation for God's actions in the OT. Well, while wandering around the internet, I found this outstanding analysis. Anyone who intends to be serious about debating the question of evil should read the entire article.

Here is an exerpt which provides the basic outline.

The Israelites had been promised a specific area of land, since the time of Abraham. Most of the local indigenous peoples were either descendants of Abe or very familiar with the traditions of those people. When the "time had come," God judged the Canaanites and decreed for them to be expelled from the Land. Their tenure was up--they were evicted. New tenants were moving in. The Canaanites were given decades and decades of notice--in many ways and at different times. And they understood clearly--all the records we have of their understanding of their plight is TOTALLY in line with the Land-Grant of YHWH.

With the 'eviction notice' published, the Canaanites could decide to either vacate the premises peacefully or deal with military force. If they vacated peacefully, they could choose their locations, mode of travel, and not have to deal with unpleasant military overseers. If they choose to challenge Israel's God and His expressed intentions, then they did so with complete knowledge of His power--as displayed in Egypt.

Even though they were the 'scourge' of the earth at that time--by international consensus--God did not desire to annihilate the people. His expressed intentions were to move them away from His people. He gave them ample opportunity to leave peacefully before Israel arrived, and even allowed the bulk of the 'less institutionalized' to have a little longer. His people were not instructed to hunt them down in neighboring nations at all.

Israel was severely restricted in the Conquest. They were not allowed to be simple 'land grabbers' or 'wealth seekers' or 'self-righteous' or 'land scorchers' or 'international empire builders' or 'captive-abusive'. At the same time, they were to eliminate the threat of Canaanite destructive influence (both spiritual and physical) if called upon.

And God allowed no double standards. When Israel began to look like 'Canaanites', God judged them IN THE SAME WAY...and 'vomited' them from the Land as well. This expulsion was also accompanied by the harsh measures of warfare faced by the Canaanites.

The punishment of the Amorites/Canaanites was thus one of 'deportation'--NOT one of genocide.
The interesting additional thing about this description of God is how consistant it is with the Christian view of the coming "end times." Promises, plenty of time to repent, clear description of God's intention and how to avoid destruction.

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

An Agnostic Creed from Tom

Why I am not an Atheist

I don't care for faith. I came to this realization toward the end of High School, during that weird period of time when I was really questioning my beliefs and trying to figure out what it is I believed personally. I went through a bout of self-motivated, self-centered depression as a sophomore, and then an identity overhaul or two the following year, so my religious beliefs were naturally in flux a little.

Of course, "in flux" suggests that they were ever really solid. See, the church I grew up in was a little off the beaten path. My religious education was pretty light; I never learned a lot of the stories that the more devout kids hear, and some of the stories I did hear didn't have the ring of truth. Even as a kid, I thought "man finds special magic breastplate and seeing stones, which allows him to read a holy book written on golden plates" was farfetched. As I grew older, I found out that the official church history didn't exactly jive with the official historical history, and that really didn't sit well with me. So, while I'd play in the handbell choir and whatnot, I don't know how much I ever bought into all of it.

Anyway, by the time my third year of high school comes to a close, I'm not really buying any of it. I still prayed, and I still believed in God, but I quickly realized that I didn't believe in the god of any extant religious tradition. The one thing I felt certain of in those days was that the universe had a distinct sense of humor, and that such a thing wouldn't occur naturally, therefore god.

Yes, my spiritual beliefs were rooted in the comedic principle.

As time wore on, as my god donned and shed traits with the shifting winds, and as I toyed with calling myself a panentheist, I realized that I really didn't have a clear concept of my personal beliefs, except that I didn't like organized religion. This didn't necessarily bother me; I was able to say "I know what I personally believe, and it doesn't fall in line with any one religion. It's a personal thing," but the situation seemed to warrant further attention and self-examination.

I wasn't an atheist. Maybe for a short time, but I couldn't bring myself to really call myself that, and I couldn't figure out why.

Ultimately, sometime during my first year of college (or thereabouts, I can't recall the actual date of epiphany), I realized that my problem wasn't with what I believed, but with belief itself. I realized that I couldn't handle faith, that I really didn't like believing in the unseen, belief without evidence. Once I figured that out, everything else kind of fell into place.
In those early days, I'd wax philosophical and say "I don't like faith, I don't trust it, and it's just as much of a faith statement to say 'there is no god' as it is to say 'there is a god.' So, that's why I'm not an atheist."
And so I decided that I was an agnostic. I might have some beliefs some days, other beliefs other days, but all my spiritual beliefs were based around one very important caveat: I don't know. Any spiritual beliefs I had, one way or another, were predicated on the fact that I didn't have any evidence, and that an influx of evidence could overturn whatever beliefs might be hanging around at any given time.

But, I started hanging out at atheist websites, and reading that argument I presented against atheism, and recognizing the subtle difference between "not believing" and "believing a negative." There are atheists who claim that "there is no god," and I continue to assert that that's a faith statement. And I'm sure that a significant portion of atheists will continue to regard agnosticism as a wussy position.

But as far as "not believing"? I don't really have an answer for that one. Not yet anyway. And maybe that's why I don't feel so bad for siding with the atheists about most everything.

But I'm not an atheist. Maybe it's not because I "don't believe" in god, but that I do believe in my own lack of knowledge. I can be pretty certain about that, anyway. My beliefs about faith haven't changed any; I don't trust it any more now than I did a few paragraphs ago. No, I am an agnostic, and I plan on remaining agnostic until there's sufficient evidence to suggest a better alternative.

Augie Physics said...

Agnosticism is not a wussy position. Admitting that you don't know and don't have proof is only realistic.
What's really wussy is being afraid to ponder the possibility of faith...
OR being afraid to ponder the possiblity of doubt.

Anonymous said...

God loves you. Agnosticism is not a wussy position, because it is humble to say you don't know when you don't know. It's blasphemy when you do know, but refuse to believe.
If there is willingness to believe, open your heart and pray earnestly to God to reveal Himself to you. I pray He will Tom. But like when you meet any new person, you won't know Him well. It takes a long time of friendship with anyone to know the person enough to really love Him or Her, or invest trust and faith in. it is the same with God. If you have willingness to believe, my friend, God can use that.
Just make sure you are sincere and you are willing- because miracles can happen all the time, and you may not believe and say future scientific developments will explain the phenomenas. I am not saying that some things that appear supernatural are not that extra-ordinary. Be willing Tom. Please. You don't know what you are missing.

Filby said...

That's a very reasonable position, and it takes a lot to come out and say it. I'm an outright atheist -- I deny that God or gods exist -- but you're right: it's totally a statement of faith. I can't prove it, it's just what I'm most comfortable with.

Anonymous said...

Ah, the labels. I want to be accurately labelled too, but it's difficult to find one that fits just right. Maybe we should all just go with "hellbound heathen."

I just say I'm an atheist, because for all intents and purposes it's close enough. If anyone cared to question me, though, I'd point out that while I don't think there is a god, I would never say that I know for certain there isn't one. And it is a knowable thing, at least in the positive. If the Big Dude shows up and starts smiting and slinging thunderbolts or whatever, man, I'll know.

Heck, I don't think there's a Bigfoot either, but if I sat next to him on a flight to Chicago I'd change my tune.

In the meantime, though, I don't believe in God, just the same as I don't believe in the island of Atlantis or a giant floating banana. I will if I ever see some solid evidence of their existence.

So I dunno what that makes me. An athenostic?

Randy Kirk said...

I liked this statement, also, Tom. I appreciate that you are seeking, and I suspect you always will be. I get more frustrated with Christians or atheists who think they've got it all figured out, and there is no longer any reason to "think."


Practical Advantages of Christianity - The Hope of Heaven

1. The Hope of Heaven - If you have ever dealt with emotionally disturbed individuals, you will know that one of the most difficult problems to overcome is their hopelessness. Their feelings may be partially based on reality. They may have disabilities, major problems in their past, or lack certain kinds of life skills that make it hard to enjoy or experience life to the fullest. Certainly, even individuals in very difficult circumstances can overcome hopelessness through counseling or self help, but it is sometimes a big mountain to climb.

Others have few or none of the problems that might make hopelessness seem reasonable, but they have personality disorders or mental diseases that cause them to feel this way even when most around them would see great promise in their lives.

For most functioning adults, there is also that sometimes fleeting, sometimes very present question of what happens when we die. If one believes that life merely ends and we “sleep” permanently, this alone would cause many to feel hopeless, not only about the finality in their own lives, but also at the time that their loved ones pass away.

Believing that God’s word is true, and that there is a heaven to look forward to after death, provides a very unique kind of hope. A hope for eternal life. A hope for an end to present difficulties. A hope that loved ones will be seen again. A hope that answers to life’s most interesting questions will be answered. A hope that we will experience an entirely unknown and unknowable dimension with untold beauty and joy and peace. And the hope that we will one day meet Jesus.

These hopes have a very practical benefit to those who have faith that they are true. It greatly reduces anxiety about present problems, helps through the grieving process, and provides great comfort as we face our own death.

Monday, March 05, 2007

Intelligent Design of Organisms Proof

Since intelligence has been acting on the design of species for at least a few million years (human intelligence), and since that is now accelerating, how do we know now and how will we tell the difference between those future organisms that are designed by natural selection as opposed to the imposition of human intelligent design.

Conversely, if we are able to reverse engineer the evidence of human involvement in the design of organisms, then we might be able to establish a proof regimen for evidence of supernatural design.

Saturday, March 03, 2007

Beliefs That Can't Be Proven

I don't want to generalize from the little bit of debating I've enjoyed on some science/atheist blogs, but there is a resistance to saying "I believe" among many, if not all, of those I encounter. The idea, I think, is that science is about reason, not opinion. I'm not sure why this would lead to not having other ideas based on "believing." But there does seem to be some kind of internal conflict that keeps some (many, all) in this group from "believing." To wit, I found this quote:

Anyway, just remember that we all believe in things that can't be proven. Such as when we believe that rationalism is the best way to live our lives, or when we believe, or presume, that logic and reasoning can prove anything in the absolute. In fact, believing in rationalism is itself untenable, since rationalism values reason, and reason differs from person to person, being but an internally (logically) consistent system of beliefs that must be grounded on one's assumptions.

Biblical Christianity Is Totally Unique and Counterintuitive

Almost without exception, my atheist friends posit The Golden Rule as the basis of morality. They propose that this rule predates the Bible and is almost universally understood. The Golden Rule is a fine rule, and it totally makes sense as regards the social compact that seems to underpin most standards of ethics: I won't hurt you in hopes that you won't hurt me; I'll drive in my lane if you'll drive in yours; I will not have loud parties after midnight if you will agree to the same.

But Christianity is very different. I won't hurt you because to do so is not loving. In fact, even if I don't know you I will come to your aid and help you through crisis. When you spit on me after I help you, I will wipe off the spit and continue to offer my help. If in a fit of rage unrelated our my helping you, you attack me verbally or even physically, I will continue to love you and pray for you, (though I may withdraw from you.) And in the midst of all of this I won't judge you.

If you are my neighbor and you have the loud party, I will quietly ask you to stop doing so. My decision to not have loud parties has nothing to do with whether you may or may not do so, but is out of respect for your peace of mind.

Some say that you don't need to have Christian morality to sacrifice your life for another. But I would argue that Christ was telling us that sacrificing our time, our money, and our egos would be more important than even sacrificing our existence. And this sacrifice was to take place without any hope of recompense, honor, glory, or applause. Just to glorify God.

Submission, humility, turning the other cheek, forgiving and praying for our enemy. The list is long. Many who followed Jesus said that the things he preached were too hard, and they turned away.

As humans when we see things that are counterintuitive, and then we see that they work, we are forced to ask ourselves why? The first thing we would do is look for the source of the information.

Thursday, March 01, 2007

Imperfect Biblical Heroes

One of the most amazing aspects of the Bible is the imperfection of its heroes. Almost without exception (Jesus), the others are shown to be far from perfect.

God's main man in the OT was David, and he had quite a few bad days. But, ultimately, he was a man after God's own heart. By this, I believe it is meant, David was constantly desiring to do the will of God. This desire was always foremost in his mind, though his flesh won out on several occasions.

"Jesus coming to fulfill the law" means that he was changing the way the law would be dealt with to the Davidic principle. No longer was the goal following archaic laws that had lost their meaning, but following the heart of God as revealed through the Holy Spirit. The Scripture OT and NT continue to inspire our understanding of God, but only in the Bible "as a whole."

As soon as you start parsing the Bible in order to prove your point (as a skeptic or to prove one doctrine is better than another) then you have missed God's best. The whole scripture with illumination from the Holy Spirit provides the law.