Over at Townhall.com (HT: FzxGkJssFrk) there is an article about someone asking an atheist, "What has atheism done for us?" I've wondered the same thing. More than once I've asked atheists, "What are you offering?" I want to know what they have to substitute for what I have.
Knowing Christ, I have a lot of benefits. I have peace in daily events. I have hope for a future. I can love with little in return because I am loved by God. When things around look dark, I have reason to continue because I know the Sovereign God. I don't suffer from the guilt that my sins might cause because I believe they are paid for. I have strength for all occasions -- strength not my own. And the list just goes on and on.
So I want to know, what is atheism offering? It appears to me that atheism has nothing to offer. Daily events are random and purposeless. The common thought that "Everything happens for a reason" becomes mostly meaningless. The future is blank. When we die, we die. The end. Nothing more. Life itself has no meaning, no higher purpose, no real value. You do what you can for whatever reasons you can muster and that's it. Don't look for support. Don't look for strength from outside of yourself. We're biochemical bags that came about by accident, live lives that are thrown at us like paint against a wall, then die and become nothing more than worm food.
When I've asked atheists what they have to offer, few have answered. The few that have told me that what they were offering was the truth. It was freedom. It was the freedom of the truth. Now, personally, if I were to become convinced that there is no God, no afterlife, no forgiveness of sin, none of that good stuff, I'd not bother continuing. It's a game I wouldn't care to play. And, of course, terminating my existence wouldn't be any big deal because what's one less biochemical bag? But what I'm wondering is if there are people who would consider that kind of truth "freedom". Is it freedom to believe that nothing has meaning? Is it freedom to believe that life has no value? Would you consider it a good thing to know that morality is pointless, good deeds are pointless, your whole life is pointless? Is that freedom? Is it something that someone considers "a good thing"?
Here's what I'm really asking. If it were true that there is no God, would you want to know? If it were absolutely true that life was meaningless and religion was false, would you want to be convinced? If it cost you all the blessings of being a Christian, would you still want to know the truth, or would you prefer to hang on to a lie? Is there some knowledge that, if it is true, is not worth having? I ask because I don't know the answer.
10 comments:
But what I'm wondering is if there are people who would consider that kind of truth "freedom".
Perhaps "freedom from the truth" is the right statement. The question going around the atheist blogs is "What if we're wrong?"
One atheist answered "Even if I'm wrong, I'm not going to live my life controlled by absurd fears, ridiculous threats and contemptible parasites."
If he's wrong, it's because the truth was absurd, ridiculous, and contemptible.
I suppose my question is the same one. What if we are wrong? Would you want to know? Would you change?
Lee Shelton IV wrote a post on a similar thought. Faith is not blind. Paul wrote "If Christ be not raised, your faith is futile" (1 Cor. 15:17). That phrase alone doesn't say, "So don't ever suggest it." It says, "If this is the case, deal with it." (He already argued why it's not the case -- there were witnesses.)
Atheists would be foolish to say, "Even if I'm wrong, I'm not going to succumb." Christians would be equally foolish. The important thing is to know the truth -- to know why you believe.
Samuel Skinner
"As a communist I get many benifits. I know that the flow of history is behind me, that my comrades will fight on in the cause if I fall, that I shall forever be remembered for my part, and that we shall prevall in the end."
"As a nationalist I get many benefits. I have absolute moral certainity- I know who to support. I have the love of my fellow citizens and my country. I have a purpose and a cause."
"As a racist I know that I am the best. I belong to an elite group of people who are above all others. I have the power to lord over others and the fraternity and community of my fellows. Best of all, I was honored by being placed into this race by god- surely great things are to be expected of me!"
The same lines could be repeated for evil (after all, it benefits you!), Republicans (if rich) or redistributionary (if poor).
"Atheism, materialism, rationalism-I offer you nothing but the truth- will you take it? Will you accept that when you die, you die- your mind is gone for good. There is no heaven or hell or any other afterlife. There is no one up in the sky watching out for you or giving marching orders. All we have in this world is each other."
You're right- atheists can't deliever immortal life or a transendant "super" cause. But neither can theism. Atheism is to medicine as theism is to snake oil-just because it makes great claims doesn't mean it can deliever. And just because there are benefits to believing something doesn't make it true.
Theism can't deliver immortal life ... if it's not true. If it is true, it can. What's interesting is the absolute assumption despite the evidence that it cannot be true.
(Note: I don't believe in "blind faith". I believe in faith that believes based on evidence. That other stuff is called credulity, not faith.)
Anonymous, you managed to slam theism without ever even approaching giving an answer to Stan's question. We could turn your analogy around just as easily.
Samuel Skinner
I believe theism isn't true because there is no god. Also you are Pascal wagering. For the record that would mean you are a Muslim for the Hell (to avoid it) and a Pastafarian for the Heaven (it is the best).
The actual reason is extrodinary claims require extradinary evidence. There happens to be no evidence.You seem to think other wise. You are wrong. If you think I am wrong show evidence.
Faith that believes on evidence? Isn't that called proof? Wait no- it is special evidence- silly me, I though an all powerful god would be... I don't know- Maybe OBVIOUS!
So basically you have faith in your evidence... which is the same as blind faith, because the evidence wouldn't pass muster, except for your god.
Anon -- the statement, "I believe theism isn't true because there is no god" is circular reasoning. Standard logical error. It's just as circular as when a Christian says, "The proof that the Bible is the Word of God is that it says so." Circular reasoning.
Your claim that there is no evidence is actually simply the claim that "there is no evidence that I will accept." In other words, it is the claim, "There is no proof." I will admit there is no proof, because "proof" is defined as "that which requires one to believe." To the Flat Earth Society, there is "no evidence" that the Earth is round because they won't accept the evidence. To the conspiracy theorist there is "no evidence" that Man ever landed on the Moon because they simply refuse to accept the evidence. To the atheist, there is "no evidence" of the existence of God because you simply refuse to accept the evidence.
There is evidence. Evidence forms the building blocks of faith. "This is true and this is true and this is true (evidence), therefore that must also be true (faith)." There is evidence. However, 1) because you will refuse it, and, more importantly, 2) because there is too much to fit in this small space, I won't be providing it here. Maybe later in a whole post. However, I suspect that you have the capability to do your own Internet research and could find a lot of evidence. I just hope that you would not simply dismiss it because or your predetermined position that there is no god. (You see, if you have determined in advance that there is no god, no amount of evidence will matter to you, will it? Just like "Theism is false because there is no god." Circular.)
Two other points, Anonymous.
First, I am not offering Pascal's Wager. I don't even agree with Pascal. I'm asking if people are willing to face the truth regardless of the outcome (the opposite of Pascal's Wager).
The other point: Why "Anonymous"? Why is it that people feel so comfortable doing blog "drive-bys" as long as they don't identify themselves? Seems a little odd to me.
Samuel Skinner
By theism I'm refering to the afterlife baggage. I have reasons for believing there is no god. Have to do with evidence...
I'll accept evidence. I just think the all powerful creator of the universe has to meet the same bar as scientists have to meet. He seems unable to do so.
That is called conclusions, generally based on reason. SInce you are calling it faith I am going to have to assume you are missing several links in your chain.
Do you think I am such an asshole that I would passionately argue about something I don't understand and didn't look into? Unlike you I am intellectually honest- when I read about an ideology the next thing I do is google criticism of (ideology name here). Your belief that I have no idea what I speak of is insulting.
Your right you don't use Pascals wager. You get close though on another fallacy- you imply a delusion is better than the truth in your origional posts.
Anonymous? I have my name posted at the top! If you can't see it, than for the record my name is Samuel David Skinner. Better?
Samuel,
On the "anonymous" thing, obviously my mistake. For some reason I thought you were quoting someone named Samuel Skinner.
I have written some thoughts on evidence for the existence of God which I hope to post tomorrow.
Pure curiosity, though ... is it your belief that commenting on someone's blog with accusations of "missing several links in your chain" and intellectual dishonesty is helpful in proving your propositions? I haven't attempted to insult you. (If you took something I said as an insult, I apologize, as I intended none.) It is certainly likely to put an abrupt end to dialog when you choose to treat me with such unnecessary disrespect in my own house.
(And I won't be approving another comment with foul language in it. Nothing personal. It's just that my mother reads my stuff and doesn't need to be exposed to it.)
Post a Comment