It's interesting to me the amount of time some skeptics (the category that includes atheists and agnostics) spend in attacking, refuting, or denying Christianity. There are a few reasons, actually. One, of course, is that I find it odd that they spend apparently zero time on Islamic, Buddhist, or Hindu (to name a few) sites on the same effort. Strange, isn't it?
It's interesting because they seem to want to ask a lot of questions, but aren't really willing to accept any of the answers. No, it's not true that there is no evidence, no logic, no reason for what we believe. It is simply true that they will not accept it. So, okay, they've heard the arguments and the evidence from able arguers and thinking people and don't accept it. Fine. So ... why are they still beating on the doors of Christianity?
Most interesting, to me, is the fact that they've made their decision. Atheists deny God. Agnostics deny that you can know God. In either case, it's "no God" in either an existential or a practical way. So, having made this decision, live with it. What is the point of arguing with theists (apparently only of the Christian variety)? It seems, in fact, that while they continue to assault Christianity, they refuse to live in their own beliefs.
Look, here's where it is, given "no god". Without God, there is no moral lawgiver. You can argue for pragmatism, but not some moral code that holds any sway over everyone. We're on our own. Do what you think is right. Stop worrying about what anyone else does because you have no basis to decide what anyone else thinks is right. There is no basis on which to judge the Christian God, no basis on which to judge Christian ethics, no basis on which to judge Christians at all. Without God, you are free to do as you please and so are we, so stop fighting us on what we think is right when "what we think is right" is the only valid moral code.
Christians want to tell you that there is purpose to life, that there is hope in suffering. Skeptics are required, in the final analysis, to deny this. Oh, you might make up a purpose to your life, but when the final outcome is disintegration and nothing else, what real purpose is there? What's the point? It's just a manufactured purpose to make you feel better. Bad things (defined as "things that we don't like or enjoy") happen? Too bad. Get over it. There is no sense to be made out of it. It's simply nature. Move on.
So I frankly don't get it. The skeptics don't agree with the Christians. Okay. Fine. It happens. Why, if there is no god, is it such a big deal to skeptics that there are people (the vast majority, as it turns out) who think otherwise? What is gained by fighting it? And when will they start to live within the confines of the universe as they've constructed it? No morality, no purpose, no ultimate answers. Instead of begrudging those of us who have those things, why not just live and let live? I don't get it.
42 comments:
This is one of the faith builders in my life. I have seriously considered if Christianity is "the only way". But when I look out at this evil world, especially when I consider the bloodletting of the last century, I am encouraged by the hatred expressed, both by liberal "Christians" and atheists toward orthodox Christianity.
My guess is it's due to the rather pugnacious attitude that some (not all, but some rather vocal) Christians take towards those they disagree with. For some Christians, it's not enough that people disagree with them, they must also denounce those they disagree with in strong terms. The ones these Christians disagree with are not simply "not Christian" or "those with whom I disagree," they are evil, doing the work of the devil, hellspawn, etc.
You don't hear that sort of denouncing from the Buddhists or Hindus.
Also, many atheists grew up in what they would consider rather abrasive, smothering Christian homes and I would guess it's also a reaction against that.
Of course, the flip side of this is that many atheists and agnostics are perfectly content to ignore Christians as long as they aren't trying to interfere with their life. Just as it's a few more pugnacious and vocal Christians who get out in the public's face, so too for atheists and agnostics.
Those would be my guesses.
Good question. I've always though that down deep they know, or at least strongly suspect, that Christianity is the only religion that gives them reason to doubt their decision.
So, a religion (say, like Islam) whose sacred writings command death to the infidel would not be something considered "pugnacious" or "disagreeable", but "You need Jesus" is?
However, the real question is not "Why are they disagreeing with Christians?", but "Why bother at all?" They are convinced. Live within their convictions. They believe X. Live X. In fact, in this case, X logically demands that Christians can have their own moral code and they have no logical basis to deny it, even if Christians try to push it on others (part of their moral code). No Lawgiver, no moral basis. Live and let live.
I've heard atheists disagreeing with both Christians and Muslims, as the two with followers who are the most overtly vocal and pushy about their faiths. Basically, the less pushy you are with your faith, the more I doubt they care what you believe. the more you want to legislate your beliefs, the more there will be people (atheists and non-atheists alike) who will want to push back.
Seems to me.
Also, it has been pointed out that this latest wave of atheism is more of a Western phenomena, so it would make sense that they would push back at the most vocally "pushy" Western religion, which would be Christianity.
It's very hard for me to think of this "latest wave of atheism" as a "Western phenomena" since a large number of them are from Europe and since both the Soviet Union and China have been officially atheist in their governments. I suppose the case could be made that Christianity in China isn't as "vocally pushy" as in America ... but, of course, that's because in China you go to prison. It would seem, then, that the harshest attacks on Christianity are occurring where they are most quiet?
Well, I think Europe is generally included as "the West." But to be clear, I meant that this latest vocal wave of atheists (what has been called "new atheism") is a European/US phenomena, largely, and so, they are responding against the dominant religion, Christianity.
Is there a vocal atheist voice emerging from China? If so, I have not heard it (not in the way we've heard from Hitchens, etc).
I think of it as a cultural schizophrenia. They rant and rave about equal religious opportunity, but Christianity gets shoved off the table. In public schools, Christian groups cannot be formed officially, but any other religious group can. My mom sent me a side-by-side image of several Muslim men bowing for their prayers on a public American sidewalk, next to Tim Tebow doing his kneel. The caption underneath asked why the Muslim's bowing was okay, but Tim Tebow wasn't. Christianity is not equal among religions, it is more maligned and intolerable than other religions, even those that proclaim present destruction on non believers.
But you ask a very good question that I doubt you'll EVER get an answer to, if all religion is false, and atheism/agnosticism are true, what does it matter if people are "deluding" themselves with these false religions, especially if it means they live more moral, and thus more agreeable lives? If, in the final analysis, religion is merely a crutch, let us have our crutch. I think an atheist becoming a (insert religion) is far more beneficial and less painful than a religious person becoming an atheist. Personally, if I decided Christianity was false, my life style would completely change to one of utter personal gain and pleasure. If Christianity is false, none are true, and I might as well enjoy what time I have, or end it. Much better to be an atheist turned Christian, than Christian turned atheist.
Odd thing. It's kind of like "Jesus didn't say ..." Jesus didn't say a single thing about bestiality, for instance (to avoid any controversial discussion here). Why? Well, because there was no issue at the time. No one was piping up and saying, "Hey, we ought to be able to engage in relations with animals!" No issue. No comment. China has no comment. They've outlawed Christians. Europe and the U.S. have comments. That's because there is a growing crowd whose goal it is to outlaw Christians. But, you're right, it's probably just because there are Christians who are obnoxious. Or not.
There, now, see? David got the question.
The atheist has to oppose it for one simple reason - it pricks his conscience and he doesn't like that.
Glenn...
The atheist has to oppose it for one simple reason - it pricks his conscience and he doesn't like that.
Stan, this would be the sort of pugnacious, arrogant-sounding (sorry, Glenn) off-putting type of comment that would drive some atheists to respond heatedly to Christianity, just as an example.
"WHY..." the atheist is likely to ask, "would you presume to know my motives and declare it authoritatively??"
I'm not saying this is the sole reason - there are doubtless multiple reasons for any action we might see - just one of the things that would drive some to respond negatively.
Again, just my guess (well, that, and what I've actually heard first hand from some agnostic types), for what it's worth.
"pugnacious, arrogant-sounding, off-putting type of comment"
How about a comment like this? "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them." I can hear the response now. "What ... are you saying I know there's a God and am just denying it? You're saying we're intentionally suppressing the truth? Why would you presume to know what I know and declare it authoritatively?" Or this: "The Spirit will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment." You know, like "pricks their conscience", only tougher. Or how about this for arrogant and off-putting? "If the world hates you, know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you." Yeah, that's pretty off-putting.
Of course, from the perspective of my question in the post, there is not rational answer. Me? When someone is pugnacious, arrogant, off-putting, I blow them off. I ignore them. Especially when they're obviously wrong. I might spend a little effort in trying to correct them, but I don't need to get them outlawed or anything. From the perspective of a person who has no basis for a transpersonal moral code, I cannot see why they would bother. But Jesus suggested that, just like Him, we would be the focus of their hatred. Now that is an answer. It's just an answer they won't like.
Stan,
Thank you - I was just going to quote that passage myself.
It was not a "pugnacious, arrogant-sounding off-putting type of comment" - it was just an answer to the question. It was not directed at any person for them to be offended, etc. That Romans passage tells why the atheists keep fighting against the Christian faith - "they suppress the truth in unrighteousness"
They can claim many other reasons (some have said the idea of God interferes with their morals), but it all comes back to the same thing - pricking their conscience.
And guess what, Dan, my wife and I have spent several summers doing a book table ministry giving away Christian books downtown Iowa City where all the university students hang out and have had many discussions with one kid since he was fifteen - for seven years as he graduated high school and then college and he is a staunch atheist. After years and years of his continual attacks to which we responded with love and charity and kindness, etc, 18 months ago he came over again to harass us and I told him the Bible actually talked about him. That piqued his curiosity so I had him read with me Romans 1:18-32. He stood there afterwords for several minutes reading it to himself, gave a chuckle and has never come back to harass us. Now he just waves as he walks by.
Again I say, behind all the atheist's attacks is one major motivation as spoken of in Romans - they suppress the truth and don't want their consciences pricked.
Again, I was just offering an opinon based on my observations and what I have heard from actual agnostics. Take it or leave it, it's just a pile of opinions in answer to the question you asked.
Stan...
from the perspective of my question in the post, there is not rational answer. Me? When someone is pugnacious, arrogant, off-putting, I blow them off. I ignore them. Especially when they're obviously wrong.
Agreed.
The one other stickler here would be when one group tries to enforce by weight of law their religious opinions off on others, that is enough to raise complaints. On that front, I'm sure you could agree. After all, if some Muslims or Mormons tried to legistlate their religious opinions/biases, we could all probably unite behind an opposition to that affront, right?
At least some atheists see some Christian efforts towards law-making as that sort of affront to civil good and respond as they see appropriate.
"affront to civil good"
Interesting, since there is no basis in atheism for such a term.
Interesting, also, since they are openly trying to legislate Christianity out of the public domain.
Dan T. everyone is trying to legislate their morality. That is just a silly argument that they're mad we try to put our moral noses into law. It is okay for them to push their liberal agenda, but we try to be conservative and it's wrong? Again, cultural schizophrenia.
Again, you asked a question that was open-ended and for which there is no one right answer. I offered some opinions for what they are worth. They are opinions based upon what I've read and heard from some atheist/agnostics, so these opinions DO happen in the real world, I've heard from them and I can see what they're saying.
I didn't intend to cause any offense or make anyone defensive. It's just an opinion.
And, as an aside, I can assure you that at least some atheists would affirm the notion of a civil good and would disagree with your assessment that they have no basis for doing so. In fact, they might find such a pronouncement a bit presumptuous.
Or so I've heard.
God's peace, gentlemen.
The devil at work, dear friend. Satan uses those he can in his slight of hand deception tactics to point the undecided to the wrong way out.
1Ch 21:1 Now Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel.
Zec 3:1 Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the Angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to oppose him.
To name two examples.
Indeed. There simply cannot be an absence of some "moral code" in civil legislation. I cannot think of any proposal that is exclusively religious with no accompanying societal benefit that can be explained also from an exclusively secular perspective. Nor can I think of any that would carry definitive religious connotations that forces anyone to comply or convert.
Dan, in case you misunderstood, I did not mean to imply that your answers were not answers that atheists might offer. They are indeed. I was simply pointing out that they are irrational. I was also pointing out that Scripture (as I've pointed out) has a different assessment.
And I would not disagree that atheists would 1) affirm the notion of civil good and 2) argue that they have a basis. That basis, however, is fleeting, and the atheists who have thought it through have concluded that my analysis is correct and "good" is arbitrary in a world without God.
In other words, you didn't offend, and I didn't disagree. My post was about the rationality of their objecting to Christianity in the face of their own position. Since the biblical version says that natural man will suppress the truth, it is expected that they will offer reasons as you mentioned ... that aren't necessarily the truth.
So, the questions you were asking, you didn't really want to hear the answers to? You were just asking rhetorically "What is gained by fighting it...? I don't get it..." because you actually KNOW the answers and it's because they are deluded and irrational?
I'm sorry, I thought they were genuine questions.
Perhaps in this answer, though, you can see why these sorts of presumptions are off-putting and arrogant-sounding to some people?
In reality, there are millions of agnostics/atheists and they have real reasons, some more irrational and some more rational. These are good questions to consider with an open heart and mind, if you're concerned about your witness and have ears to hear.
Seems to me.
I was asking because the answers they give (you gave) make no sense from a rational perspective.
But, hey, you may be right. Maybe they're entirely rational and good Christians should stop antagonizing unbelievers by standing up for their faith and by sharing the Gospel. Oh, wait ... then I'd have no witness, would I?
(The question was not "How do I get them to stop attacking Christianity?" My question was "From their position, how do the attacks make sense?")
From their position, then Stan, consider:
Some Christians try to legislate rules based NOT on any logic, but purely on their religious beliefs.
IF they are the sort who believes in a separation of church and state; IF they don't want to be forced to live up to someone else's ideals; THEN that would rationally create some amount of antagonism. That seems VERY rational to me.
Again, I would ask the question that went unanswered earlier: IF some Muslims were trying to legislate Sharia law that required you to do things contrary to your religion, or banned things that you feel you should have the liberty to choose for yourself, don't you think there would be some antagonism felt on your part? Especially if the Muslims were the dominant religion forcing rules upon the minority belief systems, do you not think this would be upsetting to you?
For THAT reason, there is some RATIONAL pushback.
OR, as I stated earlier, if you were a minority belief system and you constantly had some folks from the majority belief system criticizing you, telling you what YOUR motivations are (because they "know better" than you do because of some self-proclaimed insight) and you live with that your whole life, you don't feel like there would RATIONALLY be some push-back to that sort of arrogance?
It seems extremely rational to me.
Even your declaration "It's not rational," THAT seems arrogant and presumptive. You're not saying "It doesn't seem rational TO ME," you're just proclaiming all who disagree with your hunch irrational. That comes across to many folk as arrogant.
Just because you or I don't find something to be rational, doesn't mean that it isn't.
Just consider things from THEIR perspective. It's easy, when you're the majority voice, to assume that everyone agrees with you, but that is not the case and we ought to have the humility to accept that.
In what way is it NOT rational to expect some push-back in these two examples I've just given?
You asked what is gained by fighting it: What is gained by fighting it is your liberty, what is gained by fighting it is human respect. These are very rational and important things to fight for, seems to me.
You probably should stop now, Dan. You're obviously not getting the point.
No God = No Lawgiver, no basis for transpersonal morality, no foundation for a conclusive definition of "good".
Now you are arguing that "Some Christians try to legislate rules based NOT on any logic, but purely on their religious beliefs." In one easy move you managed to demonstrate 1) you don't understand the point of my question and 2) you don't believe that Christian beliefs are based on "any logic" (or the standard fallacy, "faith is believing what you can't reason").
So, again, quickly, on one hand we have "No God" which offers no basis for a definition of "good" that goes across personal bounds and on the other we have "God" which offers a basis for a definition of "good" which does traverse individual bounds. For a theist, then, to argue for "good" as it applies to everyone (even if that "everyone" includes unbelievers) is not irrational. It is consistent with the basic premise of "God".
You ask about sharia law and my response. You mean, like when the government demanded that Christians worship leadership as God and they refused and died for it? Like that? Or when the leadership banned them from preaching the Gospel and they refused and went to prison for it? Like that?
Now, as for me telling you what the atheist motivation and belief system is, let me get this straight. I have offered the biblical statements regarding their beliefs and motivations. You are taking me to task for that?
So, to recap, thus far you've apparently missed my point, dismissed Christianity as irrational, argued in favor of atheists, and suggested we disagree with Scripture. Considering all this from their perspective, you truly are their friend. Of course, considering that from a biblical perspective, well, I would have to come to a different conclusion (1 John 2:15).
Stan...
No God = No Lawgiver, no basis for transpersonal morality, no foundation for a conclusive definition of "good".
I know that YOU THINK that is a rational conclusion, but not everyone agrees with your reasoning, Stan. Do you understand that? Not even all Christians agree with your reasoning on this point.
You are arguing a point as if it were logically the only possible answer but that is not a given. It is an unproven assumption that you and some others hold, but not everyone.
I'm not taking you to task for ANYTHING, Stan. YOU ASKED a question with NO ONE "RIGHT" ANSWER and I offered some real world answers that are rational answers to that question and you seem to be getting all defensive and offended, as if by offering an honest and reasonable opinion, I am getting you upset.
This IS my opinion based upon real world evidence, in answer to your question. Why would you not just say, "Okay, thanks for the thoughts..." rather than going on the defensive? If you ask questions like this, I think people are assuming you are interested in hearing some opinions. I offered some opinions.
That's all. I wasn't trying to debate you, I wasn't saying you were "wrong" (I don't think there IS one wrong answer to this question any more than there is one right answer). I was simply offering what I've heard and what seems rational to me.
I have NOT treated Christianity as irrational. That did not happen. I didn't even suggest YOUR OPINION was irrational. I just offered up some real world answers to your open ended questions.
I DID offer some answers that I have heard and seen from atheists. Why wouldn't I? THAT WAS THE QUESTION!
Is it the case that you were just asking the questions NOT to seek honest answers, but as an excuse to belittle atheists as irrational? If so and I missed that point, I am sorry. Again, I thought you were honestly asking the questions seeking answers.
Finally, for my part, I am quite glad to be a friend of atheists, agnostics, pagans, skeptics and other sinners. It is the example my Lord set for us, and I'm glad to walk in those steps.
And sincerely, Stan, I DO want to know: Is it the case that you were not really looking for answers to those questions? Were they presented just as a rhetorical way to say that all atheists and agnostics are irrational to disagree vocally with Christians?
If you could answer that, then I will know to watch out for other rhetorical questions in the future and know that you don't really want answers.
Thanks!
So was it wrong for the founding fathers to form our laws on the basis of the Judeo-Christian morality? Separation of church and state is not about removing religion from politics (impossible task I might add) but making sure the church wasn't the government, like the Protestants that posited the idea were fighting against in the Catholic Church. Forcing religious practices on others, having only one religion protected and enforced by the state, that is the purpose of separating church and state. It has become something far more devious now, trying to make religion not a factor in civil process. Again I say, impossible. Our religion (whatever religion that might be, even no religion) forms our worldview and thus our politics. Can't separate them.
Very rarely can something be both rational and irrational. For most atheists, they just refuse to follow their "religion" to its rational conclusion. Whether or not they agree that they are not, they are still ignoring rational thought processes.
"Some Christians try to legislate rules based NOT on any logic, but purely on their religious beliefs."
We hear this a lot, but never who these Christians are and what proposals are they trying to legislate that is not logic based. If such Christians exist, are they getting much support from the vast majority of Christians? And are they, as American citizens, not allowed to put forth their ideas, even if they are not logical? No one has to side with illogical ideas and I doubt few would, Christian or otherwise.
"Some Christians try to legislate rules based NOT on any logic, but purely on their religious beliefs."
I don't believe there is much truth to this at all.
Again, Dan, you are confusing "the view that people hold" and "logical basis", as if any view people might hold is perfectly logical. The first place I heard the conclusion that morality was impossible without the existence of God was the famous atheist, Bertrand Russell. The famous Emmanuel Kant, the author of Critique of Pure Reason that argues you can't prove the existence of God, also wrote that without God there is no basis for morality. Richard Dawkins agrees. It's not some "Christian logic" (my term, not yours). It's following the position to its only possible logical conclusion. All atheists have a basis for their morality, but none can offer a basis that transcends their personal opinion. Do they all agree with that? Well, of course not. But there are also people who call themselves "Christians" and believe that God hates fags. Believing it doesn't make it true or rational. And please note that I am not saying that atheists can't have morals or that all atheists are living immoral lifestyles. I am pointing out that simply because all atheists do not agree with the reasoning does not mean the reasoning is not correct.
The "right answer" to my question will offer a rational basis for a moral code that transcends persons. (That also answers your other question.) That hasn't been offered. The argument for a morality that makes for the best good for the most people has some real problems. 1) Who said the best good for the most people was good? (No one, for instance, worries about annihilating a hive of ants, for instance. Why? Why are people more important than ants?) Why is "good for the people" good? 2) To conclude that "the best good for the most people" is good requires borrowing from theism that says that people are important. Nature doesn't say so by itself. (Evidence the extinction of animals without the help of humans.)
And I have not been upset by your answers. I have been amused. Amused that you argue the atheist position. Amused that you refer to those who attempt to pass laws based on their religious beliefs as "NOT on any logic". Amused that you seem to be arguing against the biblical analysis and against the Great Commission. It all seems so very ... odd.
Stan,
You pointed out that you were amused that Dan T. seems to argue the atheist position. I was going to say that as well.
Here we go again, with Dan apparently wanting to cause division among Christians by arguing points from the atheist point of view. Why??
The continual pattern of trying to make the Word of God subject to man's opinions, is...so divisive...
seems to me...
Stan wrote, “Why, if there is no god, is it such a big deal to skeptics that there are people (the vast majority, as it turns out) who think otherwise? What is gained by fighting it?”
Speaking for myself (a skeptic of all religions that I know anything about), my reasons for discussing things with you at your blog site are:
1. I genuinely want to understand why you believe 2,000-3,000 year old writings are more reliable than more modern writings.
2. If you are in fact correct in your beliefs, I want to give you the chance to show me that you are correct. By pressing hard on you, I can get a sense for how well your beliefs stand up to criticism. To the extent that an infinite intelligence really does put thoughts in your mind, any debate between us is as unfair as it can be, and it ought to be clear to anybody reading our words that you are triumphant.
3. In my mid-teens I was saddened by my readings of skeptics like Carl Sagan, and maybe a bit angry at them. How dare they disbelieve that the Bible is God’s word! From my current position as a skeptic, I look back with gratitude toward the skeptics who took the time to criticize my sincerely held childhood beliefs in their published writings. So just maybe someday you will change the purpose of your blog to showing why Christian beliefs are NOT true. One percent chance, perhaps.
4. I hope to learn how you as an individual Christian living in the 21st century interpret scriptural passages that other Christians living in different times and places have interpreted differently. Two examples that come to mind: the almah/virgin/young female controversy, and how to deal with the commandment “Suffer not a witch to live.”
Like Dan Trabue, I have wondered how sincere you are in wanting to know how nonbelievers can arrive at a moral code. If you really are sincere, you will find the time to do some reading. Here are three books to look for:
Naked Ape by Desmond Morris
Human Zoo also by Desmond Morris
Moral Minds by Marc Hauser
SF...
with Dan apparently wanting to cause division among Christians by arguing points from the atheist point of view. Why??
Stan asked an open-ended question about what reasoning some agnostics/atheists had for opposing some Christians in the way they do.
I have had conversations with and read material from non-believers and, given that, I had some answers to Stan's question.
I provided the answers from an atheist's point of view, because the question was asked.
What is unreasonable about that?
Further, I stated that IN MY OPINION, I found some of these arguments sound.
IF you have been maligned and abused by some Christians (and I have seen it first hand, so I know it has happened) and been told that you are irrational and stupid (and again, I've seen it/heard it), AND if that happens over and over throughout your life, it is not irrational that some non-believers would develop a bit of an axe to grind with the dominant religious culture.
Further, if the dominant religious culture were to try to create law based upon their religion - laws that would interfere with others' freedom of/from religion - don't you think it rational that some people would take umbrage at that and strike back?
What in any of that is irrational or hard to believe? Why is admitting that some Christians have behaved poorly towards some non-theists somehow reflect negatively on me?
Wouldn't REFUSING to admit bad behavior be the greater sin here? Does it not seem a bit arrogant to suggest, "WE have never been in the wrong, therefore, THEY are being irrational..."?
Stan asked an open ended question and I answered it with some possible real world answers. What is the problem in that?
Thank you, Anonymous Skeptic, for answering. Since neither Dan Trabue nor you seem to have understood the point, I will have to chalk it up to my poor writing skills.
Here's the deal. You are offering (essentially) reasons why my beliefs are wrong (like "Why would you believe 2,000-year-old writings?" and "Shouldn't a deity be able to give you super answers for me?" and the like). My question was not "Why don't you believe?" but "Why shouldn't I?" I am a person with hope, with a rational basis for a moral code, with a reasonable sense of purpose in life and a hope for after-life. Now, let's assume that you're absolutely right and I'm absolutely wrong. Christianity is bunk, there is no God, and we're on our own here. Where are we now? Well, 1) there is no hope. When we die, we die. Worm food. 2) There is no rational basis for a moral code beyond my own personal self-interests. Let's just hope that I think it's in my best interest not to go about murdering humans as willy-nilly as I murder ant colonies. 3) We have no genuine reason for any reasonable purpose in life. You live, you die, you become worm food. What does it matter? 4) Has there been tragedy in your life? Have you lost a loved one? Did you suffer some difficult pain? (I'm thinking here of my atheist friend whose teenage son committed suicide.) Well, too bad. He's dead. You're not. Get over it. There is no purpose, no hope, no "plan", nothing beyond. He's not in a better place. (On the other hand, he's not in a worse place. He's not.) There are no words of comfort. You're a biochemical computer bag living from birth to grave and it's over. It just doesn't matter.
Now, having convinced me that you're right and my hope, joy, confidence, purpose in life, hope for the future ... all of it is bunk, how am I better off? How are you better off? How is anyone better off?
The Doobie Brothers wrote a song in which the lyrics said, "What a fool believes he sees no wise man has the power to reason away; what seems to me to be always better than nothing." So, I have something that you consider foolish. Fine. How will I be better off with nothing? And -- here's the real kicker -- by what standard of measurement will you determine that I'm better off?
Stan...
having convinced me that you're right and my hope, joy, confidence, purpose in life, hope for the future ... all of it is bunk, how am I better off?
Of course, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, certainly not to lose your faith in our great God, but from the non-theists' point of view, IF they confront Christians who have been making their life hellacious with their little constant sniping at them and get those Christians to stop, then they've made their lives more pleasant.
IF they confront Christians trying to implement views of their religion by force of law (and contrary to their own moral code/reasoning) and get such Christians to quit, THEN they have made their life better, not having laws that they consider unjust or irrational foisted upon them.
Just think about that from THAT perspective for a minute: How is that NOT rational, from their point of view?
Stan wrote, “I am a person of hope.”
But in an essential way, you really are not. If you get kidnapped, and over the course of days you are tortured by the kidnappers, you will not expect God to answer a Christian friend’s prayer that your location will be revealed supernaturally—at least if you are going to be consistent with what you write in your blogs. You consistently take the view, “How dare anyone think that God will act supernaturally to intervene in human affairs? Especially in order to accomplish something that a nonbeliever would judge, with his cruddy moral code, to be a good thing, such as my safe release from the kidnappers. Believers have absolutely no reason to ask Him to do something supernatural. Naturalism reigns supreme on the earth, and so be it, because that is obviously His divine will.” You are betting all your chips on the thought, “But there’s this afterlife where I will be safe from mistreatment.”
No, you're absolutely right, Dan. I didn't think you were trying to argue against faith in God. I was asking why they do. And you're absolutely right. We should stop what we're doing. We should stop telling them they need Christ because they certainly don't like it when we do. We should stop trying to get across biblical values because they certainly don't like it when we do. We should take a more laissez faire approach where we let those who deny God determine what is right for everyone. You know, like they did in the Soviet Union and in China. Good stuff. At least they won't hate us, right? Well, of course, we'll have the problem of denying Christ and the Word of God, but, hey, that's our problem, not theirs.
Anonymous "in an essential way, you really are not."
You continue to argue against the existence of God (apparently solely on the basis that He doesn't meet your demands and specifications of personal, audible conversation with you). You continue not to answer the question in the post.
I have NEVER claimed that God will not intervene in human affairs. Where you would get such a notion is beyond me. I have argued that creatures don't get to tell the Creator how to act. I am betting all my chips on an afterlife (as if that's what I'm in it for). You are betting all yours on nothing at all. That's the best you have to offer me. My question remains. What is gained by arguing against Christianity? How will I be better off? How will you be better off?
(Just to be absolutely clear, I believe that God continually intervenes in human affairs.)
Stan wrote, “What is gained by arguing against Christianity? How will I be better off? How will you be better off?”
Our time, talent and tithes (mine then, yours now) have gone into Christianity. That’s wonderful if that particular ism is true, but not optimal if that ism is false.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Apropos of nothing--
If anybody shares my unsophisticated taste in music, search YouTube for Reynettes Rescue Me. It is to recorded music what naïve realism is to paintings, I’d say.
Anonymous, here's what I've been trying to find out since the original post here. If, as is so heartily asserted by atheists and other skeptics, Christianity is false, the outcome, in your words, is "not optimal". What is optimal? And on what basis would such a claim (of what is optimal) be made? Assuming (as skeptics do) that Christianity is false.
Stan asks what is an optimal use of one’s resources if Christianity is false.
One could pour effort into finding a cure for cancer, understanding string theory deeply enough to see if it can be made to crank out calculational results to compare with experiment, invent a better stapler, write a novel…
I see. Well, thanks for clearing that up. So, if there is a God, we people cannot put effort into finding a cure for cancer, understanding string theory, or invent a better stapler.
Of course, you haven't cleared anything up. On what basis would any of this be optimal? Why is it better to understand string theory deeply enough to see if it can be made to crank out calculational results to compare with experiment than, say, for someone to read his Bible to find a more kind way to treat people? For that matter, why is writing a novel good, but murdering babies bad? You didn't answer the question of why.
On the other hand, your list looks ... random. Perhaps that is precisely the answer you intend. What would be optimal if Christianity is false? Nothing. Nothing at all. Randomness. Whatever. Nothing really matters anyway. I don't think that was your answer, although it would be the most consistent.
Post a Comment