Guest Post by William Lobdell: Deconstructing Criticism
With the launch of my book tomorrow, I’m starting to read and hear an increasing amount of criticism–something I expected with a memoir titled, Losing My Religion. They have their opinion; I have mine. Fair enough. But I thought I’d take a stab at answering some of the most popular criticisms.
Criticism: You’re anti-religious or anti-Christian. I’m not. I miss my faith. But I can’t believe what I feel in my heart (and see with my eyes) is untrue. I believe I’ve found the truth, but have enough humility (and experience) to know I need to keep my eyes open for new information that could reshape my views. So far, in my three years as an out-of-the-closet atheist, the evidence has continued to pile up against a personal God who intervenes in my life. In the end, I’m anti-hypocrisy–especially when the hypocrites operate under the guise of God.
Criticism: You are trying to lead people away from God and/or Jesus Christ. Not really. This is just my story. I’m really hoping my journey will let folks know it’s normal to wrestle with doubts and also to get people to think more about faith and its shortcomings. Some of the biggest fans of my memoir have been pastors and other reformers who think the Body of Christ has grown soft and could use the wake up call. Christianity would make a whole lot more sense to me if Christians acted like they really believed the message of the Gospel.
Criticism: You’ve confused the sinfulness of man with a perfect God. This is condescending. In Christian theology, I understand the difference between God and fallen man. And I know that means Christian institutions, run by humans, won’t be perfect. But the argument falls apart on several levels. First, despite man’s fallen nature, Christian institutions should behave in a manner morally superior than their secular counterparts. I didn’t see much difference. But that not even where I lost my faith. That fact only caused me to start questioning other aspects of Christianity: why Christians behave basically the same as atheists in terms of morals and ethics; why no studies show that prayer works; why God gets credit for answered prayers and no blame to tragedies; and why the Bible is filled with a litany of bizarre punishments (death for working on the Sabbath, for one), a wrathful God who wipes out whole populations; why Christianity would be the one true faith out of the 1,000 of religions past and present; how God could be both merciful and just (the notions are contradictory); and even why Jesus didn’t speak out against slavery (in fact, he only says they should be beaten less). Eventually, my faith collapsed under the weight of all the evidence against it. I’d say as a Christian, I had mistaken a man-made creation for one developed by a loving God.
Criticism: You were never really a serious Christian, so you didn’t really lose your faith, you never had it. I’d agree with half that statement. I didn’t really lose my faith in the sense that you can’t lose something that didn’t exist. But I indeed was a serious Christian for more than a dozen years. I went to church weekly. I was member of a small men’s group that studied the Bible. I went on retreats. I read the Bible daily. I prayed several times a day. I read scores of Christian books. I don’t see how anyone could argue that I didn’t take my faith seriously. I think it helps critics to paint me as a half-ass Christian because then I’m easily dismissed.
Criticism: You’re just trying to sell books. I do want to sell a bzillion books, but that doesn’t change my experiences or my de-conversion journey. I also find it funny that Christians never accuse Christian authors–who make a fabulous living off their books–of “just trying to sell books.”
Criticism: You’ve consigned yourself to an eternity in hell. Look, I’ve tried my hardest to hang on to my faith. I just don’t have it. If there happens to be a Christian God and, given the circumstances, he still sends me to an eternity in hell, then what kind of loving God is that? Does that make sense to anyone? What kind of person are you worshipping? More likely, if I’m wrong and there is a loving God, I imagine he would look at me and said, “Son, I know how hard you struggled to believe. I’m very proud of your effort. I love you. Let’s spend eternity together.” What would you do as a loving father?
I didn’t write this post to sway critics. I’m guessing they are locked into their beliefs. But I do think there are a lot of people in live in shades of gray. I at least wanted to give those people something to think about.
- William Lobdell
Criticism: You’re anti-religious or anti-Christian. I’m not. I miss my faith. But I can’t believe what I feel in my heart (and see with my eyes) is untrue. I believe I’ve found the truth, but have enough humility (and experience) to know I need to keep my eyes open for new information that could reshape my views. So far, in my three years as an out-of-the-closet atheist, the evidence has continued to pile up against a personal God who intervenes in my life. In the end, I’m anti-hypocrisy–especially when the hypocrites operate under the guise of God.
Criticism: You are trying to lead people away from God and/or Jesus Christ. Not really. This is just my story. I’m really hoping my journey will let folks know it’s normal to wrestle with doubts and also to get people to think more about faith and its shortcomings. Some of the biggest fans of my memoir have been pastors and other reformers who think the Body of Christ has grown soft and could use the wake up call. Christianity would make a whole lot more sense to me if Christians acted like they really believed the message of the Gospel.
Criticism: You’ve confused the sinfulness of man with a perfect God. This is condescending. In Christian theology, I understand the difference between God and fallen man. And I know that means Christian institutions, run by humans, won’t be perfect. But the argument falls apart on several levels. First, despite man’s fallen nature, Christian institutions should behave in a manner morally superior than their secular counterparts. I didn’t see much difference. But that not even where I lost my faith. That fact only caused me to start questioning other aspects of Christianity: why Christians behave basically the same as atheists in terms of morals and ethics; why no studies show that prayer works; why God gets credit for answered prayers and no blame to tragedies; and why the Bible is filled with a litany of bizarre punishments (death for working on the Sabbath, for one), a wrathful God who wipes out whole populations; why Christianity would be the one true faith out of the 1,000 of religions past and present; how God could be both merciful and just (the notions are contradictory); and even why Jesus didn’t speak out against slavery (in fact, he only says they should be beaten less). Eventually, my faith collapsed under the weight of all the evidence against it. I’d say as a Christian, I had mistaken a man-made creation for one developed by a loving God.
Criticism: You were never really a serious Christian, so you didn’t really lose your faith, you never had it. I’d agree with half that statement. I didn’t really lose my faith in the sense that you can’t lose something that didn’t exist. But I indeed was a serious Christian for more than a dozen years. I went to church weekly. I was member of a small men’s group that studied the Bible. I went on retreats. I read the Bible daily. I prayed several times a day. I read scores of Christian books. I don’t see how anyone could argue that I didn’t take my faith seriously. I think it helps critics to paint me as a half-ass Christian because then I’m easily dismissed.
Criticism: You’re just trying to sell books. I do want to sell a bzillion books, but that doesn’t change my experiences or my de-conversion journey. I also find it funny that Christians never accuse Christian authors–who make a fabulous living off their books–of “just trying to sell books.”
Criticism: You’ve consigned yourself to an eternity in hell. Look, I’ve tried my hardest to hang on to my faith. I just don’t have it. If there happens to be a Christian God and, given the circumstances, he still sends me to an eternity in hell, then what kind of loving God is that? Does that make sense to anyone? What kind of person are you worshipping? More likely, if I’m wrong and there is a loving God, I imagine he would look at me and said, “Son, I know how hard you struggled to believe. I’m very proud of your effort. I love you. Let’s spend eternity together.” What would you do as a loving father?
I didn’t write this post to sway critics. I’m guessing they are locked into their beliefs. But I do think there are a lot of people in live in shades of gray. I at least wanted to give those people something to think about.
- William Lobdell
24 comments:
you take yourself far too seriously!
William–
You're story is very parallel to my own. I look forward to reading your book.
I was a devoted Christian for 33 years. I wrestled with the same issues you've discussed here. I would answer these questions from Christians in a very similar way. I don't hate Christians. My wife, family and most of my friends are Christian. I don't look to de-convert people from Christianity. I only look to openly discuss the questions that lead to my rejection of my faith. If there are logical answers to my questions, they have nothing to fear. I do not live in fear of hell. The idea of a loving father allowing eternal suffering in a lake of fire is ridiculous.
I do miss some things about my Christian faith, but I have found a great amount of peace and joy in no longer removing my brain to believe in a fairytale.
Honest, thoughtful, and insightful post. I think most ex-christians would agree with this.
William I have read extracts from your book and appreciate your sincerity, but if I may make a few observations.
I miss my faith. But I can’t believe what I feel in my heart (and see with my eyes) is untrue. I believe I’ve found the truth no you have not lost your faith – just exchanged it. Without proof absolute either way to believe there is no God is as much of a leap of faith (more in my opinion)as to believe there is a God.
Christianity would make a whole lot more sense to me if Christians acted like they really believed the message of the Gospel. and therein lies the challenge to Christian and atheist – to live a life of "love your neighbour as yourself”
But why should we expect more of Christians and their institutions than of secular organisations? Christ came to save sinners so it is rational to expect Christianity to attract more than its fair share – where else would they go in an unforgiving world?
Certainly there are some very good people involved in the Church (as there are elsewhere) and there are others who one would rather see … well where else would you rather see the not so good people?
For myself I find some consolation that they have recognised that they have a problem and have sought to address it – pity they come to the Church and give it a bad reputation though, just going out and drowning themselves would be less embarrassing for the “good” Christians.
Jesus didn’t speak out against slavery Here you have fallen into what seems to be a common atheist trap on giving up religion – finding in the literalistic interpretation of the bible anything that can be criticised.
Given the social context of His time there were many things Jesus did not directly seek out against – capital punishment etc. But would you not interpret his response to the stoning of the woman (let him who is without sin cast the first stone) as an appropriate teaching on the subject of capital punishment – or “treat others as you would be treated” a suitable teaching on slavery.
I really think you are taking cheap (and intellectually weak) shots at the religion that has not met your expectations – by the way, did you meet Christ’s expectations of you?
I indeed was a serious Christian Well you certainly went through some of the motions! But reading your post I detect a path common among atheists. The more one studies in an evangelical or fundamentalist context the more likely one is to discover the flaws in the bible literalistic view. Yes there are contradictions etc. You contemplated Catholicism but were turned away by the paedophilia scandals (and why would one want to associate oneself with the Church of the cover ups etc.). But their approach of scripture + tradition has merit.
The problem you seem to have faced was that when you realised God was not in the beliefs you held you seem to have decided there is no God rather than that God might be different from what you believed or wanted Him to be.
Sala kahle -peace
@akakiwibear
I prefer a literal interpretation of texts instead of twisting it to mean what I want it to.
As a Christian, I never asked "Him" to be what I wanted him to be. God isn't even who he claims to be. You can't be loving and vengeful or merciful and just. Belief in the teachings of the bible should not require so much rationalization of conflicting teachings and evil laws. It's one thing to believe without seeing, it's something else to ignore the evidence in front of you.
thebeattitude said "I prefer a literal interpretation of texts instead of twisting it to mean what I want it to"
what you really mean is that you prefer a literalistic interpretation because it enables you to rationalise your atheism rather than taking a thinking approach to the texts.
But hey, why should you believe that 2000 years of theological scholarship could add to an understanding of the bible.
Perhaps if you tried it you would not struggle with God isn't even who he claims to be. You can't be loving and vengeful or merciful and just ... which is not that hard - but hey you don't want to let 2000 years of scholarship shatter your illusions!
Sala kahle -peace
Hi theBEattitude,
You said, "I do miss some things about my Christian faith, but I have found a great amount of peace and joy in no longer removing my brain to believe in a fairytale."
Could you elaborate a bit more on this topic? I'm curious about comparisons between what is called faith and the social constructs and relationships in Christianity. What are the specific things you miss and are those things part of what is called faith in that version of Christianity?
I ask because I know many who tell me they miss aspects of the church but they cannot in good conscience continue to pretend what they do not believe. When I delve further they acknowledge that what they actually long for are things not actually specifics of the faith. For instance, I know of no former Roman Catholic atheists who have a yearning for transubstantiation, the Assumption of Mary, the recent readmission of indulgences, or the centuries-in, but now-out limbo. They don't miss those things. What they miss is the society and those things that the church has capitalized on to seize the emotions like pipe organs, rituals, meditation, choirs, ornate, flowing architecture with stained glass. When they think it through, they don't miss the faith. They miss the those tools and techniques that churches have always relied on to maintain membership.
I would be interested in your take on it.
Mr. Lobdell, I think these are fabulous answers. My journey has been much the same, and so I found I'd have answered these criticisms very similarly. Good work - I've added your book to my wishlist, and look forward to reading it when I get the chance :)
akakiwibear, one point you raised stuck out to me: "But why should we expect more of Christians and their institutions than of secular organisations?" Your answer of basically, "Because Christianity attracts sinners" ignores the real problem. If Christianity is true, we should expect more of Christians because they apparently have the Holy Spirit working within them to make them better people. Certainly we shouldn't expect perfection, but we should see a clear difference. I think the fact that there are good and bad Christians as well as good and bad non-religious people is telling. It shows me that the power that you say you have within you is either ineffective or non-existent.
Russ, I know I'm not the one you asked about this, but I'd throw my agreement in that the thing I miss most about my former faith is the feeling of church. I miss the (mostly) friendly environment and the communal atmosphere, and I miss the feeling I got when singing songs to the one I loved (whom I thought was real). But now that I know that there's no one on the other end, the feeling has become fairly empty.
However, one thing that has to do with doctrines and beliefs is the comfort that that provided. I miss that as well. With religion, everything is nicely laid out for you - it's a blueprint that you just have to pattern your life after. Without religion, you're left to build your structure on your own, with no guide. So while I don't miss the idea of the Trinity or the virgin birth, I miss the comfort that those provided me.
Anyway, I'll stop talking now :)
Jeff, I see your point – and yes one should have higher expectations of Christians filled with the Holy Spirit.. But I don’t think you can apply that standard to those who align themselves with Christian institutions.
Let me try to explain myself better - this is quick and off the cuffs list so I have not dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s – I hope you can see through the lack of attention to getting this short & to teh point and that my message comes through
i.e. those who establish the reputation by which Christians are judged are not likely (in the majority of cases) to create a positive impression of Christianity.
Let us look at who we might expect to find affiliating themselves to Christianity – my immediate thoughts run to 5 groups – could be more (most likely are)
1) Those who see in the Church and/or its other followers an opportunity to be exploited – paedophiles in a monastic organisation, con-artists among the vulnerable etc. Is the conduct of these people representative of Christians – I think it would be fair to say no. However their conduct and association with Christians will reflect badly on the Church and Christians in general.
This group may well go through all the motions of Christianity to create the strongest impression that they are Christian as a cover for their inappropriate motives.
2) Those who do bad stuff – but who, in an unforgiving world seek to better then selves and seek forgiveness. These are the very people Christ came to save – his target audience, so of course we would expect them to be attracted to the Church.
Will these people instantly shed their “evil” ways or have their past erased on seeking Christ? Of course not, so they too may damage the idealistic reputation of Christianity.
I guess if all these people went somewhere else (survivalist groups or atheist support groups) then the reputation of the Church would be intact – and its existence pointless.
3) Those born into the label of Christianity. This is a lot of the ‘Christians’ out there. They have made no real personal choice or even a specific commitment – they are just ordinary everyday folk who grew up ticking the box as “Christian” – most will have grown up in homes that are ‘Christian’ in name only. I would expect this group to be little different from the rest of society – wouldn’t you?.
Yes some will do bad things and yes it will reflect badly on the Christians – and of those that do get it wrong one hopes that somewhere along the way they see the error of their ways and try to start turn their lives around – maybe they will get the Gospel message of treating others as they would like to be treated – maybe not.
Of course some of this group will turn out to be fine upstanding members of the community – and Christianity should not claim the credit.
4) Ordinary people who respond to Christ’s message and want to try to live their lives that way. Some will get it right and will bring credit to the Church and to Christians in general. However the temptations of the world will not vanish for these people and some might slip and do bad things. Again the reputation of Christians suffers … but these people are in the right space for recognising their failings, confessing and trying to do better.
Of course if the silly buggers just went off and drowned themselves when they went astray it would save a lot of embarrassment for the “real” Christians … oops I forgot Christ did not come to save the pure, but the sinners – damn stupid really wanting to love the miscreants; and a bad rep for the Church too!
5) Good people doing good things in response to Christ’s message. Those who want to treat others as they themselves would like to be treated; those who give without counting the cost; those who love sinner and saint alike – those who are Christian bring credit to the Church and actually those who I have know let their lives proclaim their Christianity rather than shouting it out. But not all good people are Christians – some live Christ’s teaching without the need to tick the box … and it is not for them that Christ came, he came for people like me.
So on balance I would expect the relative size of these 5 groups to produce an overall negative reputation for Christians – certainly it would be irrational to expect a reputation better than average.
Perhaps the message in all this is that we should not be too quick to judge others – we don’t know really know them or their circumstances or their inner conflicts – perhaps all things considered the Holy Spirit is working within them and the result we see is the new improved person – whatever form that takes.
Sala kahle -peace
"So on balance I would expect the relative size of these 5 groups to produce an overall negative reputation for Christians – certainly it would be irrational to expect a reputation better than average."
Everyone needs to take this seriously. It is obvious that atheists are the righteous people Jesus is not here to save, and everyone attracted to Christianity is the scum of the earth. It would be irrational of us to expect Christians to behave better than atheists. Even with thousands of years of moral law handed down and as much guidance of the Holy Spirit as God can muster, Christians will only barely make the mediocre mark.
Next time some Christy fella wants to look down his nose at me, I'll just have a laugh, knowing full well that it's only the power of Christ that is stopping that poor guy from descending into cannibalism.
Amen. By the way, you're ridiculous.
Hello Russ–
I miss very little about my Christian faith.
I sort of equate to finding out that Santa Claus isn't real when you're a child. There was a sense of wonder and awe in attributing god's hand at work in my life. The joy in thinking I was important to god. A child believes in Santa for a few years, I believed in Jesus for over 30. So it takes a while to get used to not thanking a guy in the clouds for everything that happens.
That being said, I'm far happier today than I ever was as a Christian. And not in an immoral way as most Christians would assume. Simply the freedom to enjoy life, love my wife and watch my children grow. Without the guilt in failing to please a confusing, invisible god.
Hi William,
welcome and I hope you consider Joining our team.
I've scheduled an article on some of the Christian Heuristics used to handle the problem of apostasy in this comment section of your article.
akakiwibear, you seem to have still missed my point. I'll try to make it a bit more clear.
It's a simple matter of statistics. Think about it for a second - if the Holy Spirit exists and is within the lives of Christians telling them the right way to go and the good thing to do, we would not expect Christians to always listen to him, but we would expect a higher percentage of Christians to listen to him than we would non-Christians (since they don't have him). To give an arbitrary percentage, let's say only 10% of self-proclaimed Christians follow the Holy Spirit. Contrasting that, however, 0% of non-Christians would be following him. So even if we account for the "bad Christians" and account for the "saved sinners" who try but don't always succeed, we should still expect a higher percentage of "good deeds" done by these Christians. If you don't agree with me, then you are saying that the Holy Spirit has no actual influence on anyone's lives.
You're saying that since the church is made up of sinners, we'd expect it to be less good than average, but wouldn't you agree that there are just as many, if not more, sinners outside the church as well? Without the power of the Holy Spirit, we should expect the two groups to be the same - since there would be an equal percentage of good people and bad people inside and outside the church. But once you throw that supposed power in there, we should expect the results to be tilted - not all the way, of course, but we should still expect the church, with all its sinners, to behave better on average than the outside world.
Do you understand me now? Let me know if you still don't get it, because I think it's a fairly simple concept. It's like a set of scales - you put sinners on one side and sinners on the other side until they balance. But then you take some sinners off because of the Holy Spirit, and obviously the scales should upset.
kiwi misses lots of points in his rush to condescend.
as to the missing religion aspect, religion IS a social construct. for many people it IS their social life. is is where their friends are. and to leave it does leave a gap. if you don't RECOGNIZE this, and fill the gap on purpose, the gap remains. it was important to me to find groups based on shared interests to interact with. i found a natural landscaping group that had meetings, i joined the board to contribute, and i volunteered for seed gatherings and restoration days to get out into the beautiful and awesome outdoors with people. seeing that we were doing work that would go beyond our lifetimes maybe also got me past missing the idea of an eternal soul, which i gave up along with my belief in god. i got involved with a folk music association to hang out with interesting fun people and went to folk concerts in the area to have a routine celebration. it is also possible to go to specific individuals from your church social life and see if maybe you have something in common besides religion. you could find things to do together, dinner, attend events, go to museums, read secular books and talk about them, and have a friendship where you agreed not to talk about that one topic but shared so much more.
it annoys me when i admit that i miss church and someone like kiwi tries to make like it is god i miss. i never knew god. there was never one time in my life any evidence of god. i knew the phsyical trappings of nice music and pretty buildings and social life of other myth believers, but god was never there to be missed. god is not there to be missed. and i was not willing to pretend.
@akakiwibear
It always amazes me when I see the literalism v. interpretationalism 'debate' spelled out. If only because.. well..
If I am literalist, I must believe everything in the bible, exactly as written. Even you yourself say that this leads inevitably to a view of God that leaves him.. well. Illogical, broken, vengeful, petty, all the rest. On the other hand - if I am an interpretationalist - how do I choose?
What verses are important, and what aren't? It's the great Leviticus question: one verse condemns homosexuality, the next places handling the skin of a pig on the same tier of sin. Yet why do some sects choose one verse over another, when interpreting the text? Given that interpretations of biblical mandate have led to everything from genocide to founding orphanages and hospitals... where does the truth really lie?
"Oh, it's self-evident" says the apologist, "it lies here, in my interpretation -" Yet there are dozens /more/ interpretations that have so very little to do with whatever your belief system is - and no, I don't know it, it doesn't matter - where they say exactly the same thing.
Fred Phelps likely does not believe in the same God you do. The Catholic God is not the same as the Anglican God - not really. Not when you get down to what the churches say is proper behavior to get into heaven. Heck, the Catholic god says his priests must be chaste and male; the anglican god allows women, LBGT folks (even though that's caused a schism in the church!), and encourages priests to marry. One believes in transubstantiation, the other does not. One is the One True Church, the other is Egalitarian.
... and these are two nominally similar denominations. Both are high ritual churches, both share a similar organization, both share a similar book of prayer and liturgical calendar - even the pantheon of saints remains awfully close. How much farther the disparity between, say, the archtypical southern baptist and the Church of England, or Fred Phelps and Methodism?
Please. Interpretation allows you to rewrite the bible into what you want it to be, but does not address the fundamental problems of what the bible /is/ or what parts you pick and choose to make up your denomination or belief system. LIteralism certainly is easier to approach - every verse has equal weight! ... but no one actually practices it. It's.. as you say, illogical, broken, leading to impossible conclusions.
This doesn't even begin to address the questions outside the Christian faith, which you have not. If yours is the One True God, if Christianity is the One True Path.. (nevermind that most Christians cannot actually agree on any fundamental doctrine beyond the existence of Jesus) - then. Uh. Well.
Islam acknowledges Christianity. Happily so. It just says Christians don't go far enough. Mormons acknowledge Christianity, but say you ignore Joseph Smith. Judiasm agrees with you up to Jesus, and even says 'yup, he was a prophet too!' ... just not the Savior of Man.
Why are you right? Why is your interpretation right? What makes you so absolutely certain that this message is correct?
This is what an athiest presents - this is what we ask. It's the hole in the bucket - the question we set in front of you that requires an answer that isn't a tautology:
"The bible says it" doesn't work here. After all, as you point out- the bible's open to interpretation.
Jeff, your analogy It's like a set of scales - you put sinners on one side and sinners on the other side until they balance. But then you take some sinners off because of the Holy Spirit, and obviously the scales should upset.
But you failed to take account of groups 1 & 2 in my comment. So start with the population = equal sinners in both sides.
1) Attract sinners to the church – oh it tips that way
2) Adjust sinners for influence of Holy Spirit – now we are both guessing but my view is that at best it tips back to even … you think otherwise, fair enough & I acknowledge that neither of us have teh facts to present a conclusive argument.
Sala kahle -peace
The Standing Dragon criticises me for not being a bible literalist and says if I am an interpretationalist - how do I choose? What verses are important, and what aren't? Well there is 200 years of Christian scholarship to refer to.
Analogy: You see a work of art – is it good or not, how do you know –the gallery guidebook says its brilliant. The literalist reads the guide and says “yes it is brilliant”. The interpretionalist reads the other literature on the work and finds the consensus among the scholars.
It is sort of like the difference between thinking for yourself or following blindly.
You ask Why are you right? Why is your interpretation right? What makes you so absolutely certain that this message is correct? Do I claim to be absolutely right? No, of course not. Theology and philosophy are not the domain of absolutes.
At the best a Christian or a theist or even an atheist can say this is “This what I understand to be true”. Yes there are “truths” set out as dogma by the religions and they have the scholarship to back their claims – interesting how much they have in common.
The difference between us is that you seem to crave an absolute black or white.
So you argue that if there are two opinions both must wrong.
Me, I accept grey exists, and argue that if there are two opinions I should try and seek out the best.
It seems to me that your brand of atheism is entirely dependent on every religious view being treated as an absolute so that you can dismiss all of them. Pretty shaky foundation for your belief!
Sala kahle - peace
Here is a solid foundation for atheism. There is no sign of God. Anywhere. Tell me one thing that happens in the world today that can be attributed to God that is not simple the hand of another human being, the result of nature, or a trick of a person's brain. Show me the evidence. I don't care what the Bible says or how you interpret it. Show me evidence. I see none. Just as I do not see a orangutan in my kitchen. There is no orangutan in my kitchen. Not even hiding in the pantry. It would make no sense. There is not God in my kitchen either. Or anywhere else. Never has been. Never will be. No shaky foundation in solid observation on my part and total lack of any on anyone else's part. If my neighbor told me they saw the zoo van pull up and some people leading an orangutan in, then I might beleive them. If my neighbor said he was in a state of meditation or high from singing and waving his arms for an hour and a half and he saw it just after that, I would be more skeptical. No matter what he said, if on inspection, no orangutan, no belief. It is that simple. Kiwi, you treat atheism like another belief system that requires its own evidence and it does not. If none of those religions can show me evidence of God, there is no God. None of them can. They are based on nice stories, but no God.
Hey goprairie, you have a really convincing line of logic there ;)
guess the Vatican will be interested in your contradiction of the evidence of (among others) non-religious doctors that the healing of Maureen Digan and/or Ron Pytel attributed to the intercession of St Faustian or how about the cure of Dr. Manuel Nevado from cancerous chronic radiodermatitis, an incurable disease, which took place in November 1992 [url]http://www.vatican.va/latest/documents/escriva_miracolo-canoniz_en.html [url].
... but wait, I forget there is no God, so God could not have played a role - really good stuff this atheism it is self validating!
Sala kahle - peace
goprairie - no need to do my homework for me - I have researched it thoroughly (right down to the peer reviewed medical reports).
Certainly there was not always consensus that that there was a miracle - atheist doctors find that hard to admit - but they did agree that there was no alternative explanation besides that they have no explanation - it just happened and there is no record of that specific condition going into spontaneous remission.
Interesting that in all the formally recognised Catholic healing miracles three criteria have to met:
1) The cure must be an immediate response to prayer - not "hey I prayed about that last month .. etc"
2) The cure must be permanent - no temporary remission
3) There must no valid medical explanation as attested to by a panel of recognised experts which must include a non-catholic (preferably not a Christian)
This is a rigorous process - the Catholic Church is very aware that every event it recognises as a miracle will be fiercely challenged. They do their homework, they consult the experts and review the case in depth over time - they don't want to leave any stone unturned that may leave their decision open to criticism.
BUT OF course there are articles published challenging the healings - if atheism acknowledges just a single miracle it concedes there is a God - now why would you expect atheists to accept the evidence - any evidence?
I don't expect you too accept the evidence either - it would totally undermine your atheism. So I expect you to find whatever loophole you can - any contrary opinion will do.
Now you can rest secure among the contrary opinions (of what ever credibility) and ignore the significant number of events that have been research and meet the 3 criteria above and your atheism will be safe
... and I too will rest on this topic confident of my research.
Sala kahle -peace
Aka,
]if atheism acknowledges just a single miracle it concedes there is a God - now why would you expect atheists to accept the evidence - any evidence?
You make the naive assumption that all atheists actively wish to remain atheists even when they are provided with convincing evidence to the contrary.
I, for example, am a non-believer who is perfectly willing to subscribe to the idea of a God or gods. I simply am not convinced. I have nothing to gain by being an atheist, nothing at all, because I value the truths of the universe. If one such truth is that there is a super-natural intelligence that is responsible for creating the Universe, I want to know what it is.
However, apologetic writings from fanatics, subjective emotionalistic accounts from people who were bound to believe in their god anyway (due to their environment), and claims of miracles from an institution that depends on the idea of the miraculous and the supernatural to stay alive, are not enough to convince me.
Again, I don't have any valid reason to -want- to be an atheist if there really is a God. So if your idea is that all atheists want to be atheists, you are wrong, and furthermore I'd say it's because it's the only way you can convince yourself that the evidence is in fact good despite the fact that it doesn't convince everyone.
You have something very dear to lose, while I have only to gain. So when it comes to evidence, I'd say that puts me in a better position to discern what good evidence is, freer of bias.
edit: "even if they are provided with convincing evidence"
Post a Comment