There was a recent quiz posted among a few friends on Facebook that was being used by news outlets as a picture of religious knowledge by different groups of people (quiz can be found here: http://features.pewforum.org/quiz/us-religious-knowledge/). The quiz itself is comprised of questions of religious nature spanning everything from Christianity to Judaism. I took the quiz after seeing some of my friends' scores and I made a 100%. Now I don't say this to be boastful, but to add to my point. The story associated with the quiz states that the Atheist/Agnostic groups (groups were separated by beliefs) were the highest scoring individuals that took the quiz. The question is: why? Of course, from a statistical standpoint, one could say that the surveyed group is not a true representation of the population as a whole, but is that really true? How many Christians do you know that could make a decent score on a quiz of this nature? How many could make a decent score using simple questions straight from the Bible?
My main realization was that atheists and agnostics spend much more time in study of religious items in order to defend their position than Christians spend reading, studying the Bible, and praying to spread the Gospel (which, by the way, is the great commission). I was atheist for 13 years. I denied the Truth I knew, but refused to accept. Not only did I deny this Truth, but I also studied feverishly to defend my position. Strange isn't it? Atheists and agnostics feel it necessary to be more studied in religions in order to defend their position. Why do you suppose that is? I say this not as a generality, but from personal experience. Myself and the people I associated with that were atheist or agnostic knew quite a bit about the Bible and other religions and continuously studied more and more. Looking back now, I can see why I did it. Was it because I knew I would be challenged constantly and wanted to back up my belief (or lack of)? Sort of. That was definitely part of it, and to be honest, especially in Alabama. However, I think the main reason I did it was not to prove that God didn't exist or to back my position, but rather a search for Him. I guess I wanted to come across something so much to prove myself wrong. So that I would have no choice but to relinquish my pride and accept what I wanted so much. I didn't know I wanted it at the time. I remember seeing someone full of the Spirit and who loved God, and wanting the light in their eyes, wanting the joy in their heart, wanting the purpose of their lives. I studied religion to find God.
Some of my friends who are Christians have asked me how they should approach their atheist or agnostic friends with the Gospel. The truth is, I would just be with them. Show them by example. Let them see the light in your eyes. Let them see the joy in your heart. Let them see.....Christ....Christ In You. That is how you approach them. Also, talk to them. Calmly. If they want to discuss religion, Christianity, God, or anything, then discuss it with them. I remember as an atheist trying to talk to Christians experiencing many rejections. This was in part to the Christians fear that I would convince them God did not exist. They were so insecure and doubtful in their faith, and all I wanted them to do was convince me that He was real. That He did love me, and show me how to get that light in their eyes, that I did not have. Does a study like this disturb me and make me lose faith in the Christian community? No. On the contrary, it gives me faith. It gives me faith that the Atheists and agnostics are searching for God. They are searching and all we have to do is show them He is there, and He loves them. We show His love by loving them. Show them you care, and show them that YOU are there for them, and they will see Christ in you. One thing we have to realize is that we may not see the result. We may not see them accept Christ. Do not be discouraged. God's time. God's plan.
God Bless
Posts
Chris:
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing your story. I'm glad to hear the concern and gentleness in your recommendations for how to share your faith.
I found your post through a relative of yours.
ReplyDeleteI know each and every person's experience is different so I will not debate your stance on why you studied religious texts.
I can only share my reasons. I was raised in south Georgia and religion is as common as eating in the south. While I was not born into an overly religious family I was taught to believe at least 3 things.
1. There is an omnipotent being watching my every move and listening to my every thought.
2. If I was "good" I would get to spend eternity in heaven worshiping at the feet of that being.
3. If I was "bad" I would get to burn in hell for an eternity with the devil.
Now there is so much more to religion than this but most of what children are scared into believing revolves around these three things.
BTW, what an absolutely HORRIBLE thing to tell a child. But I digress.
As I grew older and more aware of my surroundings, I started paying attention to things. Things like, who was sick, who was hurt, who was rich, who was poor, who was nice, who was mean. And by age 16 I understood completely that the world was just random. Everything is random. The "BEST" christian in the world can be murdered and the "WORST" person in the world could be showered with gifts or win the lottery. In order to stay focused I will only touch on the notion that "our eternal reward" differs.
Through a series of events in my life I ended up in a foster home when I was 16. The one and only RULE they had was that I WOULD attend church. Sunday morning, Sunday Night, Holidays, and Wednesday. I thought that was a nice trade off from the group home I had been confined to for the previous 10 months. So I jumped all over it.
I fought religion tooth and nail. I asked every logical question I could come up with and the answer was always the same. Read your Bible. The problem was I couldn't find diddly squiddly in the Bible.
Like most cults and groups that use brainwashing techniques (and yes, religion scores a goal every time with this) I eventually fell to the pressures of being saved.
Don't get me wrong, I felt the presence of Jesus Christ in my heart. I felt the power of his hand on me. And I walked that isle in front of that church and professed that I was a sinner and I did accept Jesus Christ as my lord and personal savior. And it was good - for about a month. I realise now what I didn't realise then, I get the same feeling in my heart when I hear a beautiful singer sing live. It is a plethora of emotion that takes over the mind and body. It's not supernatural - actually, it's quite natural - research it some time.
Continued....
I will fast forward a few years. I can tell you I held on to that belief in God for a year or two. Logic and reason continued to creep back into my head and eventually I professed my belief in "a higher power" but nothing more.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't educated enough to argue with a christian. I did not know the bible well enough to point out the idiocy that was held within.
And all of that to lead to this point.
I am a full fledged atheist. When I finally accepted that I simply don't believe in magic, I don't believe in an eye in the sky, or the thought police, I knew I needed to educate and prepare myself for when they came. "They" being the street preachers, the door knockers, the family members that "pray for me", the friends that no longer talk to me because "I make fun of their beliefs". I needed to be prepared and educated so that if they ever did engage in a thoughtful conversation, I would be prepared to show them that not only is the bible the plagiarized story ten fold of a made up sun god but it is complete and utterly unbelievable.
Now we can argue all day long about a divine creator and I can't prove nor disprove that one exists. But the Bible? It isn't very hard to see what led to the writing of the books in the Bible and certainly it isn't hard to see the lunacy that one must embrace in order to ignore logic and facts in order for the Bible to hold any truth.
So as I said when I started this, every person's experience is different, but I can assure I am not, and never will be, looking for a reason to believe in fairy tales. The world is a better place when you can see life for what it is - A very short span of time on this earth that needs to be cherished and enjoyed each and every day.
Thanks for taking the time to read this.
From a deductive logic standpoint, you stated “Now we can argue all day long about a divine creator and I can't prove nor disprove that one exists.” The definition of atheist is: a person without a belief in, or one who lacks belief in the existence of a god or gods. By your own admission you believe neither stance can be proven. The definition of agnosticism is: a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God; agnosticism holds that you can neither prove nor disprove God's existence. I say this to point out that, by definition and your own admission, you are agnostic.
ReplyDeleteIf the Gospels are reliable, then no further proof should be needed. There is nothing irreverent in this at all (1 Thessalonians 5:21). We need to apply to them the same basic rules to which scholars subject all other literature in order to prove its reliability.
There are four major rules for proving the credibility of documents. One was the writer of the document an eyewitness to the events he records or was he at least a contemporary that lived in the same area of the events? Two, were there other independent witnesses to corroborate the evidence? Three, did those witnesses continue to maintain their testimonies until death—even to the jeopardy of their lives? Four, were there also hostile witnesses who would have reason not to believe the evidence but still say the events occurred? If all of these four factors are in solid evidence, then reliability becomes very acceptable. With the New Testament documents, we have all four evidences in a firm position for credibility.
Let us apply the first rule that the author must have been an eyewitness to the events.
The Gospel of Matthew, for example, was composed not much longer than a generation after the death of Christ, at a time when hundreds, if not thousands, of witnesses to the crucifixion and resurrection were still alive. Matthew himself had lived through the events he describes. That is contemporaneity. And it guarantees to us reliable testimony. Let us see why.
Suppose a writer in the Year 1970 wrote that a major prophet less than forty years before had gone throughout New York State, working so many miracles that thousands followed him from place to place; and that in Times Square, on July 4, 1935, when huge crowds of people were present, that same prophet had been executed at the behest of the government and the people of New York.
If such a thing had happened back in 1935, there would still be many thousands of witnesses alive to attest to it.
But on the other hand, if such an event never happened, could any living historian, writer, or journalist invent such a fallacious story, send it to the people of New York City, tell them to depend on its veracity with their lives, and persuade them to believe it? Of course not!
But Matthew did not have to fabricate the life of Christ. According to ancient testimony, he wrote out his account and sent it to the people of Judea—the very people who had witnessed Christ’s activities—within forty years of His crucifixion. If these things really did not happen as Matthew said, then Matthew and the other Gospel writers were leaving themselves open to real and dangerous criticism.
The Jews of Judea, of all peoples, would have known whether thousands had followed Jesus around the country. They knew whether or not the people of Jerusalem had used pressure upon the Roman authorities to crucify Him. Yet many of them—especially those in Jerusalem—came to believe the Christian message. They even became willing to give their lives for its truth. This fact alone is strong critical reason for accepting Matthew’s Gospel as relating substantial truth.
continued...
The second rule involves the having of independent witnesses to corroborate the evidence of an author.
ReplyDeleteThe execution of Jesus Christ was not done in a corner with just a few witnesses around to testify to it. On the contrary, Josephus tells us that at least two million people used to gather every year around Jerusalem at the Passover season (the time when Christ’s crucifixion took place) (Wars, 6. 9. 3).
The more people there were to witness the event the more difficult it would become to invent and falsify matters. Christ’s death and his subsequent rejection by his own disciples became a well-known matter. The fact of many witnesses is a substantial safeguard to the veracity of the written records.
Now notice the importance of this. Not only was Matthew’s Gospel written when many thousands who could witness to its truth were still alive, but nearly twenty one other New Testament books were composed before 68 C.E.—within thirty-seven years of Christ’s death. Our World War I ended just over fifty years ago, yet thousands upon thousands of witnesses are still alive to testify to that holocaust. In 68 C.E. there would have been thousands of persons still living who had witnessed those earlier events in Jerusalem at the time of Christ.
Actually, with twenty-one of the New Testament books written within 37 years of Christ’s activities, we can call all these books contemporary records. These documents were written when there were still many witnesses to the events.
continued...
The third rule concerns continued belief—even until death. Could any believe that the Gospel writers were consistently lying (a vice which they utterly condemned), yet they were remarkably willing to give up their lives for the "lies" which they were propagating? It might be imagined that one or two might lie (I am speaking humanly), but that every one of the apostles plus hundreds of others were liars is untenable.
ReplyDeleteIt is related in the Gospel of Mark—a Gospel which was inspired by Peter’s preaching—as can be demonstrated—that Peter and all the apostles fled as cowards from the crucifixion scene. They did not remain anywhere in the vicinity of the Jewish and Roman authorities. And while we may doubt that they rejoiced to record their own cowardly display, this defection and flight of Christ’s key men was not a hidden matter. Let us see how their defection becomes an amazing testimony to the truth of Christ’s resurrection three days later.
The Law commanded the whole Jewish nation to celebrate three seasons with great solemnity: Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles. Almost invariably, the same people who journeyed to Jerusalem at Passover would be back there for the next festival. Therefore, Christ had directed his apostles to wait in Jerusalem until the Feast of Pentecost. One reason was to have the same Passover crowd who earlier had been present at the crucifixion back in Jerusalem fifty days later.
This time, those multitudes were to witness something different. They were no longer to witness a cowardly flight of Christ’s disciples. This time the people in Jerusalem would observe a display of such power and conviction by those once-afraid disciples, that nothing could humanly account for it.
These disciples, who had been terrified of that same crowd just fifty days earlier, now stood in the midst of them, each man witnessing with assurance and dynamic conviction to Christ’s resurrection. None was fearful for his own personal life.
The Book of Acts makes this plain. And, should there be someone who would question the reliability of this document, it should be noted that the Book of Acts was written within forty years after the first Pentecost—an event which took place in the midst of thousands of people in Jerusalem. The Book of Acts, in regard to literary criticism, is a contemporary document—written at a time when thousands of witnesses were still alive. There can be no doubt that Luke’s record in Acts is definitely reliable.
What needs to be noticed is the change of attitude in Christ’s apostles in those fifty short days. These men no longer feared the Romans. They no longer feared the Jews. They no longer doubted Christ’s mission, nor the fact of his resurrection. All eleven of the original apostles were consistent in their teaching. Is it possible to believe that they were all lying? The understanding of basic human psychology suffices against our believing that eleven individual men could one after another deceptively tell a crowd they once feared that Christ was now alive from the dead. They were jeopardizing their lives before that crowd by preaching Christ’s resurrection.
continued...
Historians agree that the Christian church began on that Pentecost Day in the First Century. It is also well known that the Christian message began to be preached not long afterward around the world. The growth of the Christian church gained strong momentum by the end of the First Century. Thousands upon thousands from all nationalities were beginning to accept the central truth of Christianity—the fact of the resurrection of Christ.
ReplyDeleteThis rapid spread of belief in Christ’s resurrection can only be accounted for by the astounding enthusiasm that must have been manifested by the first propagators. Are we to imagine that the Christian message could have grown so quickly if the original witnesses to the resurrection showed neither emotion nor real conviction in the matter?
Peter continued to live for at least thirty-five years after the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, and so did many of the other apostles. Could the message have grown without all the apostles’ continued conviction in that resurrection? Of course not. One thing must be admitted if nothing else: the people were convinced that the apostles were convinced.
Paul tells us that not only were the original eleven apostles witnesses that Christ was resurrected, but also over five hundred others saw him as well (1 Corinthians 15:6). Paul put out the challenge to people in 55 C.E. to go to Jerusalem and look up some of those five hundred for themselves. Even after a period for reflection of twenty-four years (in 55 C.E.) there were many in Jerusalem who still believed that Christ rose from the dead. If what Paul wrote was a lie, then he was leaving himself wide open to censure.
The fourth rule for reliability concerns hostile witnesses. Did those who wished not to believe the evidence—even though they were there when it happened—still admit that it was a fact? Paul, among others, was such a witness. What was his belief concerning Christ’s resurrection?
Paul himself figures very prominently in proving the fact of Christ’s resurrection. Since all scholars are prepared to accept at least ten of Paul’s Epistles to be genuine, let us bring him forth as a witness. The rules of literary criticism show him to be reliable, for Paul wrote at a time when many of his statements could easily have been checked for their accuracy and truth.
Now look at Paul. He was a chief, if not the chief, antagonist of the Church in its very beginnings. The High Priest (the top ecclesiastical man in the Judaic nation) had personally given Paul the responsibility for exterminating the Christian church. And Paul went about his task, according to his own words, with fanatic zeal. He could appropriately be called the Adolf Eichmann of his day in his effort to overthrow the Church.
In that first period, before Paul’s conversion, there was no one more convinced of the non-resurrection of Christ than he. No one was more determined to disprove it. Paul also had many of the elders in the Jewish nation behind him. All of them had "theological" arguments against Christ’s resurrection. The practical and logical evidences did not shake their "theological" minds.
At first, Paul was vehemently against the practical evidence. His mind was closed to any acceptance of it. He must have used every intellectual argument to dispute the possibility of the resurrection which thousands of humble, practical-minded Christians were accepting.
continued...
Yet, what was the final belief of Paul? This is where he becomes a vital witness to the truth of the resurrection miracle and the divinity of Christ.
ReplyDeletePaul, according to his own later testimony, while on the road to Damascus with authority from the High Priest to apprehend Christians, had his mind changed. It was a miracle that did it, but in a single day, this man of lofty intellect came to believe the practical evidence. And when the practical side became evident, his well-trained mind finally came to accept the abundant "intellectual" proofs found in the Old Testament.
From that day forward, Paul never turned back. Until the day he was executed for his beliefs, he steadfastly maintained his faith in Christ and the reality of Christ’s resurrection. Although it took a miracle to open his eyes, Paul finally became its chief exponent and propagator.
With Paul’s uncompromising acceptance, the proof of the resurrection becomes overwhelming. Here was a man who understood Judaic theology thoroughly. And not only was he trained in Judaism, but being born and reared in Tarsus of Asia Minor, the center of Stoic philosophy, he was well acquainted with the classical works of Gentiles. With the world’s knowledge in his mind—and most of it would have been very critical knowledge—he would have been one of the most unlikely persons to accept the resurrection of Christ. Yet he did accept the practical and intellectual proofs of this greatest of miracles.
He became so fervent in this belief that it was said he "turned the world upside down" (Acts 17:6). Everyone who came in contact with Paul was certainly assured that he was convinced of this major proof of Christianity. Because of Paul’s firm conviction and that of the other apostles, the Roman world became convinced of the legitimacy of Christ’s resurrection in a short three hundred years.
Surely, all this provable history demonstrates that the evidence unanimously supports the fact of Christ’s resurrection. No wonder Christ gave the resurrection sign as a major sign to the world that He was the Messiah. This is the one event that is so provable, by all human standards, that it takes little faith to believe it.
This, however, is negligible when you consider faith. Ralph Hodgson said, “Some things have to be believed to be seen.” I think this is a very true statement, especially concerning the faith in God. As far as your “feeling” or “emotion” you describe from salvation, I cannot claim to know what you felt or how you felt. All I can say is this: I can never explain, express, or give you the joy, purpose, and relationship I have with God. As far as you not searching for God, I said the exact same thing. I know we are two different people, and I am not saying one way or the other, I am simply presenting my experience.
Thank you for taking time to read my blog.
He stated that he does not believe. That makes him an atheist. He also stated that he cannot prove "to you" scientifically that god does not exist. That is the hard part of arguing atheism. As atheists, we must use facts & logic as opposed to blind faith.
ReplyDeleteNow, lets move to you. Do you believe in the bible as a whole? Or do you, as most people do, pick &* choose what you want to believe, that which supports your stance? I believe that one must either believe that it is all true or EVERYTHING inside is suspect. If you believe that it is all true, then I have further questions.
I believe the Bible as a whole.
ReplyDeleteok, I'll limit this to a few questions, but I could go on & on:
ReplyDelete1) God told "his people" numerous times to go to another land & kill everyone, all men, all women & all children (and even the animals) because they did not believe in him. Is this a god that you even WANT to believe in, much less worship?
2) According to the bible, if a woman is raped both the rapist & the woman should be put to death. Is that ok with you?
3) Commandment: Do not have any other gods before me.~ This does not say "I am the only god" This also does not say to not worship other gods, just to not put them before him. Are there other gods? Is it ok to worship them as secondary gods? God says its ok.
4) Do you believe that women are second class beings? The bible says they are.
5) This is my personal favorite: Some "books" of the NT are really letters to specific churches chastising them for screwing up. They say "You have been told that X & Y are wrong & you are still doing them & are sinning." Well, the only reference to X & Y (for us, the modern reader) is in this letter. Where were "they told"? What if there were X, Y & Z. They only were chastised for X & Y because they were observing Z & needed no rebuking. Then how are we to know Z as this was the only opportunity for us to know?
Hi Chris,
ReplyDeleteThe main reason that non-believers study (among other things) world religions and faith systems is that they are curious about the world around them. It is this quest for understanding phenomena that causes them to reject the supernatural explanations found in religious traditions. Unlike theists, non-theists are not bound to search for the answers to all things in only one sliver of the spectrum.
I suggest that because you were indeed searching for your god all along, that your explanation of why non-theists study religious beliefs, does not reflect that of many or most atheists, non-believers, freethinkers, humanists, etc. It appears that it is simply a reflection of your particular experience uncritically applied to all others. Surely you can't think that all or most non-theists are closeted Christians waiting to come out.
Heath,
ReplyDeleteAnswer to 1:
First, in order to understand the Bible, belief is important. If you do not have the belief and faith that God created man, then of course you would disagree with His methods in the Old Testament. God created man, therefore, He is perfectly justified in taking that life away, especially in judgment of sin and disobedience to Him. The cities you are referring to were wicked and even killing their own children as sacrifices to their “gods” (2 Kings 17:31, Deuteronomy 9:5, Deuteronomy 12:31). In order to understand what exactly was happening, the whole story must be taken into account.
Answer to 2:
Ex.22:
[16] And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
[17] If her father utterly refuses to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.
This is a WRONG interpretation of that scripture.
This man that the woman sleeps with is not a stranger. Deuteronomy 22 is the same law as this one in Exodus...
MEN WERE REQUIRED TO ASK THE FATHER TO GIVE HER DAUGHTER TO WIFE. THE FATHER LOOKED AFTER THE DAUGHTER & WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR HER. If a man entices (seduce) a woman that is a virgin in order to force the father's hand in marriage. The father could refuse, & the man would still have to pay the dowry of virgins.
This discourages men from doing this type of offense. The man would be out 50 Shekels of Silver with no wife.
Answer to 3:
You are correct that Exodus 20:3 does state “You shall have no other gods before me.” However, there are multiple verses that God says that He is the ONLY God (Deuteronomy 4:35, Deuteronomy 4:39, 1 Kings 8:60, Isaiah 43:10, etc… there are more, but you get the point).
Answer to 4:
This is actually very interesting. At this time they were, just like they were previously even in American history. You have to understand the context in which this was stated, and also the problems that were present when this was written. In this time, women were largely uneducated and also could not read. For this reason, if they were to speak in a Christian community, they would likely be saying false doctrine out of ignorance. This is exactly what was happening, so Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 addresses this problem in a specific church at Corinth. There were, however, women who were educated and also others that were, even uneducated that were treated as equals by Jesus and the early church. Women traveled with Jesus and His disciples (Luke 8:1-3). Martha’s sister, Mary, sat at Jesus’ feet as a disciple and He taught her and He suggested that Martha do the same. The early churches followed Jesus’ example. Women held positions of responsibility including Jesus’ mother, Mary, as well as Dorcas, Julia, Lydia, Persis, Priscilla, Phoebe, Tryphena, and Tryphosa were important in the early church (Act 1:12-14, 9:36, 16:14, 18:24-26, 21:7-9, Romans 16:1-16). Also, Galations 3:26-29 states the equality pretty clearly:
“You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
Answer to 5:
In order to answer your fifth question, I would need the examples you are referring to, as it would depend on the context (historical and Biblical).
What's up Heath?
ReplyDelete"As atheists, we must use facts & logic as opposed to blind faith."
This statement is profoundly repugnant to me. I'm sure Chris should have more to say - He was atheist for 13 years... don't you think he knows these 'facts'? Hasn't he used this 'logic'?
I believe in the creeds of Christianity because I find the evidence for it overwhelming the evidences for any Naturalist point of view.
I'll give you a few words to work with.
All knowledge depends on the validity of reasoning. No account of the universe can be true unless it leaves a possibility for thinking to be a true insight. A theory which explained everything in the universe but didn't allow a possibility for our thinking to be valid would fail us. That theory would have been reached by thinking, and thinking itself has been (unreasonably) reasoned away.
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms." - J.B.S Haldane (recipient of the Darwin award in 1952)
This was the first idea that really began my philosophical approach to Christianity.
The main reason I believe in a Designer is because I believe it to be the only explanation which makes possible a belief in the rationality of thought and I consider that human thoughts are rational, and I do not find it even remotely feasible that rational thought processes can be formed from non-rational or irrational physical processes.
If you ever read any books on Christian philosophy, you find there are people who come to the Christian faith because they conclude the evidence for it much stronger than the evidence for 'big bangs' and evolutions.
Since nobody's posted here in a while, I'm not going to go in-depth in the argument against naturalism because I'm not sure anyone will come back to this. But I'll check back.
Crenshaw,
ReplyDeleteKindly post your rationally arrived at and overwhelming evidence in favor of Christianity without using the Bible and/or circular logic.
I gave you a sample to work with. I wouldn't bother with proving Christianity until I disproved the widely accepted Naturalist point of view. Like I said before, a theory that inevitably will not allow any proof that our knowledge is a real insight to any part of the universe must be thrown out. This is what Naturalism is bound to offer.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the most popular scientific theories of our days, our thoughts were once not rational. Simply put, once all our thoughts, as many still are, subjective events, not apprehensions of objective truth. Natural selection works by eliminating responses that are harmful and improving those which tend to survival (not thriving - survival). Yet it is impossible that an improvement of any response could turn it into insight. It is not men with good ears that know about our hearing, but men who have studied that particular science.
Like C.S Lewis said, "A conditioning which secured that we never felt delight except in the useful nor aversion save from the dangerous... might serve us as well as reason or in some circumstances better."
If we admit that our reasoning is valid (and our sciences with it), we must find a way to prove its rationality. Any hypothesis offered by the naturalist is discredited immediately when we examine evolution's credentials. The scientists all but ignore the chief difficulty of the evolution: how can rational behavior arise from non-rational causes? That is, if our reasoning is rational, and the evolution of organisms is true science, then must we accept that our rationality relies on non-rational developments to be created and sustained?
If one can provide a theory which explains this and yet still supports a naturalistic point of view, I should be very impressed. It is no use putting forth the Christian explanation for the rationality of reason - it works in its own sphere of influence, not the naturalist sphere.
With all due respect Crenshaw, your argument is plainly illogical. You are correlating apples and rocks and somehow managing to draw a conclusion. I applaud your effort, but I fear that the convolutions that thoughtful theists, such as yourself, have to contort yourselves into in order to deny nature and science is so often self-defeating.
ReplyDeleteI do not intend to enter a debate over the internet. I only mean to show that one can believe in the supernatural without being harassed for the common misconception that all Christians use only the Bible to support their conclusions and argue with nothing but circular logic. I'm sure it goes without saying that I have plenty more reasons to disbelieve the common Naturalistic ideals than the one I posted, but I don't consider it worth the time to post my entire analysis of the universe on here. (only a metaphor)
ReplyDeleteIf you have an answer to the post I put up, please share, but I will not debate the issue because I consider arguments over the internet to be rather petty.
Also I do not believe it is sciences job to disprove the supernatural. Science studies only nature, natural circumstance; if there is anything beyond nature science can know of no such thing. It may be able to render many theological beliefs unstable - yet if it is interfered upon by supernatural agent it has no defences.
I much prefer a philosophical approach.
I'm not going to post back here, but I will see what you have to say.
Well, I guess Christian Chris and Crenshaw have said all they are willing to say.
ReplyDeleteRemember folks, anytime you use the "a" word on the internet, atheists will show up to discuss misconceptions and erroneous thinking with you.
Actually I haven't. I was simply observing the exchange. Heath has yet to respond to my answers to his questions and to clarify his last point. However, I will talk with you as long as you like. I am willing if you are. As far as your point of discussing misconceptions and erroneous thinking, that is exactly what I wish to do as well, from the Christian perspective.
ReplyDeleteI think it's kind of funny how you say I'm wrong and don't explain why. All I said I'd do is give you an example of how I come to my conclusions without using only the Bible and/or circular logic. I made my point. Christians can support their beliefs without using only the Bible and not all our arguments are circular. The example I used is actually one of my weakest arguments because I have not considered it as well as some of my other arguments. If you're not gonna reply to my comment with anything but 'you're wrong' without including a because then I see no use debating.
ReplyDeleteRemember folks, anytime a Christian uses rational arguments, the atheist will say they're wrong without giving any elucidation.
(From my experiences anyway)