6 Varieties of the Agnostic Experience
2. Agnostic-Atheist-Postmodern-Contrarian Jerk: “I don’t know if God exists and I’m not interested in finding a real answer. Instead what I care about is telling others how stupid they are for sharing their religious beliefs. Both atheists and Christians need to shut up in their dumb fight so they can listen to me and realize that I’m so much more humble and advanced than both of them.”
The Contrarian in our political culture acquired an overinflated reputation — mainly sustained by the late Christopher Hitchen’s endearing talents as a performer. This is the guy who steps in and seeks to elevate himself above the emotional zealotry “on both sides” (as though only two answers existed to every question.) In politics such people often advocate for “centrist” third parties or leap back and forth ideologically every couple years. They try and perpetuate themselves using the myth of the bold truthseeker with the courage to stand apart from the crowd, even if iconoclasm isolates them from the “ideologues.”
Give me a break.
Such people wear ideas like clothes — picking up what’s fashionable (and profitable) at the time — and then parade around like peacocks for all of us to marvel at their elegant prose and “edgy” positions.
In the religious world this habit emerges as the agnostic eager to debate and cast himself above others. The root of this behavior: the agnostic’s religious belief in postmodernism. Nothing can be known and every life-sustaining institution of Western Civilization awaits deconstruction until each component of American life lies at our feet like shards of a broken Christmas toy.
This variety of agnostic takes nihilism in a less destructive direction. Instead of obliterating other people’s lives with his amoral behavior, he pollutes the intellectual world with nonsensical jargon which by his own admission shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Having abandoned the rituals of the religious world the agnostic-contrarian must find doctrinal engagement through provocations. In arguing with believers and trying to convince others their religion false, the agnostic pursues a quest justifying his own conclusions. He’s not arguing to convince anyone really — except himself. That’s all the discussion is about — not honest truth-seeking or friendly intellectual engagement, but another notch in the agnostic inquisitor’s belt to prove to him that he’s the mental superior. Such a person still worships his own insecure ego, just not quite as explicitly as the agnostic-atheist-scientist.
This temperament manifests in internet comments consistently. You see it in its purest form when commenters copy and paste large chunks of articles and then rebut it sentence by sentence. I spent about 8 years — most of the previous decade — in varying degrees of this intellectual stage, both religiously and politically.
I didn’t bother to read your hate speech regarding Atheists, the pictures were enough. I am polite enough to not publish articles explaining why I think Christians are full of it. Is it too much to expect the same from a religion that preaches the turning of the other cheek?
This is supposedly a country founded upon religious tolerance. That requires people to, you know, tolerate the beliefs of others. You fail that test.
Just for the record, here is Richard Dawkins speaking about the event that launched this screed.
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/645108-no-blood-on-the-carpet-how-disappointing
Like any good scientist, he is reluctant to say anything with 100% certainty.
Old Guy you have to be kidding. There are entire media industries devoted to saying that this or that candidate is a religious extremist and he/she will take us back to the dark ages and one slightly snarky article causes you a panic attack?
A lot of anti-religious thought is magic thinking. They really believe with no religion there would be no wars, no divisions among mankind, university approved professors will solve all problems through logic and there will appear perfect universal health insurnance for all.
That is what the snark was about. If it hits home sorry.
You’re right, mainstream culture has been unfair to Christians. So what? Do two wrongs make a right. Does that justify you being unfair to me, who is include in the broad generalizations this article has made; I, who have never treated Christians so unfairly. I’m not mainstream culture; I NEVER insult Christians. But here you are, insulting me in chorus.
“A lot of anti-religious thought is magic thinking. They really believe with no religion there would be no wars, no divisions among mankind, university approved professors will solve all problems through logic and there will appear perfect universal health insurnance for all.”
I believe in the scientific explanation of how the universe and everything in it evolved, and people who think it was all created specifically for them to exploit, by some very old guy with a long beard who lives up in the clouds, and when they die they will sprout wings, fly up to Heaven to meet him, and then stand around all day in long white robes singing the old bearded guy’s praises for eternity, accuse me of magical thinking.
And to top that, they assume that people who believe in the scientific explanation of our existence must have the political beliefs of a Leftist College Professor.
I kinda thought we were all trying to get along and worry about the big issues like how to defeat Obama and save life as we know it, but you Christians seem bound and determined to hold a tent show revival instead. I hope you are enjoying yourselves. At the rate you’re going Obama is going to be known as the Landslide Kid by Thanksgiving.
The Democrats will hold the White House and both halves of Congress, but the good news will be you led the GOP to defeat bearing witness to your glorious faith, and after all, that is what really matters. What is life but an entrance exam for Heaven?
You realize that Santorum is a laughably bad candidate and he is doing well not because the Faithful are swelling to his cause or God is punching out those chads, but because Democrats are organizing Operation Chaos In Reverse to make him the candidate because he guarantees Four More Years of Change Marxists can believe in.
Is it too much to ask the Christians to leave their religion in church and stop insulting non-Christian Conservatives and Libertarians. There are important things to attend to and starting a religious war in the GOP is not helpful.
Dude,
I’m not Christian. In fact one reason I agree with this article is that I grew up in NYC and grew up with your kind of hysteria being somewhat mainstream. I moved out West and it was perfectly normal although the anti-religion types seemed more extreme because they didn’t have a more left leaning Manhattan dominated climate to hide behind. They were angry. Angry at anyone who had a belief system and would happily (key word seeing other people happy) invest time and money towards it.
As far as your characterization of religion. It certainly isn’t mine though I am sure you would believe it boils down to that. One question though. Do you get excited over geography, geometry (you can choose Euclidean, non-Euclidean or both),trigonometry as you do the scientific nature of creation. The reason I’m asking is that the only science anti-religious types get excited about is that which they think sticks a dagger into religious belief. Any other seems less than important. On the other hand there are plenty of religious engineers, doctors, etc.
Atheism is a fiction. No one can say with any certainty that “there is no god”. To make such a statement and believe it would require omniscience possessed only by deity- a delicious irony, is it not? One can believe there is no god, but it is just that, an article of faith every bit as much as the most ardent believer in Christ, Allah, Shiva or little green men.
But the same reasoning would say monotheism is a fiction, Pat.
The reality is, monotheists and atheists are very close.
A monotheist already disbelieves in zillions of gods, despite being unable to absolutely, conclusively prove that Epona, ancient Celtic goddess of Horses, is not out there somewhere.
The atheist merely adds one more to the pile of disbelief.
Hysteria? Panic Attack?
Why? Because I do not grant Deists carte blanche to insult me with impunity?
Plus you demand proof that I am a good enough believer in and lover of science to have a right my beliefs.
Is arrogance one of the Christian virtues these days?
I am beginning to understand why the Romans enjoyed feeding you guys to the lions.
Im not a very religious person, nor a regular church-goer, but ive noticed a tendency amongst atheists generally to make their arguments after loudly proclaiming their lack of interest or concern with the subject they are arguing. why, sometimes they even respond to blogs which they haven’t even read! it must be wonderful to have so much energy to waste on the utterly trivial…
also i thought this was a very interesting article. i really liked the wilson clip. i read his stuff in college too, but i never saw whatever that clip came from.
“I didn’t bother to read your hate speech regarding Atheists, the pictures were enough. I am polite enough to not publish articles explaining why I think Christians are full of it. ”
Well, commenting on an article you didn’t read is typical of a phony.
even more phony is you “politeness”.
I didn’t bother to read your comment regarding the article; the first sentence was enough.
>>”This is supposedly a country founded upon religious tolerance. That requires people to, you know, tolerate the beliefs of others.”
It doesn’t require people to, you know, agree with the beliefs of others or refrain from criticizing a belief one considers incorrect. Just where, exactly, did the author fail to meet the “test” of tolerance?
And the reaction is instant! Atheists and Paulists must have a special tracking algorithm that lets them hunt down any hint of disapproval on the web. The original Attack Watch? As for Tolerance, the New Atheist seems determined to remove religion from any position of influence in the modern world- does that sound like tolerance? I’m not quite sure where I fall in the Venn diagram of agnosticism, but I know that religion has been a constant throughout history and the atheists are backing a weak horse.
Actually, my special algorithm is my subscription to PJ Media.
This article sure does go out of its way to pigeonhole agnostic-atheists into a neat set of grossly caricatured boxes, doesn’t it? Most of the agnostic-atheists I know, which is only about a dozen but still, hold something approximating the following positions, as do I:
1. God could exist, but I have no specific reason to accept that as fact.
2. God could not exist, but I have no specific reason to accept that as fact.
3. I would be very interested to know which is the case, and I think about it frequently.
4. If God does exist, I don’t expect to find an accurate description of Him in any single ancient text.
Note the lack of contempt toward Christians or any other theists. They could be absolutely right for all we know. And neither I nor most of the agnostic-atheists I know take issue with persons in the public sphere allowing their faith to guide them in regards to the policies they support; it would be unreasonable to expect otherwise. No single church body should have an institutionalized place in government, but people have to follow what they believe, or else they’re hypocrites. I don’t agree with a lot of what Rick Santorum believes, but I respect him for sticking to those beliefs. If elected, I expect he will follow those beliefs, as is his right. I will opt not to vote for him, as is my right. But there will be no contempt behind my decision, only honest disagreement.
“Religious rituals have the power to reprogram us into the people we need to become to life satisfying lives. So where to begin?”
Go back to being an Agnostic-Atheist-Materialist-Scientist and start over.
Expecting rituals to give you character that you feel you do not have because your faith is lacking will just make you a hypocrite.
While the world is certainly full of enough hypocrites who will welcome another one, and many hypocrites are good enough to fool otherwise honest people into believing they are sincere, it will remain that you are not acting out of faith, but out of a selfish jealousy. You will never be able to perform the rituals with true understanding and committment, you will only be able to imitate them.
Such imitation will never give you faith, character, or a better life. You will remain empty, your behavior prescribed not by a conscious choice and exercise of free will, but a mere Pavlovian response to rituals whose true meaning you prevent yourself from ever understanding.
To paraphrase Yoda, just because your mockery of Star Wars deserves it:
“Believe or do not, there is no try.”
Either accept an established faith completely and then move on to the rituals, or go back to being an rabit atheist.
If no established religion really does it for you, then you can try Shepherd Book:
“I don’t care what you believe, as long as you believe in something.”
You still have to start with belief though, and let the rituals take care of themselves.
bass-ackwards. Good behavior, including ritual, improves behavior and eventually improves understanding. No matter how hypocritical you feel, do it anyway. It’s the same with saying “good morning” to the bus driver, opening a door for a woman, or frying eggs. Do it til you get better at it, then do it some more. If there is a spiritual side to it, you will find it.
I don’t meditate but the only book I ever read and tried to follow about it began with – paraphrasing – do it, but don’t judge how you do it.
Or you become enamored of the ritual, and come to believe that alone makes you worthy, while remaining completely ignorant of the meaning, and so never truly embracing the spirit.
If you do not believe that ritualized, carefully choreographed behaviors will result in changed beliefs, then you know nothing about the basis of military training.
“Kick ‘em in the ass, and soon their hearts and minds will follow.”
Not for everyone, of course. Those who can’t transform physically, mentally and morally into the military role, we call unsuited to military service and we administratively discharge them.
And what do you wind up calling those unsuited for a religious transformation?
I guess that makes you a #1 or #2. How sad, but there is room to evolve.
“Religious rituals have the power to reprogram us into the people we need to become to live satisfying lives. So where to begin?” I am witnessing this first hand within my own family; watching an addict be transformed from someone with no hope, to seeing life as worth living, and full of possibilities.
How you interpret this as “intolerant” is beyond me. The rest is just David’s opinion, and an amusing (tongue in cheek) one at that.
I won’t say “intolerant”. But I will say “insulting” and “unfair”. I know it is snark. I know it is tongue in cheek. But it is tasteless, immature and hurtful. He is not laughing with me…he’s laughing AT me.
Old Guy,
My kids used to say “epic fail” but I think that phrase has fallen into disuse. I can think of a few books in which the pictures tell the story well even if you don’t read the words, but they’re children’s books: “Where the Wild Things Are”, “The Invention of Hugo Cabret”, maybe “Guess How Much I Love You” (which summarizes Christianity well if you think of the father nutbrown hare as God the Father).
Was this article the result of a contest to see who could most perfectly act out liberal stereotypes about conservatives being religion-drunk idiots blood-mad against science and incapable of connected reasoning? Because that’s about all it accomplishes.
I mean, really. It’s 2012 and the writer is still dragging around that shibboleth about atheism implying nihilism. This reveals profound ignorance of history and comparative religious scholarship, also that the author has his head so far up his rectum he’s licking his own tonsils. See If God is dead, is anything permissible? for discussion.
Objectivism? Really? Objectivism really merits consideration alongside The Catholic Church and the traditions of the Jews? Is objectivism even theistic?
Of course there’s meaning in life. I live for the good of my family in this life, in real time. The actions are exactly the same as you would perform expecting everlasting rewards.
So, why wouldn’t one become a nihilist and go on a crime rampage if one isn’t worried about going to hell?
There’s hell after you die and then there’s hell on earth. Prison, shame, familial loss and dissappointment, loss of reputation, the fact that crime and bad deeds are self-evidently bad for the comfort and happiness and healthy mental state of oneself, family and society at large. Who would want to live in and be responsible for a shitty world? In the here and now? How effin’ miserable would that be? Who gets off on raping and stealing? Seriously, ” Duh! ”
Self-respect, the intellectual integrity to not be a flaming hypocrite and the golden rule all serve to keep one from even contemplating a bad life. Not just fear of missing out on heaven.
Claire, O Claire,
Your posts so rare,
Your thoughts so clear,
Your name so fair.
well, why not try CSLewis? I think The Screwtape Letters are about the funniest thing I’ve ever read. There’s more, of course.
Lewis talks about religious practice in ways that make sense to me. We’re about the same age, I think, and I think we’re both from the same neck of the woods- evangelical, right-wing, fundy wanderings.
Why not try visiting the different churches around you? To see if you can catch the tune they are humming? It’s not just denominations or papers to consent to- it’s relationships with particular people in a particular congregation. kathleen norris goes over this a bit. I thought she was something of an oddball, until we’d been at this one church for a few years. It’s true- you do sort of bump into line, bit by bit, without trying or noticing.
Or, if it’s a mainline church of some sort, while you’re looking, read over their best preachers’ publications- so you can see the upside, or look at their catechism. We’re in an odd place, in that I agree with the catechism of the church we attend- it’s “more true” to me- even though there’s an interim pastor who sends me around the bend with his total lameness of preaching. But- he’s going. And there’s a call committee- and it’s the oddest thing in the world- I know enough about a few of the people on the committee that I’m not worried very much- I trust that they’ll find a pastor that’s okay. And I don’t really trust anybody ever, about anything. That level of “wait and see” and “it might be okay” has taken most of the past decade to even approximate.
There are, for example, perfectly brilliant writers where I can’t go that next step: the popes, for instance. I accept that at some point I might end up there, but I’m not there now. Or, say Thomas Keller- him, I will listen to- but that’s not the church that “hums” right, if that makes sense- I wouldn’t be able to “hear” everything?
I don’t know where you’ll end up, but those are a few of the guides I’ve had to use. I hope they are of use to you.
One caveat about church-shopping: Catholic churches come in all flavors. There are “almost-Episcopalian” New-Agey ones, very traditional ones with Latin Masses and half the women in veils; there are lots in between and there are different “rites” (Anglican, Eastern, Ruthenian, etc). If it’s specific rituals he wants, he won’t get the idea from a Catholic Church chosen at random.
Oh, and I don’t know what I was thinking when I emailed you last night, David; I meant Chesterton’s “Everlasting Man”, not “Orthodoxy”. And ari’s CS Lewis suggestion is a good one. To understand that Sarah Palin was making fun of the interviewer when she mentioned liking Lewis’ books, read “Abolition of Man”. She was calling liberals “men without chests”
yeah, try them in different flavors of the same brand. we attend a lutheran church. it’s not a perfect fit for either of us grownups. I feel for my husband- he grew up really depressed fundamentalist- the sermon each sunday was “ten ways you, yeah you right there, are going to hell.” this church is so nice and bubbly, he’s afraid it’s air-headed Valley Girl. there are four big methodist churches in town, and they are all radically different in tone and feel, and congregation composition.
My dad insists on going to church here when he comes to town. He attends a methodist church where he lives. he spent from age 16 to 61 absolutely loathing the church- he collected accounts of ‘bad christians,’ starting in latin, for the 2000 years it’s been around, plus all the haters’ books. Apparently, a good church can satisfy even an angry agnostic’s itch. I still don’t know what changed for him, or why. I know one little bit- a communion at the altar rail, when #1 son was acolyting…he’s told me a little bit– but I don’t think I’m getting more than a little bit of the story. That’s a half-century of really insistent proselytizing for the angry contemptuous dismissal of the frauds and fools that populate the church. He’s almost embarassed now, to admit to attending church. He brings me the weekly bulletin when he visits, as if to show he’s serious. I don’t understand- but something happened in a church service, that didn’t happen in a reading of books in his house.
I think it’s wrong on some points, but I’m interested in seeing how they work out their wrong bits- I mean, honestly- John on Patmos started raving about all the imperfections of all these different churches in Revelations- they were doing their imperfect, human best while he was seeing things, sitting on this rock. I have questions about what sort of church he’d run. People are imperfect. It’s just- they are imperfect in different ways. And it seems like churches sort out folks, so that different folks at different churches are working on different problems. Sort of like a giant symposium on theology. They might as well be working out algebra, and calculus, or literature: they are all learning a bit of the truth, and practicing it- and then sharing what they learned. Different universities or study groups have different things they’ve learned, and turned into ” of course”s. It’s- what can you stand to listen to, what can you learn from, what can you contribute? Who do you respect and love? Can you love and respect one person, and then grow to love others. It’s a practice, not a final.
And, also, practice preceded faith. well, there’s that one minute of faith, and then practice, and then faith continues to grow from there. No one is a giant of wisdom, faith, joy, discernment, hope and love right off the bat. The practice makes the perfect-reaching. So, Mr Swindle is being enough correct in his search- what sort of model does he wish to conform himself to? What model is he even capable of conforming himself to? He could look around at the older people in the congregation. It’s likely what he’ll be as he ages. Habits do sink in.
I mean, I see some amazing people, and I have to admit to myself- I am never going to get up at 5 am and read the bible for an hour in some imaginative fashion. not going to happen. and I grew up free-styling it- read the bible and make sense of it, all by myself. It’s freeing for people who resent having to memorize a catechism. It’s their first chance to speak and imagine honestly and openly, if their catechism teacher was not intellectually and spiritually gentle and open.
I like having a catechism. It feels like I’ve got a wrestling coach helping me jacob it up with the angel. but I’m not confined, necessarily to one preacher’s imagination. it makes sense to me to ask saints for help, every now and then. They are alive in Christ forever, right? So, why wouldn’t my great-grandmother help me with my child- her great-grandchild? I know they church hasn’t canonized her- but I think she’ll hear me.
my kids seem to fit into the lutheran church near seamlessly. the main pastor who founded the church, and who just retired, is pretty open about how it changes them- and that they won’t notice how they’ve been formed until they are a grownup. He’s got three generations raised under his belt. the senior consulting pastor is about ninety, and grew up in the church, and he’s pretty matter of fact about how the kids are shaped, too. The grownups seem pretty terrific, so I don’t know what all is happening with my kids- but they are pretty terrific kids. They don’t have nightmares about hell, like my husband did, and they aren’t depressed or panicking or stressed out about being saved, like I was, so- I don’t know what they do- but it seems to work. they do more volunteer work than I have ever done in my entire life, and they read their bibles, and they pray and they serve at church. They seem pretty confident about the direction their lives will take- not in a brittle “this way or else” but in major outlines- high school with lots of homework and sports, college with lots of math and history- get married, have kids- go around the world…
So- I shrug- who am I to know?
In case it has gone unnoticed, I am under the impression that this article was not written by a ‘religion-drunk idiot blood-mad against science and incapable of connected reasoning’. From what I gathered, the author is an agnostic who has attempted to categorize the types of agnostic. I think anyone who doesn’t fall into the insufferable first categories, who invariably treats criticism of their way of thought with insults and denigration of the critic, will see that the author is reasoned and speaking from experience.
Also, the 6.9 out of 7 thing is lip-service to one of the fundamental scientific ideas. In reality, what is demanded by science is to consider opposing ideas from their point of view. This is something I do not believe Dawkins (or Old Guy, or Eric) have done.
Lastly, I am proud to be religion-drunk, and am certainly blood-mad against the hijacking of science (the study of the observable) as a cover for those who do not want anyone discussing the unobservable; as if science can say anything about what cannot be observed. And if my reasoning seems disconnected… well it must be because I believe in God.
I think Old Guy and Eric are concerned that David is actively interested in maybe not being agnostic any more, and it threatens them that someone might leave atheism/agnosticism/nonbelief. Some people get apoplectic when others reject their worldview.
Having Observation as a criteria for credible science is great, but in that regard, I wonder how you do not accuse all sides then of “hijacking science”, since the Past, Origins, of which can only be speculated on, were not observed. The fact is that a record of what happened is available, coming from a credible witness, and is not negated by observable science.
In a 100-minute debate with Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams…
I was surprised to read those remarks of Dawkins, that such a long term dogmatist would express any reservations (even 1/10th of 1%), about his theory.
The Archbishop has been on my “elevator doesn’t go all the way to the top” list since his remarks a few years ago on the inevitability of Shari’a entwining itself into English common law.
It’s amazing the lengths that professed atheists will go to diss and diminish believers; it would be hard to top their “religious” fanaticism in that area. (One might be led to conclude there is something bigger going on than simply a difference of opinion)
Placing the entire sweep of Earth history into a year, it may be arrogant for an organism who appeared 1 second before midnight on December 31st (i.e., “man”)to insist on any fixed explanation of his own and his Earth’s origins.
Big Robert Anton Wilson fan here and I agree with your conclusions. Skepticism is fine but if you want to get wet, you have to get in the water.
also- are you only listening to the preaching? It’s possible the music will be persuasive to your soul.
Orthodox churches have substantial bass-lines for male singers in their hymns. That’s been mentioned by Frederika Matthews (?)- corner of east and now.
Church of Christ Conservative has only singing, no instruments. this can be reedy, or really amazing. they practice four-part harmony, in some churches. it’s kind of intense hearing this sound from frumpy, depressed little old people cutting loose.
Lutherans- it’s a big deal when a Lutheran church gets its giant organ built into the building. The whole place thrums when the organist gets going. Lutherans in the form of Germans and Swedes have been climbing all over Africa for over 100 years. They have native churches there, with hymn-writers. Yetu, yetu Mbene is the opening song on the latest Civilization game disc. That’s a Lutheran hymn. They are in other corners of the globe, too, with other hymn-writers. It’s possible to take a tour of the world, sonically, without leaving Lutheran orthodoxy. It’s one thing I truly love about this church- it’s matter- of fact everywhereness.
The Methodists have Wesley’s many, many, many British hymns. the words fit to the music, which they don’t, always, in translation. they are easy and joyful to sing. they have a rightness. it’s hard to explain.
Episcopalians- no clue. they have the book of common prayer, which seems to ground all sorts of people that you wouldn’t expect. I expect the hymns to be british common, or the background in movies? I don’t know, I really do not know.
Catholics- ymmv depending on congregation. they are, however, the foundation of western music. they will sound like home to anyone with a half- decent formal liberal arts education. home is a pretty profound place to be. Mozart was a house composer for a church. most composers prior to romanticism were, I think. I’m not up on that- Roger Kimball would know. If beauty is persuasive….oh- the neville family- aaron neville, and so on- in the choir at a catholic church in new orleans. I want to say Harry Connick, jr, as well.and his dad. so- jazz- carnival music around the world- haitian music- french music prior to the revolution- serious operas, even today–
Ymmv, indeed! I’ve heard “Panis Angelicus” at a Mass, and I’ve heard “All Are Welcome”. Never at the same Mass, not at the same church. Both songs reduce me to tears but for entirely different reasons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esrinHesolk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYYOzLzZX6E&feature=related
Tears both times, right?
thank you.
Lao Tzu said “The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.”
Spiritual practice and understanding are very personal matters and attempts to formalize those things intellectually invariably leads to trouble. Hence the bloody history of religious wars. As long a people try to define God, list his personality, his attributes, his desires and preferences, they are going to come up against other people who see Him differently. Now we get to classifying people according to what amount of knowing or unknowing they profess. Oi vey! I have no problem with people feeling in tune with one religious tradition or another, but at some point silence must prevail.
Better to follow the lead of the Taoists and Zen Buddhists and remain quiet in the face of the unknowable.
Bravo! Well said!
Those that really seek to understand should concentrate on looking within themselves and, as you quote, “remain quiet in the face of the unknowable”. The most difficult part of any ‘faith’ is to live with oneself, not to be able to quote chapter and verse (whatever that may be). Be an honorable, virtuous person that works hard for your family, community and country. Find hypocrisy in ones’ self and remedy that on a personal level. The pure teachings of most religions are beautiful (Jesus said: “Love one another.”) but most Christians think they have to have the infrastructure of their religion to put it into practice. It’s hardest for an agnostic who ‘just doesn’t know’ to live up to the ‘spirit of the law if not the letter of the law’.
Ultimately, a persons spiritual beliefs are the most intimate and private ones in their life, and should be kept that way. How I choose to interact with the infinite is my concern, and my concern only.
Oh, God…I can’t get Jimmy Buffett’s I Don’t Know And I Don’t Care out of my head now…thanks…one of his stupider songs…
Coming out of a very strict, conservative religious background, I’m happier staying firmly planted in the agnostic theist camp. I’m not looking to move out of it anymore. ‘Tis where I belong.
If it’s clarity that you are looking for, you won’t find it in the Venn diagram.
Whoever drew it, doesn’t understand the difference between “doesn’t believe in God(s)” and “believes there is/are no God(s)”; which is the entire difference between agnosticism and atheism.
Also, the diagram makes no distinction between “doesn’t claim proof exists” and “claims proof cannot exist”. Though we have to go into details here: clearly, there cannot be proof that God does not exist, but perhaps there can be proof that God exists. There is an asymmetry between verification and falsification.
Dawkins opens a can of worms by bringing probabilities into the debate: can we talk sensibly about probabilities when no empirical evidence is forthcoming? (I think not.) And what about Pascal’s wager?
Eric Raymond has already hinted at the logical flaw in assuming that the “logical” conclusion of the Agnostic-Atheist-Materialist-Scientist “must” be nihilism; but in fact, an appeal to Hume should be sufficient: an “is” is not an “ought”. The existence or non-existence of God are matters of fact, and you cannot deduce anything about values from matters of fact.
And anyway, just because you may do anything, it doesn’t mean that you want to do it.
Also, there’s a difference between “proof that (the theistic) God contingently does not exist in this universe” and “proof that God cannot exist in any possible universe”. Which is relevant, because the second claim, though much stronger, is actually easier to prove. All that’s required is to show that the attributes ascribed to a theistic God are mutually contradictory, putting It in the same ontological category as a square circle. Now go look up “theodicy” and connect the dots…
We can reasonably speak of probabilities about unique and unobserved events if we are regarding them as predictions of the probability of consequent observations in the future. There are some technical problems here but nothing fundamental.
I’m going to disagree about the last point, though. Not only was Hume wrong, he got it backwards. Not only can you deduce an “ought” from an “is”, you have to – otherwise ethics and morality cannot be connected to any observations in this universe. Sam Harris has developed this critique in detail (though in language very different from mine) in his book The Moral Lansdcape, which I reviewed here.
My review link got eaten. Trying again:
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2628
What constitutes proof of God’s being or not being? The fact is there is no way to say that every stitch, or any individual part of physical reality, and concious reality is not evidence for God (arguing against this is arguing from ignorance), but on the other hand it is impossible to say anything in those classes can be evidence for the non-existence of God (since, hypothetically, it would be possible for a Creator God to make everything and hideout until that Creation peeters out – and since that Creator did in truth exist it invalidates a human’s perspective to deny said Creator’s existence). And that is significant, because this logic construct has an inherent bias that favors those who choose to believe, though it does not stipulate anything about their being right or wrong (read: true or false) for doing so, (which is interesting if one believes God has an interest in the Faithful of Humanity).
Existence is such that one cannot empirically prove one way or the other concerning God’s own [sic] existence. One could say that this is how it would be if God did exist, and not how it would be if God didn’t exist. That is just more reasonable speculation in favor of Faith, since it is purely metaphysical.(And more so, would not a transcendant being be obfuscated and even negated if such a being was not master of its own creation, that could not stop itself from being found out if it wanted to hide?)
One could say that the fundamental laws of Logic inherently favor Faith, since that door remains open to the Faithful by default. That is to say, Experiential existence itself defaults to not deny nor afirm God’s existence. And if Non-Existence could exist (yes, a paradox) it would default the opposite way – it would say nothing about God.
The fact that we can use logic and reason is the conscious aspect of evidence for a believer – for, why should things work, when they could easily enough not, and when it is so difficult to get things to work why should we believe it is accidental? Therefore, Common-Sense also favors the Faithful.
To illustrate this better: if one were to say, “this hammer in my hand is proof that God does not exist” we can Logically say that it is not possible for that premise to be valid in any human experience(per my hypothetical above); conversely, if one were to say, “this hammer in my hand is proof that God does exist”, as absurd as the claim may be, the premise’s validity cannot be said to be possible or impossible, because of the lack of knowledge. I don’t know if you have ever studied Logic, but it is possible to apply a Truth Table to this and see the logical difference in this observation. In this plausible, and searchable (read: that which is available to a human) Truth table the non-existence of God would have an F, and the existence of God would have a T and an F.
The fallacy of the logical atheistic mind is to assume that God’s existence is a T or an F, AND his non-existence is a T or an F. That is technically a logical standpoint, and is why these “discussions” go round and round. Both sides can take technically logical standpoints and be at odds. But the error of the “strict atheist logician” is mechanically assuming all things T or F, or not considering the existential dynamic of God’s self.
More Chesterton:
“It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.”
“All that’s required is to show that the attributes ascribed to a theistic God are mutually contradictory, putting It in the same ontological category as a square circle.”
But that depends on what attributes are ascribed, doesn’t it?
“Now go look up “theodicy” and connect the dots…”
I admit that I had to look it up, and that I used wikipedia.
If we attribute omnibenevolence, omnipotence, and omniscience to God, then they are not logically incompatible in every possible world: they become incompatible when combined with empirical evidence about our own world. (Though there were intelligent people like Leibniz who thought otherwise.)
But why do we have to attribute omnibenevolence AND omnipotence AND omniscience to God in the first place?
The bit contra Hume requires a separate comment, and I’ll read your review of The Moral Landscape first.
Agnostics shouldn’t write too much about religion; few are as knowledgeable about religion as they believe.
Take it from an ex-atheist.
Anyone who can quantify, qualify, or measure infinity wins the ultimate argument. Since everyone who materially lives must, by lack of proof otherwise, dies, each places their bets and takes their chances.
Go outside and look around you. Look at the moon, the sun and the stars. Consider the seasons, how in springtime everything blooms anew..the beauty of summer and the bounty of fall. Consider how the earth seems to sleep in winter, awaiting the new birth of spring once again. Forgetting the miracle of our own bodies, our senses, our brain…How can you not believe in God?
The solution is simple—as much a you’ve tried to complicate it: There’s a difference between a person not believing in God, and one who says God doesn’t exist—but both are atheists.
Check out http://www.reasonstobelieve.org begun by an ex-agnostic physicist. Super site.
“So we can call Dawkins an “agnostic-atheist” now”
That’s no change on what he’s previously said. He’s always been 6.9 out of seven, for the simple reason that you can’t PROVE there’s no god. It just so happens that there’s no evidence that there is one. To use bertrand russell’s example, it’s possible that there is, right now, a teapot orbiting the earth out in space. We have no way of know about it, but it might be there. Nobody can say for sure that it ISN’T there, but there’s no evidence to say that it is there. So we’re all 6.9/7.0 as far as that teapot goes.
Dawkin also likes to point out that we can’t know for sure that zeus doesn’t exist. It’s just that nobody thinks he does, so we’re all zeus atheists.
Well, there’s naming the god, and there’s worshipping that deities attributes. If we take Zeus as the all-encompassing state, I’d say there are lots of people still worshipping the Dyaus Pitar. Add in, with O’care, and regulating medicinal drugs, and publishing guidelines on how many c-sections a hospital “ought” to perform- that Zeus is less- boundaried than the original one. The original one let Asclepius do his thing, Hera deal with childbirth, a few others dispensed morphine- laced wine– right now, that’s all under the state regs.
Rappers pour the first drink for “their homies” about like a Greek warrior pouring the libations for fallen comrades.
The state required that Terri Schiavo undergo the “immensa”- starving to death like a Cathar. A Canadian hospice just published a guide for nurses starving infants to death- it turns out- it upsets the nurses- the poor children can take over 30 days to wither and die. The Catholic Church wiped out the Cathars, and yet their horrifying practices are being revived. Marcionites sound like any psychotherapeutic patient.
The Columbine killers acted out a perfectly recognizable berserker massacre.
Abortion- like we’ve talked about before- occurs on the scale of a 9-11 death-rate, daily. The implicit promise is that the woman exchanges this infant for an education ( a dowry of sorts) or a job, or material advancement. That’s the same set of reasons the phoenicians burned up their infants, as well- material advancement.
Don’t even get me started on Gaia and environmentalism.
Throw in- Occupy was supposed to sacrifice global capitalism on the altar of Media Matter’s founders’ mother’s birthday? Why not Mary’s birthday? It’s a saint’s day, of a different religion.
Or read Obama’s sister’s kids book. O’s mother is a moon/death goddess? and then he writes a book about “dreams” as well? Is he Daniel, part two?
I was going to write a comment here, but I think this article is inappropriately prejudiced and unnecessarily hostile. So, instead, I’m writing a letter to ask for this to be taken down.
lol! Way to satirize the intolerance of the atheists! I think you’re so over the top that you’ll end up offending the mature atheists, though.
My favorite game is to note to self-proclaimed agnostics that “agnostic” is literally Greek for “ignorant.”
The Greek “agnostos” means “to not know”, is which fundamentally distinct from ignorant.
Ignorant means “lacking knowledge”. Looks pretty similar to me. Many people think “ignorant” is a synonym for “stupid” but it isn’t.
As far as taking the Bible for its literal meaning, meaning reading it within the contexts that the author has written (that is, Genesis is historical narrative, Psalms is a book containing prayers sometimes using literal messages and figurative, poetry; records, Etc.) there is much credibility to this approach. The fact is that the Bible is a narrative starting from the Creation, as it were, so therefore we can navigate through its discourse of events, put it together and see if it works (even, and of course, with an eye on archaeology, science, and Logic). At the same time, mind you, is the consideration that if such a God of the Bible (in this straight-forward reading approach) exists would he be willing and able to provide His Word to the world, right in front of our noses, as it were. So, we begin with the Bible in an exercise in logic and reason where we accept its fundamental premises as axioms (such as Creation week, God intervening in Human events i.e. miracles, etc).
As for myself I find that the Bible’s narrative is sound. That it does not contradict what is truly factual about this world (yes, that includes the science bound world), and that the only thing that stands in the way of this plain reading and Understanding is the biases and popularly held truths of the world. Now, to that tangent consideration, basically, is it in this God of Grace’s character to have all along gave us His Word, the Truth, while we were yet apart, yet sinners, yet unbelievers? I believe so, and it seems so intuitive in this respect, and to me at this point, that it truly makes me feel that people who do not see this simply do not know God’s character, and thus, do not know God. Sorry to say, but this is when I (from a man’s perspective) will appear to be polarizing, because I verily DO draw a line in the sand. Because My Lord has said, on the short, Only the Father reveals the Son, and only the Son reveals the Father. That is to say, anyone who doesn’t know Christ doesn’t know God, and anyone who doesn’t know God doesn’t know Christ.
If you are already a little bit familiar with the Gospels, you should read “Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff” by Christopher Moore. A raging laugh riot that actually, in spite of Moore’s agnosticism, does a great job humanizing Jesus for a 20-21st century person.
I love Christopher Moore, and I love that book — actually, it is that book that saved me, so to speak, from atheism. Plus Coyote Blue and Lust Lizard of Melancholy Cove, which are my two favorite Moore books.
I wonder if Dawkins is also uncertain whether he, himself, exists.
As a matter of fact, there is a branch of psychology studying how the human brain constructs a narrative of personal identity, out of what is a set of at least 2 (left+right hemispheres) interacting, but distinct, agents.
I consider myself a non denominational christian, but I am still exploring my faith. I’ve always beleived that most sects of christianity are bastardizations of the teachings of Christ (no offense to chistians of any demonination) Ive been spending years trying to find the perfect fit for my interpretation of the scriptures, but have come grudgingly to the conclusion that I may have to accept I really don’t fit with any particular christian denomination. I used to be a hard line atheist, and would take pleasure in arguing with christians, so I do understand where this article is coming from. Mine wasn’t a neccesity to inflate my ego, but a bitternesst towards percieved wrongs. It took some maturity to realize that it wasn’t Christ and his teachings that were the problem, but the people who had wronged me in particular, and their immaturity. In reponse I just doubled down on the immaturity. I have a number of agnostic or athiest friends and most but not all harbor some hostility towards christianity in particular. I prefer athiests to Wiccan though. I have literally never met a Wiccan that I though actually believed in the Mother Goddess or whatever. Wiccan is right up there with Jedi as a religion.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. As you make your journey through faith, though, I would offer one comment. Yes, I realize that some things Christians say seem harsh and unreasonable. It’s hard, or impossible for the “young” in faith to reconcile these things with the prevailing attitudes of the world. As you delve deeper you will have to come to grips with the understanding that God’s holiness demands sacrifice of our fleshly desires and self-centeredness. Dying daily is not an easy thing to accept. I apologize for Christians who hurt you. They may not even have been real followers of Christ. (Know them by their fruits) But to understand God is to understand that He is a consuming fire. To follow Jesus is to have your inner self pulverized like rock. And that’s not comfortable, but it is right.
you know, the lunatic idealists were peter and paul? and they hated each other?
It’s fair to struggle with the church. It’s the most human enterprise out there- it’s got every failing, in spades, in bouquets, in order, in everything. It’s all of us. All the indictments are true. Which is kind of beautiful- it takes a lot of honesty to let each failing and weakness come to light- to confess it at all. Right now, auditors in truth and reconciliation commissions from the UN are having to piece together what happened from destroyed or buried or burned documents from failed, brutal regimes.
If you think about it- we know St Augustine’s failings b/c he told us what he knew of them. He wrote them down. We can add in whatever else we like, b/c he was struggling to be transparently honest as possible. He’s alive and visible to us, 1400 years later ( I’m fuzzy on time- he seems contemporary to me) in ways that our next- door neighbors are not. Or, for instance- Mao’s failings are all documented by others, but not himself. We only have second-hand evidence about him. Or Hitler, or anybody else, really.
And the church gallumphs along, trying, each person, to be part of this odd, transcendant vision. And at some points, the transcendant shows up. People go an extra step, one they hadn’t counted on, one they hadn’t expected. That’s pretty nuts. We add them up, we remember them, they don’t make sense, particularly. Like, St Thomas Aquinas- wrote books, served mass, prayed, studied, learned, and then had one vision- one moment- where the transcendant flat touched him. And we still remember that, ages later. Or Moses- who was minding his own business- and he kept getting bumped. That was what- 6000 years ago, and we still repeat what happened each year word for word? That’s pretty amazing, you must admit.
What I like is- it’s not dependent at every moment on some great ferris wheel. Jesus healed ten lepers. Nine went home and still had pretty good lives- they were back in community, back home, able to hug their mothers, make love to their wives, go work in the fields, listen to music, play instruments, read books, play ball with their kids. 9 out of 10 had really good lives. One out of ten went the extra mile. Church leaders get excited about that last guy- but I get excited about the every day nine. It’s a good life, even without transcendant visions.
I think hoping for a nine life is pretty worthwhile, instead of insisting on that tenth. God will give you that tenth, because all good things come to those who seek God, and God is generous. But- still- and– that nine parts is pretty terrific. I think that’s the nine parts that Mr Swindle is most curious about.
Which is a long way round- God likes and can use- your outrage, your passion for decency and perfectionism- your sense that things ought to be better. god can use everything you give him. when I ran sunday school, we’d have weeks where the offerings where everything whiney and sad- why not? the psalms have whiney, angry psalms in them. the kids would be so relieved- god wanted all of them, not just their best behavior.
I think you threw a clunker in there somewhere. It’s common for religious people to believe that athiests and agnostics “can be evil” because they have no moral code. This implies, however, that morality can only be based on religious belief – that the only morality that counts is one handed down by a supernatural power. Personally, I have no problem obeying the law or observing rules of basic courtesy, both of which were created by human beings; no supernatural authority is required. A human-created morality may be different from yours, but that only proves that it’s different, not that it doesn’t exist or that it can’t exist.
On the other hand, it does require a belief in a beneficent supernatural authority to assert that courtesy is to be preferred over incivility.
Peter: I find myself agreeing with Rich. As one who grew up in the Roman Catholic faith who then became a “disbeliever” when studying biology and evolution in college, I held –and still hold — that one can live a moral, honest life without referring to a religious code.
While it is true that most Western law is based on the 10 commandments and other religious tenants, it is also true that even without this religious connection, Moses’ laws — at least most of them — make perfect sense as a way for humans to live together in harmony. One doesn’t need to be a theist to know that stealing, adultery, homicide, etc. are harmful to society and thus, as a member of society, harmful to one’s self.
Now that I am older, and hopefully wiser, I am beginning to come full circle and now I am questioning my atheistic positions. Much of this has to do with envy. Increasingly, I find myself envious of those who have found internal harmony in their religious beliefs. With truly religious people, I see a form of fellowship that I lack in my life. I would like some of that.
Yet, I have found it hard to embrace a belief in a creator — or creative force — that can’t be seen, can’t be measured, that can’t be squared with what we know of science.
And it was in this muddled quandary that I, personally, came to the realization that it all rests on one word: “faith”. To me, it is as simple as that. I have a choice. I can reject faith in an entity that I can’t see, I can’t smell, I can’t taste, I can’t weigh and I can’t, in any way, subject to any of my senses.
Or, I can take that leap and just accept that as an imperfect creature, I can’t know everything. There are some things that I just have to accept on faith and faith alone. And the more you think about it, the more you realize that one accepts many things in life on faith, and only faith.
For example, I accept the premise that the sun will rise again in the morning. There is no way I can know for certain this will happen. It is possible that the sun will flare out at any time. No one, no scientist no philosopher, no one, can dispute that. But I have to live my life on the basis that the sun has another billion years or so to go. I accept that spring will follow winter. That the oceans will not dry up.
If I can accept these things — things that I can never prove — then perhaps I can accept that there is a mind behind it all and that I am part of that mind and therefore, of some value to the cosmos in which I live.
Of course, I could be wrong. If so, so what? Sooner or later the life force in my body will fade and there will be a nothing. But if I am right in re-embracing faith, think of the potential reward. If this faith gives me inner harmony, well, that is enough.
Dave,
Your second paragraph can also describe a more mature understanding of the Christian God: Our Father, who loves us perfectly, describes for us what sort of behavior toward ourselves and others will give us the most happiness (as opposed to pleasure) and the more of us behave this way, the better our culture will be. He created us this way.
I wonder if you left also because people who called themselves Christians didn’t behave very Christian?
“Just going to church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than standing in your garage makes you a car.”
― G.K. Chesterton
Under heavy fire from the trials of life, particularly among populations when law is capricious, or encountering some manifest evil on display, civility evaporates no matter how “good” a person thinks himself to be.
The only reason why atheists can live and speak as they do is because they live among people who, for the most part, believe in G-d and try to live lives that reflect their faith.
I don’t care if a person wants to be an athesist; get on with it. Why keep arguing the point when you’re able to do pretty much as you please, with whom you please, anytime you please? How is someone’s Christianity a stumbling block for anyone else not Christian?
Our freedoms exist because of men who were mostly Believers, freedoms that atheists revel in, but would refuse (if they could) to any nonpractitioner of their own particular, overly zealous religion of ‘no-god.’ I was raised by atheists; believe me, it is a ‘faith.’ Just not a faith in G-d.
I think many atheists struggle with doubts; there aren’t enough people around to assure them that there really is no hell, until it’s too late to change ones mind about it. My atheist father died weeping; my atheist mother was saved on a deathbed of cancer, her face lit up with a huge smile when she accepted Christ as her Savior. Is that proof enough?
Not to anyone determined to submit to no god but themselves, it isn’t.
yeah- me, too. related to the founders of the atheist society in town. plus the vastly bitter, angry dad. christianity is the far, exotic country. i weird people out when I point out that a cross is a tiny instrument of torture dolled up as jewelry, and that it still creeps me out to wear one, occasionally. just- some of them are so pretty.
still not sure what happened to the dad, to get him to go to church.
and the atheist society in town? met on sunday morning, to talk about why they hated going to church. it was ridiculous.
and the pagans? didn’t know that all sorts of denominations had admitted women to the pastorate. Unreal how clueless they were. or that their little positions? had been explored, fully, to the limits, in seminaries, decades earlier. no brio- no strength, just fear and bitterness. It was kind of funny, eventually.
the abseiling of harvard chapel happened in the seventies…
I think the funniest was the atheist who prayed to God before surgery, and then prayed after surgery ” sorry for bothering you. thank you for getting me through. I still don’t believe in you, though.” Fabulous. Hilarious. Painful. sweet guy, though.
Leave it to a guy named Swindle to say that honest people are the worst. Remember folks, this is the true aim of all organised religion, to make people afraid to doubt those who claim to talk for God. :: ))
Why should we care what any of them thinks?
My issue with Dawkins and the other shrills in our society on this subject and most others is that they really just want ratification for their beliefs and try to bully other into silence is not assent.
The part I enjoy is when they accuse others of not following standards that they themselves hold in contempt, and want a gracious acceptance and tolerance which they do not accord others.
The religious fail to not that belief, can be merely an act of will and atheism is just the same in that regard. Sort of “I believe because that is the fashion” no matter the content: how are atheists different from that?
Another issue is trust or rather what you believe and act upon relating to the perception of the nature of things as they are. Myself, I believe that my actions are on my own head, so don’t come sniveling to me for approval. If you have to do that you are not worth my time.
Not the question of either proof of existence or non existence of a supreme being is important .. but whether the human nature or man surrounding nature is finite or infinite, is important
Atheists seem to me to be as religious as the religous, only it is atheism plus other things. A tiny number I have encountered has seemed to be actual atheists as they seem not to have the wiring for it. They do not have the capacity to get it. In music terms, it is like they cannot carry a tune or have a sense of rhythm. The other atheists are just marching to a different drummer.
The number of deductive reasoning elements in an atheist’s configuration is about the same as in a religious person.
To what PatC said, comparing UFO Mythology to Religion is disingenuous. You could actually prove the existence of UFO’s or their occupants by the scientific method. Some say we already have.
The same could not be said for JHVH or any other deity.
Also the conceit that religion is required for morality is a product of modern Universalism. In a system with strong families and a strong sense of belonging to a kin or a people rather than an amorphous mass of “consumers” or “citizens” moral behavior at least to your own kinsmen is default and requires no faith to back it up.
Such custom and folk rules are the actual basis for morality.
However systems where you jam dozens of incompatible peoples into some kind of one size fits all framework such as an empire, a nation state with a poor sense of national identity or a nation of consumers, religions becomes the only social glue.
The key then is not to restore religion to the foremost, the danger of that are quite obvious but to embrace folkishness and a much looser sense of national custom . So long as the system is generally fair and limits entry into a given area to new people with reasonably compatible customs (i.e strict immigration limits) you’ll have peace.
This provides enough glue to keep internecine warfare away and enough actual freedom to be governed by ones own custom and people. Such a system will clearly have to be bigger than the old Articles of Confederation days but smaller than the Empire we have now. Getting it rightsized is of course a tricky prospect but done with care is an actual solution.
However I can’t see many of the nation states allowing it , granted Canada did with its First Nations and its possible the UK will with Scotland should they choose this path but more State and Local rights fly in the face of the desire for power, wealth and status of so many in DC and in the corporations.
You say that moral behavior to your kinsmen is default. I say that natural law, ingrained within us by a loving God, impels us to love our neighbors as ourselves. You have it almost right:the basis of [good] custom and folk rules is morality, which we can discern through various means of revelation.
Pater, Thanks for the reply.
I understand your point but I just don’t accept the idea of a single loving creator , natural law outside of evolution, any kind of universal morality or the idea of presumably divine revelation as accurate ones. They are truthful in the sense people believe them with sincerity for good or ill but they are not accurate in the “exist outside of belief” sense.
Beyond that I am afraid that our world views are too different to make much more conversation possible.
Faith is a gift from God an is for the asking. Faith is nothing that you are entitle to. If through out our life we refuse the generosity of the Giver, then how at the end of the journey Science can possible help us? Faith goes as simple as this. Seek and you will find, Knock and it will be open to you, then the Father of all will surely Answer us. Try, friends there is nothing to loose in here.
God? No case to answer!
The Revelation says there is a great whore in the city of 7 hills.
Lo and behold, there is. Most commentators place the writing of
the Revelation at around 90AD, well before the Vatican existed.
This visible and verifiable fulfillment is God-given evidence
confirming the truth of Jesus Christ.
Unless you eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, you shall not have life within you.
Jack Chick is an evil nutjob; you’d do well to stop reading his stuff.
There is a huge amount of evidence for the existence of God and absolutely none for his non-existence
Step One: Laws of Logic
In the introduction page I mentioned ‘logical proof.’ The first step towards the proof that God exists is to determine whether you actually believe that laws of logic exist. Logical proof would be irrelevant to someone who denies that laws of logic exist. An example of a law of logic is the law of non-contradiction. This law states, for instance, that it cannot both be true that my car is in the parking lot and that it is not in the parking lot at the same time, and in the same way.
What do you believe?
Step Two: Laws of Mathematics
The basic operations of arithmetic are addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Laws of mathematics then, are basically descriptions of what happens within these operations (and more complex ones as well) . For example, with the law of addition we know that if you take 4 things and add them to 3 things, you end up with 7 things.
What do you believe?
Step Three: Laws of Science
Laws of science are basically descriptions of what matter does based on repeated observations, and are usually expressed in mathematical equations. An example of a law of science is the law of gravity. Using the law of gravity, we can predict how fast a heavier than air object will fall to the ground given all the factors for the equation.
What do you believe?
Step Four: Absolute Moral Laws
I have seldom heard anyone deny that laws of logic, mathematics, or science exist, but I have often heard people deny the existence of absolute moral laws. Whereas some laws like those that govern science, and mathematics describe reality, and how things do behave, absolute moral laws ‘prescribe’ how humans ought to, or ought not to behave.
Rape, and child molestation, are two examples of absolute moral wrongs.
What do you believe? Step Five: The Nature of Laws (a)
By reaching this page you have acknowledged that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist. Next we will examine what you believe about these laws. Are these laws material, or are they immaterial? In other words, are they made of matter, or are they ‘abstract’ entities? – are they physical or non-physical things?
Step Six: The Nature of Laws (b)
You have acknowledged that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist and that they are not made of matter. The next question is whether you believe they are universal or up to the individual. Does 2 + 2 = 4 only where you are, and only because you say it does, or is this a universal law?
Step Seven: The Nature of Laws (c)
You have acknowledged that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist, that they are not made of matter, and that they are universal. The next question is whether you believe they are changing or unchanging.
The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn’t prove anything.
Note that the proof does not say that professed unbelievers do not prove things. The argument is that you must borrow from the Christian worldview, and a God who makes universal, immaterial, unchanging laws possible in order to prove anything.
This type of logical proof deals with ‘transcendentals’ or ‘necessary starting points,’ and the proof is called a ‘transcendental proof.’ Any contrary view to that God being the necessary starting point for rationality is reduced to absurdity. You have to assume God in order to argue against Him
“I’m using science as a rhetorical device to dupe people into respecting my materialist theology.”
I just think it is a shame that more religious people don’t read dictionaries.
How can one have a fair discussion when one cannot agree on the terminology?
Theology = knowledge about god(s); as Theocracy = ruled by god(s).
A “materialist theology” or an “atheist theology” is an oxymoron.
Secular means: “We don’t run the place to please a single god that more than half of don’t really believe exists anyway, or to make the shamans rich”.
It is not a synonym for atheist. One can believe in a Isis, but not wish to be ruled by a G’ould.
OK, so Mr. Richard Dawkins is a secular biologist, who admits that he doesn’t believe in the existence of a creator, considers religion rather silly, but is willing to concede that, should proof arise, he is willing to reassess the paradigm.
No one who has actually read any of his books was surprised. He has been saying it for years. Why the “duping” crack?
Religious people insist on “respect for their beliefs”, atheists just don’t want you to force your prejudices onto us.
“…atheists just don’t want you to force your prejudices onto us.” Of course, “forcing our prejudices onto you” is the same as “refusing to pay for your asinine forays into hedonism”.
Lighten up. Many fans of J. R. R. Tolkien play in the MMORPG Lord of the Rings on Line. One group of players are members of a Kinship/guild named ‘Not All Who Launder Are Washed.’
Why is there such a firestorm here? Is this not America where we take great pride in our freedoms, most especially the freedom of religion and the freedom of conscience?
I am an atheist! So, shoot me if you think that’s O.K. if I were to do it to you or any other human being for that matter. What keeps most of us chugging along through this experience called life is a dedication to that very fundamental human philosophy, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This likely has Judeo/Christian roots, a fact I’m more than willing to accept.
Don’t disparage the religion of others. Believe what you like and more power to you but do not allow yourself to be convinced that you, because of what you believe, are better than anyone not of your faith. If your religion gives you a sense of peace as you contemplate our ultimate fate and that you will go to a better place to be with those you love for eternity, that’s a beautiful thing. I’m sincerely happy for you and if you wish to be sympathetic regarding my ending up burning in the fires of hell, be my guest. We are all imperfect human beings, always have been and always will be, whether Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, Atheist or Agnostic whatever. Beyond the Golden Rule it’s all smoke and mirrors.
One further point for those convinced that monotheistic religions elevate and improve the quality of life and ennoble the character and lives of those so inclined to believe. Consider, if you will, the case of Islam and I mean consider it in depth, beyond the standard clichés, the adamant, beleaguered cries of victimhood that emanate from Islamic front groups like CAIR, ISNA, MSA, etc, and the inculcated mantra of Islam being “a religion of peace.” If you’re not left with a smidgen of doubt that this is not always the case I suggest you’re either not paying attention or are refusing, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary in this case, that religion, per se brings out the best in those who are the believers.
Believe what you will but follow the Golden Rule. If you don’t like to be characterized as ignorant dupes because you believe in a “ghost” who is at every instance looking after you personally, don’t characterize all Atheists as worthless, egotistical, pseudo intellectual non believers or, to quote Mr. Swindle;
“For the Agnostic-Atheist no power exists greater than his own intellect. Morality and ethics are well and good for the common, stupid man but meaningless in the long run. He’s more advanced than every believer throughout history. Thus, the agnostic-atheist has no check on his own innate arrogance. He is God.”
Is he really convinced of this or is this attitude necessary to convince himself that the opposite is true?
Seems there are a lot of folks on both sides of this argument that think they should have the job.