Michael Battalio's Notes
This series is a continuation of my conversations with an atheist friend of mine. We began with religion and have now moved onto many other things. These are my edited responses from that conversation. The eighth entry concerns the purpose of science in my life and how religion fills in the gaps.
Here is how I view the end of science. Just because I can't understand the soul and heaven and God (if they exist) doesn't mean I can't understand everything else. If we understood the universe except for religion, then I would have to think about the end of science again, fortunately we’ll probably never fully understand the universe. Until then why stop pursuing science just because we one day might understand everything except religion? Just because we can't describe the soul or God now doesn't mean we won't some day get there. I think religion and science can describe the same thing, just in different ways. What I can call creation, you can call evolution and the big bang. One being right doesn't mean the other is wrong. If science, then not religion or if religion, then not science is fallacious, a dichotomy in the most horrid sense. Both can exist simultaneously and not only exist but help on another.
Here is how I view the end of science. Just because I can't understand the soul and heaven and God (if they exist) doesn't mean I can't understand everything else. If we understood the universe except for religion, then I would have to think about the end of science again, fortunately we’ll probably never fully understand the universe. Until then why stop pursuing science just because we one day might understand everything except religion? Just because we can't describe the soul or God now doesn't mean we won't some day get there. I think religion and science can describe the same thing, just in different ways. What I can call creation, you can call evolution and the big bang. One being right doesn't mean the other is wrong. If science, then not religion or if religion, then not science is fallacious, a dichotomy in the most horrid sense. Both can exist simultaneously and not only exist but help on another.
This is part twenty of my “This I Believe” series. I have had trouble over the last several years defining exactly what it is I prescribe to as a worldview. I hope to figure some of what I believe here.
I have one last thing to talk about for now (I’ll start this series back up once I come to more conclusions.): a thought that occurred to me a while ago. All the other times I’ve suffered a lack of faith it has been because I was mad at God for whatever reason, being depressed, loosing a friend, being lonely, etc. Right now though, I’m doing very well. I’m happy, productive, and usually around people I enjoy. So why am I having a hard time now? I think it’s because I’m finally not thinking like a child anymore. I am being very critical of everything that I am exposed to. I can step back and take a logical look at my culture, religion, politics, etc. and not have the influence of adults shade my judgments. And those judgments are very skeptical of religion. To again sum up my worldview:
I have one last thing to talk about for now (I’ll start this series back up once I come to more conclusions.): a thought that occurred to me a while ago. All the other times I’ve suffered a lack of faith it has been because I was mad at God for whatever reason, being depressed, loosing a friend, being lonely, etc. Right now though, I’m doing very well. I’m happy, productive, and usually around people I enjoy. So why am I having a hard time now? I think it’s because I’m finally not thinking like a child anymore. I am being very critical of everything that I am exposed to. I can step back and take a logical look at my culture, religion, politics, etc. and not have the influence of adults shade my judgments. And those judgments are very skeptical of religion. To again sum up my worldview:
1.)God is unreasonable, but because of his nature, God doesn’t have to be reasonable to human beings. No matter how unreasonable God seems, if reason cannot prove without any doubt God does not exist, religion can always claim that God does not have to be reasonable. Also if God does exist, He should not condemn a person to whom He gave logic and reason for logically thinking, as long as they truthfully consider the universe. Good acts can save.
- 2.)We cannot know all evidence in regards to the God question. God can neither be 100% proven nor 100% disproven. Questions will always remain. Reason is not helpful when it comes to religion.
- 3.)There is a small chance God does exist. Regardless of how small this chance is, faith can bridge the gap. Faith is believing when there is no proof. Notice I say no proof. If there is absolute proof God does not exist, faith no longer has a place. Also, faith without some doubt is not really faith. If one believes without any doubt, that is credulousness not faith. God requires faith, not blind following.
This is part nineteen of my “This I Believe” series. I have had trouble over the last several years defining exactly what it is I prescribe to as a worldview. I hope to figure some of what I believe here.
I pose the following question: Why did God stop performing obvious large scale miracles after Jesus? God could have a much larger following if he would just perform a parting of the Red Sea or some other active miracle.
Option one is that God doesn’t exist and the Bible is a myth.
Option two is that God needed the big miracles to start his following, but now that he has that large following, large miracles that interfere in the development of man aren’t necessary. And that He is trying to inspire faith of those who believe (e.g. what point is faith if the object of belief is obvious?)
The point I again want to make is that every time I think up or am presented with an argument against God, religion always finds some sort of loophole around what doesn’t appear to make sense. And that’s all it has to do, simply remind that the possibility exists for divinity, not rebuff an argument against it.
I pose the following question: Why did God stop performing obvious large scale miracles after Jesus? God could have a much larger following if he would just perform a parting of the Red Sea or some other active miracle.
Option one is that God doesn’t exist and the Bible is a myth.
Option two is that God needed the big miracles to start his following, but now that he has that large following, large miracles that interfere in the development of man aren’t necessary. And that He is trying to inspire faith of those who believe (e.g. what point is faith if the object of belief is obvious?)
The point I again want to make is that every time I think up or am presented with an argument against God, religion always finds some sort of loophole around what doesn’t appear to make sense. And that’s all it has to do, simply remind that the possibility exists for divinity, not rebuff an argument against it.
This is part eighteen of my “This I Believe” series. I have had trouble over the last several years defining exactly what it is I prescribe to as a worldview. I hope to figure some of what I believe here.
Here I want to comment on two concepts: faith and hope.
Faith, in the simplest sense I can think of, is believing in something, a thought, a person, a worldview, when you have no proof for the correctness of your belief. Faith also requires knowing that your belief is true regardless of a lack of evidence supporting that belief. I think that faith without doubt is not faith. Faith without some doubt is acceptance.
I am a follower of Kierkegaard in this sense. There will never be sufficient evidence to demand belief, but faith alone will be enough to demand belief. Doubt is the rational part of the brain telling you that what faith demands is nonsense. But by its own nature faith flies in the face of that and is meaningless without the doubt without which it is simply credulousness.
Hope, on the other hand, is wanting something when you have no proof for the correctness of your belief yet also not knowing or being sure how correct that belief is. Hope is wanting but doubting.
Hope is wishing something will happen, but faith is believing something will happen.
To make sense of this I picture an isosceles triangle where the two legs of the triangle are hope and credulousness, and the pinnacle of the triangle is faith. Faith requires some of both hope and credulousness to exist, but faith is not either of those two.
Here I want to comment on two concepts: faith and hope.
Faith, in the simplest sense I can think of, is believing in something, a thought, a person, a worldview, when you have no proof for the correctness of your belief. Faith also requires knowing that your belief is true regardless of a lack of evidence supporting that belief. I think that faith without doubt is not faith. Faith without some doubt is acceptance.
I am a follower of Kierkegaard in this sense. There will never be sufficient evidence to demand belief, but faith alone will be enough to demand belief. Doubt is the rational part of the brain telling you that what faith demands is nonsense. But by its own nature faith flies in the face of that and is meaningless without the doubt without which it is simply credulousness.
Hope, on the other hand, is wanting something when you have no proof for the correctness of your belief yet also not knowing or being sure how correct that belief is. Hope is wanting but doubting.
Hope is wishing something will happen, but faith is believing something will happen.
To make sense of this I picture an isosceles triangle where the two legs of the triangle are hope and credulousness, and the pinnacle of the triangle is faith. Faith requires some of both hope and credulousness to exist, but faith is not either of those two.
This is part seventeen of my “This I Believe” series. I have had trouble over the last several years defining exactly what it is I prescribe to as a worldview. I hope to figure some of what I believe here.
This post poses an interesting question regarding original sin.
Here’s an interesting thought: God created the world in six days. Some time afterward Adam and Eve committed the original sin. From then on, all humans would have original sin that would have had to be cleansed via the Resurrection. If then it only took seven days to create the universe, why not just start over again? God is omniscient. He knew that from the original sin onward that everyone would be tarnished and would suffer. Why go though with the trouble on continuing with a sinful people? (Because He loves us and couldn’t destroy the future of everyone because of two people.) Why then did He let us continue for however long until He gets fed up with us and floods the Earth (the Noah story) and kills every human except for one family, who because of Adam and Eve all still have original sin and will then repopulate the Earth with people who will still have original sin. Why not just stop it from the beginning? Wipe out the universe, start over again. It makes no sense.
The best answer I can come up with is that because of original sin of Adam and Eve, all of His creations (even if He started over) would be stained as well. You can also call Adam and Eve a myth, an explanation of why God felt compelled to give us free will, a reason I find more believable. The problem is, if Adam and Eve is a myth, what else is? Possibly everything.
This post poses an interesting question regarding original sin.
Here’s an interesting thought: God created the world in six days. Some time afterward Adam and Eve committed the original sin. From then on, all humans would have original sin that would have had to be cleansed via the Resurrection. If then it only took seven days to create the universe, why not just start over again? God is omniscient. He knew that from the original sin onward that everyone would be tarnished and would suffer. Why go though with the trouble on continuing with a sinful people? (Because He loves us and couldn’t destroy the future of everyone because of two people.) Why then did He let us continue for however long until He gets fed up with us and floods the Earth (the Noah story) and kills every human except for one family, who because of Adam and Eve all still have original sin and will then repopulate the Earth with people who will still have original sin. Why not just stop it from the beginning? Wipe out the universe, start over again. It makes no sense.
The best answer I can come up with is that because of original sin of Adam and Eve, all of His creations (even if He started over) would be stained as well. You can also call Adam and Eve a myth, an explanation of why God felt compelled to give us free will, a reason I find more believable. The problem is, if Adam and Eve is a myth, what else is? Possibly everything.
After all the name calling, superfluous comments on everything ranging from my psychological state to the Christian thoughts on homosexuality, and approximately 400 posts and comments, the following three quotes sum up what I now consider my world view. I’m sure this will change, but it is what it is right now.
Wesley: “You're realizing you can't win an argument based on reason, so now you're falling back to, ‘Well, I know God doesn't make sense, but that's because God doesn't have to make sense. He's beyond our understanding, so he's immune to reason - he doesn't have to follow the laws of the universe was we know them.’ My answer to this is that if there were a God who made himself logically impossible to us, I'm sure he won't be surprised when people do not believe he exists.”
Anon2: “So Wesley, you don't see any convincing evidence for the existence of God. That does not mean there is no God. Since you cannot know all evidence, it is possible that evidence exists that proves God's existence, or at least supports His existence. Therefore, it is possible that God exists. If it is possible, then faith has its place.”
Wesley: “You say that ‘if it is possible that God exists, then [I] should be an agnostic.’ This is a very common criticism - the response is this: every atheist is infinitesimally agnostic. It is possible that your omnipotent and omniscient God exists, but it is infinitesimally possible. The point is this: there is some point at which an unlikelihood becomes an impossibility. If you are familiar with the mathematical concept of a limit from calculus, then you should understand this.”
These three quotes sum up my thinking about God and religion. Formally:
Wesley: “You're realizing you can't win an argument based on reason, so now you're falling back to, ‘Well, I know God doesn't make sense, but that's because God doesn't have to make sense. He's beyond our understanding, so he's immune to reason - he doesn't have to follow the laws of the universe was we know them.’ My answer to this is that if there were a God who made himself logically impossible to us, I'm sure he won't be surprised when people do not believe he exists.”
Anon2: “So Wesley, you don't see any convincing evidence for the existence of God. That does not mean there is no God. Since you cannot know all evidence, it is possible that evidence exists that proves God's existence, or at least supports His existence. Therefore, it is possible that God exists. If it is possible, then faith has its place.”
Wesley: “You say that ‘if it is possible that God exists, then [I] should be an agnostic.’ This is a very common criticism - the response is this: every atheist is infinitesimally agnostic. It is possible that your omnipotent and omniscient God exists, but it is infinitesimally possible. The point is this: there is some point at which an unlikelihood becomes an impossibility. If you are familiar with the mathematical concept of a limit from calculus, then you should understand this.”
These three quotes sum up my thinking about God and religion. Formally:
1.)God is unreasonable, but because of his nature, God doesn’t have to be reasonable to human beings. No matter how unreasonable God seems, if reason cannot prove without any doubt God does not exist, religion can always make this claim. Also if God does exist, He should not condemn a person he created with logic and reason for logically thinking, as long as they truthfully consider the universe. Good acts can save.
- 2.)We cannot know all evidence in regards to the God question. God can neither be 100% proven nor 100% disproven. Questions will always remain. Reason is not helpful when it comes to religion.
- 3.)There is a small chance God does exist. Regardless of how small this chance is, faith can bridge the gap. Faith is believing when there is no proof. Notice I say no proof. If there is absolute proof God does not exist, faith no longer has a place. Also, faith without some doubt is not really faith. If one believes without any doubt, that is knowing not believing. God requires faith, not blind following.
This post deals with some of the comments from the post “Serious Conversations (part 7)” I’ve really focused in on just the things I felt were important.
Anon2: “All worldviews require at least some faith, but Christianity, as the only one that accurately portrays reality, requires the least, because its claims can be shown to be objective fact.”
Actually, no they cannot be proven to be objective fact, that’s the point. It only appears to be objective fact because you assume that it “accurately portrays reality”. I also think that moral relativism holds if there is no God.
Anon2: Agnostics are "atheists" when it comes to most religions. Why does the agnostic feel that it's quite all right to play dumb [when it comes to the Christian God] but not in the other cases? The agnostic must believe that he has evidence for the existence of the Christian God that prevents her from outright dismissing Him. (Actually, that's the best case scenario from an intellectual perspective. The worst case scenario is that the agnostic is afraid to admit that he does, in fact, dismiss God all together.) … If agnostics want to play dumb they have to explain why playing dumb makes sense in certain cases but not others. … The main argument I have heard that is pro-agnostic is that ‘Church wastes time’
Truthfully, I think that anything is infinitesimally possible. I choose to formally address the Christian God because that is the faith I was indoctrinated in. I suppose I could randomly pick some other infinitesimally possible deity and address him/her. In this sense I lump all popular religions together. I cannot prove or disprove any of them. They are all possible. The difference is that there is a tradition of belief that is why it is different to address all formal religions and ignore an obviously made up religion. For why I only attend a Catholic church see my previous posts, but to reiterate in short: Church is about the people and interacting with those good people, not just worshiping a deity that may or may not exist.
Anon2 referring to Occam’s razor: “the universe cannot replace God as explanation for its own existence. The universe is finite in both size and time. …How did this universe decide to create itself? …The laws of physics are designed with such precision that it is almost inconceivable that they could be the result of chance. …Random chance does not design such a well-crafted universe. All the atheistic explanations for such an exquisitely defined universe require the presence of trillions of other universes, of which ours is the one which happened, by chance, to have the exact physics required for the formation of galaxies, stars and planets. Therefore the atheistic explanation actually goes against Occam's razor since it requires some mechanism by which universes can sprout from some super universe and randomly change their laws of physics. The mechanism by which physical laws could randomly evolve would add further complexity. Design by an intelligent designer is obviously a much simpler explanation.
I am familiar with Occam’s razor, and it would be useful if you could prove that intelligent design is much simpler. The problem is who are you or anyone else to say that the multiverse is more complicated than an intelligent designer. It is relative. There is no way to prove it. How is it obvious that the multiverse or any other explanation is simpler than God.
I refer you to this post I made on the anthropic principle:
[…]
The weak argument refers to the selection of specific times and spaces in the universe for the development of intelligent life. In summary the weak anthropic principle says our existence coincides perfectly with conditions for intelligent life because life would not be around to measure the perfect conditions for its existence if those conditions did meet the needs of intelligent life. To restate, we would not be here to measure stuff if the stuff we were measuring precluded our existence. The strong argument generalizes the weak argument to include fundamental constants and forces of physics. The conclusion to this is we are in a universe where the forces and constants are such that we can exist. (Which, I know, is rather obvious.) An implication of this is that there are universes where forces and constants do not include our existence. So, we are left with a theory of the multiverse, that we are in one of an infinite number of possible universes.
By introducing this idea of the multiverse, the strong anthropic principle selects our universe as one in which life can exist. This is analogous to the weak version of the anthropic principle selecting our planet at our time for intelligent life, which is also somewhat analogous to the Darwinian theory of Evolution selecting our genes for life.
So, which is simpler a multiverse, which we cannot prove, or God, which we also cannot prove. At best these considerations leave us agnostic.
Anon2: “All worldviews require at least some faith, but Christianity, as the only one that accurately portrays reality, requires the least, because its claims can be shown to be objective fact.”
Actually, no they cannot be proven to be objective fact, that’s the point. It only appears to be objective fact because you assume that it “accurately portrays reality”. I also think that moral relativism holds if there is no God.
Anon2: Agnostics are "atheists" when it comes to most religions. Why does the agnostic feel that it's quite all right to play dumb [when it comes to the Christian God] but not in the other cases? The agnostic must believe that he has evidence for the existence of the Christian God that prevents her from outright dismissing Him. (Actually, that's the best case scenario from an intellectual perspective. The worst case scenario is that the agnostic is afraid to admit that he does, in fact, dismiss God all together.) … If agnostics want to play dumb they have to explain why playing dumb makes sense in certain cases but not others. … The main argument I have heard that is pro-agnostic is that ‘Church wastes time’
Truthfully, I think that anything is infinitesimally possible. I choose to formally address the Christian God because that is the faith I was indoctrinated in. I suppose I could randomly pick some other infinitesimally possible deity and address him/her. In this sense I lump all popular religions together. I cannot prove or disprove any of them. They are all possible. The difference is that there is a tradition of belief that is why it is different to address all formal religions and ignore an obviously made up religion. For why I only attend a Catholic church see my previous posts, but to reiterate in short: Church is about the people and interacting with those good people, not just worshiping a deity that may or may not exist.
Anon2 referring to Occam’s razor: “the universe cannot replace God as explanation for its own existence. The universe is finite in both size and time. …How did this universe decide to create itself? …The laws of physics are designed with such precision that it is almost inconceivable that they could be the result of chance. …Random chance does not design such a well-crafted universe. All the atheistic explanations for such an exquisitely defined universe require the presence of trillions of other universes, of which ours is the one which happened, by chance, to have the exact physics required for the formation of galaxies, stars and planets. Therefore the atheistic explanation actually goes against Occam's razor since it requires some mechanism by which universes can sprout from some super universe and randomly change their laws of physics. The mechanism by which physical laws could randomly evolve would add further complexity. Design by an intelligent designer is obviously a much simpler explanation.
I am familiar with Occam’s razor, and it would be useful if you could prove that intelligent design is much simpler. The problem is who are you or anyone else to say that the multiverse is more complicated than an intelligent designer. It is relative. There is no way to prove it. How is it obvious that the multiverse or any other explanation is simpler than God.
I refer you to this post I made on the anthropic principle:
[…]
The weak argument refers to the selection of specific times and spaces in the universe for the development of intelligent life. In summary the weak anthropic principle says our existence coincides perfectly with conditions for intelligent life because life would not be around to measure the perfect conditions for its existence if those conditions did meet the needs of intelligent life. To restate, we would not be here to measure stuff if the stuff we were measuring precluded our existence. The strong argument generalizes the weak argument to include fundamental constants and forces of physics. The conclusion to this is we are in a universe where the forces and constants are such that we can exist. (Which, I know, is rather obvious.) An implication of this is that there are universes where forces and constants do not include our existence. So, we are left with a theory of the multiverse, that we are in one of an infinite number of possible universes.
By introducing this idea of the multiverse, the strong anthropic principle selects our universe as one in which life can exist. This is analogous to the weak version of the anthropic principle selecting our planet at our time for intelligent life, which is also somewhat analogous to the Darwinian theory of Evolution selecting our genes for life.
So, which is simpler a multiverse, which we cannot prove, or God, which we also cannot prove. At best these considerations leave us agnostic.
This post deals with some of the comments from the post “Serious Conversations (part 6)” I’ve really focused in on just the things I felt were important.
Anon: The reason you [Wesley] can't understand this [to know God exists] is because you've never had a conversion experience. And guess what, you never will because you have decided to reject the Lord Jesus Christ Himself; and for this, we Christians believe you will spend eternity separated from love and from a God who loves you.
If to know God is real you must blindly believe enough to have a personal conversion experience seems a bit inadequate. So to have a conversion experience (i.e. to know that He exists) you must know he exists in the first place. So only the people who are willing to believe in something that does seem possible are the only ones rewarded. That is counterintuitive. Anon: God did not make himself logically impossible to us. In fact, He made it very clear for us.
HOW? Where? If the answer is the Bible, then your argument is moot. The Bible was written by human beings. We are all fallible. To say the Bible was inspired by an omnipotent being is one thing, to say it was actually written by an omnipotent being is another. Example: Just now, God told me that the Bible is wrong. A Christian would say I was lying. To which I would respond, no I’m not; God told me I’m telling the truth. The problem is neither of us can prove what we are saying. That’s what is wrong with the Bible. It was written thousands of years ago by people who have purported to have been talked to by God. There is no way to prove the Bible is true other than the circular argument that the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true. That is obviously fallacious just as me saying God spoke to me is fallacious.
Anon referring to Hell: “The Bible tells us that God is righteous….Righteousness deals with justice and justice deals with the Law. This means that God will always do that which is right and He does so according to the righteous Law that He has set forth. How many good works must he perform in order to undo an offense against an infinitely holy God?...”
Because He is loving He forgives. I believe an atheist can “sin” (even though he doesn’t believe in God, he can still recognize that he has done something immoral) and really feel sorry for what he has done. If he does feel sorry and remorseful, I feel that he has corrected his wrong. The point being when a believer sins are they are less guilty simply because they also believe in something that does not logically exist but still have faith for? Thinking that one is required to have a priest (as in the Catholic faith) absolve them of sin for salvation is also silly. The priest is given power by the church, human beings run the church, human beings, unlike God, are fallible, therefore priests are just as fallible as any lay individual is. The notion that you must be absolved to be forgiven is silly. I believe that if you are truly sorry even in the “silence of our own hearts” you are forgiven. Because God is infinite, He is also infinitely forgiving if we are truly sorry)
Anon “But if an atheist were to be diagnosed with terminal cancer, then this would be the time to watch him or her. They would be forced to think about a greater spiritual purpose in my opinion. But now, as long as they are without problems or plaguing events in their lives, why bother?”
This is true. I wonder how many non believers, whether they are premeditated nonbelievers or lazy nonbelievers, beg God for forgiveness and convert just before they die. I wonder if I will do this. I won’t really know until I am presented with a situation like this. I hope that I will be at peace with whatever decisions I have made throughout my life and will be content with my faith or lack thereof.
Anon: The reason you [Wesley] can't understand this [to know God exists] is because you've never had a conversion experience. And guess what, you never will because you have decided to reject the Lord Jesus Christ Himself; and for this, we Christians believe you will spend eternity separated from love and from a God who loves you.
If to know God is real you must blindly believe enough to have a personal conversion experience seems a bit inadequate. So to have a conversion experience (i.e. to know that He exists) you must know he exists in the first place. So only the people who are willing to believe in something that does seem possible are the only ones rewarded. That is counterintuitive. Anon: God did not make himself logically impossible to us. In fact, He made it very clear for us.
HOW? Where? If the answer is the Bible, then your argument is moot. The Bible was written by human beings. We are all fallible. To say the Bible was inspired by an omnipotent being is one thing, to say it was actually written by an omnipotent being is another. Example: Just now, God told me that the Bible is wrong. A Christian would say I was lying. To which I would respond, no I’m not; God told me I’m telling the truth. The problem is neither of us can prove what we are saying. That’s what is wrong with the Bible. It was written thousands of years ago by people who have purported to have been talked to by God. There is no way to prove the Bible is true other than the circular argument that the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true. That is obviously fallacious just as me saying God spoke to me is fallacious.
Anon referring to Hell: “The Bible tells us that God is righteous….Righteousness deals with justice and justice deals with the Law. This means that God will always do that which is right and He does so according to the righteous Law that He has set forth. How many good works must he perform in order to undo an offense against an infinitely holy God?...”
Because He is loving He forgives. I believe an atheist can “sin” (even though he doesn’t believe in God, he can still recognize that he has done something immoral) and really feel sorry for what he has done. If he does feel sorry and remorseful, I feel that he has corrected his wrong. The point being when a believer sins are they are less guilty simply because they also believe in something that does not logically exist but still have faith for? Thinking that one is required to have a priest (as in the Catholic faith) absolve them of sin for salvation is also silly. The priest is given power by the church, human beings run the church, human beings, unlike God, are fallible, therefore priests are just as fallible as any lay individual is. The notion that you must be absolved to be forgiven is silly. I believe that if you are truly sorry even in the “silence of our own hearts” you are forgiven. Because God is infinite, He is also infinitely forgiving if we are truly sorry)
Anon “But if an atheist were to be diagnosed with terminal cancer, then this would be the time to watch him or her. They would be forced to think about a greater spiritual purpose in my opinion. But now, as long as they are without problems or plaguing events in their lives, why bother?”
This is true. I wonder how many non believers, whether they are premeditated nonbelievers or lazy nonbelievers, beg God for forgiveness and convert just before they die. I wonder if I will do this. I won’t really know until I am presented with a situation like this. I hope that I will be at peace with whatever decisions I have made throughout my life and will be content with my faith or lack thereof.
Christianity is a leap of faith, and that leap is believing that everything in the Bible is 100% true and inspired by God. If you can accept that, then everything else taught by Christianity follows. If that isn’t obvious, then Christianity is a leap of faith.
The following is in response to some possible proofs of the credibility of the Bible.1. The unity of the Bible--
Thanks to Wesley here are several examples of the Bible contradicting itself. These could be attributed to human error of course, but if there are these obvious contradictions, how many more non obvious untruths are there?
God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine?* Seven (2 Samuel 24:13)* Three (I Chronicles 21:12)How many pairs of clean animals did God tell Noah to take into the Ark?* Two (Genesis 6:19, 20)* Seven (Genesis 7:2). Despite this last instruction only two pairs went into the ark (Genesis 7:8-9)Did Joshua and the Israelites capture Jerusalem?* Yes (Joshua 10:23, 40)* No (Joshua 15:63)Who was the father of Joseph, husband of Mary?* Jacob (Matthew 1:16) * Heli (Luke 3:23-38)In the count how many fighting men were found in Israel?* Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)* One million, one hundred thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)Jesus descended from which son of David?* Solomon (Matthew 1:5-16)* Nathan(Luke 3:23-38)Did Jesus bear his own cross?* Yes (John 19:17)* No (Matthew 27:31-32)Who killed Goliath?* David (I Samuel 17:23, 50)* Elhanan (2 Samuel 21:19)Does the Earth spin around in space?* No (1 Chronicles 16:30)
So when it comes to specifics the Bible isn’t consistent all the time, but the major themes are connected throughout the book, those of love, faith, hope and a righteous God are well maintained. I’m not sure if this is coincidence or if it is a sound argument. It does seem improbable that the overarching themes would remain intact, but simply because it is improbable without intervention does not mean impossible. In my mind this is one of the (few and) best attributes the Bible has going for it: its consistency.
2. The Bible is non-mythical---
This is a matter of opinion and interpretation. Yes, the creation story in Genesis can be interpreted to fit with science, but what about other stories, Noah and the Ark, Moses parting the Red Sea? What is the difference between the “miracles” of the bible and “myths” of other religions? The only difference is that miracles of the Bible are not myths because the Bible is assumed to be true; besides that, the two are different in name only. The Bible is miraculous because the Bible says it is true and miraculous. Some of these stories you might call miracles, but others are obviously just stories, like the fashioning of Eve from a rib of Adam. And if some stories are just metaphor, how does one determine which stories are miracles and which are just stories and myths? Also, just because the Bible has historically accurate accounts of ancient peoples does not mean it has accurate accounts dealing with God.
3. The Bible is intact---
Define intact. If by intact it is meant that the Bible is how it is right now, then it’s intact, but what about all the purported books and manuscripts that aren’t part of the “intact” Bible. If the Bible is correct just because there are a lot of really old pieces of paper with transcriptions on it, then what about the gospels of various other people, Mary Magdalene, Thomas, Judas? Those are really old accounts of Biblical happenings. And there are other books that are accepted in one version of the Bible and not in another. There are seven books in the Catholic Bible that aren’t in the King James Version, including, for example, the book (2 Maccabees) that contains one of the major passages that Catholics take the concept of purgatory from. The acceptance of some books and not others appears random or if not then motivated by politics, power, and personal preference. The Bible is not intact; it only appears intact.
4. The Bible tells events ahead of time---
I’ve explained this point as illogical several times already. I predict that in a couple of lines I will randomly say the word “tomato” in the middle of the sentence. You cannot make predictions, then fulfill them yourself, and call them inspired by divinity. Can passages be specifically and undeniably dated so that an absolutely accurate timeline be created for when prophesies were made and fulfilled? No, so the Bible cannot be independently verified. The Bible is believed because the bible says it should be believed, therefore tomato this argument is moot. Wait, did you see what just happen? The prophesy I made was fulfilled, there must be a God. See how silly that is.
Again, do I want God to exist? Yes. Do I want the Bible to be true? Yes, but there appears to be reasonable doubt as to the veracity of the Bible. Reason does not appear to be helpful in proving the existence of God or the truth of the Bible. At best it is also not possible to prove the inexistence of God or the falsehood of the Bible. So again I say that Christianity and any other religion requires a leap of faith.
The following is in response to some possible proofs of the credibility of the Bible.1. The unity of the Bible--
Thanks to Wesley here are several examples of the Bible contradicting itself. These could be attributed to human error of course, but if there are these obvious contradictions, how many more non obvious untruths are there?
God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine?* Seven (2 Samuel 24:13)* Three (I Chronicles 21:12)How many pairs of clean animals did God tell Noah to take into the Ark?* Two (Genesis 6:19, 20)* Seven (Genesis 7:2). Despite this last instruction only two pairs went into the ark (Genesis 7:8-9)Did Joshua and the Israelites capture Jerusalem?* Yes (Joshua 10:23, 40)* No (Joshua 15:63)Who was the father of Joseph, husband of Mary?* Jacob (Matthew 1:16) * Heli (Luke 3:23-38)In the count how many fighting men were found in Israel?* Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)* One million, one hundred thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)Jesus descended from which son of David?* Solomon (Matthew 1:5-16)* Nathan(Luke 3:23-38)Did Jesus bear his own cross?* Yes (John 19:17)* No (Matthew 27:31-32)Who killed Goliath?* David (I Samuel 17:23, 50)* Elhanan (2 Samuel 21:19)Does the Earth spin around in space?* No (1 Chronicles 16:30)
So when it comes to specifics the Bible isn’t consistent all the time, but the major themes are connected throughout the book, those of love, faith, hope and a righteous God are well maintained. I’m not sure if this is coincidence or if it is a sound argument. It does seem improbable that the overarching themes would remain intact, but simply because it is improbable without intervention does not mean impossible. In my mind this is one of the (few and) best attributes the Bible has going for it: its consistency.
2. The Bible is non-mythical---
This is a matter of opinion and interpretation. Yes, the creation story in Genesis can be interpreted to fit with science, but what about other stories, Noah and the Ark, Moses parting the Red Sea? What is the difference between the “miracles” of the bible and “myths” of other religions? The only difference is that miracles of the Bible are not myths because the Bible is assumed to be true; besides that, the two are different in name only. The Bible is miraculous because the Bible says it is true and miraculous. Some of these stories you might call miracles, but others are obviously just stories, like the fashioning of Eve from a rib of Adam. And if some stories are just metaphor, how does one determine which stories are miracles and which are just stories and myths? Also, just because the Bible has historically accurate accounts of ancient peoples does not mean it has accurate accounts dealing with God.
3. The Bible is intact---
Define intact. If by intact it is meant that the Bible is how it is right now, then it’s intact, but what about all the purported books and manuscripts that aren’t part of the “intact” Bible. If the Bible is correct just because there are a lot of really old pieces of paper with transcriptions on it, then what about the gospels of various other people, Mary Magdalene, Thomas, Judas? Those are really old accounts of Biblical happenings. And there are other books that are accepted in one version of the Bible and not in another. There are seven books in the Catholic Bible that aren’t in the King James Version, including, for example, the book (2 Maccabees) that contains one of the major passages that Catholics take the concept of purgatory from. The acceptance of some books and not others appears random or if not then motivated by politics, power, and personal preference. The Bible is not intact; it only appears intact.
4. The Bible tells events ahead of time---
I’ve explained this point as illogical several times already. I predict that in a couple of lines I will randomly say the word “tomato” in the middle of the sentence. You cannot make predictions, then fulfill them yourself, and call them inspired by divinity. Can passages be specifically and undeniably dated so that an absolutely accurate timeline be created for when prophesies were made and fulfilled? No, so the Bible cannot be independently verified. The Bible is believed because the bible says it should be believed, therefore tomato this argument is moot. Wait, did you see what just happen? The prophesy I made was fulfilled, there must be a God. See how silly that is.
Again, do I want God to exist? Yes. Do I want the Bible to be true? Yes, but there appears to be reasonable doubt as to the veracity of the Bible. Reason does not appear to be helpful in proving the existence of God or the truth of the Bible. At best it is also not possible to prove the inexistence of God or the falsehood of the Bible. So again I say that Christianity and any other religion requires a leap of faith.
I’m about to be brutally honest. Here is the problem. Not only do Christians of the evangelical variety believe they are correct because the Bible tells them so, but they also believe they are better than people that are more moral, more caring, more loving, and that are just generally better people than they are, just because they were indoctrinated in or adopted the “correct” religion from childhood. Also, it is demanded of them to correct the heathen masses who aren’t Christian exactly as they are Christian or rebuke and condemn them if they refuse.
And if “God” supports this, then that is not a God I want to believe in, a god of intolerance, hate, and mockery. And if hell is complete separation from a petty, intolerant god, then I welcome it. But, I believe in a God of love, and perhaps that isn’t the Christian God they believe in and perhaps it is, just the actual Christian God. Condemn me all you want.
The problem with religion is that all religions are based off of books (Bible included) of dubious credibility - books that have contradicted themselves and were written by fallible, corruptible human beings even if they were inspired by divinity. On top of this, it is left up to other corruptible, fallible human beings to interpret what those books say. So now not only can the original manuscripts be wrong, but the interpretation of an incorrect manuscript be wrong. And the fact is no Christian has any idea, nor does anyone else in any other religion. Everyone thinks they know, but no one actually does for sure. One may feel moved by divinity, but are they sure, really sure? Is anyone sure? Or do they just think they’re sure? (Is there anything beyond a feeling? And how do you express, convince others that your feeling is correct?) That to me is the definition of gullibility: the ability to believe in the credibility of something that can be wrong in so many ways but can never be questioned by the believers simply because that object of belief maintains its own legitimacy.
And maybe that is why I don’t have faith anymore, because it seems that people with an absurdly strong faith in any religion are gullible. I really don’t know. All I know is that I don’t want to believe I was created in the image of an intolerant, petulant, revengeful, and seemingly unintelligent (if ignoring good science [i.e. evolution] is a requirement) being.
The difference is, not every Christian is like Anon2 (or Anon1 for that matter), and that’s why I can still call myself Christian, because there are decent, intelligent people of that religion. Truthfully, I think we’ll all end up in heaven, assuming any divinity exists (I think that only then will we understand each other.), but for very different reasons. Both of us are undoubtedly misguided, but that’s why God is all loving, because by being human we could never please the intolerant, petulant god you speak of. Everyone has some measure of doubt. Let me repeat that. Everyone has some measure of doubt (We wouldn’t be human if we believed all the time.). So how do you measure how strong someone’s faith is against another’s? If good works aren’t good enough for God, how much faith does it take for them to become good? If good works are filthy rags simply because we don’t believe, then all works are filthy rages because at some point everyone doesn’t believe because we are all human. If we did believe 100% all the time we would be divine. No one could get to heaven otherwise.
And if “God” supports this, then that is not a God I want to believe in, a god of intolerance, hate, and mockery. And if hell is complete separation from a petty, intolerant god, then I welcome it. But, I believe in a God of love, and perhaps that isn’t the Christian God they believe in and perhaps it is, just the actual Christian God. Condemn me all you want.
The problem with religion is that all religions are based off of books (Bible included) of dubious credibility - books that have contradicted themselves and were written by fallible, corruptible human beings even if they were inspired by divinity. On top of this, it is left up to other corruptible, fallible human beings to interpret what those books say. So now not only can the original manuscripts be wrong, but the interpretation of an incorrect manuscript be wrong. And the fact is no Christian has any idea, nor does anyone else in any other religion. Everyone thinks they know, but no one actually does for sure. One may feel moved by divinity, but are they sure, really sure? Is anyone sure? Or do they just think they’re sure? (Is there anything beyond a feeling? And how do you express, convince others that your feeling is correct?) That to me is the definition of gullibility: the ability to believe in the credibility of something that can be wrong in so many ways but can never be questioned by the believers simply because that object of belief maintains its own legitimacy.
And maybe that is why I don’t have faith anymore, because it seems that people with an absurdly strong faith in any religion are gullible. I really don’t know. All I know is that I don’t want to believe I was created in the image of an intolerant, petulant, revengeful, and seemingly unintelligent (if ignoring good science [i.e. evolution] is a requirement) being.
The difference is, not every Christian is like Anon2 (or Anon1 for that matter), and that’s why I can still call myself Christian, because there are decent, intelligent people of that religion. Truthfully, I think we’ll all end up in heaven, assuming any divinity exists (I think that only then will we understand each other.), but for very different reasons. Both of us are undoubtedly misguided, but that’s why God is all loving, because by being human we could never please the intolerant, petulant god you speak of. Everyone has some measure of doubt. Let me repeat that. Everyone has some measure of doubt (We wouldn’t be human if we believed all the time.). So how do you measure how strong someone’s faith is against another’s? If good works aren’t good enough for God, how much faith does it take for them to become good? If good works are filthy rags simply because we don’t believe, then all works are filthy rages because at some point everyone doesn’t believe because we are all human. If we did believe 100% all the time we would be divine. No one could get to heaven otherwise.