Posted by Helen on: 08.24.2007 /
Laura posted this in a comment on “Is the scientific method overrated?”
For me, faith is something you can explain logically, but not rationally, to those who don’t have it. And never did have it.
It’s a bit like trying to explain the colors of the rainbow to a person who’s been blind their entire life.
Sure, you can logically explain how light rays bounce of objects… yada, yada, yada. But how do you explain the beauty of light and colors and nature? You can describe it, but how much meaning will it have for a blind person?
When folks talk about their faith to me, I feel like I’ve been blind my entire life. I can logically understand and appreciate the effect on their lives, the peace and joy and love and the sense of awe and wonder and commitment they have. That’s because I have these feelings too.
But I still have no clue what faith looks like. I can’t see it at all. Not even a blurry outline.
I don’t think it would make sense for the blind person to think all the people who are not blind (so many, many of them) are not rational, just because they share an experience he doesn’t seem to be capable of sharing.
On the other hand, I don’t get why the sighted folks would get mad at the blind guy and tell him if he can’t see it, he must not be looking hard enough.
Comment by: hoverFrog
1 08/24/07 8:21 AM | Comment Link |Think about faith like this: Your parents told you things as a child that you believed (”don’t touch the fire, it’s hot” or “Father Christmas brings presents on Christmas Eve”). You would have tested those boundaries and determined that your parents were usually correct (fire is hot, presents arrive between sleep and waking on Christmas Eve). As a child everything that you are told is taken on faith so when you are told that God loves you and God is good you believe it without questioning it.
As we grow up we shed much of the faith that we grow up with (”Father Christmas” is usually drunk on Christmas Eve so mum brings the presents) and start seeing the world more objectively. We hang on to some things and gain new ideas as our experience grows. Ideas that lots of people have are easier to adopt and believe in. Our psychological make up allows us to accept that the majority are usually right. In addition religion is a way of coping with traumatic events that we all experience as we grow older (death, taxes, etc).
I see God to be as real as Santa or the Tooth Fairy and so see myself as I having lost my faith in the idea of religion. I lost it so long ago that I can hardly remember what it was like to have that kind of certainty of opinion, the sort of certainty that is common in children.
Contrary to what you’ve said in your blind\sighted analogy I see the religious as the blind ones. They use religion as a shield against a harsh reality that they don’t wish to face. To be honest who can really blame them?
I would be interested in the opinion of a religious person about my theory. No doubt they would disagree but I’d like to know why.
Comment by: Steve S
2 08/24/07 8:55 AM | Comment Link |I think you are defining faith in ways that are contrary to the way people who ‘have it’ would…
Faith is trust. I trust in many things that I don’t know with absolute certainty to be true (as does every human being). I trust that what my wife tells me is true (even though I don’t know for sure) I trust that when I sit in this chair it will hold my weight, Itrust that my experiences and understanding provide an accurate framework for perceiving life/universe as a whole.
To make a short digression; modes of logic - scientific reasoning gives us descriptions of the way things are, however, this gives us no basis for action, it only (attempts to) tell us what is. If we are to decide upon a course of action, we enter into a different realm of reasoning, we are required to start with some basic assumptions about things before we can move forward (if A then B, but A must be assumed). This is a very fragmented discussion of what could take a book length discourse.
Simply putfaith in God and faith in anything else have the same essential quality. If we disagree in what we have faith in, it is because of our primary postulates, not because one set of people ‘have faith’ and another don’t have faith.
Comment by: Helen
3 08/24/07 9:31 AM | Comment Link |hoverFrog, I don’t know for sure, but I thought Laura was using sighted to mean ‘us’, whether atheist or Christian; and blind to mean ‘them’, whether atheist or Christian. Which I thought was quite clever :)
I doubt any religious person will agree that they use religious as a shield against a harsh reality. How could they agree when as far as they are concerned, what they believe is reality? That theory probably impresses them about as much as the theory I’ve heard from Christians that atheists that they simply are too arrogant and stubborn to submit to God’s authority. I’m guessing you’re not too impressed by that one ;-)
Steve, I think ‘trust’ is a good definition. I got to a point where I felt like Charlie Brown trusting Lucy not to pull the football away even though she always did. I decided that was unwise - as someone whose name I don’t know said “Insanity is doing the same thing over and expecting different results” - and so I decided to stop trusting in that way.
And I don’t really understand why some people are so surprised that I don’t want to go back and try again, even though they have no information I haven’t heard already about Lucy.
Comment by: Stephan
4 08/24/07 10:40 AM | Comment Link |hoverfrog, I have never been impressed with the Santa/Easter Bunny/Tooth Fairy/God comparison.
First off, I don’t know any adult who honestly believes in Santa et al.
Also, I have seen natural explanations for the things attributed to them. I know my parents gave me presents at Christmas. I know my parents hid eggs and candy at Easter. I know my parents put money under my pillow when I lost a tooth.
I have not, however, seen a natural explanations for many of the things I attribute to God. I suppose it is possible, and I would be willing to change my beliefs if I found something else convincing, but so far I have not.
It may make a difference that I was not raised ever believing in Santa, the Tooth Fairy and others. It’s not that my parents thought those things would corrupt me or anything - they just didn’t see it as necessary. I have raised my kids the same way.
As for religion being a shield against reality, I don’t buy that either. My faith is reality to me. Everything makes more sense to me seen through the lens of theism in general and Christianity specifically. Without it there would be a lot of things that simply would not add up.
I like Laura’s original analogy on this post, up until the end. I believe that Jesus healed the blind, and that He still can. I am not mad at the blind for being blind, but I want them to be able to see, and I want to lead them to Jesus so He can heal them.
Comment by: Staci
5 08/24/07 12:35 PM | Comment Link |I am a person who has faith in a higher power that I call God and/or Jesus. However, I definitely understand what hoverFrog is saying about people using faith as a shield from reality. I have seen many people do this. Of course there are many good things that people use in unhealthy ways to shield reality: relationships, food, work, hobbies, etc. (Not that I’m an expert in “proper faith.”)
As an example, Food that is necessary, healthy, and enjoyable when consumed properly can have the opposite effect when not used properly (over/under eating, eating junk.) I think faith can be the same way. If someone uses “faith” as an excuse to feel better by putting others down, avoid responsibility for their actions toward the world, etc. then they are using it to avoid reality. I think a healthy faith would not shield reality but rather compel a faithful person to open their eyes and act with compassion, mercy, and justice. Instead of thinking a person is in poverty because god is punishing them or they don’t have enough faith - shields to avoid dealing with reality - a person of healthy faith (IMO) would be compelled see the reality of poverty in our world, have compassion, and act in ways to alleviate the issues that contribute to it.
I agree with Helen that in Laura’s analogy either group could be the blind or sighted and neither is cast in a negative way in her explanation - which is always appreciated!
Comment by: hoverFrog
6 08/24/07 2:47 PM | Comment Link |Helen, ah yes, I see. Very clever. As to the charge of arrogance and stubbornness I’d probably have to admit to that. I do think I’m right and almost everyone else is wrong when it comes to religion which is certainly arrogant.
Stephan “I don’t know any adult who honestly believes in Santa et al” but if you were raised to believe in them and your peers conspired to support that illusion would you not believe that they were real? This is how I view religion.
I’d love to know what natural explanations for things that you do attribute to God. For me there are plenty of mysteries in the universe but nothing that I could possibly attribute to God. We are seemingly polar opposites in this so you see that I have difficulty appreciating your position. Not that I won’t try if you choose to elaborate.
Staci, thanks for agreeing ;) It is unfortunate that, in my experience, it is the religion is a shield to avoid dealing with reality. I appreciate the fact that this is not always the case and that people can and do use their faith in a positive way. Sadly it has not been something that I’ve ever seen in practice.
Comment by: Staci
7 08/24/07 3:20 PM | Comment Link |Perhaps those avoiding reality are easier to spot because they are louder.
A boss I once had was preparing me to represent our clients at a city council meeting. As a former communication specialist w/the special forces marines and POW in Vietnam, he knew a bit about manipulation in communication. He told me that the louder and more belligerent a person was the less sure they actually were deep down about their position. I was young and kinda sassy so I responded that he was that way all the time. He got really quiet and then started laughing and said, “don’t you dare tell my wife and kids that secret!”
Comment by: Kathy
8 08/24/07 3:50 PM | Comment Link |To me my Christian faith is centered around how I should live my life not what I believe. If I am to be living as a Christian, I strive to be loving, compassionate, seeking justice, following the path that Jesus set out. Perhaps faith is NOT what you believe, but what how you behave and the practices you follow. I read (I think in “The Great Transformation” by Karen Armstrong) that it has only been recently (last 200 years or so) that religions have been tied to what one believes. In the thousands of years prior to that most people considered themselves to be of a particular religion because of the ritual and practice followed.
Comment by: Helen
9 08/24/07 4:00 PM | Comment Link |hoverFrog, thanks for understanding my point :)
Speaking for myself, I know I need to be careful not to generalize about Christians…I have met some in the last couple of years who aren’t hiding behind anything. Their faith isn’t a shield that shelters them from reality. They are out there engaging with reality all the time. Seeing it through their faith doesn’t seem to cause them to see it much differently from the way I see it.
Thanks for your comment, Kathy. Your faith is the sort of faith which makes sense to me. It also means we have a lot in common if we both care about how we live, regardless of whether we have the same ’statement of faith’ as each other.
Comment by: Stephan
10 08/24/07 5:03 PM | Comment Link |hoverfrog, you are probably right that the things I attribute to God would not help you appreciate my perspective. It’s really more personal than can be effectively communicating in this format. If you ever get to Minnesota look me up and we can talk.
Not surprisingly, I still don’t buy the Santa analogy. The whole idea of friends conspiring to keep you from knowing the truth about something sounds a little paranoid to me. I guess I’ve never had friends like that.
Comment by: Rachel
11 08/24/07 6:35 PM | Comment Link |Well said, Staci!
That’s a good point, Kathy. Jim calls it “beliefism.”
Comment by: Pete
12 08/24/07 9:56 PM | Comment Link |Interesting thoughts, hoverfrog. What I found particularly ironic was:
I found it ironic because I’ve heard many Christians say the same thing about atheists (not that I agree). “Atheists don’t want to believe in God because they want to live life by THEIR rules and the minute they stop and admit they are wrong and God exists, they can’t go on sinning and feeling good about it. It’s their shield against the reality that they are disobeying God.”
Now I don’t buy it for a second because I approach my faith from a very ‘atheistic’ (is that a word?) point of view. I’ve had MANY “fights” with God and more than once considered abandoning my faith because of logical and rational things that didn’t line up for me. For me, if Christianity doesn’t make sense on a rational level I can accept…then I’m not going to believe it.
The odd thing is, whenever I question; whenever I genuinely ask God for answers; whenever I “reason” with God (Isaiah 1:18) the answer comes to me. Sometimes through a person, or a scripture or just spending time honestly and logically looking through what I know, I either reconcile what I think, or see things a new way (which has recently been leading me to question the traditional doctrine of hell being eternal punishment).
So the idea that my faith is a shield is less than appealing. If anything, the amount of time and energy I spend working out my faith causes me to lose sleep.
But that’s just it.
Christians throw around the phrase ‘relationship with God’ to the point of making it a slogan. but what sorts of things constitute a real relationship? Working out our differences; love; forgiveness; worrying about them; sometimes worrying about their honesty; going over past conversations; remembering good and bad times; accepting them even when you don’t fully understand what they’re doing; introducing others to them; just being with them.
I could go on but I hope you see my point. Knowing God isn’t about walking three inches off the ground because everything is peachy. It’s about a real relationship with two genuine people trying to get to know each other and trying to be known–and loved–for the person they TRULY are.
At least that’s how I see my faith.
Comment by: hoverFrog
13 08/25/07 1:35 AM | Comment Link |Stephan, many people pass on the “truth” as they understand it. Actually I think everyone does that. I’ve tried to allow my children to make up their own minds about religion but I can almost guarantee that have picked up a large proportion of my intolerance towards it. It isn’t a conspiracy in that it is done unconsciously.
Pete, how does this “relationship with God”, which I assume includes prayer, differ from meditation, self evaluation, and self conversation that many people do to try to sort through issues that they have? I suppose the former is seen as external while the latter is internalised. My lack of belief in God makes me see them as identical.
As an example: Have you ever had an imaginary friend or seen a child have a conversation with an imaginary friend or doll? It’s as real as a conversation with anyone else except that it takes place only within the imagination of the participant.
I’m probably not seeing your point but this is how I am interpreting what you’ve said into my own world view. I do appreciate the effort that you’re making but, for me, I just need evidence or something more tangible.
Comment by: Nathanael
14 08/25/07 5:54 AM | Comment Link |First of all, Helen, great site…just found you here from our conversation on Internet Monk’s blog.
Great conversation.
HoverFrog, you did ask, at the end of your first post, for feedback from religious people, so I will now ease into this conversation.
I am a Jesus follower.
In reference to your hot fire/Father Christmas/believing-what-your-parents-tell-you analogy, my personal experience is quite different. My parents told me things, and my brain made intellectual assent to the validity of those “truths” regarding Christianity. But my heart and life scorned them. And then I met Jesus. I met Him at a time when it was clear that I was living this life for myself. He showed me how His grace and mercy and forgiveness can shift the focal point of one’s life so that he is so in love with his Savior and Lord that he no longer lives this life for himself, but to serve those who his Master served when He was on earth. And my faith was not merely a child’s assent because he doesn’t know the big picture yet. My faith is based on the big picture that God longs to reconcile this world to Himself. And in His humility, He redeems a jack-ass like I am, and somehow uses me to help usher that in.
You later stated, “In addition religion is a way of coping with traumatic events that we all experience as we grow older (death, taxes, etc).” True, except I would change “coping with” to “going through,” but your sentence works too. Life is life. Sometimes I can agree with that apparel line that says, “Life is good.” Sometimes, if my t-shirt truly revealed what was going on in my heart, it would read “Life Sucks.”
You also said, “I lost [faith] so long ago that I can hardly remember what it was like to have that kind of certainty of opinion, the sort of certainty that is common in children.”
Jesus would agree with your last statement, in fact he taught that our faith should be childlike (not childish, as some of my fellow Christians’ faith is). Childlike faith is not naivety. Childlike faith instead says, God is God, I am not. There are going to be some things that fly in the face of my view of who God is and how He should act. But I can trust His heart. Do I have answers for all of the skeptics’ (and my own) questions? Nope. Do I know I am loved by the eternal God? Yep. Does it change the way I live my life and treat you? It should.
Staci was brilliant in her reply to your shield question, so I will not muddy those waters.
Trusting sometimes flies in the face of common sense. I’m okay with that.
Shalom, friend.
[bows and exits]
Comment by: Helen
15 08/25/07 6:38 AM | Comment Link |hoverFrog, from the point of view of someone who rules out God’s existence, the relationship a Christian has with God has to be imaginary. It has to be self-talk imagined to be conversation with Another.
I know from experience that it doesn’t seem like an imaginary relationship from the Christian’s point of view. It seems like God guides your thoughts and gives you ideas you never would have had on your own.
Nathanael, thanks for stopping by - it’s great to see you here. I think we met in the comments on Jesus Creed yesterday, not Internet Monk. Not that it matters.
The idea of trusting someone unknowable scares me. When I decided God was unknowable, trusting him ceased to be doable for me.
Comment by: Nathanael
16 08/25/07 6:43 AM | Comment Link |right you are, Helen, ’twas Jesus Creed…
What made you decide He was “unknowable”? I can know my wife very well and still not completely understand what makes her tick.
Comment by: hoverFrog
17 08/25/07 6:50 AM | Comment Link |Good answer Nathanael, I thank you for it. Maybe it is as Helen says in her original post and I am blind to this. Maybe your faith blinds you to the naturalism that is so clear to me. I just can’t see what it is that makes people of religion so certain whereas my own certainty is so very clear to me.
Ho hum, you live and learn I suppose.
Comment by: Helen
18 08/25/07 7:38 AM | Comment Link |Nathanael, the two main things were 1) along the lines of what hoverFrog said, I realized I couldn’t be sure my conversations with God were ‘real’ as opposed to imaginary 2) I realized Christians disagree about God and I had no way of knowing who was ‘right’. The possibility that the Bible is right didn’t really help since Christians disagree over what that teaches about the nature of God.
hoverFrog I like that you said this:
I think that sums up the position of many people. Do you think of yourself as certain, or, strongly convinced but open to changing should some compelling new evidence present itself to you? And I’m not asking because I have compelling evidence and want you to give me an excuse to foist it on you. I’m just curious.
Comment by: Nathanael
19 08/25/07 7:48 AM | Comment Link |I’m a fairly level-headed chap…or at least I fancy myself one.
Helen, help me understand the following:
Is the “compelling new evidence” presented to me regarding the conviction that there is no God?
I’m trying to understand the use of “evidence.” Clearly any evidence I would give to you saying there is a God is not actually evidence from your viewpoint. It is just more of my rhetoric. On the flip side, any evidence you could give on the absence of a divine Maker and Sustainer would not be evidence to me.
Is that confusing?
I tend to be a bit verbose…
;)
Comment by: Helen
20 08/25/07 8:22 AM | Comment Link |Nathanael, actually that part was to hoverFrog - sorry if I was unclear.
Why did you say “Clearly any evidence I would give to you saying there is a God is not actually evidence from your viewpoint. It is just more of my rhetoric.” When did I lead you to think that about me? I’m open to the evidence people have.
However…I was a Bible-believing Christian for 17 years and during that time I read a number of apologetics books. I think I’m already familiar with all the major defenses of the faith - if those are what you have to offer, they already didn’t work for me. It seems like a waste of time going through them again, just like, when my keys are lost there’s no reason to keep looking where I already looked and didn’t find them. Can you see that “I don’t want to go over what I’ve already been over in detail” is very different from saying “Nothing you can possibly say counts as evidence to me”.
If your position is “nothing you can possibly say counts as evidence to me” then I would say, you are at risk of missing the truth because you will hear nothing other than what you currently believe. I don’t think that’s wise but, it’s your choice to make. If you know as much about atheist viewpoints as I know about Bible-believing Christianity then I certainly would understand you saying “I’ve been there, done that - I don’t want to go there again”. Which as I say is my position when Christians want to engage me on Christian apologetics. Because what I’ve found in every case is, they have nothing new to say. In my interactions with a variety of Christians I am learning about how different the beliefs can be of two people who self-identify as Christians. So I am learning, through my interactions with Christians. However, I’m not learning any new defenses of a Supernatural Being called God that I hadn’t come across before.
Comment by: Nathanael
21 08/25/07 8:33 AM | Comment Link |Sorry ’bout that, Helen.
My reference to “evidence” was more along the lines of your statement about being “familiar with all the major defenses of the faith…” a.k.a. evidence? maybe? am I misunderstanding?
I definitely get your point about the difference between searching for lost keys where you’ve already looked vs. my dogmatic statement. I’m new to this dialogue, so bear with me.
My position that you so accurately relayed back to me at the beginning of your last paragraph was not my intent, though in retrospect was exactly what I said.
Those who know me, Jesus followers and non, would attribute to my willingness to listen and have open discussion. Even as I’m typing this, I am smiling at my apparent dogmatic, I-shall-not-be-moved position.
My apologies for sounding like an ass…
Comment by: Rachel
22 08/25/07 8:52 AM | Comment Link |That was really profound, Stac! I’m still mulling that one around in my head today. I’m reading Brian McLaren’s new book “Everything Must Change” and he talks about powerful and destructive framing stories that shape cultures. One example is the myth of redemptive violence. It seems that those who seek to preserve these narratives must yell loudly to drown out any truth-telling or protest.
Comment by: Pete
23 08/25/07 9:09 AM | Comment Link |I can understand that. The difference for me is seeing God do things that imaginary people couldn’t do. I could give a list of things that would likely be written off as luck or coincidence or circumstantial by some. But if that’s the case, I’ve lived a very Forrest Gump type life. The question I would pose is: what would you accept as evidence? Do you know?
Perhaps you do, but many people say they want evidence, but have no idea what that evidence would look like (I’m not trying to pigeonhole you into that category, though). It’d be similar to asking someone to prove their identity after seeing their ID and Birth certificate (which can be forged). They say “what do you want me to show you to prove it?” You say “I don’t know…just prove it.”
How do you know a conversation with a friend or family member is real? If, for example, your friend was lying, had a false identity or was a robot (to be extreme, but bear with me) would that differ from my talking to a God who doesn’t exist?
You know because your friends and family exhibit behavior over time that convinces you (or is evidential) of them being who they say they are. It’s part of how I reconcile some things in the Bible I don’t quite understand. For the vast majority of the Bible, God is characterized as someone who loves and wants to be with his children. So on occasion, when I come across a head-scratcher, I trust God is still the person I’ve seen him to be until an acceptable answer comes along. And if it doesn’t, I’m ok accepting that I don’t have God 100% figured out and perhaps I just don’t understand the circumstances. Because–like in a real relationship–I give my friends the benefit of the doubt once in a while.
As for my doubt/faith in God’s existence/reality, the same applies. I’ve seen far too many things to just blow him off like that. Am I sure to the point of not being able to be un-convinced? No. I think I clarified that above. But when a friend lies to me or does something to make me question their loyalty or love, I give them the benefit of the doubt based on their past actions. When something that makes me question God comes along, I give him the benefit of the doubt as well.
Comment by: Helen
24 08/25/07 9:14 AM | Comment Link |Nathanael, my guess about you would have been that you are more open than that one comment implied - I was surprised to read it; now I’m glad to see it’s not really representative of your position.
I appreciate you jumping in and trying this dialog out. I ask people to do their best to be respectful of each other; I don’t expect them to be perfect at dialog or never to make mistakes, or to be able to express themselves with perfect clarity. I’d have to stop posting here myself if that was the standard! :)
I think of apologetics and defenses as presentation of the evidence plus reasoning relating to why the evidence is admissible/plausible, etc. So one incorporates the other.
Comment by: Helen
25 08/25/07 9:16 AM | Comment Link |Pete wrote:
That seems reasonable to me, up to a point; it’s what I did, up to a point. Eventually there were too many questions for me to do that any more. I respect that your experience is different, Pete.
Comment by: hoverFrog
26 08/25/07 12:31 PM | Comment Link |Helen, I’d be a fool if I wasn’t open to new evidence. I just can’t think of anything, short of God appearing in front of me, that would convince me. Even then I’d probably assume that I was delusional. ;) Anecdotal evidence certainly would no suffice. Nor would coincidence that fall within normal limits of probability. The bible is also useless to me as evidence. I’ve studied history and it’s given me a perspective on what is “good” and “bad” evidence and the Bible is really bad evidence.
Pete
I can typically see them, hear them, touch them, I have the evidence of my senses. I admit that my senses can be fooled but I must still rely on them.
Comment by: Nathanael
27 08/26/07 5:41 AM | Comment Link |Thank you, dear Helen, for your graciousness.
I plan on checking out your site regularly now that I’ve found it.
Shalom
Comment by: Helen
28 08/26/07 8:33 AM | Comment Link |hoverFrog - I understand what you’re saying. Pretty much the same things stand between where I am now and me saying “Yes I definitely believe in God”.
Thanks Nathanael - I hope to see you here again.
Comment by: Stephan
29 08/27/07 7:30 AM | Comment Link |I find this to be a pretty standard atheist attitude toward God’s existence. Unfortunately this means your mind is complete closed on the issue. Even is something supernatural occurred you would write it off. Sadly, this confirms some Christian “misconceptions” about atheists.
Comment by: Helen
30 08/27/07 7:44 AM | Comment Link |Stephan, I don’t think that’s what it means. I appreciated hoverFrog’s honesty; I read his comment as saying “Although I hope I am open, it’s very hard for me to see myself changing my mind”.
It’s like when Christians say “Of course I want to love people like Jesus wants me to - but in reality I often find myself feeling something that falls far short of that love, towards specific individuals”.
My response to either would be respond with “thanks for your honesty” rather than “this means you are completely closed-minded” or “this means you aren’t loving”.
Comment by: Stephan
31 08/27/07 8:13 AM | Comment Link |Helen, when someone says they are open minded, then follows it by saying they would interpret any new evidence to conform to their current conclusion, I have to assume that one of their statements is not true.
Comment by: Pete
32 08/27/07 9:38 AM | Comment Link |you asked
I responded
Sorry, I guess I wasn’t be clear enough. What I meant was: how do you know they aren’t lying/deceiving you? How could you know they aren’t pretending to be someone they aren’t?
And it was sort of rhetorical, as the rest of my post illustrates. I was mostly asking it to give a real-life example–one everyone could relate to–about how I see my relationship with God as real, despite not having him standing in front of me. And even when something questionable is brought to my attention. And to sort of talk about what fath is to me.
As for what Stephan and Helen are talking about, I think you are BOTH correct. Hoverfrog does sound closed-minded, but it’s refreshing and pretty big of him to admit it so frankly, rather than pretend he is open-minded when he isn’t. Just the same as the Christian in Helen’s example has takren a big step by admitting his issue, but the fact remains he doesn’t love as Jesus did.
And Hoverfrog, my question to you is–and I’m not trying to instigate anything, just giving you food for thought–if there really is nothing to make you honestly consider God existing, then aren’t comments like
and
a bit misleading? Sort of the chicken before the egg? You’ve already somewhat said that nothing could convince you of God’s existence, and the few things you can think of you’d write off as bad pizza or something. Yet you then say that the evidence you see never points to God.
So does the evidence you’ve encountered never point to God, or have you already concluded God can never be the answer and so never even give that option a thought? Do you see the difference? (again, feel free not to respond if it makes you feel defensive. I don’t want to start anything, I just thought it would give you something to chew on intellectually).
I see a lot of Christians take this approach with evolution theory. They have already written it off as wrong and evil, and so never bother to even consider it as an option. Yet when asked, they would say things like “well evolution has no real proof, it is JUST a theory.” Which leads one to believe they’ve considered it, when in reality they’ve written it off without even glancing at it. When this happens, they’re often criticized and mocked by non-Christians as being the blind ones (to steal a phrase from above). Why? Because they don’t honestly give things a chance.
Far too many of us enter the atheist/christian conversation looking only for holes in the other’s conversation–a way to show how we are correct and they are not. Or a way to respond without sounding foolish. But we don’t actually consider the other’s viewpoint (and the conversation suffers because there isn’t honest discussion and thought, just passionate debate). But what if both sides entered the conversation with the intention and desire to listen and honestly consider what is being said? If what you believe is true, then such scrutiny will only strengthen what you believe. And if you are wrong, don’t you want to be shown that?
I only hope I can practice what I preach here. I’m trying ^^.
Comment by: Helen
33 08/27/07 9:53 AM | Comment Link |Pete wrote:
Yes yes yes…exactly!!!
Thanks Pete :)
Stephan, can I ask whether you consider yourself open or closed and if you can imagine anything that would cause you to stop believing in God?
I’m not trying to bait you; I just want to understand your position better; and also, sometimes it helps me understand peoples’ reactions to what others say if I know more about where they are coming from.
I feel like I should already know your answer to this, because it’s probably come up before. My apologies if you’ve answered it before, since evidently I can’t remember what you said.
Comment by: Stephan
34 08/27/07 10:26 AM | Comment Link |To be honest, I regularly consider what life would be like if I did not believe in God. I don’t like how it would look. My family would be torn apart. I would alienate most of my friends. My lifestyle would change dramatically. It’s not a very pleasant prospect.
That said, if I had serious reason to believe God did not exist I would not continue to act as if I believed just to keep up appearances.
It’s hard for me to imagine what could shake my faith, but I suppose it would be possible. Let’s say my parents, who I greatly admire, both told me that they no longer believed in God and that everything they had told me about their faith was a lie, that would certainly cause me to reconsider things. If the Bible was proven to be completely false, that would be an eye opener. There might be other things that rank up there, but I can’t think of them off the top of my head.
I can’t say for sure that I would lose my faith, but there are certainly things that would cause me to question it more than I have in the past. It is not beyond the realm of possibility, but it is way out there.
Comment by: hoverFrog
35 08/27/07 10:35 AM | Comment Link |Pete, I think, like most people, I have looked for something bigger and better than me to make sense of the world for me. I looked at Christianity, Paganism, and even Buddhism but there were always too many holes in it to satisfy my curiosity.
When you say that my statements are misleading I’m afraid I miss your point. The universe is vast and we know only a tiny bit about it. To me that shows that it is a wonderful place to exist in and to explore those mysteries. Attributing God as the instigator of them is a bit of a cop out (a weak argument) for me.
It is true that I cannot imagine any evidence that would convince me of the existence of a God but I cannot imagine a lot of things. I couldn’t imagine what it was like to be a parent before I was one and now I can barely imagine what it would be like not to be a parent. My views change as I gain experience and I feel that I am open to absorbing that experience and learning from them.
Evolution is a theory but it is a theory that fits all the evidence available. To say otherwise strikes me as very closeminded. Can you imagine a scientist coming up with a better theory than evolution with suitable proofs and being ridiculed by the scientific community?
Comment by: Pete
36 08/27/07 11:03 AM | Comment Link |All I mean is, those statements give the impression that you seriously consider the idea of God and find it lacking. but your other statements say that you wouldn’t believe in God even if he showed up in person for you. So the idea that you give the idea a chance–when it seems as if you don’t–is misleading.
For example, when you say
that’s not really true (based on other things you’ve said). I’m not trying to attack you, so please don’t take it that way. It just seems that you give the impression that you’re open to the idea…but you’re not. Perhaps I am misinterpreting what you’ve said. based on your last post, I think I am. It’s just tricky because you say you’re open, then say nothing could convince you. but we all have the right to be unsure :D
Yes. My mind is not made up at all on the subject but I’ve studied it intensely. Any time a scientist mentions the idea of challenging evolution theory he is laughed down or ‘discredited.’ It’s ok to bring new ideas that change the current thoughts on evolution, but trying to bring evidence against it is just plain ignored. I won’t go into it, because this isn’t the place. But there is evidence that suggests evolution is not the answer. I personally don’t think it matters.
Comment by: Steve S
37 08/27/07 2:50 PM | Comment Link |It seems that this statement is only true if you have a specific concept of God in mind…
Reminds me of something I heard a sminary prof say to one of his incoming seminary students who was an atheist.
Student: “I don’t believe in God.”
Prof: “Tell me about this God you don’t believe in…”
Student: “He is like such-and-such”
Prof: “Well, yu will be relieved to know that I don’t believe in that God either…”
My understanding of Christian concepts of God has led me to a deeper sense of mystery (posibly even confusion) and awe at something completely incomprehensible. Part of the Christian claim about God is that He is precisely unknowable in this sense. I can understand not believing in God, but I don’t want to make the mistake of disbelieving in a “Wizard of Oz” figure or an”Old Man with a Beard.” Perhaps this problemis perpetuated by recent Western Christian attempts to acclimate Jesus to the post-Enlightenment culture, and so to present a God who is ‘knowable and defineable’ but I don’tthink that this concept works alogside the picture of God that we get when we consider the wider Christian perspective on who God is and on who God is not.
Comment by: hoverFrog
38 08/28/07 3:48 AM | Comment Link |Pete, to clarify. I have seriously considered the idea of God (actually several different ones) and found it lacking. No new evidence or ideas have arisen, and are unlikely to given the static state of most religions, so my viewpoint is unlikely to change. As I said before I cannot imagine anything changing my mind. I would hope that I am open to new evidence or to the same evidence presented in a way that I had not previously considered but until someone can show this to me I will remain a skeptic.
As to evolution, I cannot see a serious theory being discredited unless it was found to be lacking in evidence. The scientific community rigorously challenges new theories (as it should) to test them for inconsistencies. If a new theory were to arise that answered the gaps in evolutionary theory then I am certain that it would be challenged but eventually accepted as long as it held up to proper testing and inquiry.
Steve, the God of the Old Testament is a monster and yet seems to have a change of policy in the New Testament without living down any of the atrocities committed in the first book (books?). Jesus does a better job of selling his philosophy but it still leaves more questions than answers. Who is God from your viewpoint? What characteristics does he have? What actions does he perform? What purpose does he serve?
I’m afraid I reject God not on a personal level but on a holistic level in the same way that you would reject Thor or Apollo. The totality of information that I have about God (scientifically, mathematically, philosophically, historically) is simply not enough to convince me of his existence. Show me a different perspective and I am happy to consider it.
Comment by: Laura M.
39 08/28/07 6:30 AM | Comment Link |‘Mentioning the idea of challenging evolution’ is not at all the same thing as ‘bringing suitable proof against evolution’. And no, there’s no reason why scientists would ignore suitable evidence or proof.
Laughing at scienific evidence isn’t what most scientists do. From everything I’ve read, most scientists are dismayed that there is not better evidence for how life began on earth, and they’re honest about what the fossil evidence does and does not show.
Comment by: Pete
40 08/28/07 9:26 AM | Comment Link |Hoverfrog, I think I understand more clearly what you meant. Thanks. I hope some of the conversations here will make you consider God again (because I believe in him and think it’s good for people to know him).
Laura, my concern isn’t so much that they haven’t accepted some other theory because they’re biased. It has more to do with evolution theory having so much evidence against it and the scientific community being willing to ignore that, mostly citing the evidence for it. But when a new theory arises, they point specifically to that theory’s weaknesses. Why does evolution theory get the benefit of the doubt while other theories have to be airtight before being considered?
Science isn’t about who came up with their idea first. And for the most part, that’s how every field is. But when it comes to evolution theory, it seems like the scientific community in general says “evolution was here first so you’d better have pretty good evidence or we won’t consider it.”
Now I’m not a conspiracy theorist who thinks the atheists of the world only support evolution because it makes it easy to not believe in God. But I’m also not naeive enough to think that none of the scientists out there reject other models strictly based on their disbelief–which isn’t very scientific (just as some Christians reject evolution theory because they assume it leaves no room for God).
As I said, this isn’t really the thread for it so I won’t go much farther into it. I stopped really worrying about it long ago, when it became obvious that it was one of those things that really has little impact and that I could spend my time (and represent Jesus) better helping those in need, loving the unloved and teaching my students about who God is.
Comment by: Laura M.
41 08/28/07 10:05 AM | Comment Link |Wow, you’ve really intrigued me Pete!
I didn’t know there was a better theory, and with proof.
I didn’t realize there was so much evidence against evolution either. I am aware of many scientists honest statements of some evidence contradicting evolution, and that there is not enough evidence for evolution.
With that in mind, I would have thought that if there were a better theory, scientists would be thrilled.
I can’t think of any reason scientists would hold evolution in this special regard.
Scientists beliefs are typically formed on the basis of evidence, so I would think rejecting theories simply because it/they contradict(s) existing theories wouldn’t be very common, and when it occurs I would think the reaction would be short lived when/if the new theory has just as much evidence or proof (and especially if it has more so) than the existing theory.
It’s hard to believe this is really a problem in the scientific community. It almost sounds like for what you say to be true it would have to be a conspiracy, since the vast majority of scientists are in agreement that evolution is the best theory going, for the moment.
Comment by: Laura M.
42 08/28/07 10:43 AM | Comment Link |What he actually said was that he didn’t know what could convince him; he couldn’t imagine what that could be. Not that nothing could convince him.
Just as Stephan here admits that he can’t imagine anything , specifically, that could cause him to lose his faith. My experience with Christians is that most would answer just as Stephan has; they can’t think of any specific thing that would result in their losing faith.
Unless any Christians would like to chime in here and correct me by naming some specific circumstances that would absolutely, without a doubt, result in the loss of your faith. If not, then we have to be fair and say that any non-believer who can’t name a specific circumstance that would cause them to have faith is as equally closeminded as Christians are, when not being able to imagine losing faith.
There’s no way to legitimately claim that one is more closeminded than the other.
Comment by: hoverFrog
43 08/28/07 4:01 PM | Comment Link |Thanks Laura, that’s exactly what I meant.
Pete, I hope that some of the conversations here will make you reconsider God (because I don’t believe in him and think it is bad for people to accept his existence without evidence).
Comment by: Tim
44 08/29/07 8:21 AM | Comment Link |Can I say “Amen” to that Helen? Or is that inaprpriate here?
That’s a very very interestng way of thinking about it. How can I, someone with faith, tell someone who does not have faith, to look harder for it?
I guess that the only way to truly explain what colors are for someone who is blind is to show them the colors. For someone who does not have faith, the only way to explain to them what it means to be a Christian is to demonstrate the power behind it.
Interesting.
Comment by: Helen
45 08/29/07 10:58 AM | Comment Link |Tim, you can say “Amen” here if you like :).
I have a question: how can you show a blind person colors? I don’t understand what you mean.
Comment by: Pete
46 08/29/07 11:39 AM | Comment Link |Oh they do, as I’ve mentioned. And I hope you didn’t take my comment the wrong way. Your response make sme wonder. I added the part in parentheses to explain that I wasn’t trying to belittle your view, but was hoping honestly for you (and everyone) to discover something good. The same way I would wish you a happy marriage, etc.
I can’t speak for everyone, but for me I’ve seriously considered losing it on the subjects of a hell of eternal punishment, on the inconsistency that a loving God would demand our worship (which I misunderstood the meaning of), and even at times from not ‘feeling’ like God was there–a dry time as some people call it.
I nearly dropped out of Bible college because of two of those things. So for me, the idea that someone–on either side–is so completely convinced that they won’t even entertain ideas that might make their ‘faith’ shaky is too bad. I’m not here to convince anyone, but to hopefully represent God better than many christians out there who don’t get it represent him. I will never talk someone into believing in God (and why would I want to? If I can talk you into it, you can be talked out of it). It has to be real, spiritual, and from God.
That’s my opinion anyways.
Comment by: hoverFrog
47 08/30/07 8:58 AM | Comment Link |Sorry Pete, it was a cheap shot on my part. Just for the record I’m not married either and have no intention of getting married. For me it is a religious ceremony only and I have no desire to be a hypocrite by participating in one. Consider how you would feel if someone wished you a joyful bar mitzvah or a cast circle.
It doesn’t matter, I was obviously easily offended on that day.
On a rating from 1 to 7 (1 being absolute certainty in God and 7 being the opposite) would you place yourself at a 2? For the record I would place myself at a 6.
Comment by: Pete
48 09/4/07 8:47 AM | Comment Link |I would probably have to put my self in a bracket…some days I feel like a 1.5, others a 3 or 4. But I feel that way in all of my relationships and I think that’s a good thing…or at least not a bad thing.
I think being 100% sure of anything is bad. It only sets you up for bad things.