The Absurdity of Life without God
April 22nd, 2008 by Sean
I listened to this talk by Dr. William Lane Craig a while ago and to this day I consider it one of the most thought provoking and best stated explanations of why life without God is miserable. Many atheists today assert that life is better without God. For example, Richard Dawkins said recently in the Expelled movie that he finds people are relieved when they discover that God does not exist. However, should this be the case? Some of the finest atheists of the last couple of centuries who thought deeply about their worldview came to a much different conclusion. In fact one of them said that the only serious philosophical question was whether or not to commit suicide.
Ultimately, if God does not exist, if there is no immortality, then all of our accomplishments, relationships, and dreams are destined to perish in the heat death of the universe. Ultimately, it does not matter if someone lives as a Stalin or as a Mother Theresa.
The lecture begins with a brief drama highlighting meaningless conversation in a world without God and then goes to William Craig’s speech. Then questions from the audience are taken. I should warn you that in the middle there are some graphic descriptions of heinous evil (i.e. Dr. Josef Mengele from the Holocaust). This presentation is not for the faint of heart, but it is well worth the listen.
To access the Veritas page for this talk, click here. Veritas has tons of free audio from many of the top minds in Christianity who have spoken a college campus accross the US.
To listen to the file directly, click here. Total running time is 52:45. If you prefer to skip the dramatic reading, start the recording at 10 minutes.
“Ultimately, if God does not exist, if there is no immortality, then all of our accomplishments, relationships, and dreams are destined to perish in the heat death of the universe.”
Ultimately, if god and an afterlife do exist, then nothing in this life matters. You can mess up, hurt people, destroy and foul up this life as much as possible because THIS life doesn’t really count. It’s the rough draft before getting to the final.
I don’t live in a rough draft. I have one shot, and then it’s all over. Which means that I’m going to work harder to make this the best, most loving, more intellectually fulfilling and pleasant life I can. Not just for me, but for everyone else. Because they only get the one shot too.
Morse, if you would like to respond to this post, please first listen to the mp3. Dr. Craig is not making this case from a solely theistic point of view. The atheists are the ones who have said that life is absurd. You are just disagreeing with them.
As for the Christian viewpoint, it is clear from Jesus’ teachings that what we do in this life has everything to do with whether or not there will be a next life for us. If we do not live obediently to Jesus then we will not enjoy life in the kingdom. If we do then our calling is to live out the kingdom ethic in the here and now as a demonstration to the world of God’s ultimate plan to restore the earth to paradise.
Then my question would be, is there such a thing as a death-bed conversion?
In your particular type of Christianity, can someone earn forgiveness by being sincerely apologetic and asking Jesus for forgiveness?
If so, then my point stands. You can do whatever you like as long as you are sorry and ask Jesus for forgiveness before you die. An atheist can’t do that, and must take responsibility for his own actions with no guaranteed forgiveness.
“The atheists are the ones who have said that life is absurd. You are just disagreeing with them.”
I would ask to be shown these atheists. It seems a more fitting definition of nihilists. And while most nihilists are atheists, I don’t think most atheists are nihilists.
Morse,
Please listen to the mp3 if you are at all curious about which atheists said what. I am not an expert on atheism. But, it seems to me that if atheism is true then nihilism is the natural consequence.
The statement, “can someone earn forgiveness” is mistaken. No one earns forgiveness. But, I do see your point about the last minute conversion, although I’m uncomfortable with that way of thinking. It is more often the case that one who holds to such a view–I’ll repent later–that later never comes, but instead, slowly, a hardening of heart occurs so that even when the end is near no repentance occurs.
Even so, I don’t get why you should be responsible. If there is no God then to whom are you responsible? Why not rather choose to be irresponsible? What’s the point of living responsibly for you as an atheist?
“But, it seems to me that if atheism is true then nihilism is the natural consequence”
Then I would present to you myself and the myriad atheists, probably the majority, who are optimistic and positive.
“If there is no God then to whom are you responsible?”
The other 6 billion people on the planet. Or at least the other 300 million people in the country I live.
“Why not rather choose to be irresponsible?”
Because I live in a cooperative society that has laws and rules and social mores. If I’m so irresponsible that I start harming others, that society will punish me or eject me. I also get pleasure from helping others and, through that, helping myself.
“What’s the point of living responsibly for you as an atheist?”
Love. Friendship. Happiness. Comfort. Learning.
There’s more, but those are the ones that occur to me immediately.
Morse, you are just not convincing me. You are merely asserting things. I’m asking you the WHY question. Why are you optimistic? Do you have a reason? Why should you be responsible to the other 6 billion people? What is your reason? What if society were different…in that case would you conform? What if others get happiness from torturing other rather than helping them? Should they be allowed to do that?
“Why are you optimistic?”
Because every human being is born with such potential. We began as simple primitive apes and we’ve advanced to a point where we can live in nearly every environment on a mostly uninhabitable planet. We’ve clawed to the top of the food chain despite the fact that we are neither the strongest nor the fastest animal in the world.
We certainly aren’t perfect. And on occasion we have fallen back. But on the whole, the incredible journey of human progress inspires my cautious optimism.
“Why should you be responsible to the other 6 billion people? What is your reason?”
Because I have empathy. Nothing I can control, it’s something I was born with. Something 99% of people are born with. Empathy that formed in our biological past because we gave birth to children that needed protection to survive. Without that empathy, we would have died off. And as a result of that evolutionary turn, we can now feel empathy for other people.
If you are sad, I fee, sad as well. And so making you happy in turn makes me happy.
It’s also partially selfish because we have a cooperative society. I help others because they will help me in return. Only by doing this can we live together in peace. Obviously our species is still working on this.
“What if others get happiness from torturing other rather than helping them? Should they be allowed to do that?”
No, they shouldn’t. Because we can understand harm and benefit scientifically. We know that torture causes harm. And, because we have empathy, we do everything in our power to prevent the most harm and cause the most benefit. So we don’t let people torture.
Again, we’re not perfect. We’re tribal to a certain extent, and are able to justify harming others if it benefits the members of our tribe. If we can keep working without destroying ourselves, maybe one day we’ll do better than that and get rid of those tribal feelings. That’s one of my hopes, anyway.
Oh, and I’m not trying to convince you of anything. Just trying to help you understand the atheist perspective. Or at least THIS atheist’s perspective.
Morse,
I appreciate your answers. They help me greatly to understand why you are not a nihilist. Even so, I’m still not completely convinced. A couple of thoughts on what you just said:
Two things here: (1) Not every human being is born with such potential. Some humans are born with severe handicaps. The evolutionary response to these people is eugenics. Do you believe that all genetically handicapped people should be sterilized or even killed? (2) It sounds like you are exalting in the idea of our ability to “claw our way to the top.” Thus, it would make sense that you would base your ethics on survival of the fittest not sociological concerns. If by performing a certain act, it would increase your chances of survival and passing on your genetic material then you should (you are obligated to do it).
I appreciate your use of the word “cautious” there. Of course you are well aware that the post-enlightenment, secular humanists, optimism of the 19th century was decimated by the bloodiest, most incredibly heinous, century on record—the 20th. In fact, by the middle of the 20th century everyone had pretty much given up on the idea that with scientific, technological, medical, psychological, sociological, etc., advancements humanity would finally arrive to a peaceful sustainable existence. But, of course, this has not happened. People are killing each other at an alarming rate.
Great points! I still have two questions, though. (1) Why should you pay any attention to your (God given) empathy? Ok. That was dirty. Let me rephrase. Why should you pay any attention to your evolved sense of empathy? Surely there are other instincts that fight against empathy within you? Have you ever wanted to hit someone? Have you ever wanted to do evil? If not, then I’m seriously impressed. Why subdue these “primal instincts” in favor of “empathy.” I think (but I’m not sure) that many atheists would label empathy as a weakness which serves only to hold us back. Empathy may be just a relic of Christianity that needs to be rejected. (2) You said, “by doing this we can live together in peace.” But why should we want peace? I’m finding that at the foundation of many of your statements you are assuming certain virtues that are really Christian (i.e. learned from our Judeo-Christian society). Why not continue clawing your way? Why seek peace. Is not peace surrender? Why not declare war on the less evolved? Why not exterminate the handicapped?
Ah! An absolute! I’m very excited now. You are absolutely sure that it is wrong to torture because we understand harm and benefit scientifically. But….what about Dr. Megele? He was the Nazi doctor who did tons of torturous experiments on the Jews in order to benefit the greater mankind with cutting edge medical insights? Are you prepared to condemn his behavior? If you do then you are saying that we should slow down our evolutionary path (or at least stunt it).
Please listen to the mp3 at the top of this page. It is worth your 35 minutes or so (excluding the drama and the questions). Then I would like to hear more from your thoughts.
“The evolutionary response to these people is eugenics.”
What do you mean by ‘evolutionary response’? These people are less likely to mate and have children, and so less likely to pass on whatever handicaps they have. That’s all evolution says. Nowhere is there any indication of what one should or should not do.
“Thus, it would make sense that you would base your ethics on survival of the fittest not sociological concerns.”
Incorrect. Partially because ‘fittest’ can mean so many different things. And one of the incredible things about humans is that we got to the top by using our minds, as opposed to just brute strength and ferociousness.
“Why should you pay any attention to your evolved sense of empathy? Surely there are other instincts that fight against empathy within you? Have you ever wanted to hit someone? Have you ever wanted to do evil? If not, then I’m seriously impressed. Why subdue these “primal instincts” in favor of “empathy.””
First of all, empathy is natural. If you want to call it ‘god given’, then by all means call it that. Doesn’t bother me.
We follow empathy because it feels the best and it works. Obviously there are sociopaths and sadists who enjoy causing pain. But these people are the minority.
Have I ever wanted to hit someone? Sure. Have I ever wanted to do evil? No. I’ve wanted to do things that benefited me and might have harmed others. I don’t know if I would call it ‘evil’ necessarily. Mainly because you make it sound like someone would want to do evil just because evil is attractive in and of itself. Which I think is false.
And I should add that whenever I felt the desire to benefit myself at the expense of others, it was either because I didn’t understand the harm I was causing (when I was a child, for example) or I rationalized that harm away. As a species and as individuals we have come a long way towards eliminating those rationalizations. We obviously need to keep working harder in that respect, but we’re going in the right direction.
“But why should we want peace?”
Because we don’t want to die. We (atheists) understand that death is it, death is the end, and death is the ultimate harm. And again that tricky feeling of empathy returns. We know that we don’t want to die. And so we would feel bad about killing others. Living in peace seems to cause the most benefit and the least harm for all involved.
“I’m finding that at the foundation of many of your statements you are assuming certain virtues that are really Christian”
People believed in peace, and kindness, and not killing each other long before Christianity or Judaism. Which is not to say that Christianity doesn’t and hasn’t promoted those things. But they aren’t original to your religion.
“Why not declare war on the less evolved? Why not exterminate the handicapped?”
Number one, empathy. I have no desire to cause others harm because I recognize that harm feels bad. That simple and fundamental. Also, the best way to get myself killed is to start or get involved in a war. Death being the end, I want to avoid that as much as possible.
“Ah! An absolute!”
No, actually. Just a response to your particular hypothetical.
“But….what about Dr. Megele? He was the Nazi doctor who did tons of torturous experiments on the Jews in order to benefit the greater mankind with cutting edge medical insights?”
Except his ‘experiments’ benefited nothing. He was a horrible scientist and a bad doctor. And I’m using those terms in relation to the effectiveness of his science.
Had Mengle actually discovered things that benefited people, we would have a moral dilemma. As it is, his experiments benefited no one. They led to no scientific advancements or discovery. All they did was torture human beings.
That being said, I can condemn Mengele because there was no benefit for all the harm he did.
Had he made cutting edge insights, would I still condemn him for what he did? Yes. Because no advancements are worth the horrors he committed. I know that simply by looking at harm and benefit.
And, as a side note to your ‘god given empathy’ comment, I should mention that as Mengele did his horrible deeds he was wearing a belt buckle that said “Gott mit uns” (God with Us), just like every other Nazi.
Not that I’m blaming the Nazis on Christianity. Just pointing out that the vast majority of Nazis were Christians, and that their Christianity didn’t seem to stop what they were doing.
“If you do then you are saying that we should slow down our evolutionary path (or at least stunt it).”
I wonder why you feel I would have a problem doing that.
Evolution is a fact of nature. It’s the way living things change. That’s all. It’s not a philosophy. It’s not a primer on how people should act or the way they should treat each other.
If convinced that evolution meant we had to kill the handicapped and the ‘lesser’ people (whatever that meant), I would have no problem denouncing those actions and saying we should stunt out evolutionary progress.
But I would still know that evolution happens.
Morse,
You bring up some interesting points yet again. I wish I had more time to address each of your points. Even so, I’m still not sure why you don’t derive your ethics from your naturalism? How do you know what is right and wrong? I hear you saying the answer is “empathy.” But that is a very subjective response. Everyone has different levels of empathy and besides, why should we trust empathy…because we have it? i.e. it evolved? Shouldn’t we rather trust the evolutionary mechanism itself? Dumb luck and survival? Why not base our ethics on these principles? Perhaps the motto would be–”play the hand your dealt” and “if you can get away with it, steal some cards from others.” This is more in tune with what we see in nature.
You have lost me here. Dr. Mengele was clearly working from an evolutionary framework in an effort to further the human species. You are condemning him for this. I don’t think you really believe that evolution is good…or you wouldn’t advocate slowing it down.
Why shouldn’t we base our ethics on evolution? Why should we base it on empathy? What is scientifically superior about empathy over against evolution? Why am I the one arguing for evolutionary thinking here?
So you don’t believe in absolutes? or you do? I’m confused…you have just reversed yourself.
Do you go to RPI? Want to have coffee and talk more sometime?
“Even so, I’m still not sure why you don’t derive your ethics from your naturalism?”
Because scientific logic, empathy and common sense make more sense.
“How do you know what is right and wrong? I hear you saying the answer is “empathy.” But that is a very subjective response.”
Trial and error. Luckily a great deal of that trial and error happened before I was every born.
And yes, it is subjective. Morals are subjective. Even if you believe in god, they’re still subjective. If true, you are just following the rules that your god chose subjectively. And changes at a whim, it seems.
“You have lost me here. Dr. Mengele was clearly working from an evolutionary framework in an effort to further the human species.”
Dr. Mengele was clearly working from an anti-semitic fascistic totalitarian framework and used scientific advancement as a shallow cover.
“Why shouldn’t we base our ethics on evolution? Why should we base it on empathy? What is scientifically superior about empathy over against evolution? Why am I the one arguing for evolutionary thinking here?”
Because you aren’t arguing for evolutionary thinking. You’re turning evolution into some sort of philosophy. And I think that’s either because of a misunderstanding or because you’ve fallen prey to propagandists.
Evolution has nothing to do with morals, ethics, or the way people should treat each other.
And yes, evolution is a cold, pitiless, indifferent process. So is the food chain of carnivores and herbivores. Neither should necessarily be turned into ethical philosophies.
“So you don’t believe in absolutes? or you do? I’m confused…you have just reversed yourself.”
Morals are situational. Some are quite close to being absolute…don’t kill, for example…but even killing is sometimes morally justifiable, as in self-defense.
“Do you go to RPI? Want to have coffee and talk more sometime?”
No idea what RPI is, sorry, hehe.
Now you’ve got me curious. How did you come across this site?
Google Blog Search. Picked up the word ‘atheist’.
-”How do you know what is right and wrong? I hear you saying the answer is “empathy.” But that is a very subjective response.”
-Trial and error. Luckily a great deal of that trial and error happened before I was every born.”
That is an amusing response. Looking over the discussion, I tend to agree with Morse. It is strange how a few years ago I would have naturally protested otherwise. But over time I am seeing that atheism can be positive.
I do promise I will at least give this lecture a shot.. this weekend. So, stay tuned.
Also, Sean, in case you were wondering, I did tell one of my RPI friends about the blog. His names Tim, he is an atheist, and he may be posting sometime. In a way I sortof feel as though I’m calling in “reinforcements”.. but I think his views would be valuable in such discussions. His views are interesting in that he is a follower of the philosophy of Ayn Rand. I had not known much about Rand before meeting him.
Dan,
I just figured that Morse was a friend because he came on the same day as you saying very similar things. That just goes to show that I should not make assumptions about people.
I’d be curious to hear from this Tim. I am familiar with Ayn Rand and Objectivism. I have read most of the Fountain Head, and I attended some sort of lecture by an Objectivist when I was at RPI. The guy was so offensive that bit by bit everyone left the room. I hope he was just a poor example of Objectivism.
Sean,
So what are you saying? All atheists look the same to you!?!?
Only kidding, of course.
I too will gladly take a listen to that mp3 when I get a chance. And I’d love for you to respond to some of my earlier points.
You don’t have to, of course, this being your blog and all.
– Mark Twain
“The miracle, or the power, that elevates the few is to be found in their industry, application, and perseverance under the prompting of a brave, determined spirit.”
“Great people are those who can make others feel that they, too, can become great.”
“Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one’s lifetime.”
-Mark Twain
Morse,
Tim Keller also brought up some interesting points about the friction between evolution and human rights in his talk @ google.
click here to listen to it
Sean,
I’ll give it a listen, but I’m sure I disagree just by reading your one line description.
Evolution is not a philosophy. (I know, I’ve said this numerous times in my responses, but you haven’t responded to it so I think I’ll include it one more time.) I personally have not heard of anyone advocating that evolution be made into a social philosophy. The only people I know of who suggest that evolution is a philosophy are Christians and other religious people.
I frankly can’t understand it.
Evolution is a scientific theory. Like gravity. And no one is trying to turn gravity into a social philosophy either.
Hi Morse
You are right in that evolution is not more than a scientific THEORY … but are you correct about gravity being a scientific theory?
I would say that “gravity” is an established natural law, proven by scientific tests and evaluation of data. Now, as far as evolution goes, there have never been any such tests possible (even for the simple fact, that we don’t live long enough to prove or find the evidence for the supposed theory which is solely based on assumption …
I don’t care about giving evolution (or gravity) “a philosophical touch”, my point is simply this: As far as science is concerned, all scientists agree that evolution is nothing more than a THEORY …. which has not been proven and can’t be proven. The only type of “evolution” that has been shown to indeed exist as a reality from a scientific point of view is the development WITHIN a species or kind …. and this type of “evolution” has actually been formulated in the Mendel’s laws of how certain characteristics of a living being may be developed further or may be supressed by means of certain selection (compare further details taught in genetics, and applied — for example — in breeding animals)
I have actually read somewhere that already for decades science has acknowledged that Darwin’s evolution theory can’t be proven to be any more than a theory, and there are actually more considerations which indicate that it is an incorrect theory than there are indications that it may perhaps be correct. In Germany, scientists are shaking their heads at the fact that this theory is still taught in elementary school and high school as if it were a proven and true reality … some have begun to voice their opinions and request a change in the school books, but the school boards thus far have refused …. (perhaps it is a matter of who has the bigger lobby?)
Cheers,
Wolfgang
*sigh*
From our good friends at Wikipedia:
“In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists “theory” and “fact” do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton’s theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the theory of general relativity.”
A theory is the highest level a scientific idea can reach. A fact is one of the lowest.
Creationism, on the other hand, is a hypothesis. And one that has zero scientific evidence currently backing it up.
Morse,
*double sigh * ….
If you want to be so scientific, I would not go by “our friends at wikipedia” for approved and necessarily correct information
I suppose there have been many theories … some have been valid and been proven to be more than just a theory, others have fallen through the cracks after some more thought or some practical evidence showed them to be false.
You mention “creationism” and that is is a hypthesis …. indeed. Guess what? Darwin’s evolution theory is no more than that either, a hypthesis. And there has been also zero scientific evidence to back it up (despite the fact, that many folks nowadays — and in particular NOT in scientific circles (!) — purport their own conclusions [shall we more accurately say, their further hypothesis?!] of certain things they see or find as “evidence”).
Aside from what I mentioned above regarding “development” (”evolution”) within a kind or species based on Mendel’s laws regarding genetics, there has been NO (= ZERO) EVIDENCE found to back up an evolution as developed in Darwin’s hypothetical theory.
On the contrary, there are actually more indications from a logical and reasonable standpoint which would give credence to “creationism” rather than “evolutionism” … and over the last half a century, scientists have distanced themselves from the “evolution theory/hypthesis” and regard the “creation theory/hypthesis” as more propable and preferrable.
Not along ago, I saw a TV documentation in German TV which was dealing with this matter in light of a possible revision of biology books in elementary schools and high schools. The sole emphasis on Darwin’s evolution theory and its presentation of it as if it were a scientifically proven fact in the current books was regarded as unsatisfactory by scientists, and a revision to (a) correct the information about evolution as being a hypothesis rather than a proven fact, and to (b) include “creation” as another possible hypothesis was deemed necessary and suggested.
Now, how long it will take until the politicians in responsible positions pick up on such input, nobody quite knows …. currently, it seems, they are more involved with trying to figure out where in school books to promote their “war on global warming” and the other related “climate hoax” information by which to feed the greedy money bags of some rather influential “higher powers”
Cheers,
Wolfgang
“(despite the fact, that many folks nowadays — and in particular NOT in scientific circles (!) — purport their own conclusions [shall we more accurately say, their further hypothesis?!] of certain things they see or find as “evidence”)”
So 99.9% of biologists are outside scientific circles? Just checking.
I recommend you look up Francis Collins, head of the human genome project. Why him? Because he happens to be a staunch Evangelical Christian. And he’s also clear about the fact the evolution happens. He has been quoted as saying that even without the myriad fossil evidence, the genetic evidence is more than enough to confirm Evolutionary Theory.
Not that I expect you to listen to him any more than you’ll listen to me. But from one of your own it might sound nicer.
And again, you seem to have no idea what the words ‘fact’ and ‘theory’ mean in a scientific setting.
It makes me sad to see this. Generally religious people don’t worry me. But when their dogmas cause them to throw away sound science, I begin to lose a bit of my optimism for humanity.
But if you don’t like scientific theory, then I would ask you to hand in your computer. And your television. And any other electronics you have in your house. And then I’d like you to have your power shut off, the chlorine removed from your water supply and all advancements in medical science (the majority of which were created thanks to jumps in evolutionary theory).
Without silly little ’scientific theories’, you’d be surprised with how little you’d be left with to survive.
Woah! Did you say that electronics are the result of our understanding of evolution? That’s absurd
Nope. Scientific advancement. Since he went from evolution to global warming, I imagined he’d be heading for electricity theory, nuclear theory and the theory of gravity next.
Not sure how he’ll manage to float, however.
Morse,
I am not “a staunch Evangelical Christian” ….
And, apparently we are reading different lexica or dictionaries by which our understanding of terms such as “fact” and “theory” is defined …
On what would you like to base your hypothesis that the majortiy of scientific advancement in various technical spheres was due to “jumps in evolutionary theory”? Once all the partly nebolous talk and smoke screen is taken away from the evolutionary hypothesis, the purporters of such rest basically on the same hypothetical assumptions as Darwin and his more immediate followers did … what “jumps in evolutionary theory” have there really been? Nothing that would prove its correctness … and the questions that have been used by those opposing the evolution hypothesis and showing it theoretically to be flawed have not been satisfactorily answered by evolutionists either …
Cheers
Wolfgang
“what “jumps in evolutionary theory” have there really been?”
Ever have a flu shot? Notice how you need to get a new one every year?
Because the flu virus evolves.
Notice dogs? How we can get a St. Bernard and a Chihuahua from the same wolf-like ancestor? Because they evolved. (With human breeding, I’ll grant you, but it’s still evolution.)
A fact is something simple. For example…I am 5′11″. That is a ‘fact’.
A theory is a complex explanation of facts that has been confirmed with observation and experimentation.
Now, you can deny it, and that’s your right. But your denials don’t change the evidence.
“On what would you like to base your hypothesis that the majortiy of scientific advancement in various technical spheres was due to “jumps in evolutionary theory”?”
I wasn’t saying that. I was saying that evolutionary theory is supported by the exact same scientific method that confirms gravitational theory, nuclear theory, the theory of electricity, germ theory, etc. And if you’re going to deny evolution, deny all of those as well. Because they’re all supported in the same way by the same kinds of evidence.
Morse,
have you really read my initial post on this topic???
In it I have already addressed what you are trying to use as “evolutionary jumps” or proof for your ideas concerning “evolution”
Darwin’s evolution hypothesis was not about genetics within kinds or species
Seems like not only our understanding of the terms “theory” and “fact” comes from different sources ….
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Define ‘kinds’.
Oh, I’m sorry, that’s not a scientific word. That’s a word Creationists have made up.
Morse,
I am rather surprised that you would not be familiar with “kind” (singular) / “kinds” (plural) …. but then of course, I am not a native English speaker and normally use the German terms and my use of English terminology may be faulty at times. But I do think that such terms like “kind” or “species” are used even in scientific circles
I don’t think that creationists made up that term … seems to have been a term in the English language quite some time before there was even such classification of people into “evolutionist” and “creationist” …
Cheers
Wolfgang
Also no such thing as an ‘evolutionist’. Or ‘Darwinist’.
It’s “biologist”.
Sorry for jumping in on this… i have only read the last post and literally nothing before it (not even the article.) But…
Please tell Dawkins that, as he is fond of giving himself that title.
I’ve heard him respond to people calling him that. But last I checked, he was an evolutionary biologist.
Look for the debate he had with Alister McGrath, unless he was being very sarcastic, he was asked his profession (job title, not his beliefs) and he simply said evolutionist.
Type evolutionist into google and see what comes up. there is no lack of the term being used in our culture.
Having looked at a few of the comments previous (sorry I don’t have time to read this whole thread…) and seeing the context from which this tiny little semantic argument came from, you could focus a little more on the substance from Wolfgangs statements instead nit-picking at his terminology. If you are insulted or dislike the term, simply say so, Wolfgang know how to be a gentlemen and oblige to your wishes.
Ok, so I finally got around to listening to this today. Overall it was somewhat interesting. It is obvious that if God does not exist, life does not have any absolute meaning or purpose. My response is : “So what?”.
Being a former Christian myself, I understand it takes a quite a bit of twisting of the brain to face up to the fact that we where not put here by God for a reason. But there are several reasons I have become comfortable with the notion. First is that Christianity doesn’t have any clear cut answers. Everybody interprets differently, and the Bible is a very confusing book. To get back subject, consider that whenever a Christian says God put you here for a reason, they never say what that reason is. That fact always confused me a great deal. Why would God create the universe? Alright.. I know the answer, we are here to praise and glorify God. But why would God need people to praise him? He already is perfect. And besides, no offense, but sitting around for an eternity praising God sounds like a pretty lame existence. There is also the philosophical point that if God exists, then everything has already been done, everything is known and the universe is at a “standstill”. There is no room for new things to happen. That seems kindof depressing. I don’t know if the logic is perfect, but I thought I would mention it. The idea came from this weird easter philosopher/ humorist OSHO. If you are intrigued you may enjoy his video http://youtube.com/watch?v=hhjOnYbKJJw.
Anyways, I am ok with the idea that life has no objective purpose. It is kindof like the is-ought problem.. We can say how life is .. but what about how it “ought” to be. The only solution to that problem is that person agents, decide what ought to be when they make actions. We work to do what is best for ourselves. This seems perfectly consistent to me. Maybe Ayn Rand was right.. selfishness is a virtue. People work to better themselves and a result everyone works together and everyone becomes better off.
I am excited about the future of the human race. There is a lot out there to explore. The great unknown is exciting! As Morse has said, we have come far and learned much. Maybe the universe will end, either in a big crunch or heat death..but there is always hope that life will go on. And even if not, there is still the fact that there was life and consciousness, at least for a short time.
Wolfgang: I hope you will someday read about the evidences for evolution, and not from a creationist site. And I just wanted to say that Wikipedia in many regards is an excellent source of information. On religious and other issues it is probably the most unbiased source on the web, and it is usually quite accurate.. in fact it was almost as accurate as Britanica and more accurate that Britannica in math and science, according to a research study published in the Journal Nature. I have been editing Wikipedia myself for sometime and understand how it works.
Now finally, about the question “would you rather God exists or not”. I agree with Morse on this as well… The question sort of caught me by surprise since it seems to suggest a connection between what I believe and what would like to believe, and there is none. I also figured you would revert the discussion to the Christian God. As a response I shall quote Richard Dawkins on this: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
I agree with this. On the one job I guess I could say he did an “ok” job creating the universe, but his character is pretty nasty. The God of the old testament is confusing when compared to most Christian’s conception of God. I would rather not he existed, for obvious reasons. The idealized loving God of the new testament taught at Living Hope seems kindof cool, I disagree with him about homosexuals and abortions, but by most accounts his morality seems fairly reasonable… even though I don’t think the whole “self sacrifice, and love ones enemies bit” makes much sense. But thats another story for another day. The idea of being absolutely forgiving seems kindof contradictory as well and his idea of sending his “son” to die a horrible death, then come back and slay people on a horse … it is terriby confusing and there seems like a lot of unnecessary pain and suffering. Overall I guess I would rather he did not exist because I wouldn’t get into heaven in my current state. The same goes for most other Gods who punish people who don’t believe in them.
Main Entry: fact
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin factum deed, real happening, something done, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere to do, make
1 : something that has actual existence : a matter of objective reality
MAin Entry: theory
Function: noun
Etymology: undefined
1 : A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Evolution occurs, and is commonly reffered to as mutation, like in the case of viruses. More specifically, micro-evolution occur, ie. evolution within a species. To my knowledge, and I believe I can state this with a good deal of certainty, there has been no evidence (physical evidence) of macro-evolution, or evolution between species. Whales do not become bananas.
“To my knowledge, and I believe I can state this with a good deal of certainty, there has been no evidence (physical evidence) of macro-evolution, or evolution between species”
Guess we should throw out all those fossils and genetic information, shall we? Do yourself a favor and look up Tiktaalik Roseae.
“Whales do not become bananas.”
If this is what you think evolution is, it’s no wonder you’re confused.
Morse,
I am aware of the discovery of Tiktaalik Roseae the ‘fishapod’, and congratulations, you’ve found yourself a fish with fins much like those of whales that is small enough that it is hypothesized that it could support it’s weight on them.
My question to you is, how does this PROVE evolution. You’ve got a fish with what could be legs. I’ve got a spider that eats camels. (See: Solifugae) Neither of these things prove that evolution exists.
What evidence is there for evolution between species?
“you’ve found yourself a fish with fins much like those of whales that is small enough that it is hypothesized that it could support it’s weight on them.”
A fish that has the bones of a shoulder, arm, and elbow encased within fins. A head and ribcage incredibly similar to amphibians. And found in the exact place where evolution predicted the transition between fish and amphibians would be found.
That’s what is comes down to. Evolution makes predictions, and then those predictions are shown to be true.
“That’s what is comes down to. Evolution makes predictions, and then those predictions are shown to be true. ”
I think it would be more accurate to say, Evolution makes predictions, and then the so-called “evidence” is interpreted to fit the theory, although other interpretations are equally viable. Also, evidence that might contradict the theory is ignored, and/or suppressed.
None of this has anything to do with the original topic, though. The statement was made that evolution is not a philosophy. That may be true, strictly speaking. But many philosophies and world-views have been devised, using evolution as at least part of their foundation. They are logical conclusions based on the premise that there is no God and no purpose for man, who developed by random chance.
(BTW, if most Christians fail to say what God’s purpose for man is, it’s because they have lost sight of the Gospel of the Kingdom which the Bible presents as the purpose and reason for all existance. That is why this site endeavors to spread that belief.)
“I think it would be more accurate to say, Evolution makes predictions, and then the so-called “evidence” is interpreted to fit the theory, although other interpretations are equally viable. Also, evidence that might contradict the theory is ignored, and/or suppressed.”
By all means, present your alternate interpretations and contradictory evidence. If it exists, I will listen and change my mind accordingly.
“They are logical conclusions based on the premise that there is no God and no purpose for man, who developed by random chance.”
If you stand by this statement, then you agree that evolution isn’t a philosophy.
Evolution isn’t random chance. And the constant referencing of it as such by creationists won’t make it so.
Dan, sorry for the delay in responding to your comment. I was away all last week and I’ve been trying to catch up since. Here are my thoughts.
The “so what?” is that one who believes that life is meaningless and vain should either be chronically depressed and probably suicidal or he or she should be a hedonistic narcissist who goes about indulging his or her every whim regardless of the detriment to others. As Dr. Craig pointed out, one cannot go on living happily without meaning. Thus, the atheist creates meaning for himself, but this is merely the instantiation of a delusion. The atheist fools herself into thinking that there is meaning in life so that she can go on living happily when in fact she knows that there are no objective grounds for such a delusion.
Dan, I wonder if you really were a Christian or if you were just raised in a Christian home. I’m not trying to be rude here, but it sure does seem like you haven’t grasped even the elementals of the faith. Did you at one time believe and repent after hearing the gospel of the kingdom and the cross? Did you ever make a decision to God to turn your life over to him? Being raised in a Christian home and being a Christian are two totally different realities. I was raised in a Christian home but did not repent until I was 19.
The reason why God put us here, that is, our purpose to the world is to provide a window into the coming kingdom, to show the world what the future of humanity looks like. The idea is that in the church we have already been restored, our guilt has been washed away, our relationships with others are reconciled, our relationship with God is made right (justified), our internal emotional issues are being resolved, etc. The idea is that we are a community of restoration who are already living the lifestyle of the kingdom in the here and now in the power of the spirit as a testimony to the world. Though this is our purpose for now, our ultimate purpose is to glorify God and enjoy him forever in the restored creation (the kingdom of God).
We do not praise God because he needs people to praise him. God is not like Santa Clause who (according to the movies) requires a certain number of people to believe in him in order to fly his little sled. God is the only thing in existence that is not contingent. He is the uncaused causer who has always existed, continues to exist, and will always exist. God does not need your praise. Rather, it is more like seeing something astounding for the first time, like say, standing at the edge of Niagara Falls or the Grand Canyon. You know that feeling you get in the pit of your stomach of awe? That is the result when one stares deeply into God’s character, his love, his holiness, his justice, and his brilliant creation. We praise God because, like that feeling of awe, it is the only proper response.
Ok, this is the statement that tipped me off that perhaps you do not have an adequate understanding of the central theme of the Christian Bible–the kingdom of God. No one is going to heaven when they die, that is a myth that resulted from infusing Christianity with platonic philosophy. The destiny of the righteous throughout Scripture is to enjoy life on earth without pain or suffering, without tears or sorrow, without death or sickness, without strife or bullying. The Scriptures speak of a time when the weapons of warfare are beaten into the tools of agriculture, when all that is wrong with the world will be made right. When the people of God can be reunited with their loved ones and fellowship with the saints of all past generations. There will be so much to do in the kingdom that boredom will not be an issue. We will be free to explore creation in its every detail. Oh yeah, and did I say, God will be here? Now, that will be interesting, to say the least.
Ok. I have to disagree with with Rand on this point. Selfishness is not a virtue. I have always been mystified by the name of her philosophy–objectivism. From everything I’ve heard it sure sounds like it should be called something subjective, like say, narcissism.
Here is the definition of selfish from m-w.com, “1: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one’s own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others.” Does this sound like working together? Does it makes sense that my selfishness would benefit you? By definition, it would not. Selfishness is the opposite of Christianity but the logical extension of atheism. Here our two worldviews collide. In Christianity we do act in our own interest, but never with disregard for others. In fact the Scripture says that we are to put others interests ahead of our own. Dan, can you condemn the actions of Mao Zedong? Pol Pot? Joseph Stalin? etc., the atheist dictators who because of their own selfish desire for power slaughtered their own countrymen?
Perhaps your optimism needs some adjustment? It would appear that the dreams of the 19th century secular humanists were not dashed by the bloodiest, most grotesque century (the 20th) after all. Apparently we do not realize that the world is not a nice place, that civilization hangs on by a thread, that evil lurks and seeks to destroy others for its own benefit. We have had genocide after genocide in the last century, on what basis to you proclaim optimism?
You two are so well trained in atheist apologetics that neither of you saw the reason for which I asked the question. It was not to have a discussion about which God exists, but simply to detect your bias. Perhaps I should have asked it like this, if the evidence for and against God were roughly equal, would you prefer that God existed or not? This question does have a bearing. For example, if you would prefer God existed, then what sorts of books will you read? What sort of websites will you investigate? Likely they would be theistic ones. However, if you prefer God not exist, you would read Dawkins and Hitchens and go to anti-theist websites when doing research. I don’t think any of us can claim that we have been completely even handed on the question. But, let us think rationally for a moment. Have you heard of Paschal’s Wager? The idea is that if God does exist and you were wrong, what have you to lose by denying his existence? Everything…eternity on a renewed earth. However, if I was wrong and God really did not exist but I served him wholeheartedly, what do I have to lose? Nothing. Either way, if I believed in him or not I would go out of existence at death. So, Dan, let us use our Rand philosophy a bit here. As an appeal to your own self interest can I ask you to switch your bias? Can I ask you to read William Lane Craig, Timothy Keller, NT Wright, Peter Kreeft, Alvin Plantinga etc. rather than Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennet? Wouldn’t it make more sense?
Sean,
“But, let us think rationally for a moment. Have you heard of Paschal’s Wager? The idea is that if God does exist and you were wrong, what have you to lose by denying his existence? Everything…eternity on a renewed earth. However, if I was wrong and God really did not exist but I served him wholeheartedly, what do I have to lose? Nothing. Either way, if I believed in him or not I would go out of existence at death.”
Pascal’s Wager, I’m sorry to inform you, is the worst argument for believing in god that I have ever come across. It is not only wrong in general, it is wrong in every specific.
First, Pascal assumes that belief is an act of will. Which, as far as I can tell, is incorrect. If I wanted to, I could force myself to act like a Christian. Talk like a Christian. Live like a Christian. But I couldn’t force myself to believe it, unless I actually believed it. Assuming the Christian God can see through a ruse made by one of his creation, just acting like a Christian wouldn’t be good enough. And if it was, what kind of god is this that can be fooled by me?
Second, it presumes that the options are the Christian God or no god at all. Which is false. The options are no god, every god that humanity has ever conceived of, every religious afterlife belief that humanity has come up with even without deities, and every religious afterlife or god belief that humanity hasn’t come up with.
It seems fairly obvious to me that Pascal fails if the Muslim god exists…he wouldn’t be happy that we’d spent our lives worshiping Jesus. And what if there is a god that only rewards you if you don’t believe in him? Just as plausible as the Christian god. Pascal’s wager only works if it exists in a world where only one religion and atheism exist. Which is not our world.
Thirdly, it assumes that you have nothing to lose by being a believer. Which is patently false.
All the time worshiping and praying and proselytizing could be used to help charities, work at soup kitchens, build houses, etc. Which is not to say that many Christians don’t do these things…but imagine all the extra time you’d have if you didn’t have to worry about converting the homeless man before giving him soup, or going to mass before finishing work on the house.
Not to mention the many people who do horrible things every year because of their faith…a man cut off his hand and microwaved it because he thinks god told him…a woman killed her children because she believed them to be possessed…parents watched their daughter die of treatable diabetes because they trust prayer and not doctors.
Now this, thankfully, is not the majority of believers. But to say that one loses nothing from belief is to ignore the reality of the situation.
Morse,
I think you missed my point. I said if the evidence for God and against him were roughly equal then it would be entirely reasonable to consider becoming open to the plausibility of God’s existence and investigate the question from the opposite bias. We can have the discussion about why the other Gods apart from the God of the Hebrew Scriptures are inadequate some other time if you like. That is totally missing the point. Dan is someone that I know, he came to our church for a long time, and when I say “God” to him, he knows exactly what I mean. Besides have you noticed that this is a Christian website? Obviously we are talking about Yahweh–the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus.
To your second point, about wasting our time with prayer and evangelism and worship. First of all, I am still thoroughly convinced on the basis of what the atheists have said in the talk which William Craig gave above, that atheism leads to purposelessness and despair. Thus, I really don’t see any objective reason why an atheist would take care of the poor. This is not to say that atheists don’t do good, humanitarian things, but it does mean have no objective reason why they should. Furthermore, your presuppositions are all atheistic (no surprise there). So, of course from your point of view assumes that there is not going to be a resurrection or a kingdom in which God heals this world and sets things right. But, if there is a God who intends to do this and who through his son has told us that based on how we treat the hunger, the thirsty, the sick, the imprisoned, the outcasts, the downtrodden of society we will either be admitted or denied entrance to this kingdom, then we certainly do have an objective reason to act accordingly. (By the way, that is not to say that we earn salvation through acts of obedience, but I’m sure you don’t care to probe the intricacies of soteriology). Anyhow, if there is a God who hears prayer, then it makes more sense to pray to him for help than to ignore him and try to help others, and so on. Everything hinges on one’s presuppositional worldview.
Morse, did you even listen to the file above?
>“I think it would be more accurate to say, Evolution makes predictions, and then the so-called “evidence” is interpreted to fit the theory, although other interpretations are equally viable. Also, evidence that might contradict the theory is ignored, and/or suppressed.”
>By all means, present your alternate interpretations and contradictory evidence. If it exists, I will listen and change my mind accordingly.
Then you are more honest than many of the scientists in that field. There have been documented cases of evidence being suppressed because it didn’t fit their theories.
>“They are logical conclusions based on the premise that there is no God and no purpose for man, who developed by random chance.”
>If you stand by this statement, then you agree that evolution isn’t a philosophy.
Yes, I agree that evolution isn’t a philosophy. It’s more like a religion. Perhaps the term “world view” would be a better way to describe what I’m talking about. History has shown that many evils have been committed based on a belief in evolution. Yes, I know many evils have been committed in the name of Christianity as well. But the difference is that those were done IN SPITE OF and not as a LOGICAL RESULT OF a belief in Christ.
>Evolution isn’t random chance. And the constant referencing of it as such by creationists won’t make it so.
OK, whatever. I don’t want to get into that argument. My point was that evolution is based on the idea that there is no purpose for man, and no designer to whom man is accountable.
Sean:
“First of all, I am still thoroughly convinced on the basis of what the atheists have said in the talk which William Craig gave above, that atheism leads to purposelessness and despair. Thus, I really don’t see any objective reason why an atheist would take care of the poor.”
If you want to be logically consistent, you should be convinced that THOSE atheists are purposeless and despairing, and they have no reason to care for the poor. Atheism isn’t a religion like Christianity, and so atheists can’t be lumped together so easily. (I understand that neither can Christians, there being so many denominations. But in atheism, each individual could be considered their own denomination.)
Mark:
Still waiting for those examples of suppressed evidence.
“Yes, I agree that evolution isn’t a philosophy. It’s more like a religion. Perhaps the term “world view” would be a better way to describe what I’m talking about.”
Incorrect. We already had this discussion above. Evolution through natural selection is a scientific theory that explains the fact of evolution. That’s all. No more a world view than gravity. No more a religion than nuclear theory.
“My point was that evolution is based on the idea that there is no purpose for man, and no designer to whom man is accountable.”
Incorrect. Evolution is based on the idea that things change over time, and animals have common ancestry. Your god may very well have started things off, though there’s no evidence. Many a religious biologist would argue with you, as do I.
>Incorrect. We already had this discussion above. Evolution through natural selection is a scientific theory that explains the fact of evolution. That’s all. No more a world view than gravity. No more a religion than nuclear theory.
In the discssion above, the definition of a theory was given as:
“A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.”
Evolution (and by that I mean “macro-evolution” or the development from one species into another) cannot be scientifically proven because the lengths of time necessary are greater than anyone has ever observed. There are no repeatable tests that can scientifically demonstrate the origins of human life, either by evolution or by creation. The observed natural phenomena can be explained by either viewpoint, which is why BOTH require a certain amount of “faith.”
And you are still missing my point. I am not saying that EVOLUTION is a world-view; I am saying that world views that INCLUDE belief in evolution or any other system that denies a divine purpose for man make accountability a moot point and morality completely subjective.
“Evolution (and by that I mean “macro-evolution” or the development from one species into another) cannot be scientifically proven because the lengths of time necessary are greater than anyone has ever observed.”
One need not view a murder happen in order to conclude confidently that it did. There are several lines of evidence that show evolution, in the fossil record and the genome and in comparative biology. You can deny those things because your dogma tells you to, but you should stop pretending that they aren’t there. It makes you appear ignorant, and I don’t want that.
“There are no repeatable tests that can scientifically demonstrate the origins of human life, either by evolution or by creation. The observed natural phenomena can be explained by either viewpoint, which is why BOTH require a certain amount of “faith.””
Define ‘repeatable test’. No matter how often we repeat it, our genes are found to be incredibly similar to our nearest common relatives, the chimpanzees. The evidence shows that relationship. No leap of faith needed. The leap is required by inventing a deity and then simply saying “he did it”.
“I am saying that world views that INCLUDE belief in evolution or any other system that denies a divine purpose for man make accountability a moot point and morality completely subjective.”
Again, you seem to be confused. Evolution doesn’t deny a divine purpose. Evolution explains how life changed over time. It doesn’t even touch on the origins of life, just the transition of life. You seem to think that eliminates your god. And surely, if you believe in the literal words of your Holy Book, it does eliminate that specific god. But many a Christian is a scientist…Francis Collins and Ken Miller are two of the more prominent that come to mind…that accept evolution because the evidence shows it, regardless of their faiths.
As for morality…nothing MAKES morality subjective. Morality IS situational and subjective. Some people just got their subjective morals 2000 years ago and, while changing quite a few, still claim to hold to them.
>Define ‘repeatable test’. No matter how often we repeat it, our genes are found to be incredibly similar to our nearest common relatives, the chimpanzees. The evidence shows that relationship. No leap of faith needed. The leap is required by inventing a deity and then simply saying “he did it”.
A repeatable test is a test that can be repeated. What part of that needs further definition? The evidence shows that there are similarities in genes to other species. The leap of faith can be EITHER that God designed animals with similar “building blocks” or that it happened by evolution. Both are viewpoints that affect one’s worldview and thus how one views life as a whole.
And you are still missing the point. The debate here is not whether evolution happened or not. It’s not even about the possibility of theistic evolution. The debate is about how absurd life is without God.
Then why did you bring up evolution in the first place? (Or whomever brought it up first. It wasn’t me.)
I think it was brought up because, while not all evolutionists are atheists, most if not all atheists accept evolution as the alternative to believing in a special creation with a purpose. The two concepts are closely linked. No God, and no design or purpose makes life absurd and pointless.
“No God, and no design or purpose makes life absurd and pointless.”
Pardon me while I go tell Scandanavia to kill themselves.
All I am going to say about Evolution is part of physical theory is that the laws of physics remain constant over time. This may have to be modified some day, but so far, no variations in the laws of physics have been found over time (even when observing events happening billions of light years away, and thus billions of years old). Based on this we can calculate how old the universe is using the laws of physics by extrapolating things backwards. Based on the wealth of research done on the age of the Earth and Universe, evolution is understood to have been going on for several billion years. So far no evidence has been found to contradict or disprove this basic idea. As one basic example, you can go anywhere on Earth, dig suitably far down, and find fossils of primitive life forms. But no one has ever found mammalian bones with those fossils.
Now I hope we can lay the evolution debate aside. There are plenty of resources online for people to learn about this stuff. For instance, I have been wanted to read this for some time.
In response to Sean,
“As Dr. Craig pointed out, one cannot go on living happily without meaning.”
I know at least a few people personally who are atheists and appear to be living perfectly happy lives. I can personally attest that I am feeling better than ever myself.
“The atheist fools herself into thinking that there is meaning in life so that she can go on living happily when in fact she knows that there are no objective grounds for such a delusion”
This may be true for some people. But I think people can live happily with no absolute purpose or meaning. One thing that people can realize is that they are not living there lives for God but for themselves. One’s life does not have any purpose outside of serving itself. So one is free to do what ever they want in their life without worrying about meeting a higher purpose. People can create there own purposes based on ones values.
I was curious how you would answer explain your life’s purpose. Dr Craig seemed very keen on the idea of “absolute meaning and purpose” but apart from asserting that it exists he did not go on to explain what that meaning and purpose is.
I believe I understand the Christian doctrine fairly well. I have even read some of “A Purpose Driven Life” by Rick Warren. The bible seems clear that were were created with the purpose of worshiping God. Our bodies were created “in his image” as “temples” to honor him, etc. I was just trying to point out what appears to be a logical flaw in this: why would God, who is all powerful, all knowing, etc, need people to worship him. What true purpose can we serve to God if he is already perfect? And I understand the basics of the Kingdom message. Maybe it was wrong of me to say “boring”… I was thinking of non-stop worshiping for some reason. I have this strange notion that God didn’t want humans to advance, which I guess is flawed. It was based on the fact that God originally wanted humans to be content in the Garden of Eden and not to know about good and evil.
I was once a Christian. To be absolutely clear, I shall outline my history:
Birth : none. (I was not born a Christian)
Age 1-5 : unknown
Age 5 - earliest I remember being a Christian. I remember being worried that I may not be saved, and remember praying with mother every day before going to bed.
Age 6-14 Christian. I became secure in my faith after several repentances. I began to desire to learn more about the bible.
Age 15 (10th grade). I wrote an essay supporting Intelligent Design.
Age 16: I have some doubts about whether the Genesis account should be taken literally and am increasingly skeptical of other things as well. I read “More Than a Carpenter” to help boost my faith. I remember having at least one or two highly spiritual experiences at Family camp and teen camp.
Age 17: I believe in Evolution as well as Christianity. During this time I struggled with the question of Jesus=God among other theological issues, such as the nature of death, salvation, and theodicy/free will.
Age 18: I no longer believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, but am still very much a believer in God. At this point I am technically not a Christian but am still going along with everything.
Age 19 (1st year of college) : I consider myself a Deist.. My conception of God becomes similar to Einstein’s pantheism.. God = nature. Eventually I consider myself an agnostic.
Age 20: Atheist. I consider it very unlikely there is a God.
I think I sort of understand what you are saying about “preferred belief”, but am somewhat perplexed. Surely you are not advocating that I read Christian literature (dare I say “propaganda”) just because I would rather God exist. In fact, I am not sure whether I would rather God exist or not.. And of course, the whole argument of Pascal’s wager is mooted by what Morse said.
I agree that one should decide to balance what information I take in . Also, people have a tendency to get hooked and sucked into one particular belief system and then deny any information that says they are wrong. I consider myself a skeptic. I am fairly certain that Christianity is wrong, but know that I could be wrong. However, given my background, I feel I have been heavily indoctrinated on the Christian side already. And I know very little about all the other philosophies that exist. Now that it is summer I will have some time to read some books… So far on the secular side of things I read most of “The God Delusion” last summer and “The Stranger” by Albert Camus. This summer I would like to read some of the works of Ayn Rand. Her ideas about morality are vastly different then Christian morality. She also has a lot of interesting political commentary and analysis in her novels.
Even so, I am planning on watching that Google Talk you mentioned.
The website I was trying to link to about evolution was this: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Also, sorry for my poor grammar. I really need to start proof reading…
Delton,
I am glad you brought up TalkOrigins. They are a very biased site, and I recommend also reading rebuttal arguments on True Origins, which has many references to things on Talk Origins and presents alternate, viable explanations. The address is:
http://www.trueorigin.org/
Delton,
Just out of curiosity, may I ask, what brought you to the point of no longer believing in a literal interpretation of the Bible?
Mark:
I am pretty sure my problems started in Genesis. It is impossible to reconcile a literal interpretation with the findings of science. There are just way too many problems. What I found was there were a large number of other interpretations. For a while it seemed the “gap theory” made it possible to fit evolution into the bible. It basically says that the word “was” means “became” so the “earth became without form, and void”. This implies that maybe there could be a large amount of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2: enough time for evolution to occur.
About this time I was interested in Kent Hovind and intelligent design. I had watched one of Hovind’s DVDs and was blown away by the barrage of claims. I took some of the claims to an Earth Science teacher at my school and we picked through them. I found that every claim either contained a down right lie or some kind of half-truth.
I was also interested in so called “science in the bible”. But what became immediately apparent was that the Genesis account uses outdated scientific theories and thus was a product of its time period. The old testament clearly uses an ancient cosmology where the earth is a flat disk and the heavens are a dome. In the heavens there is a shell of water. It seems they believed when it rained the water came from this heavenly place.
Anyways, I began to realize that the Bible, while unique in many ways, was not fundamentally different than any other work of literature. As is nearly impossible to avoid, there is always some ambiguity in language, and plenty in the Bible.
The website http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm also had some influence on me.
Delton,
I can very much relate to your searching and questions. I went through it myself. What I recommend to you is to look at BOTH sides of the issues, and consider more than one Creationist’s theories. While Kent Hovind has some good things, he isn’t always completely accurate, and frankly a little too smug for my taste. Check out True Origins, as I mentioned in my last post, as well as Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org), Institute For Creation Research (http://www.icr.org), and Biblical Creation (http://www.gospelway.com/creation/index.php)
BTW, the OT actually doesn’t describe the world as flat, as many skeptics claim. See the following article on True Origins:
http://www.trueorigin.org/flatearth01.asp
Some other sites that helped me realize that I didn’t have to give up thinking logically while being a Christian are:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/
http://www.tektonics.org/
(I don’t agree with everything these sites believe in, theologically, but theya re very good at responding to the most common questions that skeptics have.)
But the most important thing to consider is this. While we may never fully understand the intricacies of the science that is in the Bible, God made the most important things very simple to understand. The foundation of Christianity is not Creation vs. Evolution. It is belief in Jesus Christ, his words, and his death and resurrection. Without the resurrection we have nothing. But NOBODY has ever come up with evidence that disproves it. The best they can do is say, “I don’t believe it’s possible, therefore I don’t believe it happened.” But there were eye witnesses who saw it and testified of it, and were willing to go to their deaths proclaiming it.
In addition, many prophecies were fulfilled, showing that God is indeed active in history. Nobody was around to witness creation, but history itself records the witness of what God has done since then. I urge you to take another look at what the Bible has to say, and check out how those who believe respond to the claims of those who do not. You will find that the Bible is indeed very different from any other work of literature, and can be trusted.
As for the “cosmology” (that is the understanding of the world, i.e. flat), that is actually the understanding of all the ancient world (the ancient near east). It is a culture that God works within, and himself, his words, and his messengers work to be understood in and by. But God does not endorse that cultures cosmological understanding. Nor does Scripture state that view of the world is “objectively true”.
While it is true that some of the people reading the ancient writing may have interpreted it in light of their “cosmology,” the Scriptures not only do not endorse that view, but the words used are specifically equivocal enough so that they fit with either the ancient or the modern views.
For example, the word used for the “circle” of the earth in Isaiah 40:22 is not a word that is limited to a flat circle. There was no separate word in Hebrew for “sphere” and the word could mean either a flat circle or a sphere. Thus while it could be understood as the apparent circle that the ancients observed, it is no less true in light of our knowledge of the earth as a sphere. God inspired the writer to use a word that could fit either way you look at it.