Is atheism faith in the absence of God or the absence of faith in God? Either way, my thesis is that faith is requisite in something (or someone). I choose Jesus, but I understand that others don't. What follows is an expose' of the faith that atheists include in their worldview. One atheist, Danny Ledonne (and several other "anonymous" voices he recruited), has taken up my challenge and tried to debate me on the issue. Danny posted an ad for those who might believe similarly to him to participate in this discussion on a website that glorifies the 1999 Columbine high school massacre. This alone tells me something about his worldview. Perhaps that is another issue, but interested parties should read on and see how our conversation unfolds.
This topic has also spilled over into another post on this blog, one where an oppositional voice has demonstrated greater dexterity and longevity than that of Danny Ledonne. Interested parties can find this dialog at: http://thepeakcommunity.blogspot.com/2010/09/stephen-hawkings-premature-proclamation.html
Thank you for participating.
-C. Lambeth
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don’t necessarily know where the impetus has come from, perhaps from one of the many recent atheist play-books that have been penned from men like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris etc., but it certainly seems in vogue these days to be what has traditionally been called “weak” atheism. For those of us who are new to this trend, so-called “weak” atheism is not a pejorative term meant as an insult, but rather as a distinguishing mark intended to separate it from the other main branch of atheism (“strong”), which actually makes a palpable truth claim, namely, that God (or gods) do not exist. So-called “strong” atheism is also oftentimes married to “materialism,” which is the philosophical faith-commitment that the material universe is all that exists, and nothing else.
ReplyDeleteThis form of atheism and materialism is traditionally what people refer to when they say “atheism.” For terms of this discussion, we might also characterize it as “FAITH that God does NOT exist.” But this is exceedingly troublesome for atheists who want to assert that they have no faith whatsoever. In several discussions that I have had, it has become somewhat obvious that atheists (weak or strong) react rather negatively to the suggestion that they have faith, even if it is in someone or something other than the God of the biblical text. They tend to perceive “faith” as some sort of weakness, perhaps because that is what they find so distasteful about Christianity. So to point out to them that their own philosophical (dare I say “religious” dogma) system incorporates a huge amount of faith is troubling indeed.
In philosophical terms, it is common knowledge that a negative cannot be proved. What I mean is, we might come up with any crazy thesis, like that there is a gold-carrying leprechaun at the end of rainbows for example, and then place faith in this because nobody can prove that there isn’t one (at least not all the time anyway). Atheists (of either persuasion) claim that this is just like Christians who think that Jesus is really who he said he was and then ask atheists to prove otherwise. Richard Dawkins in particular, loves to cite a magical “spaghetti monster” in an effort to poke fun at Christ followers’ faith. While I agree that it is indeed impossible to PROVE a negative (that something does not exist), this is quite different from placing FAITH in the idea that something does or does not exist. For example, I have no reason to place faith in the wealth-bestowing leprechaun (or a spaghetti monster either for that matter) because there are simply no credible sources in support of them. We might not rule out the idea of its own accord, but in the absence of quality evidence to believe, there is no reason why we should. An atheist might say the same thing of Christianity, but then it becomes an issue of faith about the evidence, for there is evidence for Jesus indeed.
Christians have no a-priori reason to rule out the idea of God’s existence nor the idea that he might love his creation enough to interact with it. But this is not like gold at the end of the rainbow at all, for there are many credible sources the indicate that this God indeed has made himself known through the real person in real time and space in real history of Jesus of Nazareth. This linkage to actual people and events separates Christianity from most of the world’s other religions, even if not Islam, Judaism and Mormonism, but that is somewhat of a secondary issue at the moment. To come full-circle, the point of citing the impossibility of proving a negative is to highlight the need for atheists to pull their philosophical system from the consuming fire, for “strong” atheism makes the assertion that God or gods do not exist. This “negative” is indeed impossible to prove, so even if we never say anything FOR Jesus, this form of atheism relies on a significant amount of faith on its own accord. As such, most “strong” atheists recognize that the faith-game is up if this is the track that they take, and it has become completely untenable for that very reason.
But what’s an atheist to do? The answer comes in the form of “weak” atheism which maintains that the label connotes the complete “absence of faith in God (or gods)”, rather than “faith in the absence of God.” The difference here is subtle but important nonetheless, or so atheists would have us believe. This absence of faith in God removes the unsightly and embarrassing faith-nature of “strong” atheism’s claim that God doesn’t exist.
But does it work? Does “weak” atheism (absence-of-belief in God) pull atheism from the fire? I contend that it does not, and here’s why: The more I have wrestled with Christianity and doubted and questioned, the more I realize that it is never a question of “faith vs. no-faith,” but rather an issue of “faith in Jesus vs. faith in something or someone else.” What I mean is that if I were to remove Christianity from the top of my faith system, it would by necessity leave a vacuum or emptiness, but not for long, for I would have to put something else in its place. The only time we can completely cease thinking and functioning is when we are dead. Even the absolute skeptic claims to know at least one thing, namely, that they cannot know ANYthing. As living people, we automatically incorporate some sort of world-view, even if not Christianity. So for me to dismiss faith in Christ means that (short of proof) I would have to admit faith in something else. Proof itself is an elusive thing, for how can we prove the reliability of our (or others’) senses in a way that does not depend on those same senses? There is much more to say on that issue, but in terms of the immediate discussion, “weak” atheism simply cannot stand for long on the notion that it has no faith in anything.
While it may be true that weak atheism places no faith in God per se, it is requisite that the person who subscribes to this form of atheism places faith in something else. He or she does not exist in a vacuum either, and when confronted with evidence for the biblical narrative, particularly about Jesus of Nazareth, the atheist (of either persuasion) must make a few judgments. They might still maintain that they have no faith in God, but this conclusion must be connected to their dismissal or rejection of the biblical narratives and all the evidence in support of them. As such, they are confronted with the same problem that weak atheism tried so desperately to avoid in the first place: a faith claim, namely that the evidence for Christianity is inadequate or that at the very least, that Christians have gotten it “wrong.” This is not altogether different than my own faith that Zeus, or Mohammed’s “Allah” etc. are false gods. I can’t prove it, but I can critically evaluate the evidence for and against them and then make a judgment call. It is faith and I am not troubled by this at all.
Ostensibly, a person might even set out to “disprove” all of Christianity’s faith claims and then assert that they no longer have “faith” that the evidence for Jesus is laking, but proof. But historically speaking, this has never been done, and indeed, oftentimes those who set out to do so come home as faithful Jesus followers. Alternatively, it seems that much of what is penned in the biblical documents is categorically rejected by some because it relates events that are inexplicable by scientific inquiry. No matter how much evidence might be marshaled to support accounts of the miraculous, if a person has a prior faith commitment dictating that no such “miracles” are possible, then no evidence is ever going to be taken seriously. That’s fine, and I can accept such a position, but it’s faith, so let’s call it what it is.
Conversely, if a person is open-minded about what is possible, then some accounts of scientifically inexplicable events (like a crucified man springing back to life) are not automatically ruled out. Once again, if we ultimately reject the witnesses that reported such events, short of “proof,” it is still faith (that the witnesses / documents are unreliable).
Unlike leprechauns and spaghetti monsters, there are several independent accounts of some rather unusual events occurring in 1st century Palestine. I can’t rule them out just because I personally have never witnessed similar events. I’ve never witnessed, heard or seen George Washington either. But if these people actually saw and heard what they say they did, I have to at least consider how they might have gone about relating it to the world. They didn’t have video cameras or audio-recording equipment. They had their 5 senses (the same senses that scientists use in their labs, I might add) and they had language. Unlike later so-called “gnostic” texts like the “Gospel of Thomas,” the NT narratives read like eye-witness accounts and secondary sources of those events. I have to ask myself, could these men and women have actually seen and heard the events that we read about in the NT? Without a pre-existing faith commitment to a closed universe, I have to answer, “Yes, these stories might actually be true.” Do I “know” that they are true in the same way that I know I’m typing on a web-site right now? No, of course not, but I believe both positions nonetheless and have good reasons for doing so. I have faith and so does everybody else, even if not in the same things, ideas or people. “Weak” atheists might not have faith in God, but they’ve got faith in something and in that sense, their philosophy is open to the same vulnerabilities of strong atheism and materialism.
Thanks for reading me,
-CL
I am impressed by Corbin's analysis of atheism, “strong” and “weak.” These relationships between atheism may be a bit like the relationship between “fundamentalist” Christians who maintain that the Bible is literally true and “moderate” Christians who view this text as allegorical in nature.
ReplyDeleteThough it is tempting to associate an author like Richard Dawkins with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, that is of mere convenience to an author who has been citing examples of other potential gods for much longer than FSM (a 2005 creation by Oregon State physics student Bobby Henderson). Earlier analogies of a similar rhetorical bent, such as Bertrand Russell's Celestial Teapot, essentially construct the same claim.
Corbin writes with sincere conviction that faith in God and faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster are not the same because evidence exists for God that does not exist for the FSM. This claim is not surprising; very few modern Christians are likely to be content on faith alone – they believe sincerely in evidence to establish various claims of the Bible. Christians necessarily view Jesus in two contexts: 1) historical claims about his existence on Earth and 2) metaphysical claims about his miraculous origins, deeds, and rebirth. There is a reason Socrates is a figure of historical verifiability and that Jesus is not. This is why the life and miracles of Jesus are not taught in the history class, nor do they appear in secular literature or peer-reviewed journals. Two thousand years later, the miracles of Jesus hold precisely the same truth status as the miracles of other mystics and gurus, though Corbin will resist this conclusion because he is invested in the belief of this particular mystic and not another.
Speaking of which, consider the miracles of contemporary Hindu mystic Sathya Sai Baba, who was purportedly born of a virgin, raises the dead, levitates, materializes objects, and possesses clairvoyance. Unlike Chris Jesus of the pre-technogical era, one can watch Sai Baba's videos on YouTube! And prepare to be underwhelmed.
While the miracles of Jesus are not recorded in any retrievable format, Sai Baba's are available online for viewing right now! Millions of people follow him and attended his recent birthday. His followers attest to the very real evidence they encounter firsthand as he performs miracles before them! It is altogether likely that Corbin, like myself, will not follow Sathya or be sufficiently convinced by the videos of his magic powers. Yet the “evidence” for his miraculous abilities far exceed that of the contradictory, amalgamated, hotly-contended tomes of Christ Jesus. The reason for this disparity has nothing to do with the (specious) claims themselves but rather how culturally conditioned and psychologically predisposed we are to them.
However, my central contention in this reply is not about Christianity but rather atheism itself.
I must start by confessing that I do not know what it means to be a Christian. I do not know what a Christian truly feels or thinks upon waking up each morning. Corbin's writing in one passage was very revealing and insightful to me in this way: “if I were to remove Christianity from the top of my faith system, it would by necessity leave a vacuum or emptiness, but not for long, for I would have to put something else in its place.”
Corbin writes about a “faith system” which he imagines all humans must have, one which MUST be filled by “faith in Jesus vs. faith in something else.” Perhaps for Corbin this is true. But for me this is not. Corbin writes of a non-believer's disdain for the concept of faith – and rightly so – because a non-believer who greatly admires and aspires to faith is a confused non-believer, indeed.
ReplyDeleteIt is tempting, then, to view atheism as a “philosophical system” that, as Corbin perceives, atheists must “pull from the consuming fire” through rhetorical assertions about being unable to prove a negative. But non-belief is not analogous to belief; atheism is not a religion. There is no specific text, cultural tradition, or even overarching moral structure to atheism. “Atheism” is merely a term coined by believers to describe those who do not believe. To identify someone as an “atheist” is a descriptively-empty term because it makes no positive qualifiers; it merely indicates that such a person does not believe in a particular religious deity. That is why one cannot ascribe the brutality of Pol Pot or Josef Stalin in terms of their non-belief anymore than non-belief could account for the successes of Bruce Lee or Kurt Vonnegut.
Some atheists have suggested the term “atheist” to be fundamentally flawed and dissolved or replaced altogether. Some have tried without success to find another word, such as “brights.” We do not have a word for those who do not believe in alchemy, faeries, or Celestial Teapots. We (“atheists”) do not refer to ourselves as “aThorists” although we aren't likely to believe in the Norse god anymore than the Christian God. An atheist, then, is merely a way to describe someone who is skeptical about the claims that others believe in. In a very real sense, the concept of atheism stems from a large demographic of believers, not non-believers themselves. As Pirsig writes, “When on person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion.”
Most atheists who were never religious to begin with, myself included, have no real understanding of what a “faith system” even really is. I do not pray. I do not engage in any activity that resembles the attempt to directly dialogue an alleged higher power in the manner that intercessory prayer represents. I do not imagine that loved ones are being protected by invisible means. I do not believe anyone watches over me while I shower, sleep, or eat breakfast – with a possible exception being Dick Cheney. But all jocular humor aside, I am sincere in my admission to being entirely outside this “faith system” of which Corbin imagines atheists must necessarily engage as do Christians such as he.
Some Christians who later became atheists have done a good job of describing this in terms I can understand. One such man, a computer programmer, described his Christian life as running a simulation of God in his own mind—and failing to realize it was his mind, not God, running this simulation. When attempting to access divine inspiration, through prayer or other means, this man explained that this simulation felt as if an entirely separate entity from himself – a mind within a mind that guided him. Of course, after much introspection, research, and study, he concluded that “God” was an invented concept. The closest I have come to understanding faith, in my friendships and dialogs with true Christians, have led me to the conclusion that the concept of God is a psychological adaptation for feeling protected by surrogate fatherhood.
Much of the rest of Corbin's post is dedicated to the defense of miracles, which I do not wish to delve into here because it hinges upon the faith claims he has already made. As someone who lives without “faith,” I reject wholesale the notion that I fill my moral superstructure with any similar concept in its stead. Faith is simply not a part of my life—in terms of atheism or otherwise. I do not ride an airplane, microwave my dinner, burn a data DVD, or txt my friend to ask about going to a movie on the basis of faith. I understand the scientific underpinnings of all these activities – and those I do not (such as the origins of the universe) I am willing to be honest enough to admit, “I do not know.” And I greatly prefer it that way because for me, “faith” is a word we use when we have surrendered our own agency to make change or our intellectual capacity at understanding.
ReplyDeleteThe notion that atheists have “faith” in something other than God misses the point entirely as to what non-belief actually is.
Thanks to Danny for a thoughtful set of replies. I think he has incorporated some mistakes, but I appreciate his willingness to engage. I wish more Christians and atheists would follow suit.
ReplyDeleteThis is of minor significance, but first off Danny has tried to sweep all biblical interpretive efforts into two, mutually exclusive camps: literal & allegorical. He goes on to use the polarizing descriptors “fundamentalist” & “moderate.” This is a mistake, for the Bible incorporates a variety of different genres, and each of those requires varied interpretive approaches. A person can understand some Bible passages as literal while perceiving others as allegorical without falling neatly into either category of “moderate” or “fundamentalist.” If I was forced to label myself with either of these two options, I would pick “moderate,” but I hold many passages in the biblical text to be quite literal, and I am not particularly unique in that outlook.
As for Christians, it has been suggested that they are not content on faith alone but would prefer to connect their faith with evidence. This is an appropriate assessment. Even Martin Luther, who essentially coined the phrase “faith alone” wouldn’t go so far as to say that he believed in Jesus without any evidence at all. Luther’s famous phrase concerned salvation, not reasons for belief in Christ in the first place. I’ve never met a Christian who believed in Jesus without any kind of evidence at all. Indeed, without hearing some sort of information about him, I don’t think anyone could develop a faith position either way. I believe because of the evidence, not in spite of it. A person may still deny the evidence, but there is a big difference between that and not having any to begin with. Even so, evidence is not what “saves” me.
Danny is also correct in perceiving that Christians often incorporate two categories of belief about Jesus: 1) his historicity and 2) the miraculous events that are reported about his life. These can and should overlap at times, but they are not always the same. After all, there are historical details about Jesus that are not miraculous. Unfortunately, Danny’s argument seems to be that since the miracles surrounding Jesus’ life cannot be verified by our own sensory input, Christ is therefore “not a figure of historical verifiability” (but Socrates is). This is an overstatement. Jesus and Socrates are both figures of historical verifiability, but none of the events, deeds and sayings of their respective lives can be verified empirically today. Such is the nature of most historical events, and the same is true of almost any figure or other event in the past.
This is another point of departure between Xianity and many (but not all) other religions. Egyptian, Greek & Hindu pantheons (among others) are largely disconnected from real people, time, space and history. Their gods’ actions allegedly occurred in the astral planes of... not here. Yes, parts of the Bible describe a similar situation, but more often it incorporates real humans, in real time & space, some of which are verified by modern archeological efforts as well as writers contemporary with the 1st century. Yes, other religions have “evidence” via story and narrative, but that is where many of the similarities with Christianity break down. Like You Tube’s Sai Baba, not all evidence is of the same quality. I am not required to believe anything that blows in just because it involves a miracle. I too am somewhat of a skeptic.
The bottom line that Dawkins etc. have missed is that it’s a logical fallacy to assert that ALL miraculous tales are false just because many (or even most) of them are. Danny may certainly have faith that Jesus’ miracles hold the same truth value as any other religious figure’s alleged deeds, but this is nothing less than faith, and it seems to rest on little more than a logical fallacy. Could it be that he resists this assertion of faith because of his investment in other philosophical frameworks / dogma?
I understand that atheism may not always be a religion per se. Nevertheless, those who loosely identify with that label seem to hold onto a set of beliefs rather religiously even if those are a bit different from the atheist’s next door. Similarly, there is a core of Christian dogma that all believers (or at least most) incorporate, even though I’ve yet to meet even 2 Jesus followers who believe the exact same thing about everything, especially doctrine and other things non-essential. Thankfully it is God’s grace that grants salvation, and not that each Xian believes precisely the right thing about everything. But I digress.
ReplyDeleteI can appreciate Danny’s sensitivity about my assertion that he has indeed incorporated faith into his worldview. Having one’s worldview challenged is rarely comfortable. Yet even in his recent posts defending the faithlessness of atheism, a large degree of faith has seemed to work its way in. This is a key part of my original thesis that it takes faith to be an atheist. As Danny has demonstrated, faith has become such part and parcel of the system that it is not even recognized as such. In one sense, that is the major difference between atheism and Christianity. Christians recognize and embrace the faith component whereas many atheists deny it or try to find a way around it. Of course I would love it if Danny would open his mind to Christ, but given his prior (faith) commitments, I think that mere recognition of those commitments would be legitimate progress. Atheists may not admire, aspire or even admit to faith, but this doesn’t mean that their worldview is devoid of it, and it seems that Danny has incorporated quite a bit of faith in his outlook thus far.
As such, it seems that my original critique of weak atheism stands. While I don’t contest that Danny has no faith in Jesus per se, he has quite a bit of faith in various ideas and hypotheses about Jesus. In fact, I count no less (but maybe more) than 8 statements that have been expressed by Danny in faith.
According to his posts above, readers are to take it on faith that:
1) All accounts of the miraculous are of similar truth value.
2) Jesus is not a figure of historical verifiability.
3) Cross categorically, videos found on the internet best historical & archaeological evidence.
4) The accounts of Jesus’ life are unreliable and “specious.”
5) Belief systems are nothing more than the result of cultural conditioning and psychological disposition. (Except for Danny’s?)
6) All religions are little more than mass delusions or mental projections.
7) He has no faith.
8) Faith indicates the surrender of people’s agency and intellectual capacity. (Except for Danny’s?)
Of course it is possible that Danny has not faith, but proof for each of these assertions, and I invite him to present his proof if that is the case. But for some of these statements, numbers 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 in particular, proving one instance (or even several) is insufficient, for it would only take one single exception to upend his entire hypothesis. To be devoid of faith therefore, weak atheism must prove itself in each and every case, past, present and future. I don’t think such exhaustive proof is possible, but I could be wrong. I am open to wherever the evidence leads.
As for Danny’s third post about the life of a Christian, I think he may have made some unnecessary assumptions. While individual behavior is far less predictable, in a large-group format I would suspect that the life of a Christian in middle class, white America is remarkably similar to an atheist of a comparable setting. Excluding churchy things and some ethical nuances, most of these groups’ activities are probably similar. While I certainly pray and study the Bible, its history, cultures and how it can impact me in the present, decisions to go to the movies or to take a flight aren’t big faith-events for me either. However, I think we are kidding ourselves if we deny on any level that we have some faith about what going to a movie or stepping onto a plane might entail, namely, entertainment and a safe landing in our destination of choice. That kind of faith may be of a different order or magnitude than faith about Jesus, but it is still faith.
ReplyDeleteThe problem seems to center on faith about what is and is not possible in the universe. A Christian is open to the possibility that God exists and has acted in the cosmos whereas an atheist (in general) seems to be closed minded about the existence of something beyond the material universe and therefore closed to the possibility that God exists or has acted in that universe. Short of proof either way, a faith commitment of some sort is unavoidable.
That’s the big picture, but on a micro level it gets even more prickly to deny all faith. What does an atheist say about Jesus? Was he a liar, lunatic, legend or what? Even if one asserts that there is not enough evidence to come to a conclusion about Jesus that is still a faith commitment. Put another way, even if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice. I merely assert that whatever you decide has incorporated a faith commitment unless you can prove your position. So how about it, who and what do you say Jesus is/ was?
Thanks for the conversation, Danny. I look forward to your reply.
-CL
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter many attempts to reply, this thread continues to malfunction and crash my browser - so I have uploaded my final response here:
ReplyDeletehttps://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0BzKs3T6UTgrTMWVjY2I3YmItMTZiOS00ZThkLWI0MmUtZmIzZTljMmQ1NTJk&hl=en
Apologies for the limitations of blogspot.com. These are some things that I have not been able to circumvent or adjust. Regrettable.
ReplyDeleteHey, I can't help but notice that at the end of your post, you project a sort of arm crossing and line-in-the-sand drawing that I presume to be the end of your engagement. Do my powers of perception serve me well (at least in this area)?
My contribution to this blog is limited to the point-by-point rebuttals I have already given.
ReplyDeleteI know it's tempting for you to think your arguments are so powerful that atheists run away, but your insistence to reject the very premises of a debate and write as though I haven't already provided examples and evidence for my claims gives the impression that my words are falling upon deaf ears. It is frustrating and I can think of no positive gains to come from a perpetual "conversation" in which I cannot be accorded the basic understanding of my position.
So yes, until you are wiling to understand that it is not incumbent upon non-believers to prove their non-belief, and until you are willing to see transparently honest arguments for what they are, I imagine you're going to drive off most people who disagree with you because you provide no intellectual hospitality despite your disingenuously cordial tone.
The problem is, Danny, that your “rebuttals” merely retrench your previous faith claims while offering no proof and little elaboration other than a few anecdotal stories. I have asked you to tell how you know what you know, but it seems that you have little to appeal to other than opinion and your own dogmatic faith claims.
ReplyDeleteAs I said to you in our Facebook dialog, I have yet to encounter an atheist who didn’t either start slinging mud or abscond (or both) when I begin to question their foundational dogma. Your recent colorful language accusing me of being "intellectually inhospitable" and "disingenuously cordial," along with your looking to make an exit indicate that you are not particularly different. This is disappointing but not altogether surprising.
I am willing to understand your position, but I am not willing to pretend that it contains no inconsistencies, logical fallacies or problems in general. It seems that you are unwilling to apply the same level of scrutiny to your own beliefs as you are with those of others’. I would think that you would want to engage those problems rather than merely dismissing any criticisms launched against them. I invite anyone to engage and pleasantly critique my faith in Christ. I want to believe the truth, not a nice even if inspiring fictive story.
Of course I am willing to see that it is not incumbent upon non-believers to prove their non-belief. I fear that I have miscommunicated if that’s what you think I have been arguing. My point has always been that atheism (and Christianity) encompass belief structures that are not provable and this is what we call faith. You are welcome to believe that there is no God or gods, just as you are welcome to believe in an amoral universe, or that you have no faith etc. These things are not hard for me to understand in the least. The problem comes when you assert knowledge, rather than faith, and at that point, the burden of proof is on the person who claims not belief, but unassailable facticity. So again I ask that you tell us how you “know” what you “know,” but I also ask that you have enough cognizance to discern between faith and knowledge, for I know that one can easily be confused with the other.
I hope you won’t disengage, Danny, but that remains entirely up to you. I can’t force you to step up to the challenge, but I can offer an open invitation. When spoken with civility, my ears will remain open to what you have to say.
-CL
Corbin, I can't help but feel you're making a special pleading for accepting the validity and veracity of claims of Christian miracles while dismissing those of other faiths. If you have some evidence (and its being extra-biblical should go without saying) for any one miracle, and I'll even let you choose which one you want to defend, please provide it. Otherwise you are the one making the a priori assumption.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteI am honored that you would answer Danny's call to join the conversation. Thank you for your participation. I hope that you won't be a hit-and-run poster.
Your insinuation that I am engaging in "special pleading" is a bit perplexing to me. I have not argued for any special treatment of biblical faith claims. What I HAVE done is assert that all accounts of miracles should not be judged on the basis of some. This is a thoroughly logical position. What Danny has asserted is that since we can all agree that some miraculous stories are bogus, we should therefore conclude that ALL miracles are fictitious. I am with him on the first part, but the conclusion is completely unwarranted.
As for your request that I defend a biblical miracle without appealing to the Bible, I must confess that this is an old page torn straight out of the atheist playbook and it does nothing more than stealthily stack the deck. To help make my point, I will concede to defend a biblical miracle without use of the best evidence for it AFTER you can provide some evidence (ANY evidence) that human senses yield reliable data (and it goes without saying that you cannot use our sensory perception to defend our sensory perception, for that would be a circular argument indeed). Good luck.
A priori assumptions: Yes, I have several, one of them being that our faculties of perception yield reliable data. I hope I have not implied that I have no faith commitments. My point has always been not that I have none, but that Danny, and indeed all atheists, DO incorporate a-priori faith positions, It merely seems as though they are unwilling to acknowledge them. What faith assumptions have you incorporated?
Thanks for your engagement; I appreciate it.
-CL
Arguing with a believer is like playing chess... http://edward.de.leau.net/images/Arguingwithabelieverislike_262A/image.png
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if this is the same "Anonymous" poster as before, but it seems that you have missed an important point in this conversation thread, namely, that each and everyone of us is a "believer" but that we do not all have faith in the same ideas, people or philosophical frameworks. As such, your comment about playing chess and arguing with "a" believer is somewhat of a non sequitur, unless of course one is playing chess with oneself (something that I must confess to).
ReplyDeleteThank you for your posting. I hope that you will continue.
-CL
CL, I am young, but bound to Hume, and challenge my agnosticism almost daily, on both sides, and still find no reason to leave the beast.
ReplyDeleteSo here, I cannot disagree with anything you've written. I admire your approach, in part I admit, because of the popular paranoia of some violence erupting from religious and political sects. And yes, the line blurs, to all of us. All the same, the atheist, stubborn to the very contract of peaceful dialog of your own flint, is at a loss having bought the house with no question of the foundation.
Your most popular opponents may very well boil their protest into a simplicity: Religion is war. History is proof. Science is safety.
I respect and encourage the commitment of the atheist to advise those who are kind enough to have built a big sponge in their skull. I commend equally the church that teaches preservation by the sins that make us stronger and the acts of charity that verify our importance.
It must be worth it, if you aim to influence those who disagree with you by creating this blog, to confront the goals of the non-believer. What might they gain from all this? What do you stand to gain?
Here is the true debate.
Will you continue your faith in your beliefs and live long and die old with your convictions intact, knowing that your rebels of the church will do the same... shooting words at you instead of bullets?
Check it out: have Faith that Atheists and People of God will agree on an infinite war of dialogue. No towers will fall, no Korans burnt in Gainsville, and no nails pinning flesh to wooden cross. People at war, forever, as we're accustomed to. But, this time no one gets hurt.
Christians and Atheists will build that bridge, with genuine enthusiasm. Am I mistaken?
Young Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your perspective and am glad you chose to share it here. To answer your question about using words rather than bullets, there was never any other option in my personal journey. I am not a violent person, and I can handle it when others criticize my faith. So I hope you are not mistaken and that the rest of the world will follow suit. Indeed, I think the “bridge” IS being built in places here and there. As a Christ-follower, I am committed to peaceful interaction with my “opponents.” I wish that all Christians would take Jesus seriously when he asked that we love and pray for our enemies or those who would persecute us for following him. I am encouraged to know that others like you value discussions more than violence. However, the old adage about sticks and stones, bones and the impotence of words is not entirely true. Words CAN hurt feelings and people and be the gateway for violence. The one almost always precedes the other, but it doesn’t have to. May the world learn to love more than fight, without hateful words and without hateful actions.
Religion certainly can, but it need not necessarily mean war, and I must insist that Christians who take to violence for anything other than defending the weak and feeble are simply not following Christ at that particular moment.
I don’t know what you mean by “History being proof,” so perhaps you would elaborate a bit?
As for science being “safety,” I’m not sure if you are saying this tongue in cheek to elaborate on the faith that atheists harbor or as a sentiment you sympathize with, but either way I think we should consider both the good and the evil that science has made possible (think nuclear weapons, thalidomide, or vaccines for example).
As for my influence, I have one overarching goal with this particular blog, and that is to sharpen and amend my thinking when necessary, and help others sharpen or possibly amend their own. However, I also have two, slightly more tangible goals, and that is: 1) To find some reason or “proof” that will compel me to give up or drastically alter my faith in Jesus Christ, and 2) To confront the impoverished components of contemporary/ popular atheism. Unfortunately, most of my blog has featured the second of these two objectives. It also allows me space to advocate for ideas that I find novel and helpful for one’s spiritual journey.
Young Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteConcerning agnosticism, that is truly a position that I can respect. I saw an agnostic bumper sticker recently that said: “Militant Agnostic. The truth of the matter is that I don’t know and neither do you!!!”
While I can’t really understand the “Militant” part, the rest of the bumper-sticker’s slogan is quite appropriate. I freely admit that I do not “know” that Jesus is God incarnate or that he resurrected from a brutal execution, at least not in the same way that I know I’m typing on a laptop at the moment, but I nevertheless choose to believe. I also think it is important to note that the bumper sticker indicates a modicum of faith on the agnostic’s part as well: They don’t “know” that there is no God or gods, but they nevertheless choose to believe that there is not enough evidence to make a commitment for or against such a deity.
Would you agree with that assessment?
And lastly Hume. I appreciate the thinking that Hume did on the subject of faith, but his thinking is not above reproach. If I may truncate his position, it seems that he taught that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As a corollary, he inserted that such evidence does not exist for miracles and therefore concluded that all of them were unworthy of attention. Stated another way, people should “believe” according to the greatest evidence, which always “outweighs” the lesser amount of evidence. Hence, the greatest amount of evidence indicates that people do not rise from the dead, walk on water etc.
Of greatest concern (to me), is that Hume seemed to equate truth with quantity. This can lead to odd conclusions like “the universe is devoid of all life,” or, “since most of the people in the world believe in a higher power, that power must exist.” Another concern is that Hume seemed far too willing to bend the evidence to fit his theory rather than vice versa. What I mean is that if Hume had actually witnessed a miracle with his own sober and conscious faculties, he would still have to deny the experience, the evidence and the miracle if he were to persist with his faith that one should only believe according to the greatest amount of evidence. Nevermind about how he defines “greatest evidence,” but I am skeptical of any dictum that requires the suspension of my own faculties, reason, experience etc. merely because I have witnessed something that has thus far been outside the average daily experience of humanity. I do not deny the fact that almost EVERYONE in ALL times and ALL places stays dead after they die (at least in our present reality). One miraculously resurrected man is insufficient to overturn that fact, but this does not mean that said resurrection did not occur. Hume (as I understand him) seemed unwilling to come to terms with this over-hasty conclusion, and I think this leaves his teaching open to criticism.
How have you understood Hume, and what counter-criticisms can you offer about what I have written about him here?
Thanks for your engagement.
-CL
I really appreciate the conversation here!
ReplyDeleteThanks Corbin, for your deep insight. Danny as well, you guys are really hitting on some deep issues and addressing things pretty directly, which has to lead somewhere, right?
Hey Anonymous, real names give creditability :)
Corbin, would you agree that there seems to be a big misunderstanding on what it means to have "faith"? The Bible itself describes faith as being "sure" of what you hope for and "certain" of what you do not see (Heb 11:1). Jesus also said that he will "show himself" to us (John 14:21) and he has no qualms about it. Additionally, Jesus showed up for Thomas, who wouldn't believe until he saw for himself. Jesus also had no qualms in showing up for me in my life to convince me despite my own skepticism.
I bring that up because, as I've previously suggested to Danny, it seems the world is waiting for me to prove Jesus, or that too many times it's implied that Christians are supposed to "prove" God's existence. God's already done that (Romans 1:19-20), and is fine with continuing to do it (in Acts, look at the signs that God used to confirm the apostles' message, and Jesus said the same about all his followers-even after Jesus had died and wasn't there to YouTube himself :)) You and I, Corbin, may not have sat across a table from Jesus in the same way we have with each other and dug into these ideas, but we certainly have dug in with Him. And it's through our conversations with Him that he has taught us and shown up- therefore we have faith in Him. Faith didn't happen because someone else successfully proved something to us, or because we didn't consider all of the skeptical explanations. We heard, but also asked, seeked out, and knocked on the door ourselves.
There is a ton of convincing "evidence" that could leave me confortable in my unbelief (as Danny has proved), but someone, somewhere, said there was more to it- and for some reason it intrigued me to find out what they were talking about. I've seen His work in my life, and I've seen new life in and through countless people around me. I've seen the devestation of sin totally redeemed and lives renewed, just like Jesus said He would do for those who come to Him. I've seen people set free from addictions and spiritual and mental torments beyond what even the best "sciences" could provide- all in the name of Jesus. Jesus consistently shows up, and doesn't let down those who approach Him for the "proof" they need.
"Jesus, if you're real, show me, please. I want to know the truth, help me see what they're talking about."
2 thoughts. 2 cents.
Ray
Ray,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comments. You are ALWAYS welcome here. Yes, there seems to be a misunderstanding on what it means to have faith. My thesis remains that everyone has faith, but also that not everyone has faith in Jesus. However, when the Bible speaks of “having faith,” clearly it means faith in Christ, and perhaps this is the hurdle that has been so hard for Danny and others to clear. In that sense, I admit that I have adopted a hybrid definition of faith.
Thomas is an interesting case-study on faith, but we should stress the importance of Jesus’ words at the end of this meeting: “Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29 TNIV). I think very similar situations occurred in the Old Testament like the events in the Book of Exodus (a burning bush, a divided Red Sea, a pillar of fire etc.). What is the common thread amongst these events and the resurrection? God proved himself. They believed because they saw, but I must also be quick to point out that God’s self-proving didn’t last very long in the minds of the witnesses. In not much time these same people were bowing to things made by human hands. If anything, we have “proved” that God’s proving himself to us does not create lasting faith.
Like Ray, I have witnessed the power of God in my life, but nothing so dramatic as having the resurrected Christ appear & grab a bite to eat with me at the local fish-taco bar. Nevertheless, somehow God has seen to it that I encountered the amazing events of Jesus’ life and ministry. He has told me/us about himself in the Bible. For me to cast all that aside and demand that God prove himself to me personally, regardless of what he has done elsewhere seems a bit hasty. In what other categories of life do we demand such proof? In math, or science or history or politics or anything else, when do we refuse the testimony and evidence provided by others and DEMAND that everything be proved to us before we accept any of it? I am not asking for special rules for Christianity here. I am asking that the same amount of skepticism and support be allowed for Christ as we would for any other venture.
I understand the desire for proof and certainty. I must admit that I would love to meet Jesus face to face if such means were at my disposal. Nevertheless, the fact remains that God is not a puppet for us to conjure on a whim. He is the almighty author of life and creator of the Universe. He doesn’t ask, “How high, Sir?” when I want him to jump. There are independent accounts of some odd events occurring in 1st century Palestine. I can’t rule them out just because I’ve never witnessed similar events. I've never seen or heard George Washington either. But if these people actually saw and heard what the documents say they did, I have to at least consider how they might have gone about relating it to the rest of the world. They didn’t have video cameras or audio-recording equipment. They had their 5 senses (the same senses that scientists use in their labs, I might add) and they had language. Unlike later “gnostic” texts like the “Gospel of Thomas,” the New Testament narratives read like eye-witness accounts and secondary sources of those accounts. So I have to ask myself, could these men and women have actually seen and heard the events that we read about in the NT? Without a pre-existing faith commitment to a closed universe, I have to answer, “Yes, these stories might actually be true.” Do I “know” that they are true in the same way that I “know” I’m typing on a web-site right now? No, of course not, but I believe both positions nonetheless and have good reasons for doing so.
For me, faith in Christ remains more compelling than faith in alternatives. We can slam the door in Jesus’ face before we ever give him a chance, or we can legitimately be open to the possibility that he is real and wants to engage a relationship with us. I suggest that we would do well to open the door as he stands outside and knocks.
-Corbin
"Danny posted an ad for those who might believe similarly to him to participate in this discussion on a website that glorifies the 1999 Columbine high school massacre. This alone tells me something about his worldview."
ReplyDeleteWhatever one might think of this discussion on faith, Corbin is exactly wrong about my groundbreaking videogame project, "Super Columbine Massacre RPG!" The site, and the game itself, has nothing to do with the "glorification" of the Columbine shooting. My artists statement can be found here: http://www.columbinegame.com/statement.htm
Additionally, the documentary about this game has been seen at film festivals around the world and has been met with critical acclaim. Learn more here: http://playingcolumbine.com/
I'm not plugging my work so much as directing Corbin's "readers" (are there any?) to learn more about this topic on their own.
Thanks for your input, Danny.
ReplyDeleteA Reply to Danny's Google Doc
ReplyDeleteThis Google doc represents a response to the other one that was posted above by Danny Ledonne.
The nature of the conversation is on the weakness of so-called “weak atheism.” My thesis is that this variation of atheism rests not on fact, but faith. But that is not what makes it weak. The true weakness of weak atheism is not that it incorporates faith, but rather that it pretends not to. Stated another way the problem with weak atheism is its own self-deception.
Thanks for reading me,
-C. Lambeth