My friend John is an atheist. I was once an atheist myself; but being dissatisfied with the gaping holes in atheistic philosophy, I looked at several world religions and studied Christianity. I became a Christian based on the results of my study. One night, John and I were talking about various pieces of evidence for Christianity, and he told me they weren’t enough to convince him.
“You choose not to be convinced, so no weight of evidence, no matter how great could convince you.”
“That’s not true.”
“Then what would?”
“I don’t know, but I haven’t seen it yet.”
“Tell me honestly, if you were walking down the street tomorrow and everything stopped, the heavens opened and God appeared in front of you and said, ‘John, I exist’, you would think you were suffering from delusions and seek psychiatric help.”
John agreed that that was true. When you begin with such a philosophical prejudice against the existence of God that being introduced to him, in person, would not convince you of his presence, there is no evidence that can change your mind. It is only when the nature of the world around you, your own knowledge of human nature, and your own logic and intelligence convince you that your atheistic philosophy is not correct that you can begin to entertain the question of whether God exists. Until then, you begin with the metaphysical assumption that there is no God and no such thing as a miracle. Your “analysis” occurs in a closed system, no free inquiry there, in which the possibility that God exists is not in the pool of live options.
For me, it all began with the idea of right and wrong. Where did this idea come from? If there is no creator, where do we get the idea that there are rules? Who made the rules? Why do some people follow them and some people break them? Some people say these rules are simply our preferences for how the world should work. If that were true, I could no more be angry with someone torturing a helpless animal or child that I could be mad at someone for liking fried okra. It’s not to my taste, but if rules are simply preferences, then to each his own. John insists that the rules are pretty much universal and derived from instinct and evolution. That’s a lovely little idea, but the problem is we have many competing instincts. If there is a child in a burning building, there are two instincts that rear their heads as you watch. The first is the instinct to save the child- preservation of the species. The second is the instinct to keep yourself safely outside of the building- self-preservation. If we are ruled only by instinct, what allows us to choose between these two instincts?
It was this discomfort with atheism’s “answers” that led me to look more deeply at Islam and Christianity. It was this deeper look that led me to information and ideas that I found convincing about Christianity. But before I could even look at Christianity honestly, I had to open the closed system, and allow for the possibility that God existed. It took a long time, but if you are going in for honest inquiry, it must be done.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
There are more than two instincts at play, because there's also the desire to get people to like you (because people that worked together were more successful from an evolutionary standpoint), and I'm sure there are other instincts involved based on the specific scenario. People decide between instincts based on which is stronger, which is more immediate, which they care about more. So yeah, people are more than instincts, but doesn't that go against the idea of there being rules at all? "Rules" are just created by society, they're whatever people say they are, and the elites of the society create the rules to benefit them. So you have those "rules" and you have instincts, and those instincts include the desire for free will. I don't understand why it has to be God that created the "rules".
Also, you say you looked at Islam and Christianity - did you look at Judaism, or Buddhism, or any other religions? (I'm just curious.)
I don't want to pretend that I have delved into Talmud or studied the Vedas, but I have looked at Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism and Baha'i. As a Christian, I have studied a great deal about Judaism. However, those investigations came after my conversion to Christianity. Islam I studied while I was an atheist.
The point was not that there were only two instincts to choose between, but that there is something beyone instinct that allows the choosing at all. It also permits the strengthening of an instinct or impulse- you may wish you were strong and courageous enough to run into the burning building, but too afraid to do so. You can strengthen either instinct by focusing on its positive and the other instincts' negative repercussions- if I go in people will like me, that could be my own child in there, how will I live with myself if I don't go in? Or- who cares about that kid, what if I got horribly disfigured and couldn't save the child anyway, I'm looking out for number one. The point is that there is consciousness beyond instinct that allows us to decide what to do even if it goes against our dominant instinct. Atheism cannot adequately explain where it came from, or at least has not to my satisfaction. Therefore, my mind became open to the honest inquiry of whether or not there could be a God.
I am so glad that you have become a Christian! I can't help but smile right now. I hope your friend John comes to the realization that it is impossible for God to not be. I too have friends that are athiest or agnostic. I pray they will become Christians as well and realize we all need the Truth and Grace.
Thanks for your comment. Sorry, I didn't respond sooner, I'm new to this blogging thing and all the proper etiquette... I am also very glad became a Christian. What's funny is that this friend said he wishes he could believe, because the Christians he knows are so much happier then he is, but he just won't believe, or even investigate. It's the lack of investigation that makes me sad... But I guess that's just human inertia!
I am overjoyed that you became a Christian! You've given me renewed hope that my atheist friends can learn to believe that God does exist! ^_^
And that's comin' at ya' from yer local redneck hippie.
Ditto what I just responded above- thanks for your comment and sorry for my delay in responding.
I actually wrote the story of my faith journey (and, being a form of writing I'm more used to than these blogs, it came out quite bit better). One lady at church asked me to do it just to bring hope and comfort to those who have loved ones that don't believe. Seemed like as good a reason as any, and a better one than most, to write!
When you settle on the answer that your Christian God does exist, you followed John's path into "inquiry" within a closed system, one in which the possibility that God does not exist "is not in the pool of live options". By its very definition, inquiry ceases when you settle on one answer and close off possibility. How can you accuse him of "analyzing from within a closed system" when you are doing the same thing (in a different closed system)?
Why even bother with the question of explanation for the way things are? From God, from nature- why does it bother you so? This is another "inquiry within a closed system": the notion that things CAN be explained. Have you ever approached life, ever experienced something as if it couldn't be explained? To wonder as such, wonder without reprieve, in awe (this, after all, is the etymological root of the word "wonderful"). I am not saying that explanation for the way things are is without value altogether. I just want you too consider how valuable it actually is; when it should be chased and when it should cease to matter.
(Personally, I turn to an "explanation" only when it makes me happier, makes me feel more alive. As soon as it stops, I drop it, I become indifferent. The closed system I operate within: judging something's value ONLY by its ability to make me happier, to make me feel more alive. This is my morality; This is my inquiry.)
The purpose of inquiry is to find an answer. When the answer is found, inquiry is no longer necessary. This isn't one hundred percent applicable to Christianity, since I believe that the answer, "God exists, Christ lived, he died to reconcile me to God, he was resurrected" is not the end of Christianity, but the beginning. However, it is the end to the question, "Does God exist?" If new evidence was brought to light that made it less likely that God existed, then the inquiry would begin again. But until then, I'm not going to keep asking a question that I already know the answer to. Seeing as how I began as an atheist, became a deist, and then a Christian, I don't know how anyone could say my system was closed. I am now no longer inquiring, true, because I have found the answer.
I can say that John and my other atheist and agnostic friends are analyzing from within a closed system because they do not have an answer. They will not state a belief in any answer, and refuse to acknowledge the possibility that the God of Christianity and Judaism exists.
I was trying to get you to think outside of the problematic of "what exists"; not to abandon it altogether, but to consider the limits of its value. (In, other words, reconsider your obsession with finding an answer, and the consequences of this obsession.) You're putting so much effort into establishing an answer to the question that (perhaps) you never stop to judge whether or not it is a good question to ask.
There are other ways to approach life (other than through this problematic; alternative problematics in themselves) that I believe yield a much richer experience, and thus demand your concern all the more. I gave you an example at the end of my post.
You started in the closed system of atheism, entered into open inquiry, then closed your system again, this time as a believer. Absolutely refusing the notion that God exists is how your friends close their system. Absolutely refusing the notion that God does not exist is how you close your system.
That sums up both your responses to the inquiry of whether god exists. Separate is the inquiry into what explains reality. You have decided that God's existence explains this reality (or at least that he plays a part in explaining it). To some degree, you have closed your system of inquiry. Your friends haven't found an answer as to what explains reality. They have, however, excluded God from that explanation. Thus, to some degree they too have closed their system of inquiry.
We all live within some sort of "closed" inquiry. However, what is closed is not necessarily closed forever; it changes with time. I would claim that no one ever entirely closes their system; we always have some degree of doubt, however slight, if not conscious then sub-conscious and having the potential of becoming conscious.
This is all logic games. Play more if you want, but please give some attention to my first response (it will hopefully bring you to reconsider the value of these logic games).
Well, DUH!! Atheism is the lack of a belief in the existence fo God or gods. It is a single belief. There is no philosophy there. If you want philosophy then you are going to have to go elsewhere. There are many that are consistent with atheism. Some are bad some are good. Here is the outline of Secular Humanism which is a pretty good philosophy that is consistent with atheism.
There is plenty that should convince him of its falsity though.
A single uncorroborated event with no objective evidence remaining ... not enough to convince me either. Which is more likely --- The laws of nature have been voided or I am mistaken in my perception? I KNOW there have been numerous times I have been mistaken in my perception, I do not know of a single time that the laws of nature have been voided.
But that doesn't mean that there is no way God could prove his existence to us. Here are some ways it could be done.
(1) The large red-giant star in the constellation of Orion, Betelguese, could go supernova anytime. Indeed, it is 400 light years away so it may already have. Suppose it has and the light reaches us, say Christmas Eve. We point our telescopes at it we see written in perfect Times Roman font: "Merry Christmas, Peace on Earth ... Love God". It can be photographed and is available to anyone with a small telescope. That would convince me.
(2) Suppose that we isolate a few cells from the Shroud of Turin. We isolate the DNA and we find that it contains 24 chromosomes. 23 of which are exactly homologous to human chromosomes (humans normally contain 23 PAIRS of chromosomes) and the 24th contains all 25000 human genes (that could be done since normally only 2 to 3% of our DNA codes for genes). Suppose that finding gets replicated in several different labs. That too would be enough to convince me I am wrong.
(3) Suppose that God finally grew a brain and decided to communicate with humanity in a rational way. Let's say that he got an e-mail address TheBigKahuna@heaven.god. Suppose one was able to e-mail him and get instantaneous replies and everytime the reply was incredibly meaningful ... not to that person but to all 6 billion people who e-mailed him. Suppose this went on for a few years. When different people compared responses to similar questions (and they would have a written record of it) the responses showed no inconsistencies. He gave convincing explanations why biblical passages that suggest the bible is nothing more than a severely flawed work of man are actually as profound as brain-deadened theists seem to think they are. Eventually that too would be good enough for me.
(4) Do exactly what you said above, except have it filmed by news crews and be open and above board for huge numbers of people to see, and do it several times that way.
(5) Here is a challenge I have given other theists before"
I know the bible says that you shouldn't put God to the test, but there is one time in the bible that he was. He was put to the test by the prophet Elijah. The pericope can be found in 1 Kings 18:20-29.
Elijah is pissed. His advice has not been followed, and King Ahab hated it so much that he wanted Elijah killed. Elijah says: "If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal [is God] then follow him". And he proposes a contest to determine who is God.
It is Elijah vs 450 prophets of Baal. Elijah says to get two bulls. Slaughter them on an altar, lay the pieces on wood, but DON'T set fire to the wood. Elijah will call upon the LORD, the prophets of Baal will call upon Baal. If the LORD starts Elijah's fire first, then the LORD is God, if Baal starts his prophets' fire first then Baal is God.
I'm sure you can guess that Elijah won. Of course he had the 450 prophets of Baal were killed (1 Kings 18:40).
Here is my challenge. I'm not really into the sacrifice thing, so why don't we have a barbeque cookoff. Let's each get us a thick juicy steak and put it on identical grills. Since I believe the natural world is all there is, I get to use natural things (propane, the button that says START, a long-tipped lighter in case the button doesn't work ... that type of thing) to start the fire. You, on the other hand, only get to call on God. You can if you want call on him to make my natural stuff not work. But you can't use anything other than God.
First one to cook up their steak wins. I promise that if I win I wont have you killed. I'll even let you use my grill to cook up your steak afterward. All that I ask is that you put a $20 buck wager on it. If you win, I'll believe (and pay you the $20). Also if you feel it necessary to kill me, I wont resist. What can be more fair than that?
God agreed to do it for Elijah, why not now?
The point of all this is that if God actually existed, it would not be hard for him to prove it to us. Yet he doesn't. Your friend, John, is right. It is telling.
Society
Society
Society
Because at the moment of decision to follow or break the rules they feel like what they do is the best course for them.
Yes
Well, you certainly sound like a psychotic sociopath to me. What kind of society would we have if we allowed torturing of animals and children on a routine basis?
And why would ANYONE think that way? We don't. That is exactly why we have codified rules into law. Evolution selects for traits that give one an advantage in their local environment. Look around you ... what is the most common thing you see in your local environment? OTHER HUMANS!! We are social creatures. If social creatures are going to survive then they need a society. A society cannot exist without rules. Don't you find it the least bit interesting that the one thing successful laws have in common is the promotion of stable societies?
(1) Our assessment of the chance of success and the relatedness of the child. If the child is mine then I am likely to give it try no matter what. Since that child has my genes, his survival directly determines my FITNESS. The term "Fitness" is used with its technical meaning ... a measure of an organism's ability to pass its genes on to succeeding generations. Some organisms that try to save their young are successful and they pass on their genes to succeeding generations. No organism that doesn't try to save its young in such a situation is going to pass its genes on. Organisms that have genes that make them more likely to do that are more likely to attempt it and their genes are the ones that will be passed on. This type of behavior is called KIN ALTRUISM.
If the child is not mine, then if at the moment of decision I decide that there is little chance I will be successful in saving the child then I probably will stay put. On the other hand if I think I will be successful then I will attempt it. I do this because I don't see the cost as being excessively high and I have a reasonable expectation that if my son were in a similar situation someone might do the same for him. That type of behavior is called RECIPROCAL ALTRUISM.
Both are well explained by modern evolutionary theory.
One reason people actually DO give up their lives to save others is that we are human and our assessment of the likelihood of success is not always correct.
Another possible reason is that society can assist genes for such activity being transmitted into succeeding generations EVEN if the action fails. If society finds such actions laudible (and most societies do) external support can be given so that the offspring of the person who gave his life increase their fitness. An example may be that the community can set up a fund such that the person's children are guarenteed a college education. Presumably this would make it more likely that THEY would send the parent's altruistic genes into succeeding generations. (I have my personal doubts about that one though).
(2) If morals are instilled in us from God then why do people do as they do in such a situation? Does postulating that God instilled morals into us explain the observed facts any better than does evolutionary theory? I don't think so.
I think that you looked for what you wanted to find, instead of looking for what is really there.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
What causes you to believe in a God?
I'm currently atheist, but I like to hear both sides of an argument.
From where do you draw your faith?
____________
haHA!