But, before we get to that, a brief introduction:
My name is Hank & I run a blog called Ethics Gradient (which, it should be noted, may – does – contain some coarse language. In my mind, it’s all perfectly justified but I realise not everyone digs the sailor-talk). I also go by “Mandrellian” on various threads on various blogs, youtube videos and forums. After a few comments on a recent DI thread, Erich Vieth did me the honour of inviting me to be a contributor here at Dangerous Intersection. For my first post I’ve shared one of my previous works from my personal blog and edited it very, very slightly to improve the flow and readability [permalink]. Hopefully it will give people an idea where I’m coming from (besides Melbourne, Australia).
Many thanks to Erich for his faith in me. I shall attempt to justify it with my future posts. OK, let’s get on with it.
Why I am not an atheist …
… and why I am.
I am not an atheist because:
- I hate God
- I prayed to God and my prayers weren’t answered
- Militant/fundamentalist atheists converted me away from God
- I worship science and the works of man instead of God
- I’m rebelling against God like I rebelled against my parents & teachers in high school
- I think I’m better than God
- I had a bad experience with a priest or church or religious person
- I can’t decide which religion to subscribe to
- atheism is my religion
- I think religious people are idiots
- I worship Batman
- I worship Satan
- I’m immoral/amoral and would rather do what I want
- I want to destroy religion
I distrust and criticise (sometimes strongly) certain organised religions because:
- they are human inventions and many seem to be preoccupied with obsessively controlling aspects of peoples’ private lives instead of improving them
- many Christian churches seem primarily concerned with attracting money and then keeping it rather than using it charitably
- many holy books get descriptions of the world & nature completely wrong, which you would not expect had they been dictated by the omnipotent creator of the universe
- many holy books contain descriptions of human events that cannot be historically verified and in all likelihood never happened (eg. Exodus)
- many holy books contain numerous laws, acts & stories of a morality that modern, free societies find repugnant; these societies have passed many of their own laws contradicting such biblical “morality”
- as well as innumerable separate religions; there are so many separate & often violently opposed sects of each religion that it is more likely that none of them are correct than just one of them being so
- many religious groups demand special treatment such as the right not to be offended by statements, artworks, songs or anything else that may criticise or disagree with their dogma; their protests quite often run contrary to ideas such as free speech, beloved by most modern democratic societies
- religious groups frequently try to have laws passed which unfairly impose their narrow standards of behaviour, based on interpretations of specific holy commands, onto the rest of society
- religious people often tend to pick & choose from, or “interpret” their holy texts, discarding what does not conform to modern standards of morality, law & political freedom; they then bizarrely imply that modern morality, law and political freedom rests on the foundations of their particular religion
- there is such a wide spectrum of religious belief & adherence to dogma, ranging from light, barely-existent deism to the kind of rigid fundamentalism that oppresses and kills many, many people in its name, that it leads me to conclude that either their God wasn’t clear enough with his message, didn’t spread it to enough people or that humans have basically made their religions and associated rules up as they went along and have been in conflict with each other about them ever since
- many religious people & groups wilfully mis-characterise atheists as immoral, empty beings with no appreciation for beauty or mystery simply because we prefer natural explanations for the universe’s phenomena rather than defaulting to “God did it”; they believe that any explanation, even a wrong one, is better than “we just don’t know yet”
- many religious groups continue to deny long-accepted scientific facts such as the divergence of species through evolution and the verified age of the Earth; some wish their particular mythology taught as fact in science classes and go to extraordinary lengths to accomplish it; some even insist there’s a huge, dark Scientist Conspiracy quashing “academic freedom”
- many religious people & groups attempt to cherry-pick science (as they do their scriptures) for those parts which conform to their belief system while actively denying others, e.g. creationists agreeing with “microevolution” while denying “macroevolution” (which is like believing that matches cannot start bushfires) or attempting to use the Second Law of Thermodynamics to debunk the theory of evolution (which is like ajudicating a baseball game with a cricket rulebook)
- some religious groups deny the efficacy of modern medicine in favour of treating an ill person with prayer, a practice which has led to many preventable deaths, often of children
- they all make extraordinary claims based on their scriptures, provide no evidence beyond referring to their (unsurprisingly) self-confirming scriptures and then insist that the onus is on non-believers to disprove their claims
- many religions have become inextricably intertwined with the laws of the patriarchal or tribal cultures which spawned or adopted them, leading to divine justifications for such horrors as female circumcision and “honour killings”, which more often than not punish women, already under the thumbs of domineering males, for seemingly minute transgressions of law
- when it comes to the hot-button issue of sexual abuse by priests, many religions seem more concerned with good public relations, shielding themselves from culpability and keeping numbers in churches than with compensating victims and being active about either punishing perpetrators or preventing further abuse
I am an atheist because:
- any & all claims of and explanations for the existence of God or any other gods have thus far fallen far short of my standards of evidence
- my understanding of the natural universe is that it functions in such a way that doesn’t require (or indicate) the presence of any supernatural entity intervening in either the laws of nature or selected peoples’ lives
That’s it. They are the only two things that I can say I absolutely have in common with any other atheist. In matters of sex, politics, architecture, gaming, interior design, pets, music, clothing, hobbies, language, philosophy, education, sports, typing speed, preferred drugs, affinity with beagles & frogs and any number of other categories I may be diametrically opposite to any (or every) other atheist in the world. To label one atheist with the same attributes you label another atheist is ignorant at best, flat-out dishonest at worst. As such, I try not to do the same thing with religious people.
But what could steer me in the opposite direction? Probably the same things that could steer any atheist …
I could be converted to theism if:
- God, or a god, showed himself or performed an act that unambiguously proved his existence as an immortal, omnipotent being. As to what that proof would constitute: that god himself would be the perfect arbiter of what would conclusively prove to six billion people that he existed.
Such things as tortillas depicting blurred, apparently Mary-shaped silhouettes do not count. If you’re there, God, you’re on notice! Any time is fine. But no tricks – and come alone (if indeed there’s only one of you, otherwise, bring the whole parthenon).
—
In hindsight, there are quite a few things I left off both of those two longer lists, but I haven’t added them here. To add a large amount of new content to a re-post in the hope that a “special edition” would make it heaps, heaps better might (a) make me feel a total hypocrite, like I’m pulling a George Lucas (may he drown in his money-bin) and (b) turn people off, TL;DR style. I also believe that excessive after-the-fact editing takes a bit of the “blogginess” away from what I write. I like the sort-of “stream of consciousness” aspect of blogging, in that it provides a snapshot of my mindset at the precise time I was writing a post, warts & all, as opposed to being a considered, well thought-out post that took a very long time to compile. I don’t do many drafts. If I can’t finish something the day I start, it simply never gets published. Suffice it to say that philosophy didn’t serve me well at school!
OK, that’s enough of that. Keep enjoying the DI experience, readers. I hope to get into some serious/thoughtful/entertaining dialogue with some of you soon.
Hank
Erich, Et Al, I did a simple check and it appears that Erik Brewer is what he presents himself as. He is an evangelical Fundamentalist. Mostly harmless.
Erik Brewer. A belated congratulations on becoming a father.
• Mike Pulcinella
God created a perfect world without sin. He gave mankind a choice to be obedient or disobedient. Man chose to be disobedient. It was/is not God’s fault.
• Hank
I guess in your so called “Christian” days you never read Romans chapter 1. There you will find out about depravity and those who reject God get worse and worse in their depravity. I am sorry that it offends you but I cannot change the facts. I have nothing against you and hope for the best (you will truly repent) but that is up to you. I am not labling you as depraved, God does. Again, your argument is against Him and not me.
As to judging, I do not judge anybody. I am not the judge, God is. Now He does judge and has judged those who reject Him. You do not have to think like me, that is your choice. I once thought like you but I realized that I was wrong and God is right. If you do not want to receive my apology that again is your choice. I have not tried to ram my faith down anyone’s throat. I think that God is convicting you with what I write so to calm your mind you accuse me of trying to convert you and so forth. Righteousness is righteousness, there is no over or under inflation. It is like unique or dead (superlatives in themselves).
As long as you share your opinion then I have the right to write what the Word of God says. As I said, if you want me to stop then stop making false accusations about God and His Word.
With your language I can see that the Word of God has stuck a raw nerve (that is what the Word does) but then if you will allow It, the Word will heal that wound (I know, it has happened to me).
I am sorry that you have had bad experience with hypocrites but please do not put me into that category because I am not one. Again, your problem is with God (it is very evident in what you write). He would gladly resolve that problem if you would let Him.
• Niklaus Pfirsig
Thanks for the congrats. God blesses with the best gifts when we allow Him.
As to Fundamentalist, you can call me what you want but God calls me His child/disciple (Christian if you like).
Let's start a witchhunt on Erik. He's dominating the comment preview section and my own brilliant replies just don't show up anymore.
"God created a perfect world without sin. He gave mankind a choice to be obedient or disobedient. Man chose to be disobedient. It was/is not God’s fault."
But he KNEW beforehand that we were going to be disobedient, right? Or did we surprise Him?
Mike Pulcinella
God was not surprised. He knew. I know where you are going with this flawed logic (heard it before). I am sure you want to ask, "then why did He create us if He knew that we would sin?" Good question. Would you put your child to death because you knew he may grow up and be a murderer (he would have to choose to do that but it is possible)? Would you put your child to death because you thought he may do things to cause suffering in his own life in the future?
I say that your answer would be "no". Why? Because you want to give him a chance to do the right thing (even though you know your child will make bad decisions that will cause pain in his own life, he is human).
So, once again Erik, I ask you to explain why he would purposely create creatures that could possibly stray from His way? This is not "flawed logic", I know you've heard it before and it's just common sense. What kind of a God are we dealing with here? Is he toying with us, or just incompetent?
To continue your child analogy, if you were like God and could create your own child to your exact specifications, would YOU include a propensity for thievery and drug addiction? I think this is a perfectly reasonable question to ask.
Mike: Your worthy question reminds me of one of Grumpypilgrim's earlier posts: "God’s attractive nuisance: the Tree of Knowledge."
http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/05/12/gods-…
• Mike Pulcinella
So you are upset that God gave us free will. That is your argument. He could have made us like robots without a will but instead He gave us free will (like He has, we are made in His image). You guys scream out to be free thinkers (free will) yet your criticize God for giving us a free will to choose. Do you not see the irony in your argument? I sure do. God did not create sin, He created free will being who could choose to sin (there is a huge difference). So again, your argument falls short.
• Erich Vieth
Your are looking at it backwards. God gave them a garden full of trees to enjoy. He also gave them free will to choose to be obedient to Him. Free will is a good thing. The problem is that mankind “chose” the wrong thing (not God’s fault). Again He could have created us to be robots without a choice or He could have forced us to be obedient but instead (free thinkers) He gave us the chance to analyze and make the right choice (is that not what you want people to do?). So the argument is not “why God” but instead “why man, did you choose so poorly”.
Erich: I know that post well and always think of it when I pose this question.
I think it's the ultimate question. If you could create anything you wanted, why would you create THIS particular reality? If we or the universe is flawed in some way, what does that reveal about the God that created it?
To me it means that either He needs or gets enjoyment out of watching us suffer and plead for his help OR all of this stuff is out of His control which then brings into question His omnipotence.
I'm still waiting to hear a good third explanation.
Erik Brewer wrote: "God was not surprised. He knew. … Would you put your child to death because you knew he may grow up and be a murderer (he would have to choose to do that but it is possible)? Would you put your child to death because you thought he may do things to cause suffering in his own life in the future?"
I have known of couples who wanted to have children, but because medical tests showed that they had genetic flaws that would cause any offspring to live difficult and terrible and abbreviated lives, they either chose to adopt or chose not to reproduce. Others, succumbing to their natural, insatiable "drive" to reproduce, had children anyway, with the predicted results.
According to my own value system, there is greater morality in the former example than in the latter. Did God succumb to his natural, insatiable "drive" to reproduce, resulting in "flawed" children? If his children are flawed, and he knew that they would be beforehand, then why did he have them? And is He a slave to His biological clock?
Again, you are trying to look at our world today and assuming that it was always so. I have stated before, that would be like someone walking into a junk yard and saying that all cars must be created this way.
What we see today is not like the original creation. To assume that what we have today is what God intended is a big mistake. In fact that is why He wrote it down for us in black and white (so that we would not assume like you are doing).
Also, He did not have to provide a way out for us after we fell into sin. He could have said too bad for us but He did not. He sacrificed Himself in order to save us from our own problem (that is why He is gracious and full of mercy, not giving us what we deserve and giving us what we do not deserve). Yet if we reject the 2nd chance (Jesus Christ) there is no 3rd option.
No Erik, I am not upset that we have free will, I merely question the intentions of a being that would toy with us in this way.
Continuing with the child analogy, what would you think of a parent that created a safe play room for a small child and then, noticing that there was a pile of knives and poison in the corner, decide to leave it there and only warn the child not to touch it? Is this not an analogy for the kind of universe you suggest exists?
I find your apologies for God to be very interesting. It's never His fault, it's always ours. Why do you defend a God who, to my mind, is so clearly negligent? Let me put it another way…
Why do you WANT to believe what you believe?
This is another difficult question for which I rarely get a good answer. We both know that you and I will never change each other's minds about the subject of God or the bible one bit. Instead, I would be interested to hear if you could explore your own motivations for believing what you do. To clarify my question a bit more, consider this…
Would you act differently if it was proved tomorrow beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was no God and no afterlife? How would that make you feel?
"To assume that what we have today is what God intended is a big mistake."
Then he f**ked up, pure and simple. I hold God to the same standards that I hold anyone. When a company goes down the tubes because of a decision made by the CEO, I'm sure the CEO didn't intend for that to happen and for thousands of people to lose their jobs. So therefore he f**cked up.
Mike Pulcinella wrote: "Would you act differently if it was proved tomorrow beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was no God and no afterlife?"
It's an interesting question, but one that can be turned-around on us nonbelievers: "Would you act differently if it was proved tomorrow beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was God and afterlife?" I'm not sure how I'd answer it.
Comparing sharp knives with children and a tree with grown people (we have had this little talk about apples and oranges before). Good try though.
I am not defending God, I am relating to you what He has said in His own defense. Please stop confusing the two. I do not make up what I say through hours of long speculation. I am simply stating what God has already said/written in black and white for all to see.
If God does not exists then the world would not exist nor the universe so we would not have to contemplate that.
I do not believe blindly as you suppose. I am a rational person. I have put the Word of God to the test and It has passed the test every time. I have seen/experienced God work in my life. Others have seen it as well as experienced it. There is too much evidence for God to just "believe" that He does not exists.
Again, Truth is not Truth because I believe it. I believe it because it is Truth. I hope you understand the concept. I know that it is hard for someone who buys into the idea of relativism.
Mike, I remeber a fabulous sci-fi book about a guy who "wins" a prize and spends the rest of the book running around the universe. In his trips he runs into God and there's a hilarious description of how the Earth was made form scrap parts sold by a planet parts seller to a crazy old guy with a beard! Klarmann would probably remember it's title, i don't.
Still a practicing Catholic!
WORST non-answer to my question EVER! Erik, you have an imagination don't you? You've read fiction? Watched fictional movies and TV? I'm sure you have. Speculate. Imagine for me for one minute that you wake up one morning, the universe still exists, you still exist and the newspaper headlines prove without question that God does not exist. It's a thought experiment.
What would you do? How would you feel? Will you imagine that scenario for me? I am asking you to contemplate that.
Obviously what I am trying to get at is your inner, personal reasons for wanting to believe as you do, whether what you believe is true or false. I will accept for a moment that you have definitive proofs that God has spoken to you from the Bible. That's fine. But close the bible. Set it down for a moment, imagine, and talk to me.
Edgar, that is a good question and I'm a little disappointed that Erik didn't ask it. I fully expected him to.
My answer is simple…no different. I wouldn't change a thing.
However, I would be very excited to find that there is a God because MAN do I have some questions for Him!
• Mike Pulcinella
You wrote “When a company goes down the tubes because of a decision made by the CEO”
Here is the problem that I have been saying all along. You assume that God messed things up. The Bible says that God made the world perfect. Man’s choice to sin caused the catastrophe, not God. God warned man ahead of time what the consequences would be (as He always does) and gave man the choice. Again, please realize that what your saying is wrong. God did not mess up anything.
• Mike Pulcinella
You call it a non-answer because you cannot argue against it. The better thing would be to say “God is right and I am wrong” but that is impossible for you because that destroys your worldview.
Yes I have an imagination. Imagine saying that tomorrow what if we wake up and there is no oxygen (that is the problem, you would not wake up, it is impossible) It is the same way with God. It is impossible to prove that God does not exist so imagining it makes no sense (again, see the oxygen explanation).
I used to live in my own little world where I said that God did not exist. I woke up to reality after that and I saw how ridiculous my ideas about God were (before I knew Him personally).
I do not “want” to believe. I believe because of what I know (from the Word) what I have seen (in the world around me) and what I have experienced (my radical life transformation along with the lives of so many others). Again, it is not true because I believe it, I believe it because it is True (if you can understand that then you know where I am coming from). God has chosen to reveal Himself in Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ and the Word (Bible) are the same, therefore, asking me to close the Bible is impossible. My ideas about God are not worth anything. God’s ideas about Himself are what are important so I do not rely on my own ideas (understanding) but on what He has revealed in His Word.
I could have predicted and scripted the above answer. Erik, I think I know you pretty well at this point. Here's what drives you:
It is obvious that god exists.
God is always right.
If ever anyone disagrees with you about God, they are wrong and you are right.
The Bible is literally true and provides the answers to all the important questions one might have, if one would only open one's heart to God.
God is especially bothered by skeptics, sex outside of marriage, and homosexuals.
You're not open to change or even doubt of any sort.
I can't buy into any of these propositions. It seems like we've come full circle 18 times already. It doesn't seem to be the basis for any meaningful discussion. Why don't you just, from now on, indicate that you've already said everything that matters to you rather than writing it out again and again?
I'm not trying to be rude or insulting. It seems to me, though, that the willingness of all participants to consider something other than what they already believe is a prerequisite to having a meaningful conversation. Wouldn't you agree?
Mike Pulcinella wrote: "My answer is simple…no different. I wouldn’t change a thing."
I thought about it overnight, and my answer would be different than yours. The situation would be rather like life under a cruel, sadistic dictator — I'd do whatever I had to do to stay alive; I'd do my best to keep from drawing attention to myself; I'd do everything I could to undermine his power, and I'd resent Him to the depths of my being.
"However, I would be very excited to find that there is a God because MAN do I have some questions for Him!"
More than questions; He could use a good dressing-down for allowing the world to become so messed-up.
Now back to the original, non-inverted question, though: What would Erik do differently? Absent the "moral" code of the Bible, would he go on a rampage of "immorality"? What would stop him? I know what stops me: a sense of right and wrong that exists without, or perhaps in spite of, the Bible.