Blog

It's actually quite simple. Atheism is the privative category, the "none of the above" left over after all belief communities are accounted for. Non-christians are "heathens" (includes muslims and jews, as well as atheists). Non-muslims are infidels or kafir (includes jews and christians, as well as atheists). Non-jews are called gentiles or goyim (includes christians and muslims, as well as atheists). There may well be words for people who are not believers in the norse pantheon, or the greek or egyptian or indian gods, but I don't know them.

Only one word applies to those who choose "none of the above": atheist. It does not have to be an active rejection--I doubt that christians even think to actively reject the gods of thousands of other faiths, since all they have to do is believe their own--atheists simply do not believe in a god or gods.

Trust me, atheists do exist. Your condescending "I'm not sure..." simply points out your ignorance of their world.

For your last paragraph, you are relying on a bad linguistic argument. The fact that one word--belief--can be used to describe believing because of evidence, independently of evidence, or in spite of evidence to the contrary, shows that "belief" is too broad a word to use as a commonality between christians and atheists. Believe me, atheists have heard the "it takes more faith to be an atheist" line more times than we care to; again, your ignorance is showing. (please understand, "ignorant" is not an insult; I simply mean that you are unaware, which is clearly true.)

I put my faith in those who have earned it. It is more "earned trust" than "blind faith", but the doctors, engineers, and scientists who have demonstrated a working knowledge of the real world have earned my trust. Atheists are not empty shells. Gods are, from our perspective, illusory--if you do not have one in your life, you are missing nothing at all.

Thank you for your response. It certainly does help me understand this perspective more than I previously did. And my goal was not to argue points that you've "heard more than you care to before". When we write these blogs about specific words, we are simply sharing our opinions which are clearly from a Christian perspective. However, I try to be as logical and fair about it as I can. I'm sorry you felt I was being "condescending". The reason I started that comment with "I'm not sure" is because I'm aware that I don't know everything there is to know about atheism. The blog was written based on my limited understanding and the questions I have for those who claim to be atheists. And by the way, I don't take the "ignorance" comments negatively because frankly, we're all ignorant about some things. Your comment of "I doubt christians even think to actively reject the gods of thousands of other faiths..." shows a little bit of ignorance as well. But, I don't see that as a bad thing because you are simply sharing your opinion from YOUR perspective. And there's nothing wrong with that. In truth, however, I myself and many Christians I know actively reject any faith or god that says we must follow a set of rules to earn favor or salvation because we believe that Christ has already reconciled us to God and there is nothing we can do to earn what he did for us. Everything we do from that point forward is BECAUSE of what God did for us, not to GAIN anything. This is really the biggest thing and in some cases the only thing that separates Christianity from other faiths. So when you talk about "actively rejecting" them, I can assure you that I might not be rejecting them at all if they didn't believe you could earn your way to heaven (or substitute whatever eternal destination the faith believes). So because of that, I have to "actively reject" their teachings.

Like I said, you definitely helped me understand the way atheists typically view things and I certainly learned from your post. I appreciate your willingness to have the conversation and I hope you view it the same way I do in that regard. Assuming you do, I wanted to mention the one thing that I feel your post did not account for and maybe you can write again to account for it. I get that you put your trust in those who have earned it such as doctors, engineers, and scientists. I completely agree on the point that they have earned our trust when it comes to their fields of expertise. But, how do atheists account for all the things that are beyond our control? By "our", I mean human beings, including doctors, engineers, scientists, and all other experts. I don't mean to sound condescending or ignorant, but I'm writing based on logic - and if there's logic I'm missing, please point it out. Putting faith aside for a moment and looking at the world logically, it'd be hard for anyone to argue that human beings have total control over everything. So if your trust is in those human beings who we both agree have earned it, what about the things even they can't control? It seems to me the only other possibility besides a deity is chance/coincidence. And that was the main theme of my blog. As always, I'm open to the possibility that I'm missing something. So please feel free to continue this conversation if you'd like. Thanks again.

There are things we do not and cannot control. Some of these, we understand, and some we do not. The beautiful thing about science is, we know that there are limits on what can be known (see Heisenberg's uncertainty principle for an example).

Not knowing something, however, is a far cry from being able to conclude it is the work of a deity. You have created a false dichotomy--if it's not the fourth of July, it must be Christmas. There is no reason to say "if we don't know, it must be god". There needs to be positive evidence, and thus far there is none. Your argument is called "the god of the gaps", positing a heavenly cause for the things for which we have no known physical cause. Before Darwin, the gaps included the variety in life we see around us; before Copernicus, the gaps included how the sun rose and set. The problem with this argument is, the more we learn, the smaller god becomes.

By the way, I am a former born-again christian, so perhaps I can explain my "active rejection" comment from my own experience. As you describe for yourself, I had already committed myself to Christ, so of course I rejected any other faiths I was aware of. But that's the rub--I was certainly not aware of all faiths. Nor, I would wager, are you. There are simply too many of them. But my being a christian (and yours, too, I would wager) was not contingent on having actively rejected all these others, it was contingent on having accepted Christ as my savior. And my current atheism does not require that I try out every religion and reject them all. I simply do not believe. And that is all it takes.

I totally agree that we cannot say "If I don't know something, it must be God". That's why it's a Christian FAITH and not a Christian CERTAINTY. I can say that "by faith", I've concluded that it is done by God. I did not say in the blog nor the comment that this is the conclusion everyone MUST come to. You mentioned my "argument" several times. Again, I want to point out that the purpose of this and all our blogs is not to CONVINCE people that we are right and everyone else is wrong. It is a forum to write about what I believe and to have a conversation about why rather than just taking the attitude that everyone needs to submit to my views and that's all there is to it. And I hope you didn't feel my response to your post was an "argument" either. I simply asked how you account for what you don't know because I didn't feel that was included in your first post. You answered honestly and candidly and I appreciate that. You have accepted that there are things we can't know and so have I. The only clear difference is faith after that point. My choice to put my faith in God comes from His attributes which I believe are obvious in the world and the experience I have had with Him AFTER I chose to put my faith and trust in Him. You have chosen not to believe in that faith at this point and while I hope you'll continue to reconsider and be open to the possibility that God does exist, I completely respect your view and thank you again for sharing honestly.

Well, of course I am open to the possibility; as I said, it was my starting point. It took a lot of learning about the world (biology, geology, physics, etc.) and about human nature (perception, cognition, belief, etc.) to realize that there was no need for a god in order to explain it. Certainly, if you start off assuming a god exists, you cannot disprove it. But there is no reason, other than the inertia of history (beginning before we knew so much about the world and about human nature), to posit such a god in the first place.

In your initial post, you claimed to doubt the existence of atheists. It is my hope that you no longer do, and that you reserve the word "faith" for use as you have done in your last comment, rather than as you used it in the last paragraph of your post. For me, "faith" is belief in the absence of evidence, or in spite of opposing evidence, and while it is common, it is no virtue. I won't blame people for considering it a virtue--there are whole communities dedicated to promulgating that view--but such a position closes minds by pretending to have found an answer, instead of recognizing our limited knowledge and redoubling our efforts to learn.

@Cuttlefish - You mentioned science; biology, geology etc. You also basically said that you are no longer a born again Christian because of of such evidence. If I mis-understood you I apologize.

So, when you were a Christian were you taught that Genesis 1 - 11 was true and factual and now you believe it is incorrect with facts you see in nature? If this is correct could you please go into how this transformation happened? I am not here to convince you otherwise I am trying to understand how you came to your conclusion. Also, I am curious if the above is true did you then reject the rest of the Bible in your pursuit for truth? Again, I am just asking questions and trying to understand. Thanks!

It's been a while...

At some point, the burden of proof shifted. This was roughly 20 years ago, plus or minus a couple of years. At that point it was not so much "reject[ing] the rest of the bible", as asking the bible to put up or shut up.

It's not a matter of disproving the bible, it's a matter of asking the bible to prove its worth.

When you recognize that the world gets along perfectly well without a god (and, frankly, it does--and for the bits where we are forced to say "I don't know", it turns out that god appears not to know either), the burden of proof is on religion to show that it has something to bring to the table other than wishful thinking.

So... what, exactly, do you think a religious worldview offers? If I am after the truth, and not just a comfortable lie, what does religion (let alone christianity) offer?

Science has answered so many questions that used to be answered by religion; the answers are not always flattering, nor always what we want them to be, but they make sense. It almost seems unfair to ask that a two-thousand-year-old text compete. But that 2-thousand-year-old text is the one that claims to be the revealed word of an omniscient being. If so, it ought to (at minimum) agree with empirical evidence... and it does not.

Well, does not....*yet*. Science is always provisional, so there is always the chance that a better explanation will be found. So the ball is in religion's court--science is perfectly ready to listen, so long as you bring evidence.

No?

You ask some very good questions, "So... what, exactly, do you think a religious worldview offers? If I am after the truth, and not just a comfortable lie, what does religion (let alone christianity) offer?"

In my humble opinion here in lies part of the mis-understanding about religion and relationship. And I am certain you have heard this already because you seem very well versed in this topic and I applaud you in that. The thing is though for people, who are not insane or delusional, they actually have a relationship with God. I don't expect you to understand this because clearly you do not have a relationship with God nor ever did. This is not a slam just an observation, because anyone who does have a relationship with God cannot then just say, "Well, God must not exist because x, y, and z didn't happen."

A correctly interpreted biblical worldview offers true peace [I am not referring to world peace with no war, I am talking about individual inner peace], people willing to put others before self, love. Those are just three things. Keep in mind we are talking about what it has to offer, not what people will do with this information. We all still have free-will. I hope that makes sense.

I am not a huge fan of religion but many good things have come from religion and to have someone say that isn't true is being disingenuous. Including me.

What are you exactly referring to with this statement? "Science has answered so many questions that used to be answered by religion; the answers are not always flattering, nor always what we want them to be, but they make sense."

Which questions and what answers are you referring to?

I do find it amusing that you claim "clearly you do not have a relationship with God nor ever did. " As I said, I am a former born-again Christian. I believed I had a relationship with god, and I would say that I believed it as strongly as any Christian currently believes he or she does. I can understand why you would reject that; it is frightening to recognize that your own strong beliefs could be changed. Your reasoning in rejecting my former faith is a "no true Scotsman" argument, and I assure you it is false.

Of course, the years that encompassed my deconversion (if I can use that term) were far more complicated than the "X, Y, and Z didn't happen" simplification that my comments here might have implied to you. To describe them properly would require me to write a book, and this is just a comment thread on a blog.

True peace, selflessness, and love are wonderful things, but of course they are not the sole property of religion. Religion is, of course, one way to teach these (religion also can teach war, greed, and bigotry--and a look at history easily shows that there were christians claiming that these were based in a true understanding of the bible). Atheists are a widely varied group, but I don't know of any who do not cherish peace, selflessness, or love. Again, your example is a No True Scotsman argument, intended to eliminate the examples of christianity that you disagree with.

As for your last question, to choose just a couple, Christianity historically opposed the Copernican model of the solar system; science showed us we were not the center of the universe. Christianity historically opposed Darwin, and in much of the US, still does; natural selection shows us that we are not a special creation, qualitatively different from other animals. (The apologetics that allows some believers to stand for both evolution and god is a rare thing in the actual population.) Even quantum mechanics is opposed by some christians, because of its implication that the universe does not need a creator at all. And of course, much of psychology and psychobiology is opposed because it demonstrates that "free will" is an illusion.

Again, certainly not all christians are opposed to science, but recent opinion surveys show an astonishing conflict between some faith communities and science.

So, what in your experience or opinion does born-again Christian mean or what defines this?

I ask because you say, "I believed I had a relationship with god, and I would say that I believed it as strongly as any Christian currently believes he or she does."

So please explain this belief you had. Thanks.

As far as being "frightened" about losing my "strong" faith. This is one reason why I question if you actually had a relationship with the God of the Universe, our Creator.

Sorry about the x,y, z example I did that to save time and typing. :)

So, is it fair to say you believe you have had your questions answered by science where the Bible left you wanting? If this is true, please tell me what in the Bible didn't fit with your worldview.

What does born-again mean? I would have thought it meant the same for me as for you, but perhaps you have never had the conversion experience. I did; it was an incredibly powerful and emotional event. At the time, it was easily the most powerful emotional experience I had ever had. It was at a church revival event; one member of the congregation was being baptized (this was an anabaptist church, where baptism only happens after a person knowingly accepts Jesus and asks for baptism), and the pastor delivered an emotionally powerful and moving sermon. I don't remember walking to the front of the church, I just remember that suddenly I was up there, with the pastor praying over me, and feeling an overwhelming love, a feeling all out of proportion to anything I had ever experienced.

I find your question odd, actually; have you ever had that experience? Are you born again? I know that not all christians have this religious experience as part of their belief system--Catholics, for instance, do not emphasize the importance of the conversion experience.

After that experience (in fact, that very afternoon) I was officially baptized into the church. I witnessed to my classmates; I went to church camp; I sang in a religious singing group. Most importantly, I believed with every fiber of my being.

And over the course of perhaps ten years, I learned about science and human nature, as I said. I also learned about religion. I took college classes in comparative religion, and learned about the history of christianity as well as of other faith communities. I learned about apologetics, about logical arguments for god (and their flaws), about similarities and differences among religions.

I learned that religion is a surprisingly mundane and human invention, despite how special it feels from the inside. I learned that the purposes and functions of religion changed over time, in part as a response to our increased scientific knowledge (as mentioned earlier, one early function of religion was to explain the natural world; turns out science does that better).

Regarding your last question... I'd have to say no, it was not that simple. Certainly that was part of it, but eventually I simply saw no use for the bible. Discoveries in science, advances in technology, greater understanding of ourselves, all of these happened independently of or even in spite of the alleged word of god. Our modern questions of morality and ethics were far better informed by science and philosophy than by an ancient set of myths.

And this ancient set of myths (the more you know about religions, the easier it is to trace the origins and changes; a recent poll showed that atheists know more about the bible than christians, on average) does inform our questions of morality and ethics and (perhaps most importantly) law. A view of human nature that, even if it were once true, is no longer true--a view of humanity that can be used to discriminate, that facilitates and excuses bigotry (just look at the current GOP candidates for examples), that facilitates and excuses abuse (spare the rod?)... there is simply no need to give deference to an ancient set of myths in our modern world.

Of course there have been good things to come out of religion. And of course there are those who will claim just the good things, and reject the bad things (as not truly christian, for example), but that is special pleading. Religion has had its run; it has had thousands of years to make a difference. Can you imagine the suffering that would have been alleviated if, instead of forbidding graven images, one of the commandments was "wash your hands"?

If the bible wants to fit in my worldview, it would have to be useful. To be able to predict helpful things, rather than being shoehorned into agreement after the fact. It's not that the bible is bad, or good, or anything. It is irrelevant.

Cuttlefish said...
What does born-again mean? I would have thought it meant the same for me as for you, but perhaps you have never had the conversion experience. I did; it was an incredibly powerful and emotional event. At the time, it was easily the most powerful emotional experience I had ever had. It was at a church revival event; one member of the congregation was being baptized (this was an anabaptist church, where baptism only happens after a person knowingly accepts Jesus and asks for baptism), and the pastor delivered an emotionally powerful and moving sermon. I don't remember walking to the front of the church, I just remember that suddenly I was up there, with the pastor praying over me, and feeling an overwhelming love, a feeling all out of proportion to anything I had ever experienced.

I find your question odd, actually; have you ever had that experience? Are you born again? I know that not all christians have this religious experience as part of their belief system--Catholics, for instance, do not emphasize the importance of the conversion experience.

I appreciate your willingness to go into such great detail. Thank you. This helps me understand where you are coming from. [As much as I am able anyway.] :)

Even though you had an incredible experience and event in your life that does not necessarily mean you became a Christ-follower at that point. It means you had a great experience and an amazing turn of event in your life. I do follow you that you then started "doing" what Christians should do and you believed with every fiber of your being. But did you have a relationship with this God? I am not asking to belittle you or make fun in anyway. I am asking to help clarify the difference between religion and relationship.

You see, it sounds to me as if you were into religion and religious things but never understood that you could have a relationship with this God that made you and loves you. I am not saying you are at fault for this. You in fact may not have been told about this or educated that this God wants to have a relationship with you. Or it is possible that you have just outright rejected Him. [This is a possibility. Again, no ill will is meant from this statement.]

To answer your questions: Yes, I am a born-again believer in Jesus Christ who not only talks to the God of the universe everyday but also hears from Him daily as well. This could be in my spirit and yes, even audibly. No, I am not crazy or deluded. I am very sane.

You and I sound like we went through a very similar experience actually. I too, in my early 20's, began to learn about many different religions and had already learned a lot about science in my H.S. years. and kept learning about science as well as religions. I realized through much study and just plain logic, after studying science and learning about other religions and sitting under "guru" type people that some of this was true and some of this was garbage. So, I set myself on a path to learn truth no matter where it would take me. Even if I didn't like the answers. If there was no God, god or gods, fine. If a God, god or gods existed then that was fine too.

In my journey I found that once I questioned what I believed to be true and what the "experts" in both science and religion had to say the scientific explanations left me wanting and what they say is true and certain just isn't so. And much of what I thought I knew about religion was just not so. [This was all good but as you will see below a tough journey.]

I realized that both seemed empty.

I will just finish with this, How do I know God is real? Because I have a relationship with Him and that is through Jesus Christ.

It is not about religion for me. And since God made science . . . well. . . I think you get the idea.

I'm sorry, but why should I be any less skeptical of your claim than you are of mine? You seem to be bending over backward to deny that I was once where you are now. I assure you, had you known me then you'd have considered me your brother in Christ. And yes, I had a personal relationship with god, although the "christ-follower" term is more recent--your use of the term, and my failure to use it in my description, is a function of our ages. I guarantee you, it is possible to go from where you are to where I am.

I believe you when you say you sought the truth. I hope you continue to do so.

By the way, if you talk to god every day, sometimes audibly, you could do the world a huge favor by recording it some time. His followers seem to lose an awful lot in passing messages along. And while I do not suggest that this claim is suggestive of mental illness, the fact that you immediately address that possibility leads me to ask, simply, "how do you know?"

I think this will likely be my last visit here; I will cede the last word(s) to you. I wish you well on your journey of discovery.

I just wanted to add my thoughts on the issues of being "born again" and also on the misrepresentation of God's Word which Cuttlefish clearly points out and rightfully so. For a Biblical understanding of what being "born again" means, see John 3 and Jesus words to Nicodemus. The most literal translation of the phrase is being "born from above". Practically, this means that we live a NEW way. When we are born into this world ordinarily, we learn to depend on parents, others, and eventually ourselves for our needs. But when we are born of the Holy Spirit (aka born from above or born again), we realize that in Christ and only in Him can we be truly satisfied. Thus, it is like a "rebirth" or "starting over", which has very little to do with a "conversion experience" other than the fact that it's the starting point. It has much more to do with a changed way of life.

Regarding Cuttlefish's comments on God's followers "losing an aweful lot in passing messages along", I couldn't agree more. Human beings who profess to be followers of God have misrepresented Him and His Word for thousands of years. Slavery, spousal abuse, polygamy, and many other despicable acts have been "justified" by those who have chosen to fit God into their box and make His Word say what they wanted it to say. Frankly, people still do this today. However, that is not a valid reason to reject God and His Word. PEOPLE are imperfect. PEOPLE have chosen to do these things. PEOPLE have used religion to cause many problems. PEOPLE have been oppressive rather than follow God's commands to love others sacrificially and fight against injustices. These are not arguments against Christianity. Rather, they are arguments FOR our loving God, who despite all the things we have done to mess up, has used His followers to accomplish good deeds and be a light to the dark world.