Are we talking about the same God?
Are we talking about the same God?
When an Atheist says "There is no God", are they saying what we think they're saying?
I'm going to argue that what the Atheist means is something I can agree with despite being a committed Christian.
You see the Atheist must do one thing before they proclaim the non-existence of God. First they have to define what God is. Atheist definitions of God usually create a limited being who bares little resemblance to the God we Christians worship.
The Atheist creates a propositional god that is easy to understand and more like an ancient Greek god than the God of the Bible.
I can wholeheartedly agree that the atheists are right to reject their propositional god. The God of the Bible is not small enough for man to understand, define and limit. The God of the Bible is not an entity under reality to be proven but the basis of reality and the origin of truth.
The standard materialistic Atheist doesn't have a philosophical framework that can understand what Christians believe. They must distort, reduce and simplify those beliefs before attempting to disprove them. The atheist would have to suspend some of their beliefs just to understand what Christians mean when they say "God".
The Atheist defines a propositional god and understanding that little god they logically disbelieve it. Christians relate to a God they personally know but can't understand.
This makes discussions about the existence of God an area where both sides must remember they aren't using words with the same meaning.
We should also remember that some people who believe themselves to be Christians are in the same boat as the Atheist. They've created a god to fit their desires but have not met Christ Himself. They differ from the Atheist in that they've accepted their little idol instead of rejecting it. Perhaps these discussions can alert us to people with false assurance of salvation who need a fuller understand of the Good News of Christ's Death for our sins.
25 comments:
Samuel Skinner
I doubt the gods of the pagans. I doubt the deist and Roman "divine planner". I doubt the hungry gods. And finally I doubt yours. All powerful, all seeing, all knowing with the the entire universe as its pawn, they would be the most powerful not only concievable, but possible. And there is no more reason to believe in that one then there is to believe in theirs. Atheism is the doubting of disbelief of all such supernatural planners, no matter how opaque, awesome or universal.
I want you to know that Jesus Christ died for your sins. He died so that you would not be bound by the evil you have done in your life.
I really don't care if you believe in the god you defined. You don't know God because the spiritually dead can not see spiritual reality.
I don't own a god and I can't define one. The Creator of reality has provided a way for you to be saved from your destruction through repentance from your sin and renewal through Jesus Christ.
I'm going to pray for you Samuel because you are loved by God and He desires for you to do your responsibility to accept Christ's payment for your evil actions.
You say we atheists don't understand the perspective of christians....and yet so many of us formerly held the same christian beliefs and lived the same sort of christian life that you do (myself included).
We ex-christians understand the christian worldview and life from the inside. That is rarely the case on the other side of the discussion.
As to definitions of God, when debating a believer about God's existence I prefer to have the believer tell me what it is he means by the word. That, I think, is the best way to avoid confusion. I don't assume I know which variant of the God-concept it is he believes in. I ask.
You don't know God because the spiritually dead can not see spiritual reality.
Anyone can make such a claim. The Wiccan can claim YOU fail to see nature spirits because YOU are spiritually dead. Supporting the claim is another matter.
The truth is that I had the same sorts of religious/spiritual experiences most other christians do. I was simply willing, eventually, to step back and examine those experiences critically.
And on rational examination its clear that religious experiences are very poor evidence indeed (though so emotionally powerful that rational objections tend to be ignored by most of those who experience them).
However, if you wish to provide some actual argument as to why your religious experience as a christian is veritical and a reasonable basis for belief but those of a Hindu, or Buddhist or a member of any other religion are false and delusional then I'd be glad to hear it.
David, I'm sorry that you have the belief you were once a Christian because you shared some beliefs with others who claimed to be Christians.
I think those who teach the heresy of belief being salvation are responsible for your mistaken belief that you've ever been a Christian.
It is reasonable to accept the Bible's definition of a Christian. Christians are those who have been saved and are sealed. Either you were never a Christian because you weren't saved or no one has ever been a Christian because salvation does not exist.
If you want to argue that the Bible's definition of Christians don't exist that's fine. However to argue that you were a Christian is to show you don't understand the term even if you once considered yourself one.
I'm well aware you probably would not consider me to have been a "real" christian---I've heard that countless times.
I, of course, did not claim I had been saved---since, obviously, I no longer believe in either christian salvation or damnation.
Since your definition of a real christian turns on the more basic question of whether christian salvation is real and, therefore, whether christianity is true let us address that question.
So far you have seemed to espouse the position that one has reasonable grounds for belief based on religious experience (based on your spiritually alive vs spiritually dead comment).
And, again, so far you have not addressed the question of why your religious experiences should be considered any less likely to be delusional than those of people of other faiths.
Would you care to state your argument for your position on this issue?
David I want to emphasize that it would be a waste of my time to give you arguments of the sort you request.
I don't believe that your beliefs are relevant to your salvation.
Why would I attempt to convince of the verity of Christianity if their was no prospect of your salvation and no requirement to do so?
I am obligated to share the Gospel and I've done that. However I don't see how attempting to "win an argument" would be anything other than sinful pride on my part. God will settle the argument when we die and face him.
I do want to clear up what I believe to be a false impression.
I'm not arguing the merits here.
I'm not claiming a singular experience provides reasonable grounds for belief. That's not a Biblically accurate statement.
I'm claiming that a continual experience that transforms your mind and drastically changes your desires allows you to process the same evidence in a manner you weren't previously capable of.
Spiritual renewal provides not only a new perspective but a renewed process for examining the evidence and being confident in Christ.
I can elaborate on this point if it's unclear but I'm not trying to convince you of the truth of it.
I'm claiming that a continual experience that transforms your mind and drastically changes your desires allows you to process the same evidence in a manner you weren't previously capable of.
Weak evidence doesn't magically become good evidence because you began seeing the world through the filter of christian beliefs and experiences.
No more than the evidence for Buddhism becomes stronger simply because one begins seeing the world with the filter of Buddhist beliefs and ways of experiencing firmly in place.
And when I mentioned religious experience I was not referring only to dramatic singular "road to damascus" type events. I mean ALL religious experience, including the common everyday experience you refer to.
I am obligated to share the Gospel and I've done that. However I don't see how attempting to "win an argument" would be anything other than sinful pride on my part.
If done with the right attitude, it is not sinful pride to argue for one's opinion. To attempt to show it to be likely to be correct.
But if you are unwilling to give a rational defense of your position I'll leave you to the easier task of simply appealing to people's emotions instead of their intellect (as seems to be what you are doing when you say you will only present the Gospel rather than argue for it).
Sensible enough, probably, when promoting beliefs that there is no reasonable basis for thinking likely to be true.
David, the Bible takes the position that man is born with a filter over his mind. The Holy Spirit may remove it.
I'm not attempting to appeal to emotions by giving dramatic stories or threatening people with Hell.
I share the Gospel because I'm commanded to.
I can see that you're trying to bait me into a debate about the Christian position by suggesting my motivation in not debating is insincere.
My Biblically-based belief is that your "filter" precludes persuasion based on the strong evidence for Christ. I'm incapable of removing your filter so a debate with you would be futile. Besides that even if convinced of my position you'd be no better off spiritually.
I'm not requesting that you debate your implicit claims about reality (Materialism, anti-theistic Naturalism) for the same reason I don't debate you. Persuasion through reason is precluded by presuppositions and is spiritually irrelevant.
I do read the better atheist apologetics (past and present) to attempt to understand that type of thought.
My Biblically-based belief is that your "filter" precludes persuasion based on the strong evidence for Christ.
Interesting claim.
I don't think there is much biblical basis for the claim that there is strong evidence for the truth of christian beliefs---at least not in the normal sense of the word "evidence"---the sort of empirical support for a claim which provides sufficient warrant for the claim to, for example, convict someone for a crime, or consider a new drug safe and effective or, for that matter, to think its a faulty starter that's the reason your car won't start.
Rather, the Bible seems to promote a view that belief should be based on, and is warranted by, a direct revelation from the Holy Spirit made to someone who opens their hearts to Christ. Evidence, in the normal sense of the term, is simply not relevent.
For example, if a missionary went to a small remote tribe and shared the Gospel, on the christian view as I understand it and as most christians I know agree, those tribesmen would be responsible for believing the Gospel and accepting Christ regardless of the fact that they have no real access to any evidence in support of the missionaries claim other than the missionaries own word about it.
So, biblically, it is not so much that the Holy Spirit allows one to judge the evidence in the right light but that it directly reveals the truth to the human heart. Evidence, as such, does not enter into the equation.
I'm incapable of removing your filter so a debate with you would be futile.
A convenient sidestepping of the need to argue for one's claims. And one which any religion or cult can make:
You don't believe because your heart isn't open to the truth.
Anybody can say it about any claim but that doesn't make it any more likely to be true.
And, most importantly, you still have not addressed a very important question:
What reason do you have to think your religious experience, and those of christians in general, is less likely to be delusional than that of a member of any other faith? Is any less likely to cause you to judge the evidence with biases that lead to error rather than with true spiritual insight?
How is spiritual insight proceeding from a divine source to be distinguished from self-delusion?
How is it you know you have the one and not the other?
Not that I expect, judging from your previous comments, for you to actually answer the question. You seem to prefer to sidestep the hard questions rather than actually facing them.
"So, biblically, it is not so much that the Holy Spirit allows one to judge the evidence in the right light but that it directly reveals the truth to the human heart. Evidence, as such, does not enter into the equation."
I'm glad you brought up the Bible. I assume you're Biblically illiterate to make that statement.
Read Romans 1:18-23:
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."
These verses state that the evidence for God is clear and yet men do not believe because of their wickedness.
The Bible never describes the Holy Spirit revealing the information necessary to believe directly. The Bible in dozens of verses states that faith comes from hearing the Gospel from other human beings.
Perhaps before you makes claims about what the Bible states you should read it.
I will address the question of distinguishing the veracity of divine claims in future posts but the answers can not benefit you so I'm not going to address them here.
These verses state that the evidence for God is clear and yet men do not believe because of their wickedness.
You referred in your original comment, and to which I was responding, to the, I quote, "strong evidence for Christ".
NOT to the evidence for theism. That is a separate issue.
Yes, I agree that the bible makes several comments about the truth of theism being clear and obviously true---so far as I recall, however, it makes no such claim about the evidence for the Bible's claims concerning Jesus---his divinity, virgin birth, resurrection and the like.
The Bible never describes the Holy Spirit revealing the information necessary to believe directly.
I was not trying to imply it does.
Recall, in my example, I mentioned a missionary going to remote tribesmen and sharing the Gospel---to which the tribesmen would be obligated to believe through the conviction of the Holy Spirit if their hearts were open to its call. I made no claim concerning the Gospel being directly revealed without a missionary or anyone else telling it to them and did not mean to imply anything of the sort if that's how you took it. I meant only that, according to the Bible, the the TRUTH of the Gospel would be directly revealed to their hearts. Nothing more than that.
I will address the question of distinguishing the veracity of divine claims in future posts but the answers can not benefit you so I'm not going to address them here.
And how can you know that?
Even from within your own set of beliefs I don't think you can claim to know the hearts of other men nor whether God is moving, unknown even to themselves, to convict them of the truth of the Gospel.
David:
"Yes, I agree that the bible makes several comments about the truth of theism being clear and obviously true---so far as I recall, however, it makes no such claim about the evidence for the Bible's claims concerning Jesus---his divinity, virgin birth, resurrection and the like."
Acts 26:22-26:
I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen— that the Christ would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would proclaim light to his own people and to the Gentiles."
At this point Festus interrupted Paul's defense. "You are out of your mind, Paul!" he shouted. "Your great learning is driving you insane."
"I am not insane, most excellent Festus," Paul replied. "What I am saying is true and reasonable. The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner."
Paul in these Bible verses is claiming that the evidence for Christ's death and resurrection was true and reasonable and was public and noticeable.
If you don't mind David, did you read the Bible when you considered yourself a Christian?
19Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:
20But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
21For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me.
22Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:
23That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.
24And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.
25But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness.
26For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner.
Paul in these Bible verses is claiming that the evidence for Christ's death and resurrection was true and reasonable and was public and noticeable.
You seem to be assuming that when it says "The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner" that the statement is referring to Jesus' life, death and resurrection. However, reading the whole of the story in its context of Paul being accused of offenses against Jewish law and scripture that it may be what Paul is referring to as having been known to Agrippa and not having been done "in a corner" is Paul's preaching---not Jesus' resurrection.
Honestly, I'm not sure from the context which the author meant.
I will, however, grant that the NT sometimes makes evidential appeals.
I will even give an example, also from Paul:
3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
9For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
So, yes, I grant that the NT claims evidence in the form of people claiming to have seen Jesus after his death.
But does the bible say that there is strong evidence openly available---even today, 2000 years removed from the event (that strong claim is, after all, the one you made)?
I really don't think the Bible is saying that despite occasional appeals to there having been witnesses to the event.
Some missionary, of whatever faith, wandering into a remote village and claiming there to have been many witnesses to some miraculous events can, after all, be reasonably doubted by those villagers.
Yet in the teachings of Christianity and the Bible as I have understood them those villagers are still obligated, if they are to be saved, to accept Jesus Christ as their savior whether they have any opportunity to corroborate the missionaries story or not.
Most christians I know would agree with that statement. So, assuming that to be the case, clearly evidence is, as I said before, irrelevent to salvation or its requirements.
Biblically, I think, strong evidence would have been available to the eyewitnesses to Jesus' resurrection. Naturally, thats obvious.
Those preached to by eyewitnesses or converts who had encountered eyewitnesses would have had that testimony as evidence but eyewitness testimony can be reasonably doubted---as well all know from more mundane contexts.
I don't think the bible claims that eyewitness testimony, an empty tomb, or other "evidences" of the resurrection that might conceivably been available to a determined investigator able and willing to go to the expense and effort to look into the issue would be particularly compelling evidence in and of itself.
You are free to disagree but I don't think you have, or can, make a good biblical case for that position.
Perhaps I'm wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. But, in this case, I don't think so. And on the larger issue of one being, biblically speaking, obligated to believe even if no corroboration of the Gospel story is available to that particular individual I think the bible is quite clear
If Paul's comment is unclear, another verse in Acts more clearly describes the Bible's appraisal of the evidence of Christ resurrection.
"After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God."
Mark 16:17-18, speaks to God's presenting miracles through his true missionaries as modern evidence of the supernatural status of their claims.
Good point.
I concede that I was mistaken at least about the Bible claiming, in some places, that in the time of the apostles strong empirical evidence was available, at least to those who witnessed the resurrection and who witnessed miracles later performed by the apostles and followers of Jesus.
As to your claim, though, in regard to Mark 16:17-18 that strong MODERN empirical evidence is available I would ask only that you actually provide that evidence.
They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
Handling serpents without harm is no real evidence. Snakes don't always bite---even when nonbelievers handle them.
As to the poison issue, it would be a REAL test....if there was any actual evidence that christians can drink strong poisons in doses high enough to make death a veritable certainty without supernatural intervention (not the little sips of watered down strychnine some snake-handling denominations of christian have been known to take).
And that's not an invitation to you to try it out for yourself. I wouldn't want to see you get killed putting your faith to a test the Bible claims a "real" christian can pass. I'll just point out the lack of any actual evidence that this occurs in the sorts of doses and strengths necessary to need supernatural explanation and leave it at that. I'm a bit wary of debating this particular topic on the internet out of fear that doing so could tempt someone to try it.
Miraculous healings, though. That would be good empirical evidence if it can be shown that they occur. And would not put anyone at risk of a poisoning death---always a plus in my book.
It would, of course, have to be things that simply DON'T, in the natural course of events, ever get better on their own.
Cancer remissions, therefore, are out as good evidence that supernatural healings occur.
Regrowing limbs on amputees, though, as just one example, would be very good evidence.
Funny, isn't it, how faith-healers only seem able to cure the stuff than sometimes gets well on it own.
Never amputees or burn victims or genetic deformities.
But at least you are on the right track now. Discussing empirical evidence for theism, christianity and the supernatural.
Now it only waits to be seen if you actually have any strong modern evidence of the sort you mention.
Another question comes to mind---if christians can drink poison without harm, do you then believe that all people who died deaths from poisoning were, therefore, not "real" christians, were not saved? Must every christian who has a loved one who dies from poisoning face the added trauma of thinking their loved one must not have been saved when they died.
That would seem to logically follow from what that biblical verse says---though most christians, even the more literally minded ones, seem to not take it as much at face value as you are seeming to have done.
The purpose of miracles are to establish the veracity of the Gospel according to the wishes of God.
Let's look at the verses in a literal translation and in context:
"And he said to them, "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover."
The verse speaks of "signs" that accompany groups of those who believe. The context is for groups of Christians going out for evangelism. Throughout the Book of Acts we see many examples that confirm this purpose and meaning for the above verses.
While some people who may be Christians might interpret those verses as 'rules' that apply at all times to every Christian, that's not how I interpret the verse in their context. The consensus of academic analysis I've seen of those verses tend to corroborate my view.
So they can only drink deadly poisons without harm when doing group missionary work?
OK. It would still be nice to have some actual evidence this occurs.
Hope those christians who read that passage are aware of the fine print---wouldn't want to have missionaries who drank poison on missions without harm coming home and doing the same---then dropping dead.
I'm replying to this for the benefit of Christians who may be confused by David's statements.
Miracles are signs from God, they're not magic. While these signs are to be expected in certain situations they aren't to be expected at every instance in those situations or for every individual.
It may be that three missionary are bitten by black mambas and only one survives miraculously. It may be that three missionaries are bitten by black mambas and none survive.
The verses are example of things that will occur as signs not things that will occur all the time even in certain situations.
That sounds like a sensible enough interpretation. Of course, I'm still not aware of any good evidence any miraculous signs occur at all.
Of course, if the author meant that such things only occasionally happen it would certainly have been helpful if he had said so---those mothers of people who've died in Appalachian snake-handling churches probably would have appreciated the qualifier to the claim.
David Ellis asked: What reason do you have to think your religious experience, and those of christians in general, is less likely to be delusional than that of a member of any other faith? Is any less likely to cause you to judge the evidence with biases that lead to error rather than with true spiritual insight?
How is spiritual insight proceeding from a divine source to be distinguished from self-delusion?
How is it you know you have the one and not the other?
By weighing it ALL against the word of God. That's all it comes down to. :) Yes, sin is involved, and people can be mistaken. BUT if what a person experiences and teaches fits with the word of God as a whole, then it holds. If it doesn't, well then error has been found somewhere. What a person does when they are made aware of the error is very telling of their belief, their faith in God.
The same sort of question applies:
What reason do you have to think the scriptures of your religion are the word of God?
Naturally, Christians, in general, have religious experiences in line with their interpretation of their scriptures.
As do Jews, Hindus, Mormons, Moslems and people of pretty much every other faith.
If we are to reasonably take the christian scriptures as a criteria for religious truth we must, of course, first establish that the christian scriptures actually are God's Word.
So what provides you reasonable basis for thinking this likely to be true?
Post a Comment