The discussion that I am about to issue forth has been presented in many forums throughout the past. In fact, I have even touched on it before myself. It is an age old issue, and even devout believers catch themselves raising this issue from time to time. The issue I'm talking about is believing in religion and a personal god in spite of life's many hardships. The reason I'm writing about this topic at the moment is because I recently read a comment on Youtube that made me think of this. The person who wrote this comment mentioned that he was an atheist in a nursing program wherein most of his fellow students were devout Christians. As I read this comment and considered it, I began to think about people who retain belief while they are confronted with things that blantantly run counter to a universe governed by an all-powerful, all-loving god.
Back during the summer of 2006, just before I started graduate school, I was busy weighing my options and working out what I really believed to be true about the world I lived in. It had been almost two years since I had been a regular churchgoer, though I was still prone to labeling myself a "Christian" on occasion. During this summer, I was working at a camp for disabled children and adults. As I worked at this camp, and interacted with the campers and formed some short-term friendships with the other people at the camp, I secretly thought about spirituality, particularly what I should accept to be true and what I should dismiss. While interacting with the campers, I took special notice of the rather hard hands that many of them had been dealt during their lives. Some of these campers lived with various mental disorders. Some examples include various types of autism, mental retardation, and fetal alcohol syndrome. Others had numerous physical handicaps. Some were even burdened with both physical and mental shortcomings. A few were so disabled that they weren't able to move from their wheelchairs or even speak. While I worked in this environment, I thought to myself: Gee, this place sure could be a good argument against a personal god.
To get back to the Youtube comment that I alluded to earlier, I thought about this once again as I read this comment. I thought about people who everday work with disease, disabilities, and other such things, yet still follow religion and believe in a personal, loving god. In a way, I find it interesting that they believe in spite of what they see everyday. However, I'm not all that surprised. I'm also not particularly confused about why they believe in spite of what they see. If I were to question any of them, I'm sure that many of them would give at least one of the three following rationalizations for why they retain their beliefs.
1. Disease, disabilities, etc. were brought into the world by human sin.
2. God allows those things to exist in order to test our faith.
3. I, personally, don't know why God allows these things to happen. All I know is that I have experienced God personally, and therefore, I know he exists.
Even though many people probably don't believe me when I say this, there actually was a time when I found all three of these answers well suited to the issue raised above. However, now that I'm on the outside looking in, I see them as nothing more than excuses for extraordinary claims. Nonetheless, that doesn't stop people from believing them. In fact, I have found that for many people who believe in a personal god, the existence of disease and disabilities is almost a non-issue. In other words, it is not seen as a contradiction to what they believe. In fact, many of them see it as an enhancement to what they believe. How many times has a really sick person gotten better only to have those around him say, "God healed him!" (despite the fact that many other people get sick and die from their ailments)?
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Religious Life vs Non-Religious Life
In what ways is religious life different from non-religious life? If you ask this question to people like me who have been on both sides of this fence, the answer you get from each person will probably be different to some extent. Even though many of us follow the same paths in life, we each have our own experiences with those paths. Just because I followed Christianity for a number of years doesn’t mean I had the same experiences as everyone else who has followed that religion. For one thing, there are many different sects of Christianity, many of which have different ideas and visions regarding the correct way to follow Jesus and interpret scripture. Similarly, the fact that someone refrains from practicing any religions doesn’t mean that person will have the same experiences and opinions as everyone else who refrains from following a religion. For one thing, not all of these people label themselves in the same way. Some call themselves atheists. Some call themselves agnostics. For myself, I tend to go either with agnostic or non-theist, since I don’t believe in a personal god, but I am somewhat open to a deistic god of some nature, though I do think that even a god of that variety is quite unlikely. For those who may not know, a deistic god is a god who exerts very little if any influence over his creation. People who believe in such a god are called deists, and many of them believe that god created matter and energy, set the scientific laws into motion, and then let the universe work on its own. Not every deist believes this, but most deists hold beliefs that are similar to this in some way.
As I have already stated, the differences between religious life and non-religious life are pretty broad and subjective. Nonetheless, I have assembled a list of three ways in which my life is different now that I am a non-theist as compared to when I was a Christian. I am sure some people who have been down the same roads I have been down will be able to relate to this, and I’m sure many will have different stories to tell.
1. I now accept the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory. When I was a Christian, I rejected evolution. I believed in a literal interpretation of the creation account in Genesis, and I really did believe that the Earth and universe were created within a week’s time sometime within the last six to ten thousand years. As I broke away from my religious faith, I studied both theories a little more intensely, and I realized that they are both sound scientific models, and that to reject them is simply preposterous.
2. I have more respect for the separation of church and state now than I did when I was a Christian. During the peak of my Christian life, I could not understand for the life of me why school prayer had been “banned” back in the early 1960s. I frequently hoped the government would reconsider this and reinstate prayer time into the schedule in all of the public schools. When people pointed out that there were people in this country who weren’t Christian, and that it wouldn’t be fair to ask them to participate in a religious practice they didn’t believe in, I bristled. The way I saw it, Christians were the majority in this country, and the majority made the rules. I now realize that mandatory prayer has no place in the public schools, and that minorities do not have to be dominated by majorities.
3. The world seems a lot bigger and more interesting to me now than it did before. Since I have studied science a little more thoroughly, I have become more aware of how everything works here on Earth and in the rest of the universe. When I realize how vast, diverse, and mysterious the universe is, I feel amazed and honored to be a part of it. When I think of the billions upon billions of stars, planets, and galaxies that there are beyond our skies, I feel small, humbled, and empowered all at the same time. The fact that there are billions of galaxies beyond the small handful of celestial bodies that I see when I stand below the night sky incites a paradox within me. Initially, I feel very insignificant and meaningless. But at the same time, I am overcome with awe and amazement. To think that there are billions upon billions of galaxies beyond the sky I see above me, and that these galaxies are each filled with billions of stars and planets that are burning and orbiting as I go throughout my day-to-day business fills me with a sense of gratitude. Many of the stars I see are hundreds, thousands, or even millions of light years away. This means that when I gaze above the nighttime horizon, the faint light that is caressing my eyes possibly left those stars when the Black Death was ravaging Europe, when the Egyptians were building the Sphinx, or when the early hominids were living in Africa. Yes, I feel tiny, but it’s a pleasant tiny. I amount to less than a speck of dust in this cosmos that spans hundreds of billions of light years and contains nebulae, quasars, comets, solar systems, and possibly even sentient life forms other than the ones found here on Earth, and it’s an honor to be a part of something so immense, regardless of how miniscule that part may be.
As I have already stated, the differences between religious life and non-religious life are pretty broad and subjective. Nonetheless, I have assembled a list of three ways in which my life is different now that I am a non-theist as compared to when I was a Christian. I am sure some people who have been down the same roads I have been down will be able to relate to this, and I’m sure many will have different stories to tell.
1. I now accept the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory. When I was a Christian, I rejected evolution. I believed in a literal interpretation of the creation account in Genesis, and I really did believe that the Earth and universe were created within a week’s time sometime within the last six to ten thousand years. As I broke away from my religious faith, I studied both theories a little more intensely, and I realized that they are both sound scientific models, and that to reject them is simply preposterous.
2. I have more respect for the separation of church and state now than I did when I was a Christian. During the peak of my Christian life, I could not understand for the life of me why school prayer had been “banned” back in the early 1960s. I frequently hoped the government would reconsider this and reinstate prayer time into the schedule in all of the public schools. When people pointed out that there were people in this country who weren’t Christian, and that it wouldn’t be fair to ask them to participate in a religious practice they didn’t believe in, I bristled. The way I saw it, Christians were the majority in this country, and the majority made the rules. I now realize that mandatory prayer has no place in the public schools, and that minorities do not have to be dominated by majorities.
3. The world seems a lot bigger and more interesting to me now than it did before. Since I have studied science a little more thoroughly, I have become more aware of how everything works here on Earth and in the rest of the universe. When I realize how vast, diverse, and mysterious the universe is, I feel amazed and honored to be a part of it. When I think of the billions upon billions of stars, planets, and galaxies that there are beyond our skies, I feel small, humbled, and empowered all at the same time. The fact that there are billions of galaxies beyond the small handful of celestial bodies that I see when I stand below the night sky incites a paradox within me. Initially, I feel very insignificant and meaningless. But at the same time, I am overcome with awe and amazement. To think that there are billions upon billions of galaxies beyond the sky I see above me, and that these galaxies are each filled with billions of stars and planets that are burning and orbiting as I go throughout my day-to-day business fills me with a sense of gratitude. Many of the stars I see are hundreds, thousands, or even millions of light years away. This means that when I gaze above the nighttime horizon, the faint light that is caressing my eyes possibly left those stars when the Black Death was ravaging Europe, when the Egyptians were building the Sphinx, or when the early hominids were living in Africa. Yes, I feel tiny, but it’s a pleasant tiny. I amount to less than a speck of dust in this cosmos that spans hundreds of billions of light years and contains nebulae, quasars, comets, solar systems, and possibly even sentient life forms other than the ones found here on Earth, and it’s an honor to be a part of something so immense, regardless of how miniscule that part may be.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
The "God of the Gaps" and Complacency
When religious discussions are taking place, topics such as the origin of life and the origin of the universe often arise. Theists habitually see these topics as troublesome for atheists since our species has not yet acquired definitive answers for questions such as “What caused the Big Bang?” and “Exactly how did life first originate?” When an atheist in engaged in rhetoric with a theist---who is usually a Christian or Muslim---the theist will commonly attempt to take the atheist down a roller coaster of questions, all of which are inextricably linked to the one asked before it. A few examples of these questions are:
1. If there really is no god, then how did we get such a diverse array of life here on Earth?
2. If the diversity of life we have here on Earth was brought about by evolution, then how did evolution get started?
3. If evolution started with one cell, then where did that cell come from?
And the list goes on.
They often think that by attempting to take the atheist down a never-ending hierarchy of questions regarding the origins of everything, they can somehow make their point stronger. Their underlying motive is that by finding something that has not yet been explained by science, they can make a stronger case for a higher power, particularly their higher power. When they question a non-believer about the origin of life or the cause of the Big Bang, and the non-believer gives the honest answer of “That is not yet known,” they typically feel as though they have put the non-believer in checkmate. They operate under the rationale that pointing out an unknown equates total victory for themselves in an argument.
Before I go further, let me be upfront and state that I feel a little strange in offering a critique of this tactic, because I used to employ it myself back when I argued for Christian theism. Perhaps the reason why I felt it incumbent upon myself to address this matter is that it reminds me a little of how I used to see the world. Be that as it may, I wanted to confront this tactic because it is used quite often, because it isn’t a good way to argue, and because many people appear to see it as a very cunning and highly effective way to make a case for a deity.
First, I would like to talk about the general logic behind this tactic, and then I will talk briefly about a state of mind that this tactic helps enforce. The ultimate reasoning behind asking for the origins of life and the universe is this: If we can’t explain it in naturalistic terms, then it must be the work of God. We don’t know exactly what caused the Big Bang, so that means that God must have done it. At this point in time, we don’t know exactly how life first came about, so that means it couldn’t have happened naturally and that God must be responsible for everything. At this point, such reasoning might still seem sound to some people. However, try applying this reasoning to something else, such as the topic of germs and diseases.
Before the 1800s, people did not know that germs caused diseases. People attempted to explain diseases with numerous possibilities. Prior to the discovery of germs, a few of the common explanations for diseases were sin, divine wrath, evil spirits, and bad body humours. People attempted to heal sick people with numerous treatments, many of which were magical in nature. People hundreds and thousands of years ago did not know exactly what it was that made people sick, therefore they guessed the causes, and some of the guesses became accepted as truth. These explanations may have seemed sufficient at the time. However, they were far from being accurate, as was later pointed out by Louis Pasteur. Imagine the following conversation taking place in the times before germs were discovered.
“Hey, you know what? I don’t think diseases are caused by spirits, God’s anger, or anything magical.”
“Oh really? And why is it that you say that?”
“It just seems more reasonable to say that there is a natural explanation. We‘ve found natural explanations for other things, why can‘t there be a natural explanation for sickness, too?”
“Well, no natural explanation has ever been found, so that shows that people get sick because of evil spirits.”
Surely, everyone must see the problem here. In the above hypothetical, the believer in magic maintained that since no natural explanation had yet been found for diseases, then a supernatural answer would suffice. Theists who use science’s current lack of answers regarding the origins of life and the universe are utilizing the same type of reasoning. They are saying that since we do not yet know the answers to these questions, then there must be a supernatural explanation, and that supernatural explanation is God. Essentially, what they are doing is inventing an answer to a question instead of looking for an answer. This is not only illogical, but it is also unfavorable to the progression of science, mainly because it stunts our quest for knowledge by making us complacent with not knowing things. And on that note, I will segue into the topic of complacency.
Complacency, defined as self-satisfaction with unawareness, is rarely a good thing. It isn’t always harmful to our lives or our overall well-being, but it isn’t very often a good thing. Imagine if people before the 1800s, remained complacent with not knowing exactly what caused diseases. We never would have discovered germs, and we never would have developed adequate treatments and cures for any diseases, and consequently, our life expectancies probably would be lower than they presently are. Granted, complacency regarding the origins of life and the cause of the Big Bang may not have the same effect on our species as complacency in regards to the cause of disease. Nonetheless, arbitrarily attributing divine explanations for things we have not yet explained breeds feelings of complacency. It enables us become satisfied with not knowing the things we do not know. To some, this may not sound like a big deal, and perhaps it isn’t as big of a deal as some might make it out to be. But consider this. When we discovered germs, we were able to develop better treatments for them. In other words, one discovery led to even more discoveries. If we discovered the origin of life, where would that take us? If we found out what caused the Big Bang, where could we go from there?
1. If there really is no god, then how did we get such a diverse array of life here on Earth?
2. If the diversity of life we have here on Earth was brought about by evolution, then how did evolution get started?
3. If evolution started with one cell, then where did that cell come from?
And the list goes on.
They often think that by attempting to take the atheist down a never-ending hierarchy of questions regarding the origins of everything, they can somehow make their point stronger. Their underlying motive is that by finding something that has not yet been explained by science, they can make a stronger case for a higher power, particularly their higher power. When they question a non-believer about the origin of life or the cause of the Big Bang, and the non-believer gives the honest answer of “That is not yet known,” they typically feel as though they have put the non-believer in checkmate. They operate under the rationale that pointing out an unknown equates total victory for themselves in an argument.
Before I go further, let me be upfront and state that I feel a little strange in offering a critique of this tactic, because I used to employ it myself back when I argued for Christian theism. Perhaps the reason why I felt it incumbent upon myself to address this matter is that it reminds me a little of how I used to see the world. Be that as it may, I wanted to confront this tactic because it is used quite often, because it isn’t a good way to argue, and because many people appear to see it as a very cunning and highly effective way to make a case for a deity.
First, I would like to talk about the general logic behind this tactic, and then I will talk briefly about a state of mind that this tactic helps enforce. The ultimate reasoning behind asking for the origins of life and the universe is this: If we can’t explain it in naturalistic terms, then it must be the work of God. We don’t know exactly what caused the Big Bang, so that means that God must have done it. At this point in time, we don’t know exactly how life first came about, so that means it couldn’t have happened naturally and that God must be responsible for everything. At this point, such reasoning might still seem sound to some people. However, try applying this reasoning to something else, such as the topic of germs and diseases.
Before the 1800s, people did not know that germs caused diseases. People attempted to explain diseases with numerous possibilities. Prior to the discovery of germs, a few of the common explanations for diseases were sin, divine wrath, evil spirits, and bad body humours. People attempted to heal sick people with numerous treatments, many of which were magical in nature. People hundreds and thousands of years ago did not know exactly what it was that made people sick, therefore they guessed the causes, and some of the guesses became accepted as truth. These explanations may have seemed sufficient at the time. However, they were far from being accurate, as was later pointed out by Louis Pasteur. Imagine the following conversation taking place in the times before germs were discovered.
“Hey, you know what? I don’t think diseases are caused by spirits, God’s anger, or anything magical.”
“Oh really? And why is it that you say that?”
“It just seems more reasonable to say that there is a natural explanation. We‘ve found natural explanations for other things, why can‘t there be a natural explanation for sickness, too?”
“Well, no natural explanation has ever been found, so that shows that people get sick because of evil spirits.”
Surely, everyone must see the problem here. In the above hypothetical, the believer in magic maintained that since no natural explanation had yet been found for diseases, then a supernatural answer would suffice. Theists who use science’s current lack of answers regarding the origins of life and the universe are utilizing the same type of reasoning. They are saying that since we do not yet know the answers to these questions, then there must be a supernatural explanation, and that supernatural explanation is God. Essentially, what they are doing is inventing an answer to a question instead of looking for an answer. This is not only illogical, but it is also unfavorable to the progression of science, mainly because it stunts our quest for knowledge by making us complacent with not knowing things. And on that note, I will segue into the topic of complacency.
Complacency, defined as self-satisfaction with unawareness, is rarely a good thing. It isn’t always harmful to our lives or our overall well-being, but it isn’t very often a good thing. Imagine if people before the 1800s, remained complacent with not knowing exactly what caused diseases. We never would have discovered germs, and we never would have developed adequate treatments and cures for any diseases, and consequently, our life expectancies probably would be lower than they presently are. Granted, complacency regarding the origins of life and the cause of the Big Bang may not have the same effect on our species as complacency in regards to the cause of disease. Nonetheless, arbitrarily attributing divine explanations for things we have not yet explained breeds feelings of complacency. It enables us become satisfied with not knowing the things we do not know. To some, this may not sound like a big deal, and perhaps it isn’t as big of a deal as some might make it out to be. But consider this. When we discovered germs, we were able to develop better treatments for them. In other words, one discovery led to even more discoveries. If we discovered the origin of life, where would that take us? If we found out what caused the Big Bang, where could we go from there?
Monday, March 9, 2009
We're Just Rebelling, Apparently
To some extent, I will elaborate on a topic I brought up in my previous entry. In that entry, I talked about former Christians. Frequently, former Christians are accused of rebelling against their Christians families. I will not sit here and try to convince you that this is not always true. There probably are some people out there who wander away from their childhood faiths simply to buck the authority of the people who raised them. In lieu of this, it is not fair to assume this about all people who once bore the label of Christian.
If you live under the assumption that every former Christian is merely a rebel, then I would like to ask you something. Do you agree with your parents on everything? Are your political views identical to theirs? Do you share all of their opinions regarding child-rearing, home decor, relationships, etc.? If not, then why is that? Do your views differ with theirs simply because you want to go against them? Or is it because you have considered the issues and you honestly think your parents have missed the mark on them? Would it be fair for me to assume that you are simply a misguided rebel because you differ with them on certain issues? It wouldn't.
Additionally, why is deviating from your predecessors seen in such a bad light? It really isn't that bad. In fact, in many cases, it's a good thing. It has resulted in much of the progress that our species has made over the ages. If no one ever questioned the ideas of those who came before them, then we would still think the sun orbits a flat Earth and that diseases should be cured with blood-letting and exorcisms. Questioning leads to development, so it would be wise to stop deriding it so much.
Finally, what about Christians who did not grow up with Christian parents? Are they a bunch of rebels? Just like the former Christians, they are going against the views of the ones who came before them. Do they deserve to be stereotyped in the same manner as former Christians? Regardless of how some people may try to present this, these two scenarios are pretty much the same, even though they do hail from different angles.
I will leave you with these thoughts.
If you live under the assumption that every former Christian is merely a rebel, then I would like to ask you something. Do you agree with your parents on everything? Are your political views identical to theirs? Do you share all of their opinions regarding child-rearing, home decor, relationships, etc.? If not, then why is that? Do your views differ with theirs simply because you want to go against them? Or is it because you have considered the issues and you honestly think your parents have missed the mark on them? Would it be fair for me to assume that you are simply a misguided rebel because you differ with them on certain issues? It wouldn't.
Additionally, why is deviating from your predecessors seen in such a bad light? It really isn't that bad. In fact, in many cases, it's a good thing. It has resulted in much of the progress that our species has made over the ages. If no one ever questioned the ideas of those who came before them, then we would still think the sun orbits a flat Earth and that diseases should be cured with blood-letting and exorcisms. Questioning leads to development, so it would be wise to stop deriding it so much.
Finally, what about Christians who did not grow up with Christian parents? Are they a bunch of rebels? Just like the former Christians, they are going against the views of the ones who came before them. Do they deserve to be stereotyped in the same manner as former Christians? Regardless of how some people may try to present this, these two scenarios are pretty much the same, even though they do hail from different angles.
I will leave you with these thoughts.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
The Controversy of the "Ex-Christian"
After spending a short amount of time in the Christian and/or atheist-agnostic blogosphere, or in virtually any online discussion medium where these topics are dealt with, and you will likely encounter what I like to refer to as "The 'Ex-Christian Controversy.'"
First of all, what is an ex-Christian? The answer should be obvious: It is someone who was once a member of the Christian faith, but who no longer is. There are many atheists and agnostics who were Christians before adopting the secular views they presently have. Many Christians respond to their claims by saying, "Nope. You were never a Christian to begin with." In short, these atheists and agnostics claim that they were once Christians, and many of the Christians say that anyone who leaves their religion was never really part of the religion to begin with. This is what "The Ex-Christian Controversy" essentially is.
As I have said in other posts, I was a Christian before arriving at the position I currently am in. Like many other ex-Christians, I have been told by Christians that, since I left the faith, I was never really a part of it to begin with. The Christians who make such claims use a number of different arguments to back up their assertions. Some of them simply say that if the Holy Spirit has truly entered your heart, then he/she/it never leaves. They say that if a person has truly experienced God, then that person will never leave the Christian faith. This is a rendition of the "once saved, always saved" philosophy, which states that once a person has truly accepted the salvation of Christianity, that person will never abandon it. Judging by nothing more than my experience alone, I would say that these types of arguments are probably the most common amongst Christians who say that people who claim to be former Christians were never Christians to begin with.
In addition to the arguments mentioned above, I have also seen some Christians quote this segment of the Bible as a reinforcement to their argument that former Christians were never authentic Christians: "Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I NEVER (emphasis mine) knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!" (Matthew 7:22-23) When this verse is quoted, emphasis is placed on the word "never." The words in this passage are being spoken by Jesus, and what Jesus is saying is that not everyone who professes to follow him will be accepted into Heaven. Since Jesus is telling these people that he NEVER knew them, then they never could have been true Christians, because if they had been, then Jesus would not have said that he NEVER knew them. To be honest, I'm a little unclear on how this applies to former Christians. I have read the entire chapter that this passage is in, and Jesus is saying that not everyone who calls him "Lord" will be accepted into Heaven. All I can guess is that they are saying that former Christians only gave lip service to God when they were claiming to be Christians. In other words, they labeled themselves as Christians but they never took their faith seriously.
I'm a little torn on this issue. Since I was once a Christian, I am inclined to want to say that these Christians are wrong when they make these claims. However, another part of me wants to relent and say, "Okay, if you want to say I was never a Christian, then fine, I wasn't a Christian." It's not that I want to give into their claims and act as though they are right. It's really just that I really don't feel overly inclined to argue over such a thing. Even though I did label myself a Christian at one point in my life, I am no longer a Christian, and I probably never will be one again. In all honesty, I think it's a moot point. If someone says that I was never a Christian, I can't say I agree with that person or like what that person is saying. Still, I find it a rather trivial thing to squabble about. So, if you Christians out there want to say I was never a Christian, then be my guest. I really don't see how your saying that is going to help either of us. To be blunt, I think you're just saying it to get under my skin. But if you insist on going through your lives with that belief in your heads, then we'll just agree to disagree.
First of all, what is an ex-Christian? The answer should be obvious: It is someone who was once a member of the Christian faith, but who no longer is. There are many atheists and agnostics who were Christians before adopting the secular views they presently have. Many Christians respond to their claims by saying, "Nope. You were never a Christian to begin with." In short, these atheists and agnostics claim that they were once Christians, and many of the Christians say that anyone who leaves their religion was never really part of the religion to begin with. This is what "The Ex-Christian Controversy" essentially is.
As I have said in other posts, I was a Christian before arriving at the position I currently am in. Like many other ex-Christians, I have been told by Christians that, since I left the faith, I was never really a part of it to begin with. The Christians who make such claims use a number of different arguments to back up their assertions. Some of them simply say that if the Holy Spirit has truly entered your heart, then he/she/it never leaves. They say that if a person has truly experienced God, then that person will never leave the Christian faith. This is a rendition of the "once saved, always saved" philosophy, which states that once a person has truly accepted the salvation of Christianity, that person will never abandon it. Judging by nothing more than my experience alone, I would say that these types of arguments are probably the most common amongst Christians who say that people who claim to be former Christians were never Christians to begin with.
In addition to the arguments mentioned above, I have also seen some Christians quote this segment of the Bible as a reinforcement to their argument that former Christians were never authentic Christians: "Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I NEVER (emphasis mine) knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!" (Matthew 7:22-23) When this verse is quoted, emphasis is placed on the word "never." The words in this passage are being spoken by Jesus, and what Jesus is saying is that not everyone who professes to follow him will be accepted into Heaven. Since Jesus is telling these people that he NEVER knew them, then they never could have been true Christians, because if they had been, then Jesus would not have said that he NEVER knew them. To be honest, I'm a little unclear on how this applies to former Christians. I have read the entire chapter that this passage is in, and Jesus is saying that not everyone who calls him "Lord" will be accepted into Heaven. All I can guess is that they are saying that former Christians only gave lip service to God when they were claiming to be Christians. In other words, they labeled themselves as Christians but they never took their faith seriously.
I'm a little torn on this issue. Since I was once a Christian, I am inclined to want to say that these Christians are wrong when they make these claims. However, another part of me wants to relent and say, "Okay, if you want to say I was never a Christian, then fine, I wasn't a Christian." It's not that I want to give into their claims and act as though they are right. It's really just that I really don't feel overly inclined to argue over such a thing. Even though I did label myself a Christian at one point in my life, I am no longer a Christian, and I probably never will be one again. In all honesty, I think it's a moot point. If someone says that I was never a Christian, I can't say I agree with that person or like what that person is saying. Still, I find it a rather trivial thing to squabble about. So, if you Christians out there want to say I was never a Christian, then be my guest. I really don't see how your saying that is going to help either of us. To be blunt, I think you're just saying it to get under my skin. But if you insist on going through your lives with that belief in your heads, then we'll just agree to disagree.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Why I am "Agnostic"
I think I may end up going back on some of the things I said I was going to do in my initial post. In that entry, I think I indicated that I was going to talk about agnosticism. More particularly, I had planned on offering up a variety of the numerous definitions that are often assigned to the term. However, I don't think I'm going to do that after all. At least not right now. Instead, I'm just going to go into detail about why I call myself an agnostic, and why I feel it is an appropriate way to identify myself.
The Oxford Dictionary that I keep on my desk says that an agnostic is a person who "believes that the existence of God cannot be proven." I do hold that belief, as do most people. In fact, when I look back, I believe that I have almost always held this belief, even when I was an ardent Christian. Nonetheless, my current beliefs go a little deeper than simply saying that I belief that the existence of a higher power cannot be proven. Though I'm not going to sit here and tell you that my beliefs are extremely complicated, because they aren't. They are only slightly intricate.
A few years ago, I began to harbor doubts regarding the God and the faith (Christianity) that I had believed in ever since I was a kid. This did not happen out of rebellion or anything childish like that. Rather, I had distanced myself from religion, and consequently, I began to look at my faith in a more objective manner. Additionally, I had been discussing religion with the people I knew, many of whom were atheists, agnostics, or other brands of non-Christians. I noticed that the people who were not Christians, particularly those of the atheist and agnostic varieties, had arguments that were much stronger than any of the ones I had ever heard in favor of my Christian faith. My seeds of doubt began to grow into plants of disbelief. Eventually, I was calling myself an agnostic. Shortly thereafter, I secretly called myself an atheist.
I didn't call myself an atheist for very long, though. While I was slowly breaking away from my childhood faith, I heard about Deism, which is the belief that there is a higher power who never or rarely interferes with our world or our lives. I was actually kind of intrigued by this philosophy, because I had occasionally entertained thoughts that the Christian God had become a Deistic kind of god. While I was in my agnostic phase (just before I started calling myself an atheist), I entertained the possibility of there being a god who behaves like the god of Deism. While I was in my atheistic phase, I once again began entertaining thoughts about a Deistic god. Today, I still entertain these thoughts.
To explain it in the briefest terms possible, I would say that I call myself agnostic because I do believe there is a slight possibility that there is a higher intelligence similiar to the one that Deists believe in. Nonetheless, I really don't think I would bet my last dollar on it. Still, I can never be sure, so I don't want to eliminate the possibility.
In lieu of this, however, I do not believe for a second that there is a higher power who answers people's prayers and constantly sticks his nose into the lives of our planet's inhabitants. In fact, ever since I have been on the outside looking in with respect to Christianity and the belief in a personal god (i.e. the god of Christianity), I think it is absurd to think that anyone could ever have a prayer answered. To think that someone could get down on his knees and ask a god for a new pair of shoes, a girlfriend, or for his cousin to be cured of pneumonia and have that prayer answered is ludicrous. Each person on this plant is but one in over six billion people. To think that there is a god who values your problems over other people's problems---many of which are MUCH more serious than a desire for new attire or for a significant other----is simply unthinkable and illogical. At this point, some people might be thinking, "Oh, but God cares about ALL of our problems." If that were true, then God would have done something about all of the famine, disease, and genocide that is going on in the world. Additionally, he would have answered my prayers when I prayed for my cancer-ridden uncle to get better (the fact that my uncle died is not the reason I left my faith, by the way).
All together, I do not believe in a god who interferes with our world or anything else in the universe. Furthermore, I see no reason to believe in a god who directly created the universe. We have explained many phenomena in naturalistic terms---e.g. why the sun "comes up and goes down," how mountains form, how stars form, how planets form. It seems like the more we know about science, the farther deities fade away into obscurity. I often do suspect that there is no higher power at all. But just in case there is some kind of supreme intelligence out there that has little to nothing to do with our universe or planet, I don't want to close the door of possibility completely.
The Oxford Dictionary that I keep on my desk says that an agnostic is a person who "believes that the existence of God cannot be proven." I do hold that belief, as do most people. In fact, when I look back, I believe that I have almost always held this belief, even when I was an ardent Christian. Nonetheless, my current beliefs go a little deeper than simply saying that I belief that the existence of a higher power cannot be proven. Though I'm not going to sit here and tell you that my beliefs are extremely complicated, because they aren't. They are only slightly intricate.
A few years ago, I began to harbor doubts regarding the God and the faith (Christianity) that I had believed in ever since I was a kid. This did not happen out of rebellion or anything childish like that. Rather, I had distanced myself from religion, and consequently, I began to look at my faith in a more objective manner. Additionally, I had been discussing religion with the people I knew, many of whom were atheists, agnostics, or other brands of non-Christians. I noticed that the people who were not Christians, particularly those of the atheist and agnostic varieties, had arguments that were much stronger than any of the ones I had ever heard in favor of my Christian faith. My seeds of doubt began to grow into plants of disbelief. Eventually, I was calling myself an agnostic. Shortly thereafter, I secretly called myself an atheist.
I didn't call myself an atheist for very long, though. While I was slowly breaking away from my childhood faith, I heard about Deism, which is the belief that there is a higher power who never or rarely interferes with our world or our lives. I was actually kind of intrigued by this philosophy, because I had occasionally entertained thoughts that the Christian God had become a Deistic kind of god. While I was in my agnostic phase (just before I started calling myself an atheist), I entertained the possibility of there being a god who behaves like the god of Deism. While I was in my atheistic phase, I once again began entertaining thoughts about a Deistic god. Today, I still entertain these thoughts.
To explain it in the briefest terms possible, I would say that I call myself agnostic because I do believe there is a slight possibility that there is a higher intelligence similiar to the one that Deists believe in. Nonetheless, I really don't think I would bet my last dollar on it. Still, I can never be sure, so I don't want to eliminate the possibility.
In lieu of this, however, I do not believe for a second that there is a higher power who answers people's prayers and constantly sticks his nose into the lives of our planet's inhabitants. In fact, ever since I have been on the outside looking in with respect to Christianity and the belief in a personal god (i.e. the god of Christianity), I think it is absurd to think that anyone could ever have a prayer answered. To think that someone could get down on his knees and ask a god for a new pair of shoes, a girlfriend, or for his cousin to be cured of pneumonia and have that prayer answered is ludicrous. Each person on this plant is but one in over six billion people. To think that there is a god who values your problems over other people's problems---many of which are MUCH more serious than a desire for new attire or for a significant other----is simply unthinkable and illogical. At this point, some people might be thinking, "Oh, but God cares about ALL of our problems." If that were true, then God would have done something about all of the famine, disease, and genocide that is going on in the world. Additionally, he would have answered my prayers when I prayed for my cancer-ridden uncle to get better (the fact that my uncle died is not the reason I left my faith, by the way).
All together, I do not believe in a god who interferes with our world or anything else in the universe. Furthermore, I see no reason to believe in a god who directly created the universe. We have explained many phenomena in naturalistic terms---e.g. why the sun "comes up and goes down," how mountains form, how stars form, how planets form. It seems like the more we know about science, the farther deities fade away into obscurity. I often do suspect that there is no higher power at all. But just in case there is some kind of supreme intelligence out there that has little to nothing to do with our universe or planet, I don't want to close the door of possibility completely.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Greetings, Hellos, and Introductions
Since this is a new blog, I feel inclined to write one of those stereotypical entries where the writer introduces himself and explains what he will be using the blog for. I feel horribly cliched in doing this, but since this thing is in its infancy, I feel it is necessary.
As the title of this online publication suggests, this blog will have something to do with agnosticism. This is because I am an agnostic. But what does it mean to be an agnostic? Well, it can mean a lot of things. If you go by what the dictionary says, being an agnostic simply means that you are "unsure of the existence of a higher power." Most dictionary definitions of the word "agnostic" resemble that to some degree. Though in reality, agnosticism can cover a variety of different bases, and the label can be applied to many people whose beliefs may be quite different in numerous respects. In another entry, I will go into more detail about what agnosticism is and why I classify myself as an agnostic. For right now, I am just going to do my best to stick to the point of this entry, which is to introduce myself and explain the reason for this blog's existence.
As I said, I will be writing about agnosticism. I will be expounding upon my current position regarding religion and spirituality, and how I came to it. It seems to me that I have taken a pretty curvy path in order to get to where I am today, and I think it deserves to be talked about.
Now that you have a rough idea regarding what I plan to do with this blog, I should probably introduce myself. Here in the blogosphere, I am known as Adrian Isaacs. However, this is not my real name, which I probably will not be giving out. In fact, I probably will not be giving out a whole lot of information about myself. I may change my mind later on and tell you some more about me, but for right now, this is all I'm going to say.
1. I am male.
2. I am in my twenties (as of the day this entry was written).
3. I possess a master's degree that most people find quite unique.
4. I live in the Midwestern part of the United States of America (USA).
5. I am neither a Democrat or a Republican.
Sorry to be so secretive. I wish I could be more open. But this is cyberspace, and it's important to look out for yourself in this world.
Well, I am running out of things to write, so I think I'll wind this down. As I explained above, I will be blogging about religion from an agnostic perspective. I will be explaining more about what agnosticism means with respect to me and my worldview. I will also be discussing some of my observations pertaining to religion. Hopefully, I'll be able to build this thing into something at least moderately useful and enjoyable. Obviously, not everyone is going to like what I do, so I'll just have to accept that. Nonetheless, I would like to please at least a few people.
As the title of this online publication suggests, this blog will have something to do with agnosticism. This is because I am an agnostic. But what does it mean to be an agnostic? Well, it can mean a lot of things. If you go by what the dictionary says, being an agnostic simply means that you are "unsure of the existence of a higher power." Most dictionary definitions of the word "agnostic" resemble that to some degree. Though in reality, agnosticism can cover a variety of different bases, and the label can be applied to many people whose beliefs may be quite different in numerous respects. In another entry, I will go into more detail about what agnosticism is and why I classify myself as an agnostic. For right now, I am just going to do my best to stick to the point of this entry, which is to introduce myself and explain the reason for this blog's existence.
As I said, I will be writing about agnosticism. I will be expounding upon my current position regarding religion and spirituality, and how I came to it. It seems to me that I have taken a pretty curvy path in order to get to where I am today, and I think it deserves to be talked about.
Now that you have a rough idea regarding what I plan to do with this blog, I should probably introduce myself. Here in the blogosphere, I am known as Adrian Isaacs. However, this is not my real name, which I probably will not be giving out. In fact, I probably will not be giving out a whole lot of information about myself. I may change my mind later on and tell you some more about me, but for right now, this is all I'm going to say.
1. I am male.
2. I am in my twenties (as of the day this entry was written).
3. I possess a master's degree that most people find quite unique.
4. I live in the Midwestern part of the United States of America (USA).
5. I am neither a Democrat or a Republican.
Sorry to be so secretive. I wish I could be more open. But this is cyberspace, and it's important to look out for yourself in this world.
Well, I am running out of things to write, so I think I'll wind this down. As I explained above, I will be blogging about religion from an agnostic perspective. I will be explaining more about what agnosticism means with respect to me and my worldview. I will also be discussing some of my observations pertaining to religion. Hopefully, I'll be able to build this thing into something at least moderately useful and enjoyable. Obviously, not everyone is going to like what I do, so I'll just have to accept that. Nonetheless, I would like to please at least a few people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)