Posted by Jim Henderson on: 03.15.2006 /
I heard this term used to describe Hitler by someone who worked closely with him. It captures for me THE central problem of our time - A Monstrous Certainty
Many of us seem so certain of our positions, our beliefs, our logic and our non beliefs
To me - It all feels so proud (at times) - lacking humility and reflection
It makes me wonder if we feel so alone, so insecure and so angry that when given the opportunity (like this blog) we speak in a tone of certainty that we wouldn’t if we had to face each other.
I am astounded by the number of posts where people recount old and obvious arguments even though they have been tried thousands of times before and found wanting. It’s as if we believe that “if they hear ME say it - it will be different”
I am amazed at the lack of curiosity - the seeming inablity to frame thoughtful questions (much harder work btw than preaching) when people take positions that differ from ours.
Where are the “So tell me more about” and ” I need some clarification on” kinds of responses.
For me this diablog is not about atheism or christianity - its about learning and hearing. It’s about the unique opportunity we are provided when people who differ gather in one location to learn more than to teach, to hear more than to speak and to reflect on themselves more than to correct others.
“reality lies at the intersection of opposites”
Comment by: andy gr
1I just wanted to say how much I’ve appreciated finding this website. As a Christian, I do believe that there is such a thing as “truth”, and that God has revealed enough of it for our present needs; but I’m very sceptical of the ability of humans to interpret it correctly and exhaustively! Hence an attitude of humility, as modelled here, would do us all lots of good. And this is not a “postmodern” re-writing of Christian tradition - “Everyone should be slow to speak, quick to listen and slow to become angry” was the advice of James in the New Testament.
Comment by: Ir
2Hi andy — welcome to the OTM diablog! Thanks for your response — I think James had great advice in that verse you quoted; it’s very relevant.
Among Christians, I’ve observed certaintyencouraged in the following ways:
1) The Bible commends certainty and is critical of doubt:
Hebrews 11:1-2 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for.
Mark 11:23 [Jesus said] “I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, `Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him.”
James 1:6-8 But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does.
2) The Bible role-models believers stating their case with certainty to non-believers:
Acts 2:36 [Peter said] “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”
Acts 17: 29 [Paul said] “In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.”
In my experience, many Christians consider themselves justified in imitating the tone and certainty they find in the New Testament. (I see that as an unfortunate consequence of regarding the Bible as the Word of God: it evidently means opinions such as “I think Paul used an unnecessarily harsh tone to the Galatians” are off-limits)
3) I’m certain there is no 3) : )
4) Christian teachers and preachers role-model stating what the Bible says with certainty. Such people sometimes say “in my opinion” or “I think”, but not when they are quoting the Bible explicitly or implicitly.
To be fair, I don’t think everyone who posts here knows the arguments have been tried and found wanting by those who disagree with them. I wonder how many Christians know there are detailed rebuttals to Christian apologists such as Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell on orlinked to by secular websites? Of those who know, I wonder how many have actually read the rebuttals to find out whether the authors make any valid points.
I find lack of curiosity disappointing also. Jesus said that people need to become like children to enter the kingdom of heaven. Aren’t children incorrigibly curious?
Comment by: Peter in Pennsylvania
3Ir, I love what you write. A little humility goes a long way. I also, as a Christian, get totally sick of Christians who’ve only read one or two Lee Strobel books think that they can “argue an atheist into the faith”. Especially based on pop theology like that.
Don’t get me wrong, I think that Strobel and McDowell do okay in spots, maybe better than okay, but often they set out to prove something they already believe is true… and that doesn’t seem to have any effect on the “hard” atheist except make him believe, with good reason, that Xians are a bunch of people who don’t read much and are ignorant and uninformed.
On the other hand, if I bring up a point that’s been previously brought up by Strobel or McDowell, maybe in a different way, and if it’s still a good and valid point, I find sometimes that people will discount the points because of the authors that they find uncompelling. But, in all humility, the point might still be worth exploring.
Humbly yours,
Peter
Comment by: Peter in Pennsylvania
4Oh, and Jim… I LOVE your blog you’ve created here. LOVE it. But I don’t love that last quote in your post above “reality lies at the intersection of opposites”. surely Hitler and Schweitzer are opposites, but one was clearly evil. Of course, it says “reality” and not “truth”… so maybe… anyway, where did that quote come from?
Comment by: Jim Henderson
5Ir
This is the standard approach to reading the bible - pick passages and say them really loud which leads to bible tennis - I try and wear you down with my scriptures.
What if the bible was read like watching a movie. All you focused one were the one - two impressions it made on you and when you talked about the movie that is all you remembered.
Jesus is the main character in the movie called the bible and when I “watch” his life I am amazed at the humility he exhibited considering (I believe but I could be wrong but I am cool with that so no need for long periods of questioning me on this) that he was and is God.
Given that background my impression of God is that he spent long persiods of time with people restraining himself from “fixing” things or even “saying” things or giving his opinion. With this as my “lens” I read the bible differently. I look for the story behind the story and frankly ignore the parts or the tone that don’t correspond with the big picture of Jesus.
That is why even though specific passages could represent certainty - Jesus whom I follow demonstrated a kind of restraint that invites me to practice asking, listening and being genuinely interested in others.
Was Jesus uncertain? - yes from time to time there are parts of the story that indicate he didn’t know if people believed or didn’t always know what he should do (Gethsemane) - these short segments of the movie invite me to be comfortable with my humanity. He entered fully into the story I call life and walked through it with kindness and being interested in others - thats what I mean by The Good News -
While I may not be certain (I don’t think any of us can be if we are honest) I am confident in Jesus (which I think any of us can be if we want to)
Comment by: Ir
6Peter wrote:
Certainly ;) there can be lack of openness and humility on both sides. I’m more familiar with the Christian side, in spite of not feeling like I’m on it any more, so that’s what I wrote about.
I would say that if Christian authors’ arguments don’t get listened to because the authors aren’t compelling, then I would say it’s their responsibility to become more compelling or quit writing and go do something they can do well instead. There are more than enough mediocre books out there already.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
7Peter
The original quote goes “innovation lies at the intersection of opposites” - I was trying a different application - which I remain curious about
Comment by: NCxian
8I’m hoping that Jim’s comments are an invitation to ask curiosity questions in this forum.
This question came up in a short discussion I had with TXatheist in the First Timers section. I used the term “practice” in regard to atheists. He (in a kind way) corrected me, saying atheists don’t normally talk in terms of “practicing”, and refer to their actions as “ethics” or “morals”.
So I got to thinking, is this perhaps a distinction between atheists and humanists? I have been trying to tell if there is a difference between the two. Is atheism a discription of an unbelief, while humanism is a belief in something? And if so, then, is humanism is a subset of atheism? (This is a wild and thoroughly uninformed guess!)
I do not have an agenda here, I am just curious about these two terms and whether there is a practical difference between the way an “atheist” and a “humanist” think about life, and in their “practice” (or no practice?).
If this has already been hashed out elsewhere, just direct me there. This conversation has gotten so big I can’t keep up with it all. But it is so exciting!
Comment by: Jim Henderson
9I’m curious to know if an Atheist ever doubts anything about his/her position? I don’t see that kind of processing going on much in this blog.
Comment by: Ir
10Oooh, I got a long response from Jim! Thanks, Jim!
I’ll just pick up on a couple of things you wrote:
I can’t overstate how much I appreciate you saying you ignore what doesn’t correspond with your big picture.
I noticed that Jesus-followers/Christians all do this to some extent, but I think you’re the first one who has admitted it to me.
I knew I was doing it too and that led me to the very troublesome question: “How do I know that I am not simply taking my own idea of The Ideal Person (=God, of course) and making the Bible fit it, by focusing on where God as portrayed in the Bible fits my ideal, and ignoring/dismissing/explaining away where God doesn’t?”
It’s supposed to be the other way around - that the Bible instructs me on what ‘ideal’ is. But I couldn’t be at all sure I was letting the Bible tell me rather than making the Bible say what I wanted by the way I prioritized what I read in it. And I was doing this as a Bible-believing Christian who believed it all was the Word of God.
I agree that a sometimes uncertain Jesus seems much more real and human than one who is always certain. I don’t know if you have read NT Wright’s description of Jesus’ self-awareness in one of his ‘big academic’ books. He says that Jesus’ knowledge of who he was wasn’t like knowing a fact; it was more of a ‘risky’ knowledge, like ‘knowing one is loved’.
I like how NT Wright writes about Jesus living out what he came to believe his vocation was in a way that involved some personal risk. The picture I tend to get from other Christian sources is that he had an inerrant roadmap which gave him certainty about everything (except the date of his return, because the Bible clearly says he didn’t know that). And such certainty absolutely isn’t something I can relate to!
At one point I figured that perhaps Jesus on earth had no more access to divine knowledge and power than any other human filled with the Holy Spirit. I liked that; it meant I could relate to him pretty well. I suggested that to a pastor but he didn’t entirely agree ;)
One more thing about the self-awareness of Jesus: I was impressed how Anne Rice in Christ the Lord described the growing self-awareness of Jesus as a child. It seemed very plausible to me. I found it more moving than anything else I’ve read about Jesus lately. (Once I got used to Jesus having an older brother who was son of Jacob and not Mary!)
Comment by: Ir
11Jim:
Someone asked that same question in the last few days and Siamang answered it with a thoughtful response that included “yes, of course!” - but I can’t remember which blog entry it was in now.
Comment by: Steve
12Jim,
Terrific observations regarding certainty.
Ir,
Nice examples of how scripture is used. I guess my only pushback to you would be that with the exception of the Acts passages cited, the scriptures you noted were written to already-Christians who were being reassured in their faith, rather than dogmatic certainties being preached at non-Christians.
Is it possible that when certainty is preached at an inappropriately loud volume that the speaker is the one lacking certainty, and is simply trying to convince himself/herself?
Comment by: Ron
13Jim,
I hear your chiding and will you please accept my deepest apologies. I feel like I have let you down. I certainly don’t want to be the typical Christian and I am very sorry.
After I read what you wrote, the first thing that my mind gravitated too was justification of my actions and that is where I found conviction because I remember what Richard Foster wrote in his book “The Celebration of Discipline.” He said:
“One reason we can hardly bear to remain silent is that it makes us feel so helpless… The tongue is our most powerful weapon of manipulation. A frantic stream of words flows from us because we are in a constant process of adjusting our public image. We fear so deeply what we think other people see in us that we talk in order to straighten out their understanding. If I have done some wrong thing (or even some right thing that I think you may misunderstand) and discover that you know about it, I will be very tempted to help you understand my action! Silence is one of the deepest Disciplines of the Spirit simply because it puts the stopper on all self-justification.”
I’m convicted and I am so sorry.
Comment by: TXatheist
14NCxian,
There is little difference in titles to some atheists like myself. I actually prefer naturalist but atheist relates better to people concerning god. There’s little connection to saying I don’t believe in any god if I say naturalist. The actions are pretty much the same because the view is similar as far as it’s up to humans to make the world better. Neither humanists or atheists look to any god or some book.
Comment by: KSG
15A little humility goes a long way. How do you walk humbly though? There are no classes on humility. Even saying “I have humility” smacks of pride. Pride is insisted upon in our materialistic consumer culture.
I wonder what would happen in our churches if ministers sought to understand and communicate the Bible instead of using it to make their point.
How do you ask questions without questioning (doubting)?
Comment by: Stephan
16TX, be careful. I’ve heard the word “naturalist” used to replace “nudist”. I don’t think we want to go there.
I admit I have too often been part of the debate rather than the discussion. I will try to refrain.
Comment by: TXatheist
17Stephan,
Maybe one more reason I should stick with atheist over nudist(naturalist) in referring to myself. I don’t think it’s you I’ve been debating, just discussing.
Comment by: Stephan
18Jim, I have the same question as Ir regarding your reading of scripture. While I try to read the Bible the same way you do, how can you rely on your selectivity? I ask not to challenge you so much as to understand my own belief.
Comment by: Cully
19Jim thanks for the gentle reminder.
The entire basis of the atheist viewpoint is doubt! We just prefer to call it skepticism and incredulity. I think part of the problem is that to show doubt is to show weakness. In a discussion with someone holding an opposing view showing doubt is like rolling over to expose your soft bits. Normally in this type of discussion my opposite number would latch onto any doubt I show and use it against me.
So… to expose myself… what makes me doubt atheism? Quantum mechanics. I’ll admit that I have a VERY layman’s understanding of this topic, but one of the things I understand it to say is that certain events, at the quantum level, cannot be predicted, because the very act of observation changes the outcome. In fact it seems that certain events REQUIRE an observer in order to occur. The problem is that these same events are integral to the existence and continuation of the universe. So… if they can’t occur without an observer, and yet have been occurring… who was observing them? Humans have only been around for the tiniest fraction of the universal time span, and we’ve only been observing quantum events for less than 50 years.
For my own peace of mind I chalk these doubts up to incomplete understanding, both on my own part, and on the part of the scientific community, after all this is a very young scientific field. But if I was inclined to assign God to things, the role of Universal Observer might very well go to him.
Comment by: NCxian
20TX, I think I agree that it is up to humans to make the world a better place. Is this common ground?
KSG, I don’t know how you would ask questions without questioning. I once heard a professor say that you have no standing to engage another person in issues of belief unless you are willing to sincerely lay your own beliefs on the line. I am inclined to believe that the only way to grow is to be transparent, which I think includes expressing doubts. I guess that requires a certain amount of trust in the person you are being transparent to. Or be on-line, with a screen name. :)
Comment by: Brent
21KSG,
As you said, “A little humility goes a long way.” We need not beat ourselves up for realizing that we struggle with pride, selfishness and fear. It is enough that we recognize that we do in fact have that struggle. Then, perhaps we can be me a little more merciful to others who have the same struggle, and to those who may not have the “wisdom” to see things as we do.
Comment by: TXatheist
22NCxian,
Perfect place for common ground:)
Comment by: TXatheist
23Can anyone else get on Hemant’s blog?
http://www.ebayatheist.blogspot.com
I can’t for over an hour now.:(
Comment by: Brent
24- From Cully’s post
I have observed this about the issues that most divide us. What tends to happen is that both sides stop listening to each other. We therefore stop learning and truly exploring the issue. We then continue repeating our own arguments to ourselves and our supporters. In the process our arguments become ever more rigid - even beyond what some of our supporters truly believe. It is my belief that this is exactly the state of the abortion and evolution “debates” and even certain doctrinal debates within the church.
When we truly cannot comprehend where the other person is coming from, and their position seems to be utterly ridiculous or driven purely be selfish or evil motives, it is a good sign that we have stopped listening. This isn’t to say that we would agree with them even if we did listen - but we might just understand them - or even respect them.
Comment by: Ir
25TXatheist, when I try I get a message that the blog server is having some maintenance done, so it’s temporarily unavailable.
Comment by: TXatheist
26yes, supposed to be up at 9:40 CST
Comment by: Steve
27I personally think that certainty can be an obstacle to spiritual practice. After all, if we’re so certain, that means there is nothing new to learn.
There is, of course, another side to that coin. Why would anyone follow any belief system if they didn’t believe it was right? To believe that something is right entails at least a little bit of certainty.
Finally, I think saying “I believe…” is much easier, like Jim said, than asking, “So tell me about…” The mere fact that it is so much easier explains why we tend to do that. :)
Comment by: Ir
28TX, it says 9:40 PST on my screen.
Comment by: Ir
29Steve, did you see the end of comment #5 where Jim made a distinction between certainty and confidence?
Comment by: TXatheist
30oops, 11:40 CST
Comment by: Jayson B.
31It’s already been said, but I’d like to reiterate it:
My ability to doubt and be a skeptic is exactly what led me to become an atheist, from being a hardlined christian who even to this day, is surrounded by christianity.
And personally, I do not know a single atheist who was raised “atheist.” Most who are in this camp, like kirk cameron for instance, were merely raised non religious, and weren’t raised with critical thinking skills. And any christian that I know who proclaims themself to be previously an atheist (in an attempt to show themselves as objective) was of this camp, like cameron. And that’s an important distinction.
Every atheist that I know personally came from a religious background and on their own with their own doubts became an atheist.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
32Nice ideas coming in
Ir in #10 you wrote…
” I can’t overstate how much I appreciate you saying you ignore what doesn’t correspond with your big picture.
I am sorry that we Christians who claim to follow a God who tells us to lay down our lives and even to lose out life have not led the way in this regard. It seems to me that if in fact we are so (damn)confident about Jesus/God and The Bible - that we have an obligation to model and even lead by our exposing ourselves to open critique/examination and not being hidden or artificial in communication.
Years ago,as a young follower of Jesus, after being made crazy by the incredible range of interpretations of scripture I heard from preachers week after week, I determined to figure out a way to “read the bible” so it didn;t make me crazy (if that was possible) and still take it seriously.(meaning how I applied it in my life not what just I said I “believed”)
I read where Jesus said (btw I realize that many of you do not think the bible is valid and some of you don’t think Jesus even existed but this is my way of making sense out of life so bear with me- I am not saying in any way that you need to believe anything you don’t want to - not required)( as you can see I love parantheses - i think lifes most important lessons are found in slogans and paranthetical phrases :-) ANY WAY -
Jesus is recored to have said “When you see me you see the Father” so I decided that my best source for to “screen” all the weird passages in the bible through would be the “story or the life of Jesus” as found specifically in the 4 gospels (Christians and Atheists - yes I know about as much as you do about the questions surrounding the credibilty of these sources as well so no need to spend anytime reminding me about that)
I also was and to this day remain insulted by the notion that I need a secondary source to read the bible - That is a position that professional christians have developed so they can have a job and it is also a position of convenience taken (imo) by those people who have either been raised (and consequently often brainwashed) in church and have little to no real concern about how “outsiders” (with whom Jesus, the founder of our family business spent the majority of his time)read this book.
To make this easier for concerned Christians who are reading between the lines to see if I believe whether or not the bible is Gods word (as if my opinion on the matters means anything) the answer is YES do I believe all the words are - the answer is NO.
That means , for me (and here is how I will answer Stephan in # 18) all scripture is not equal- some parts matter more than others and at the top of that selective list I have self created (along with a lot of people who aren’t talking about it) is the Story of Jesus.
I really did it so I could stay alive spiritually - the old way seemed to lack intellectal honesty and created an environment (which I think covers most of mainstream christianity iincluding evangelicalism) where peoples public and private beliefs are often at polar opposites.
Christians have learned the rules that enable them to stay in the club and I suspect the same couldbe said of Atheists
Comment by: Nutrideath
33Wow Cully, deep thoughts (#19). Interesting take on quantum mechanics. I like it.
Jim, I think when you started this thread you hit upon a central question which - correct me if I’m wrong - seems to be close to why you started this site. (I thought Ir’s response was great btw - the scriptures themselves help us see how “certain” we should be of them.)
Its the attitude of “Don’t read scripture too literally. It’s just a general guide. God loves & accepts everyone, regardless of their actions or ideals.” But that’s just watering-down the scriptures. Its awfully close to “If you don’t like a particular scripture, just ignore it or interpret it the way you like.”
It reminds me of 2 Timothy 4:3-4: “3 For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories.”
Jim, forgive me if I’ve misread you. I’ve only read a couple of your posts, & really haven’t explored much of your site here. Am I way off base?
Comment by: Lisa W.
34As I learn more about atheism (weak, strong, hardlined etc.) I can easily look back and say that for a period of years I could have been labeled a ‘weak atheist’. It wasnt that I didn’t believe there was a God but that I simply didn’t have a relational behavior with this god. I found in that way of being I was missing: a sense of community with others and had a weird sense that I was the center of my universe and maybe that wasn’t the best place to be. And serendipity was just not enough of an explanation for me.
How do Atheists feel about serendipity? Is it enough?
Comment by: Jayson B.
35Jim,
I do want to point out that I greatly appreciate what you’ve done with this blog.
It may not be what you originally intended, but it is it’s own machine now. This, however, doesn’t change it’s value.
You have people talking now who normally don’t talk. Sure, noone is going to be converted to one side or the other.
But nearly everything christians hear about atheists is *from other christians.* They don’t get to see the arguments staring them in the face, asking them directly to confront them.
And that’s a fantastic thing, be it that they change their minds about christianity, but from your point of view, strengthening their faith against that which many find threatening.
This blog has grown larger than you Jim, and given your comments as of late, it appears it’s distressed you a bit. But all things that are good and great in the world grow larger than the man who created them.
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
36Jim, I have been wanting to ask some questions almost from day one. But I find the blog format extremely difficult to use to engage this. Where do you go to ask a question? And then, how do you follow a line of discussion when you get “thread ravel” going with, maybe, 100+ responses on and off point.
Unfortunately, I am not technically savvy enough to suggest a fix within the confines of a blog-type site. I have been in several e-mail discussion groups that use a “distributed e-mail” format. And, if people are consciencious about using/changing subject lines it makes it easy to follow a line of argument. But beyond that, I’m technically clueless.
Tom in Sacramento
Comment by: Stephan
37I think Jim is just admitting to what most Christians do without thinking. I think we all read selectively, but most of us would deny it. I am very comfortable with Jim’s explanation.
Comment by: Ir
38Jim, thanks for sharing a little of where you are personally and how you got there. It doesn’t really change anything I thought about you or OTM (not negatively, anyway) but I was interested to read it and glad you were willing to share it :)
This morning I heard something that made me think of OTM: I was listening to a sermon from that church in Texas that the atheist just joined. The minister was about to quote Robert Ingersoll and he prefaced the quote with this comment:
“I love critics of the church because I want to be the best I can be and the best way to do that is to go to the people who are really criticizing and find out what you’re doing wrong.”
Now, where else have I heard that recently, I thought to myself… ;)
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
39Ir, #2, I agree with your comments re: certainty. But you’ve only cited half the scriptural examples. Someone else noted that the audience for those certainty texts was the already convinced; a bolstering of confidence. But the scriptures also talk about how the already convinced are to speak with the not yet convinced. For example, “Speaking the truth in love…” (There’s one honored more in the breach than the keeping, huh? ;-) ) Or, “Always be prepared to give to every man an answer…” (Implies waiting for a question.) And so on.
Tom in Sacramento
Comment by: TXatheist
40Nutrideath,
Are you saying Jim or others should take the bible literally? Always literal?
Comment by: Ir
41I’m not sure what serendipity means, Lisa. If it means that some coincidences and change happenings are good, then I guess I believe that and that’s enough for me right now.
What you described as being a ‘weak atheist’ - I would rather call that being a ‘weak theist’ or a ‘weak pantheist’ because you did seem to believe in some Unifying thing or Direction or Big Picture Plan in the universe. Weak atheists do not have a belief in any such thing, as best I understand weak atheism.
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
42Jim, I like your movie analogy for Bible reading. It is similar to my approach but I’ve never thought of it in quite that way. Great way to illustrate it.
But it is part of what I refered to elsewhere as the Bible/Christianity having become an “organizing principle”. That “OP” is akin to the movie theme. And, like a good story, things that are extraneous to the theme are not a focus of the movie. Of course, if it is God we’re talking about as the author, then there ought to be no extraneous bits. And that’s why I think in terms of an “OP”; it connects all the “bits” back to the main theme.
Tom in Sacramento
Comment by: Ir
43( p.s. I meant ‘chance’ happenings, not ‘change’ happenings - oops)
Comment by: Lisa W.
44“weak atheist” Siamang described himself in the same way I mentioned here. You see…. many shades of understanding.. many dimentions to how we label ourselves.. This is why it is so much more important to find our way toward common ground.. on that journey we discover so much more about each other.
Comment by: TXatheist
45Ir,
I hope you’ll answer this based on your response to lisa because I’ve discovered weak/strong atheism. What do you, Ir, consider someone’s view that says there is no evidence for any god in any form and therefore I don’t believe in any god. I have thick skin so don’t hold back:)
Comment by: Nutrideath
46Tx, no - I don’t think that the entire Bible is literal.
I also don’t think that Christians should go around “hitting” atheists on the head with scriptures.
But if you (well, ok TX, not you specifically, but you know what I mean) start picking & choosing which scriptures you think are from God & which are extraneous, then you’ve got no basis for anything. Every scripture is suspect, no scripture is really worthy of faith.
Comment by: TXatheist
47So help me understand. The entire bible is from God and how do we follow it? There are really horrible consequences for working on the sabbath but really nice ideas like loving your neighbor. Please answer cause I don’t understand.
Comment by: Nutrideath
48Tx, I don’t want to fight again today, ok? :)
We’ve been thru this exact question already haven’t we? What do you remember from my posts previously?
Comment by: Siamang
49Nutrideath, forgive me, but I just don’t see that as how faith works.
I don’t think faith is something legalistic, all or nothing… At least not with most people. Something Jim said really spoke to me, and that was when he said about peoples public and private beliefs at polar opposites.
I think people of faith have a personal relationship with God (or believe they do). I think that connection is more central to their lives than their personal relationship with scripture.
Your thoughts?
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
50TX, FWIW, I would call that person an agnostic. Your description seems to me to imply a practical response (”therefore I don’t believe”) as a function of a sensed lack of evidence. That suggests that, were the evidence to materialize there would be an appropriate practical response. So the critical point is the evidence. (I’m assuming, of course, an open mind and not a willful refusal to consider countervailing evidence.)
To me, “atheist” implies a level of certainty comparable to “Christian”. “Atheist” implies, to me, I have examined the evidence and find it sufficient to prove to me that God cannot exist; His existence would be logically contrary to the evidence.
My two bits.
Tom in Sacramento
Comment by: Ir
51TX, um - you tell me if you’ve just studied this because as I think about weak/strong atheism I’m not very clear on the distinction, actually.
This is what I think but may be wrong strong atheism is the position “there is no god”. If that’s your position I’d say you’re a strong atheist. I think “I don’t believe in any god” is weak atheism if it doesn’t go as far as “there is no god”.
Lisa - I should go back and read what Siamang wrote (if I can find it) because I didn’t realize he indicated he believes in some sort of Unifying Principle or something like that.
Comment by: TXatheist
52Nutrideath,
That is respectable and I appreciate you not wanting to go at it:) If you answer Siamang though I’ll be content:)
Tom,
Thanks, I wait and get Ir’s perspective also.
Comment by: Ir
53Building on what Siamang wrote - Nutrideath, is it possible to be a Christian without having a personal relationship with Jesus? Do you have one?
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
54I should have added: There is no reasonable, plausible explanation that would make the existence of God logical in light of the evidence.
Tom in Sacramento
Comment by: TXatheist
55Ir,
Yeah, I go all over the spectrum. My other cliche is “I accept there is a god, the god of myth”. No offense to anyone I just have always called myself an agnostic athiest but shorten it atheist. I consider myself a naturalist as far personal perception.
Comment by: Siamang
56I don’t, Ir. But I allow that a deistic “god” is possible. Hell, I allow that anything is possible. But I have no evidence for any specific definition for “God.”
Comment by: Nutrideath
57Well Siamang, I guess what I’m saying is that you have to base your relationship with God on something.
If not scripture, then what? Your personal feelings? What the preacher says on Sunday? What your aunt Myrtle taught you when you were 6 and you were visiting her at that nice hospital with the padded walls? What?
If you don’t believe the Bible, well that’s one thing. But to say you believe only bits & pieces has got to be confusing. What kind of relationship with God could you build based on that?
Now that I read this back, it sounds like an attack on Jim personally. Jim, I don’t mean it that way, but how do you decide which parts of the movie are worth rewinding a few times?
Comment by: TXatheist
58Tom,
What do you mean
Comment by: Lisa W.
59Trying to find evidence to prove God exists is like trying to find the source and purpose of the color Red.
Red just is so what’s the point.
this kind of posture:
Makes me sea sick. sorry.
Comment by: Cully
60Jim, just out of curiosity have you ever read any of the “apocryphal” gospels? I only ask since you place an emphasis on Christ’s life, and the apocryphal books fill some of the holes left by the standard bible, such as Jesus’ childhood and teen years.
Comment by: Lisa W.
61siamang said,
I think that’s very true.
Ir, thanks for responding to my serendipity question.
Comment by: Jayson B.
62The difference between Red and God lisa is that we all know Red exists, there no dispute.
You’re skipping one question in order to answer another.
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
63TX, just a clarification of the notion that it is an evidentiary insufficiency. IOW, I do finanical advising/counseling on the side. I have a good friend who is a great guy, but whose finances are seriously screwed up. And the reason is that, despite seeing the data and the principles, he cannot will himself to act upon it, even though he knows he should.
So I just wanted to reinforce that it is a seriously deficient evidence problem. Said another way, someone might say, “Well, I could never believe in God because a good God wouldn’t allow bad things to happen to good people.” Well, that uses evidence — “bad things”, and “good people” — as a basis for a decision. But it is an obviously flawed line of reasoning unless you happwen to inhabit a VERY simplistic, Black-and-white universe. A complex universe with relative degrees of goodness/badness, an evil force at work, human free will, the certainty that the universe includes a principle of “no pain, no gain”, and so on, makes it very easy to do away with that sort of trope.
So, to me, the strong, technical use of “atheist” would seem to require the discovery of some piece of evidence so monumental as to render the existence of God a logical impossibility no matter what efforts were made to advance a reasonable explanation for the datum.
Tom in Sacramento
Comment by: TXatheist
64Thanks, I hope you’ll keep learning/exploring the definition of atheist. Most atheists I know don’t say that it’s impossible for god to exist. We realize there won’t be evidence proving there is no god.
Comment by: Siamang
65Tom, I know the “agnostic” vs. “athiest” definition is a messy subject. Let me try to help sort it out. The problem is what those words mean culturally and historically vs what they mean in the atheist community.
Let’s go back to the past,when the word “atheist” was an epithet. The worst thing you could say about a person was that they were an “athiest.” That word then didn’t mean “skeptic.” It meant God-denier.
So Huxley coins the word “agnostic.” Saying he doesn’t know IF there is a God or not. That allows him to have a word that allows him to speak as a man without faith, without being labled a God-denier.
These words enter the popular lexicon as meaning “Atheist = dogmatic God-denier,” “Agnostic = atheist about to tip, maybe you need to preach to him more.”
Joking here, but you know what these words mean in the popular lexicon.
Now within the atheist movement, I think there’s a conscious desire to “own” the word “atheist.” “They” are going to call us atheists anyway, we might as well embrace it. Like the word “queer” or the N-word. But when we self-define as atheists, we choose the grounds for discussion.
Plus, we speak of the word “agnostic” not as a wimpy, non-committal atheist, but closer to what the philosophical definition has been since Huxley coined it.
From wikipedia:
So it would be correct to call me an “agnostic atheist.” I follow no gods because I am without sufficient evidence to compel me to follow one or more gods. One word defines my evidentiary awareness, the second my reaction to that lack of evidence.
And here we’re using the word atheist in it’s broadest definition, “a person who worships zero gods.” That includes agnostics, the unchurched, and even any stray god-deniers that you may meet.
By the way, you may find here and there some people who argue that they do not believe in God because the concept is a logical impossiblity. They say “there is no God.” They would be called a Strong Atheist. The arguments I’ve heard are along the lines that the definition of God is the creator and law-giver of the universe, and yet also a worker of miracles which break the laws of the universe. If God were to perform a miracle, it would be a new law of the universe, and so, not a miracle. So God as perceptable by man either is the universe itself, or doesn’t exist.
This isn’t my personal position, so I am unable to do it justice in argument. Just laying it out to give you a sort of “beastiary of Atheists.”
Here’s a wikipedia entry on Agnosticm, for further perusal. It’s useful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic
Comment by: Nutrideath
66Ir, are you seriously asking? or is this a thinly veiled slam? Because most people who ask me that question are looking down their nose at me, & follow up my answer with the one they’ve already made up their mind that I have. “Oh, you don’t believe in Christ!” they’ll say.
That doesn’t seem like you Ir. So, I’ll answer - Yes, I believe you one have that personal relationship with Christ, & I feel that I do have one.
Comment by: Steve
67Ir (#29), yes, you are right, I missed that.
Comment by: Lisa W.
68jayson,
Yes, you’re right. I’m an artist so I always go for the color angle even if it doesn’t hold water.
Ok.. so… I can’t see gravity but when I drop a pencil on the table there is proof of it.
In my life I can look back and the only plausible reason beyond pretty serendipity is that god was in the midst whilst I even inadvertantly kicked dirt in his/her face.
Comment by: Denigma
69Jim, back to the original topic of this discussion, I think there IS a big problem with a belief in “infallible certainty.”
Although this may offend sum, it isnt my intent. The Bible as the unchanging word of God passed down through the ages idea doesn’t really hold water.
1) Few of those during Jesus’s time, and definately few of his followers, given that most of them were the poor, the hungry, and the marginalized, were literate. Therefore, it is unlikely that much of his words and actions were specifically written down, but rather retold orally.
2) Much of the Bible was written in the first 3 centuries following his death, often by men who never witnessed the events they write about.
3) There are books that historians say were never added to the Bible, were taken out, or were added later to make the 66 books that exist now.
4) The Bible was translated to English from Greek, Latin, and Hebrew.
5) For the first 1500 years, until the printing press, every copy of the Bible was transcribed by hand. Mistakes would have been made, scribes were at liberty to change/add/delete things to fit what they believed.
I am not trying to attack the Bible, but rather the notion that it is written in stone from the start. Rather, it is a living, breathing document, and should be treated as such. I get annoyed when someone preaches it to me as the law of the land, when in fact it should play the role of guide, mentor, and philosopher.
Comment by: Siamang
70Nutrideath wrote:
Now you’re talking like an atheist! ;-)
Look, I don’t presume to speak for the faithful here, so if I’m out of turn, I apologize.
But to me, I look at that whole list of “what do you follow” and agree. I’m an atheist, and I see the same amout of merit for believing a book, a preacher or aunt myrtle.
The one thing I do not have is a personal experience of the divine. That’s an internal experience, so I cannot say that others don’t have it.
As Jim said, we know the arguments of skepticism regarding the Bible and the provenance of it.
For myself, I cannot imagine what the leap of faith would be for me to accept the Bible as true, in the ABSENCE of a personal experience of the divine.
Such personal experiences, at least as described by those who do experience them, guide the believer into a personal understanding of scripture, don’t they?
Was this what brought you to believe the Bible as the true word of God? Did this experience begin and end only with the verification of the Bible, or did it continue?
Comment by: NCxian
71Jim:
I have “known” you through your off-the-map persona for years and agree with you in so many ways and about so many things. Thanks for everything!
I am, however, a little befuddled by one paragraph in your long post above (#32, I think–I even share your love of parentheticals!) I suspect that I am reading something differently than what you are saying, so I am wondering if you can help me out here.
I don’t quite get the paragraph about secondary sources. I agree that we all “pick and choose” and it’s the only intellectually honest way to deal with the Bible. I agree that we hate to admit it. However, the reason I would say that it is ok is that we don’t do it alone, that we do it in the company of other thoughtful people whom we have grown to trust. They help us see whether our understanding is fair, humane, useful, etc. Otherwise, we might become like Jim Jones, who was very “certain” that the Holy Spirit gave him special instructions through his personal Bible reading (which I agree, is monstrous!) I am not confident that I, the Holy Spirit and the Bible can sit down together and help me grow, unless I can ask somebody whether they think my understainding of what I am reading is off-base or not. Those people might include Hemant, or Ir, or TXAtheist, or Brian McLaren or St. Augustine or Brother Lawrence. Of course, I then pick and choose whose opinions I value and whose I discard. But at least I am listening. Since you have devoted your life to this kind of listening ministry, I don’t see how that fits in with the a dislike of “secondary sources”. I think I am misunderstanding.
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
72Siamang, your comment, “I cannot imagine what the leap of faith would be for me to accept the Bible as true, in the ABSENCE of a personal experience of the divine,” brings to mind a movie scene. (Ahh, theology ala Hollywood. ;-) ) Perhaps you know it.
Indiana Jones is looking for the Holy Grail and he comes to the end of a tunnel overlooking a huge chasm. But the instructions say that he is to step out in faith. But there’s nothing there to step out upon….or so it seems. So he picks up a handful of gravel and tosses it out in front of him and…Surprise! … there appears to be some sort of invisible bridge. So he closes his eyes, lifts his chin, and steps out in blind faith…and is supported as he moves forward across what had heretofore seemed an impossible gulf.
See! It happens in the movies, too! ;-)
Tom in Sacramento
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
73TX, you asked an important question, and if anyone answered it I can’t find it. You asked
I can’t answer for anyone but me, but I start by looking at what the literary form of the text is. 1Chronicles is history, Revelation is apocalypse, ITimothy is instruction, Psalms is poetry, etc. Then I read the text like I would read any other literature of that sort. (Eg., If it is poetry I don’t force a literal interpretation on it.)
Then, if I am reading a shorter book, I read the whole thing straight through so I can get a feel for the big picture. What is the major theme? How does the writer’s style impact the way he tells his subject?
Then I read it slowly, verse by verse, and think about what nuggets of meaning are there. Of particular personal interest: I like to understand how things work, take them apart and look at the insides. So I am especially on the look out for generalizable principles.
Then, as I pull meanings or principles from the text I measure them by what I know of other parts of the Bible, what other commentators say, what friends say. If I am way off base (happens occasionally ;-) ) and there are serious consequences for error, I back away to more conventional understandings until I can find further evidence for or against my interpretation. If I am way off base but there do not appear to be serious consequences I revel in my heresy. ;-)
Tom in Sacramento
Comment by: TXatheist
74So it’s your interpretation:)
Comment by: Ir
75Sorry, no, it was not a slam at all. I just don’t like to assume anything and I didn’t recall you talking about Jesus like someone you know, which is what I usually expect people to do who have as much confidence as you in the Bible being God’s Word.
So, I just thought I’d ask…
I asked because I’d much rather have you tell me than make up an answer in my own head like those people you just referred to seem to do.
Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt and answering the question.
I’m surprised you said “I feel I have one” not “I have one” - I don’t want to read too much into what you wrote so I’ll ask: are you less confident you have a relationship with Jesus, than you are that the Bible is God’s Word? Or did you choose your words the way you did because this blog entry is about not sounding too certain, or because this is getting a little personal?
I had one - well, I mean, I thought I did, whatever - but then I decided I didn’t want it any more.
Comment by: Nutrideath
76Siamang,
I can’t speak for others. My experience with the Bible began when I was very young. A turning point for me happened when I was only about nine yrs old.
I was in Church & the sermon was on the book of Revelation. What I remember was how one of the beasts in that book was shown to be symbolic of the rise & fall of different specific human political organizations down thru the ages. It clicked in my head that that prophecy actually had meaning in the real world.
I became very interested in the prophecies of the Bible, and the more I studied them the more my faith in the Bible grew. I’m not saying the heavens opened up & the angels sang for me or anything. Quite the opposite. I just gradually came to understand that the Bible was trustworthy.
I am a very analytical person. When I analyzed many of the prophecies in the Bible and how they were fulfilled, it gave me deep faith in the rest of the Bible. (I especially like the book of Daniel, which in many cases has a prophecy, right after which the fulfillment of it is spelled out clearly.)
Once you have that faith, the other things the Bible offers begin to seem worth trying. I posted yesterday about the changes in people’s lives that learning Bible principles can bring about. Watching that play out for a family is very faith-strengthening also.
Many times the advice the Bible gives seems crazy, or just plain goes against my grain. But I’ve found that following that advice anyway never fails to turn out better than I could have hoped trying it my way.
There’s a lot of talk on this site about “empirical evidence” leading people to atheism. But for me, it was the exact opposite: the empirical evidence led me to a deeper belief in the Bible.
Comment by: Nutrideath
77Ir, probably because this blog entry is about not sounding too certain.
Why did you decide you didn’t want it anymore?
Comment by: Ir
78Because I decided I couldn’t tell if me talking to Jesus was just me talking to myself. And I didn’t want to inadvertently ascribe divine authority to my own thoughts. It seemed too risky.
That happened after more than a decade of being a Christian.
Thanks for explaining about the “I feel”. I am still surprised you used such a touchy-feely word because I had you down as very analytical. Oh well, I guess I have made some assumptions about you after all ;)
Comment by: TXatheist
79Nutrideath,
Please explain what prophecy was fulfilled:)
Comment by: Ir
80(p.s. Nutrideath - I hadn’t read where you say “I’m very analytical” in Siamang’s post before I wrote that I thought you were)
Comment by: Nutrideath
81Tx, I’m not going to argue prophecy with you - I have a feeling it would be pointless. You would just argue that the book of Daniel was written after the fulfilling history happened, right? I’m not interested in arguing. If you really want to know (like say because you’re curious) well, that’d be different.
If anybody else is interested, I might post one or two, but I don’t think this is the forum for it.
Or is it?
Comment by: Jim Henderson
82Siamang
That is the only reason I believe the bible contains Gods word- it starts with a personal experience - it is not logic - it is more heart
Nxcian- I forgot to mention that I also depend heavily upon community - thanks for the guide back
Comment by: TXatheist
83Yes, because nothing concrete prophetically has been fulfilled so your statement saying prophecy happened is misleading. I’m not saying that to argue but to be honest. There are very vague ideas that the bible mentions that can be compared to other events but concrete…none. So again, I respect your view not to say anymore.
Comment by: Nutrideath
84Tx, how old are you? about ten? You sound so much like a kid when you assume that because I don’t want to argue that you’ve won some battle.
Grow up. Either speak intelligently and respectfully about an issue or remain silent.
Comment by: TXatheist
85I was bowing out graciously but making my point that there is no such thing as fulfilled prophecy. Wow, talk about a grudge you’re holding. I won’t rip into you because it’s beneath me.
Comment by: Stephan
86I mean it kids. We’ll go right back home if this keeps up.
Comment by: TXatheist
87Nutrideath,
Jim’s suggestion to discuss offline is still good from my perspective.
md457@hotmail.com
Comment by: Nutrideath
88Thanks Stephan. I needed a little perspective. If you lock us in the car again, at least bring us a slurpee, ok?
Tx, thanks for the offer. Do you own a Bible?
Comment by: TXatheist
89Yes and I turned 9 yesterday:) j/k please understand I’m trying to make light of it, not attacking.
Comment by: Nutrideath
90Well Tx, it sure felt like an attack. That’s why I thought that Matt 7:6 was being fulfilled by you.
Comment by: Nutrideath
91Truce Tx?
Comment by: Ir
92Nutrideath, maybe you could apologize…
Comment by: Nutrideath
93Ir, I guess that was pretty harsh, huh?
Sorry Tx, I didn’t mean to call you a dog or a swine.
But that scripture is why I don’t want to argue prophecy with you. It was meant more as an admonition to myself than as a slur on you.
Comment by: Ir
94Nutrideath, I was actually thinking of the other post where you asked if he was ten and told him to grow up; but yes, calling him a dog or swine by implication was a little disrespectful also.
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
95TX, #74. Of course. Why else would God have given me a brain except to use?
My interpretation doesn’t necessarily mean, usually doesn’t mean, a variant one. But no one is capable of understanding scripture from anything except an interpretation that originates in their brain. Doesn’t mean their interp (or their brain) is uninformed. Just means we have no other sensate organ by which to achieve understanding. So, what’s your point?
Tom in Sacramento
Comment by: TXatheist
96Nutrideath,
Apology recriprocated and accepted:0 But man, it took everything I had not to slam you back:) I honestly was trying to bow out gracefully though on the discussion about you not revealing prophecy. “Fulfilled prophecy” is another issue I get really bothered by.
Comment by: TXatheist
97Tom
I just meant that’s what everyone does, interpret it as best they can and that’s why Jim pointed out we have at least 2300 sects of xianity. Hecht, even I interpret it but with a different analysis.
Comment by: KSG
98In regard to #97… man, all that sects and I’m not gettin’ any.
Comment by: Ir
99KSG, I can’t believe you wrote that on a Christian site. ;)
Comment by: Ir
100Hey TXatheist, maybe the atheist-theist discussions will go on forever and never be resolved, but you did win something for sure today - the ‘not slamming back’ prize! :)
Comment by: KSG
101I just thought that with all that sects we Xians would be a happier bunch. ;)
Comment by: Ir
102But sects without relationships just lead to hollowness and emptiness, KSG!
Comment by: KSG
103I guess we need a class in sects education, so we can learn to communicate with each other. Otherwise our relationship will be built solely on sects, and once the sects is gone… well, you know.
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
104Ir, #78. This is very interesting to me. You see, I have pondered the same thing from a variety of different perspectives.
In India a couple years ago I was wondering about the other side of your “talking to Jesus vs. talking to self” conundrum. Specifically, how does God, how would God, talk to us? How can I distinguish between that which is God speaking and that which is nmerely me thinking?
Short answer: For the committed Christian it really doesn’t matter; it’s a nonsense question. Longer answer: perhaps the difference between animals (mere physical creatures) and man (part physical/part spiritual creatures) lies somewhere in the mind and that allows us an access to the spiritual realm. This would allow us to communicate to the “spirit world” and them to communicate with us. (I’m not talking about mediums and such.) Okay, so that was just idle contemplation in India while reading a variety of different books.
Fast forward to about a year ago. Short version: I was asked to lead a discussion for a mostly faculty, mostly scientific and engineering group on the subject of the possibility of a naturalistic basis for religion; essentially the question, is *faith* falsifiable?
I found that some researchers have discovered that when you wire up the brains of test subjects and then ask them to do something religious — pray or meditate, etc — the prefrontal cortext (the part of the brain behind your forehead) lights up like a Christmas tree. And this happens both for Bhuddist monks chanting or for Catholic nuns praying the rosary.
So, what to make of it? Well, if one begins with naturalistic assumptions (Note: apriori and brought to the subject) one will say, “This is obviously a result of evolution. We know that meditation lowers blood pressure and so it probably has a beneficial effect on individual survivability Therefore evolution favored the development of the pre-frontal cortex.”
Or, if one begins with religious (read creationist) assumptions (Note: apriori and brought to the subject) one will say, “This is obviously a result of God’s creation. A creator who desired to communicate with His creatures created and ‘antenna’ by which they could receive the spiritual communications He wanted to send them.”
Note that, for me, the bottom line was that a faith stance is not falsifiable. And I would include atheism as a faith stance. And so, for me, I have no interest in trying to persuade anyone to modify their faith stance.
I find it absolutely fascinating to explore how people come to their faith stances, though I must confess, I rarely find people who have thought deeply enough about the topic to articulate it well. And that is why I am enjoying OTM. There are a few here who are obviously serious, deep, and careful thinkers about such things. So it is a veritable gold mine.
Tom in Sacramento
Comment by: Ir
105Actually, KSG - there will be no sects in heaven and it’s supposed to be an awesome place. So there is life after sects, evidently.
Comment by: TXatheist
106KSG,
Have you ever seen the various views, say Catholicism take on something vs the Mormon? Oh boy, now that is more interesting than atheist vs theist discussions, imo. I’m not trying to get into it, just saying the variance in the sects is amazing to me.
Comment by: KSG
107So in 28 years of Xian life and NOW someone finally tells me there is no sects in heaven. Time for a rethink.
I hope all this sects talk doesn’t get me kicked off the blog. I just thought that with all the seriousness going down today - in spite of Jim’s comments that started this thread - maybe some humour would lighten the heavy tone.
Anyway, have a nice evening. :)
Comment by: Denigma
108Tom,
Good point. We are in fact wired for wonder and spirituality. Some more than others. Neural biology has made incredible advances in the last decade or two, and there are some really interesting articles on this subject out there. And it is one of the defining characteristics that separates us from other animals. Tho i would like to point out that researchers have discoverd that chimpanzees have the capacity to feel “awe.” Such as sit back on a clear starry night and gaze at the night sky, for no other discernable reason than its majesty.
And I’m with you on the faith stance. I call it spirituality. Being an atheist in no way hampers your spirituality. You can still meditate and appreciate the beauty you find in life. Spirituality is a mountain top, and it really shouldn’t matter what path you take as long as you get to the top.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
109TX and Nutrideath
We don’t speak to each other that way here
And we don’t talk about sects either :-)
Actually I would rather talk about sects than yell
And Ir who said this was a Christian Site?
Comment by: Ir
110Good point. Maybe that Christian consultant dude said it ;)
Comment by: TXatheist
111Now, the first statement doesn’t have a smiley face so I don’t think you are kidding. I didn’t do a thing and I’m tired of it. The xian did and I didn’t launch or rip into him. He was polite and apologized but this atheist did nothing but challenge the lie that any prophecy in the bible has been certifiably true. I was going to make a comment earlier about how people like Fran are ridiculed and torn down for being absolutely honest but when xians say god did this and god did that then we are all supposed to say, that’s cool. Sorry, but I don’t think you xians get this point. It takes a great deal of restraint to not call you on things that are absolutely not true. This is christian favored site. The one xian remark that I saw pulled was a goofball ranting and when I reponded it was gone. Jim, I’ll gladly take that opportunity to run this site. Wanna see how xians really get treated for their comments? go to nogodblog.com and get ready to be insulted for what you think is believable.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
112TX - Do other atheists besides TX feel that they are not being heard. Seriously - tell me - Maybe I’m not seeing someting TX is seeing.
Do all Atheists feel this way?
Comment by: Siamang
113Denigma, I like your thinking.
Comment by: Lisa W.
114denigma,
you said,
Do some atheists then have spiritual practices… like meditation, being grateful, appreciating the moment ( friend of mine calls that ‘momentology’) things like that?
Comment by Denigma — March 16, 2006 @ 3:43 pm
Comment by: Ir
115Jim, I didn’t see TXatheist do anything either. I should have said that in my earlier post - sorry TX.
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
116This may be a bit of a rabbit trail. But Siamang mentioned Huxley as the source of the term ‘agnostic’ in #65 above. It reminded me of something I read a long time ago in an essay by Huxley, but needed to look up. I couldn’t find the original essay but found it quoted elsewhere. And I thought, and still think, it is a fascinating comment. Huxley wrote (i’m sorry I have only a secondary source; someone may know the origin):
“I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently I assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don’t know because we don’t want to know. It is our will that decides how and upon what subjects we shall use our intelligence. Those who detect no meaning in the world generally do so because, for one reason or another, it suites their books that the world should be meaningless.”
He continues:
“For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust. The supporters of these systems claimed that in some way they embodied the meaning (a Christian meaning, they insisted) of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and at the same time justifying ourselves in our political and erotic revolt: We could deny that the world had any meaning whatsoever.”
Tom in Sacramento
Comment by: skikid
117My goodness its been a busy day here!
“reality lies at the intersection of opposites” I was thinking about Jim’s quote and it remined me of one above my desk
“Diversity is not casual liberal tolerance of anything not yourself. It is not polite accommodation. Instead, diversity is, in action, the sometimes painful awareness that other people, other races, other voices, other habits of mind have as much integrity of being, as much claim on the world as you do. And I urge you, amid all the differences present to the eye and mind, to reach out to create the bond that will protect us all. We are all meant to be here together.” William M. Chase, “The Language of Action”
Comment by: Florence
118Is the bottom line that we all have a certain degree of certainty (confidence :)) in our own positions? It’s a fact that we can only partially see through others’ eyes but we automatically see through our own. We have each lived our own lives, not the lives of others. We know what we know/think what we think. We try to listen and we can even enjoy the comments of others who are different and take different positions from us, but when for some reason (direct or indirect) we feel challenged, we perhaps tend to revert? Even to the point of verbal fisticuff to perceived fisticuff?
TX, you said that bit about no Biblical prophecy having been fulfilled as if it was an established fact. I think it’s not. I think of the statue Daniel says Nebuchadnezzer saw and the prophecy that was fulfilled by the Greek leader Alexander. I haven’t checked the dates (traditional or revisionist), but it’s my impression Daniel was written before Alexander came on the scene. I think of Jesus and some of the amazing features of the Messianic prophetic droplets that fit him. I think of the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Somehow, to pick on Jeremiah, I really doubt the preponderance of his prophecy was uttered after, not before, the Chaldeans won big. I think of the characteristics of this age (knowledge increasing exponentially, people traveling to an extent unbelievable just a century ago) and the mention in Daniel that those very things would characterize the time of the “end.” I think of the images in the book of Revelation that strike me as being so characteristic of what happens with nuclear radiation. Now on the subject of whether it can be 100% proven that a Biblical prophecy was uttered before a crystal clear fulfillment, there may be more doubt. I’d have to do more research than I wanna or frankly have time do to make a proper statement on that.
In something written one can’t always read the wryness or other emotional tone that accompanies a statement. Perhaps TX was being wry and some of us didn’t see it because his words seemed like such a challenge. :) And, by the way, as if he were certain of them! :)
I am certain of a few things. God, the redemption that is through Christ, the way the Lord shines through the lines of so much Biblical (and sometimes other) text, the way He can lead us and does support us. I am equally certain of the value of every single person, including those most opposed to this kind of thinking; including, in fact, atheists and others much less polite and open than those who have been blogging here. Does one have to take Jim’s point of view (escalating down to confidence rather than certainty) to have a hope of communicating with people of an opposing view? Or can one listen and learn and contribute positively and even love at the same time that one’s beliefs aren’t altered, but one’s heart stretches out toward the other?
Comment by: Eliza
119I’m getting confused by the block quote line & italics - hope that cleared them up.
Denigma or Lisa W, you said
Sure! The most organized, honed form would be meditation among Buddhists, since Buddhism is a non-theistic “religion” in its basic form. Some sects, ha, like Tibetan Buddhists, do worship gods (little g, plural) including statues of gods, and now I’ve exhausted what I know about Buddhism, except note that it does have followers/converts in the west. For those atheists who do not practice Buddhism, including (I suspect) most of us on this site, it’s more likely that we each have our own ways of communing with nature and the wonder of being alive, and it’s probably sporadic & informal for many of us. But, I can’t speak for others - anyone else care to comment?
Comment by: skikid
120Florence
I don’t think that the task before us is to find an average position and change ourselves to be in accordance with it. I think the challenge to be open to the dialogue, listen, learn and let it change us.
Comment by: Siamang
121Fantastic quotes Tom and Skikid!
Comment by: Lisa W.
122Hi Eliza,
Thanks for fixing that annoying block-quote problem.
I’ve heard some other atheist on this blog say that atheists don’t use the term ‘practices’ so I thought that was real removed from anything I could wrap my head around. I would love to hear what these ’sporadic and informal ways of communing with nature and the wonder of being alive” looks like for non-christian/non-buddhist folks. My practices are also informal and can be sporadic unless I’m more intentional.
Comment by: Eliza
123Ok, have figured out that the prior 5 entries were not all one…
I like these 2 thoughts separately, and even better juxtaposed:
Florence, your comment seems right on target - this is part and parcel of the nature of belief. It’s interesting (and, I think, useful) to hear other points of view, finding out what (some) atheists are like and what (some) Christians are like, even if no one changes anyone else’s belief system. Skikid, this is a great quote & sentiment — I like the idea of “a bond that will protect us all,” given what groups of people have done to each other in the past and continue to do today. So, what form and forum for such a bond? And how to carry the sentiment to people less inclined to share ideas civilly?
Comment by: Siamang
124Tom, looked up that quote.
Different Huxleys!
Agnostic was coined by the scientist Thomas Henry Huxley.
You just quoted his grandson, sci-fi writer Aldous Huxley!
Comment by: Siamang
125That’s from Aldeous Huxley’s Ends and Means, 1937
Josh McDowell quoted those same passages, VERY selectively in Evidence That Demands a Verdict, according to this website:
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/ah_quote.htm
I don’t know if that’s the source you’re quoting it from or not.
I don’t know really anything about Aldous Huxley except he wrote a couple of sci-fi novels that were made into movies. But according to the website above, he was writing *against* the propositions he’s mentioning. I think McDowell is selectively quoting him to show the younger Huxley being quite candid about the moral bankruptcy and rebellion behind his atheism. On the contrary, Huxley is condemning it!
I don’t know anything about the morality of Aldous Huxley. It seems that McDowell’s could use some work, though!
Comment by: Eliza
126Lisa W, have you read “Lying Awake” by Mark Salzman? I feel like Sister John (in that book) after her brain surgery most of the time, and that seems normal (the author’s point, I think). However, certain sights, mostly beautiful big views in nature, give me a feeling of awe, wonder, connection, and humility which I interpret as a spiritual feeling. (Past attempts at prayer, though limited, never resulted in a similar sensation.) Even just a full moon on a clear night, like this past Tuesday, is awesome & I love to gaze at it for a long time & soak in the wonder and amazement. Grand music does this for some people, not often for me. I get something like that feeling when in some churches, too, but there I start cynically analyzing how the church was designed to trigger spiritual feelings (big beautiful stained glass windows, vaulted ceilings, etc). One other situation I feel this is - don’t laugh - during repetitive physical activity in a monotonous setting, like swimming laps. Perhaps it’s essentially meditation & the prefrontal cortex gets going as Tom described in #104, or maybe endorphins have something to do with it. I don’t know how the type or intensity of the experience compares to other people, but I guess that’s true of any emotion.
Comment by: Siamang
127Eliza,
I’d love to make that a discussion question. It has to do with ritual. There is something wonderful about ritual that we respond to, uniquely.
Singing along with songs we know. Reciting chants together. Even playing the music you know really well in your head while listening to it, it gives you the sensation that you’re THINKING the music into existence. People conduct music in thin air. Entire groups of people sing along with the Sound of Music at the Hollywood Bowl. Sadly I’ll admit to a screening of The Empire Strikes Back where every single person in attendence (me too) recited the whole film from memory.
It’s all a wonderful feeling of connectedness. There’s an almost physical sensation to TAKING PART in this. Extending the interior dialogue of a person, outward. An extrusion of one’s inner life out into the world.
Which leads me to my question… what role for RITUAL for atheists?
It seems to me that there are more things missing from an atheist’s life than a few things that you get from church. Okay fellowship, check, moral guidance, check… I think that atheists try to get these needs fulfilled in other ways.
But there are some things we don’t notice, and we should. There are other missing pieces to a spiritual life.
So my question, one of many, is what are those pieces for you, and what do you do to fulfill them?
Ritual, for instance. There is something inherantly human about our desire for it. If you’re an atheist, what does your search for ritual entail, if you do take part in ritual? In what ways would you say that your experience approaches or differs from a spiritual feeling?
If you’re a theist, what role does ritual play in your spiritual life, if at all? Do you have rituals that you feel are non-spiritual in nature? How are they different?
Comment by: Esther
128Ir,
I think you may want to award me for the most patience catch-up reader here!
I have been spending nights catching up with all these 245, 187 entries!!
Jim, wow, finally, you have spoken. I mean really shared with us your own stand point. I appreciate that.
In entry #5, when you explained how you view the Bible and Jesus’ life, you wrote,
He (Jesus) entered fully into the story I call life and walked through it with kindness and being interested in others - thats what I mean by The Good News -
Now, please don’t categorize me, other bloggers. I just truly want to understand. I do not have any hidden agenda.
I want to ask Jim:
If just being kind and interested in others is what you learn and want to follow after Jesus, then in my logic, it doesn’t matter whether you are an atheist or deist.
Many other people out there regardless of whether they have a relationship with Jesus or not are also very compassionate and want to help this world become a better place.
Is that all you meant, Jim?
I really just curious and want to clarify.
As for me, yes, I have a pretty strong Christian background, but now I’m searching for my own ground again. I’m not sure where I stand.
One more question to ALL of you. I want to listen to what you think.
What do you think of “evil”?
Where does it come from?
Who/what is behind it or have the power to control evil?
How are we going to deal with it?
*since I came from a “fundamentalist Christianity” background, if you hold that view, please refrain from explaining to me for I knew very thouroughly with it.
I just want to know how “other” people view this.
BTW, Ron, I like your comment about that group of people witnessing the killing of a 6 years old. Do you want to share your view on my queston?
Comment by: Siamang
129My view of evil is based on society. Let’s say it’s caveman days. In this tribe, everyone goes down to the river and works together. Four guys dams the river, two guys scout to make sure no bears come. Seven guys scoop out fish with nets. They all go back to the cave and share the fish, all alike, and with their females and kids.
One guy is sneaky. He set some fish aside by the river, and he’ll sneak back and get that for himself.
There’s the beginning of evil. Social rules for common survival. People who game the system for their own reward need to be either driven out, have their freedoms curtailed, have someone watching over them or taught a good lesson. It’s for the survival of us all.
So evil is people who put themselves before the good of the society in ways that harm others.
This is a VERY important survival issue. So important that we have gut instinctive reactions in the primitive parts of our brain when some stuff is so bad. Jelousy, anger, fear, betrayal… all those are emotions based on instinct. As Alan Grant says in Jurassic Park, “You just can’t supress 65 million years of gut instinct.”
Comment by: Denigma
130Siamang wrote
Eliza wrote a few posts up about Buddhist monks meditating. You dont have to be a Buddhist to meditate though! There are many different forms of meditating, and almost every religion has its own form. Even certain forms of deep prayer can put the one praying into a meditative style state. There’s a Vietnamese Buddhist temple up in the hills about a 30min drive from where I live that I jus love to get away to when I hav time. On the weekens, 80% of those who visit are neither Vietnamese nor Buddhist. Meditating has great benefits on health too.
And anything can become a “ritual.” What is church, prayer, meditation, etc for? Isn’t one of the purposes a spiritual boost? A mental and emotional recharge? Many things can fulfill that purpose. I love music, it’s a deep part of my psyche. So I love to sit and just immerse myself in my music. Whatever recharges your batteries.
Comment by: Denigma
131Oh i guess to make my point bout how meditation crosses religions/beliefs i shoulda clarified that those visitors come to the temple to join in sittin n walkin meditation sessions by the monks. That was a sight to see my first time, a group of Xtians, Buddhists, Atheists, n probly more all walkin silently together in reflection.
Comment by: Lisa W.
132Siamang, thanks for #120. If you host a post this would be a great topic and it’s what I was shooting for in my initial question in #115.
This area of ritual is probably not an area that christians think atheists go to so it’s a fertile ground. Great place to bond/protect.
Comment by: Lisa W.
133Eliza- thanks for #119 - no I haven’t read the book. thanks for your thoughts about ritual and connecting.