Posted by Ir (Helen) on: 06.04.2007 /
Here’s an excerpt from a church rating by Benjamin Ady:
[T]he pastor start[ed] off referencing the best selling books by atheists that have recently come out–Dawkins’ “God Delusion” and Harris’ “Letters to a Christian Nation” and another by Christopher Hitchens called “God is Not Great”. It sounded like he might have actually read them, and I can’t say because I haven’t (alas). He praised Hitchens for being very witty and literate. But he went on to say that all three books are composed almost entirely of sarcasm and mockery, and that none of these authors present any cogent arguments for not believing in god. He sounded almost disappointed. He said “Come on, we’re reasonably intelligent people here. Can’t you at least go to the trouble to present a cogent argument?”
Now I’m terribly curious to know if this is true? Did none of these present cogent arguments?
Comment by: Ken
1Actually Dawkins and Hitchens both present actual arguments. What the pastor is really saying here is “please don’t read these books”. Harris presents some arguments but gets a little weird in the later parts of his book. Dawkins is politer than Hitchens. Politest of all is Daniel Dennett, who the pastor doesn’t mention at all. I’m not sure any of these books would shake anyone’s faith. If you had already lost your faith they might provide reassurance that you are not alone. My guess regarding the relative success of these books is that they are selling to atheists who seldom get to hear anyone who is of the same opinion as themselves in the public sphere. A C Grayling’s “Against All Gods” is a clear and short exposition of an atheist world view, so I would probably recommend that to anyone who wants a flavour of this sort of thing without having the experience of being buttonholed by a boring atheist at a party.
Comment by: Siamang
2That depends on what you’d consider a cogent argument.
I’ve read the Dawkins book, and it provides a good primer on the central flaws in the telelogical argument for God and the ontological argument for God. He dispenses with pascal as well as anyone here can.
But his central point, if I may say so, is that he believes that the teleological argument is in essence correct, but it gets the data wrong.
Here’s what I mean: In the teleological argument, a theologian argues that since the universe is wonderful and singular and looks designed, then there must be a God.
The central presupposition is this: we can tell if God exists or not by the evidence of the act of creation itself.
Dawkins accepts that presupposition. He just examines the data far more closely and comes to the considered opinion that the undesigned evidence of the natural world proves that there is no God.
He further argues that since order arises late in the universe, that the system cannot be front-loaded with the ultimate specified complexity at the beginning.
Which again relies on the presupposition behind the teleological argument: we can determine the existence or non-existence of God by examining the universe.
Comment by: Karen
3Haven’t read Hitchens, so I can’t comment on that.
What Dawkins does is present the standard arguments FOR theism/deism and point out their flaws and shortcomings. Then he goes into why he specifically doesn’t believe in god, getting into probabilities, Russell’s orbiting teapot and so forth.
I don’t think he ever comes out with the strong atheist position: “There is no god.” But he does come to the conclusion that a god is so highly unlikely given what we know now, that there is insufficient evidence for belief in one.
Maybe that’s what the pastor was talking about when he laments that there’s no strong atheist argument in the book? Either that, or what he was saying is just that he wasn’t personally persuaded by the arguments - which would be unsurprising, given his choice of profession.
Comment by: Mike C
4Not having read all of Dawkins’ stuff I can’t say whether or not he gives any good arguments. However, this particular argument is not a good argument. To briefly summarize his logic:
(1) A Creator God would be extremely complex. But…
(2) Darwinian science tells us that complexity develops naturally from simplicity, not vice versa. Therefore…
(3) God must have developed from something less complex and thus isn’t God.
(4) Therefore God almost certainly does not exist.
However, Dawkins seems not to realize that classical theistic belief has always posited that God has eternally existed “outside” the natural order (i.e. apart from both space and, more importantly, time), so rules about how things work within nature (i.e. things moving from simplicity to complexity) do not necessarily apply to God. Clearly Dawkins has never peeled back the curtain of this space-time continuum to see whether the laws of evolution hold true “outside” the universe, so on what basis can he claim that “God must have developed from something less complex”? Indeed, if “time” (and therefore “development”) only has meaning within the universe (as some of you have pointed out to me - there was no “time” before the Big Bang) then it is meaningless to talk about something outside the universe “evolving” from simple to complex in the first place.
Either Dawkins is unaware of the classical theistic definition of God, or he deliberately misrepresents it so as to help his argument (since his argument only works if you think that God somehow exists “within” his own creation - a more “polytheistic” view actually). Either way, this argument is not a very convincing one.
Perhaps that’s what the pastor meant when he was asking for a more cogent argument?
Comment by: Siamang
5It is true that Dawkins doesn’t take the absolutist opinion. He doesn’t argue “I know for a 100% certainty that there is no God.”
I think he would see such an assertion useless and unnecessary. Rather, he points out that the burden of proof is on the positive asserters.
But Dawkins proportions his level of belief at the level of the evidence which he has accepted, not at the 50/50 point.
He’s not 50/50 — there is a God/there isn’t. He’s probably at .000000000000 1/99.9999999999999.
I’ve heard him speak, and I get the strong impression there is a hidden baseline under there, nevertheless. I think Dawkins reserves just a bit at the base for general awe and wonder at the universe, and a romantic notion that the universe still has the ability to surprise us.
Comment by: Siamang
6Yes, Mike. Which is why when reading Dawkins I was struck by how tone-deaf his arguments sounded to me. I knew immediately the challenges theists would make to his arguments, but I didn’t find his pre-rebuttals satisfying, and I knew they would not be compelling at all to those who didn’t share his beliefs.
The best I can do to attempt to salvage this line of reasoning is that if God in His complexity created the universe in its (relative) simplicity, then the universe around us should be one where complexity gives rise to simplicity and not the other way round.
Since we have a universe that from the big bang since, has been moving from simplicity to complexity, and in biology from simplicity towards greater and greater complexity, we are seeing a universe that is the opposite of what we’d expect to see if God followed his own model.
I’ll now abandon my attempt to salvage the argument, because I think Dawkins has made a key error. He errs, I believe, by tacitly accepting that our intuitive and traditional model of God as Maker is a philosophical correct one to argue against.
Yes it’s true that a large number of believers hold to that model. But I don’t think that philosophically it’s by any means exhaustive, and without it being exhaustive, it’s kind of a toy God to disprove.
It’s not a well-constructed argument, by those lights, and that and others like it were why I found Dawkins book …. lightweight.
Comment by: Siamang
7To sum up. While I thought that Dawkins’ book had novelty value as being the first time I’d ever heard the teleological argument turned on its head… But then I can’t believe he took the inverted argument seriously.
It’s like when we reverse Pascal’s wager to “prove” it’s better to believe in whatever god threatens the worst punishment… We’re discrediting the notion of a wager, not attempting to solicit a different wager.
Comment by: Eliza
8So what he’s saying is, these dry starchy arguments against religion by nonbelievers don’t touch his faith. Well, faith is on a parallel plane, independent of “cogent argument”, & based on data the dry starchy scientist-types don’t accept as valid, and (usually) not affected by dry starchy arguments against it. Why should he feel like these books have anything of any value to say?
Comment by: Mike C
9I don’t know if “dry and starchy” are quite the words that come to mind when I think of Dawkins, Harris or Hitchens. :)
Comment by: Stephan
10The underlying presuppositions of most atheists is to interpret things the same way fundamentalists do, so I have never found their arguments to be particularly convincing, just as I find fundamentalists to be not particularly convincing. When Dawkins et al say, “Theists believe ‘X’, and we know that ‘X’ is not true, so theists are wrong,” I do not accept “X” in the first place, so their arguments don’t ring true for me. I would expect Mike to hold a similar opinion.
Also, atheists, out of necessity, reject most personal testimony, which I am unable to do. I know far too many convinced believers to accept that they are all wrong.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
11There are lots of atheist and ex-Christian personal testimonies too.
They include things like “I asked God to show me he was real but nothing happened”.
My guess is that you ‘interpret’ these in the same way atheists ‘interpret’ Christian personal testimonies. You find where you think they concluded the ‘wrong thing’ from their experience. Just as they conclude Christians wrongly concluded “God exists” from a personal experience.
I really think this goes both ways.
Comment by: Siamang
12You know, I just had an insight on this point.
I’ll try to write it up.
Comment by: Karen
13I know people who have personal testimonies on just about every subject: UFOs, new age philosophy, The Secret, quantum mystery religions, near-death experiences, Buddhism, Hindusim, on and on. (Yes, I live in L.A.) ;-)
Either I believe it’s all true - which I don’t - or I don’t base my conclusions about truth on other peoples’ personal experiences.
Comment by: Stephan
14I prefer a more nuanced approach to throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
This is just the type of fundamentalist view I am talking about. You talk to any fundamentalist about taking scripture literally and they will say, “Either it’s all true, or none of it’s true.” They refuse to use judgment and common sense in filtering their input and instead choose to take all or nothing.
Comment by: benjamin ady
15Wanted to say thankyou to everyone for responding to my questions. It was helpful. I’m sort of moving in the direction of believing people’s personal testimonies, whatever they might be, as being meaningful to them, and as emodying truth at some level by enstorying them and me. I guess I mean I want to move that direction. But I don’t want to know your mantra or your grand belief scheme. I’m far more interested in what you did, what was done to you, and who you were with, and how it was that you were with them, and what colors/textures/sounds there were, and how these worked themselves into some kind of order in your ‘take on reality’. That is to say, don’t give me a “testimony”, rather, tell me a story!
Comment by: Karen
16What does the nuanced approach look like?
Comment by: Stephan
17Well, I have to weigh many factors when I hear someone’s story. Do I know them to be trustworthy? Do I know them at all? Do their experiences fit with other things I see in the world? Do they fit with my own experiences? Do they contradict things I know to be true?
For instance, I have never seen a UFO, nor do I know anyone who has ever seen a UFO. If someone I knew and trusted came to me and told me about a UFO experience I might tend to believe them. If several people I knew and trusted all told me the same UFO story I would be more inclined to believe them. If someone on a daytime talkshow makes the same claim, I doubt I would give it much credibility.
If I see a stranger on the street and he tells me I have a serious virus and need a week of bedrest I would probably worry about his sanity, not my health. But if I feel sick and go to a doctor and he tells me the same thing, my next stop will be bed. Considering the source is a big part of a nuanced view.
Most of my family and friends are Christians. Most have talked about answered prayer and experiencing God’s presence in their lives. These fit with my own experiences, so I trust them and believe them.
It doesn’t mean I believe every supernatural claim that everyone makes. I can use the same common sense I use whenever someone tells me something.
Comment by: Karen
18I understand and I appreciate where you’re coming from.
The reason I can no longer accept that approach is that I realized that anyone who grows up in or converts to a particular belief system could say the same thing, i.e.:
“Most of my friends and family are New Agers. Most have talked about healing vortexes and experiencing a Mystical presence in their lives. These fit with my own experiences, so I trust them and believe them.”
For me, there has to be a more objective criteria involved in parsing the truth or validity of such claims, otherwise I’m uncomfortable accepting them.
Comment by: Stephan
19I have no problem with that at all, but there is something between believing everything and believing nothing. I hope you can move toward a balance point.
Comment by: Karen
20I don’t “believe nothing.” I believe in all sorts of things. Just haven’t found a supernatural claim that provides sufficient evidence yet. But, I’m always open to finding some!
Comment by: Laura M.
21It seems to me the all or nothing approach exists in statements like
and in
Both of these statements seem to jump to a lot of all or nothing conclusions, to me.
There’s the implication that all atheists believe nothing, then there’s the implication that all believers (and by this I assume you mean Christians) must be right. After all, as you put it, they can’t all be wrong, can they?
I wonder how all those non-Christians in the world, who by far out number the Christians, could all be wrong?
Luckily for me, as an athiest, I don’t have to worry about who all is right or who has it all wrong. All or nothing, right or wrong theology, all right or all wrong theology…I’m reserving judgement until I see the evidence.
God is welcome to move in my life and have a personal relationship with me if it is his intention to love me and help me, and help me to help others. I could always use a good friend.
I don’t even feel the need to pray for anything because I trust that a loving fatherly God would know what is best for everyone, so why would he need me bugging him with my selfish wants.
It’s really hard for me to have a loving relationship with a father who’s never made me (or helped me) be aware of his presence. Really hard.
Comment by: Stephan
22Actually, Laura, I was referring to all those who believe in some form of “god”. I believe all of those experiences have validity and support each other rather than contradict each other. If God is trying to speak to an Arab through Islam I think that’s great. I don’t think Muslims have a totally correct picture of God, but I also don’t think my picture of God is totally complete or accurate. I’m still working on it.
And I don’t think that atheists believe in “nothing” at all. I think you take a great many things on faith, just like the rest of us. The most important things in life, like beauty, love, family and more, cannot be proven empirically, so you have to take them on faith.
Comment by: Siamang
23But I have felt beauty, love and family.
Do a DNA test and you can prove “family”!
I mean, it’s a nice romantic notion to talk about love as if it’s some magical immaterial thing, but it’s just emotions. Put me in an MRI and show me pictures and you can probably tell easily who my loved ones are by how my brain reacts.
We like to talk about love as if it’s some magical thing, but really it’s just emotions. You can prove emotions exist emprically. They aren’t a spiritual cord between people.
In short, I don’t have to take “love” on faith any more than I have to take “anger” on faith, “fear” on faith, “hatred” on faith, “jealosy” on faith, “fatigue” on faith, “hunger” on faith… whatever. They’re just feelings, no magic required.
Comment by: Stephan
24Siamang, just as surely as you feel love, anger, fear, etc. I feel God’s love and presence in my life. You could hook me up to an MRI and see how my brain reacts to thoughts of God. Does that mean that God necessarily exists, just because my brain reacts? If feelings and brain reactions are proof of existence, then God has been proven.
Either that, or you take those other things on faith.
Comment by: Siamang
25I love my wife.
The MRI shows love exists when I look at a picture of my wife.
You love Jesus
The MRI shows love exists when you look at a picture of Jesus.
Get it?
The MRI isn’t a proof of the existence of my wife or your God.
Comment by: Siamang
26It’s like your train of thought jumped the track there. We were talking about the existence of love, and you jumped to “If I love it, it MUST exist!”
My daughter loves Peter Pan. If you put her in the MRI and showed her a picture of Peter Pan she’d show a reaction.
Comment by: Stephan
27It’s more than that. I feel God’s presence in a profound way, a way that cannot be explained without that something I feel existing. I am saying, “You feel love, therefore love exists. I feel God, therefore God exists.”
Either that, or we take both love and God on faith. Actually, I fall on this side - the feeling doesn’t prove that either exists. We take them both on faith based on personal experience.
Comment by: Siamang
28Okay, so if you love something a lot then it must exist?
Comment by: Stephan
29No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. In fact, I am saying the opposite.
YOUR REASONING:
I know love exists because I love my wife. I can prove I love my wife because of how I feel, and you can see how I feel on a brain scan.
By that reasoning, I know God exists because I can feel God. It’s not that I love God, it’s that I sense His presence. Same proof as you use for love existing, because of how you feel and that you can see how you feel on a brain scan.
MY REASONING:
Feelings and brain scans prove nothing. We take the existence of God, love, beauty, etc. all on faith because of how we feel and the experiences we have.
What I am trying to say (very obtusely, it would seem) is that the most important things in life are things we take on faith - things that cannot be proven empirically. I am comfortable with the fact that I rely on faith rather than proof as a basis for my life. Atheists, it would seem, are not comfortable with that and generally deny that they rely on faith at all. I would argue otherwise.
Comment by: Siamang
30Forget for a moment what I do or do not deny…. let’s just follow the logic of your assertions to see if they make sense.
I still don’t get where you’re coming from.
You compared love to God.
Love is a state in the human brain. Like fear, hunger, anger, jealosy etc. It’s pretty easy to detect if you have the right tools.
For the analogy to work, God must be a state in the human brain.
Now I’m going to assume that you don’t believe that God is a state in the human brain. I expect that you believe that God is an entity that exists independent of the human brain.
Let us choose a word that means the feeling you describe when you say you sense God’s presense. Let us call it “joy”, in the Lewisian sense.
Now love is a feeling. I know love exists because the experience of feeling love IS actually love. You cannot feel love for something that you actually hate, for example.
Joy is a feeling too. You know that joy exists because the experience of feeling joy IS actually joy.
However, I think you are conflating joy with God. You feel joy as if you are actually sensing God. You may very well BE sensing God…. but the existence of joy is not proof of the existence of God.
See, it’s the number of steps of inference.
I know love exists because my mind actively loves.
You know joy exists because your mind actively experiences joy and you believe God exists because you believe He is the cause of that joy.
With love, there’s only one step of inference. With God, there’s TWO steps.
The experience in your mind of joy is proof of joy, and not necessarily proof of God.
The experience in my mind of love is proof of love and not necessarily proof that my wife does or does not exist.
What I’m saying is that love and joy are an apt analogy because they are both mental states. Love and God are not an apt analogy because one’s a mental state and one’s a spirtual entity.
(apologies for long-windedness)
Comment by: globalizati
31Stephan,
It seems to me that many atheists deny they have faith in anything at all because believers try to show them that because they have “faith” in X, it is no more unreasonable to have faith in God. Of course, being atheists, they think that there are some things the religious believe in that are baseless, and shun that sort of faith. When well-supported suppositions, such as the fact that we experience “beauty, love, family and more” are said to require “faith.” So, we say there is a better word for that and reject the use of the term faith. If you didn’t try to conflate the two, maybe we’d be comfortable with the word faith.
The feeling of “the love of God you feel in your brain” is certainly proof that the feeling of “the love of God you feel in your brain” is real, as an experience. In the same way, if I feel love for an abstract ideal, then my love is real, but that does not lead one to conclude that the abstract ideal is reality. If you’re saying only that your experience of God is real, not that there is a God, then we probably would have no disagreement.
Comment by: Stephan
32Ok, one last post and then I give up.
I am not saying that feeling love for God proves that God exits. Not even close. I am saying that, following Siamangs logic, feeling something in your brain (love, in his case) proves that it exists. The feeling of God that I have in my brain is not love for God or joy or any other emotion. It goes far beyond that, as tests have shown. Studies have shown a “God spot” in the brain that is stimulated by religious experiences. But does this prove God exists? Maybe, using Siamang’s logic (I feel it, therefore it exists), but not according to me.
I still say we take such things on faith, and this faith is based on our feelings about our experiences. The most important aspects of life cannot be proven empirically, and are therefore taken on faith. Feeling something proves nothing other than the fact that you believe it. Nothing exists based on a feeling.
I choose to have faith in God, and atheists exclude faith in God, but it does not mean they don’t have faith. They just have faith in other things.
Comment by: Siamang
33What is your definition of “far beyond that”? And what tests have shown that your feeling goes far beyond merely an emotion?
Define “faith” as you’re using it in this context.
If you’re saying that there are certain non-supernatural aspects of life that I accept as part of day to day life, that I hold as fact until such time as I have a better working explaination, then yes.
For example, under that definition, you could say I have “faith” that the sun will rise tommorow. I’d call that an inference based on past experience. I’d call it trust.
You say you choose to have faith in God. Meanwhile, I’m not sure I could choose not to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow. Not sure I could convince myself that it was even possible.
So I think we’re talking about two different concepts, your faith and my “faith” which I would rather call trust.
Comment by: Laura M.
34I prefer to use the word ‘hope’. I hope the sun will come up tomorrow. There is empirical evidence of why it should.
One could say I have faith in the scientific or empirical evidence, I suppose. Or in the scientists who keep track of these things for us.
I have hope in lots of things, but I can’t think of a single thing that I have faith in for which there is not empirical evidence supporting that faith.
For instance , the example of love. I have no faith in love. I have hope that my relationship with my husband will last, but no, I don’t have total faith that it will. I know that it is possible that it won’t.
Comment by: Laura M.
35The emperical evidence of the existence of this activity inside your brain which correlates with this particular feeling (love) doesn’t prove that the love will continue to exist for any particular length of time, just that it exists during that period of time when being tested.
Nor does this evidence prove that the person one loves feels the same way, or that there is a good relationship. That loving treatment will automatically follow loving feelings, etc.
However, feeling love in your brain does prove love exists because that’s exactly what love is, a feeling that you have because of certain activities inside your brain.
Love is a feeling (originating in your brain), not a supernatural entity which can exist outside your brain.
One can be proven to exist ( activity in the brain related to feelings) the other (God) cannot.
Comment by: Mike
36The problem with this “feeling of God” is that it seems to apply equally to Moslems, Jews, Christians, Adventists and so on.
Who could deny the fervent belief of a suicide bomber, for example.
So this “feeling of God” could be evidence of one God or another God or more likely many and all Gods at once. Or it could be simply a “feeling”.
Passionate intensity might be a compelling argument if everyone was equally passionate about the same God (or Gods) but why would one omnipotent God cause or permit such equally passionate but false belief in other Gods ?
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
37Good point, Mike. It seems too easy to me to say Christian feelings are valid but all those other peoples’ feelings are somehow false.
By the way, we already have two Mikes posting here (Mike O and Mike C) so you might want to add an initial to your name. Just a thought - it’s entirely up to you!
Comment by: Stephan
38Mike, I think all of those feelings can come from the same God, trying to work in people’s lives where they are. Unfortunately I think it can be misunderstood, and the existence of free will requires this. But I don’t just think people of other faiths misunderstand. I think I do, too, all of the time. We’re all trying to sort it out the best we can.
But let me reiterate that I don’t think this feeling proves God exists. I think the fact that so many people claim to have God-related experiences is compelling, but in the end faith is required to believe in God, just as I believe faith is required to believe in love, hope, joy and all of the other things we treasure in life.
Comment by: Siamang
39If you use the word “faith” to refer to the ability to percieve internal states of mind, does the word “faith” wind up meaning anything at all?
Let me get your definition of faith in this circumstance, Stephan.
Faith: the ability to experience internal states of mind, and the belief that internal states of mind are actually occuring.
Does it mean this?
Instead of cogito ergo sum — I think therefore I am — do you change it to “I think therefore I have faith that I am”?
And if so, what does “faith” mean in that phrase?
Is it even possible to make the statement “Even though I think, I do not have faith that I am”?
If it is not possible to lack your kind of “faith,” how is it a valid descriptor?
Comment by: Stephan
40Siamang, I don’t know that I can give a definitive definition (is that redundant?) of faith, but here are some elements:
* It is a firm belief in something that cannot be empirically verified.
* It is a firm belief in something that cannot be quantified or measured.
* It is something subjective in nature, not objective.
* It is based on personal experience that often cannot be clearly communicated to others.
I believe we all have faith in something.
Comment by: Siamang
41Then, I’d ask you if there is anything you can believe in that CAN be empirically verified?
If internal mental states cannot be empirically verified, what in blazes can? We can’t be “sure” that we’re not a brain in a jar, living in “The Matrix”.
By that logic, only things internal to our own minds can be said to be known at all, if at all.
For example, the existence of your own internal mental state, to me, should be the base thing that above all else can be verified.
The statement “I exist” is sometimes called the first certainty.
If internal mental states like “love” or “joy” cannot be verified by mere experience, but must be taken on faith, then the word “faith” as you use it seems identical to the very concept of the perception of self-existence.
Is it possible at all to not have “faith” that you exist?
Comment by: Stephan
42Siamang, I don’t want to go too far down a rabbit hole here. I believe that there are things that are verifiable, but the most important things, the things we base our lives on, are more subjective and less certain.
To use one of your pet topics, I agree with you that evolution can be scientifically verified with some degree of certainty. But before we knew anything about evolution, people lived happy productive lives. So while evolution is a big scientific discovery, it is not essential to life. Same with most things that can be explained by science. The earth revolves around the sun - big deal. Saturn is a gas giant - who cares? Rats are mammals - I don’t give a rat’s ass!
But the things that really matter, the things on which we base our lives, can’t be measured or observed to proven. I believe these things take some degree of faith. If you believe in something that cannot be proven, you must have faith in something.
Comment by: Mike W
43Stephan, thank you for your comments but still the problem exists of which God (or Gods) ?
Following one or more Gods is generally seen as an unacceptable practice by the followers of the remaining Gods. How does the rational but theological illiterate person decide when confronted by all these mutually exclusive belief systems ?
And why would a loving God or Gods create a world where simply growing up in one particular culture often means belief in a God or Gods denied by virtually all the believers in other Gods. The reverse of which is; Why would a loving God or Gods create a world where an accident of birth means the “wrong” beliefs are inescapably “built-in” to the culture.
Could it be that we are simply not equipped to deal with these feelings ? What arguments can be put for using “feelings” or faith that do equally apply to every other faith ?
Comment by: Laura M.
44Stepahn, I don’t know what you mean here, since I don’t believe in anything which can’t be proven.
It is not necessary to have faith in these things to experience them. You seem to be ignoring my comment that I do not have faith in love. Yet I have been in love. I am proof that your argument is a false one.
Love, hope, and joy are all thought processes which require NO faith at all. Any more than sadness, anger, jealously, or even boredom require faith. They are emotions, no more no less. You don’t have to ‘believe in them’ in order to feel them.
You may believe that your spouse is completely ‘faithful’ and trustworthy, yet still experience jealousy when seeing them with someone they might be attracted to. In this situation are you having ‘faith’ in jealousy? If you decided to stop having ‘faith’ or ‘belief’ in jealousy would you miraculously never feel this emotion again in your life? I doubt it.
What about anger? Should we all become better people by simply deciding that we don’t ‘believe’ in anger? Is that where the world has gone wrong, we’ve been holding too much ‘faith’ in anger?
You seem to be trying to make simple emotions into something much more important than they are. Why is it that you relegate what most would consider positive emotions to faith, but overlook the negative ones?
I repeat my point: It requires NO ‘faith’ to feel an emotion. SO NO, JUST BECAUSE PEOPLE CAN FEEL POSITIVE EMOTIONS LIKE LOVE, HOPE AND JOY -this is not evidence that they have faith in anything!
Anymore than thier experience of negative emotions is evidence of faith.
Comment by: Stephan
45Mike W, (thanks for the initial) good questions. I believe the major religions of the world agree on far more points than they disagree, and I believe they are all attempts to reach the same God. So I really don’t think people born in other cultures are destined to worship the wrong god, they approach same God I do on a different path.
This is not to say that I believe all religions are equally true and all beliefs can get you to God, but I think all truth points to God.
I also think truth is far more about the journey than about the destination. There are probably Hindus and Muslims who know more about God than I do, even though I think Jesus is the most true path to God. I don’t necessarily believe that all Muslims, or even all non-Christians, are going to hell. I really don’t concern myself too much with who gets to heaven, and I don’t think that’s the most vital part of Christianity.
I believe God uses whatever means He can to reach people in any culture, so even though Islam may not be the most true religion, it has truth in it, and God can use that truth to reach people and bring them closer to Him.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
46Stephan wrote:
Stephan, with comments like this, how are atheists supposed to get a good solid wack at your beliefs?
:-)
Comment by: richard
47BLACK HOLES
this is all fine but could we talk about the day to day devisive effect all this faith or faithlessness has on our real time existence.
george bush says he looks to a higher father for his guidance, the results of which in iraq are clear to see. can we afford the luxury of a world view based on a faith of any kind when there is no evidence to support such a belief system? without the benefit of the proof of evidence any claim may (must) be diregarded without proof of evidence. ie - the world is flat and the sun goes round the earth. no it is not flat and the earth circles the sun and we can prove it with photographic evidence. or, the only way to heaven is via jesus christ. the proof of which is the bible. and how do we know this is true? because the bible itself tells us so? it is arguments like this that are draining the light from our real time world.