1

Joe,

Just because you're not paraniod, doesn't mean that they're not out to get you :)

I think being "narrow" minded is totally underrated. If you're not narrow minded, you probably won't make it though the narrow gate.

Also, everyone already knew that you had a crush on Christie. All the guys did!

2

I don't know how you came to your faith Joe, but for me in my young twenties, after spending a number of years as an agnostic and skeptic, it it was the most certain moment of my life.

Indeed, it almost seemed unavoidable - I can definitely say it wasn't a belief I would have chosen for myself. Nonetheless, I find it impossible to consider anything else as even reasonably likely after twenty years of knowing Christ.

My wife has similar issues concerning death; I have often wondered if that has something to do with being a mother and fearing abandoning her children.

3

I am quite the opposite. I suffer from crippling doubt, to the point that everything in me (or so it feels) wants to stop believing, but I force myself back ot it. I will not turn away. And as for any cynic, troll, or loud-mouth who may feel my admission is an invitation to respond, please feel free not to.

4

"I also don’t expect you to be ashamed if you feel differently. I won’t dismiss your questions or your hesitations. I won’t ask you to say you understand my faith if you don’t. I’ll respect your doubts and in return all I ask is that you be merciful to those of us who are certain".
Thank you!

Personally I don't think I have much doubt about my faith. My skepticism is more fittingly applied to how people interpret the application of said faith. Nevertheless, I am definitely somewhat jealous of anybody that has no doubt. At the same time, I am somehow ok with it.

I did not read the biblical passages you shared about doubt, but it seems to me that it is not doubt that is the problem. It is letting the doubt control you. Thus, Jesus expressed joy in those who had doubt but went beyond that doubt and believed anyway.

But I could be wrong!

;-)

5

Amen, Brother Joe.

6

You are now even higher on my list of "must read" bloggers. thanks for your honesty and willingness to be vulnerable.

7

Joe,

My greatest steps of faith have also come after period of doubt and strugge, at that point of resolving the doubt.

Thanks,

Collin

http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com

8

So, Joe, you find that your confidence in this line from the Nicene creed:

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

is greater than that in your own existence?

This line lies at the heart of the filioque controversy. It is rejected by Orthodox Christianity. They hold to the contrary that the Spirit procees from the Father alone and not the Father and Son together.

It seems to me as well that there are other lines that a Christian should not think more likely than his own existence. Indeed I would think that, since much of the Nicene creed concerns our relation to God, we should say that our confidence in our own existence should at least equal our confidence in the truth of the creed.

Last, little point: it seems that we could give a little Cartesian argument here. Your belief in the Nicene creed entails that you exist, for if there were no believer there could be no belief. Thus the probability of the creed cannot exceed the probability of your existence. You should judge the latter to be at least as great as the former, on pain of inconsistency.

9

This post reminds me of a great quote from G.K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy:
"But what we suffer from to-day is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert himself. The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt -- the Divine Reason....The old humility was a spur that prevented a man from stopping; not a nail in his boot that prevented him from going on. For the old humility made a man doubtful about his efforts, which might make him work harder. But the new humility makes a man doubtful about his aims, which will make him stop working altogether.

10

Joe wrote:"In the Gospels, though, the word “doubt” consistently carries a negative connotation since Jesus character and abilities are almost always the object of doubt (see: Matt. 12:38-42, 14:31; Luke 24:38; John 20:27)."
I share Joe's wonder at Christians who believe doubt is a neccessary part of faith. In all the Gospels the Lord commands us to believe in Him, never to doubt Him.
Re: Descartes. I believe his formulation "I think, therefore I am" can be pushed back to an even more fundamental statement: "I am aware of meaning".

11

Dear Joe,

My wife has come through very similar stuff and it was fueled and worsenened by some very subtle yet common teachings in our evangelical landscape. She and I are now innoculated. Our kids too. Its very understandable to us now - don't be hard on her for her lack of "faith". Panic and anxiety are sometimes a path to a better relationship with Him. We now are on a path of joy that neither of us anticipated in the least!

12

Franklin So, Joe, you find that your confidence in this line from the Nicene creed…is greater than that in your own existence?

I should probably have worded that a bit better. I would say that my certainty is in the concepts (i.e., a Trinitarian God) rather than wording itself. I put the certainty of my own existence on par with the existence of God (which I think only makes sense if it is a deity that is similar to the Triune Godhead).

Indeed I would think that, since much of the Nicene creed concerns our relation to God, we should say that our confidence in our own existence should at least equal our confidence in the truth of the creed.

Very well put. I almost completely agree. But because I think the existence of God is a prerequisite for my own existence, I would tip the level of certitude slightly in God’s direction.

Last, little point: it seems that we could give a little Cartesian argument here. Your belief in the Nicene creed entails that you exist, for if there were no believer there could be no belief. Thus the probability of the creed cannot exceed the probability of your existence. You should judge the latter to be at least as great as the former, on pain of inconsistency.

It’s interesting that you say that. I briefly talked about that point in another">http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/001336.html">another post I wrote. It would take too long to explain my reasoning, but I think that since ontology precedes epistemology that existence of a real being is more probable than any semantic relationships we might make toward that being and our own understanding. It may not make as much sense as I think it does, but that is the reason for my making that claim.

13

"Yet while Scripture may have a low regard for it, many Christians consider anyone lacking in doubt to be pretentious, arrogant, or dishonest."

I wonder if they doubt their belief that "anyone lacking in doubt is pretentious, arrogant, or dishonest"?

The "doubt = humility" belief amounts to a self-refuting argument.

14

Joe,

You say: "[B]ecause I think the existence of God is a prerequisite for my own existence, I would tip the level of certitude slightly in God’s direction."

I think that, in this regard, we should follow Aristotle and Thomas and distinguish the order of being from the order of knowledge. From the ontological point of view, God is the ground of our being. But this does not imply that we know him first or best (at least not in this life). Rather when children when begin with a knowledge of those things closest to us - immediate environment, parent, self and the like. These are best known to us, and our certitude in them never decreases. Later, with God's grace, we come to know God as well, and if all goes as it should our knowledge of him rises to the certainty we know other things.

Of course, in the next life matters might well be reversed in the beatific vision. But for now in this world, this is how they stand.

15

My wife is also the doubting type. I'm starting to wonder if it's a female thing; maybe refusal to doubt is part of male agression :)

Me, my doubts are usually more self-directed. I look at myself and say, "This is a Christian?"

16

I am not trying to troll or to pick a fight, but I would like to point out that this (well-written) post is an excellent summary of why your faith is fundamentally irrational, and why non-believers (quite rationally) view true believers as delusional and potentially dangerous.

Shouldn't it give you pause that you believe in something with absolute certainty even though you are unable to come up with a solid proof for it? And shouldn't it give you even more pause that there are millions of others in this world who have the same level of certainty in their faith, but believe in things which are strictly contrary to what you believe?

17

I feel a mixture of envy, puzzlement and pity toward those who have such certainty about their religious beliefs. It is not at all unusual. I would guess that close to 90% of folks have absolute certainty in the tenets of their faith. This sense of total certitude would probably describe both George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden. I'm sure the 19 terrorists of September 11 felt totally certain about the rightness of what they did.

What I would think is unusual is that someone with your level of intelligence and education would still have such certainty. I don't think I have felt such total confidence in my beliefs since the day I found out that Santa wasn't real.

Two of my favorite quotes:

"Unanswered questions are far less dangerous than unquestioned answers."

The second quote comes from Unitarian Universalist minister Robert Weston:

"Cherish your doubts, for doubt is the attendant of truth. Doubt is the key to the door of knowledge; it is the servant of discovery. A belief which may not be questioned binds us to error, for there is incompleteness and imperfection in every belief. Doubt is the touchstone of truth; it is an acid which eats away the false. Let no one fear for the truth, that doubt may consume it; for doubt is the testing of belief. The truth stands boldly and unafraid; it is not shaken by the testing."

18

Gene (ex-preacher),

How are Sara Anna and John?

19

I am not trying to troll or to pick a fight, but I would like to point out that this (well-written) post is an excellent summary of why your faith is fundamentally irrational, and why non-believers (quite rationally) view true believers as delusional and potentially dangerous.

Are you certain of this, or do you sometimes question this assesment of 'true believers'?

20

Jhudson,

Not really, at least not as long as we are working with my definitions of terms:

Irrational - being absolute, 100% certain that X is true even though there is no (and there likely can be no) proof that X is actually true.

Delusional - being irrational, and defending it.

21

Ex-Preacher...the fact that you cannot see the obvious fallacy in your "pity" is the real pity.

Are you certain of your conclusions?

You then chime in with Weston's quote: "Cherish your doubts, for doubt is the attendant of truth. Doubt is the key to the door of knowledge; it is the servant of discovery. A belief which may not be questioned binds us to error, for there is incompleteness and imperfection in every belief. Doubt is the touchstone of truth; it is an acid which eats away the false. Let no one fear for the truth, that doubt may consume it; for doubt is the testing of belief. The truth stands boldly and unafraid; it is not shaken by the testing."

This begs the obvious question: How could he be so sure he was right?

The never ending flaw in relativistic conclusions is that they always require absolute or certain conclusions to even be uttered.

22

Commenterlein (and ex-Preacher, too):

I'd guess that what Joe says is true of himself is true of all of us. We too are certain of matters that (i) are not universally held, and (ii) we cannot prove true to the skeptics. Consider the belief that one ought not kill one's daughter b/c she was alone with a man to whom she's not related. I am as certain of this as I am of anything, and I'd guess that you are too. Indeed I think that one ought to be certain of it; anything less than certainty is a sign of moral failure. But though I am certain of this, others are not. Indeed some reject it, and I know of no way to prove to them that they're wrong. It seems quite clear to me that they are wrong. But if you were to place me in a room with them and I were to do my best to get them to agree, likely we'd all come away with precisely the beliefs that we had when we began.

If Joe has made some mistake, it's not in his certainty. It's rather in the object of his certainty.

23

Irrational - something which violates the laws of rationality (logic).

Joe hasn't said anything irrational, or even described an irrational faith. One doesn't have to be 100% sure of something to bet his life on it or live according to principles derived from it. Also as Joe pointed out, both the theist and the atheist hold beliefs which cannot be strictly proven.

Delusional - accusing someone of irrationality when one holds similarly unprovable beliefs.

24

Hoots,

After re-reading Joe's post, I think you may be underestimating his level of certainty.

He says:

"But while I may embrace and defend my opinions with firmness, it is a humble form of certitude in which I have to acknowledge that there is a statistical likelihood -- whether trivial or significant -- that I could be wrong.

"Not so, however, when it comes to matters of faith."

Later he says:
"I would find it easier to doubt my own existence than to doubt the Nicene Creed."

I think the difference between True Believers, such as Joe, and rationalists is that we only have 99.9% certainty. True Believers have 100% certainty.

25

This is great! If you are truly as certain as you say, you must have very solid evidence on which to base your conclusions. This will be a huge relief to the community of believers and will force atheists like myself to admit that we've been wrong. I hope you will be willing to share this remarkable evidence that your god exists, that the bible is inerrant, that Jesus returned from the dead, etc.

Naturally, I assume that this evidence will be quite remarkable because the claims you make certainly qualify as remarkable. To maintain such beliefs without evidence, especially in the face of the vast contradictory evidence, is the very definition of delusion. Since I'd like to assume that you are not delusional, I eagerly anticipate the evidence you must have.

The only part of your post I find confusing is the part about your evidence being personal and probably not sufficient to convince others. The psychotic is convinced of his beliefs too. No matter how much contrary evidence exists, he maintains his delusion. Of course, this is why we consider him to be suffering from mental illness.

I'm not sure who Joe Carter is, but if I meet him and check his ID, I'd be satisfied that he exists. Nothing too difficult about that.

26

Irrational - being absolute, 100% certain that X is true even though there is no (and there likely can be no) proof that X is actually true.

Delusional - being irrational, and defending it.

So 'true believers' are irrational because they are certain of something they cannot prove to your satisfaction. And you are 100% certain that this belief is true, because the definition you have proposed of irrationality is someone who is certain of something that cannot be proved to your satisfaction.

So, to consider anyone irrational, all one has to do is refuse any evidence of that which they are certain, and viola, they are irrational.

27

Some more relevant quotes.

"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." — Voltaire

"There is no such thing as absolute certainty, but there is assurance sufficient for the purposes of human life." — John Stuart Mill

"Contemporary views of knowledge do not demand certainty, but rather a 'justified true belief.'" - wikipedia

28

All I can say for certain is the smug self-satisfaction, sarcasm and hatred from the faithless in evidence here is a ringing endorsement for being on the other side. C'mon guys don't you want to convince us how much more fulfilling and meaninful your lives are beacause you are so enlightened? You are not exactly selling me on atheism. It appears to me that the one common thread exhibited in the tone of all these posters is rudeness and hypocrisy. Where can I sign up!

29

C'mon guys don't you want to convince us how much more fulfilling and meaninful your lives are beacause you are so enlightened? You are not exactly selling me on atheism. It appears to me that the one common thread exhibited in the tone of all these posters is rudeness and hypocrisy. Where can I sign up!

Personally, the presence of atheists on an evangelical Christian blog perplexes me; not that they shouldn't be welcome. It's just that even in my agnostic days I never felt compelled to comment on others beliefs, or convince them that my own was right. If atheists are right, what possible difference could others spiritual beliefs make?

30

I wrote something similiar to this a few weeks ago. Check it out and let me know what you think.

Faith on Fire

31

If someone is 100% sure of X, it means there is nothing that could in any way support the hypothesis NOT X. I think when one says he is "100% sure" of X, he is saying that he cannot imagine anything that would support NOT X for him, which is quite different. I wouldn't rush to take statements like that as gospel truth. I don't think anyone is able to fully (or even mostly) assess his/her complete belief structure. To take belief statements at face value takes a ton of faith in man's ability to assess his own cognition.

32

Joe, great post. There's something to be said for being certain. And to be certain is such a simple process. Sadly many people spend way too much time trying to rationalize with our human minds the concept of faith in Jesus Christ. And I agree like some have suggested that it's not a rational concept. That's the beauty of it. God, through Jesus Christ, gave us grace and mercy when we didn't deserve it. How is that rational? Why would anyone die for us (me!)? That makes absolutely no sense but is perfectly rational to God. The simple act of acceptance of God's gracious gift -- although a life changing act -- is all it takes. To refuse a free gift that will give one certainty of eternity in heaven seems to me to be a little . . . irrational.

33

Finlay,

Why assume that knowledge brings fulfillment or a sense of purpose? Perhaps it brings exactly the opposite . . .

34

jhudson,

Agreed, I find belief in astrology silly and pointless, yet somehow I have zero desire totroll astrology sites to tell everyone participating how stupid they are.

Franklin,

For me knowledge does bring fulfillment, but maybe I am wierd. My favorite question is why.

35

On biblegateway, a word study of "doubt" in the bible turns up, inter alia:

1. Matthew 14:31
Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. "You of little faith," he said, "why did you doubt?"

2. Matthew 21:21
Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done.

3. Matthew 28:17
When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted.

4. Mark 11:23
"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.

5. Luke 24:38
He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds?

6. John 20:27
Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."

7. Acts 12:11
Then Peter came to himself and said, "Now I know without a doubt that the Lord sent his angel and rescued me from Herod's clutches and from everything the Jewish people were anticipating."

8. Romans 14:23
But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

I am neither you nor your wife. I am certain enough not to fear death, and to call upon the name of the Lord, but not certain enough never to be tempted not to doubt. I was encouraged to read that those already called to faith are called not to doubt. I think it's significant, though, that the call is to those who have already given their lives to Christ.

36

Concerning doubt and God Descartes thought that God exists - from New Advent's article about Descartes:

God, therefore, is known to us at the outset, the moment we take the trouble to look into the nature of our own minds; and this is enough to eliminate the hypothesis of an evil genius that would take pleasure in deceiving us; it is enough also to secure the validity of all our deductions, whatever be their length, for "I recognize that it is impossible that He should ever deceive me, since in all fraud and deceit there is a certain imperfection" (4e Méd.). Otherwise how would this idea of God be anything more than an idle fancy? It has immensity; it has infinity, and therefore it must of itself be capable of existing.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04744b.htm

37

"If atheists are right, what possible difference could others spiritual beliefs make?"

Most of the nonbeliever traffic here is sparked by posts and comments that have relevance to the culture wars. My first comment here, at least 2 1/2 years ago, was the result of a search I did something related to atheism (there aren't many uncloseted atheists where I live, so I wanted to see if there were any online atheist communities). This place came up with some unflattering characterization of atheists. Non-Christians have an interest in getting their side heard with regard to church/state separation, tolerance, and the like.

You might be surprised to hear that some atheist and ex-Christian sites get a LOT of Christian trollage, replete with profanity, threats, and insults.

38

jhudson writes: "Personally, the presence of atheists on an evangelical Christian blog perplexes me; not that they shouldn't be welcome. It's just that even in my agnostic days I never felt compelled to comment on others beliefs, or convince them that my own was right. If atheists are right, what possible difference could others spiritual beliefs make?"

Finlay writes: "Agreed, I find belief in astrology silly and pointless, yet somehow I have zero desire totroll astrology sites to tell everyone participating how stupid they are."

Valid points, good question. What is a nice atheist like me doing in a place like this? Or, to put it another way, if atheists think theism is like believing in Santa Claus why trouble theists? Why not just let them be?

I can't answer for others, but I can think of four reasons that I keep coming back here.

1. I would like to help liberate others from theism. I'm not being facetous. One of things Jesus is reported to have said is: "The truth shall set you free." I really want to share the freedom I now enjoy. Life really is more meaningful for me now it was before and I want to share this with others. For a Christian this life is about one thing - believing in Jesus. Besides that, this life is just waiting for heaven (I know not all Christians agree with that). For me, this life is all there is, so I want to make it as good as possible. One of the things I would like to free people from is the fear of hell.

2. I think my community, country and world would all be better places with more rationalists and fewer True Believers. More Bill Gateses and fewer Pat Robertsons. More Christopher Reeveses and fewer Jerry Falwells. Mind you, I'm not saying all atheists are better than all believers. But I do believe a basically good person will help more people if he's an atheist than a believer. One reason I say this is that Christians tie up huge amounts of money in their churches rather than actually helping the poor, the hungry, the ill. Christian sources (emptytomb.org) report that churches spend 80-90% of their income on themselves in the form of facilities and staff. Plus that money is then deducted from income tax meaning Christians aren't paying their fair share of taxes. Besides that, all those churches are exempt from property taxes.

I would also argue that the largely secular countries of Western Europe have more compassion on the needy than the "Christian" U.S.

Another point is that Christians (and Muslims, etc) spend a lot of energy trying to control how the rest of us live our lives. Why don't I worry about astrology? Because we don't have a president who gets his marching orders from the astrology-based community. There's not a powerful astrology lobby demanding that astrology be taught alongside astronomy. I don't know of any astrologists insisting that the zodiac be placed on courthouse lawns or that astrological advisors be attached to every military unit. To my knowledge, there's no astrology lobby demanding that we help some country because of supposed astrological prophecies.

3. I hold out a small bit of hope (down to .1%) that I might be wrong. I would love for there to be a god who loves everyone and has a great place in the by and by for us. So I keep reading Christian books and magazines, I keep listening to Christian radio, I keep coming to Christian websites. I really don't want to be wrong on this issue.

4. I enjoy debate. I used to hang out at infidels.org. But serious, intelligent Christians are hard to find over there. Mainly, the site gets kooky Christians whose "arguments" are ripped to shreds. Since Christians won't come to us, we're coming to you. Admit it, we're all here because we love to argue. Some people do sudoku or golf. This is what I do for fun.

39

Gene (ex-preacher),

I'm sorry the Church of Christ wasn't sufficient for you.

For a Christian, this life is more than waiting for heaven. It is becoming the creature God wants us to be. Because God through the Holy Spirit is transforming the believer into the being we were created to be. As Soren Kierkegaard said, "Now with God's help, I shall become myself". As a Christian, I'm free from the fear of Hell, so I don't really require any help in that area.

As for the contribution of non-believers, I'm glad that the world was influenced by believers like J.S. Bach, George Washington, and Martin Luther King Jr. Not to mention the fact that believers in this nation were the engine of the abolitionist movement.
Other than wishing and feelings what proof do you have that Europeans are more charitable than "Christian" Americans. Last time I checked, taxes don't count as charity.

40

Hey Joe,

Interesting that you should post on this. Michael Spencer just blogged on an essay he wrote a while back highlighting his doubts about the faith. Seems like you guys are on opposite ends of the seesaw here. ;-)

41

ex-preacher:
1. I would like to help liberate others from theism...Life really is more meaningful for me now it was before and I want to share this with others.

3. I hold out a small bit of hope (down to .1%) that I might be wrong.

I want to politely point out that this is completely contradictory. The converse would be to say:

1. I hope I am wrong and God doesn't exist.
2. I believe God exists and my life is much better for my belief.

I think my community, country and world would all be better places with more rationalists and fewer True Believers.

It's never worked in the past. And from the French Revolution onwards are many examples. Any community that renounces belief in the existential quickly becomes nihilistic, tryannical, or both.

But I do believe a basically good person will help more people if he's an atheist than a believer.

Why? Based on atheism, materialism is the reigning paradigm. As such, "good" is just a construct that can change based on who is in charge. Therefore, a "good" atheist may decide that letting the poor, etc. suffer their fate is perfectly acceptable. Without meaning based on something outside of ourselves, it is simply everyone for him or herself and whoever has the power makes the rules. Or look at the statement of Rob Ryan in the other thread:
I have no idea why you are so concerned with objective meaning and the ultimate fate of mankind. To my mind, the former does not exist and the latter is irrelevant.

I would also argue that the largely secular countries of Western Europe have more compassion on the needy than the "Christian" U.S.

Europe is a pit of despair right now. You do remember the thousands of old people who died in France during that hot summer a couple of year's ago? It mainly happened because the compassionate French couldn't be bothered to interrupt their vacations. Or how about the fact that many old people in the Netherlands fear going to the hospital because they might get euthanized? A lot of immigrants will tell you about the European compassion of being shoved into a ghetto. We can go on for a long time about European "compassion."

Another point is that Christians (and Muslims, etc) spend a lot of energy trying to control how the rest of us live our lives.

The past 220 years has been one failed experiment after another of secular belief systems trying to run societies. They always seem to be implementing the lastest Terror, famine, Great Leap Forward, 5 Year Plan, etc.

Besides that, all those churches are exempt from property taxes.

And synagogues, mosques, and temples. There is a simple reason for this. The power to tax is the power to destroy. If the gov't can tax religious organizations, they can then tax them out of existence.

42

ex-preacher,

I'm sure the last thing you want at this point is for us Christians here to point out more stuff for you to read in a vain attempt to get you to drink our koolaid. But I still have to give it the ol' college try. Have you ever read any N. T. Wright? I recommend trying his "the challenge of Jesus". This isn't a Christian apologetic work - its not meant to really play into the polarized theistic/atheistic debates of our day. Instead, it presents Jesus in his own context in the first century, with some striking results.

The caricature you draw is one I know well, and had to reject upon growing up, nearly losing my faith, and ultimatly moving towards a more intellectually robust Christianity. What Wright presents is a picture quite at odds with much modern Christianity, yet quite compelling. Not that I think it'll convince you to join us per se, but it's a fresh forum for engagement that you may find refreshing.

43

In regard to ex-preacher:

I would like to help liberate others from theism. ... I really want to share the freedom I now enjoy. Life really is more meaningful for me now it was before and I want to share this with others.

But life is more meaningful to me now that I am a Christian. We have a problem then with your reasoning. Besides that, why would you want to liberate me from that joy especially if this is all there is and my delusion makes me happy and makes me better to my fellow man? (And it has, absolutely, done that.) I don't think your attitude about this works logically for your worldview. Moreover, what you said is exactly what evangelism is ... do you not have a problem with evangelizing your religion? Don't you have to spend time and resources trying to evangelize here? Why not be productive and go help the poor instead in a bread line?

Regarding tithe and charity. Part of a Christian's duty is to pay for the run of the church, who's mission is to evangelize ... if done successfully, then Christians have in fact helped the needy. The whole purpose of the church is to evangelize. Yeah, lots of churches do it wrong. But that doesn't make church wrong ... or tithing wrong. Moreover, as a Christian, I give a lot of money to charities that help the poor than I did prior to becoming a Christian. Not out of duty or fear of hell, but because I'm grateful to God. I give nearly 17 percent of my income to the church and to charity. I don't say that with pride, but merely to show your argument is hallow.

For me, this life is all there is, so I want to make it as good as possible. One of the things I would like to free people from is the fear of hell.

If this is all your life is, then your life is meaningless, no matter how you try to convince yourself otherwise. Simply being happy when you draw your last breath won't mean a thing. All the kids and memories you create will mean nothing to you, because you will be dead. Of course, this doesn't mean Christianity is true. But let's not kid ourselves, life is meaningless if it isn't eternal.

I'm not afraid of hell. The Bible teaches rather plainly that the end result of hell is non-existence. That is exactly what every atheist will get. There might be some pain, I guess, but ultimately, you die. If you aren't afraid to die, you really shouldn't be afraid of hell. If you know God and the Bible, you know He doesn't and won't torture people for all eternity. By the way, you don't go to heaven or do right because you are afraid of hell. You do it because your appreciate God. Hell is not enough to keep people from doing evil. It might restrain them from doing great evil, but hell cannot save. If you do good and serve Christ on the basis of not going to hell, then you have been living a lie.

The devil knows he's going to be destroyed (that is, killed, cease from consciousness) yet he keeps doing evil ... and he is smarter than the whole lot of us.

44

Dear ex-preacher,

The bible does not just record that Jesus said, "The truth shall set you free." More precisely:

"Jesus said, 'If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.'" (John 8:31-32, emphasis added)

Oh, and I am glad that you are around, and you should definitely troll evangelical blogs. If more evangelicals could exit their echo chambers and learned to have civilised critical dialogues with people who don't share our beliefs, we would all be better off.

45

ex-preacher,

Your deepest desire is to liberate people from the greatest and ultimate of human hopes. Transcendence and a personal relationship with the creator of all. I think that simply demonstrates a sick and twisted selfishness. Given that only around 3-5% of folk think this way, odss are on your end for suffering from a mental disorder..have a happy weekend helping others lose their religion.

46

Re: "More relevant quotes" (8/17, 4:07)

"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." — Voltaire

Can we put it this way: "I am certain that certainty is absurd"? Hmmmmmm...

"There is no such thing as absolute certainty, but there is assurance sufficient for the purposes of human life." — John Stuart Mill

What Mill means is: "I am certain there is no such thing as absolute certainty." Oops.

47

... This sense of total certitude would probably describe both George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden. I'm sure the 19 terrorists of September 11 felt totally certain about the rightness of what they did.

So is it their certitude that makes them bad, or the object of their faith?

... What I would think is unusual is that someone with your level of intelligence and education would still have such certainty.

I guess it's the certitude itself. So they're morally equivalent because they have strongly held beliefs, regardless that their beliefs are diametrically opposed?

... I hold out a small bit of hope (down to .1%) that I might be wrong.

Wait, I thought only irrational fools and immature idiots had that kind of certitude. Or is there a really big difference between being 99.9% and 100% sure?

48

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, HAPPY, HAPPY BIRTHDAY.

49

Chris Lutz: "As such, "good" is just a construct that can change based on who is in charge. Therefore, a "good" atheist may decide that letting the poor, etc. suffer their fate is perfectly acceptable. Without meaning based on something outside of ourselves, it is simply everyone for him or herself and whoever has the power makes the rules. Or look at the statement of Rob Ryan in the other thread:..."

I wouldn't change a word, but I don't appreciate my words being taken out of context to make an argument that atheism is a "might makes right" philosophy. You know, or should know, that I do NOT feel that way, that although I do not believe in an objective morality, I do possess a morality very close to that espoused by Christianity and most other faiths. The Golden Rule has been around since long before the time of Christ. I don't appreciate being used to propagate a fallacious,distorted, and negative view of atheism. Remember this the next time someone angers you by taking a Bible verse out of context.

50

Rob Ryan: I hope this isn't taking your words out of context, but you seem to be saying, I believe whatever I happen to believe at the moment in this context, and don't throw my own earlier words back at me.

51

I've been reading the responses and waiting for something that is not silly or mean-spirited. I will be happy to reply to serious, civil comments or questions.

Rob's comments reminded me that I wanted to clarify the conflation that some have made between meaningfulness and ethics. An event or person can be meaningful to someone without necessarily being good. I of course take great exception to those who have said that my life or the life of any other atheist or agnostic has no meaning. I would largely agree with Rob that meaningfulness is subjective.

The question of right/wrong, good/evil or ethics is, to me, a separate matter. I do believe there is such a thing as objective, universal morality. It is derived, not from some deity or holy book, but from the use of reason and experience. An example of how objective and universal morality can be agreed upon is found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The UDHR states that human slavery is wrong. I agree. I believe it has always been wrong and will always be wrong in every time and place. By contrast, the Bible never explicitly condemns slavery. Indeed, the OT lays out guidelines for slavery and at more than one point commands slavery. Such luminaries as Abraham, Jacob and David held slaves. Abraham and Jacob even had sex slaves (concubines). Neither Jesus nor any other NT personage condemns slavery. Paul even commands slaves to obey their masters. The roots of abolitionism are found, not in the Bible, but in the Enlightenment. Otherwise, how can one explain that Christians had no problem with slavery from the first to the eighteenth centuries. Did the Bible suddenly change in 1800?

Another example is the use of torture. The UDHR condemns torture or "cruel and unusual punishment" (as does the US Constitution). I agree. Torture is wrong in all times and places. Yet the Bible, or at least parts of it, teaches that nonbelievers will be tortured for all eternity. I also think it's wrong to hack babies to death with a sword as God commanded his followers to do in the OT. For these and many more reasons I would suggest that the "absolute morality" of the Bible is vastly inferior to the UDHR.

Let me offer an example (which is incomplete and flawed) of how human-derived rules can be universal and objective. There are objective and universal rules that apply to the game of soccer. To my knowledge, no one claims that they were handed down by anyone's god. The rules were devised using human wisdom and experience. Virtually every nation in the world accepts the rules as laid down by FIFA. (An aside: it's interesting that the whole world can agree on the rules of soccer or chess, but can find little agreement in matters of religion - even Christianity is divided into 33,800 sects, each claiming to possess the most accurate version of the Truth.) Just because these rules were not handed down by a deity does not mean that any player can go on the field and do whatever he wants. The problem with the soccer analogy is that, in many ways, the rules are arbitrary. I would strenuously argue that the rules of human morality are not arbitrary.

As Rob pointed out, the fundamental rule of human morality is embodied what we call the Golden Rule. Yes, Jesus is reported to have uttered it (Matthew 7:12), but it exists in very similar forms in a multitude of cultures predating Jesus. Similar formulations can be found for instance in the sayings of Rabbi Hillel, the Buddha, Confucius, Greek philosophy, and some Native American religions. Through long millenia of experience and thought, humans in virtually all cultures have found that treating others as we wish to be treated is the foundation to all ethics.

52

Rob Ryan:
You know, or should know, that I do NOT feel that way, that although I do not believe in an objective morality, I do possess a morality very close to that espoused by Christianity and most other faiths.

That's nice Rob, but based on your statement, it is merely a matter of choice or the morality that has been forced on you by society.

The Golden Rule has been around since long before the time of Christ. I don't appreciate being used to propagate a fallacious,distorted, and negative view of atheism.

Why would an atheist care how long a certain moral belief was held? It's all just cultural and ultimately based on materialist beliefs. Morality changes with the opinions of the individual. Child sacrifice was around before Christianity, does that make it moral?

Remember this the next time someone angers you by taking a Bible verse out of context.

The quote is not out of context. It is very clear what you meant.

I do apologize though if you or others took it to imply that I thought you were immoral. My point in using your quote was to highlight that atheists don't believe in anything objective, therefore a free society cannot exist under an atheistic paradigm.

53

CL: "..based on your statement, it is merely a matter of choice or the morality that has been forced on you by society."

So what? Yours is as well, though you may think it otherwise.

CL: "Why would an atheist care how long a certain moral belief was held?"

I don't. I merely point that out so certain Christians won't rush to take credit for their worldview that I do not approve of murder, rape, theft, etc. I freely give partial credit, of course, since I am a product of the western world, which has been profoundly influenced by Christianity.

CL: "Child sacrifice was around before Christianity, does that make it moral?"

Do you really think that's what I meant? That longevity makes it right? I'd like to know, so I will know if I'm wasting my time.

CL: "The quote is not out of context. It is very clear what you meant."

It most certainly is out of context. I agree that what I meant is very clear in the context of the thread in which it appeared, but you have placed it in the context of your argument, which misrepresents my view and that of many others. I appreciate your apology, of course. That's very gentlemanly of you.

CL: "My point in using your quote was to highlight that atheists don't believe in anything objective, therefore a free society cannot exist under an atheistic paradigm."

I don't see how this follows. Atheists are as capable of consensus as anyone. Like a religious society, an atheistic society can be democratic or otherwise. I think most American atheists are solidly democratic, just like most American Christians.

Cheesehead: "I hope this isn't taking your words out of context, but you seem to be saying, I believe whatever I happen to believe at the moment in this context, and don't throw my own earlier words back at me."

No, cheesehead, you are not even quoting me. You are paraphrasing me, and incredibly badly.

54

Rob Ryan:
Yours is as well, though you may think it otherwise.

Obviously I do believe there is an objective morality. Otherwise, morality comes down to who has the power.

I don't. I merely point that out so certain Christians won't rush to take credit for their worldview that I do not approve of murder, rape, theft, etc.

You have no objective reason for those beliefs on murder, rape, etc. It is all subjective. Therefore, why should anyone believe murder, rape, etc. wrong? Actually, why should anyone listen to your morality claims. You can't call on another source except your subjective view. A Hindu, you can call into question their behavior based on their religious beliefs. The same for a Muslim, Christian, Jew, etc.

Do you really think that's what I meant? That longevity makes it right? I'd like to know, so I will know if I'm wasting my time.

You stated that the Golden Rule has been around long before Christianity. Why bring that up at all? It implies that the longevity of a position has some relevance to the it's morality.

I don't see how this follows. Atheists are as capable of consensus as anyone. Like a religious society, an atheistic society can be democratic or otherwise. I think most American atheists are solidly democratic, just like most American Christians.

Actually, societal consensus forms around beliefs in objective meaning. If you have no objective meaning then everything is subjective and changeable. At that point, either society falls apart or has to become totalitarian to hold together (i.e. might makes right). So, while an atheist can be a good citizen, they cannot offer a sincere defense of a society based on objective meaning since they don't believe in that objective meaning.

Understand, my position isn't that a society has to believe in the Christian God per se to operate. But, a society has to believe in some shared transcendental values to operate. This is the view of Henry Bamford Parkes in Gods and Men. He's even a believer in the evolution of religion.

55

CL: "...morality comes down to who has the power."

Control does, perhaps, but not morality.

CL: "You have no objective reason for those beliefs on murder, rape, etc. It is all subjective."

I don't need an objective reason. I have subjective reasons. You claim your morality is based on objective morality, but that is only a belief. Your morality is as subjective as mine! Since yours is drawn from an outside, unchanging source (different interpretations of the Bible aside), it has the advantage of being codified. Laws, of course, do the same thing.

CL: "Therefore, why should anyone believe murder, rape, etc. wrong?"

Because it makes sense, good societal sense? Why don't most animals eat their young? Social animals adopt adaptive behaviors. As humans, we are able to articulate, codify, and explain ours.

CL: "Actually, why should anyone listen to your morality claims."

Often, they don't. ;-)

CL: "You can't call on another source except your subjective view."

So? I can identify and explain the source of my morals, just like you can.

CL: "Actually, societal consensus forms around beliefs in objective meaning."

Perhaps. But that doesn't mean that the belief is correct.

CL: "If you have no objective meaning then everything is subjective and changeable."

And that's exactly the way it works, whether you or I like it or not. In Christian societies, morals and laws change because the interpretation and application of the Bible change. No matter what the source of the "objective" morality, it is subject to reinterpretation. Scary, but a good argument for freedom of dissent, a free marketplace of ideas.

CL: "So, while an atheist can be a good citizen, they cannot offer a sincere defense of a society based on objective meaning since they don't believe in that objective meaning."

I can't speak for all atheists. Some, like Matthew Goggins, seem to define "objective morality" differently than I do. For myself, I can say that I don't see how morality can be seen as truly objective. As a society, we can establish standards and regard them as objective much the way we deem closed-response tests as objective, but of course there was subjectivity in the process of forming them.

CL: "But, a society has to believe in some shared transcendental values to operate."

Perhaps, but now we have to define "transcendental". Must it transcend nature, or might it merely transcend the will of the individual (i.e. law)?

56

Chris Lutz writes: "Obviously I do believe there is an objective morality. Otherwise, morality comes down to who has the power."

Christians actually have a subjective morality as it depends entirely on divine command which can change depending on the situation. If God commands his people to take out their swords and hack the Canaanites to pieces, including women and children (and unborn children), that's perfectly acceptable to the true believer. For the believer, it's perfectly okay for God to allow slavery under some conditions and not allow it under others. Yet I am the one who believes in objective, unchanging, universal morals.

I certainly do not believe that might makes right, but that is the very foundation of Christianity. God is the mightiest therefore whatever he says goes. Anyone who differs will go to hell.

Chris Lutz writes: "Actually, societal consensus forms around beliefs in objective meaning. If you have no objective meaning then everything is subjective and changeable. At that point, either society falls apart or has to become totalitarian to hold together (i.e. might makes right). So, while an atheist can be a good citizen, they cannot offer a sincere defense of a society based on objective meaning since they don't believe in that objective meaning."

You have a bad habit of ascribing one position to all atheists. The only thing atheists share in common is the lack of belief in a god. They do not all agree on objectivity, subjectivity or questions of morality. To lump all atheists together as sharing a single worldview is like lumping together everyone who doesn't believe in lepracauns.

For a moment, though, let's suppose that all nonbelievers are subjectivists and all believers are objectivists. How do you account for the fact that crime is much lower in atheistic Europe than in religious America? And within America, why are crime and divorce lowest in the less religious parts of the country (New England, Pacific Northwest) and highest in the Bible Belt?

I find it far-fetched that you want to put your religion on the side of democracy and rationalists on the side of autocracy. What sort of government did your God set up for his people in the Old Testament? A heriditary dictatorship. The type of government promoted by your God is close to the type existing in North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Cuba. Democracy is an inheritance from the Greeks and Romans and the rationalistic Enlightenment. Do you expect a democracy to prevail in heaven?

57

adelinaismajli video*
panna mloda*
touture cunt*
sexnoveller sexe*
sexo colegialas gratis*
adjektiivi kertomus*

58

Laws, of course, do the same thing.

Morality and law are two different things. Laws, in general, are a subset of morality and come from morality. Without a belief in objective morality, laws are seen as simply who has the power rules.

No matter what the source of the "objective" morality, it is subject to reinterpretation.

The belief in objective morality does not mean that we have a full understanding of what fully constitues objective morality. A change in belief of what the objective reality is is different from the simple decision that we no longer like a certain set of subjective opinions.

Perhaps, but now we have to define "transcendental". Must it transcend nature, or might it merely transcend the will of the individual (i.e. law)?

It has to transcend the individual and the society. Laws established by man are rightly seen as changeable at anytime unless there is some objective transcendental morality seen as providing the framework of those laws or at least certain ones.

Because it makes sense, good societal sense? Why don't most animals eat their young? Social animals adopt adaptive behaviors. As humans, we are able to articulate, codify, and explain ours.

Some societies have worked very well while treating certain members of their society as less than human. So, good societal sense doesn't necessarily mean good moral sense.

A good number of animals do eat their young though. If you are basing your morality on what nature does then you can't deny that cannibalism is bad.

59

"...laws are seen as simply who has the power rules."

That's because those in power make the laws. In a democracy, laws reflect the morals of society at large.

"It has to transcend the individual and the society."

Too bad, because it can't.

"...good societal sense doesn't necessarily mean good moral sense."

No, but it often does.

"A good number of animals do eat their young though."

These would be non-social animals or animals who so prolific they can get away with it in an evolutionary sense. By the way, what do you think God thinks of animals eating their young?

"If you are basing your morality on what nature does then you can't deny that cannibalism is bad."

I'm not; I'm merely saying that one of the bases of morality is socially adaptive behavior. Morals in our sense are a uniquely human phenomenon, although Goodall's work suggests a rudimentary system of morals among chimpanzees.

60

I've done my share of heated battle in past comment threads on the Evangelical Outpost. I've staunchly defended my naturalistic/materialistic/atheistic beliefs against all comers. So I think some regular commenters and readers would be curious to know my answer to the question: Why should an atheist participate in an evangelical Christian website/blog?

Atheism and Christianity are two competing worldviews. Sometimes it seems appropriate for me to promote my own beliefs as superior to other beliefs. So that is definitely one part of my motivation to come here.

I believe the competition between atheism and Christianity is important, because blind faith in Christ, even the very intelligent and articulate blind faith of Joe Carter, can lead to serious problems.

If one believes the answer to every problem is to trust in God (or submit to Allah's will, or resort to some other religious doctrine), one will perhaps respond inappropriately to the various problems we face as individuals and as a society.

For example, if someone is going through a rough spot in his life and needs a helping hand, it might not be appropriate to chastise him with a Calvinistic theology of human wickedness requiring redemption in Christ the Saviour.

On the other hand, I believe that collaboration between atheism and Christianity is just as important as the competition. No one has all the answers. Just about everyone, regardless of his/her beliefs, is worthy of respect.

And if I engage in a real conversation with someone, an exchange where I am listening and sharing as opposed to lecturing, I will always come away learning something new. Most of the time I think I get a lot more out of my debates here than the people I am trying to persuade.

We can all learn a lot from each other's wisdom and life experiences, even if and especially if we come from different backgrounds. Everyone has an angle on the truth, a valid angle, that can contribute to our collective understanding and knowledge.

Although I am a through-and-through skeptic about many things, I think most of the time I go about my business with the same kind of certainty in my core beliefs as Joe Carter does. So it is definitely a useful exercise to come here and follow the back-and-forth among true-believers of various stripes and remind myself of the folly of knowing for sure so many things that ain't so :)

So in short, I come here and spout off when I see something I want to comment on, either to agree or disagree with. Just like any other blog I visit.

But most of the time it's not necessary to even make a comment. Just listening and learning is participation enough.

61

Comments from the buckle of the Bible Belt:

On pain of being labeled a "ditto-head", I preface my remarks by saying that ex-preacher and M. Goggins voice my general philosophy.

I was raised in a Christian church in Mississippi. I converted to the Church of Reason at 22 and have not looked back.

I suppose I come here to convert more Christians to my church.

I consider evangelicals to be unreasonable. I see similar patterns between Christian fundamentalists and the Taliban.

I see the Christian faith as being based on and adhering to an incomplete and heavily edited set of documents from an obscure, 2000-year-old sect. The ideas promoted by this sect are hardly original and sometimes contradictory, reflecting some of the thinking from 2000 years ago, and have their good and bad points. Adhering to them without modification is going back 2000 years in your thinking.

I view the anti-evolution wing of the Christian church as anti-education. I view it as a giant, 2000-year step backwards.

The majority of the American Christian community has been aligned with Caesar in the past few years. I think there is now emerging a welcome move back to opposition of a too-powerful government.

I believe that if all Christians truly followed their faith, we would have no need for government-provided welfare, food stamps, and homeless shelters. From the cathedrals of old Europe and the mosques of old Persia to the biggest red-brick building in any southern town, the Baptist church, religion's concern has seemed to be more for its building fund than for the good of its subjects. The exemplary job done by the Salvation Army on the Mississippi Gulf coast in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is a perfect example of what can be done by people of faith who live their religion rather than "glorifying God" with a new youth center.

I have no wish to destroy anyone's faith. I just want Christians to see the Bible as a guidebook more than a rule book.

62

I think the reason for the certainty of a Christian in the manner in which Joe speaks has to do with enountering a risen Christ; it is not an evidentiary philosophy in the sense the naturalists think of it because it centers around a relationship with a personality - a real, living being.

It is as absurd to a believing Christian that someone would question the validity of their relationship with Christ as it is if someone were to question whether or not I had met and married my wife. And interestingly, Christians, according to heir own beliefs are not obligated to 'prove' this to anyone, again, as I am not obligated to demonstrate to anyone other than my wife that I love her - we are obligated to express the truth of Christ's existence and love, but our expectation can never be that such expressions will 'convince' the skeptical and godless - once having heard the truth, those without God are liable for their own choices.

Our last century saw the horrors of states and cultures that existed without Christ; the death toll was unprececedented and the loss of liberty undeniable.

Atheism literally has nothing to offer a free and prosperous people but more of them same. They have no institutions, no art, no culture, no help to offer the needs of men - only talk that ends in ruin.

63

jhudson writes: "Our last century saw the horrors of states and cultures that existed without Christ; the death toll was unprececedented and the loss of liberty undeniable."

Let's go over this again: Atheism is not a philosophy or worldview. Atheism is the lack of belief in any gods. To lump all atheists together as sharing a single philosophy would be like lumping together everyone who doesn't believe in the Tooth Fairy as sharing a common worldview.

Humanism is a worldview. Communism is akin to a worldview, though we should hasten to add that many communists disapprove(d) of the actions of dictators such as Stalin. The vast majority of totalitarian dictatorships in human history have been headed by theists, a large number of them Christian. The only reason that many of the Christian rulers of the Middle Ages didn't kill more people was their lack of adequate killing technologies. To blame all atheists for Stalin would be like blaming all Christians for the crusades, inquisition, slavery, Holocaust, etc. or blaming all Catholics for Hitler. The 1994 Rwandan massacre involved Christians killing Christians. The 19th century mass killing of perhaps 10 million by Belgian Christians in the Congo must be acknowledged.

When Christians are reminded of the atrocities of other Christians, they usually give three defenses.
1. That was then, this is now.
2. Some Christians opposed those atrocities.
3. The Christians who committed such atrocities weren't being good Christians (or True Christians).

Can't we atheists use the same defenses?

juhudson writes: "Atheism literally has nothing to offer a free and prosperous people but more of them same. They have no institutions, no art, no culture, no help to offer the needs of men - only talk that ends in ruin."

What? Are you forgetting that a large portion of the world's most free and prosperous peoples are largely irreligious (think Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Great Britain, Japan, Australia, Canada, Vermont, Oregon)?

Are you forgetting that much of the world's great art and culture was created by individuals were either atheists or irreligious (think Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Mozart, Beethoven, Shakespeare, Voltaire, Diderot, Shelley, Twain, Gene Roddenberry, Frank Lloyd Wright, Hemingway, Steinbeck, etc.)?

Are you forgetting that many of the world's greatest leaders were only mildly religious at best? (Washington, Franklin, Paine, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, FDR, Churchill)

Are you forgetting that many of the world's greatest inventors and scientists were nonbelievers? (Edison, Einstein, Crick, Watson, Darwin, Hawking)

Are you forgetting that the world's three largest philanthropic donors are nonbelievers? (Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Ted Turner)

64

Let's go over this again: Atheism is not a philosophy or worldview. Atheism is the lack of belief in any gods. To lump all atheists together as sharing a single philosophy would be like lumping together everyone who doesn't believe in the Tooth Fairy as sharing a common worldview.

Humanism is a worldview. Communism is akin to a worldview, though we should hasten to add that many communists disapprove(d) of the actions of dictators such as Stalin. The vast majority of totalitarian dictatorships in human history have been headed by theists, a large number of them Christian. The only reason that many of the Christian rulers of the Middle Ages didn't kill more people was their lack of adequate killing technologies.

Music, art, literature, science, and political ideals developed under the rule of Christian rulers of the Middle Ages; the same cannot be said for atheistic rulers.

To blame all atheists for Stalin would be like blaming all Christians for the crusades, inquisition, slavery, Holocaust, etc. or blaming all Catholics for Hitler. The 1994 Rwandan massacre involved Christians killing Christians. The 19th century mass killing of perhaps 10 million by Belgian Christians in the Congo must be acknowledged.

I don't "blame all atheists for Stalin"; I blame the atheists that were in power, specifically those in power under Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, and the leaders of revolutionary France. I don't think all atheists are deadly, just those with sufficient power.

While Christians helped stop "the crusades, inquisition, slavery, [and] Holocaust"; atheists have done nothing to improve the human condition.

When Christians are reminded of the atrocities of other Christians, they usually give three defenses.
1. That was then, this is now.
2. Some Christians opposed those atrocities.
3. The Christians who committed such atrocities weren't being good Christians (or True Christians).

There really is no redemptive or corollary actions taken by atheists in history; a smattering of good works here and there, but on the whole it's either destructive or indifferent. I can point to countless specific institutions and effects of Christian belief - atheism has mostly despair.

What? Are you forgetting that a large portion of the world's most free and prosperous peoples are largely irreligious (think Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Great Britain, Japan, Australia, Canada, Vermont, Oregon)?

With the exception of one, the countries to which you point to have long Christian histories which established them as vibrant and stable cultures. And of course, there remain there many active Christians - there are no societies founded in atheism that have not become tragic and despairing.

Are you forgetting that much of the world's great art and culture was created by individuals were either atheists or irreligious (think Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Mozart, Beethoven, Shakespeare, Voltaire, Diderot, Shelley, Twain, Gene Roddenberry, Frank Lloyd Wright, Hemingway, Steinbeck, etc.)?

Are you forgetting that many of the world's greatest leaders were only mildly religious at best? (Washington, Franklin, Paine, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, FDR, Churchill)

Are you forgetting that many of the world's greatest inventors and scientists were nonbelievers? (Edison, Einstein, Crick, Watson, Darwin, Hawking)

Are you forgetting that the world's three largest philanthropic donors are nonbelievers? (Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Ted Turner)

I won't pick apart your very loose inclusion of 'atheists' here, because I don't doubt, that immersed in a vibrant Christian culture, and educated in Christian ideals, atheists can perform quite admirably.

65

I'm sorry, jhudson, but it's very difficult to take you seriously with statements like:

"I don't think all atheists are deadly, just those with sufficient power"

and

"atheists have done nothing to improve the human condition."

When I give you numerous examples of atheists who have done wonderful things for humanity, you assert that Christianity should get all the credit since the individuals were raised in cultures where Christianity once ruled. This is patently absurd. I suppose the fact that the Holocaust and slavery occurred in countries where Christianity ruled does nothing to count against Christians in your view. This is called a double-standard. You want to credit Christianity for anything good, but not blame it for anything bad. Conversely, any good that atheists do is because of the Christian influence around them, while anything bad they do is a direct result of being atheists.

I have met many Christians who are very adept at employing the double standard in their god's favor. People praise God for their healing from some disease (a disease that was usually cured after they had surgery or took medicine) but don't dare blame him for causing, or allowing, the disease in the first place. People praise God for the sunshine or rain, but don't dare blame him for heat waves, hurricanes or floods. No, that's all Eve's fault for sinning.

66

Based on jhudson's reasoning, the best way for a society to have good outcomes (low crime, low poverty, prosperity, high education, longevity), as have been achieved in the countries I listed, is to become post-Christian.

67

When I give you numerous examples of atheists who have done wonderful things for humanity, you assert that Christianity should get all the credit since the individuals were raised in cultures where Christianity once ruled. This is patently absurd. I suppose the fact that the Holocaust and slavery occurred in countries where Christianity ruled does nothing to count against Christians in your view. This is called a double-standard. You want to credit Christianity for anything good, but not blame it for anything bad. Conversely, any good that atheists do is because of the Christian influence around them, while anything bad they do is a direct result of being atheists.

No, I take full responsibility as a Christian for those things done in Christ's name. But pretending that the millions slaughtered by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and other overtly atheistic leaders has nothing to do with atheism is your game, not mine.

To see the difference in the impact of atheism and Christianity on a culture one need look no farther than North and South Korea.

I have met many Christians who are very adept at employing the double standard in their god's favor. People praise God for their healing from some disease (a disease that was usually cured after they had surgery or took medicine) but don't dare blame him for causing, or allowing, the disease in the first place. People praise God for the sunshine or rain, but don't dare blame him for heat waves, hurricanes or floods. No, that's all Eve's fault for sinning.

Yes, and I have met many atheists who are ignorant of their own history. Strong atheism is fading in the world, for many good reasons. We can all be thankful for that.

Based on jhudson's reasoning, the best way for a society to have good outcomes (low crime, low poverty, prosperity, high education, longevity), as have been achieved in the countries I listed, is to become post-Christian.

Well, considering those societies are now fading away because the citizens don't have hope enough to produce families, I would hardly regard this recommendation too highly.

68

I'll say this for you, jhudson: you are a slippery fellow. I don't believe I've ever encountered someone so adept as avoiding the issue and changing the subject.

69

Ex Preacher: " I would largely agree with Rob that meaningfulness is subjective."

This statement appears to be contradicted by your concluding
remarks . . .

Ex: "I would strenuously argue that the rules of human morality are not arbitrary."

If "meaningfulness," the very basis of human morality, is considered by you to be "subjective," then how do you reckon that the rules of human morality is not "arbitrary?"

Ex: " By contrast, the Bible never explicitly condemns slavery. Indeed, the OT lays out guidelines for slavery and at more than one point commands slavery. Neither Jesus nor any other NT personage condemns slavery."

In what chapter and verse does the Bible command slavery?

Jesus said," “Therefore whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them: for this is the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 7:12)

That is not only condemnation of slavery but of all human abuses. Jesus and the New Testament writers frequently condemned the mistreatment of any human being, instructing their followers to be loving, and compassionate, whether they were servants or masters. Can you name one Christian slave owner in the New Testament, or name one nation in history that the Jews enslaved in the way that the Egyptians, Babylonians, Syrians and Persians had enslaved the Jews?

Jesus said that not a jot or tittle will pass from the law "till all be full filled." It has all been full filled in Christ, who created an entirely new dispensation. He said that he did not come to destroy the law but to full fill it.

The Pharisees came to him, attempting to trap him with one of the nuances of the law. They asked: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” Jesus informed them that divorce was not in God’s plan from the beginning. Then they asked : “Why, then, did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce and to put her away?” If it was in the Law, they suggested, then it must be God’s ideal will. Jesus responded:

"Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. "
(Matthew 19:3-10)

Likewise "from the beginning" slavery was not permitted, though servanthood was. Certainly the servant had no rights outside of those prescribed by Levitical law, but as far as I know, it was a temporal situation, usually lasting a few years- such as the case with the patriarch, Jacob

Furthermore, the year of Jubilee (Leviticus 25:10) provided freedom to “all the inhabitants” in the land of the children of Israel. "And you shall consecrate the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a Jubilee for you; and each of you shall return to his possession, and each of you shall return to his family."(Leviticus 25:10)

In Matthew 5:39, Christ instructed His listeners: “Do not resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.”

Does that mean that he condoned the actions of the one who did the slapping? What about Paul who instructed his readers to be subject to civil governments and to pay taxes to those governments? Was Paul condoning all forms of taxation and all civil governments ? On the contrary, I believe that Jesus and Paul were merely addressing the major problems faced by the orthodox Jews under Roman law, without placing any value judgments on them.

The teachings of Jesus and the apostles have discouraged slavery like no other social reform system ever conceived. The fact that some Christians endorsed it in the west only calls into question whether they were ever indeed true Christians.

Jesus and the apostles didn't ’t go on an anti-slavery crusade, because doing so would have been a diversion from to their primary mission. The priority of Jesus was the provision of salvation. For the apostles it was the proclamation of the gospel. But both Jesus and the apostles undermined the basis for slavery by making it clear that God equally loves rich and poor, free and slave, male and female. The apostles also welcomed into the church and gave equal status to all who believed, regardless of race, gender, nationality, or social position.

For right or wrong, the economy of the Jewish society, particularly in the OT, had the ability to deal with people who had gotten themselves hopelessly in debt. They were allowed to sell themselves into servitude temporarily in exchange for release from their financial obligations (Ex. 21:2-4; Lev. 25:39-43; Dt.15:12)

Leviticus 25:47-49 provides an example of servanthood caused by debt:

"Now if a sojourner or stranger close to you becomes rich, and one of your brethren who dwells by him becomes poor, and sells himself to the stranger or sojourner close to you, or to a member of the stranger’s family, after he is sold he may be redeemed again. One of his brothers may redeem him; or his uncle or his uncle’s son may redeem him; or anyone who is near of kin to him in his family may redeem him; or if he is able he may redeem himself."

BTW you can thank Wescott and Hort who in 1881 translated the word "servant" and "servants" as "slave" and "slaves" in their revised version of the Bible. That is long story, but it is worth noting that this rendition, as with hundreds of significant changes they made, also found their way into the majority of modern translations. Of the two ms. that they used (the Sinaticus and Vaticanus), both were highly questionable documents and were greatly at variance with 95% of the 5000 extant Greek manuscripts available to them at the time. When it came to choosing between the Majority Text's rendering of a word (like servant vs. slave, or tribute vs. taxes) they invariably chose the rendering of the Sinaticus and Vaticanus.

According to Strongs Exhaustive Concordance, which represents the "Majority Text," the word "slave" appears only once in the OT. The word "slaves" also appears once in the Book of Revelation, and in neither case it endorses it.

The extent to which servitude crossed the line to slavery is the real question. I believe that it was somewhere in between harsh slavery and a relatively easy life.

Paul said: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bondservant nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you all are one man in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28 - NIV)

An outright condemnation of kidnapping, or slave trading, is also found by Paul in the New Testament.

"We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine..."
(1 Timothy 1:9-10)

The KJV renders the Greek word andrapodistais as “menstealers,” but it also has been translated "slave traders." Therefore, it is in keeping with the Old Testament injunction that anyone kidnapping and selling a person involves himself in immoral conduct.

An attempt to generalize and condemn all types of servant hood ascribing to them a label of "slavery" fails to take into account prison, personal debt, indentured servant hood, and a host of other morally permissible situations. Bankruptcy laws, prison terms, and garnished wages are acceptable modern equivalents to certain types of servitude that were prevalent during the time of the biblical writers. Over 300 times the modern Bible translations use the word "slave" when
the Majority Text uses the word "servant."

Jesus and the New Testament writers always condemned the mistreatment of any human being, instructing their followers to be kind, loving, and compassionate, whether they were slaves or masters of slaves.

Moses wrote in Exodus 21:16: “He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death.”

He also wrote: "You shall not give back to his master the slave who has escaped from his master to you. He may dwell with you in your midst, in the place which he chooses within one of your gates, where it seems best to him; you shall not oppress him."
(Deuteronomy 23:15-16) (Note here that the word is "servant.")

Moses states in Leviticus 19:34: “But the stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.”

Job, who was the chief character in the oldest known book in the Bible said, "If I have despised the cause of my manservant, or of my maidservant, when they contended with me; what then shall I do when God riseth up? And when he visiteth, what shall I answer him? Did not he that made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb?" (Job 31:13-15) That is to say that all men possess inherent value.

Ex continues . . .

"Paul even commands slaves to obey their masters."

Paul said . . . "servants be obedient to your masters." He did not say "slaves," but if they were Roman slaves, he would have probably said the same thing. He also exhorted them not to be "man pleasers," but to perform their tasks as unto God. He was not a political revolutionary, but a spiritual one. He exhorted us all to accept our lot in life with grace.

EX: "The roots of abolitionism are found, not in the Bible, but in the Enlightenment. Otherwise, how can one explain that Christians had no problem with slavery from the first to the eighteenth centuries. Did the Bible suddenly change in 1800?"

The relationship that you describe between the enlightenment and the events following the Civil War represent quite a leap, but that aside, it is interesting that you should mention a change in radical racial perspectives in the 1800s. One of the world's leading evolutionists, Stephen Gould, noted them:

"Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."

Make no mistake, it was Christians who lead the fight for abolition. Here are a couple examples, though many more are available if you are interested.

John Newton (1725–1807), who wrote the famous hymn Amazing Grace. Newton in his earlier days had been a slave trader himself before his conversion to Christ. After conversion came to see that since the slaves were also created in the image of God, the slave trade was wrong regardless. He left the trade, became friends with the great evangelists George Whitfield and the Wesleys, became a minister, and testified to King George III about the atrocities of the slave trade.

Another prominent anti-slavery activist in Britain was Granville Sharp (1735–1813), who was most responsible for a law that a slave became free from the moment he set foot on English territory, and founded a society for the abolition of slavery. He was also a joint founder of the British and Foreign Bible Society and the Society for the Conversion of the Jews. Because of his efforts, Britain not only abolished slavery, but used her gunboats to enforce the ban -- that's what you call forcing your morality on others! All parts of the world practiced slavery. In fact the word ‘slave’ comes from a white race, the Slavs, who were often enslaved. Of all the cultures that practiced slavery, the Judeo-Christian west was the only one to abolish it -- and it took a war to do it.

The principles set forth by Jesus and His apostles, if followed, would result in the abolition of all types of abusive relationships. Slavery would have been nonexistent if everyone from the first century forward had heeded the words of Peter:

“Finally, all of you be of one mind, having compassion for one another, love as brothers, be tenderhearted, be courteous” (1 Peter 3:8).

70

Ex-preacher accuses Christians of “tying up huge amounts of money in their churches rather than actually helping the poor, the hungry, the ill” and berates churches for “spending 80-90% of their income on themselves in the form of facilities and staff.”

Please consider that people who attend church services submit themselves to regular examination of their morals and consistent encouragement to do good. Churches thus perform a valuable ethical role for society. You never saw such a group of do-gooders as you’ll see in my church. At the very least, people who are in church or Bible studies can’t at the same moment be raising trouble in bars, brothels or gangs. Maybe a new youth center isn't such a bad idea. Keeps ‘em off the streets.

If you argue that churches also teach against homosexuals, unmarried mothers and sinners, please note that generally Christians are the first to help AIDS victims, the homeless, unwed mothers, and drug addicts—often ministering to them even as they condemn their activities!

71

I'll say this for you, jhudson: you are a slippery fellow. I don't believe I've ever encountered someone so adept as avoiding the issue and changing the subject.

Just trying to keep up with you. :)

72

Joe:

A good post on this key topic, never mind the usual yada yada.

Onlookers:

I think we would benefit from a bracing dose of good old Simon Greenleaf of C19 Harvard, a founding father of the modern theory of evidence, in his remarks on the Testimony of the Evangelists -- a good though rather Victorian read. [At least they do not have C18 style interminable sentences . . .]

Here is SG, with an updating bracket or two as he was not recent enough to be aware of Godel:

[26] . . . It should be observed that the subject of inquiry [i.e. evidence relating to the credibility of the New Testament accounts] is a matter of fact, and not of abstract mathematical proof. The latter alone is susceptible of that high degree of proof, usually termed demonstration, which excludes the possibility of error [well, not ever since Godel's work which showed that rich axiomatic systems are either incomplete or contradictory, and there is no constructive procedure for guaranteeing that we have the former] . . . In the ordinary affairs of life we do not require nor expect demonstrative evidence, because it is inconsistent with the nature of matters of fact, and to insist on its production would be unreasonable and absurd . . . The error of the skeptic consists in pretending or supposing that there is a difference in the nature of things to be proved; and in demanding demonstrative evidence concerning things which are not susceptible of any other than moral evidence alone, and of which the utmost that can be said is, that there is no reasonable doubt about their truth . . . .

[27] . . . . In proceeding to weigh the evidence of any proposition of fact, the previous question to be determined is, when may it be said to be proved? The answer to this question is furnished by another rule of municipal law, which may be thus stated:

A proposition of fact is proved, when its truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence.

By competent evidence, is meant such as the nature of the thing to be proved requires; and by satisfactory evidence, is meant that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind, beyond any reasonable doubt. . . . . If, therefore, the subject is a problem in mathematics, its truth is to be shown by the certainty of demonstrative evidence. But if it is a question of f