This began as a response to Ryan’s comment on the post the simple answer. After failing to answer his questions, it turned into something else and I set out to do more of what I do best: complicate the obvious and reinvent many wheels. My explanations are roundabout, but this is the way my mind works, and this blog, after all, is a record of my thinking.
*Edit:* Make sure you read the comments, where my conversation with Ryan continues. I think it’s pretty fascinating.
First I’ll answer the easy question. I have read a few works by Ravi Zacharias but not the book you mentioned. From his other works, I remember thinking that his apologetics was uninspired because he lacks the ability to understand the atheist’s lack of Christian presuppositions. Actually, every work or message of Christian apologetics I’ve ever seen has answered completely the wrong questions, and is not on the same wavelength as any of objections to Christianity that I could conceive. This was true for me even when I was a Christian. This is also true of every type of apologetic found in the bible itself.
I should also note that unless otherwise stated, when I say “God” I mean the Christian God, the triune God as he is described in the bible and by orthodox Christianity. I admit that my objections to Christianity don’t themselves completely preclude a deistic god or something resembling the Force in Star Wars, and my reasons for not believing in those types of gods are a whole other discussion entirely. (I think I touch on it at the end.)
When I said that I could see the edge of God, I didn’t mean any of the things you suggested in your comment. I definitely did not mean that God became real to me. I wanted that. I wanted God to become bigger and clearer, no matter how he manifested himself. This is where my powers of explanation fail, because I’m a very visual person, and I think in pictures and diagrams that are hard to translate into words. The best explanation of what I mean by the “edge” of God (and this is itself an analogy) is that I began to see God as an idea rather than a person. Another analogy that comes to mind is my understanding of Descartes’ ontological argument for God’s existence: God is completely perfect, and existence is a part of perfection; therefore God must exist. When I was contemplating this argument in freshman philosophy class, I had a lightbulb moment when I realized the reason why this argument didn’t work. At the most, all that could be determined from the ontological argument is that any idea of God must include the idea of existence. Sorry, but this explanation is the best that I can do to turn pictures into words. Maybe if you marinate in the analogy for a good long while you’ll understand what I mean by seeing the edge of God.
The existence of God and the truth of Christianity as a whole are predicated on a set of antecedent assumptions. The most important assumption, in my view, the one without which the entire thing would fall apart, is that the world is Fallen and in need of a Savior. Christ didn’t come to add to the world, he came to fix something that was broken. I stopped believing in the brokenness. I’m not saying that the universe is perfect, or that people don’t mess up, or that the world isn’t shitty. But the way I see it, the philosophy of Christianity digs a pit for the universe to fall in so that it can rescue us from it. I realized that I didn’t want to base my life on the righting of a wrong. It was already becoming harder and harder for me to believe that my sinfulness was such a big deal to God that I had to spend my life mourning over it and thanking him for rescuing me from death. You know what that reminds me of? It reminds me of what abusers do to their victims to keep them from seeking something better.
The gospel is predicated on a negative– sin. Christianity first creates a system in which God is necessary, then satisfies its own dilemma. It’s a closed system, a system with no net change. I wanted something better, something more than the Gospel could give. I wanted an open system. If Christianity were the supreme Truth, it shouldn’t have to dig a hole in order to fill it. It should be able to be good news without being bad news first. It should be able to do more than save us from the wages of sin.
For those who have suggested that I consider postmodern, emergent, or any related version of Christianity, I already have. During my last year of being a Christian (when I was still trying fervently to save my faith) I read every single book by Brian MacLaren, Rob Bell, Don Miller, and probably a few others I’m forgetting. I found none of them even remotely intellectually satisfying, rather insulting to my intelligence. In my opinion, the God described in those books was much smaller than the God of orthodoxy.
I’ve never wanted God to merely help me live a better life. I know there are a lot of people who believe in God for that reason, who follow him for that reason. I commend you. But Pascal’s wager does nothing for me. I wanted to follow a true God. I wanted to follow a powerful, omniscient God. I realized that he wasn’t there. And I would rather not have anything to follow, than follow a God who may or may not be there, who may or may not perform miracles, who saves me from thinking too much.
(I know a lot of readers of this blog are postmodern Christians who follow the theology of Brian MacLaren and company. To them, I’m sorry, sorry, sorry, if I have offended anyone. Those Christians are the ones who have been the most gracious and loving towards me all along. You are a credit to your faith, but that doesn’t make it true or any more appealing to me.)
I’m a scientist. I believe in objective truth. I believe that God either exists or he doesn’t. I wanted nothing more than for God to exist. I wanted nothing more than for God to be immeasurably huge and powerful, capable of satisfying and astounding the most voracious intellects. But I found that he was not. All God could do was fix what he told me was wrong with me, and if that small savior god existed, I didn’t think him worthy of dedicating my life to. But that small savior god probably doesn’t exist, just like all the other savior gods of myriad cultures. Since Christians like to recommend books for me to read, I will recommend one that extremely enlightened my perspective on the uniqueness of Christianity. “Religion Explained” by Pascal Boyer. It’s anthropology, psychology, evolution, and just so fascinating that I keep re-reading it and haven’t actually gotten to the end yet.
So I will echo what Richard Dawkins said in closing his debate with Francis Collins. All the evidence points against the veracity of Christianity– but I’m willing to keep an open mind. My mind is open, but not to mere parochial gods who save. My mind is open to things that are beyond what anybody can dream.
Thanks for sharing these real and raw thoughts and feelings of yours!
Yes, I am a follower of Jesus and I realize that no little “blog argument, as some are in the habit of having, will “reconvert” you. In fact, I didn’t even really want to post this.
I feel like I have to press you on one philosophical point. I really disagree that, as you said, “All God could do was fix what he told me was wrong with me…” When I read the narrative of the Bible, I see a God that is interested in restoring the world, not just me as an individual. Yes, I am part of it and I can choose to believe him and join in on this by becoming an agent of change but God is by no means simply concerned with individuals.
You are obviously a reader, have you read The Reason For God by Tim Keller or The End of Religion by Bruxy Cavey?
Thanks for your comment, Chris. I know that the bible says that it’s not just mankind that’s fallen, but the whole creation. Still, the fact remains that God is “restoring” creation to what it previously was. That’s not good enough for me.
It’s not that restoring the universe to peace and perfection isn’t good enough for me, because obviously that’s a good thing. Obviously that’s what everyone who works for peace and justice and equality wants. I take issue with the whole philosophical frame of Christianity. Why does Christianity have to say that the universe was whole to begin with but became broken? That smacks of mythology to me.
The promise of redemption for the world could be a useful and glorious concept in some ways. It’s certainly useful in looking at social justice, poverty and other issues, where we know what’s good and what’s bad. But some things are neither, or both. I wanted something like a unified field theory. Christianity lacks even the cohesiveness and adaptability of non-unified physics. If anyone knows what I mean by this, perhaps you could translate.
Finally, I want to add that I am very happily an atheist. The thoughts on this blog are a review of the thoughts that I was thinking when I deconverted. I’m not still searching for God– I’ve moved on with my life. I’m happy to share my thought processes as they were, but the question of whether or not I believe in God is no longer an open issue for me.
(Chris, I haven’t read those books, sorry.)
Thank you, wow, great response. I understand what you meant a lot better now. I am humbled by getting a whole post as a response to my questions! 🙂 lol.
“The existence of God and the truth of Christianity as a whole are predicated on a set of antecedent assumptions.”
That is correct. Since history began, for the last 4-6-10 thousand and beyond years people have “assumed” in “God, god, gods, entity’s”, whatever you want to call a higher power then themselves. Excuse the sarcasm, but I am glad we are finally outgrowing the idea of a higher power then ourselves and becoming so smart that we can understand everything about the universe and how it works. We are perfecting how we explain everything and are becoming far better humans all the time and most people are good and put other people before themselves (end of sarcasm). I have no doubts that you overall are a good person. I wish you could share this “how to be put others before yourself” with 2/3 of the world that lives in poverty and oppression, under dictators who could care less about the people.
Do you honestly think that if we could convince everyone in the world to be atheists, we would not have the problems we do today? Would the world be a better place? or worse?
See, Christianity is not pre-supposed sin. It is pre-supposed pride and arrogance. It’s pre-supposed by God that the created thing wants to BE the creator.
Actually, when Jesus talked with the rich young ruler (Mark 10, Luke 18), he never argued the fact that the man was a good man who had kept the commandments. He never said “no, you’re a sinful mite, go repent and cleanse yourself, your not worthy of God” … no .. he said, “great, you’re doing awesome, here’s a little more for you to do (Jesus “felt a love for him!” – Mk. 10:21). It’s a pretty cool story.
In my opinion, if we ALL actually lived like Jesus did, the world WOULD be an awesome amazing place. The problem is the people, and two centuries of “Christianity” have proven that we can screw it all up pretty bad.
“I believe in objective truth. I believe that God either exists or he doesn’t. I wanted nothing more than for God to exist. I wanted nothing more than for God to be immeasurably huge and powerful, capable of satisfying and astounding the most voracious intellects.”
I agree again. I think this is the main reason you and so many Christians will have to just agree to disagree. I understand what you are saying and where you are coming from. I just have come to different conclusions then you. I too try and keep a very open mind, and think that God is bigger then a “person”, but is an idea as well. This is because God is too big for me to understand. The more I try, the more I fail to understand Him.
I think many of the questions I have for you now would not be questions you haven’t heard before or addressed in your blog. They would be questions like “Why would we need God if he didn’t allow things to break from the perfect state he created them in?” or, in another form, “If God didn’t allow evil (the system that ‘dug it’s own hole’ you talk about) how could we “love” God?” (which is a massive question by the way, because, while some would say God is perfect and therefore could not have ‘created’ evil, it makes logical sense to me that he would have to create it. Maybe he did create Satan to BE evil so that we WOULD eat from the tree, breaking the perfection, so that we COULD actually enter into a loving relationship with him, knowing good and evil and being able to see and choose one or the other.. Maybe he did even ‘use’ Satan in that sense. I don’t know. I am ok with not knowing and a God that could be ‘evil’ if he chose to. When we say God can’t be evil or wipe out a city if he so choses, we take away his power from him, making him “smaller”).
Or questions like … meh .. they aren’t important, like you say, you have already made up your mind on this, and *I* have preached enough already (sorry, it’s in my blood and spirit).
As for me, if Christianity did not allow for questions and unknowns (I suppose that’s where “faith” comes in) I would not be one. It is because of the unknown and what I saw in the person of Jesus that I chose to believe.
And so we come to different conclusions based on intellectual reasoning. I was an atheist, who found God.
I am glad at least you are happy with your conclusions. I wish you the best. Keep serving and loving others and making the world a better place the way your blog has made it evident you do (not a hint of sarcasm!). Don’t let anyone take that away from you.
I really respect you Lily, at least your honest. If anything has seemed like a personal attack, it was not intended as such. I just like to debate. 🙂
Many … uhm .. blessings? How do you wish an Atheist well? lol. 😉
Ryan
PS. The reason I brought up “The End or Reason” by Ravi was not to just ‘recommend another book’ (though I do not think that comment was directed at me in particular) is that it is a direct response to “Appeal to Reason” by Sam Harris, and I am just curious if you would dismiss that book as you would other Ravi books for the reasons you responded to (which, by the way, I can understand “Christians” not understanding their own view points and apologetic as coming across as narrow minded). It’s not so much of a book as just a response, very easy quick read, and more logic then science, so, I imagine you would, but I would not want to presume. 🙂 But he’s pretty opinionated (as am I!). 🙂
I just realized I told you in my first comment I wouldn’t debate or respond … Wow .. I totally blew that .. I am sorry Lily, you don’t need to approve my comment, I won’t be offended.
Ryan
Ryan, you said:
“Do you honestly think that if we could convince everyone in the world to be atheists, we would not have the problems we do today? Would the world be a better place? or worse?”
I don’t think this AT ALL. Not at all. I don’t think the world would be a better place if there were more atheists. I don’t want to convince anybody to be an atheist. I am simply doing what I think is right. Becoming an atheist did not make me a better person, and it didn’t make me a worse person. It simply was an honest, intellectual decision for me. It did not alter my moral actions.
You also said:
“See, Christianity is not pre-supposed sin. It is pre-supposed pride and arrogance. It’s pre-supposed by God that the created thing wants to BE the creator.”
That statement pre-supposes the philosophical framework of Christianity. You’re still talking within the system.
Finally, I really, really want to emphasize this point one more time: I do not think atheism makes you a better person. AND I do not think Christianity makes you a worse person.
I really was not planning on debating this with you, forgive me, I just find it all so interesting. I know it’s hard to believe, but I’m not actually even trying to re-convert you. I just am learning. I appreciate your words, they have given me lots to think about.
That said …
Sorry if I implied that Atheists are “worse” people. That’s not what I meant. I think I begin to understand where you are coming from now. It is rather difficult to talk “outside” the system when I am still within it, I get that.
I just think that morality has everything to do with whether or not God exists. I realize you and many atheists try and separate the two, but .. I wasn’t always a Christian (I am guessing you were? Grew up in a Christian home? just asking) and I have seen things I wish no one to see. I have not seen a system of morality that has not come from a belief in a being of some kind that would be worth following
I, unfortunately, do think that Christianity can make some people “worse”. It gives some the excuse to walk all over other people, judge them, and feel “better then” – fueled by self-righteousness, and then pass the buck off and say it is “God’s will” or some such garbage. With a grain of salt and a log in my own eye, I say they don’t know the first thing about God. I don’t have it all together, I know my heart and it is deceitfully wicked that’s why I see humility as the only course correction for my morality that makes any sense. And I am stubborn enough that I did need God to tell me that.
I guess what I would like to know is this – what do Atheists look for when making intellectual decisions about the Universe to explain the things that … can’t be explained? Do they keep hoping that one day we will know all the answers? I guess where *I* am coming from, is that, if you’re spending so much of your energy trying to de-explain God (not you personally, just Atheists like Dawkins, Harris and Sagan mostly) how would you be able to see Him?
Since you’re a visual person let me explain my question like this. I’m going to assume you’re a hetero female based on the name Lily just for the sake of making this argument easier to type.
What if a guy liked you? What if he liked you so much and he flirted and dropped hints and asked you out and totally wooed you. What if you were a workaholic with no time for relationships (I understand this analogy well because I borderline workaholic) and no matter what he did or said, you wouldn’t accept or give it a shot because you were so focused on your work. Even though you found that you liked the way he looked and treated you, you just wouldn’t because it would distract you from your work.
Now, I realize you did give God a shot, and that separates you from many atheists (though I am hearing of more and more de-converts through this site). I am asking on behalf of atheists like Dawkins, Harris and Sagan that you look up to so much to explain how they would ever be able to see past themselves?
I personally find their viewpoints on religion disturbing and the likes of what Hittler was fed before and during all the terrible things he did. I hate to say it, but the seeds that Dawkins and Harris are sowing could be the seeds that would make the Holocaust look like a Sunday picnic at the park. I ask again, how would they ever be able to see past themselves?
I know the atheistic answer will be “that’s easy, because God does not exist, there is nothing to see past themselves”.
I just mean, in your own words, what if there is something that is beyond what anyone can dream. How would you (or Dawkins or Harris or any other atheist) be able to see it?
I did not complete this sentence somehow:
“I have not seen a system of morality that has not come from a belief in a being of some kind that would be worth following”
… outside of the way Jesus lived and the things he claimed. It’s Jesus my fascination is with.
Also, in defense of this … debate .. I am loving that you’re not trying to slam God or Christians.
By now, most atheists would have gotten mad at me or told me I was preaching at them. You’re letting me ask questions and answering them. I am a question asker at heart (the kind of kid that got in trouble in school for asking so many questions).
I really appreciate it.
Ryan
It seems like you think that atheists are full of themselves, and that’s why they can’t see God. I think it’s the contrary. If I may use the analogy you provided: I liked the guy and I wanted him to like me too. I dropped everything to pursue him. As I learned more about him, I found that: 1) he was not worth liking, and 2) if he liked me, he was not showing it.
This analogy does rather bring me back to high school, but I think your explanation of it was, again, on a different wavelength. If the guy, so to speak, was really trying to woo me, I would have paid attention. I had completely dedicated my life to him. I was passionately in love with God. Really, you’re just going to have to take my word for it since you didn’t know me personally when I was a Christian. And, contrary to popular belief, I was not raised in a Christian family. I chose Christianity consciously and wholeheartedly for myself.
I think we have hit that roadblock that many such conversations inevitably hit. Your God is real to you, so you cannot possibly understand why I decided that he is not real. In your eyes, God exists and he can do no wrong, so it’s obviously me that’s wrong.
Finally, I agree with everything you said about Dawkins and Harris. They are full of themselves and I don’t hold much store by their arguments for atheism. I admire Dawkins purely for his scientific mind, but I deplore his delvings into religion. The more I read the things he writes about religion and non-religion, the more deplorable I find them. I would not put Sagan in the same category as them at all. From Sagan’s works (I am thinking specifically of “The Varieties of Scientific Experience” and the final three chapters of “Billions and Billions”), I find that he has the utmost respect for religious people and the good that religion does. He looks to science for inspiration and beauty, not for a way to de-explain God.
I am not trying to de-explain God either. I do look for answers, but I honestly can’t think of any questions that Christianity answered satisfactorily for which there are no answers in an atheistic universe. That doesn’t mean I think I have all the answers. But I don’t think unanswered questions are a threat. Unanswered questions are not nearly as bad as unsatisfactory answers.
“I have not seen a system of morality that has not come from a belief in a being of some kind that would be worth following”
I’m pretty sure there are examples of moral systems to counter this, but I can’t name them off the top of my head. (Although the book I mentioned before, “Religion Explained” by Pascal Boyer, might be a good source.) Anyone else want to chime in?
I would not call this a debate, but an exchange of explanations. You are not trying to convince me that God exists, and I’m not trying to convince you that he doesn’t.
“It seems like you think that atheists are full of themselves, and that’s why they can’t see God.”
Lol, it’s true, I am jaded. I read too much of Dawkins and Harris and need to remember there are others. I agree, Sagan has respect, didn’t mean to include him in that tirade.
As for taking you back to high school, I work with high school students, it was the best I could come up with, and again, I wasn’t directing that at you specifically, but rather at Dawkins and Harris .. which you answered. I would be interested in reading about these moral systems that do not come from a system of religion if there are others. In the meantime I will have to check out “Religion Explained”.
I’m out for the night, but many thanks Lily. Have a great night!
Ryan
This was an interesting discussion to read through. Of course I agree with almost everything Lily said, especially the insights about Christian apologetics.
Ryan, I wanted to ask you about your provided justification of evil. You seem to be implying that god deliberately took action that would ultimately lead to the eternal suffering of *most* of his human creations, in order to create the situation where he can be truly loved and worshiped forever by a micro minority of those creations?. Is this an unfair reading of your argument?
hi ,we are living in a spiritual war.God does exist and so does satan,i have seen or should i say heard satan jump through people at will in a running conversation aggainst me.jesus is the way and the life,and while with him,satan cannot enter and use you.
this world which we live in,is satans world.this is the understanding,God is perfect,we are not.for us to follow God we would have to be the same.when humans went aggainst God,ie not perfect which all of us are,we then follow what took us away from God,ie satan.
but satan follows God,he doesn,t want to be lower than man.which he was told he would be.
enters Jesus,with jesus whose yoke is light,we are rejoined to God.we then have athority over sin,ie satan.