OK, let me see if I get the argument:
[ul][li]1. To be Christian requires faith.[/li][li]2. I can’t get faith to save my soul.[/li][li]Therefore, if Christianity is true, I’m screwed.[/li][li]3. God is by definition good.[/li][li]4. A good God would not screw me for my lack of faith.[/li][li]Therefore, the Christian definition of God’s expectations is false.[/ul][/li]I find points 2 & 3 unsupported, and rejecting them, reject your conclusion.
This line really stuck out. I thought your OP was arrogant and confused. You have an arrogant understanding of “belief” and “faith”–thinking you know all those words can mean, instead of reexamining them & accepting really new concepts.
As for Cal’s argument that no one can change his core beliefs: if that’s true, all scientists, missionaries, political reformers, etc., are totally screwed. The only answer is to exterminate the irreparably misguided 87% of humanity and rear all children with the proper programming from the get-go, ensuring that their core beliefs are right, and killing the rest.
I don’t really plan to defend Xtianity from your more substantial objections (maybe some other time) but I think your assessment of its “Core Flaw” is weak, & there are plenty of much better reasons to reject this particular religion.
And I should note this: I am now learning that what I grew up with as Christianity is fundamentally (no pun intended) different from what many believing people consider Christianity. There is a huge amount of philosophical variation between different churches, & changing one’s sect can be akin to learning a whole new religion. I can say I disbelieve Xtianity generally, being satisfied for myself that the truth is not to be found in any “Messiah”, but am learning to be wary of generalising about “the faith” from my limited experience.
Any other agnostics ever have the feeling that all this would have been much easier if you’d never heard of Christianity until adulthood? Some Christians seem so moved by the gospels, etc, but having grown up hearing those stories every day of my life, it comes off like a slightly more advanced Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy – i.e. something I always thought the people around me believed, only to discover when I’m grown that very few people really have the “faith” I thought they did, leading me to wonder if this “faith” really exists at all!
I’d always thought that I’d go back to church when I had kids so they’d have a shot to catch whatever it was that I missed. Now, I’ve changed my mind. I think the best thing I can do for them is not to indoctrinate them at all, but just to let them grow up rationally without trying to persuade them one way or the other. Then, if one day they feel the tugging of God on their heartstrings, at least they’ll know it’s real, and not just the psychic remnants of a guilt-filled Catholic childhood.
Meanwhile, I’ll plod along as I am, hoping that if there is a God, he’d really rather not put up with an eternity of my wailing and gnashing of teeth!
Point 2 shall be taken up later. But how can you dispute that God is good? It is a tenet of the Bible, Christian dogma, and even Anselm’s ontological argument? If you reject that God is good, then you pretty much reject Christianity (and all religion), thus rendering the whole issue moot.
There’s a difference between changing one’s beliefs based upon evidence or experience, and changing them without such reasons, which is what I would characterize as the essence of faith:
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. (Heb. 11:1)
In other words, faith is believing in something for which you currently lack evidence. Believing that you will go to Heaven without any evidence is faith; believing so because you had a near death experience in which God himself told you that Heaven exists is not faith. It is a conclusion based upon evidence. It may be a poor logical deduction, but it is not faith.
I am of the general opinion that nobody has any faith whatsoever. We all make our decisions based upon the evidence. Nobody believes in anything without any evidence. People who believe in Heaven, to take my earlier example, do so because it is mentioned in the Bible, because many other people believe in it, because they have learned about it in church, because they’ve spoken with God in prayer, etc. Some of these might not be particularly good reasons, but they are reasons. Even those who claim to believe on faith really mean that their reasons cannot be logically articulated or are based upon personal experiences that cannot be conveyed to others. Completely blind faith would be believing that purple space aliens live inside of Mount Everest. I am convinced that evolution would have long ago eliminated anybody who formed beliefs this way.
(One can of course simply redefine “faith” to mean something other than belief without evidence, but semantic quibblings solve little.)
Oh, I see, you’re begging the question!
You define faith as something no one ever has. This of course, is contrary to the normal use of the term. But it works for you; by that definition, it’s impossible to have faith, so there are no Christians, their faith being a logical impossibility, QED!
That line of reasoning won’t fly. Won’t even fall nice.
Allow me to begin my post with a true anecdote. A few years back I was in Dr. Busby’s office on a Friday afternoon for a minor medical procedure. While waiting for him I was reading an article in Newsweek about a Gallup Poll on religion. It said that 99% of Americans believe in a Diety. I was astonished. I said, “unbelievable” out loud right as Dr. Busby walked into the room. He asked me what I was talking about, I showed him and we got to talking. We revealed that we were both staunch atheists. We exchanged some books for each other to read and chatted for a while before my procedure. I was Dr. Busby’s last patient. He died the next morning while exercising. Dr. Busby was a kind, generous and charitable man. If he isn’t in Heaven, I want no part of it.
I was raised reform Jewish but I have always been an atheist. I have studied religion, religious philosophy and history of religion on my own since the age of twelve. I have read the Bible cover to cover (including the NT) several times. I consider myself to be an expert. When the Jehovah’s Witnesses come to my house I invite them in to talk. I stymie them. They come back the next week with one of the experts and they always leave impressed. Of course we come to a draw. That’s the best you can ever do.
I have thought about the getting into Heaven thing a lot. The ticket to Heaven can either be based on how “good” you are (an analog approach) or on whether or not you honestly believe (a digital approach.) If it’s analog, the difference in the guy who barely makes the cut versus the guy who barely misses the cut would be so infinitesimally small as to be indistiguishable. How can you possibly draw the line? (Yes, I know about CS Lewis and the statification argument, it’s a cop out). If it’s digital then complete bastards who believe get in and Ghandi, for example, doesn’t. Either way it’s so illogical and ridiculous that I can’t believe it.
Like the OP I just don’t believe in a Diety of any sort and I’ve thought about it a lot. I also happen to think that the general Christian model is the most ridiculous. (I do like and respect many Christian people and count some of them as close friends.) To say that I will suffer unbearable pain for eternity due to a philisophical difference of opinion is just so … I don’t know … wrong. It doesn’t matter if I’m a kind a generous person (you’ll just have to take it on faith that I am ) just like Dr. Busby.
I have always found it unfathomable that so many people believe in a Diety. I feel like most of them must be lying and deep down they really don’t believe. Who knows? I’ll continue to try to keep an open mind but I can’t just make myself believe in Jesus, YHWH or the tooth fairy without something that makes logical sense to me.
As I final thought I will be so bold as to make some reading recommedations for those who want more study. For the theist point of view, “Letters from a Skeptic” by Boyd or anything by CS Lewis. For the athiest point of view, “The Passover Plot” by Schonfield or “Atheism: The Case Against God” by Smith.
Read “The Christian Agnostic” by Leslie Weatherhead if you think that Christianity requires faith in things that you cannot accept. He also defines faith in a way that is more acceptable. He does believe in the resurrection, but what are you looking for: perfection?
Meara,
Tell it. I couldn’t agree with you more. In my opinion no one should be told what to believe. This goes doubly for children. A young childs mind is so impressionable that what you tell them is true, they will believe with total unquestioning faith. I think that until they are old enough to understand the choice, they shouldn’t be exposed to religious dogma.
I think it implies that the punishment should be proportionate to wrongdoing. If this is the case, then you’ve just made an argument for the existence of purgatory. Throw in limbo and you might have an afterlife with a reasonable range of comfort/beneficence. (I don’t know about C.S. Lewis’ argument; perhaps I am merely reproducing it here.)
Another take is that there’s no everlasting hell, just a lake of fire where the rejects are thrown in. Certain of us have the spiritual wherewithal to be saved, others don’t. Too bad about the latter but, hey, who said life is fair?
So, by your criteria, what can I tell my children?
Can I tell them that I believe that in America individual talent is the key to success, or can I tell them that America is a racist society and a person of color starts out at a disadvantage?
Can I tell my children that most people are basically good, or can I tell them that people are mean, selfish and cruel?
Can I tell them that stealing, lying and hurting people are wrong, or can I tell them “you do what you have to do”?
Can I tell them that abortion is the taking of a life, or a choice that only a woman and her doctor should make?
Can I tell my children that the universe is a mass or random occurances or that there is a master plan.
Tell me the difference between what you consider “religious dogma,” philosophy, point of view, and opinions, and which ones of those I should be able to talk to my children about, and which ones are off limits until they’re 21.
After reading Opus’s opus, it sure doesn’t seem as though he’s defining “faith” a s “something no one has.” In fact, he stated very explicitly that it was his opinion that no one truly has faith.
Nevertheless, he did in fact define faith as “believing in something for which you currently lack evidence.”
That’s pretty clear, I think, and not begging the question at all.
Well, you weren’t asking me, but IMO you can tell them whatever you want – I certainly don’t have the secrets to perfect parenting.
However, when raising my own kids, I’m going to try to separate matters of reason and of faith, and hope to minimize my influence over the latter (since then they’d have a hard time figuring out whether their faith – or lack thereof – came from my “conditioning” or somewhere else).
Of course, raising kids without “God” doesn’t mean raising them without morals! I believe that people are (by nature) good, and that it is entirely possible to raise children who love others and treat them well and aspire to noble purposes because it is good for everybody, not because it will get them into heaven.
Sure, there may be subtle differences between religion and basic morality (e.g. views on abortion, contraception, etc.), but there are few that will make much of a difference until they’re old enough to decide their faith anyway.
So, JasonDean, does that mean that, according to you, I shouldn’t be allowed to raise my kids in my religion?
What about when I practice it in my own home? If I can’t discuss it with them until they’re old enough to understand it on their own, that should be interesting…
“Dad, why don’t you watch TV on Saturday?”
“I’ll discuss it with you in another 10 years.”
“Can I watch TV on Saturday?”
“No.”
“Why not?”
“I’ll tell you in another 10 years.”
“Dad, what is that mumbling you do after you finish eating?”
“Sorry, can’t tell you for another 10 years.”
“Dad, why do you go into that strange building with that funny star on it every day?”
“Sorry, can’t tell you. Talk to me in 10 years.”
“Dad, what are all these books that we have in the house in this language that I can’t read?”
“Sorry, can’t discuss it with you. I’ll tell you in 10 years.”
Glad to see that my little Op has erupted into a relatively lively discussion.
I haven’t been around much lately, and I probably won’t be for at least a week or more. Not that I have much to add to the discussion, but just in case anyone was wondering.
One thing I did want to say…I believe Carl said something about me sounding angry and possibly in pain…neither is or was true in the slightest.
This whole topic is an intellectual one for me. I have no emotional reaction to Christianity at all, good or bad, in the same way I have no emotional reaction to rituals performed by uneducated aboriginal peoples of various lands. With this exception: when Christians attempt to use their religion as a basis for deciding anything in the society at large, I can get pretty irritated. If Christians want to go over in the corner and quietly worship Jesus, that’s fine with me, I care nothing. Just keep it to yourselves.
As for my life in general: remarkably delightful at the moment and getting even better all the time.
The core of faith is love. The ground upon which hope rests, is love. The fundamental dogma of Christ is that the greatest of all things is love.
So, don’t let your logic, and your reason take love away from you. Just consider if the dogma is wrong, and the theology misunderstood, and the politics overwhelming, that love is still what it is. Decide if love itself is worth your dedication. If you gave your heart and soul to the philosophy that you must give love, and protect love in every heart you encounter, would that be something worthwhile?
You see, it isn’t a philosophy test. It isn’t a secret club you have to join. It isn’t a trick you have to know to avoid the monster. It is not something you can prove. Just decide. Do you want to be someone who values love above the world, and it’s treasures? Can kindness to another be worth doing, even if it gains you nothing? Logically it is ridiculous. But look into your heart, faithless as you deem it to be. Can you find there a place that holds love of your fellow man to be a thing worth living for?
When the hosts stand before the Lord, and you say, “I did not know You.” He will explain it to you.
Don’t accept the judgments of mortals on the matter of your faith. Not even your own.
That was worth repeating. Stripped of the theology, the dogma and the church politics, Christianity quite resembles secular humanism.
<What? My point? Nothing really; just thought I’d point out that when the theology or mysticism is taken out of any religion, it must stand on the strength of its basic message and underlying philosophy. Christianity, although encumbered by much theological baggage and questionable dogma, has at its core a message that’s been accepted almost universally as uplifting and enriching. It is a very progressive philosophy.
The central message in Christianity is not faith it is love. According to Christianity, God is love and that is what is meant by opening your heart to Christ. Allow Him to fill your heart with love and you will be able to love yourself and others (including your enemies). The change made by allowing Christ into your heart is where an abundance of your faith will come from. And your faith grows as you walk the path with Him. I can’t explain my faith to an atheist because as it has been previously mentioned in another thread, God is spiritual and if someone rejects the spiritual then that person is starting the debate with a bias.
Being a Christian is hard. Temptation is everywhere and the opportunity to stray from Christ is abundant. However, Christians stay with Christ because we have faith that his message is true based on the impact he has had on us and other witnesses.
) just like Dr. Busby.