belief

Weak Atheism

I’d like to talk about something that I found strange lately.  It’s the redefinition of the term atheism.  I have a dictionary from about 20 years ago (Webster’s if you care).  In it the definition for atheist is a person who believes there is no god.  That has shifted to someone with no belief in any gods.  I asked a person who self described as an atheist why they thought that was.  His thought was it was to fit with how people used the word.

I think he was mostly right.  But if the definition meant belief there was no god why didn’t people use it that way (especially when agnostic has essentially the same meaning as atheism now).  I think they  use (and used) it that way because they can’t defend their position.  It takes no time talking to an atheist for it to become obvious that they believe there is no god.  However if you ask them to justify their position they will quickly say “atheism doesn’t say there is no god” because they know they can’t prove their position and they’re big on insisting on proof from Christians.  They like to pretend they only believe in things that can be proven.  That is not true.  They believe life can come from non-life.  They believe that everything can come from nothing (because time and space can’t be eternal both logically and scientifically).  When I bring up those two things they usually respond with something like, “well I trust that science will explain that some day.”  That is a cop out.  I’m sorry if I hurt someone’s feelings but it is.  You can’t claim that it’s illogical to believe in God if He can’t be proven and then say it’s logical to believe life can come from non-life.  There is no known mechanism for that to occur.  It’s not just chemistry.  If you take a dead frog and blend him up in a blender you have all the chemicals necessary for life, but nothing you do to it will create life.  It just doesn’t happen.

So really I think atheists just don’t have the courage of their convictions.  They don’t want to defend their beliefs they only want to attack yours.

Evidence for Christianity

I thought I’d write a flow up post to my previous one on discussing Christianity on Twitter.  I receive a relatively common question (or statement in some cases) that is something like:

“What evidence is there for Christianity?”

Or

“Show me some evidence.”

To this my common response is, “What would you accept as evidence?”  I ask this question for two reasons.

One, in general, I don’t think the asker has ever really thought about it.  What exactly are they looking for?  Are they looking for something like what you do in operational science as though God is a testable force in nature?  The documentary evidence for Jesus as a historical person is better than any other person in the ancient world.  Most people would respond to that with the argument that the gospels cannot be trusted because they contain miracles.  However they are arguing from the position of an un-argued philosophical bias.  They might say that we never see miracles happen.  That is generally true.  That was even generally true throughout the history in the Bible.  Miracles, when they occur in scripture, are always there for a reason.  They don’t just happen.  Therefore they generally cluster around important events or people (Jesus, the conquest of Canaan, the Exodus, etc.) so even in scripture they aren’t a normative experience.  There are recent accounts of miracles.  I don’t claim to know the veracity of any particular modern claim.  However if your argument is miracles don’t happen today and then dismiss any current account of a miracle as not a miracle because miracles can’t happen you are committing the fallacy of begging the question.  This is why finding out what they will accept as evidence is important.  It will keep the standard clear.  It will keep them from saying that evidence isn’t evidence because there is no evidence.  Once they state what their standard is, it will become clear if they are actually wanting evidence or if they operating from the begging the question fallacy and that leads to the second point.

Secondly it’s difficult to hit a moving target.  It’s hard to score a touchdown if the goal post keeps moving.  That’s why a clear definition of what would constitute evidence is necessary.  It will remove the unnecessary back and forth where I present something I find to have evidentiary value and then them dismissing it as not real evidence.  Especially as that dismissal will likely be based on an un-argued philosophical bias.  Perhaps it’s just be but I think it would be helpful in a discussion to have common understanding.  If our definition of the word evidence is not the same how can I be expected to provide evidence to the other person?

There is a part of me that suspects this is part of the strategy.  Be as vague as possible and dismiss everything as not valid.  Only accept the type of evidence they couldn’t provide to prove they have a sibling.  Think about that for a moment.  If you were asked to prove that your brother (or sister) was your brother (or sister) on twitter could you?  A birth certificate? Ha, that’s hearsay.  An email from your mom about them, again hearsay.  A photo of you with them?  That could be anyone.  Outside of DNA evidence how would you prove it?  What is the evidence?  What evidence would you provide to prove George Washington was our first president?  I’m guessing it would be a lot of hearsay.  But we have stuff he actually wrote with his own hand you might say.  Ah but how do you know he wrote it?

You see, the standard has to be set before the proofs can be laid out.  Someone who wants to doubt will always have reason to.  And once the standard is set you can probably tell pretty easily if the person is willing to hear evidence or is just trolling you.  The answer is usually the later I’m convinced because if it wasn’t they wouldn’t fight so hard to not have a standard.

Will lack of faith send you to hell?

When I talk to people who are not Christian, Jewish or Islamic they very often have a block to God that always starts out with a statement like, “It’s wrong for God to send someone to hell forever for not believing in Him.” There are three primary flaws with this statement. I’ll work through them as they appear in the statement.

The first part I would like to look at is the “it’s wrong for God” part of the statement. I will skip past the arguments for or against God per se as they are not germane to this particular discussion. How does one define what is wrong or right? Particularly how would one decide that God was wrong? God must be infinite or He is not God at all. Perhaps a god in the sense of a very powerful being that may or may not seem immortal to us could be viewed as not infinite but not a “big G” sort of God. As such He would be able to know all things, to see all things, past present and future. Not because He has precognition, but since He is infinite, time is irrelevant. He exists outside of time. He is at the past, present, and future all at the same time. There is no difference to him. He knows what will happen because He is there at the future while He is here in the present. When He says that He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and that He is the God of the living and not the dead it is a hint at this. God is with those people just like He is with you and me. He sees no difference. With that as a frame of reference, God is also the definition of right and wrong. Something is right, because it is in line with God’s character. God is the objective standard.

God is also described by the Bible as Love. It doesn’t say He is loving (though He is). It also doesn’t say that He is might. It says He is mighty, which is different.   Love is the only thing that God is said to be. He is described as mighty, but He is love. That’s important because while God has the power to do all things, He will only do those things that are in line with love (not our sentimental view of it though). So even when something seems horrible God knows it is for the best. Now to play devil’s advocate, let’s say I think God not stopping the shooting in Paris was wrong. How do I judge God and his prerogatives? How do I know that the way He handled that situation wasn’t the best possible outcome (without removing free will). God’s ultimate goal is to save as many people as possible. His goal isn’t to see that you get everything you want but that you will be saved. Can I know that stopping the attack would have resulted in more people being saved for Heaven? Of course not. By acting or saying that we know better than God we are actually placing ourselves in God’s position. That’s idolatry.

The second part of the statement “hell forever” might be a controversial topic to talk about so I’ll be brief. But in a nutshell I believe that since the Bible says that the wages of sin are death, the soul that sins shall die, I believe that the unsaved will be destroyed. There will not be an eternal torture chamber that lasts throughout eternity with burning people in it. Everyone stays dead until the resurrection (either of the saved or the lost) and then they are judged. In acts it says that David is still in his grave, not in Heaven yet. There are some confusing verses but I believe that overall the Bible is fairly clear on this. There are two websites that cover this pretty good. They are:

http://www.truthaboutdeath.com
and
http://www.helltruth.com

The last part of the statement is “for not believing in Him.” This is a misunderstanding. It’s easy to understand why it’s made though. When you say things like, “believe in Jesus and you’ll go to Heaven” it seems logical to say that not believing in Him sends you to hell. But that’s not the case. I’ll use a couple illustrations to help make that point.

Say you committed a crime with a penalty that was either pay $1,000 or spend 6 months in jail. And assume you don’t have the money. Do you go to jail due to your lack of money? No you go to jail because you committed the crime. Or say you are on a sinking cruise ship. Does not getting in a life boat kill you? Not really. Drowning kills you. In both cases there is an escape. Either paying the money in one case, or getting in the lifeboat in another. Those are escapes from the consequences (either jail or death) but not utilizing those isn’t the cause of the problem. It’s the same with belief in Jesus to take away your sins. Your sins are dragging you down. Jesus is the lifeboat that can save you but if you don’t believe, it’s not the unbelief that makes you lost, it’s your sins. Jesus, by taking the penalty Himself, has provided an escape. It’s up to you to take that escape, He won’t force you to.

So that’s it in a nutshell. That’s why that sentence does not work on a logical level.