Agnosticism, Atheism, Bible Study, Christianity, Culture, Faith, God, Religion

Frustration

Nate

Sigh…

So here’s what’s been going on lately. Most of you who read this blog already know that when my wife and I left Christianity, it wrecked most of our family relationships. My wife’s parents and siblings, as well as my own, felt that they could no longer interact with us socially after our deconversion. We were no longer invited to any family functions, and our communication with them all but disappeared. We would speak if it was about religious issues, or if there were logistic issues that needed to be worked out in letting them see our kids, etc.

Over the years, things have gotten a little better, especially with my wife’s parents. Things are by no means back to normal, but at least our infrequent interactions have become more civil and more comfortable. A few weeks ago, I even had a phone conversation with my father that lasted about half an hour and had no references to religion whatsoever. It was nice.

Nevertheless, the awkwardness is still there, just under the surface. And we’re still blacklisted from all the family functions.

Throughout this time, I’ve occasionally reached out to my side of the family with phone calls, letters, facebook messages, etc, in an effort to discuss the issues that divide us. I don’t get much response. I’ve always been puzzled by that, since I know they think I’m completely wrong. If their position is right, why aren’t they willing to discuss it?

In the last five years, I’ve also been sent books and articles and even been asked to speak to certain individuals, and I’ve complied with every request. Why not? How could more information hurt? But when I’ve suggested certain books to them, or written letters, they aren’t read. When I finally realized that my problems with Christianity weren’t going to be resolved, I wrote a 57-page paper to my family and close friends, explaining why I could no longer call myself a Christian. As far as I know, none of them ever read the whole thing. And sure, 57 pages is quite a commitment. But they say this is the most important subject in their lives…

This past week, the topic has started to come back around. A local church kicked off a new series on Monday entitled “Can We Believe the Bible?” It’s being led by an evangelist/professor/apologist that was kind enough to take time to correspond with me for several weeks in the summer of 2010. I’ve never met him in person, but a mutual friend connected us, since he was someone who was knowledgeable about the kinds of questions I was asking. Obviously, we didn’t wind up on the same page.

can we trust the bible?

My wife’s parents invited us to attend the series, but it happens to be at a time that I’m coaching my oldest daughter’s soccer team. So unless we get rained out at some point, there’s no way we can attend. However, we did tell them that if practice is ever cancelled, we’ll go. I also contacted the church and asked if the sermons (if that’s the right word?) will be recorded, and they said that they should be.

Monday night, the weather was fine, so we weren’t able to attend. And so far, the recording isn’t available on their website. However, they do have a recording of Sunday night’s service available, which is entitled “Question & Answer Night.” I just finished listening to it, and that’s where the bulk of my frustration comes from.

It’s essentially a prep for the series that kicked off Monday night. They’re discussing why such a study is important, as well as the kinds of things they plan to cover. What’s so frustrating to me is that I don’t understand the mindset of evangelists like this. I mean, they’ve studied enough to know what the major objections to fundamentalist Christianity are, yet they continue on as if there’s no problem. And when they do talk about atheists and skeptics, they misrepresent our position. I can’t tell if they honestly believe the version they’re peddling, or if they’re purposefully creating straw men.

A couple of times, they mentioned that one of the main reasons people reject the Bible comes down to a preconception that miracles are impossible. “And if you start from that position, then you’ll naturally reject the Bible.” But that’s a load of crap. Most atheists were once theists, so their starting position was one that believed in miracles.

They also mentioned that so many of these secular articles and documentaries “only show one side.” I thought my head was going to explode.

And they referred to the common complaints against the Bible as “the same tired old arguments that have been answered long ago.” It’s just so infuriating. If the congregants had any knowledge of the details of these “tired old arguments,” I doubt they’d unanimously find the “answers” satisfactory. But the danger with a series like this is that it almost works like a vaccination. The members of the congregation are sitting in a safe environment, listening to trusted “experts,” and they’re injected with a watered down strain of an argument. And it’s that watered down version that’s eradicated by the preacher’s message. So whenever the individual encounters the real thing, they think it’s already been dealt with, and the main point of the argument is completely lost on them.

For example, most Christians would be bothered to find out that the texts of the Bible are not as reliable as were always led to believe. Even a beloved story like the woman caught in adultery, where Jesus writes on the ground, we’ve discovered that it was not originally part of the gospel of John. It’s a later addition from some unknown author. To a Christian who’s never heard that before, it’s unthinkable! But if they’ve gone through classes where they’ve been told that skeptics exaggerate the textual issues in the Bible, and that the few changes or uncertainties deal with only very minor things, and that none of the changes affect any doctrinal points about the gospel, then it’s suddenly easier for them to swallow “minor” issues like the insertion of an entire story into the gospel narrative.

Sigh…

I’m going to either attend these sessions, or I’ll watch/listen to them once they’re available online. I may need to keep some blood pressure medication handy, though.

Unknown's avatar

Published by Nate

1,060 thoughts on “Frustration”

  1. For the life of me I cannot understand why it is so hard for Skeptics and Christians to discuss the historical evidence for the Resurrection. If we were going to discuss the historicity of any other historical claim it wouldn’t be this hard. So why is it?

    My guess is this: If I and a Christian were to discuss other ancient historical claims such as “Did Caesar cross the Rubicon”, “Did Alexander the Great invade India”, or “Did Hannibal cross the Alps on elephants” neither side would appeal to supernatural evidence. But when it comes to the claim of the resurrection of a first century dead man, which is itself a supernatural claim, Christians want to appeal to supernatural evidence, or at a minimum, they place a value on the strength of their evidence that is much greater than they would give for any other historical claim.

    For instance, Christians will snicker at the Mormon claim that an angel gave Golden Tablets to Joseph Smith in the early 1800’s in upstate New York , but Mormons have the affidavits of THIRTEEN known U.S. citizens who swore they saw the Tablets and three swore they saw the angel! Yet when asked for eyewitness testimony to the Resurrection of Jesus, Christians will appeal to four anonymous first century books and declare them so historically reliable, that we are all expected to accept them as historical fact or we are denounced as biased if for refusing.

    That is not being consistent, Christians. All we skeptics ask is that you use the same standard of evidence for your supernatural historical claims that you would use for every other historical claim.

    Is that asking too much?

    Liked by 3 people

  2. I am currently having a similar conversation on another blog with another Christian (this one a conservative) regarding “evidence” for the supernatural claims of the Bible. We can’t even agree on what constitutes “evidence”!:

    Orthodox Lutheran:

    Although much of what you’re commenting on misses the point anyways. You want to pick apart certain strands of evidence (or lack thereof, in your view). The point is, both you and me will look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions. It’s a question of valid worldviews. I say your entire worldview is irrational and cannot account for anything. What say you? On what basis can you account for language, the meaning of words, and more importantly, *anything* that is absolute, such as the laws of logic, mathematics, and science. How do you account for the uniformity of nature?

    Gary:

    I have investigated each one of these issues in detail over the last one year, Andrew, and I believe that the naturalist world view is the most rational and consistent with the available evidence. There may well be a Creator, but that Creator is NOT the Christian god. The Christian god could not pass a sixth grade science test. So I am not an atheist. I cannot disprove the existence of a Creator. But just because we do not (yet) know the origin of the universe doesn’t mean we assume an invisible ghost god did it. I see no evidence to support the belief in the supernatural. I believe in the natural laws of science. I believe in evaluating my world with the scientific method, not believing what ancient, middle-eastern holy books say simply by faith, which to me is just another name for superstition.

    Show me evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus and I will be a believer again. But all I have found is assumptions and second century hearsay. I can’t believe in the reanimation of a first century dead man based on assumptions and hearsay. To me it’s silly and irrational.

    Orthodox Lutheran:

    Here is your problem: Are the natural *laws* of science absolute? That is, are they the same everywhere and for everyone? How about logic? Is logic the same everywhere, at all times, all places, for everyone? If they are absolute, then you have a completely irrational worldview. They cannot exist in your worldview, because you cannot account for anything absolute. In other words, how can absolute laws come from, well, nothing? Or from chance? It’s not just randomly improbable, it’s completely impossible. Uniformity in terms of absolutes that do exist can only come from something or someone that is absolute in nature. Or else everything is rendered potentially meaningless. This is to say, in your worldview, how do you know that the laws of logic and science and math won’t be different tomorrow? Well, you don’t.

    On what basis do you choose the scientific method as the basis for evaluating your worldview? You’re trying to appeal to scientific law and absolutes, but then you give me the scientific method? Really? Surely you know that the scientific method has changed repeatedly over time. So again, I ask, how do you know this is reliable? And on what basis can you use something that is changing to evaluate the universe using absolutes such as logic and math? See the irrationality? It’s plainly obvious. Again…you are using the changing and the subjective to evaluate the uniform and the objective.

    ***This is exactly why our discussion is NOT about evidence*** We will both see the same evidence and evaluate it differently, because our presuppositions do not allow us to interpret the evidence in the same fashion.

    //”Show me evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus and I will be a believer again.”//

    Even if I did, you would not be a believer again. Even if, for instance, I went back to the first century and took a picture of Christ rising, you would explain it away. Even if you were there and saw it, you would come up with some alternate solution based on your presuppositions. There is plenty of evidence. You just reject it because your worldview will not allow for anything outside of the natural alone, which I already showed is highly irrational.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. “There is plenty of evidence” (for the resurrection). Believers say this all the time … but the facts remain. The only “evidence” is in their minds (e.g., belief, faith)

    There simply is no hard evidence (real and significant proof) to confirm the resurrection. All the people that reported it, as well as the original manuscripts, are long gone.

    The authoritative opinions offered by unkleE (on various subjects) are considered “soft evidence’; that is, “evidence that can refer to anything from simple word of mouth or argumentation, to authoritative opinion on a given subject. The highest form of soft evidence tends to be supporting opinions from an authority with certifiable credentials.” (emphasis mine)

    But it’s still soft evidence.

    None of this means anything to the believer, however. They are totally and completely convinced within their own minds that the resurrection, as well as many other events in the bible, simply cannot be anything else but actual events. And to try and convince them otherwise is a rather tiresome and futile effort.

    Source of above quote: http://www.ask.com/world-view/difference-between-hard-evidence-soft-evidence-e56c8e2e5f14efdf# and is drawn from http://www.av8n.com/

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Hi Gary

    A couple of years ago I studied Christian Mission at a seminary level. The big debate is proclamation of the Gospel versus meeting human social need. Generally the fundamentalists favoured Gospel preaching and liberals social action.Every one recognised in theory that the two should go hand in hand, it just did not work that way in reality.

    It is not hard to see the reason for the demarcation. It comes down to one’s view of hell. To a fundamentalist it is eternal issues which are important, helping someone in this life is of little worth if they are then to suffer eternal torment in hell. However liberal Christians tend not to think of hell and thus focus on present needs.

    I am not supporting one view or the other, just observing that the different focus is quite understandable.

    I think the key point you raise above is: why should the supernatural claims of one group be accepted without question whilst those of other groups are summarily dismissed.

    I had commented on Victoria’s blog that until recently I had dismissed ancient pagan religions as utter rubbish. Concluding no sane person could take them seriously, they belonged to a pre-scientific age of superstition. What has shocked me is that I now realise I never seriously looked at what they actually taught. The similarity to Christianity is far greater than I ever imagined. Dr Richard Carrier emphasises this by describing a figure from antiquity without initially naming the person. To a Christian it sounds like a description of Jesus, but it is in fact a description of Romulus,

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Nan,

    You are absolutely right. I should stop trying to convince Christians that their belief system is false. I’m beginning to believe that the only time a Christian is going to deconvert is if, on their own, something in their belief system suddenly seems “off”. Until that happens, no matter what I say, it is going to go in one ear and out the other.

    Peter,

    You make a very good point. Fundamentalists and liberals have very different worldviews. If Hell exists, then liberals have failed miserably. Luckily for all, the evidence points strongly to its nonexistence.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. “UnkleE:

    Hi Gary, no I’m not saying that at all. Have you read the ascension accounts lately?”

    Have they recently changed?

    Liked by 1 person

  8. “It’s the people, not the beliefs. People of all beliefs or nonbelief are capable of incredible evil.”

    “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.”
    — Blaise Pascal —

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Pingback: Comments Continued… | Finding Truth

Comments are closed.