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.
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.
Finding Truth 
Hi Nate, I’ve been reading but not commenting, but I’m sure you know I sympathise with the family disunity. We had a family rift in my mum’s family (over a quite different matter) and I grew up not really knowing my cousins. It’s very sad and so unnecessary.
I wanted to add one thing to the discussion of how conservative christians can be so bloody-minded and uninterested in what you see as evidence against their belief. I have seen psychological research that finds that some people are more likely to make decisions analytically and others are more likely to make them intuitively. Most of you guys here (and me too) are probably analytical thinkers, meaning we look at evidence and analyse it logically and systematically (or at least we try to). But many people, including religious people, but including many others besides, don’t make most of their decisions that way, but much more intuitively.
Now here’s the killer. We’d all like to think that analytical is definitely better, that’s how science does it, etc. But we’d be half wrong. For many decisions where they’ve been able to test this, intuitive thinking actually gets things right more than analytical. Why? Because if the decision is complex, with more factors and more unknowns than we can cope with, analytical thinking gets gummed up whereas intuitive thinking jumps across the difficulties.
Now whether you think that God’s existence is better approached analytically, or not, perhaps you and others here can see that it may be quite unrealistic to expect some people to approach the questions differently, and it may even be that their way of approaching some of them is better. At least if you don’t agree, you may understand better.
I had a question. I recall you once said that if you ever went back to christian belief, it would be to a more progressive form of christianity. If that ever happened, do you think your family would be happy with that and relent, or would it need to be their particular brand?
LikeLike
Thanks for the comment, unkleE.
Yeah, I think my family would only be satisfied with their particular brand of Christianity. My wife’s parents might be a little more flexible there — I’m just not sure. But it wouldn’t make a difference to my side.
To your points about analytical vs intuitive thinking, I think you’re probably right. To me, that explains quite a lot about the different approaches people have. Oddly enough, I also think that aspect of human nature points to there either being no god, or a god who doesn’t care if we believe in him or not. Otherwise, how could God expect us to all come to one conclusion vs another?
LikeLike
“Oddly enough, I also think that aspect of human nature points to there either being no god, or a god who doesn’t care if we believe in him or not. Otherwise, how could God expect us to all come to one conclusion vs another?” . .. now THERE’s an excellent point, Nate!
LikeLiked by 1 person
When conservative Christians say that skeptics have not “dug deep enough”, what they really are saying is that skeptics have not accepted the existence of the supernatural. But when conservative Christians say this, they of course are only talking about THEIR supernatural claims.
Conservative Christians reject out of hand the supernatural claims of Muslims, Hindus, and Mormons as silly nonsense.
When asked why we should believe the Christian supernatural claims and reject the supernatural claims of every other religion on the planet, some conservative Christians will tell us that they have “experienced” Jesus personally and that this is proof of the truth of Christianity. When we point out to them that millions of Muslims, Hindus, and Mormons claim to have the same personal experiences with their gods, conservative Christians will resort to non-supernatural evidence.
And what is the nonsupernatural “evidence” that Christians possess to support their supernatural belief system? If you boil it all down, it is this: the testimony of two men—Saul of Tarsus and Papias.
Dear conservative Christians: Do you see why we skeptics find your arguments unimpressive and in fact downright ridiculous? You are asking us to abandon our worldview based on reason and the scientific method, and to replace it with your worldview of a universe governed by armies of good ghosts and bad ghosts, all battling for control of our brains (“souls”), based on the testimony of one first century vision-prone rabbi and a few brief statements on the authorship of the gospels by a second century mystic.
You’ve got to be kidding.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLike
Gary M.
Thank you for you note.
I’m going to end my participation on this thread with three brief responses to what you wrote to me.
The first is that I think trying to persuade people about religion is worthless. I believe what I believe because of miracles. Before the miracles the beliefs seemed absurd. So, although I notice that Protestants in general have a fetish for trying to “preach” religion to others, to get them to convert, my own belief is that people with a skeptical mindset, like me, only come to know that God exists if God comes directly to get us. No human being could have ever gotten me there. All they could do was annoy me. Catholics don’t go door to door. We baptize babies and run hospitals and schools and AIDS hospices. Take the faith or leave it, God’s there with an open door.
As for me, I never believed it until a series of miracles happened to me. Much of it was visions and conversations and the like, which are of the sort of subjective things that never convince me of anything when somebody else tells me about them. Oh, so you talked to God, eh? Joe Smith said that too, and he even got golden plates out of it. L Ron Hubbard wrote a novel about Xenu and set up a Roach Motel for idiots in LA. Kayla is not impressed, and neither am I.
When you’re talking to angels and demons, it is persuasive – to you – but nobody else is likely to believe it. Nor does it matter if they do, does it? God talked to ME, not to them. When God wants to talk to them, he will. If he wanted to talk to all of us at once, he could. He doesn’t. He knows why. I don’t.
It’s the objective physical miracles that are the most important, though. I have had three happen to me:
(1) I broke my neck and was paralyzed. God healed me in an instant.
(2) A very dead lizard rose from the dead in my hand because I asked.
(3) A very dead mouse rose from the dead in my hand, because I asked.
In all three cases, my “Prayer” consisted of three things: “Please”. The word “please”, hurled out into the universe. The first was not addressed to anybody. The second two were prefaced with “Father, you can do anything.”
Which brings me to the third and final point: I know God is there because of direct personal miracles. These miracles were about me, not about the world. So I don’t argue with the world from them, because, in truth, I don’t really give a damn if anybody else believes in God or not.
I was not “commissioned” by God to go out and persuade anybody of anything. MY job is to follow a straight path and bear a lot of weight and put up with a whole lot of crap and nightmarish things, over decades, to pull a whole bunch of people who need me along. God has everything to do with it, in the sense that he made it possible for me to keep doing it at all, and he gives me a light towards which to strive through what would otherwise be a dark valley. And THIS Atlas would rather shrug and leave a bunch of people to their fate than keep pulling the barge. But I keep pulling the barge because I’ve been kept whole to do it.
Nowhere in this is there, or ever has there been, any direction to go out and preach at people. Protestants read the Bible that way. Catholics think that God ordained a professional clergy to do that, and gave them the charisma to do it, and they, specifically, are the ones who ought to be doing it, because lay people like me will overstate things, tell untruths, get unduly angry, make up shit, and disgrace God by not being good models.
Of course, the professional clergy have managed to cock it up pretty badly by not being able to keep their hands off boys. But that is THEIR problem, and God’s. Not mine.
Miracles are real. I am an intact, walking, talking, breathing man because God decided to heal a broken neck and a paralyzed boy who otherwise would have gone missing at the bottom of a lake, and whose body may never have been found.
He healed my spine in an instant, and raised two animals from the dead (it meant something to me, to anybody else it seems like a waste of miracles). And he did it all in private. And therefore I don’t talk about these things face to face, only anonymously.
And only in a foul temper, as in: I hear all of the intellectualization, but God does exist and I know it.
Maybe God will grab your face someday, maybe he won’t. That’s up to him. It’s none of my business. Other people’s relationship with God is none of my business. But yeah, he’s there.
That’s it. That’s all. Crown out for good on this thread.
Maybe I’ll comment on something else in some months.
LikeLike
Dear Crown,
First, I am very happy that you are healthy and well.
Second, if believing in God gives you peace and happiness, great! My issue is not with those who believe in a kind, loving God and try to emulate that behavior to the rest of mankind. My issue is with conservative Christians, of all denominations, who believe that the supernatural claims of the Bible prove that Jesus and Christianity are the ONLY truth and that anyone who refuses to believe that one “truth” will be cast into their god’s eternal torture pit.
If conservative Christians behaved like the Amish, keeping their beliefs to themselves, you wouldn’t have websites like this criticizing them.
LikeLike
@ Crown
Re: Miracles
Glad you are no longer paralyzed. However I’m very skeptical about the “instant” healing. I believe you as much as I believe those who says that God healed their cancer and the works.
And I guess you have already discovered the magic word. Other people’s prayers are not answered because they didn’t say “please” enough. I guess God is just like any old fairy godmother, you just gotta be polite!
With regards to the other 2 resurrection, I have a hunch of what could have happened that gave you the impression that they were alive again after being dead. But then whatever I said will be useless since you are firmly believing that it happened, as with all believers of other things eg. “Roswell is really real, I see aliens creating corn circles!”.
Therefore, I think we can settle it rather easily, go and find a dead lizard/rat/anything, go and pray and tell me whether it resurrected. Take a video so that you can convince people here that indeed it is happening. Certainly even seeing is not believing, e.g. magic tricks etc but we will take your word for it since you appear to be really sincere, and I guess Christians wouldn’t lie would they?
LikeLike
@ unklee
That is a very good point you are making. I’ve read from somewhere (can’t rem lol) that intuition is actually your subconscious synthesizing all your knowledge and experience into a quick answer. Whether this is the case or not, I can see the virtues of such decision making.
However, I will stop short of saying whether this way is “better”.
We all know of heuristic biases, and intuition has that in spades. Certainly biases are not harmful in your day to day decision making, and may speed up your brain process, making life easier. However making life easier does not make it “right”. If you are searching for truth, we need to shut off the heuristic biases and go for analytical methods.
Just my 2 cents on things.
In my line of work, we see a lot of information overload which may paralyze people from making decision at all. And ironically, most of us actually resort to using “feelings” – I think prices “feel” toppish or “feel” like it’s bottoming out. This is also why computers haven’t really truly over take traders in the world of finance (high frequency trading aside, but that is another matter).
Then again, are traders mostly right or mostly wrong using feelings? Statistics shows that most of the time it’s 50/50. A monkey could have done the same randomly. So perhaps feelings may not be the best way to judge price movements. However, if you ask any trader worth their salt, they’ll say they get it correct with their feelings most of the time.
I honestly don’t know who to believe, and sometimes I do feel like a charlatan telling people where I think market will move. I think I get it right most of the time, but then this could be my own confirmation bias. And looking at all the literature teaching others how to predict the market, I do think even in the world of finance we’re closer to dousing and astrology than we think.
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reading some of the above stories a recent case came to mind:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/army-of-darkness
LikeLike
“Oddly enough, I also think that aspect of human nature points to there either being no god, or a god who doesn’t care if we believe in him or not. Otherwise, how could God expect us to all come to one conclusion vs another?”
Nate, I think that would be true if salvation was based on knowledge, and if God had an exact specification of what he wants from us and if one of those types of people was favoured over another in believing, and if there was a terrible punishment awaiting those who fail the test. But since I think none of those 4 conjunctions is true, I don’t have a problem.
“However making life easier does not make it “right”. If you are searching for truth, we need to shut off the heuristic biases and go for analytical methods.”
Hi Powell, no the tests I saw were testing for truth not easiness. Sometimes intuition gives an answer that better conforms to reality.
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
You know, a single man once said to me: “I contend that we are both single. I am just married to one fewer woman than you are. When you understand why you haven’t married all the other possible women, you will understand why I didn’t marry your wife.” Makes sense? 🙂
LikeLike
@ unklee
Interesting, can you share some of the links/literature about the tests? Those that I read thus far have been about making decision – not really “truth”.
Ironically, my intuition tells me that chances are we’re conflating different definition of “truth” here, hence the confusion. See what I’m getting at? I’m actually going to read the tests and analyze them, rather than sticking to my intuition and assuming that i am correct. Lol.
LikeLike
Playing the fool doesn’t become you, Unk – that’s Colorstorm’s job.
LikeLike
Hi Gary, as an evangelical Christian. . .
It doesn’t make sense to break up evidence in categories of natural and supernatural. Typically evidence is divided into categories like scientific, sociological, historical, experiential, etc. There can be evidence for supernatural coming from these. But first, when we talk about supernatural, we first must define natural. Usually, it is what we gather from phenomenological experience and scientific theorizing. All categories that transcend these two are “supernatural”. Examples include: existence itself, self-existence, the substance of mental life, consciousness, experience of beauty, conscience, etc.
Now, you might disagree that these are supernatural. You are likely a physicalist saying passionately, “The mind is the brain”. Fair enough (better than eliminative materialism). Even so, in order to draw a coherent picture of reality, you must at the very least account for existence itself and self-existence. The naturalist worldview falls embarrassingly short on these questions and remains incoherent compared to theistic or even Buddhist worldviews. But, coherence is not what concerns us here. What concerns us is, what is supernatural? Well, at the very least those two features of reality are supernatural — existence (i.e., of anything) and self-existence (why do you exist? what are you fundamentally?).
Now you as a devout atheist, could accept all of naturalism with a tinge of supernaturalism. You could say that the universe is self-existent purposeless entity of mass and energy, which is a supernatural claim, and that Gary is simply a particular arrangement of neurons and neural activity that just happened to occur randomly out of the near infinite combination of neurons and neural activity according to genetics and neurogenesis. Note also, you cannot “see” or generate a scientific theory about why this random arrangement if Gary and not Brad Pitt, so this is also a supernatural claim.
So with regards to this kind of supernaturalism, there is no real point to having a superiority complex thinking your worldview is somehow vastly better than Christianity. It’s absurd to think this, you’d have to put your brain in a frying pan to actually conclude this. Or, just be that intellectually arrogant. But, I suspect neither is true for you.
I suspect you are most concerned with the additional supernatural elements of the Christian faith. Namely, the resurrection of Jesus. I’m surprised to see you fall short on identifying at the very least the four gospels and Paul as testimony to weigh in considering this manner. But, I can see you are not one of those skeptics thinking, “No amount of testimony is sufficient to prove a miracle”. Instead, the testimony is somehow reduced to Paul and Papias? Really Papias? That’s new for me. And, after being reduced these authors are profiled as “first century vision-prone rabbi” and “second century mystic”. I will ignore Papias for now. I am more curious what specific evidence you have that Paul’s testimony is not credible? How does your profile of him make him not credible?
Lastly, you boldly claim, “. . . millions of Muslims, Hindus, and Mormons claim to have the same personal experiences with their gods. . .” This is problematic. First, very few people claim that their experience is the same as other religions. Maybe some New Age religious pluralist folks would. Otherwise people in different religions have different experiences, that should be obvious since they have different rituals and doctrines. But, more importantly, who in the world is arguing that because of their personal experience, you should believe? This is not a line of argument in any apologetic circle I am familiar with. Same with the converse. What atheist thinks to herself, “I don’t have religious experiences, therefore no one should hold religious beliefs.” More likely you mean neither of these. Instead, you are advancing an attack on people for believing because of their personal experience. You are telling people they should doubt their experiences, right? Almost all apologetic circles talk about the conviction that comes from the Holy Spirit upon reading the scripture or hearing the gospel. But, you say this is a misinterpretation of reality. This conviction is false and should be rejected, right? Do not insult my understanding of the scientific method, science cannot disprove the existence of the Holy Spirit. You can only give me reasons to doubt my interpretation of reality. I would be curious to hear any. And, if it amounts to the problem of evil or problems with historical testimony, I will gladly admit these are good reasons to doubt. But, not good enough to me personally.
LikeLike
Hi Powell. I’m not an expert in this of course, but it seems that analytic thinking is focused and impersonal, and is best in mathematics-type situations where the problem can be broken down into constituent parts and each one dealt with using a known algorithm. But intuitive thinking is more holistic and personal, and is best when we have to make a decision in a hurry, or if the matter is not amenable to being broken down into analysable parts using known algorithms. Some aspects of religious belief and disbelief would seem to fall into each category.
Some references:
Trust your gut: Intuitive decision-making based on expertise may deliver better results than analytical approach
Analytical thinking vs. religion
Thinking too much: introspection can reduce the quality of preferences and decisions.
Pitting intuitive and analytical thinking against each other: The case of transitivity
When to blink and when to think: preference for intuitive decisions results in faster and better tactical choices
The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion – psychiatrist argues that we all use intuitive thinking to make up our minds on religious and moral questions and then some of us use analytical thinking to justify our views. Not saying he’s right, just giving you the reference.
LikeLike
Hi Brandon (anaivethinker),
I know your comment was addressed to Gary, but I have a few questions, so I hope you won’t mind me jumping in.
I feel like the bulk of your comment was only intended to muddy the waters. That if we can confuse everything enough, then we can make acceptance of physical reality just as tenuous as belief in the supernatural. Forgive me if I’ve misread what you’re saying.
First, I’ve never heard anyone give the definition of supernatural that you’re using. And that fault could lie with me — I haven’t delved into philosophy as much as some of the people who comment here. But I think most people use ‘supernatural’ to refer to anything that can’t be explained naturally, like magic, the afterlife, etc. When it comes to something like the mind, maybe you’re right — maybe the mind is the result of something supernatural, like a soul. But we don’t know right now. And while science can’t give a firm answer at this point either, there are certainly a number of indications that make it reasonable to conclude that the mind is the sum of brain activity. We know that we have minds (as far as we can trust our perceptions), and we know that we have brains. We’ve also discovered how the brain works in some areas. So this conclusion is by no means baseless, and to say that it’s on equal footing with belief in ghosts and magic seems disingenuous to me.
Now the last paragraph in Gary’s comment was a bit over the top, but I think he was using exaggeration for effect. I think the substance of his points were pretty good. While the religious experiences of people vary across religions, it would be hard to argue that Christian experiences are unique. The idea that a person believes he or she is in contact with the deity they believe in, or some agent working on the deity’s behalf, is common among all religions, as far as I know. And the differences seem to have more to do with that individual’s expectations, based on the culture and belief system they’re familiar with. That shouldn’t be surprising.
We also know that humans are good at fooling themselves. We’ve all had vivid dreams that have momentarily tricked us into believing they were real. We’ve all had deja vu. We’ve all thought we’ve seen something or heard something that we’ve later had to question. We also know, as mentioned above, that people have competing religious experiences. There’s even been some indication that religious experiences such as these can be manufactured. So is it really unjustified to think that all of these religious experiences have natural explanations?
I’m not saying you’re wrong or that you don’t have any good reasons for your belief. But I felt that your comment to Gary seemed to overstate things. Again, sorry if I’ve misread you.
LikeLike
Oh Brandon, Brandon, Brandon – (shakes head)
“…people in different religions have different experiences, that should be obvious since they have different rituals and doctrines” – How many Christian denominations are there? Something in the thousands. Do they all have the same rituals and doctrines? Are they not the same religion?
“I’m surprised to see you fall short on identifying at the very least the four gospels and Paul as testimony to weigh in considering this manner”
The testimony of four anonymous authors, writing 40 – years after the alleged fact, and the testimony of a man who never met Yeshua (if he ever existed), who falls down in the road and hears voices? Yeah, I’d buy that testimony, who wouldn’t?
“Do not insult my understanding of the scientific method, science cannot disprove the existence of the Holy Spirit” – Nor can science disprove the existence of fuzzy pink unicorns – why don’t you dash off and write a post on the existence of fuzzy pink unicorns? Send me a link —
LikeLike
“I feel like the bulk of your comment was only intended to muddy the waters” – No, I don’t think you’ve misread him at all.
LikeLike
Meant to say 40-70+ years
LikeLike
Crown,
I liked your comment. You acknowledged that skeptical people wouldnt believe in a report of miracles, but went on to explain why you have faith – the witness of miracles.
naturally we’re skeptical, but you know that and were merely sharing why you’re no longer skeptical.
And while I am skeptical myself, I can understand why such things would be so compelling. Had I witnessed or experienced anything similar, i’d likely be an unwaivering believer still – but alas, to date there have been none shown to me.
thanks for sharing.
LikeLike
Hi Brandon (anaivethinker),
Very interesting points, let me try to address them.
“What concerns us is, what is supernatural? Well, at the very least those two features of reality are supernatural — existence (i.e., of anything) and self-existence (why do you exist? what are you fundamentally?).”
Often when I get into discussions with conservative Christians regarding the evidence for the resurrection and other supernatural claims of the Bible, they want to divert the conversation to a philosophical discussion of reality. I once was told by a conservative Christian that until I could prove that I exist…he would not debate the evidence for the resurrection. “How do you know, Gary, that you are not just the figment of someone else’s imagination?”
I am not a philosopher, nor am I interested in debating such profound issues as to the reality of my existence or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I am a naturalist. I believe in the natural world and I use the scientific method and reason to explore and understand that world. That is my reality. Christians can choose to live in another reality, one filled with (holy) ghosts and ghouls (devils and demons), I choose not to.
Bottom line, unless we agree on a common definition of reality, skeptics and Christians will never come to an agreement on the “evidence”.
And that is another issue: What constitutes “evidence”?
I consider evidence to be any information that would be considered evidence in a court of law. So the following would NOT be evidence:
1. I know that John Smith killed Mr. White because God tells me in my heart that he did it.
2. I know that John Smith killed Mr. White because four anonymous authors in my holy book, three of which borrow heavily from the first, say he did.
3. I know that John Smith killed Mr. White because a Jewish rabbi traveling in Syria had a vision in which he saw John Smith kill Mr. White, and due to this vision, the rabbi changed religions and suffered terrible persecution and execution. No rabbi would do that unless he had really seen a murder.
4. I know that John Smith killed Mr. White because a guy named Pappy, living 90 years after the death of Mr. White wrote a couple of sentences in his diary stating that a guy named John told him that a guy named John Mark had written a book describing the sermons of a guy named Peter, who said that he was a witness to the murder of Mr. White by John Smith.
5. I know that John Smith killed Mr. White because all the early leaders of my church, who are now dead, believed that he did it.
So in my reality, the Christian “evidence” just doesn’t cut it. Maybe in your reality it does. My bet is, however, that more and more educated people in western civilization are abandoning a worldview/reality that involves ghosts and ghouls running the universe and are adopting reason and the scientific method as the basis of reality.
Bottom line: I choose not to debate you on the issue of what constitutes reality. If we are to have a productive debate, either I must adopt your reality or you must adopt mine. If not, we will simply be speaking past one another, which is usually what happens when conservative Christians and atheists/agnostics/naturalists debate each other.
LikeLike
In regards to Saul/Paul of Tarsus:
1. Paul himself says that his experience on the Damascus Road was a “vision” (see Acts chapter 26). He also says that all he saw a was a bright light. He never says he saw a body. Christians like to point to I Corinthians 15 and conclude that because Paul said “have I not seen the Christ”, that he saw a body. If I believed that a bright light had stopped my on the highway; blinded me for three days; and the light spoke to me saying it was Abraham Lincoln—I would believe that I had seen Abe Lincoln.
2. Visions are not reality. Many tens of thousands of people have claimed to see Jesus, the Virgin Mary, Elvis, etc.. We don’t believe any of these people, so why believe Paul?
3. Just because a Christian-hating Jewish rabbi converts to Christianity is not proof that Christianity is true or that he really saw a resurrected body. Weird conversions happen. There is a man in Israel today who once was a Jewish rabbi and settler. He converted to Islam. He is now a Jew-hating Muslim cleric. THAT is a dramatic conversion, and I doubt you believe that his conversion is proof that Islam is the one, true faith.
4. Who appointed Paul an apostle? Why is it that the apostles had to meet and cast lots to pick the replacement for Judas, but Paul walks onto the scene self-appointed, supposedly by Jesus? Why would Jesus spend three years training twelve guys to “go into all the world and preach the gospel” and then after he dies, turn around and give the job of “missionary to the gentiles” (the world) to a Pharisee?? Very odd. Notice none of the other apostles ever refer to Paul as an apostle, only a “brother”.
5. Why is Paul accused of being a liar so often? Why is Paul constantly defending himself against being a liar? Do the other apostles ever feel the need to deny being liars. Why did no one in the early Church seem to question the authority of Peter but many in Asia Minor and Greece questioned Paul’s authority and teachings?
6. Why does Paul never tell us any personal details about Jesus? Where he was born? The names of his parents? Why does Paul never mention any of Jesus’ sermons, parables, or miracles?
Very strange, my friend. it is almost as if the “Christ” that Paul worshipped was a completely different person than Jesus of Nazareth. I personally think that Paul was mentally unstable…or a liar.
LikeLike
There are a number of neurological phenomena that explain Paul’s bizarre behavior, but Brandon rejects them all.
LikeLike
Hey Nate-
I know I’ve said this before, but I wanted to say again that I feel deeply for the trauma your family has experienced. I don’t use the word ‘trauma’ lightly, as I have, unfortunately, been on both ends of banishment in my life, and I realize how painful it is. Whether your extended family realize it or not, I’d wager they are causing themselves as much or more pain than they are causing you.
You seem to me a very thoughtful and caring person, Nate, and I’d be honored to be your friend regardless of how different our beliefs. I am saddened and sorry for your pain.
LikeLiked by 1 person