Humanity's Belief

A few weeks ago I came across this chart on someone's blog:

It's made the rounds here and there to bolster the argument that science and studying science doesn't make one an atheist. Usually, this comes up in the discussion of Creationism and Evolution.

What I found most striking, however, was the large correlation with studying the humanities and social sciences and the drop-off in religiosity for people in those fields.

My initial stab at explaining this is to posit that science is about facts while the humanities are about ideas. And nothing is quite as disturbing to one's own preconceived notions as encountering other people's well-argued, preconceived notions.

While scientific discoveries can lead to people re-evaluating their religious beliefs, it is usually not at the hands of scientists that we falter and rethink our assumptions, but at the hands of people who try to integrate those scientific discoveries into far-reaching ideas.

Those people tend to be writers, philosophers, social scientists....in other words, people who dabble in the humanities.

Most students arriving as freshman have only been exposed to a basic sweep of ideas and a general overview of literature and philosophy. Plunging deeper into that pool will naturally expose students to ideas they have never considered or arguments that are more powerful than what they have gotten at home.

On the negative side, it only takes one or two confident, authoritative professors to completely undermine a student's wavering faith....and humanities professors are more prone to see it as their duty to strip away and challenge their students' ideas.

Science professors are more concerned with teaching their students the facts and theories of their particular fields. While a science professor might spout off his or her theist/atheist philosophy in the midst of a class, it isn't the main subject, or even relevant to a student's understanding of how DNA works.

A humanities professor, on the other hand, has a much more powerful position because they work in the trade of explaining concepts and ideology through Literature, or Philosophy, or History, or Language, etc. Completing a humanities course and getting a good grade will inevitably involve regurgitating an interpretation of a particular text or idea that meets with the professor's approval.

Anyone who has ever had a terrible humanities professor, or perhaps better put, a biased humanities professor, can testify to how frustrating it can be.

I recall one Dr. Stanley who gave me my first ever D on a World Lit. test because he didn't like my answers. I was mortified and a little outraged because I felt that the answers he marked wrong, weren't wrong. I was shocked until I heard that almost everyone else had failed the test. I had to take him again the next year for European Lit. The first test gave me a C+. Once again everyone else did worse than me....and these were small classes filled with bright students, many of them smarter than me. However, we had run up against a professor who was certain of his interpretation and wasn't open to anyone else's. We survived the only way we could....by giving him what he wanted, even if we didn't believe it ourselves.

Dr. Stanley wasn't very charismatic, so he didn't win any converts to his ideas, but it isn't hard to see how if he had been more charismatic he might have been able to convince everyone to take a particular view of the subject matter, especially if it had been about something more substantial than literature.

BTW....this isn't an indictment of all Humanities profs.

So...no hate mail...OK!? ;-)

There Is A God--some thoughts.

First off, I enjoyed the book overall.  My favorite part was the preface, and I am intrigued enough by Roy Abraham Varghese's writing to consider picking up some of his books.

The first chapter or so was somewhat dry as Antony Flew recounts his many contributions to philosophy and his role in promoting atheism. He's setting the stage to pre-emptively disarm those who doubt his former sincerity as an atheistic philosopher, or think he hasn't fully considered the philosophical options.  

The most striking thing about Flew's "conversion" to acknowledging the existence of God is his complete honesty and the humility he is willing to show in "following the argument wherever it leads." I dare say most atheists, and many Christians, wouldn't be so open and humble in re-evaluating some of their longstanding assumptions/presumptions about the existence/non-existence of God.

I'd recommend the book to anyone who has begun exploring the common philosophical arguments between atheists and theists, and who is familiar with the basic ideas involved in such arguments.

So...what led Flew to this reversal?

Flew's primary motivation can be partly categorized as a recognition of the Argument from Design; the complexity of the universe, DNA, and the immutable laws of Nature communicate a rationality which springs forth from a superior Mind, as he calls it. He quotes several scientists in this area, such as Einstein, Schrodinger, Planck and even Stephen Hawking, revealing their sense of the ultimate guiding force of the universe as one of rationality and purpose.

He has several good quotes from Einstein, who while not "religious" in the sense that most people would understand the word, possessed a definite sense of mystery and wonder attributable to this "superior Mind" which seemed to form the laws of Nature.

One of the Einstein quotes:

Everyone who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the experience of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.

another one:

My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.

Flew makes an important distinction between science and philosophy and the ability to come to conclusions about the existence of God.  This is significant because it pinpoints the Achilles heel in the arguments made by someone like Dawkins, or PZ Meyers, who attempt to use scientific advancements as refutations of the existence of God. Ultimately they are using data and interpreting the results into a philosophical argument, not a scientific argument.

Flew says it best:

You might ask how I, a philosopher, could speak to issues treated by scientists.  The best way to answer this is with another question. Are we engaging in science or philosophy here? When you study the interaction of two physical bodies, for instance, two subatomic particles, you are engaged in science. When you ask how it is that those subatomic particles--or anything physical--could exist and why, you are engaged in philosophy. When you draw philosophical conclusions from scientific data, then you are thinking like a philosopher.

He goes further:

Of course, scientists are just as free to think as philosophers as anyone else. And, of course, not all scientists will agree with my particular interpretation of the facts they generate. But their disagreements will have to stand on their own two philosophical feet. In other words, neither their authority nor their expertise as scientists is of any relevance. This should be easy to see. If they present their views on the economics of science, such as making claims about the number of jobs created by science and technology, they will have to make their case in the court of economic analysis. Likewise, a scientist who speaks as a philosopher will have to furnish a philosophical case.  As Albert Einstein himself said, "The man of science is a poor philosopher."

I was surprised that some of Flew's reasons for believing in the existence of God were already intimately known by me, and are perhaps the strongest cases that I myself have made to people when discussing this subject. The main points of contention lay in three important areas: First Cause--from where did the universe come?; Life itself--how does matter suddenly become alive, self-replicating and purpose-driven towards survival and consciousness?; the complexity and organization of Nature--one can't break nature's laws.

The book didn't cover any new ground for me.  I didn't discover a new way of thinking about God's existence, but I have read several books in this vein, so that wasn't surprising. However, I think the most enlightening points in the book are rooted in Flew's  case that philosophically speaking, many atheistic scientists are deficient in their refutation of God's existence.

There's still more rolling around in my head...so I might come back to this in a few days.

There Is A God

While wandering through Barnes and Noble this morning, trying to see if they had this book (which I am going to order soon) in stock, I found another one of interest to me; There Is No A God; how the world's most notorious atheist changed his mind.   It's written by Antony Flew who apparently was the world's most notorious atheist.  

It must be true; the cover of the book says so itself.

Actually, I had already heard of Antony Flew, and his supposed change of mind about the existence of God, several years ago.  I filed it away in my head just in case I might need to retrieve it someday, like when I go on Jeopardy and astound the world with my incredible trivia skills.

I picked up the book and used my arbitrary selection method of reading material.  I open halfway through the book, read a few paragraphs and if it's interesting and engaging, I'll read it.

I opened the book to Chapter 4, A Pilgrimage of Reason, pages 85-86...and this is what I read:

Let us begin with a parable. Imagine that a satellite phone is washed ashore on a remote island inhabited by a tribe that has never had contact with modern civilization. The natives play with the numbers on the dial pad and hear different voices upon hitting certain sequences. They assume first that it's the device that makes the noises. Some of the cleverer natives, the scientists of the tribe, assemble an exact replica and hit the numbers again. They hear the voices again. The conclusion seem obvious to them. This particular combination of crystals and metals and chemicals produces what seems like human voices and this means that the voices are simply properties of the device

But the tribal sage summons the scientists for a discussion. He has thought long and hard on the matter and has reached the following conclusion: the voices coming through the instrument must be coming from people like themselves, people who are living and conscious although speaking in another language. Instead of assuming that the voices are simply properties  of the handset, they should investigate the possibility  that through some mysterious communication network they are in touch with other humans. Perhaps further study  along these lines could lead to a greater understanding of the world beyond their island. But the scientists simply laugh at the sage and say: "Look, when we damage the instrument, the voices stop coming.  So they're obviously nothing more than the sounds produced  by a unique combination of lithium and printed circuit boards and light-emitting diodes."

I was hooked.

Having some spare time before I had to leave for an appointment, I plunked myself into an overstuffed chair, flipped to the beginning of the book and read the preface written by Roy Abraham Varghese.  It was a delight! He hit so many points square on the head in reference to the "New Atheism", which has become so prevalent in the last few years.  I silently nodded my head while reading, yelling inside my head,"Yes!  That's exactly right!"  He addresses, in those few pages, several deficiencies in Richard Dawkins's, The God Delusion, which the disappointingly anemic The Dawkins Delusion, by Alistar McGrath, never touches upon.

My two very brief readings compelled me to buy the book, rather than merely borrow it from the library. I'm looking forward to reading more of it in the next few days.

Expect to hear more about it soon.

Reading "The Dawkins Delusion" Introduction

In July, I read through Richard Dawkins The God Delusion. I did an initial post after the first three chapters and meant to continue to do more posts about it, but as usual, life had its own ideas.

There was actually quite a bit I had to say about the book, but it was hard to know where to start. There was just so much wrong with it that I couldn't find the right jumping off point. At the time that I received the book from the library, I put myself on the waiting list for The Dawkins Delusion, by Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicut McGrath. I knew it was a refutation of Dawkins' book, but the library wouldn't have it for months. I was curious to see what it would have to say.

I must say that when I read Dawkins, he quoted McGrath and a few other theologians in his book and I wasn't impressed. "Wow, if this is the response from the religious community, they are really daft, " I thought. I should have realized at the time that Dawkins would have portrayed them in the same way he portrayed many of his arguments; out of context, with great liberty of interpretation and not much scholarship.

So much of his writing seems so logical, but if you peel back even the tiniest layer, the cracks begin to appear. For instance, in part of the book Dawkins goes into a lengthy explanation of memes, the ideas or groups of ideas or information that are culturally passed from one generation to the next. He examines this theory in great detail, postulating that memes reproduce in the same way that genes in natural selection work. It sounds very intriguing and plausible in some ways. To back up his arguments about this he quotes several people who have advanced this theory of memes and written books about it.

I found it all a little confusing because he deals with this theory of memes with such certainty. Here was an entire field that I had hardly heard of and all of these people who spent a great deal of time analyzing it. Where had I been, scientifically speaking?

It wasn't until I decided to learn more about what memes were and the "science" behind this theory that I discovered the very concept of memes had been originated by Dawkins himself many years before; a fact that he conveniently does not mention in The God Delusion.

Why does it matter?

It matters because if you are going to quote people who happen to be favorable to a view that you, yourself, have created, it is hardly objective opinion and evidence. It's one thing to say, "I have this idea and here are others who agree with me," and quite another to imply that there is a strong theory that happens to confirm your conclusions and is independent of yourself. I think it's all a little hinky.


I received The Dawkins Delusion today. It is a slim book. I wasn't sure what I would find in its pages because of the unfavorable view I had of McGrath from the few references to him in Dawkins' work. I haven't read anything other than the introduction so far, but I already have found myself saying "Yes!...Exactly!...that is SO true!"

My favorite quote as of this moment:

"...Dawkins simply offers the atheist equivalent of slick hellfire preaching, substituting turbocharged rhetoric and highly selective manipulation of facts for careful, evidence based thinking. Curiously there is surprisingly little scientific analysis in The God Delusion. There's a lot of pseudoscientific speculation, linked with wider cultural criticisms of religion, mostly borrowed from older atheist writings." (page 11--The Dawkins Delusion)

I hope the rest of the book follows suit in laying out the ways in which Dawkins' work falls short.
I obviously misjudged McGrath.

More Later.

Reading "The God Delusion"--Part One

Way back, about a month or two ago, I had done a few posts about atheism. Intrigued by the new wave of atheistic media that has swelled into recent popularity, I put myself on the list for Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, at my local library. There was quite a number of people ahead of me, so I put it on the back burner of my mind and promptly forgot about it.

It arrived yesterday and I have been engrossed in it since this morning, picking it up here and there whenever I have free time. So far, I have yet to run through the streets singing REM's Losing My Religion. (Boy am I dating myself with that reference!) I'm almost through chapter 3--Arguments For God's Existence. I am not devastatingly impressed. However, I still have more chapters to read; maybe Dawkins will put aside his little bitternesses and surprise me with some new thought that I haven't previously heard.

My biggest annoyance, is with his constant reliance on the phrase,"I suspect." Although, sometimes he swaps it out for,"One feels," or "I don't think." Over and over he will use these phrases to assert that many leaders, thinkers and scientists were almost certainly as adamantly atheistic as himself. He reinterprets their own words in the light of this assumption, assuring us that if they had really spoken what they felt, they would have been more adamant and less vague in regard to religion, science, and the interaction of the two. Conveniently, most of those he refers to are dead and cannot speak for themselves. What bad timing for them!

I am not saying that Dawkins portrays devout Christians as atheists, but people with more vague and philosophical leanings, or scientists who were less idealistically opposed to religion than himself are subject to his "scientific" revisionist mind-reading.

Regarding the Founding Fathers of the United States, he writes:

"Certainly their writings on religion in their own time leave me in no doubt
that most of them would have been atheists in ours." (page 39) [emphasis mine]

hmmm....no doubt? Dawkins, say it ain't so! How can you have no doubt about something that is unprovable? Isn't that contrary to your whole thought system, being certain of things that have no provable basis?

In regards, to T.H. Huxley, who coined the term agnostic and declared that agnostics have no creed, not even a negative one, Dawkins writes:

"But Huxley, in his concentration upon the absolute impossibility of proving or
disproving God, seems to have been ignoring the shading of probability.
The fact that we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of something
does not put existence and non-existence on an even footing. I don't
think Huxley would disagree, and I suspect that when he appeared
to do so he was bending over backwards to concede a point, in the interests of
securing another one."( pages 49-50) [emphasis mine]

In recounting an episode during which two astronomers turn over a deep question--which Dawkins had put to them--to a chaplain, he writes:

"I suspect that neither the Cambridge nor the Oxford astronomer really believed that theologians have any expertise that enables them
to answer questions that are too deep for science. I suspect that
both astronomers were bending over backwards to be polite...."(pages 56-57)

Concerning Stephen Gould's statements and writings, he says:

"I simply do not believe that Gould could possibly have meant much
of what he wrote in Rocks of Ages. As I say, we have all been
guilty of bending over backwards to an unworthy but powerful opponent, and I
can only think that this is what Gould was doing."(page 57) [emphasis
mine]

On and on it goes. It's tedious and unnecessary. It's as if he is building up an army of thinkers to give his own thoughts and views more clout. Don't bore me with theories about what might have been in a different time or universe. Tell me what you think, and why, without trying to assemble a list of allies. As I said, I find it annoying.

A corresponding, though less obvious, theme permeates the book so far--that Christians are motivated by either fear, ignorance, or the desire to control others for power or money. While being able to mind-read the motivations of dead thinkers and scientists is an amazing power to have, it is not nearly as impressive as being able to mind-read what all Christians must think! I have yet to come across one sentence that implies that people might be religious because they are altruistic in their outlook on God, life, and others. Has he never come in contact with a sincere, caring, intelligent believer? He leaves the impression that everyone he has met who carries the label, Christian, is the worst sort of person. Perhaps, that can be chalked up to his own bias? Only he knows.

When discussing religious experience as a basis of belief in God, Dawkins explains how our brains are designed to makes sense of things that have no sense--referring mainly to visions and voices that people claim to have seen or heard. He assures us that our brains can be untrustworthy. I contend that he seems not to distrust his brain at all when he ventures to suppose what others really thought and currently think.

Discussing the famous "Lunatic, Liar or Lord" argument from C.S. Lewis, Dawkins insists that the three options are "ludicrously inadequate."

"A fourth possibility, almost too obvious to need mentioning, is that Jesus was honestly mistaken." (page 92)

Very interesting reasoning in that it completely contradicts his whole premise and the very title of his book! Jesus calls himself the Son of God, but is honestly mistaken? Wait a minute, didn't Dawkins earlier write in the Preface:

The dictionary supplied with Microsoft Word defines a delusion as 'a
persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence,
especially as a symptom of a psychiatric disorder'. (page5)

And on page 89, didn't he quote Sam Harris' work, The End of Faith, when discussing personal experiences?:

" 'We have names for people who have many beliefs for which there is no rational
justification. When their beliefs are extremely common we call them
'religious'; otherwise, they are likely to be called 'mad', 'psychotic' or
'delusional'.....' "

Considering that before Jesus made the claim that he was the Son of God no one else believed it, and it wasn't a commonly held belief, doesn't that fit Dawkins' and Harris' definition of mad? Of course it does, but it doesn't further Dawkins argument at this point in the book.

Well, I still have to finish the last few pages of Chapter 3 and then the rest of the book. Perhaps, I am misjudging the groundwork that Dawkins is laying. I will give him the benefit of the doubt until I reach the last page.

Refuting "The Jesus Puzzle"--Part Two

Part1 is here. Intro is here. This is a work in progress. I will add more to these articles as I have the time.

Throughout Doherty's article, The Jesus Puzzle, he consistently quotes the Pauline Epistles as his source text and the departure point for all his observations regarding a historical Jesus and the development of Christianity from within the New Testament. Within the article itself, he does not seem to question Paul or his writings. That is not the same as saying that he believes them, as far as their theological content, but that he seems willing to accept them as generally intact, historical letters, from a person named Paul, to various churches in the region. Doherty gleans them for supposed meaning and uses them as a measurement for the dichotomy between the physical, human person of Jesus, and the spiritual, divine aspect of Jesus. In his mind the two are vastly different, and Paul's reliance on the Supernatural Jesus is evidence that the historical Jesus never existed.

This reliance on Paul, but the rejection of the gospels and Acts, presents a problem for Doherty's ideas. If he accepts Paul's writings as authentic and trustworthy in most cases--though he always tends to discount sections which most obviously disprove his points--then he has an intellectual dilemma. How do you rely on an author's texts, yet refuse to believe anything historical that he actually says?

For instance, Doherty writes in Piece No. 3 :

How do Paul and other apostles like himself know of their Son and Redeemer? Is
it through the words and deeds of Jesus on earth? Through traditions about him
going back to those who had witnessed his ministry? No, Paul has learned of the
Son through revelation and scripture. "God chose to reveal his Son through me,"
he says in Galatians 1:16.

Doherty's contention is that Paul never learned anything about Jesus from actual eyewitnesses, or through earthly knowledge. He takes Galatians 1:16 out of context, portraying it as an admission from Paul that all his knowledge of Jesus came from a vision and nothing else. Acts recounts the story of Saul/Paul on the Damascus road, but Doherty has removed that avenue of explanation. Further into his paper he claims:

Acts, too, as an historical witness to Jesus or the beginnings of the
Christian movement, cannot be relied upon. The more recent tendency is to see
Acts as a second century product, probably of Roman provenance, highly
tendentious and written for the purpose of creating a picture of Christian
origins traceable to a unified body of apostles in Jerusalem who were followers
of an historical Jesus. Much of it is sheer fabrication, and highly incompatible
with information found in the letters of Paul.[emphasis mine]

So, we have the reason that he rejects Acts; it doesn't line up with Paul's epistles, in his opinion.

Let's take a look at that claim. Acts relates Paul's life and ministry highlights. It presents Saul/Paul as a persecutor of Christians, even being present during Stephen's stoning

Acts 7:58b
Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul.

Acts 8:1 and 3
And Saul was there, giving approval to his death.......

But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house he dragged off men and women and put them in prison

Paul writes in his epistles:

1 Corinthians 15:9
For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Galatians 1:13
For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it.

He is portrayed as seeing a vision of Jesus, being converted on the road to Damascus, and spending some time there after his conversion teaching that Jesus was the Son of God.(Acts 9:1-30)

Paul relates the same timeline for events in Galatians 1:14-2:10, detailing his interactions with Peter specifically.

Once we begin to see that there is quite a correlation between Acts and Paul's epistles, even if Doherty still views it as a "sheer fabrication," he still must explain what he thinks of Paul. Paul tells us he knew Peter and other apostles. Paul tells us that he was excelling in Judaism, which means he would have been very aware of any controversy within the religion and any events related to it. He might not have believed in Jesus, but he had surely heard about him in his studying and time in Jerusalem. Paul also reiterates throughout his epistles that he is not making up his story, but that it is true and factual

The ultimate question for Doherty is what he believes about Paul.

In order to throw out Acts and the Gospels on Paul's supposed "silence," he would have to cast Paul in the role of manipulative liar. If Paul is a manipulative liar, then you could hardly look to his works as proof that there was no historical Jesus. Instead, throwing out Paul's epistles would eliminate the so-called "problem of silence" that Doherty thinks is so damning to the historical Jesus.

So, which is it? Are Paul's letters authentic and trustworthy? If they are, then how does Doherty reconcile the historical facts within them and Paul's claims of knowing the original apostles of Jesus--eyewitnesses to Jesus' earthly life? Was Paul duped? That hardly seems believable for someone who was so heavily invested in persecuting the church before his conversion. It also seems highly unlikely that Paul would abandon all his striving in Judaism for a legend he heard passed along by, what would have to be, liars and con men if Jesus never existed.

It's late and I'm tired again. I will edit this tomorrow with a little more fleshing out of the Acts/Paul correlation. Feel free to leave a comment if you have something to add! :)

Refuting The Jesus Puzzle--Introduction

While perusing Science Daily's articles about science, it was hard to ignore a very prominent ad with a mosaic picture of Jesus, a large question mark looming over him. Clicking the link led me to a site promoting a movie called, The God Who Wasn't There, a documentary by Brian Flemming. The title pretty much sums up what the movie is about--proving that Jesus never actually existed. Intrigued, I waded through the site and eventually, through a few google searches found this page, by Earl Doherty, who is referenced on the website for the movie.


Reading The Jesus Puzzle just inflamed my outrage, not because Doherty is an atheist, or even that he is trying to persuade others to throw off religious belief, but because many of his statements are lacking logic, circular in nature, and just plain ludicrous. It would be easy to see how someone who never actually read the Bible could be swayed by his arguments, but those who have read it can see glaring discrepancies and misrepresentations very easily.

I have much to say about it, but want to write a detailed response, something that is difficult during the day when my kids are hootin' and hollerin' in the background. I'll be presenting it in several parts. Hopefully, I'll have the first part out tonight.

Self-Evident

So my little conversation with Mr. Cline got me thinking.

I wrote my posts on atheism as a way to express, in writing, thoughts I was having during a week of having viewed Nightline's "Proof of God" debate, Jonathan Miller's A Brief History Of Disbelief, and having listened to Christopher Hitchens plug his book, god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, on Charlie Rose. All in one week. It was as if the atheist planets had aligned--not on purpose, of course, but merely by random processes, over long periods of time, with no intention of any sort.

I have no illusions that a dyed-in-the-wool atheist will come across my posts and in a burst of light from Heaven, accompanied by the Hallelujah chorus, suddenly convert to Christianity. It doesn't work that way for most people. Apologetics(a defense for a belief system) does little to sway the masses. So, why engage in intellectual discussions with people from opposing viewpoints? What purpose does it serve?

It is important, not as an evangelistic tool aimed at the opposition, but as a way to give a thought-out defense for those who are making up their minds, or those who are left wondering about their faith when confronted with what seems like a good argument from the other side.

They can seem so daunting; these scientists, writers, and philosophers. They can clothe their arguments in fine words and turns of phrases, very articulately. It can seem intimidating to the average person. But there is really no need to fear.


"We hold these truths to be self-evident"

Most Christians trying to give a semi-intelligent response to atheism, are pressed on every side to provide evidence for God. Some will respond that they don't need evidence; that's why it's called "faith"in God. Others will flounder about to try and glean what they can from science to defend their position.

In truth, many of the standards imposed by atheism are arbitrary. It implies that belief in something should only exist if there is measurable proof of it. This might work for math, physics and many of the hard sciences, but begin to move into biology, neuroscience, and sociological studies and there is a lot of grey uncertainty. That is the realm of Human existence.

Certain truths are self-evident. Perhaps they can be proved, perhaps not, but lack of proof does not necessarily negate them. Our country was founded on beliefs considered to be self-evident; that men were created equally and that they should not be tyrannically oppressed. Can we prove that every man is equal? Can we prove that tyranny is bad? No, we can't, but we still know it's true.

About a year ago, leafing through my newspaper, I came across a brief article. The headline read: Scientists Conclude Fish Feel Pain. I laughed as I thought about scientists hovering over aquariums in white lab coats, examining fish hooked up to electrodes and all manner of equipment. I thought it was funny simply because of the silliness of supposing that fish wouldn't feel pain for some reason. It was self-evident to me that of fish would feel pain. They have flesh, nervous systems, and flee certain death. Why wouldn't they feel pain? I had no scientific study to prove they feel pain. Should I have refused to form an opinion on something so obvious because scientists hadn't yet stamped their seal of approval on my assumption? That would be ridiculous.

Over the past few decades, we have learned more about animals and their level of intelligence and social interaction. We have discovered that primates behave much like people in certain situations; Ravens are quite intelligent and cunning; and animals can remember things for many years. It is really quite amazing.

Many years ago, scientists would have said we were reading into these behaviors, anthropomorphizing animals. Anyone with a pet, or who works with animals, knows differently. It is self-evident that animals have a certain level of intelligence, and even feelings. They may not be exactly like ours, but you can see it in the faithful dog that follows its master, in the chimpanzee that mourns the death of one of its group. Countless anecdotes are found among friends, relatives, and even mythological sources. Would those who claimed to believe such things have had no basis for their thoughts simply because science hadn't proved it? No.

There is a point at which discounting belief for lack of evidence becomes outlandish and lacking all sense.

Some might say that I am trying to use science to prove that we don't need science to support our beliefs. That is not the case. I am only using science to show that many beliefs can be held dear and be true long before any scientific evidence comes along to support it.

I am not calling for a rejection of using reason and understanding to examine our beliefs. Without some self-reflection and questioning, we can easily be led into bizarre beliefs and actions. However, we must throw off the self-imposed chains of meeting some extreme from of evidence before forming our opinions. It really isn't necessary, despite what atheism might claim.

Rebuttal, Defense, And A Hornet's Nest...that sort of rhymes

Recipe for Surprise:

1 long stick
1 big hornet's next
1000 angry hornets

While approaching nest, be sure to carry the long stick properly.
After choosing a sufficiently large nest, whack it a few times. Once the
nest is well-shaken...RUN! ....or you can stand your ground
and try to reason with them.....good luck with that!

I have a slightly obsessive streak to my personality, so I check my sitemeter quite often to see how people get to my blog; what search terms they used; if they run screaming in the other direction, bored by my rather mundane life, etc. Imagine my surprise when I found someone being referred to my site from atheism.about.com. Hmm, I thought to myself, that's odd. Clicking on the link led me to Mr. Cline's portion of About.com which is a detailed section on atheism and various atheist issues and questions. And there, in this large compilation of information, was my name and blog site. Apparently, he had come across my blog and decided to quote it in his own blog-like article. That's OK. This is the internet after all, and it is posted for all to read.

I responded briefly to him, simply because I was so surprised that I wasn't really thinking too much about what to say. Here's the article he wrote if you'd like to check it out, and the comment I left, before I launch into a more lengthy response. The posts he references are all in my May Archive. You can open the May folder and each should be easily accessible. I recommend reading them in entirety if you are really interested in that sort of thing.

In the very first paragraph Mr. Cline writes:

"A popular argument for Christians is known as the "first cause" argument: it purports to prove the existence of a god by insisting that the universe could not exist or have been caused by any other means. A common retort from atheists is to ask what caused this god — after all, if the universe requires a cause and explanation, then surely this alleged god does as well; if not, then why say that the universe does?"(emphasis mine)

The first sentence is not exactly true. First Cause does not purport to prove the existence of God. It can be used as an argument to assert God's existence, but does not in and of itself, claim to prove anything. It is a question to be pondered.

The last sentence is double talk. This does nothing to prove or disprove God. Basically, this sentence merely says,"If you don't have to explain where God came from, then we don't have to explain where the Universe came from." While perhaps feeling that this statement somehow levels the playing field, it still does not answer First Cause. The reason that atheists have to explain it is because those are the requirements that they, themselves, have chosen. Christians have never said that they require scientific proof of God's existence. However, if an atheist declares that there must be evidence for belief, then they should be required to supply it for their own belief/disbelief. Their rules, not mine. I am only asking them to be consistent. It is silly to dismiss God's existence for lack of scientific evidence, and then in the next breath, declare that you don't require a scientific explanation for the lack in your own belief/disbelief system.

The next quote:

"For one thing, we don't need to have a final answer to something in order to know that something else definitely isn't the answer. "

Really?

So, we don't need to know that 2+x=4 in order to say that "x" is not 6? If 2 +x=? then how can we definitively tell ourselves that "x" is, most assuredly, not 6?

I don't think that approach would work in math. In order to rule something out, you must know what everything else is, except for the one unknown.

In his quote from my post, he links to his own articles.

"By the time a person boldly declares themselves an atheist, they usually have their minds made up; otherwise, they would simply call themselves agnostic or say that they don't "think" that there is a God. "

What's so funny about this is that he inserted links to pages about the terms agnostic/atheist, seeming to try and disprove my opinion. If you go to the links and read through them, they don't contradict this statement, and can even support it. So, I'm not sure what his intent was.

He did the same thing here by linking my text to another article about Meaning.

"But, of course, atheists would deny that there is any meaning to humanity's journey. Meaning implies purpose. Purpose implies intention. "

Once again, the link leads to an article that explains that meaning for an atheist can be found in an individual's life, but it doesn't disprove what I am claiming about atheists and a lack of meaning for humanity's journey. I may find a book very meaningful, but what has that to do with all of Humanity? Nothing, because we are talking about two different concepts. Atheists do deny that there is any inherent meaning to Humanity's journey. At no point does he say differently, so why the link to an irrelevant article?

Here's a good one. I wrote in one of my original posts:

What bugs me most about atheists' thinking is that it is so often illogical and hypocritical in its application...and later on...What smug atheists often fail to do is to use their own logic on their beliefs.

His response:

"according to Terri here, all atheists are often illogical and hypocritical. That's as bigoted and suggesting that all blacks are often criminal, or all Jews are often greedy. " (typo is his)

Wow. I've never been called a bigot before. Preposterous. Saying that Atheists can be illogical and hypocritical in their thinking, when approaching the existence of God, is not even close to the other two comparisons--one is simply about intellectual arguments that are made, and the others are about the character of an individual. The criticism is of the "thinking" not the person. Perhaps, I shouldn't have used the word "smug." Not all atheists are smug. I was responding to some snarky comments by the Rational Response Squad, not trying to say that all atheists are smug.

Mr. Cline concludes with:

"but ultimately, people who presume to post about and criticize others like this have an ethical and an intellectual obligation to do at least a little work checking facts and their assumptions before proceeding."

Well, you can go to my last post about atheism and read what I have to say about obligations, be they ethical or moral. Why do I have an obligation in a Universe that has no inherent meaning, purpose, right, or wrong?

Once again, my criticism is aimed at the thoughts and arguments of atheists, not the character of atheists. Also, I read through many of Mr. Cline's articles and still have yet to find a single answer to any of the themes proposed in my posts. What I did find was a lot of post-modern thinking that consisted largely of the rejection of ideas based on an inability to be certain of any truth. OK. Well if that is the modus operandus of atheism, than how can an atheist be sure of their version of truth? If nothing can be verified, and all belief systems stem from confirmation bias and misconceptions, what is it that sets an atheist above the scope of such influence? Did they swallow a magic pill, a la Matrix, and now they can see clearly and are free of this dastardly influence, yet everyone else is woefully subject to its deceptions?

Further, Mr. Cline criticizes my post as being pure assumption. He claims that I should do research and check facts before posting my opinions on the subject. What is so intriguing about this claim is that as I read through many of Mr. Cline's articles, none of them are based on facts. There are lots of opinions, intellectual ideas, and in-depth thoughts about atheism and theism, but those are not the same as "facts." I did not come across a single reference or link within his writings to any source, other than his own ideas, in all of the articles through which I waded. I, on my personal blog, must check my facts, but he, contributor to a widely used internet resource, is not required to list any? That is not only a double standard, but shows a misunderstanding for the level of research required for very different types of writing--one being personal, the other being academic.

There is much more that I have to say, but I will save it for another post. This one is already quite lengthy.

Atheism and Being Human

Evidence.

That is what atheists want; scientific evidence that God, and the supernatural exist. We Christians flounder about trying to come up with examples from the natural world to show the intricacies of nature, and convince atheists that natural selection is a poor way to explain the massively complex universe around us. We are bound to fail in this manner.

We cannot succeed in conveying "evidence" to atheists, because they have declared themselves the arbiters of what they will consider as evidence, and what they are unwilling to allow in the conversation. It is like a little boy wanting to belong to a club whose members find every reason not to allow him in. First, he needs a blue jacket. He gets one, but it is cerulean, not royal blue. He replaces it with a royal blue jacket, but now the buttons are 2 centimeters too large. He buys yet another jacket, but this one's stitches are too close together. Once more he returns with a blue jacket, but this one was made in China and they require a jacket made only in Belgium. Finally, exhausted from trying to meet a standard that is being controlled by those who don't want him in the first place, he walks away, leaving the club members in their tight little group.

Arguing with an atheist, from a scientific standpoint, is very much like this. You can point out A, B, and C in scientific studies and breakthroughs, but the response will be something like, "Well A was a study done by someone who might believe in God, so it's biased. B might indicate Intelligent Design, but the study was done in such and such a country whose standards are not quite the same as ours. C seems perfectly fine, but it is only one study and doesn't line up with other two that we like better." And so on, and so on. No matter what you bring out, it will never be enough.

Theoretically, atheism might seem intellectually appealing to its proponents, but the problem with atheism, is that no one actually lives in its sphere of thinking. Atheists go home and their everyday lives are much the same as the rest of the world's. They look for love, raise their children, and look for fulfillment in their careers, hobbies, or interests. Unlike what some would insinuate, atheism does not make one a Machiavellian monster, though surely they have their share, as does any group. And that is what is most interesting about atheism. Within the denial of God's existence, there is an implicit indication that there is no Moral Law to which people must ascribe. No God means No Rules. Yet, whenever engaging atheists in discussions, they seem to constantly rely on a set of Moral Laws.

Over and over they will cry for evidence. Why? Because they do not want to believe in something false. They have a quest to seek after Truth. In some ways it is a noble quest, being willing to release all things that might not be true, in order to live in truth. However, if there is no God, and therefore no Moral Law why are they so intent on living "truthfully"? There is no innate goodness in living "truthfully" because there is no "good." Why be outraged when people teach religion? How is it any different than someone teaching a particular dance step, or the way to paint a beautiful picture?

They will say that they want people to be free. They want to be able to live without the crushing oppression of religion. They will slander religious proponents in the most scathing ways, calling them hypocrites, bigots, and power-hungry maniacs, because they feel that humanity has suffered horribly under religious belief.

From whence comes this "moral" outrage that seethes in atheists? After all, if there is no Moral Law, then injustice and suffering lose their meaning. Why should a human care if people are oppressed or murdered? Do we care if a pack of wolves eviscerates a caribou? If people are simply more evolved animals, than the only Law to which they must answer is that of self-preservation. It would not be wrong to eradicate a people and take over their lands if not doing so meant your family would die. There would be no sense of right or wrong.

Completely frivolous comparison:

On Star Trek, the Vulcans were always portrayed as being highly evolved because they acted only out of logic, not emotion. I always wondered at the portrayal of this concept, because if people lived only out of logic, the world would be a very scary place and Vulcans would be a very evil people--albeit imaginary ones. Logic, in and of itself, would do anything to acquire the goal at hand. As long as the mission is accomplished, who cares how one gets there. Pure logic is about efficiency and ease. It makes more sense to cheat on an exam and get an A, then it does to study and get a B. It would be illogical not to cheat. Therefore, Vulcans should be morally untrustworthy and devious.

Of course, atheists are not Vulcans, their ears aren't pointy enough...and their blood is red, not green....and they've never traveled at warp speed.

Despite the claim that life should be lived purely on rationality and logic, it is impossible. The things that most people live for are completely beyond the scope of scientific logic. There is a push to try and explain away innate morality, intelligence, and self-awareness as nothing more than evolutionary necessities, but that simply doesn't hold water. Morality does not exist outside of God. Arguments can be made about the survival of the species and the need for order, but those also imply that the survival of the species is somehow good, worthy, and more important than the individual--a very morally, altruisitc view.

In some ways, the more atheists fight for Truth, the more they reveal about the reality that there is a Truth to fight for...a way of living and thinking that is right, and a way of living and thinking that is wrong.


Very familiar ideas to those of us who believe in God.

Is Atheism Stuck In The Present?

I can't seem to escape atheism lately. It's on my TV, in the magazines I read, and proliferating online.

While blog-surfing the other day I clicked on a link that gave no indication that it was an atheist blog. Reading through the posts and comments was interesting, and I responded to one of them. One of the other commenter's statements set a tangential thought through my brain. He was expressing frustration that, when discussing atheism and evolution with non-atheists, things always come back to Ultimate Origins. He wanted the conversation to take place from The Big Bang and go forward from there. Well, there are a lot of reasons why that is simply ridiculous. You can't argue scientifically from a set of assumed facts that you haven't justified. I addressed some of my thoughts about The First Cause problem for atheists in an earlier post.

However, thinking about this commenter's remark, I realized the atheists' aversion to the past and the future. That may seem a silly assertion to make when considering atheists' attachment to evolution, the geologic record, and The Big Bang theory. After all, isn't the past the point from which most of their arguments are made?

Yes and no.

They do rely heavily on what they believe about the past formation of Earth and Life on Earth, but their arguments do not address the true beginning of the past--First Cause. Dwelling on the beginning of all things is uncomfortable because they have no scientific explanation for it. Instead, they begin to join the conversation in medias res.

So, why do I say that they also have an aversion to contemplating the future? It seems another silly statement when considering atheistic contributions to science fiction and speculations about what might happen to Earth and humanity in the future. They seem to look forward to the continuing evolution of man.

Yes, but the future is not solely about what will happen, but about where things are going. Evolutionists believe that natural selection is a process that is random and operates with no forethought or intelligence directing it. In this view, mutations and adaptations are meant for the here and now, not preparation for a different set of circumstances that will occur 50-100 years later. There is no "gearing-up" for the future of a species. To admit that mutations take the future into consideration would be to admit that something, other than physical matter, was operating. The ability to predict a set of circumstances that hasn't yet occurred, requires forethought and higher intelligence. While atheists would concede that humans possess the ability to speculate and accurately predict some future events, that is seen as a higher function that has evolved within us. If we go back into the past and try to assign that higher function to lower life forms or to a cellular level, evolutionists would be quick to attempt to obliterate such thoughts.


The past and the future are what give events meaning. The fact that we started somewhere, and are headed somewhere else, is what defines the Journey. But, of course, atheists would deny that there is any meaning to humanity's journey. Meaning implies purpose. Purpose implies intention. Intention can only come from a higher intelligence. Thus, to dwell too profoundly on where everything came from and where everything is going, would be uncomfortable for those who are assured in their own hearts that there is no Higher Intelligence.

Any opinions about this?

P.S....I am an evangelical Christian, but all of my posts about Atheism are being dealt with purely from a point of reason. I am not quoting Scripture, or trying to prove anything from the Bible, simply because it would be meaningless to someone who doesn't even believe there is such a thing as God.

Atheism and Proof of God...Part 3

Last night, I woke up around 3:30 am and couldn't get back to sleep. I goofed around on the computer for a few minutes and then laid down on the couch, turning on PBS. Ahhh PBS. What would I do without you? Your documentaries always have the calm, soothing monotone, of a gentle, male voice. I have gotten my best naps accompanied by various nature shows and scientific explorations. While awake, they are very fascinating; if drowsy, they are a one-way ticket to drool-inducing sleep.

Maybe the timing was coincidence, but there before my eyes was, A Brief History Of Disbelief, a show I had caught the last five minutes of just a couple of days ago. Considering all that I had already been pondering this week, it was like a nudge to my mind. The film is an exploration of the evolution of atheistic thought and development narrated by Jonathan Miller. It's fascinating.

I couldn't possibly post about all of the thoughts I had concerning Jonathan Miller's commentary--there were just too many.

Here's a brief rundown of things that I want to address in more thought-out posts:

• Is atheism the exclusive domain of "intellectually superior" white men? The most important thinkers quoted in the series were exclusively well-off, white, European men. Not much for the diversity of thought--this is only a minor thought that I had regarding the development of atheism.
• The assumed facts that are a starting point for atheism. There was a very interesting quote by Richard Dawkins, regarding natural selection and genetic mutations that really sent me over the edge, not for its outrageousness, but for its sheer illogicity from a supposed rational thinker.
• The place of intelligence, consciousness, and purpose in atheistic thinking. Despite all the "scientific" spin on atheism, this is really the heart of what most people must confront before embracing this philosophy.
• The role of evil and suffering in the world. Of course, volumes could be written on this subject alone. However, Miller made a claim that disbelief is so embraced today because of the relative comfort that science has given us. We are more in control of our lives than before, and therefore do not need any gods to alleviate our suffering.
• The focus of atheism aimed against Christianity as opposed to other belief systems. Atheism's venom is almost always aimed solely at Christianity.

There's a lot more swirling in my head, but it will take more time and research than I usually put into a blog post. So, I think that I will post sporadically on this subject as I cobble together the main point I'd like to make in a more refined way.