Skip to content

Monthly Archives for October 2008

The question of unbelief 2

My last post dealt with a question John Loftus asked at Debunking Christianity, “Tell us why we don’t believe?” (Actually, it was not so much a question as it was a demand.)  As I said, it is an interesting question, that I think does tend to confuse Chsitians who believe that they can somehow argue someone into becoming a Christian.  The simple fact that some people can choose not to believe is therefore troubling.

John suggests 3 hypothetical reasons why there are atheists:

  1. Ignorance: If this is the only reason, then he is right in saying, “then show me what I’m ignorant of.”  If the lack of information is all that stood in the way of people becoming Christians, then evangelism would be quite simple.
  2. Sin: He didn’t put it that way, but that’s what he meant; willful disobedience to the truth.  He then goes on a mini-rant about how people will gladly sacrifice for what they think is true, so people would not disobey what they thought was true, especially if it meant going to hell.   However, I think he’s in part answered his own question: If God tells us to believe, and we don’t, then yes, we’re being willfully disobedient to the truth, even if we live our lives as living sacrifices to good causes.  Believing in a falsity, no matter how sincere our belief, doesn’t count.
  3. Failure to experience God: Again, a good point. If belief rested on experience, then God could just do a little dance and the whole world would believe. However, the Gospel accounts make the clear point that seeing miracles isn’t enough; a wicked people will still seek just one more sign. Perhaps the issue is not one of not experiencing God, but rather, recognizing truth (God) when we do experience it.

I still think that perhaps the best discussion of why some people choose disbelief (and I believe that it most certainly is a choice) is C.S. Lewis’ book The Great Divorce.  While not a theological work by any means, he demonstrates the kind of thinking and acting that leads to unbelief, and points out that people who have chosen unbelief would not be happy at all in Heaven. Hell is not, then, a punishment, but rather, a lifestyle choice.

The choice to not believe can, I think, be influenced by factors other than wilfull disobedience, including ignorance, as mentioned above, or from mental programming we’ve received wtih conflicting and errant information. Much programming, I think, is actually emotional, either as a result of sins we’ve committed, or sins committed against us (which is why that section of the Lord’s Prayer is so important).  It’s not unusual for very vocal atheists to have a religious background, and it would not surprise me to find that some of their analysis is emotionally based. The point has often been raised that many of use choose the religions we were raised with; however, the opposite effect is also seen.

Another such factor are worldviews, which have everything to do with how we perceive and process information. Our worldviews, which are instilled in us from a very young age, are often difficult to identify and work around.  Modernism, the worldview of the West, is no exception, and can be especially difficult due to its anti-historical, self-aware nature. As Loftus has said in the past, modernism is the Achilles’ heel of Christianity.  He, of course, believes modernism to be true and good (as a good modern would say), so it’s effect on Christianity is therefore, favorable.  I obviously disagree.  However, I do agree with the “Achilles’ heel” statement, and think that in part, this answers Loftus’ question.

In part 3 of this discussion, I will introdue my “teacup” analogy.  I bet you can hardly wait…

Written on 30 October 2008 by me under Random Thoughts with No Comments

The question of unbelief

How could you forsake the love of God that way
Don’t fade, you’re staying here with me
Don’t fade, I need to know that someone still believes
- Don’t Fade, Glen Phillips

A week or so ago John Loftus over at Debunking Christianity (a very interesting site) asked Christians to tell him why he didn’t believe:

But since you believe we will be punished by God in hell (however conceived) if we don’t believe, then you need to offer some explanations for why we don’t believe. Surely a good God like yours wouldn’t punish us if we weren’t deserving of it, right? And surely your God wouldn’t punish us for our disbelief without offering us a clear testimony with sufficient evidence to believe, right?

Now, John’s testimony is that he was a Christian, received a Th.M. from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and studied under William Lane Craig. But, over time he came to unbelieve in God – an opposite response of what we’d generally expect. And, there are others who have similar stories.  John suggests three possible reasons for not being able to believe: ignorance, willful disobedience, and a failure to experience God – all good questions to consider.  Concerning the question of ignorance, is disbelief merely a matter of not enough information?  In John’s case, I would have to presume the answer is no; he’s got a theology degree, and I haven’t.

As far as disobedience goes, he asks a very profound question in response: “Who in his right mind would be willfully disobedient of that which he knows to be true, if the truth is that he will go to hell if he is?“  Of course, the question of being in one’s right mind is another issue. I suppose one could hypothesize that unbelief is a type of psychosis resulting from the inability to reconcile the sinful nature with a works-oriented theology, like Paul describes in Romans chapter 7.  It’s really an interesting thought, along the same lines as, “does OJ really think he’s innocent?”; but it’s not an idea I would pursue at this point.

I think that John’s 3rd option – a failure to experience God – deserves some real thought.  A hard-core double-predestination Calvinist would probably pick this option and write these atheists off as merely people whom God has rejected.  However, I’m not a Calvinist, and I don’t think the answer is that simple. On this question, John writes:

Have we just failed to experience God in our lives? Do we need to experience something that we didn’t? What kind of experience do you mean? A miracle? Well, whose fault is that? God knows what we need to believe, and if so, why doesn’t he provide it? If God did the greater deed, by sending his son to atone for our sins, then why doesn’t he do the lesser deeds by providing us the evidence and experiences we need to believe?

It’s somewhat interesting that John wrote this post last week, as I’ve been thinking about this question myself. Why, indeed, do some people appear to be blind to what seems to be the clear revelation of God?  I believe that God, indeed, has revealed himself, and quite clearly, as Paul writes in Romans 1:

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Part of the answer, at least for some, might be answered by Loftus’ own proposition that modernism is the Achilles’ Heel of Christianity.  We differ, however, in that John believes modernism to be the superior worldview, whereas I take an opposite view.  Perhaps – at least in part – buying into modernism is tantamount to planting seed in a field of weeds; the clear result is that faith is choked out.

I began this post quoting Glen Phillips, who is perhaps my favorite singer/songwriter. He seems to understand faith and doubt in a way that I find quite remarkable, being he’s not a Christian, or even necessarily religious (per an interview in 2004; although, the song “Thank You” on his latest album implies he’s at least a Theist).  I’ll end this post with a verse from “Dam Would Break” that seems relevant to this discussion:

What is this ice that gathers round my heart
To stop the flood of warmth before it even starts
It would make me blind to what I thought would always be
The only constant in the world for me
And every hour of every day
I need to fight from pulling away
And if my mind could only loose the chain
The dam would break

Written on 19 October 2008 by me under Epistemology, Faith, Science & Doubt with 2 Comments
Tagged with , , , , ,

The truth about the bailout

I’m beginning to think that the writers of Saturday Night Live are the only people in the country who really know what’s going on. The following clip is a good example.

And, if you didn’t see SNL’s Thursday version of Weekend Update, you’ve got to check it out.  Truly profound.

Written on 11 October 2008 by me under Humor and/or Sarcasm, Politics/Current Events with No Comments
Tagged with ,

For those of you who can’t wait for the next season of Lost

Written on 09 October 2008 by me under Humor and/or Sarcasm, Random Thoughts, Reviews with 1 Comment

An atheist who understands the importance of epistemology

This is one of the reasons l like John Loftus:

If I have a focus when it comes to debunking Christianity it is with control beliefs. Control beliefs are those beliefs that control how we view the evidence, and so my critique is generally philosophical and epistemological in nature. I’m interested in how we know what we know. How we view that which we know is the difference that makes all of the difference.

How we each look at the evidence is controlled by certain beliefs of ours. Since this is so, I want to know how to justify those control beliefs themselves. For me it’s all about seeing things differently. It’s not about more and more knowledge. It’s about viewing what we know in a different light. …

How do we decide which approach, which bias, and which set of control beliefs are preferrable when looking at Christianity? That’s the biggest question of them all! Why? Because the set of control beliefs we start with when looking at the Bible is usually the same set we will come away with.

After people like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, this is a breath of fresh air.  In fact, if you look back through my posts and comments you’ll see that I’ve been saying the same thing.  Whether you talk about worldviews, paradigms, presuppositions, narratives or control beliefs, the point is this: if you don’t deal with the differences at this level, discussion about topics like the truth of Christianity are pointless. Yet, the majority of discussions and debates stay fixed on the minutia rather than at the “meta” level.  Words don’t even mean the same thing in different belief systems.

However, I still have major disagreements with Loftus on many of his control beliefs, and question whether he’s gone deep enough; perhaps there are presuppositions controlling his control beliefs. John is, without a doubt, a modernist, as he makes the point, “I call our modern ways of thinking the Achilles’ heel of Christianity.”

Here, again, I would tend to agree with Loftus. Modernism as a worldview is at the very least hostile to Christianity; it is a competing and contrasting worldview.  However, as it emerged at least partially from within the Roman Catholic church, it became over time the predominant worldview of the West, including that of the Western church.  Now, not all facets of modernism are necessarily bad; but, as modernism reframed how we look at the evidence, as Loftus talks about, and also redefined evidence itself, a Christianity whose apologetics (itself a modern concept) is framed within modernism is essentially cut off at the knees.

I believe the question of “Does God exist” or “Is Christianity true” can only partially be addressed without addressing the question of whether modernism is an accurate worldview.  While modernism certainly still has its adherents, especially those for whom modernism serves as a necessary foundation, it is generally held that modernism is a failed worldview. Whether it simply implodes or is transformed in a post-modern derivative remains to be seen. In any event I have a hunch that the discussions of the next generation will be quite different from those we have today.

Further into Loftus’ post he lists his control beliefs, which I believe are discussed more fully in his book. What I think John is saying is that essentially in order for him to really challenge Christianity, he needs to bring people completely into a modernist mindset.  As I indicated, I would tend to agree with him. My contention, however, is that to adopt a completely modernist mindset is already to abandon a Christian worldview. For those who try to maintain a set of Christian beliefs within a modernist worldview, I think it is quite easy to draw them away from Christianity. To try to maintain a dual worldview is difficult at best, and often requires some type of loss of intellectual integrity. Others take a compartmentalized view, such as Francis Collins; but this, too, seems like intellectual suicide.

Loftus concludes:

I just don’t see how Christians can refute any of these reasons for starting with a skeptical attitude, since they are all practically undeniable (and even obvious) to modern educated scientifically literate people. How much more is this so when these reasons are all taken together as a whole. So it is no surprise that I look at Christianity with the presumption of skepticism. And it is no surprise that I reject it.

While I think some (or perhaps all) of John’s points are able to be challenged from within modernism, I suspect that the more someone is inclined toward a totally modernist worldview, the more likely they are to find these points convincing.  However, I suspect that the opposite is also true: the more someone’s mind has been transformed (Romans 12:2) away from the “pattern of the world,” the less likely that these arguments will have that impact.  Modernism is but one of several philosophies that has challenged a Biblical worldview, as discussed in my series on Webber, and the current evangelical church has been weakened by more than just modernism.  I also suspect that someone whose worldview has been impacted by other contrary philosophies such as romanticism are more susceptible to challenges as their belief system is already impaired.

I appreciate Loftus’ level of thinking here; where many atheists today refuse to deal with worldview issues or discussions about presuppositions, Loftus appears to understand the importance of recognizing and identifying presuppositions, which is probably why people like Norm Geisler recommend his book. However, as I stated earlier, I don’t think Loftus goes deep enough in identifying presuppositions, which is possibly why he and William Lane Craig seem to talk past each other.

Written on 06 October 2008 by me under Epistemology, Faith, Science & Doubt, Philosophy with 7 Comments
Tagged with , , ,