One common objection formed against Christianity is the idea that Christians abandon intelligence and knowledge in favor of unreasonable, blind faith. If Christians really thought through and questioned what they believe they’d see that there is no intellectual basis for their faith. Yet instead of embracing reason, Christians choose to blindly cling to their beliefs, willfully disregarding knowledge in the process. This is a serious objection that deserves a thoughtful response.
Are Christians anti-intellectual? Do we sacrifice knowledge on the altar of blind faith? As a Christian, how do I respond to these objections?
There is no denying that many Christians have refused to think through and question what they believe and why. Some have chosen to accept their faith blindly, Others have gone through the motions of questioning their beliefs and have chosen to walk away from Christianity, while still more have found that their faith grew stronger in the process of questioning.
The real issue is not whether Christians have thought through their faith (and I firmly believe every Christian should!), but whether their faith rests upon a reliable truth. The truth and intelligence of Christianity does not rely upon the questioning of the Christian any more than the truth and intelligence of Atheism rests on the questions of the Atheist. Christianity does not stand or fall on the shoulders of ignorance or intelligence; all the honest questioning in the world will not change this fact: either God does or does not exist.
This means that the Christians’ ability to wrestle well with their faith should not be the determining factor in one’s rejection or acceptance of the Christian message. There are people who ignorantly believe the truth, just as there are intelligent people who believe a lie. We must test the intellectual truth claims of Christianity itself to decipher whether they are true or false.
It’s also worth mentioning that many of the most intellectually brilliant minds of the past, and present, have been Christians who proclaimed their faith heartily, not by rejecting knowledge, but by fully embracing its importance. Christianity is not a faith divorced from intelligence and reason. Rather, it rests on the belief that true faith is intelligent, and that knowledge points to Jesus Christ and not away from him.
Ultimately, the truth or falsity of Christianity is not dependent upon the intellectual capacity of its followers. The heartbreaking reality that some Christians dismiss knowledge does not mean Christianity rejects knowledge and is a faith with no evidential basis. For example, some Muslims are terrorists and some Atheists are very angry. But to jump to the conclusion that ALL Muslims are terrorists and ALL Atheists are angry is simply wrong. In the same way, it is wrong to jump to the conclusion that ALL Christians are anti-intellectual (and therefore Christianity is false) because some Christians have decided to believe without questioning why.
In conclusion, it is true that there are some Christians who are anti-intellectual, refusing to question their faith while dismissing knowledge. Yet there are many Christians today, and throughout history, who have discovered that the pursuit of a rich intellectual life and asking the hard questions of faith does not weaken the Christian message but actually gives it strength. Yet ultimately, the truth or falsity of God’s existence and Christianity does not rest upon the intellectual capacity of any person. Christianity is either true or it is false. Therefore, it behooves us to look into what Christianity actually says and ask, is it reliable? Is it true?
*Cross posted at Penny of a Thought
Man, out of all the creatures that roam the earth, is the only one that searches for knowledge and understanding. Back in the days when ‘Man lived in caves’ and science didn’t exist, it seems reasonable for Man to believe that all that he surveyed was controlled by deities. At least it provided Man with an explanation, wrong though it was.
Now let’s scroll forward to the birth of Christ. It seems reasonable to roll up all of the deities into one super-deity (God) and to attribute all that Man surveyed to that one deity. After all, just trying to remember which deity was responsible for what must have been a real pain. Building all of those temples to worship them all must also have been a time-consuming and expensive business.
Now let’s fast forward to the 1960s. At that time, we had the Big Bang and Steady State theories to explain the existence of the Universe. The former stated that the Universe began as a singularity which expanded to create space, time and the matter that we observe today. The latter stated that the Universe is in a state of flux. First it expands, then it contacts only to expand again.
Both were deficient in that neither explained where the matter that formed the Universe originally came from. It therefore seems reasonable for Man to still believe in God. It explained where the original matter that formed the Universe came from. He created it.
Since the 1960s, science has progressed at an ever increasing rate. Quarks (all six of them) were postulated and found. The Higgs-Boson (the ill-name God particle) was postulated and has probably been found. The spontaneous creation of particle/antiparticle pairs has been observed. That last one just about seals God’s fate. He’s served his purpose. Some may say well.
Now it’s time for Man to grow up. We are no longer children. We can destroy the Earth we occupy many times over in ways we couldn’t have even imagined when ‘we lived in caves’. We can now even visit other worlds.
As children, we believed in Father Christmas. Even when we started to grow up a little, we still wanted to believe. When we grew up a little more, we finally stopped. But, we had children and we passed on the belief in Father Christmas to them. However, Father Christmas is a fairy tale. His current garb was even the invention of Coca-Cola.
God’s not unlike Father Christmas. He is Man’s invention too. He was created to fulfil a purpose. However, the purpose no longer exists. Science may not have all of the answers. It may never have all of the answers. But it has a lot and certainly has all it needs to to prove that God isn’t needed in the Universe equation any more. He never was. We just didn’t realise it. Well, now we do.
It’s now time for Man to grow up and to stop believing in the God fairytale that we created. It’s time to move on.
It’s also time to accept that God isn’t our salvation. He never was. He was invented by Man to fulfil a purpose.
It’s time to accept that Man’s salvation doesn’t lie in God, it lies in Man.
God won’t save us from ourselves. Only Man can do that. God doesn’t exist.
Dear Lord, and I thought that tired rhetoric had dies years ago.
Michael – No Michael – it’s alive and well and growing. Personally, I don’t understand why the God fairytale is still alive – but it is. It’s dying a lot more slowly than I envisaged.
Paul,
http://www.reasons.org/blogs/reflections/5-reasons-god-exists
Robert
Robert
Robert
I’m having some intelligent conversations on here. I have to say, the video is total garbage. It is biased, badly researched and unscientific.
Firstly, scientists have shown that when all matter has been extracted from a vessel, matter/anti matter pairs of particles have been observed to be created spontaneously. Creation no longer needs God.
As for intelligent creation as opposed to evolution …..
Man lives but 3 score years and ten. Man’s mind tends to work best with this time scale. Beyond that, man’s brain works less and less well. Young children of today have difficulty accepting and understanding that a wall once existed that divided West from East Berlin. Young women of today find it difficult to imagine a world without ‘the pill’. Young children can’t imagine life without a mobile phone. Yet, these things occurred very recently in man’s history.
To imagine life evolving over billions of years is easily said but incredibly difficult to actually understand. Yet, it did.
As for the so-called ‘intelligent creation’ of man by God. Here’s a crude example of God’s so-called intelligent design which isn’t intelligent at all.
When you build a pleasure beach, you don’t build a sewage works close by. Do you understand or do you want me to draw you a diagram of the female anatomy?
I could go on.
The video is a disgrace and not worth the effort of criticism. It is so bad, it ought to be self-critical. At least in that way, it will have served some useful purpose.
Robert
I posted a response earlier today. It has disappeared.
Please see this.
It explains how matter can be created fro literally nothing without violating any physical laws.
I found the video that you posted total ‘shash’.
Firstly, you do not need God in the Universe creation equation. The video explains.
Secondly, Man was created by an intelligence? Are you kidding me?
A crude but effective example of why man evolved rather than designed is:
If you build a pleasure beach, you don’t build a sewage works next to it. If you don’t understand, I’ll send you a diagram of the female body.
Also, man lives but for four score years and ten. Man’s mind can comprehend this length of time. However, what Man isn’t good at is comprehending the billions of years over which evolution took place.
Paul,
I have had an incredibly busy day today, so I have not had a chance to respond.
Paul,
First, the video I posted was more philosophical than scientific. Specifically, it was intended to highlight the Christian worldview as contrasted with the non-Theistic or anti-Theistic worldview.
Second, in his book A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing, even Krauss backs away from saying that he has proven absolutely that God doesn’t exist. He puts forth quite a few reasons why he thinks that God doesn’t exist, but then states (p 173) that “on the basis of logic alone,” a Deistic view of nature cannot be ruled out (hat tip: Hugh Ross for pointing this out in his review of Krauss’ book). He gives quite a few reasons from physics for why God doesn’t exist, but then ultimately concludes that he doesn’t know, and cannot know, precisely what happened at the moment of creation, so, though not admitting it, he has conceded that he cannot rule out the existence of some sort of Deity present at creation. You may correctly point out to me that this is a “god of the gaps” argument; however, it is Krauss who has conceded that the gap (a) exists and (b) is unable to be closed by our present knowledge and understanding of physics. I’m not offering that as a proof of the existence of God but as proof that Krauss’ claims are not as bedrock solid as you (or he) would have us believe.
Third, your argument that God doesn’t exist because no intelligent mind would build a sewage works next to a pleasure beach is both peurile and incorrect.
I can cite any number of recreational areas where sewage empties into recreational waters. A city near where I live has been cited repeatedly over the years for having raw, untreated sewage dump into recreational waters during storm overflows. Beaches all across this country are closed from time-to-time due to sewage dumping into water. Obviously, by your logic, these sewage systems evolved; they could not have been designed by an intelligent mind.
Moreover, your understanding of sex as being purely for pleasure completely misunderstands human biology. Sex is primarily procreative and unitive. It certainly has a pleasure component, and that pleasure component combines with the hormone releases that accompany sexual activity to encourage humans to engage in sex for procreative purposes. It has only been relatively recently in human history that sexual activity has been effectively separated from procreative consequences. (PLEASE NOTE: I am not advocating the idea that people should have as many children as possible. I am merely pointing out that your vulgar, immature description misses the biological point of sex.)
Fourth, having read your responses to other people in this comment section of this post, I have concluded that you are not seriously interested in dialogue with others. You are interested in harangue and in scoring points for your non-Theistic position. The tone of your replies is uncivil, even rude, and reflects poorly on you as a person and badly on the ideas you present, because your replies show little, if any, respect for the positions of other, nor do your replies engage the substantive points of people who disagree with you. For example, without engaging the philosophical points of the video, you dismiss it as ‘shash’ and offer a one hour discussion between Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss, but fail to present any substantive points rebutting what the video said. You go on to offer opinions, interlaced with derogatory or mocking asides (do you consider them witty?), but you fail to engage the substantive points. From that, I (and others who read this comment thread) could infer that you utterly disdain philosophy, which (as an aside) would point out the vast differences between your worldview and mine, or I could infer that you don’t possess sufficient education and knowledge to engage a philosophical discussion of the issues that lie between Theism and Atheism.
Ultimately, Paul, you have proven yourself to be a person uninterested in genuine, thoughtful debate and uninterested in learning from others. Given that my time to engage in these discussions in any meaningful manner is limited and, therefore, precious, I see no benefit to me in continuing to debate with you.
Robert
I find christians strange. They are ‘supposed’ to be about love for others and tolerance. Yet, when someone comes along who dares to disagree with christianity, out come the insults. You then put them down claiming that they are unintelligent or don’t know what they are talking about. You also claim to want intelligent discourse, whereas, in reality, you want discourse with those who believe what you believe. That’s the thing I dislike about christians – two-faced. They ‘pretend’ to be enquiring. Enquiring. What a joke. You ask questions to which you know the answers already. You answer questions in a way that confirms god’s existence. That’s not enquiring. That’s being brain-washed.
What’s your problem, Robert? You only want discourse with those who believe what you believe. What’s the point? Why not have discourse with a non-believer? What are you afraid of Robert – having your mind polluted with the truth?
For someone to believe in some magic man in the sky in this day and age is totally and utterly illogical. Instead of listening and trying to understand science, you brush it aside or seek to undermine it or those that support science or seek to use it for your own ends. So, rather than going with science which tries to prove, or disprove, you go with blind faith. How logical is that?
The reason why you dismiss science is because then you are in danger of having believed in something which doesn’t exist. This would make you look and feel foolish. Well, better a fool for a short time than for the whole of your life.
You stated that the video that you posted ‘claimed’ to be philosophical more than scientific. That is not what the video stated. Basically, it would have to improve before it could be referred to as pure, unadulterated tripe. Anyone believing in it needs their head examining.
One of the reasons why people believed in god was because, until relatively recently, there was no explanation as to how the universe came into being. Now, there is. God now hangs on by his fingernails.
Another reason for belief in god is that ugly word DEATH. Well, sadly, it comes to us all in the end. Man has a problem with it. We don’t like to think that when we die, that’s it. We simply cease to be and life for the living goes on. Well, get used to it because that’s the way it is. No heaven, no hell, no god. When we die, we die. Man doesn’t like this idea, fact though it may be. So we invent some fairytale about some guy called Jesus who rose from the dead. We invent some place called heaven where the good go. And we invent some place called hell where the bad go. Well, if the good go to heaven, there won’t be many christians there because of all of the evil that they have committed.
All of these things were invented by people to exert control of their fellow man. They even wrote a book and called it the bible so this also could be used to exert control over their fellow man.
Religion is all about exerting control over man and using death as scare tactics.
OK, I may be wrong. But, it makes a whole lot more sense than your magic man in the sky, does it not?
Well, it makes more sense to someone who isn’t brain-washed anyway.
You said I am merely pointing out that your vulgar, immature description misses the biological point of sex.) The only reasonable explanation for an anus to be found next to a vagina is evolution. If god exists, he wouldn’t have placed an anus next to a vagina. It’s totally illogical. Yet, they do exist in close proximity. By definition then, god either doesn’t exist or he did not design the human form.
Ultimately, Robert, you refuse to accept what is blindingly obvious to the rational thinkers of this world and prefer to believe in some deity.
Man used to believe in hundreds of different gods and lived in caves. The world has moved on. Sadly, you christians dig your heals in and cause the world all manner of problems. Live in the dark ages if you want to. The rest of us have seen the light.
Let’s face it Robert, you are insulting and not very intelligent for, if you were, there would be no need for insults, would there? Ergo, you are unintelligent.
Robert
I am a tad puzzled by this mythical entity which you refer to as god.
In the old testament, he advocated rape, pillage, murder and slavery. There’s lots of passages in the bible that refer to such things. I can provide lots of quotes to support this if you wish. He was a scary sort of a chap indeed. It looks to me as though it was a case of worship me or I will smite thee. It seems to me that there was an awful lot of smiting went on in those days.
Then, all of a sudden, in the new testament, this god of yours becomes all loving and forgiving. A very affable sort of a chap. The sort of chap that one would be happy to have a few pints with down the local pub.
Why the change?
So, is this god of yours a smiting god who has decided to become a better person? Is he a jolly good chap, deep down, who decided that he needed to threaten to smite people unless they worshipped him? Or, is he an extremely confused entity with psychopathic tendencies?
You can see my puzzlement, can’t you?
Is there another explanation? One which makes a lot more sense than the above.
Let’s suppose that god didn’t invent man. Let’s suppose that man invented god.
Well, said man. We need power and control (that’s man all over). How do we achieve our ends? Oh, I know, let’s invent a god. Let’s make him really scary so that people will be afraid not to worship him. We can pretend that we understand this god and can lead people in the ways of this god. We can pretend to communicate with god. That way, we can manipulate our fellow man. Let’s write a book and call it the bible. Let’s make it really scary so that people will be really afraid not to worship this god that we have invented. Let’s put a lot of writing in it because of BLIMP (Bulk Looks IMPortant). Let’s put some real history in it and associate that history with this god. That will make this god a bit more believable.
The god inventors made a few converts but, in reality, not much headway was being made.
The this person called jesus came along – just at the right time. He claimed to be the son of god. He talked of love and peace. Just what the god inventors needed – a new slant on god. A re-branding if you will.
So, some new writers were co-opted to add to the bible. They had to make jesus different from man – so they invented the virgin birth. Well, we wouldn’t want jesus to be like the rest of us who came about through a sexual act, would we? He needs to be above all that sort of thing. They threw in some facts to make it all a bit more believable and, hey presto, we have the new testament.
So, man created bible mark II. An old testament containing the exploits of the scary persona of god and a new testament containing the exploits of the loving persona of god.
The book became a useful tool to those who would seek to control their fellow man. They could lure into the fold those who were gullible using the cuddly and warm god. Those who were defiant could be threatened with this smiting god.
So, what is the bible? Nothing more than a fairytale, with some added facts to lend it a modicum of credence, that can be used, by man, to control man.
Now, of the above, which is the more likely to be true?
Here endeth this morning’s lesson.
Robert
Let’s have a genuine and thoughtful debate on the following quotation from your bible shall we?
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Answer: God.
Let’s debate shall we?
Hey Paul. Thank you so much for your contributing comment. Just to police a little on CAA commenting policy. Comments that are youtube directed are removed. If it is possible would commend a concise summary of the youtube video argument.
Sarah wrote: Christianity is not a faith divorced from intelligence and reason. Rather, it rests on the belief that true faith is intelligent, and that knowledge points to Jesus Christ and not away from him.
No, Sarah. Yet again your statements are unscientific and complete and utter nonsense.
Read the latest research into particle physics especially that being conducted by Lawrence Krauss et al. You will see that (well, at least the intelligent will) that the evidence is beginning to stack up against the existence of God. Yet, in your article, you claim otherwise.
“No, Sarah. Yet again your statements are unscientific and complete and utter nonsense.”
Why do you denounce Sarah’s faith? Isn’t that her right to believe? And why does Sarah need to read the latest ( so called ) scientific research? Can she, or anyone else for that matter, not live by faith alone? Just because Paul you do not believe does not mean others are wrong to believe. After all, you believe in what you chose to believe in. And good for you – that freedom brother – true freedom.
Michael – This web site is open – to christians and non christians alike. I presume that it exists for people to engage with each other over matters christian. I am engaging with others.
If its purpose is for christians to engage only with other christians, then the forum should be closed to non-christians. I see no problem with that.
Sarah chose to write an article. I chose to put another view forward. I have no problem with Sarah as a person. I’ve never met her. She’s probably very nice for all I know. I have no problem with her faith either. She happens to have one view, I have another.
The problem wasn’t Sarah or her faith that I had an issue with. The problem that I have is what Sarah said in her article. She stated that ‘ …. and that knowledge points to Jesus Christ and not away from him.’
As I said, the latest scientific breakthroughs (knowledge) point away from the existence of God (and Jesus as his son). That’s why Sarah should read it. If she makes such profound statements, then, at least, she needs to be in possession of ALL of the facts, not just the ones that happen to support her view of the world. Otherwise, her article represents her biased view of the world and not an objective one.
Further, it isn’t for you to defend Sarah, is it? Surely that’s for Sarah to do, if she so chooses?
Michael – I also note that you use the term ‘so called’ in conjunction with science.
Given that I haven’t told you which papers Sarah should read, do you think it fair to pre-judge the quality of the science they contain?
I’ve noticed this happens a lot with christians. When they come across science which doesn’t fit their world view, they refer to it as ‘so-called’ science in the hope that are able to dismiss it so that they are able to cling on to their narrow-minded view of the world and their world view remains intact.
Are you such a person Michael?
Well, bad science is bad science and good science is good science – regardless of whether it fits you christian world view or not.
What do you think is happening Michael?
Are the world’s scientists ganging up on you christians, perhaps?
No Michael, they are not. They are doing science for science sake. They want the truth.
If it proves God exists, so be it.
If it proves that God doesn’t exist, so be that too.
Knowledge and truth are just that. They have no agenda.
No, I am not such a person – and no, I was not pre-judging anything, merely asking a question.
I am familiar with some good Christian priests who are also excellent scientists and none of them appear to want to use science to prove God exists. Their faith works for them.
If, perchance, you were to believe in God, in what form do you think God might be? How do you suppose God might appear/form to Christians?
Michael – You may as well ask me what form the tooth fairy might take. I don’t believe in either.
Well that’s not very congenial!
Sarah Abbey may be academically intelligent but she obviously lacks the ability to think in a critical and unbiased way. That’s the problem with Christianity in
general and evangelical Christianity in particular. It addresses issues based
on the principal that God exists. Therefore, the outcome is biased and, in all
probability, pre-determined. To address an issue in a truly scientific manner,
the scientist needs to be unbiased. That means being an Agnostic in this case.
Sarah is a Christian. As such, her views are biased and therefore largely
irrelevant. I’ve spoken to a lot of Christians, especially of the evangelical
type. They all ‘claim’ to have questioned their faith and even ‘claim’ to do it
on a frequent basis. I have no doubt that they believe their claims. However,
when questioned on a deep level, my conclusion is that they don’t. They only
seek out knowledge which confirms their belief or only observe knowledge from
perspectives which support their beliefs. This isn’t objectively questioning
their faith. It is seeking knowledge which confirms their belief.
Here’s an example of one of Sarah’s biased view which, she claims, is unbiased:
Sarah wrote: It’s also worth mentioning that many of the most intellectually brilliant minds of the past, and present, have been Christians who proclaimed their faith heartily, not by rejecting knowledge, but by fully embracing its importance. Christianity is not a faith divorced from intelligence and reason. Rather, it rests on the belief that true faith is intelligent, and that knowledge points to Jesus Christ and not away from him.
Well, Sarah, here’s another view: The world of the past was very different to the one we live in today. Today, we enjoy religious freedoms that our predecessors did not. That includes atheism and agnosticism. When scientists of the past wrote their papers, it was expected that they referred to the ‘Glory of God’, regardless of their personal beliefs. If they didn’t, it wasn’t published. So, to claim that scientists of the past ‘proclaimed their faith heartily’ is a fact – they did. But, was it under duress – however mild? So, just because a scientist of the past proclaimed his faith heartily doesn’t necessarily mean that he believed in God.
Now to today’s scientists which Sarah refers to. In the USA, 90% of scientists believe in God, according to studies. However, here in the UK, 90% of scientists DO NOT believe in God, according to those same studies.
Now that, Sarah, is critical thinking.
Your article, sadly, is biased nonsense which is devoid of critical thinking and
typical of the twaddle written and believed by Christians.
I really appreciate the final question you ask: Is it (Christianity) true? Earlier, you suggested that there was some concern for what was true and alluded to the notion of basing this objective on ascertainable knowledge. But the accompanying question for the knowledge bit is missing: Is it true, and how do we know if it’s true?
This is where the question of intellectual integrity comes into play. Without determining a method to justify whether or not claims may be true, we have no way using faith alone to answer this knowledge question.
I can claim that all kinds of things are true if I don’t have to justify it. And this is faith in action. Something, some claim I make about reality – is true because I believe it is true, or I wish it were, or I want it to be so. None of these are sufficient to arbitrate my claim. If my claim is about reality, AND I want to present the claim as if it were based on knowledge, then my faith, my wishes, my wants, fail utterly to do this. After all, someone can present a contrary claim about reality and utilize exactly the same reasoning to supposedly justify it equally to my own. What we end up with are faith-based beliefs arbitrating reality when this method is granted acceptance. What’s utterly lost in this transaction is any concern about what’s true based on knowledge. Knowledge is missing in action.
This is exactly what we see with conflicting faith claims. Claims about reality are stated as if true, as if justified by knowledge, by faith alone. God is, for example, in Christian theology. God created the world. God created man. God created man with free will. God created Adam. Adam exercised free will and brought sin into the world. We are redeemed from this sin by the atonement paid for by Jesus. All of these claims are claims about reality but not one of them is informed by a method that allows reality to justify them independent of faith. This is a guaranteed way of fooling ourselves. We have not allowed reality to arbitrate these claims when we empower faith alone to do this job. In other words, our method does not elevate what’s true to be our guide and it is not concerned with producing knowledge about reality; it elevates our faith to be equivalent substitute for knowledge when in fact our faith is equivalent in every way to making stuff up and choosing to believe it is true.
If our faith claims alone did the job of determining what is true about reality, we should expect to find compelling evidence in its favour. We should find faith healing that works, prayer that is efficacious, geology that reflects the truth of Genesis, genetics that supports a common ancestor of one, and so on. We should find compelling evidence for the intervention and interaction of a divine being in the world. We should find anthropological evidence of the same Jesus story throughout the world, the same creation account, the same divine message.
Regardless of anyone’s faith claims, there simply is no evidence for any of these and this absence matters in justifying the claims about reality made in its name.
If one is concerned with what’s true about the reality we share, and informing those claims with something more than incompatible faith claims, then we have to grant reality – and not nebulous words of metaphysical obscurity – the power to adjudicate claims made about it. Reality must have its say in these matters.
So the question for faitheists of all stripes and creeds is: do you respect reality enough to arbitrate claims made about it or will you continue to insist that faith alone can do this job? Only one of these methods produces knowledge, defined and determined by applications, therapies, and technologies that work for everyone everywhere all the time. The products of faith do not produce this and so are not equivalent knowledge about how reality works, about how we determine what is and is not true about it. Intellectual integrity, therefore, does not rest with faith that is demonstrated by reality to be a failed methodology to reveal anything about it. And we can know of this failure by its inability to produce any knowledge about the reality it attempts to describe.
If one is concerned about what is true, concerned about knowledge based on what is true, then one must compartmentalize faith from knowledge pursuits. People can do this (and do it well). But we make a mistake assuming that there is no impermeable boundary between faith and knowledge, that they are equivalent kinds of knowledge, that they are somehow compatible and mutually respectful of reality, that they are methods open to free exchanges. This is simply not true. There is a fixed boundary, and we must learn respect it if we wish to respect what is true. Faith does not – cannot – produce knowledge of any kind about the reality we share because it allows reality no means to arbitrate its claims, and so faith has no reliable and consistent method independent of the faith itself to do so. Those who do not understand and appreciate this fixed boundary are, sad to say, anti-intellectual in practice.
Good debate. I am enjoying this!
I cannot for one second agree with your ending statements. Faith at least enhances intellect, will lead intellect into greater thinking. Where intellectual reason has failed me, faith has led to positive fruitfulness.
Can’t… or won’t?
Let me ask you something to consider (no reply is necessary): what is the difference between belief and knowledge?
For me, knowledge is justified true belief. The key here is the term ‘justified’ and for this I need more than my assigned beliefs (meaning I have to rule out my assertions and assumptions and biases and find an independent source for verification. A good rule of thumb for me is an explanation that works and produces applications, therapies, and technologies that work the same for everyone everywhere all the time. This is ‘knowledge’. Even then, however, I do not ascribe to knowledge any notion of ‘certainty’ other than an extremely high probability that the explanation seems to be ‘true’… not because I believe it to be so but because it is demonstrated to be a reliable and consistent explanation. The source of verification, therefore, is not me and my experiences and self-assigned revelations; it comes from reality.)
Claims that are contrary to how reality is known to work are to be viewed (in my opinion) with the utmost skepticism requiring compelling evidence for serious consideration. If a claim is made that does not have this compelling evidence verified by independent sources, then why should I invest belief in it… knowing that such belief is not justified? If I were to claim it is still true without justification, then I’ve undermined my understanding of what constitutes knowledge and swapped ‘justified true belief’ to be equivalent to unjustified belief alone. But this isn’t knowledge unless I can also demonstrate that the belief produces applications, therapies, and technologies that work for everyone everywhere all the time. And Christianity by no stretch of the imagination does any of this! In fact, Christianity itself is fractured into tens of thousands of sects based on differences of belief. And this may explain why religious belief like Chrsitianity doesn’t produce a single titch or tad or jot of knowledge. Ever.
This is a clue about the truth value of its claims…
The (abbreviated) word I used was can’t.
“If a claim is made that does not have this compelling evidence verified by independent sources, then why should I invest belief in it… ”
Your choice.
“knowing that such belief is not justified?”
Your opinion – which doesn’t match mine.
So, tildeb, is it then your argument that the only way of knowing things is by naturalistic, materialistic reasoning? And are you arguing further that nothing apart from naturalistic, materialistic reasoning will suffice for answering any and all questions?
Faith and reason are not incompatible means of knowing things. Neither can stand by itself. Faith without reason is essentially stupid. Reason without faith is sterile, and it is, moreover, limited to only those things which can be tested. verified, and explained empirically, which is a pretty confining box, come to think of it. Faith and reason are complementary, and each depends on the other. Just because a claim about reality transcends human comprehension doesn’t make it, in and of itself, irrational or absurd.
I find your response to the original post to be unrealistic, possibly even irrational.
Robert, thanks for your comment.
Asking the right questions is imperative to gaining knowledge. But it’s also important to understand and appreciate the difference between justified and unjustified claims of knowledge. I can believe in all kinds of unjustified claims and that’s my prerogative just as it yours. But I cross a boundary that I recognize when I assert that a belief I hold is equivalent to knowledge. To be knowledge, a claim must be justified. It requires verification independent of me and my beliefs. As I said to Michael upthread and worth repeating here,
“A good rule of thumb for me is an explanation that works and produces applications, therapies, and technologies that work the same for everyone everywhere all the time. This is ‘knowledge’. Even then, however, I do not ascribe to knowledge any notion of ‘certainty’ other than an extremely high probability that the explanation seems to be ‘true’… not because I believe it to be so but because it is demonstrated to be a reliable and consistent explanation. The source of verification, therefore, is not me and my experiences and self-assigned revelations; it comes from reality.”
If a question of knowledge cannot be answered this way, then it’s probably the wrong question to ask involving knowledge. It probably involves some significant amount of personal belief, such as chocolate tastes better than vanilla, or that sculpting is more beautiful than painting, and so on. And this is fine; all of us utilize these preferences all the time and can enrich our lives through their exercise but it ain’t a truth claim about knowledge!
I always ask the question of any claim, “Is it true and how can we know if it is?” Faith and reason can be quite compatible as long as they don’t cross the private/public boundary. But to present a faith-based belief about reality as if it were equivalent to a knowledge-based belief about reality fails to recognize an incompatibility between them of that last bit of my question: how we know. Faith does not come with any means (an epistemological weakness) to differentiate between justified true belief and unjustified. This is why you, for example, allow certain claims from scripture to be classified as ‘literal’ and other claims to be classified as ‘metaphor’. You choose (as do the other 40K christian sects who choose differently than you). You have no means to demonstrate to them how you determine this in a way that is consistent and reliable for everyone everywhere all the time independent of you. Nor do they have the means to show you the supposed error of your beliefs! Lacking this means to differentiate, then, reveals a structural weakness in your belief system – a weakness not shared by those of us who justify knowledge using reality to arbitrate claims made about it.
Perhaps you’ve noticed that when faith and this method of inquiry into reality that allows realty to adjudicate claims made about it exchange ideas, knowledge always flows in only one direction. This is a clue…
“A good rule of thumb for me is an explanation that works and produces applications, therapies, and technologies that work the same for everyone everywhere all the time. This is ‘knowledge’. Even then, however, I do not ascribe to knowledge any notion of ‘certainty’ other than an extremely high probability that the explanation seems to be ‘true’… not because I believe it to be so but because it is demonstrated to be a reliable and consistent explanation. The source of verification, therefore, is not me and my experiences and self-assigned revelations; it comes from reality.”
That is a strained, utilitarian, generally inadequate view of what constitutes “knowledge.” Moreover, ultimately, your definition of knowledge would appear to exclude any concept of “Truth” and would relegate “Beauty” to subjectivity. The former flies in the face of all my training as a scientist — look for Truth — and the latter would appear to create an utterly banal universe.
Moreover, the idea that you possess knowledge because you have a theory that “works and produces applications, therapies, and technologies that work the same for everyone everywhere all the time” is lacking in some critical aspects. First, unless you possess omniscience and omnipresence, you have no way of knowing that the applications, therapies, and technologies flowing from the theory work the same for everyone everywhere all the time. You have a probability that those applications, therapies, and technologies work uniformly, but that isn’t really knowledge. Second, your explanation of what constitutes knowledge is, on its face, subjective. Consider that by your definition any theory or explanation that results in a functional application, therapy, or technology is “knowledge.” If it is found in the future that the explanation that was given is verifiably false in some critical aspect, does that mean that the application, technology, or therapy doesn’t work? No, it does not! So was the former explanation “knowledge” and is it now “ignorance”? By your definition, the answer is “yes”, but, further, by your definition, knowledge has become only probabilities, not objective realities, and you have returned to the realm of the subjective. What have you gained by such a malleable, even incoherent, definition of knowledge? I see no benefit in your definition.
tildeb, if I might, I don’t have a huge amount of time to devote to this discussion. I work professionally as a scientist; I’m extremely busy, and the amount of time I have spent on this one post has cut into my precious time outside of work that I use for family and church. Let me share with you a website that I find useful: http://www.reasons.org/
The people in the para-church ministry “Reasons to Believe” are all professionally-trained thinkers. Most are scientists, though some are also logicians, mathematicians, and theologians. They are all Christians, and they live for these kinds of discussions and debates. I’ll try to continue to respond, but for now, I have to let up on contributing to this discussion and focus on other things.
It has been an interesting discussion, and I appreciate your input, even though we clearly disagree.
What is para-church ministry?
Para-church (also spelled parachurch) means “alongside church.” They are organizations that are outside of the church but work with the church, often in educational or social issues. They quite often cross denominational lines. In the Catholic Church, a parachurch ministry would be called a sodality. Besides “Reasons to Believe”, other examples of parachurch ministries include Promise Keepers, food pantries and homeless shelters run as Christian ministries, and even evangelistic ministries.
Tildeb: I’ll address several things things. First, you really don’t know what your talking about. Essentially your tossing out a materialist argument that has been shown as defective non-sense. Yet, because you’ve got some intellect and some spunk you come to a Christian apologetics website to try your argument out and see if you get some traction from it. If you did your homework you would know that its been answered more times than can be counted. You should read the articles that deal with your objections and then actually pay attention to what is being said. Otherwise you’re doing little more than giving yourself a typing exercise.
Second, Sarah is willing to entertain your arguments simply to get you thinking. She’s new at this and has gone to school to become proficient at articulating answers; you on the other hand are trying to show Christianity as false due to some anti-intellectualism found among Christians, which when we have agreed to that fact, doesn’t change anything about the truth of Christianity nor does it establish any worldview that you might hold. In short you’ve offered nothing that we don’t already know and seem to be forgetting that Christian apologists are addressing this issue among themselves and the Christian community at large.
Third, think for a moment you’re coming to a Christian think-tank website to talk about Christians being anti-intellectual? Isn’t that an immediate defeater to anything thing you’ve got to say about Christianity? Its apparent that such simple observations are overlooked by you. After that, you ignore what is being said, take a left turn on what you want to harp on then proceed to talk about the separation of faith and knowledge based upon some litmus test you’ve devised. Again this is something that has been answered again and again in various Christian writings and is available to you in books and the internet.
Fourth, you really don’t understand Christianity at all. Your thinking about this matter is full of irrational conclusions based upon atheist propaganda that has no resemblance to the Christianity your attacking. Straw-men are burning everywhere and Christianity is sitting on ice, which is to say you’re not doing anything to really address Christianity.
Fifth, even if the whole of Christianity was anti-intellectual, that mindset offers no proof that your own mindset of atheism/materialism is in accord with reality, truth and profitable as a beneficial worldview. Scientism and Evidentialism has been shown to be as devoid of validation as the F.S.M. But, because you’ve ‘believed’ in those things, we hear the dogmatizing of them from those like yourself daily; yet you’re not up on the failure of those philosophical positions and continue to lob duds at us.
Lastly, you figure the poor anti-intellectual Christian is so inferior to your educated skepticism that your belief in all-things-against-Christianity becomes a set of blinders, not greater insights. The Christian knows that the well of knowledge and truth comes from God himself, the atheist he believe it arises from within, the human mind. So, its no wonder you have no truth but what you make for yourself, no values but what you devise and no knowledge but what you permit to call knowledge. The Atheist has a terrible limitation, he has only himself. The ignorant, poorly educated and even anti-intellectual Christian has God who has all knowledge, power and truth, willing to aid that Christian on whatever level that Christian is at. God will answer that Christians prayers while the atheist must contrive schemes and devises, the Christian trusts in a God who controls the future, the atheist must pretend to have the sufficiency to enter in to a future he knows nothing about. The Atheist feels alone because he believes he is alone. The truth is, he is alienated from God by wicked works and he must reap the harvest of sins he has committed. Worsening blindness of mind, ignorance and irrationality, Logic gone awry, conclusions based on pure non-sense become the atheist stock and trade. Atheism has no more ties to reality than any pagan wood-worshipper.
As far as scientific discoveries, those have also been discussed myriads of times in countless articles that show the validity of Christianity and expose the empty claims of materialism. Again, do some homework.
I get it that Sarah will offer you the opportunity to re-hash old arguments and because she is willing to address Christian anti-intellectualism you feel you found a spring board to launch anti-Christian argument. OK go ahead. But those of us who have heard your arguments before (many many times) realize these are just lies that you’ve told yourself and now your telling them to us. The real boundary is not between faith and knowledge its between you and God and that is where the real battle lay.
Marvin, I hold no animosity against anyone who is willing to accept the notion that what’s true is important to respect. But what I find often happens when religious belief comes into play that stands in conflict with findings about reality, very often the notion of respecting what’s true gets tossed, and respecting belief first and foremost becomes rather strident. When this happens, that’s where we find anti-intellectualism in play.
As I’ve said upthread, we all have many beliefs and we are welcome to them. But there is boundary some of us cross without recognition. And that recognition involves claims of knowledge (which itself is based on respecting what’s true). To name but a few, claims about ancestry from a first human, the time span of our ancestry, the age of the world, how life develops and changes over time, geological events, causal agencies in the world, and so on all produce incompatible claims between some religious beliefs and more than a dozen different avenues of scientific inquiry. The incompatibility you want to apply to me is in fact an incompatibility to how these claims are justified by each method. These faith-based claims simply don’t withstand reality’s arbitration of them. Rejecting reality’s arbitration of them is an exercise of anti-intellectualism. You need to look no further than the BioLogos failed attempt (founded by Collins and funded by Templeton… now completely restaffed by good Southern Baptists) to square creationism with evolution to see just how widespread is the anti-intellectual movement in the christian community of the US to maintain religious beliefs diametrically opposed to reality’s arbitration of them.
“First, you really don’t know what your talking about.”
Rather unfair, and, in charity not very Christian. Clearly s/he does not what they are talking about – from their own opinion/view point.
Its uncharitable to pretend a person has represented Christ as a liar. God has sent his Son, to deny it is to call God a liar. Atheism is calling God a liar, Plain speaking is unfashionable but the easiest to deal with. Mine is easy. There is no question about what I am saying or what I intend to prove. With others that is not so easy and what they intend to prove is unknown.
Charity brother, charity!
Marvin, I wrote, But what I find often happens when religious belief comes into play that stands in conflict with findings about reality, very often the notion of respecting what’s true gets tossed, and respecting belief first and foremost becomes rather strident. When this happens, that’s where we find anti-intellectualism in play. I then gave a list of claims where such conflict really does exist. Rather than deal with my criticism that shows the very disconnect I say promotes anti-intellectualism between some faith-based beliefs and reality, you simply wave it all away and write, Atheism is calling God a liar.
This is anti-intellectualism at work. You demonstrate my point for me.
Atheists don’t need charity. They need compelling reasons that respect reality for justifying some belief about it. When you are ready, willing, and able to appreciate why this is so important for informing beliefs about reality then we shall find common ground where both of us use our intellectual capacity together rather than divide our efforts because of a misplaced sense of piousness.
You are correct that the intellectualism or anti-intellectualism of some Christians is beside the points. The questions that are relevant to all people throughout all ages are (1) does God exist? and (2) is Christianity true?
However, I also agree with Mark Noll (The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind) that Christian anti-intellectualism is scandalous and sinful. I wish that you had addressed that issue. Since you didn’t do so here, I hope you will do so in a future post.
I agree with Noll as well. It’s an issue worth addressing and I’ll look into it for a future post.
Thanks, Sarah. I look forward to reading it.
To me, the whole “Christians are anti-intellectual” statement is just blowing smoke by the atheist regime. While you stated your case well declaring the irrationality and absurdity of labeling Christians like that; the real absurdity is that such a notion ‘Christians are anti-intellectual’ needs a rebuttal. The clatter of angry atheist with an agenda to discredit Christianity at every turn needs to recognized for the KKK style hatred its attempting to foment in others. The reality is its just a propaganda statement used to rally the atheist troops.
The idea behind such non-sense as Christian anti-intellectualism is to get other atheists to think that “These Christians are just dupes to religious dogma, slaves to unproven assertion and empty claims that prop up their needy existence”. The falsehood is packaged under the guise that faith is ‘believing what we know is otherwise’. Instead of pretending that the atheist has a flying spaghetti monster we need to disprove, we need to focus on what is really being said. They are saying Atheism is a superior worldview, a mindset that does not conflict with reality and carries with it a notion of truth that cannot be found in Christianity or any religion.
Lets confront Atheism where it lives and leave the F.S.M debates for them to defend.
Marvin, this comment of yours reveals nothing but your conspiratorial beliefs about those who declare their non belief publicly. They are not true. What you think you are confronting is a creation of your own mind. But should you wish to confront criticisms of religious belief rather than think disparaging the character of those who dare to do so is sufficient, then we can talk; otherwise, you’re just calling people names and avoiding the issue of why religious belief that tries (and fails) to make claims about reality is anti-intellectual.
Hi Marvin. The “Christians are anti-intellectual” statement may be blowing smoke for some. But for others its a real concern. Either way, smoke makes it hard to see (and breathe), and there is a right time and place to clear it out so people aren’t blinded or suffocated.
The question bothers me greatly, because I am not sure who says we are.
The charge of anti-intellectualism against Christians is one that goes way back in history, but it has received new vigor and force from the new atheists. Moreover, it is well recognized inside and outside of Christianity that anti-intellectualism is rampant among Fundamentalist Evangelical Protestant Christians.
Ah! Fundamentalist Evangelical Protestant Christians = a group, or groups, I know little about and tend not mix with, ( but not deliberately not mix with ). I grew up in an Anglo-Catholic parish in the UK where good teaching AND good debate were encouraged from a very early age. The parish in three decades produced several priests and religious, some of whom went on to be worthwhile theologians.
My own religious training and development has always encouraged healthy debate and questioning while discouraging ivory-tower syndrome.
I grew up in a Fundamentalist Evangelical Protestant Christian household. Our family, though, was an exception to the all-too-common anti-intellectual model. Our extended family contained Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, Lutherans, Jehovah’s Witnesses, agnostics, and more. In any discussion of religion, you learned to defend yourself or hold your peace. Strong teaching, faithful adherence to Scripture, and the ability to debate were all required. In addition, my father is an engineer, and my mother is a teacher. I became a professional scientist. However, as I said, our family is the exception to the general anti-intellectual tendency among this group of Christians.
Great! So could to read that.
What is alleged as being well recognized among fundamentalist Christians is the same as fundamentalist atheist. You’re writing about a trait common to all who are more proficient for being absolute than being open to reason. To tag fundamentalists Christians as unique in that regard is disingenuous when the traits in view in man as a feature of our being.
Thanks for the response, Douglas. I don’t think that I tagged fundamentalist Christians as unique in that regard. I did allege, based on my own experience and on the reading I have done on the subject, that anti-intellectualism is rampant among that group. It would not surprise me that it is rampant among fundamentalist atheists, but Michael’s initial response to the post was “who says we Christians are anti-intellectual”, and I was responding to that question.
This is the 21st century – not the 1st century. The fact that people still believe in a magic man in the sky is ridiculous in itself.
Little wonder then that 69 out of 73 studies have show that atheists are more intelligent than religious folk. This is entirely consistent with some of the stuff that some christians peddle – such as creationism and so-called ‘intelligent’ design.
And you are greatly bothered are you?
Who says christians are anti-intellectuals?
INTELLECTUALS !!
Wake up and smell the coffee. Life has moved on.
“The fact that people still believe in a magic man in the sky is ridiculous in itself.”
The fact is Paul that is about 0.01% believe in the magic man in the sky – and that goes for creationism and intelligent design.
Why do you need to harp on such feeble hearsay? Of course life has moved on, but be charitable to those who are struggling to keep up.
Michael – I am being charitable. Rid yourself of religious belief for it holds you back. It held science back for too long. Some say for up to 100 years.
Having said that, I’m not sure that I want to keep up with a society that progresses the way it does. It is rotten to the core. This was highlighted in the credit crunch of 2008.
But, that’s not a good reason to turn to christianity either for it is likewise as rotten to the core – just in a different way.
I see no rot in the Christianity I am part of – a tad dusty, maybe! Why should I rid myself of what I am very happy with? If you feel society is rotten, what are you doing about it?
Michael
Society can’t be fixed through external forces. It needs to find the will to fix itself but
there’s probably no danger of that happening any day soon unless there’s some
form of disaster.
Things now need to run their natural course.
And the will comes from within – which is where I find my faith and Faith.
This comment bothers me… not sitting quite right: “Christianity does not stand or fall on the shoulders of ignorance or intelligence; all the honest questioning in the world will not change this fact: either God does or does not exist.”
You are gorgeous. Smart. Hold a cup of coffee admirably. All subjective opinions, entirely based on the perspective of the person holding them. In a different culture, beauty may be multi-colored metal hoops around your neck and skin black as night, holding a cup of coffee in your left hand only.
The fact isn’t whether God does or doesn’t exist, it’s how do I respond to His existence?
Maybe I’ve missed the point you were trying to make, if so could you clarify that… it would be appreciated.
Before I can respond to God’s existence, I must first be convinced that God exists. Your statement that it “isn’t whether God does or doesn’t exist, it’s how do I respond to His existence?” puts first things second. You are certainly correct in asking that question, but it is not the first question that must be asked and answered.
I wouldn’t presume there is a particular order to resolving the question. If anything tracking the matter to a linguistic protocol is more a matter of obfuscating than sorting through one’s being to resolve your position. Does God exist is to simple a question to be turned into a debate on how best to validate one’s thought in that connection.
If I believe that God exists, then, yes, my whole statement above is pointless, but if I don’t believe that God exists, then my response to God is meaningless. In other words, if I want to address the concerns of someone who doesn’t believe in the existence of God, I must first bring the discussion to a frame of reference that acknowledges the existence of God. Then and only then does the discussion of one’s response to the existence of God have any meaning.
Psalm 19 may follow Psalm 2, but His witness precedes man’s reaction to it… Gen 1
The first is already established (existence) all that remains is the second…
Your statement is true when speaking to people who believe in the existence of God. To a devout Buddhist, your statement makes no sense, because karma is not a god. To an atheist who thinks that “God” or “god” is equivalent the F.S.M., your statement is meaningless. Until and unless you establish the real existence of God, the question of response to God has no answer and is utterly pointless.
Robert, so prejudice determines truth? Strip away the reference point, the fact it came from the Bible, what do you have? Is the statement true?
To a devout Buddhist, regardless whether my statement made sense or not, makes it no less true…
Karma isn’t a god, it’s a doctrine and many buddhist revere buddha as a god…
As for the Buddhist same for the atheist, just because they reject the evidence, makes the evidence no less true.
When you get to the essence of Psalm 19, did God do that, or not? Do you accept it as true? (regardless whether they do or not) Or do you think, for some strange reason, that He needs your intellectual prowess to convince the blind of what they can’t/won’t see? What then do you do with Rom 1:20?
Do you think that if you describe the blueness of the sky and the changing shape of clouds well enough, you’ll enable the blind to see? Persuade the rebellious to yield?
Taking God at His word, then the only option is that they can’t or won’t see. The means for dealing with either case is a completely different matter.
Didn’t mean to go on so long.
Greg, you are correct that Truth is Truth whether or not one believes in it, but that’s not exactly helpful from an apologetics POV. If you want to bring a person to a right response to the One, True God, you must first bring them to a belief in a god, any god, then to a belief in the One, True God. It’s rather difficult to elicit a meaningful response to God, let alone a correct one, from a person who views God entirely as a myth.
I know not a single Buddhist who views Buddha as a god. Given that I have a Buddhist family member, and given that I’ve had opportunity to study Buddhism (albeit not as deeply as others), I find your claim that “many buddhist [sic] revere buddha as a god…” untenable. Buddha is considered by all Buddhists that I know to be enlightened a fully enlightened being beyond the need for reincarnation, but not a god in any sense that you or I would consider divine.
Did God create the universe? Does all of creation proclaim the reality, the majesty, and the authority of God? Emphatically yes, I believe those things! But it doesn’t follow that God cannot use my “intellectual prowess” (feeble though it is) to persuade the non-believer to believe. In fact, I see it is as my duty to proclaim all of the truth of God to those who refuse to believe. I cannot make them believe, but making them believe is not my responsibility. Proclaiming the word at all times in all places, always being prepared (and that encompasses physical, mental, and spiritual preparations) to give an answer for the hope that lies within me, those are my responsibility, and the rest I leave to God.
But to get back to my original point, it is unhelpful in proclaiming the gospel to an atheist, agnostic, or Buddhist to start with the assumed truth that God exists, because they have no frame of reference with which to address that. That God exists is True and Truth, regardless of belief, but to someone who has no concept of, or belief in, God, assuming that it is Truth is unhelpful. That is why, for example, Thomas Aquinas labored for pages and pages (and so many questions!) to establish the reality that God exists. You must put first things first, Greg, and what things are first things depends on the context in which you are working. First things in a church full of believers and seekers differ from first things at a convention of atheists.
Robert, sure it’s helpful! It’s good to know if the person you’re talking to is willfully blind or not! John 3, if they love darkness more than light doesn’t matter how much light in reason you show them, does it? (Acts 22:17-21)
Huge difference between that and the jailer Acts 16.
Not sure about the buddhism you’re exposed to, but from what I’ve seen shown regarding Japanese buddhism, they definitely pray and have buddhist deities. Might be bleed through from shintoism, or similar to Catholics praying to patron saints, not sure… but that’s my point of reference.
Again, it’s not an assumed truth, it’s a given; otherwise Ps 19 and Rom 1 are lies. Do they naively or knowingly/willfully attribute His glory to another, be it gods or nature? Ignorantly, or willfully, deny it altogether? How I respond to that, to them after determining… Pr 3:5,6
Thomas Aquinas may have labored for pages and pages… unfortunately, wasted effort. If you leave the work of conversion to God, why not trust Him with what He’s said He’s already done: making His existence known.
“The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. The testimonies of the Lord are sure, making wise the simple.”
But if you discount them, set them aside as unreliable, then all you’re left with is your intellect, as sharp or as feeble as that might be. Saul, with his armor, wouldn’t face a giant which David did without it. What was the difference between them?
Anyway, really good talking with you.
My exposure to Buddhism has been Zen and Tibetan. I have only passing knowledge with Japanese Buddhism, but I know for a fact that the Buddhists with whom I have interacted explicitly reject the concept of deity.
“Assumed truth” simply is a shorthand for saying “I am assuming that God is real and assuming that they believe likewise.” That’s a problem if the person with whom I am dealing believes that God doesn’t exist.
How, exactly, do you persuade someone of something you only assume to be true? And I never said anything about assuming they believed the evidence… might do well to read Romans 1 & 2… certainly serve you better than Thomas Aquinas.
Greg – Why do you keep quoting scripture? It has no relevance to the world we live in today. It was written by man, for man, almost 2,000 years ago. It, no doubt, had relevance to the times in which it was written. Now, it is irrelevant.
Paul, It actually goes back further than what time you give it. And, you at least have the back half of the equation of who wrote for whom correct.
Ok, if you want to be pedantic, parts of the bible are about 2,800 years old whilst some parts are just over 1,900 years old.
Paul, checked a couple of your other comments and it seems that precision in science is okay, but correcting you it’s annoying.
Greg
I didn’t understand your comment. Could you please explain it so that I am able to understand and comment on it.
Paul, you rely on science. Science, good science, depends on precision… so precision in science is okay by you. You use science to question/challenge Scripture. You are imprecise. When you are questioned/corrected, precision is no longer okay by you, it’s pedantic (annoying).
Hope it helps…
Greg
I challenged scripture because it no longer has relevance to today’s society. Instead of answering the question, you divert, as christians often do, and talk about something which has no relevance to the question. Ever thought about being a politician?
You bring science into it. I didn’t.
I stated that the bible is just over 1,900 years old for the sake of brevity. You jump on that rather than addressing my initial statement. I could, if I so wished, have stated the age of each part of the bile. But, I didn’t, for brevity’s sake.
So, back to my MAIN point. Let’s discuss the relevance of scripture to today’s society. Let’s discuss this passage.
So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. “This is what you are to do,” they said. “Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin.” Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.(Judges 21:10-24 NLT)
Paul, I answered your questions, two directly and one indirectly.
Yes I brought science into it because, as I said, I read some of your other posts (to get a sense of where you were coming from with your question: Did you really want to know or simply challenge.) And since you relied on the findings of science to base your arguments, I figured you should be held to the same level of precision as you expect.
You look at an experiment where everything in a vessel is removed and suddenly particles appear and disappear. Hmm.. cool. Except, how do you know everything is eliminated from the vessel? That it is absolutely and completely devoid of anything whatsoever? Just because our instrumentation can’t detect anything present, doesn’t mean there’s nothing present. How long was it before scientists could detect, see, a virus? Heck, into the early, mid, 20th century ground based telescopes had scientists thinking Mars had grand canals and once was a wet planet. Only until they had satellites orbiting and landed a probe on the surface to send back pictures could they see what the surface was really like.
So, just because you can’t see relevance, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. And just as God isn’t constrained to operate within the confines of man’s understanding of nature, science, et al; I don’t see why I have to answer within the confines of the parameters you established for the sole reason to prove your point.
For someone who confuses John 1 with Genesis 1, it may be a challenge to explain how Judges 21 is relevant today. But, I’ll give it a shot.
BTW, I use NKJV, but whatever, close enough. Jesus said to Beware the leaven of the Pharisees and Herod adding that a little leaven spreads throughout the whole. He was talking about doctrine, hypocrisy… for me if I have a violent temper, cheat, steal… party on Saturday and go to church on Sunday thinking ‘I’m good.’… that’s what the passage relates to. They were living in the Land, violating the covenant they made with God. I can’t live in Christ if I violate His commands (John 15). So, I have to attack the root cause of the violent temper, cheating, stealing… whatever and not leave the smallest, most innocuous, innocently appearing element ‘alive’ (it’s the traffic! If I don’t yell at someone, I’ll end up taking it out on…” “It’s only a pen…”)
Check also Ps 18 and 1 Cor 11:31,32
Greg
I didn’t confuse John & Genesis. I merely quoted but I most certainly didn’t state the source – other than the bible.
As for the vessel devoid of matter and how we know that it contains nothing. In reality, we can only be as certain as our science currently allows that the vessel is devoid of matter. The matter that is spontaneously created Is in the form of elemental particles. They also occur in matter/anti matter pairs. What’s also important to understand is that such particles are not spontaneously created under any other circumstances.
What’s also interesting is that christians heavily criticise this particular science. Probably because it threatens the very existence of God because, if true, God is no longer required in the Universe creation equation. This, in turn, threatens the very existence of God.
Paul, come on, let’s be honest… you did. In “7 Tips to Engaging Skeptics…” you said, “I am not that familiar with the bible but doesn’t it say in Genesis – in the beginning was the word and the word was God Now, I don’t care that you confused the two, it’s just a bit more challenging trying to explain slightly more advanced arithmetic to someone still learning addition. And if we can’t be honest, truthful, what’s the point of the discussion?
I do like the fact that you recognized the reality that we can be only as certain as current science allows…
Sure, it may unsettle a few Christians, just depends on where their faith/trust lays. God or science. I generally take the long view on science and how it’s constantly evolving/changing/correcting itself. It wasn’t until the middle of the 20th century that it was discovered by Edwin Hubble that we were one galaxy among many. Now they’re talking about Dark Matter and Dark Energy, super-massive black holes and Exo-planets. Who knows what they’ll have to correct a year from now because of new discoveries. Five years from now, etc. Yet, the Bible’s remained unchanged.
So, in keeping with the earlier part of this thread, Psalm 19, the heavens declaring the glory of God and the firmament showing His handiwork.
I’ll close with Heb 11:3 “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.
So, basically, science is proving, not disproving the existence of God.
Greg
When I’m wrong, I like to feel that I’m man enough to hold up my hands and admit it. I am now holding up my hands.
There again, you don’t need to know chapter and verse to understand the plot of the Teddy Bear’s Picnic.
Anyway, as you say, what’s the point of discussing such points.
As for science … when a theory is put forward, it is the best that scientists can come up with at that time given the existing knowledge and instrumentation. As knowledge and instrumentation advances, it is only right and proper that the theories should be replaced with better theories. It would be illogical to do otherwise, would it not?
As for the unchanging bible …..
The fact that a book hasn’t changed does not imply accuracy. It just implies that it hasn’t changed. Noddy Goes to Toy Land was written in 1949 and, as far as I know, it hasn’t been changed.
As far as Heb 11:3 quote goes – even the ‘philosophers’ of those days must have given some thought to how the Universe came into being. They must have realised that before the Universe existed, ‘nothing’ must have existed and out of that ‘nothing’ came everything. Given Man’s ability to create deities to explain what they didn’t understand, the creation of a deity to explain creation must have seemed logical at the time.
So, for you to claim that science is proving the existence of god has to be rejected.
Paul, I see… so it’s okay to trust in the best scientists can put forward at the time, even if they’re wrong… but not to trust in what’s written by God, for man?
Greg
Nope.
1. The bible was written by man for man. It was written by men to exercise control over their fellow men, It does contain a certain amount of accurate history which is then used to imply that the remainder is also accurate (truth by association).
2. When scientist proffer a theory, they do so in an honest, truthful and unbiased way. This is ensured through peer review. They believe that their theories are accurate and will not be superseded.
Given the above, should I believe a book which was written by men in order to exercise control over other men, or should I believe scientists? Now let me see.
Paul,
You also said it wasn’t relevant. So, not going to put a lot of stock in your other conclusions.
Thanks for the talk.
Greg
I never expected you to – but thanks for the chat anyway.
And why Paul do you insist the Scriptures have no relevance to today’s world when to billions of people they clearly do.
Michael
Billions flies eat sh1t. It doesn’t make it right and it certainly doesn’t mean that I should.
I have not doubt the flies like the shit, else they wouldn’t eat it!
Michael
Then eat sh1t and be happy.
Michael
Man evolved. Man was designed by an intelligence.
Discuss.
What is there to discuss. Your succinct statement couldn’t be more true.
I sincerely hope you are happy with and in what you believe.
Hi Greg. The point I was trying to make was that God’s existence does not rest on one’s ABILITY to intellectually comprehend that he exists. I can be the dumbest or smartest person on the planet, and he will still either exist or not exist.
Sarah, thanks for the clarification. So, setting everything else aside, Christianity rests on the fact that God either exists or He doesn’t…
Which means that if He doesn’t Christianity is false and all those who believe it are deceived. And if that can be proven… well then, that’s the gist of Ps 11:3, isn’t it.
If God’s existence is foundational, the question you ask is about a foot or two from bedrock (Luke 6)