I caught myself rabbit-holing through Ray Comfort videos and debates. It was an innocent indulgence - YouTube had recommended a video "Atheist Experience vs Bananaman" ... (btw - "Atheist Experience" is a show out of Austin, TX )
ANYWAY - I saw a debate on the street/pier (Huntington Beach?) where a friendly atheist recorded his discussion with Ray - who was proselytizing on a soap box. I've seen videos of Kirk Cameron (his partner with whom they host wayofthemaster.com and it's respective YouTube channel) doing similar things.
In the course of the debates and videos I watched, I couldn't help but sense almost a desperation. I've noted this before to myself, but hadn't revisited for a while. Each argument or "proof" or "evidence" presented simply seemed like desperate attempts to substantiate a preconceived belief.
For the most part, what I've seen (DISCLAIMER: I haven't read or surveyed EVERYTHING on the topic (comparatively little, I suppose), simply a sampling of what current media and pundits have to offer ... to date), but most arguments seem to fall into the following basic forms:
1) XXX is really complicated and I don't understand it, so it must be done by God.
2) You don't have the answers to XXX, so I'm right because I HAVE an answer: God
3) How do you explain [insert old, but tenuously "historical" event ]? Has to be true ...
We'll save the listing of the straw men attacks on Naturalism for another time.
Each of the arguments I've seen are flawed in either their facts or logic. Most frequent if the "Argument from Ignorance" in one flavor or another. But all of the "REASON" arguments are pretty easily deconstructed to their flaw(s). I can't speak to some of the "historical references", but most of the presentments don't pass the litmus test with screaming ASSUMPTION in bold, red letters.
When I first started looking into this (and I've seen many a kook, so I try not to hold them responsible for the entirety of presenting sound arguments), I was enamored (even hopeful) about the idea that there WAS evidence, or reason (not A reason, but a logical progression) that could take a non-believer to a believer. Everyone was walking around with this comfort and confidence that the "evidence was sufficient to draw a conclusion". Using the analogy of "building a case", you add piece and piece and piece and piece until you take that FINAL step of faith - based on reasonable reliability and logical sense.
But as I've been breaking down each of these arguments, "faith" doesn't appear to be the last step ... presumably of many based on sound judgement and evaluation of the evidence. When all of those arguments disappear/crumble, then all that's left IS the faith.
Without being rude, it seems that it's really all about "believe it and then you'll see it". While I'm not INHERENTLY against this notion ... it's categorically opposite the rallying cry of the new Apologists - Lee Strobel, Dinesh D'Souza, Josh McDowell, Ray Comfort. They continuously say you don't need to check your brains at the door, but by USING your brains and the evidence available, you can find God.
I'm not saying it ISN'T possible, but I've yet to see an argument to substantiate that claim. Everything I've seen so far seems to eventually translate to "I believe X and I can rationalize that THIS many ways ... if you don't look too closely".
12/21/09
"Don't feel like you failed ..."
So I finished my Seekers class ... the last session didn't have any handouts (or perhaps they forgot?) and was primarily focused on trying to "quick hit" other open questions people may have. Towards the end, it focused on "next steps". For those who "made the decision", the next steps could be to do another tour of Seekers .. or to do a different class: Starting Point.
Well, needless to say, I was NOT ready for "Starting Point" as I still see myself at "level 0" (to borrow from "Kung Fu Panda"). After class was over, my table's helper/moderator ("DB") and I talked a bit. I basically "confessed" that I wasn't convinced "yet" ... to which she then told me not to feel disappointed - "Don't feel like you failed, this isn't a pass/fail type of thing ... you can keep coming back".
... which kinda threw me on my ear (is that even a phrase?). It hadn't even occurred to me that I "failed" or didn't do what I was "supposed" to do by not "signing up" at the end of the 6-week session. I still don't feel that way, but it gave me some interesting insight to the perspective of DB (and quite possibly many of the "pro" court) --> If I don't come to the answer they want me to have, then either I'm not doing it right, or I'm not ready, or He's not ready to show himself to me, and so on and so on ...
It spoke volumes that DB's perspective was that I'd judge myself against what was presented - as if there was a chance I'd think "I just didn't get it ... I must be dumb". Don't get me wrong, I'm familiar w/ that position - that's why I took STAT 190 twice (don't let them fool you - statistics is NOT real math). It just never occurred to me to view it THIS that way. I viewed it more as a rally or recruiting seminar. If I were interested in considering signing up for AmWay, I'd go to a "get to know AmWay and ask questions about it". If I went, asked my questions, was given no suitable answers and decided that I didn't want to sign up for AmWay, no one would have that same view: "Don't feel like you failed ..."
I'd come not to evaluate myself against Christianity, but to evaluate Christianity to see if someone(s) could give me some information or insight I was previously unaware of. I realize that the very nature of this type of class usually indicates that people are "searching for an answer" and that I don't necessarily fit into that mold. I wasn't looking FOR answers, I was looking to see if THIS group of people/process HAD any answers. More specifically - any answers that contradicted any I had ... or seemed to correspond/reconcile w/ any I had ... or answers to questions I didn't even know about.
So the topic of going back for a second tour is the current discussion/branch point. I expressed to DB that I wasn't sure I'd get any new information by coming again. She expressed to me that each time/group is different ... and while that may be true, I'm not inclined to believe my experience/growth will change any with a second viewing/attendance.
Of course, those who are advocating/pushing ;-) me to consider/find "the faith" think it's vital/important/valuable/necessary for me to go again. I'm certainly considering it, but part of me is also aware that there's a chance that if it doesn't take again, then they'll recommend going again and again until it does. Which leads to the question: How much of what I'm doing is for THEIR benefit or MINE? That's a topic for future consideration.
At this point, I'm considering it, but I'm also unsure how much of it is me considering it to avoid that hassle/judgement/disappointment if I DON'T attend again. I really don't know ...
I've already started my next entry about beliefs and what not ... probably won't wrap that for another day or two ...
Well, needless to say, I was NOT ready for "Starting Point" as I still see myself at "level 0" (to borrow from "Kung Fu Panda"). After class was over, my table's helper/moderator ("DB") and I talked a bit. I basically "confessed" that I wasn't convinced "yet" ... to which she then told me not to feel disappointed - "Don't feel like you failed, this isn't a pass/fail type of thing ... you can keep coming back".
... which kinda threw me on my ear (is that even a phrase?). It hadn't even occurred to me that I "failed" or didn't do what I was "supposed" to do by not "signing up" at the end of the 6-week session. I still don't feel that way, but it gave me some interesting insight to the perspective of DB (and quite possibly many of the "pro" court) --> If I don't come to the answer they want me to have, then either I'm not doing it right, or I'm not ready, or He's not ready to show himself to me, and so on and so on ...
It spoke volumes that DB's perspective was that I'd judge myself against what was presented - as if there was a chance I'd think "I just didn't get it ... I must be dumb". Don't get me wrong, I'm familiar w/ that position - that's why I took STAT 190 twice (don't let them fool you - statistics is NOT real math). It just never occurred to me to view it THIS that way. I viewed it more as a rally or recruiting seminar. If I were interested in considering signing up for AmWay, I'd go to a "get to know AmWay and ask questions about it". If I went, asked my questions, was given no suitable answers and decided that I didn't want to sign up for AmWay, no one would have that same view: "Don't feel like you failed ..."
I'd come not to evaluate myself against Christianity, but to evaluate Christianity to see if someone(s) could give me some information or insight I was previously unaware of. I realize that the very nature of this type of class usually indicates that people are "searching for an answer" and that I don't necessarily fit into that mold. I wasn't looking FOR answers, I was looking to see if THIS group of people/process HAD any answers. More specifically - any answers that contradicted any I had ... or seemed to correspond/reconcile w/ any I had ... or answers to questions I didn't even know about.
So the topic of going back for a second tour is the current discussion/branch point. I expressed to DB that I wasn't sure I'd get any new information by coming again. She expressed to me that each time/group is different ... and while that may be true, I'm not inclined to believe my experience/growth will change any with a second viewing/attendance.
Of course, those who are advocating/pushing ;-) me to consider/find "the faith" think it's vital/important/valuable/necessary for me to go again. I'm certainly considering it, but part of me is also aware that there's a chance that if it doesn't take again, then they'll recommend going again and again until it does. Which leads to the question: How much of what I'm doing is for THEIR benefit or MINE? That's a topic for future consideration.
At this point, I'm considering it, but I'm also unsure how much of it is me considering it to avoid that hassle/judgement/disappointment if I DON'T attend again. I really don't know ...
I've already started my next entry about beliefs and what not ... probably won't wrap that for another day or two ...
11/25/09
Seekers: Day 2 Handout ("God")
Two tools to use in seeking evidence for God:
- Our ability to reason and use logic
- Our ability of sensory experience through the five senses
Evidence for the existence of God:
1. Cosmological evidence - creation, our world
- Can something come out of nothing?
- Can anything begin without a beginner?
- Most scientists today agree that our earth has not always been, but that it began at some point in time. One theory is "The Big Bang" theory. Our question has to be, "Who pulled the trigger?"
A. Created by God with Intelligent design and purpose
Psalm 19:1-2 "The heavens proclaim the glory of God. The skies display his craftsmanship."
B. Or it happened by random chance/evolution.
"An unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable process."
- Microevolution - within the species. No question that this happens, i.e. different breeds of dogs
- Macroevolution - from one species to another.
Absolutely no proof this has ever happened
2. Teleological evidence - Purpose, complexity, order
Examples:
- Seasons of the year never fail
- Earth tilted at 23 degrees - exact tilt necessary to maintain life
- Discovery of DNA has convinced many scientists of intelligent design
3. Moral Conscience
How is it that human beings everywhere have some kind of moral code?
Why do you believe so strongly that some things are right and some things are wrong?
Romans 1:19-20 "For the truth about God is known to them instinctively. God has put this knowledge in their hearts."
A. Darwin could never explain where the conscience comes from
B. It is unique to human beings
C. Anthropologists tell us that all cultures have a moral conscience and a belief in a divine power.
Could it mean that we are created by a moral and intelligent being?
4. Experiential
People can experience God, and millions have
DIFFERING BELIEFS ABOUT GOD:
A. Islam says that God is unknowable and you must work to try to earn your way to heavenm but you can never know whether you have done enough
B. Buddhism has no theology or concept of God
C. Hinduism believes there are many gods, but they do not reveal themselves and their writings have no basis in history or geography.
D. Christianity says that God created everything with a purpose. His purpose for mankind is that we might believe in Him, know Him and love Him, accept His offer of redemption and live with Him forever.
- Our ability to reason and use logic
- Our ability of sensory experience through the five senses
Evidence for the existence of God:
1. Cosmological evidence - creation, our world
- Can something come out of nothing?
- Can anything begin without a beginner?
- Most scientists today agree that our earth has not always been, but that it began at some point in time. One theory is "The Big Bang" theory. Our question has to be, "Who pulled the trigger?"
A. Created by God with Intelligent design and purpose
Psalm 19:1-2 "The heavens proclaim the glory of God. The skies display his craftsmanship."
B. Or it happened by random chance/evolution.
"An unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable process."
- Microevolution - within the species. No question that this happens, i.e. different breeds of dogs
- Macroevolution - from one species to another.
Absolutely no proof this has ever happened
2. Teleological evidence - Purpose, complexity, order
Examples:
- Seasons of the year never fail
- Earth tilted at 23 degrees - exact tilt necessary to maintain life
- Discovery of DNA has convinced many scientists of intelligent design
3. Moral Conscience
How is it that human beings everywhere have some kind of moral code?
Why do you believe so strongly that some things are right and some things are wrong?
Romans 1:19-20 "For the truth about God is known to them instinctively. God has put this knowledge in their hearts."
A. Darwin could never explain where the conscience comes from
B. It is unique to human beings
C. Anthropologists tell us that all cultures have a moral conscience and a belief in a divine power.
Could it mean that we are created by a moral and intelligent being?
4. Experiential
People can experience God, and millions have
DIFFERING BELIEFS ABOUT GOD:
A. Islam says that God is unknowable and you must work to try to earn your way to heavenm but you can never know whether you have done enough
B. Buddhism has no theology or concept of God
C. Hinduism believes there are many gods, but they do not reveal themselves and their writings have no basis in history or geography.
D. Christianity says that God created everything with a purpose. His purpose for mankind is that we might believe in Him, know Him and love Him, accept His offer of redemption and live with Him forever.
Seekers: Day 1 Review
The pastor ("Pastor V") opened the session explaining the notion and value of "evidence" as described in the flyer (see previous blog). I could completely get behind the framework laid out here. He challenged us "why do you believe what you believe?" - a concept I've always been behind.
When Paster V opened w/ "If you could call God directly and ask him any questions, what would you ask?" - I was pleased. I entered w/ 3 questions of the top of my head (in anticipation they would ask "What answers are you seeking?"). We were supposed to discuss/list amongst our table first.
My questions:
- How come morality has changed, but the bible hasn't?
- What about the substantial # of people that would be condemned to hell due to ignorance? (prior to mass communication, and even remote regions after mass-media)
- Why give us the ability to reason if we should ignore it?
That last question got some looks from my table so I realized it was somewhat malformed. After thinking about it, I came to "version #2" - "Why give us the ability to reason if we can't use that gift to find you? Or in using that gift, it makes it harder for us to believe in you?". I realize that question is obviously loaded as well (implies that reason CAN'T get us there), but it's more clear and a question one the less.
Here's kinda what ended up on the white board:
- Why am I here?
- Why do good things happen to bad people (and vice versa)?
- Is there existence after death?
- Why allow suffering?
- Why is sin "sin"? <-- this one was added by me on the fly - why THOSE rules?
- Why allow child abuse (aka - suffering)?
- How do I know I'm "saved"?
- How come I am so blessed?
Pastor V presented the "fill the jar w/ the big stones first" analogy and distilled these to "the big questions":
- God
- Afterlife
- Saved/Jesus
- Bible (v. Quran, etc.)
********
I'm completely behind the notion of "evidence w/o proof" having seen a perfect illustration of this regarding the existence/composition of atoms laid out in "The God Particle":
- Someone who can't see B&W right next to each other goes to a soccer match
- they can't see the ball
- they make note that players seem to be focused together, chasing "something"
- immediately before the crowd cheers, he notices a 'blip' in the back of the net after a man dove in that direction
In isolation, a complete mystery, but when the observer asks the question "what if there's a ball I can't see?" then EVERYTHING fits perfectly and makes sense.
*********
So this leads to my personal clarifier: It's all about how you INTERPRET the evidence!
At this point, we were about half-way in, when things took an interesting and unfortunate turn: "The ID proposition". While he didn't frame it this way, Pastor V started espousing the same rhetoric I'd seen/read before time and again and this obviously frustrated me.
He also kept referring to Richard Dawkins as Steven Dawkins, which annoyed me - but not significantly. I just think if you're going to challenge/mock someone (and he wasn't openly mocking), then you should get their name right.
I'll leave the ID/Creationist summary/position for a separate blog(s) and I'll just pick up at the trail end of that "detour"
*********
Recommended reading/research by Pastor V:
- Francis Collins (top dog of the Genome project)
- Ravi Zacharias' "The End of Reason"
- "Defeating Darwinism"
- Heraclites
- Anti-evolution pamphlet offered at the end of class
Questions/thoughts for further consideration:
- How come there is so much order? (teleological argument)
- Origin of the conscience/morality
- Laminin
- John 1:1 "... Word was with God and the Word was God ..." - original Greek = 'Logos' = reason/purpose
Seekers: Day 1 Handout ("Decide What You Believe")
Every day we make decisions - some major and some minor.
- Decisions flow from our experience
- Decisions flow from our belief system
Life is a series of choices:
1. We examine
2. We believe
3. We decide
Life is a sum total of our experiences and decisions. Decision-making determines who and what we are more than any other aspect of our lives.
1. What do you believe?
James 1:3 "You know that under pressure, your faith-life is forced into the open and shows its true colors"
It is under pressure that we see what we really believe, but what we do reveals more about what we believe than what we say.
2. Why do you believe what you say you believe?
Reasons for belief:
- Tradition: I was taught
- Pragmatic: It works for me
- Intuitive: I just feel it's true
- Mystical: I believe God just told me
- Authoritarian: I was told this by an authority
These reasons are not adequate to build your life around, to stake your future to, and your eternity on.
There is something better!
EVIDENCE - Not proof, but evidence. Every day we stake our lives on things we may not be able to prove, but there is sufficient evidence that we believe in our decision. God does not expect us to take a blind leap into the dark; He wants us to commit our life, based on evidence:
Two tools to find evidence:
- Reasoning/logic
- Experience
3. What evidence do you have for what you believe?
A. Apologetics - defending your faith
B. Why does it matter?
1. You can live opposite to your opinion, but you cannot live opposite of what you believe!
2. What you really believe will mold and direct your life. Whatever your image of God is directs your life.
3. What you believe can be your greatest enemy if you believe a lie.
John 8:32 "... and you will know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."
- Decisions flow from our experience
- Decisions flow from our belief system
Life is a series of choices:
1. We examine
2. We believe
3. We decide
Life is a sum total of our experiences and decisions. Decision-making determines who and what we are more than any other aspect of our lives.
1. What do you believe?
James 1:3 "You know that under pressure, your faith-life is forced into the open and shows its true colors"
It is under pressure that we see what we really believe, but what we do reveals more about what we believe than what we say.
2. Why do you believe what you say you believe?
Reasons for belief:
- Tradition: I was taught
- Pragmatic: It works for me
- Intuitive: I just feel it's true
- Mystical: I believe God just told me
- Authoritarian: I was told this by an authority
These reasons are not adequate to build your life around, to stake your future to, and your eternity on.
There is something better!
EVIDENCE - Not proof, but evidence. Every day we stake our lives on things we may not be able to prove, but there is sufficient evidence that we believe in our decision. God does not expect us to take a blind leap into the dark; He wants us to commit our life, based on evidence:
Two tools to find evidence:
- Reasoning/logic
- Experience
3. What evidence do you have for what you believe?
A. Apologetics - defending your faith
B. Why does it matter?
1. You can live opposite to your opinion, but you cannot live opposite of what you believe!
2. What you really believe will mold and direct your life. Whatever your image of God is directs your life.
3. What you believe can be your greatest enemy if you believe a lie.
John 8:32 "... and you will know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."
Seekers: Origin
Shortly after starting this journey, another friend of mine told me about a "Seekers" group at her church (a Baptist church, but nice folks none the less). Being that I was looking for ANY new ways to look at things, I dragged my feet, then decided to attend. At this point, I'm 3 sessions in (out of 6) w/ 4 fliers and a few stories - as well as a few new angles.
I'm going to try and document as best I can what is being presented, my thoughts and perhaps a few anecdotes/chats that occurred afterwards.
I'm going to try and document as best I can what is being presented, my thoughts and perhaps a few anecdotes/chats that occurred afterwards.
Day One: Creation
I've recently started down the path of investigating what my personal theology is (everyone has their own, despite their official affiliations). This has been varied, passionate, frustrating and enlightening - and I'm only about 3 months in.
A good friend of mine reccommended I keep my thoughts/discoveries/rabbit holes in a journal - specifically by keeping/starting a blog. So here you go.
I've got lots of back-drafting to do, but this will suffice for now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)