Heartburn

Deconversion is as powerful an experience as conversion, if not more so. The reality of my deconversion continues to puzzle me, confuse me, baffle me and astound me. I continue to reflect on my own deconversion…and like looking into a deep pool of water, I discover more depths of understanding.

I continue to puzzle…why did I choose to walk away? I was not born “Christian” – my parents were not engaged in any way in religious observance, and did nothing to instruct me about religious belief. My conversion came after a long period of rebellious acting out, drug abuse, criminal behavior and violence. I was like Nicky Cruz of “Cross and the Switchblade” fame…a gangster who found Christ because of a charismatic, compassionate youth worker who dared to invite me to a prayer meeting. My conversion was emotional, mystical and profoundly transformative. I spent years living on the fumes of that moment…studying my Bible, not for knowledge but to hear God’s voice. I was a passionate witness, and when I chose ministry as a profession, no one was surprised (except my parents!).

I think I really loved God and Jesus as a Christian. But there were times when theodicy would grip my soul and love turned to – heartburn. Agony. Hate. I truly did have a “love-hate” relationship with the notion of God.

But why deconvert? After over 25 years of ministry leadership and over 30 years of being a “Jesus Freak” – I found I was losing the ability to believe my own justifications for too many leaks in the wall. Upon reflection, I have identified two major issues that led to my deconversion: (1) the profound inconsistencies in the Bible, both internally and externally relevant to the experience of the believer, and (2) the profound hypocrisy within the community of believers.

Both of those issues have been dealt with on this blogsite ad nauseum – and I am not the intellectual powerhouse of some of my colleagues or apologists who come to this site to debate. I will just make these observations:

(1) the inconsistencies of the Bible are there – even most Christians acknowledge this. However, no one has been able to account for those inconsistencies in the SOURCE Book for the faith. Most Christian traditions – regardless of the brainless attempts by some on this site to deny or discount it – claim that the Bible is the inerrant or infallible or authoritative source for faith and doctrine. And without the Bible, Christians can only appeal to experiential, subjective and oral traditions to justify their current beliefs. And that is too weak, and it is too dishonest…the Bible is the cornerstone of Christian theology and apologetics, and it is riddled with inaccuracies, inconsistencies, brutal and polytheistic notions of God, and promises that claim to prove the divinity of Christ but have no relevance to the believer.

(2) many have made comments on this site along these lines: “who killed more people in the 20th century – atheists like Mao or Hitler, or Christians?” That kind of reasoning is very prevalent in spunky Christian apology…but this point is overlooked. Nobody – atheists, agnostics, simple theists, deists, wiccans, etc. – have their Savior and God quoted in the Source Material as saying “in this way will you be known as my disciples, that you have love for one another.” LOVE is the defining and almost exclusive virtue of the Christian community (yeh, I know many will argue that here – whatever). Christianity has established the 1 Corinthians 13 ethic as its central ethic. And there is the rub…they blow it off as if they don’t believe it. And they don’t, because it is a false ethic based on a false premise of an existent God who loves and wants to be involved in our lives.

The question is not “ who killed more – atheists or Christians”, but why the hell did Christians support Hitler (which they did)? Why have Christians supported the extermination of or discrimination against Jews? Or the subjugation of blacks? Or have church splits? Or treat one another like shit on a shoe? More people have left the church in the past twenty years than have joined it, and the most common reason cited is “hypocrisy, unloving judgmental and unethical behavior.” (Barna Research Group – a Christian survey group).

The armed forces of this country have a motto: “we will never leave behind one of our wounded.” Christians may have prevented the deconversion of many of their brothers and sisters if they had practiced this ethic as an extension of love.

There are some atheists who visit this site that have never believed, never been in a community of faith, never had a “relationship with God.” I am not one of them. I am one of the walking wounded…someone shot down and bled out by those who claimed Jesus as their Savior but never demonstrated the central ethic of his ministry. My conversion can be explained and understood in many ways that have nothing to do with spiritual reality. My deconversion can be explained primarily by this: the Bible is a joke, and most Christians are reprehensible. If I look beyond the excuses, I cannot see a real God behind this miserable excuse for a religion.


42 comments:

goprairie said...

I think it would help you to understand why people are vulnerable to false beleifs from the standpoint of how the brain works physically and chemically. I am digestig a book now: The Accidental Mind: How Brain Evolution Has Given Us Love, Memory, Dreams, and God
by David J. Linden
I am learning how the brain makes us want to and able to beleive such things and explanations for our ability to be so very hypocritical and hold illogical views.
I myself used to be especially stressed out this time of year as I tried to justify in my head the whole 'reason for the season' and make a story about God and Jesus that worked and that I could beleive in and trust and hold in my head. You know, I just never did. I never came up with a version of God that made sense to me, try as I might for years and years. It was very stressful to me to be constantly pondering and trying to make it make sense. When I finally gave up, I struggled through a year of feasts and festivals and holidays trying to find my place as an atheist in a Christian nation, a Christian community, among Christian friends, and after I got used the idea that it was okay to participate on a limited basis in these things a cultural events, I can enjoy the parties and gifts now because I am not trying so hard to make it all make sense in my head. That was sure a lot of work, and I am glad to be done with it!

GordonBlood said...

Well Brother Crow I think as far as biblical inerrancy is concerned it really does nothing to disprove Christianity as such. Its very clear that the Old Testament was editted over a long period of time and as NT Wright (who could barely be considered an impious liberal) has noted it may indeed contain "considerable fresh writing". That however doesnt really do much to disprove the central truth-claims of the Christian religion. As far as bad Christians are concerned certainly they have existed in every community from the very beginning. Indeed the very first monastic communities were formed as a result of them. I suppose one result of Christianity having become to prominent however is that, unfortunately, that means many will join it (or be born into it) with seriously practicing it. Though with that said Christianity has certainly never claimed that being a Christian makes one perfect.

GordonBlood said...

goprairie im far to busy right now to read such a thing but it sounds interesting. Obviously I cannot say much about it but I would simply say that one could say the same about atheism. I myself cannot believe for a second that a world of saints and scientists, priests and politicians could have come be simply a very unlikely (but lucky!) accident. It barely proves for a second however that atheism is not true or whatnot.

Don Martin said...

gordonblood, if as you say an errant scripture does not challenge if not completely disintegrate christian belief...what exactly is the basis for christian belief? Subjective experience? Enough people saying (or simply giving credence to) ideas that may or may not have any basis in reality? Nazism did that in spades! So does Islam, Hinduism, and any number of other ideologies. What gives Christianity prevalence? Christianity has used the concept and practice of "anointed" orator to dull the thinking of the masses, and has used cultural/political acceptance to infect entire societies.

Being perfect was not what I was pointing to in Christian behavior. There is a huge difference in being perfect and being loving, practicing the very clear teaching and example of the so-called Lord, Savior and God. Being perfect has nothing to do with mass affirmation of Nazism, racial elimination, racial segregation, societal violence (Crusades) and cultural apathy. Those issues have nothing to do with the trite argument "Being Christian does not mean being perfect, just forgiven." Jesus allegedly made commandments about ethical behavior, and made promises - "you shall have power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you" - that the Christian would be able to act according to these ethical demands. Christians do not do so...which, along with other evidence, seems to put a lie to the integrity of the promise and the promise maker.

Ross Wiseman said...

My Dear Brother Crow,

My heart burns....no aches with you and for you at this time of year.

A season when Christians celebrate the incarnation of God. So many of them are Christ proclaimers, but hardly followers. I hurt that you have experienced so many who failed you in your past. People who were more concerned about "church life" than incarnational living. Maybe you feel that I live in a delusional bubble, but as long as I am in here I will strive to live out I Corinthians 13 :)

Thanks for the reminder and necessity of that spiritual mandate.

Looking forward to our next cup of coffee.

Anonymous said...

More people have left the church in the past twenty years than have joined it according to Barna? Wow! I'd like the link or reference to that. It's an amazing statistic.

Don Martin said...

John, in a book published by Barna about 2 years ago, called "Revolution" he cites those statistics, and even more amazing ones. I will get that precise citation and will attempt to find a link.

Don Martin said...

At the Barna Group website, the latest update details what Barna calls "nouveau Christianity." He says:

"While slightly fewer adults - and many fewer teens - are identifying themselves as Christians these days, the image of the Christian faith has taken a beating. This battered image is the result of a combination of factors: harsh media criticism, "unchristian" behavior by church people, bad personal experiences with churches, ineffective Christian leadership amid social crises, and the like. The result is that those who choose to remain Christian - however they define it - are also reformulating the popular notion of what "Christian" and the Christian life mean."

This is an on-going theme with Barna over the past few years, as he discovered in doing research for "Revolution." People are leaving evangelical churches and not connecting anywhere. I think they are "pre-deconversion" and probably represent the majority of people who are buying John Loftus's book and have made other books about atheism best-sellers. I would love to see demographics of who are buying those books - my guess is that they are baby boomers and older busters and disenfranchised christians who have left the church for exactly the reasons Barna cites.

SpongJohn SquarePantheist said...

BC, with regards to 2:
the most common reason cited is “hypocrisy, unloving judgmental and unethical behavior.”
If you can step back from your anger for a moment, will you please admit that when people are confronted with their sins, they will frequently go on the defensive and accuse the other party of being judgmental. You've quoted the given reasons for leaving the church ("hypocrisy", etc.) and treat it as if it were more than just unsubstantiated accusations and speculations about believers. Why? Your experiences may have been real. Why do you assume they are normative?

but why the hell did Christians support Hitler (which they did)?
I don't understand why behavior of Christians should play into your deciding whether it is true. If Christianity is true, you will have to account for your own sins. You will not be able to excuse them by pointing to nominal Christians and ... what? Saying they were worse? Saying they somehow 'tricked' you into unbelief? Since the phenomena of 'the love of many growing cold' is actually recorded in the Bible itself, it is especially irrational of you to use behavior of professing Christians to decide the truthfulness of Christianity.

Don Martin said...

spongjohn, my experience was a pastor and leader of a large group (akin to denomination) of christians. I was not an isolated case that ran into a bad lot. I saw this over a 25 year period from a high place.

I believed, and still do, that I was seeing trends, not isolated actions. And trends tend to support or not the premise. The premise here is that Christian religion has some value because (1) it is true, and (2) it is efficacious. It's truth cannot be objectively proven. It must be taken on faith. When taken on faith, its promises of efficacy in the life of the believer or believing community are not fulfilled. That leads me to conclude that it is not true, and not efficacious.

Example: I will assume that for close to 2000 years, believers have prayed the prayer - "your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven." Either that prayer has not been answered, or God is absolutely sick and evil.

akakiwibear said...

I am fascinated by the number of deconversions that are founded on a flawed premise. “Most Christian traditions – regardless of the brainless attempts by some on this site to deny or discount it – claim that the Bible is the inerrant or infallible or authoritative source for faith and doctrine.” This should not need correction as it is so obviously wrong and reflects a lack of objective research.

A quick example to refute the point is that the Catholic Church basis its doctrine on the “Bible AND the tradition (scholarly writings) of the Church” and what is more, much of the doctrine is open to ongoing debate and review – after a few hundred years though I think they have covered off most of the bases. Without burdening you with heavy reading, try http://www.timesonline.co.uk
/tol/news/world/europe/article574768.ece

Peace

akakiwibear said...

Your second point – hypocrisy in the Christian community – yes it’s there and it shouldn’t be.

Problem is Christians are people too, warts and all – never mind the hypocrisy, worse still there are people who misuse religion (perhaps claiming to be Christian) to further their own ends and some even commit horrible deeds in the name of religion. There are people who will use anything to get power or resources … and do anything.

You quote ““in this way will you be known as my disciples, that you have love for one another.” LOVE is the defining and almost exclusive virtue of the Christian community “ a
nd I won’t argue with you that it should be a defining characteristic of Christians – and that it is not so.

Problem is freewill – we get to choose what we believe and how we behave. We get to choose self sacrifice or selfishness – and a lot of people choose selfishness (but not all).
Now is it God’s fault we choose to do wrong? – you seem to feel that.

To use this to denigrate Christians you say “that for close to 2000 years, believers have prayed the prayer - "your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven." Either that prayer has not been answered, or God is absolutely sick and evil.” .

Have you thought this through? How would you expect the prayer to be answered? God kill off the odd despot here and there before they commit some atrocity or another? Atheists would certainly be at a loss for words, but anti-theists would be quick to criticise such a God.

Perhaps at a minor level, God should tie your tongue when you are about to say something hurtful?

You could choose to give up freewill, I would rather see God answer the prayer by inspiring and enabling those who work for a better world – theist and atheist alike. People like the Quakers who initiated the fight against slavery in Britain or William Wilberforce who through his conversion experience worked so hard to get the legislation through.

Think again about the prayer – its origin – if Christ did not recognise the need for the prayer, (the results of freewill) why would He have given it to us?

The problems of the world are not a surprise to theists, God warned us of them and each of us individually can do something about them, confident in the support implicit in the prayer of the Church – or we can blame God.

That said, the way you rationalise your deconversion remains your choice - but it sure looks like you threw the baby out with the bathwater.

Sala kahle - peace

Don Martin said...

Good comments, akakawibear. However, they don't close off the possibility that my conclusion is the correct one. I think most of us are beyond the concept of free will...science, sociology, psychology and neurology have all presented evidence that free will is not actually free, nor is it will. Our choices, our responses, have far more programming in them than we care to admit, perhaps. And of course, Calvinists, which make up a substantial part of Christendom, would not accept the premise.

In the OT, God did kill off the evil despot. Why not now? That is one of my deconverting issues...at which point did God's style of behavior change? Before Christ? After Christ? When America was discovered and manifest destiny was revealed? God is not consistent from one age to another...his claim that he changes not is bull because in the bible he changes alot, and he is unrecognizable in these days.

So while I appreciate your arguments and the overall attitude in which you present them...they don't wash with me. I ain't an intellectual pygmy...though perhaps not as pedantic as some.

akakiwibear said...

Hi BC In the OT, God did kill off the evil despot. Why not now? That is one of my deconverting issues...at which point did God's style of behavior change?
Two points:
1) Not sure if you can track the inerrancy back to God actually killing off anyone - if you can let me know.

2) If you view the bible as a sequenced revelation over time where God matched the revelations to the context of the people at the time then it should be no surprise that the revelation changed as society became more mature. When, well to keep it simple the NT as the later revelation does not have despots being "hit" by God.

I find the concept that we are the equivalent of biological computers quaint. The implication is that our lives are simply a living out of the programme - in other words completely predictable if you could get to grips with the programme. This gives predestination a big boost and at the same time absolves us from any guilt associated with any wrong we do.

It gets back to how you would like the prayer answered.
So again, which would you prefer.
1) Predestination and by implication zero accountability
2) Freewill and by implication the need for people of good will.
3) A god that micro managed the world.


Sala kahle - peace

Don Martin said...

Not true...in Acts 12:23, Herod got hit by God in a big way. And while I would not call them despots, Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-11 certainly felt the "Soprano" manifestation of Lord God Almighty...and Peter. And Peter continues this great tradition in Acts 8:18-24 when he puts the evil eye and contract on Simon the Sorcerer. OK - Peter is not God, but God is credited for the first two hits...so the NT keeps up the tradition of the OT.

You make an argument that others use here, and it is so irrelevant...you pull the old "Catholics don't view the Bible as inerrant" and "theists don't view God as being the God of the OT" and "the bible is not the word of God" cards...and they are worthless arguments. First, catholicism does not represent the all Christians...and every Protestant denomination does make the bible the SOURCE, and in all cases if not inerrant then certainly infallible for faith and doctrine. You can't get around that, and you can't dismiss it. It is fundamentally (forgive the pun) saying "OK - the Bible is riddled with errors, but we don't really believe it or use it as the source of our faith and doctrine." Akakawi...that is BS and you know it.

akakiwibear said...

BC, fair comment on the Saprano effect in the NT - I will need to think about it, but it certainly looks like one needs to look out for who you cross!

When you say You make an argument that others use here, and it is so irrelevant...you pull the old "Catholics don't view the Bible as inerrant" and "theists don't view God as being the God of the OT" and "the bible is not the word of God" cards you misconstrue my argument and you know that.

But you still need to answer my question on your preference, predestination, freewill or micromanagement.

peace-

Speedwell said...

Hi, Brother Crow. I am an atheist and I mostly agree with what you say. We are on the same side. However, I feel that I need to reassure you that Christianity does not in and of itself make a person reprehensible.

Right now we are awaiting the imminent death of my dad. He is a Christian (mostly) and was a very negative, repellent person. My brother and his wife are also Christians... normal, decent people indistinguishable from atheists except that the books on their shelf tend to have religious rather than humanistic titles. People like my brother and sister-in-law tend to go to church and raise their kids in the church, but disagree with a lot of what they hear (not that they would approach their pastor with those disagreements). It's all kind of weird since my mom was the first person in her Jewish family to convert to Christianity, and her kids are sort of disinclined to fall quite as hard as she did.

It's early this morning and I am distracted by events, but I meant really to make this point: Bad, abusive, uncaring people make bad Christians (and bad atheists, come to that). Good people make good Christians and good atheists if they deconvert. I really think it's just that simple.

The more complicated question is what attracts bad people to a religion of love. We can think of a lot of possible reasons once we suppose that people are, on the whole, what they are, and that religion gives them an opportunity to indulge their personalities.

James said...

When someone says to me, "You're just bitter about the church!", I think about all the folk, young and old alike, who enjoyed the music I played as a worship leader. I remember best the songs that I knew they loved singing, because it made them FEEL like it was all real - and I was the one who had to MAKE it real for them.

Isn't it funny that I ended up believing half of what I was singing, and the rest of them didn't? Isn't it funny, when it's the ones who *really* care that get offered all the jobs to do - because no-one else cares to? Isn't it funny when you do get to the holy of holies, that you find old folks sitting around, worrying about MONEY all the time?

"Walking wounded" says it all. Christians ought to take a look at how many folk they walk past on their road to glory, the next time the parable of the Good Samaritan comes around in the suggested daily readings.

Just Another Atheist said...

I'm right there with you. When I was a senior in High School, I had two options for higher education: my local public university or a Catholic university/theology degree in preperation for the seminary and the preisthood. It is a rocky scary road because you do leave so much behind. I think there is a period there where you become the stereotypical angry atheist. This is not because you are angry at god, per se, but because you begin to feel like you've been lied to. You've been lied to by your parents, your teachers, your community and yourself. Religion was an enormous part of my life for so very long that I was mad. But, once you come to terms with that, once you break those bonds, diving head first into rational inquiry, skepticism and freethought becomse profoundly liberating. When you begin to look at the world through fresh eyes, to question what is accepted and to think for yourself, you become a new person. There are times when I do miss things about faith: community, brotherhood and a sense of protection. But a done-bun-can't-be-undone. Once you've taken off the blinders, why would you want to put them back on? Thanks for the post!

Brother D said...

I don't think you ever knew the Jesus I know. How do you "debunk" something you KNOW lives inside you? True believers have the Holy Spirit living inside them, the bible says it, I know it because.....I am myself. How can I "prove" to anybody else that this unseen Spirit within me exists? I've said ad nauseum on this site that there are many differnt "christs" in the world. Pick the wrong jesus and deconversion is a natural result. Apart from the one true Jesus, there's no substance, no power, no indwelling Holy Spirit, no wonder people walk away. When you find the real thing, you cannot deny it. Many do walk away from it though, because they love sin and themselves more than they love the Creator.

Don Martin said...

dbull, wow...almost amusing if it weren't so sad. So...your Jesus is THE TRUE Jesus. And you know this how? Because it happened to you? And He lives inside? Where exactly? In a little like Big Bird's neslted in your heart. Obviously, I wasn't a TRUE believer, because I no longer believe - you would have called me a "not true believer" back in the day because I did not believe as you did, probably.

dbull, you may personally be nice person, but your comments are the very definition of "rephrensible" I meant in my post.

Don Martin said...

akakiwi, I don't misconstrue your agrgument...I know your argument quite well. You cannot get around what scripture is to Chrisitans, Catholic, Protestant, conservative, liberal. Imagine a world where scripture did not exist...what would your belief system be founded on? Experience and oral tradition.

As for my choice...I would add an option...no god.

akakiwibear said...

BC said I think most of us are beyond the concept of free will...science, sociology, psychology and neurology have all presented evidence that free will is not actually free, nor is it will.

Again you have not thought it through.

"free will is not actually free, nor is it will" ...

... so we are merely executing our 'programme' as bio-chemical computers in a predetermined way.

... so we are not accountable for our actions as we do not actually make our own choices, as a matter of will - right or wrong or good or bad, drive drunk or sober.

... so all life is futility, we cannot better our lot or that of others - Mother Teresa should have stayed in bed.

... so you never really chose to deconvert, it was all there in the 'programme' - and you really made it sound like you actually exercised your will.

... so atheist or theist is predetermined ... so why would you be evangelising atheism ... oops I forgot you have no choice

... so Charles Manson also had no choice - don't malign him, he did the best he was programmed to do.

... so heck the FBI just did what they had to do at WAKO, Bush just had to go into Iraq.

WOW this doctrine of yours really frees you up - do what you like, it's never your fault. Now I see the appeal of atheism.

I would wish you a happy Christmas, but hey it will be what it will be, don't bother to get up, you won't make a difference ... unless you don't believe your own nonsense.


Sala kahle - peace

Don Martin said...

akakawi, "I would wish you a happy Christmas, but hey it will be what it will be, don't bother to get up, you won't make a difference ... unless you don't believe your own nonsense."

Overall, I guess there are some components of life that could be "free will" - the choice to turn right or left, hamburger or pizza for dinner. But that trivializes the issue, I think. On the other hand...I had no choice in being a male...so...neuro, physio, cultural even spiritual implications ("head of household" shit) go along with that which were PREDETERMINED. Not by God, but by other forces such as biology, society, yada. I had no choice in my parents, in my race, in my appearance.

but why do I go on...Mother Theresa should have stayed in bed. (Sounds like a Beatles song). My better half works at a childrens advocacy center...as evil and brutal as it is, most child molesters are programmed to be so.

All life is futility. It will be what it will be. Now you are seeing, young padiwan. And to quote ELP (Emerson Lake and Palmer for those to young or disabled to know)..."hallelujah, noel, be it heaven or hell, the christmas we get we deserve." I do wish yours is a good one.

zilch said...

Bro Crow said:

free will is not actually free, nor is it will...

to which akawiki replied:

...so we are merely executing our 'programme' as bio-chemical computers in a predetermined way.

Of course, our decisions, and our lives, are affected by many factors, some of which are out of our control. But no one is saying that we cannot and do not make decisions based upon our feelings and our reason. Our free will may not be perfectly free, but as long as it is not predictable, we have a degree of freedom.

But suppose we were created by an omniscient and omnipotent God. We may think we have free will, but we don't: every last detail, every single decision we make for good or ill is predestined. Of course, some Christians claim that even though God made us deliberately in such a way that we would make the choices we do, that we somehow still have a choice. I could just as well say that Barney and Fred have the choice to light up their cigarettes or not, even though Hannah-Barbara knows they will.

I don't know the solution to the free-will riddle. But I suspect that part of the mystery has to do with how we accept "choice" as a primitive operation, when it is really quite complex.

cheers from cold and dark Vienna, zilch

akakiwibear said...

BC On the other hand I had no choice in being a male ...so... neuro, physio, cultural even spiritual implications ("head of household" shit) go along with that which were PREDETERMINED. Not by God, but by other forces such as biology, society, yada. I had no choice in my parents, in my race, in my appearance
I am not sure why you think race, appearance, or gender would be issues in a freewill discussion - clearly they were not your choice.

Peace

akakiwibear said...

Zilch, no one is saying that we cannot and do not make decisions based upon our feelings and our reason. Our free will may not be perfectly free, but as long as it is not predictable, we have a degree of freedom.
guess you and BC are not on the same page on this one.

But suppose we were created by an omniscient and omnipotent God. We may think we have free will, but we don't: every last detail, every single decision we make for good or ill is predestined. WHY? this is a non-sequitur if ever I saw one.

I don't know the solution to the free-will riddle. you and I, but we denigrate our humanity if we deny our ability to make choices and change an outcome, to make the world better or worse.

Perhaps at the extreme of theism and atheism is the place of no freewill, where it loops back on itself in the Möbius strip that is life. Feeling philosophical today?

Hamba kahle - peace

zilch said...

akawiki- I'm not sure if Bro Crow and I are on the same page about free will either. But as I am not sure what page I'm on at all, I cannot judge that.

About the non-sequitur: I tried to explain it with my metaphor of the Flintstones cartoon. This is something that seems crystal clear to me, but for some reason, most Christians don't seem to get it: if God is omniscient and omnipotent, then every decision we make is predestined, and despite the illusion we may have of making choices, no real choices are possible.

Why not? Because God, being omnipotent, made us in such a way that we make exactly the decisions we do. Being omniscient, He knows exactly what those decisions will be beforehand. It makes no sense to say that God knows what we are going to do beforehand, and that He made us in such a way that we would do exactly what He knows we will do, and still claim that we have free will.

Our situation, if we were created by an omniscient and omnipotent God, is exactly parallel to that of cartoon figures in a film, who act as though they had free will, and may claim they have free will, but as is obvious, are actually predestined to do whatever is already printed on the film.

How much free will we have, if any, in the absense of God, is moot. As I said, exactly what "free will" can possibly mean is moot as well. Daniel Dennett, in Freedom Evolves, illustrates the possible evolution of consciousness and free will in a deterministic universe, based on the "toy world" of Conway's Game of Life. But I don't think we have a complete explanation yet.

cheers from snowy Vienna, zilch

akakiwibear said...

Hi Zilch - “This is something that seems crystal clear to me, but for some reason, most Christians don't seem to get it: if God is omniscient and omnipotent, then every decision we make is predestined, and despite the illusion we may have of making choices, no real choices are possible..” ... I don’t get it either.
I think you think that because God knows – has the equivalent of a decision and event map of our lives – that limits our ability to act as free agents.

Is this the old tri-omni fallacy at work. It has at its heart a flaw which as a digression I will give you. The flaw is that if a premise to your argument is that God is omniscient then you have concede that God is smarter than you(or that you too are omniscient) – hence whatever your subsequent reasoning God, by definition, knew best. If however you claim to know better then God is not omniscient and hence your argument collapses.
However on a less esoteric level your argument falls down too.

There are two key elements to your argument – (1) Is God omniscient – AND, if so (2) does foreknowledge equate to predestination.

Now I won’t challenge you to prove that God is omniscient – I will let you have that for argument’s sake - though I have no way of knowing if it is true or not, or in fact what omniscient actually means..

Foreknowledge is not predestination. I don’t see how God knowing what choice I will freely make limits my ability to make the choice. In order to limit my freewill I have to be constrained in some way from electing a particular option – that would be predetermination – I want to do X but simply find it impossible and have to do Y.

To demonstrate that I have no freewill you have to show the way in which God constrains my freedom at the time of making the choice.

Also as an aside, we have no idea what the time interrelationships are between this world and the metaphysical realm. The time as a Mobius strip concept comes into play. It could be argued that at the exact instant of our choice we are free of any coercion to make a particular choice, but, God being able to travel in time, into our future knows the outcome and knows it now, before we make the choice. - …. … - … well I did say it was an aside.

Enjoy the snow - peace

zilch said...

akawiki- it's stopped snowing here; all we have is slippery ice on the sidewalks.

God's omniscience alone does not abrogate choice, but the combination of omniscience with omnipotence does. As I tried to explain, if God is both omniscient and omnipotent, then He created the world knowingly and deliberately so that it would play out exactly the way it does. This is analogous to the cartoon I invoked as metaphor: Barney and Fred may "think" they have a choice about whether they are going to light up or not; Hannah and Barbara know that they have no choice. I don't see how my analogy is not precise.

Nick said...

akakiwibear said...

If you view the bible as a sequenced revelation over time where God matched the revelations to the context of the people at the time then it should be no surprise that the revelation changed as society became more mature. When, well to keep it simple the NT as the later revelation does not have despots being "hit" by God.

Wait a minute. Is this the same God who gave the Ten Commandments to Moses? The same God who sent down fire from Heaven to prove Baal a false god? The God who made up all those crazy Old Testament rules? Couldn't he just tell the people how it was gonna be? He's ALMIGHTY GOD for goodness sake! Why have a revelation that only says what people already know? Why match the "revelations" to the context of the people at the time? If he was going to "reveal" something, why not something useful, like abolishing slavery, or the germ theory of disease, or telling the Israelites that killing babies is wrong (see the book of Numbers, 31:17). The only thing that the Bible reveals is that the people who wrote it invented a God that matched their own primitive thinking.

DBULL said...

I don't think you ever knew the Jesus I know. How do you "debunk" something you KNOW lives inside you? True believers have the Holy Spirit living inside them, the bible says it, I know it because.....I am myself. How can I "prove" to anybody else that this unseen Spirit within me exists? I've said ad nauseum on this site that there are many differnt "christs" in the world. Pick the wrong jesus and deconversion is a natural result. Apart from the one true Jesus, there's no substance, no power, no indwelling Holy Spirit, no wonder people walk away. When you find the real thing, you cannot deny it. Many do walk away from it though, because they love sin and themselves more than they love the Creator.

Pick the wrong Jesus? No True Scotsman alert! This is just classic circular reasoning. Anyone who deconverts either wasn't really a Christian to begin with, or they simply are in love with "sin." I can only tell you this, I too KNEW the Holy Spirit lived inside me, I KNEW Jesus was real (as real to me then as any living person), I KNEW I was "saved," I KNEW I FELT the presence of the Lord. Until my eyes were opened and all my illusions fell away. You can never base anything on what you think you know through religious experience. The mind is deceptive, it can create feelings so seemingly real that no one can dissuade, through mere argument, the person that has them. You can't know that someone else did not experience exactly what you have before they left the Christian faith.

On the subject of free will, I can only say that, like the problem of evil and other mysteries, it is only made difficult, or at least more so, by bringing God into the picture (no God, no "problem" of evil). If everything is not determined, or if your actions and choices do not have a cause, then why do you make one choice, even an apparently simple one, such as what to have for dinner, over another? If its by pure randomness, that's as unfree as pure determinism. The brain is complex and we just don't have complete answers yet. The Libet experiments indicated brain activity before someone decided to perform a certain action, so it's certainly possible that free will is an illusion. We all feel we have it, of course, and we are all true to ourselves, to who we are.

One other thing that people don't really consider (when objections are raised about God interfering with our "free will" in order to make the world a less evil place), is this: what about the free will of the victims of evil people? What about the free will of the woman not to be raped by the rapist? The free will of the victims of Hitler not to die in a concentration camp? Isn't God allowing free will to be curtailed every day by NOT intervening?

akakiwibear said...

Zilch, I do understand what you are saying about omnipotent + omniscient, I get the analogy – I just don’t see how it leads to your conclusion.
Have you really thought it through?
1) Your idea that God could have created us/the world akin to a cartoon is but one possibility – another is that we have freewill. Your analogy is good, but an analogy of the situation you describe – it does not validate your theory. To validate your theory ahead of mine you need to demonstrate that freewill is actually constrained.

2) In your proposition we (the characters) act and behave as if we had freewill, but you propose that because the outcome (script) is know this is an illusion. A question is ponder is the difference between illusion and reality here. The adage that ‘perception is reality’ holds. Unless we are aware of a constraint to act freely we do indeed act freely.

3) There is a practical nonsense about the position of predetermination. It has to extend to the minutia of our life – your choice of breakfast or which shoes to wear because everything has ramifications. So what you propose is that God created this huge “cartoon” or model train set or whatever analogy you pick just because … why .. he could? This is much less logical or rational than some of the fundamentalist concepts you dispose of so readily.

As you gather I have serious problems with predetermination. Most serious of which is that it renders all existence absolutely futile – we have no challenges to overcome, we can do nothing to better the world, our lives or the lives of others. The only rational response is a great big hedonistic party to end the world – but even that option is not available to us under predetermination.

As a personal test of your faith in this theory - stay in bed … after all, according to you, if its what you choose to do them that is what was predestined for you, to just fade away in bed starting today. Or get up and choose a pastry or croissant for breakfast.

Have fun in snowy Vienna – from sunny summer in NZ - peace

akakiwibear said...

Sean asked Why match the "revelations" to the context of the people at the time? If he was going to "reveal" something, why not something useful, like abolishing slavery, or the germ theory of disease,

Have you really thought about what you said? I thought atheists were evolutionists, but you really go for instant creation! Just skip the development phase, drop nuclear technology right into the dawn of humanity – Neanderthal “trekkies” has a certain ironic appeal.
OR, don’t wait for the technology to exist – the knowledge and the physical facilities - just do the magic wand thing and let’s have sugar free Coke and antibiotics instead of the iron age.

On a more serious note, the logical conclusion of your proposition is that the only "context" that would ever exist is perfection - devoid of any opportunity to learn new things and to advance and of course devoid of freewill - but wait it is perfection.

Isn't God allowing free will to be curtailed every day by NOT intervening? A non-sequitur. A result of universal freewill is that some individuals may abuse it to acquire power over others and to restrict the freedoms of others – this is not a denial of freewill.

Hamba kahle - peace

Nick said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nick said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nick said...

akakiwibear said...
Have you really thought about what you said? I thought atheists were evolutionists, but you really go for instant creation!

You obviously don't except the words of your own holy book and its creation story. It describes an instant creation, with God bringing things about at his pleasure, by his will alone. He is constantly intervening, in both the Old and New Testaments, miraculously. Or don't you except any of the Biblical accounts of the supernatural? If its as you state, why give the ten commandments, why not let humanity discover them on their own (which of course is what actually happened). And if you don't believe the bible stories are anything but myths, why should anyone bother considering them as a guide to life? Especially when they go so off track from real morality (again I will use the example of Numbers 31). Are you saying the people were ready for DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, DO NOT STEAL, etc., but they weren't ready to hear God unequivocally state: THOU SHALT NOT MURDER LITTLE CHILDREN? You are the one who hasn't thought this through.

A non-sequitur. A result of universal freewill is that some individuals may abuse it to acquire power over others and to restrict the freedoms of others – this is not a denial of freewill.

There is no non-sequitur here at all. If God had struck Hitler dead with a heart attack before he could do any real damage to the world, would not God then have been preserving the free will of millions of others? Allowing Hitler to proceed with his evil plans is as much a decision as striking him dead would be (for an all-powerful God). Your logic would require the elimination of all police forces because the cops interfere with the criminals free will to commit violence against whomever they target. It's the theist who keeps trying to get God off the hook for just sitting by and doing nothing to stop horrendous evil when he has omnipotent power.

At this holiday season, peace to you too as well, akakiwibear.

Regards,
Sean

akakiwibear said...

Sean, you still don’t get the difference between freewill, the opposite of predestination and freedom to act.
You said “Your logic would require the elimination of all police forces because the cops interfere with the criminals free will”
This is the exact opposite of what freewill means. Back to the difference of freewill and freedom. The reason we need police is because there is freewill – it is your idea of an all powerful God that stops anyone doing anything wrong that would require no police.

“You obviously don't except the words of your own holy book and its creation story. It describes an instant creation.” Obviously I don’t believe in an inerrant literal bible, nor should you base your criticism of theism on one – it is a fallacy.

Christmas blessings to all

Nick said...

akakiwibear,

You are missing my point entirely, and no I am not confused about the difference between free will and freedom.

I asked: Isn't God allowing free will to be curtailed every day by NOT intervening?

You replied with: A non-sequitur. A result of universal freewill is that some individuals may abuse it to acquire power over others and to restrict the freedoms of others – this is not a denial of freewill.

If some are abusing power to restrict freedom, and God is all-powerful and can stop it but chooses not to, he is agreeing to allow free will to be denied for some. Why then not curtail the freedom of someone of great evil like Hitler?

Did you even read what I wrote in my last comment? I said: If God had struck Hitler dead with a heart attack before he could do any real damage to the world, would not God then have been preserving the free will of millions of others? Allowing Hitler to proceed with his evil plans is as much a decision as striking him dead would be (for an all-powerful God).

You state: it is your idea of an all powerful God

No, it's not my idea, it's Christianity's idea (and theism's generally), and it does not require a literal or inerrant belief in the Bible. Omnipotence is simply one of the traditional attributes of God. Are you denying this? Are you a deist? Do you believe your god can answer petitionary prayer? The point is if God is omnipotent and all-knowing, and he fails to act, then he is allowing evil to proceed. The traditional argument for why God doesn't act to stop evil is that he would be interfering with our free will. You have just stated, correctly, that the reason we have police is to interfere with the freedom of criminals to violate the rights of others. I was just using the police example as an analogy. If a police officer stands on a street corner and does nothing while watching someone be assaulted, we would consider that officer guilty of failing to protect the innocent. Therefore, the idea that God doesn't stop things like the Holocaust because do so would violate free will, can be seen for the absurdity it is.

As I stated before, by God not acting he is agreeing to let the free will of many be curtailed or destroyed by a few.

Happy Holidays!

akakiwibear said...

My last try on this.
Sean says, “The point is if God is omnipotent and all-knowing, and he fails to act, then he is allowing evil to proceed.”
Yes, and that is the result of freewill.
If God intervened then that intervention would rob us of our freewill. If God intervened and deprived Hitler of his freewill then by extension we would all be without freewill. … why?
OK because the implication is that God prevents all negative actions – as an illustration: your tongue is tied when you want to abuse someone because if not your action generates hatred which spreads among the peer groups (yours & the guy you abused) and …. Etc.

So either we have freewill or we don’t. The benefits of freewill far outweigh the possibility for misuse – without freewill we don’t learn, grow and develop moral character – we live a death like existence.

I know it popular among atheists to treat the misuse of freewill by people as the fault of God – no, it’s the fault of people, a neat move by atheists to blame a God they don't believe in though.

God gave us freewill, good instructions on how to use, pointed out the consequences of screwing up and provides ongoing council for those who want it. If we choose to ignore God’s teaching (and atheists by definition have to) and cause harm then there are consequences, in this world those consequences may fall on others (the innocent victims) in the next world most theists believe the account is squared off, we may disagree on how, but the principle is agreed on.

You asked “Do you believe your god can answer petitionary prayer?” Yes, and the answer to that prayer is seen in the enabling of people of good will to work against those who do evil and to come to the aid of the victims. We should all pray that more people are moved to get off their butts and do good rather than sit back and bemoan evil.

Again we have freewill! God can only inspire and encourage – take William Wilberforce and his conversion experience that lead him to fight for the abolition of slavery for example.

God bless you

Nick said...

If God intervened then that intervention would rob us of our freewill. If God intervened and deprived Hitler of his freewill then by extension we would all be without freewill. … why?

Yes, my question exactly, why? You have not shown why this conclusion is necessary.

You state: OK because the implication is that God prevents all negative actions – as an illustration: your tongue is tied when you want to abuse someone because if not your action generates hatred which spreads among the peer groups (yours & the guy you abused) and …. Etc.

Again, it does not follow that if God stops the worst offenses that deny others of their free will, that he has to stop "all negative actions." He could, for example, only stop those negative actions that cause extreme distress and actually interrupt a persons chance for growth. Rape and murder cause extreme trauma to the victim and/or victims family and God could interrupt a serial rapist/murderer's career without any other person suspecting God did so, as in many cases such sociopaths go unsuspected of committing their crimes for years anyway.

The benefits of freewill far outweigh the possibility for misuse – without freewill we don't learn, grow and develop moral character – we live a death like existence.

Heaven must be a deathlike existence then for all those that have died in infancy and thereby avoided the grief's of this world, going instead to eternal bliss. Are they forever unable to "learn, grow and develop moral character"? And further, does not Christianity teach that a future world without pain, suffering or evil is coming? Are all the residents of this blissful eternal wonderland to be forever bound to do only good and not be able to harm or do any evil thing?

God could also have created a
world where people could have the desire to harm another, but are unable to do so, by making our bodies invulnerable only to those actions caused by the "free will" of another that might kill us, for example, but without also making us immortal, preserving the temporary nature of this life. As you yourself have pointed out, freedom to act and free will are not the same thing, so such minimal restrictions on bad actions such as rape and murder would interfere with no ones free will, any more than you locking the door of your house interferes with the free will of the burglar.

You also continue to ignore my point that Hitler and the Nazis and other extremely evil people interfere with the free will of others and that God, being all-powerful and able to stop this therefore acquiesces in the denial of the ability of others to exercise their free will, instead allowing many to have their lives cut short prematurely, circumventing their opportunity to "learn, grow and develop" as you put it.

You also have not proven that the benefits of free will "far outweigh" their misuse, you have merely stated that this is so.

Also, you have not shown why it is impossible for God to create a universe where creatures are free, but always choose to do good over evil. Their is no reason why this is logically impossible.

You also at the very least seem not to fully comprehend the meaning of petitionary prayer, at least in the context of Bible belief, for there God does not merely act through people to accomplish his ends, but often intervenes directly with miracles. Do you believe there are no genuine miraculous events recorded in scripture?

Finally, if God is omnipotent, as Zilch has so ably pointed out, then free will cannot exist in the first place, or God is at the very least responsible for the evil that evil people do, since God created people with the nature or capacity to do very evil things. You have to keep in mind what I said in an earlier comment: if your actions and choices do not have a cause, then why do you make one choice, even an apparently simple one, such as what to have for dinner, over another? If its by pure randomness, that's as unfree as pure determinism. The only way to get God off the hook is if the actions of individuals are random and without a cause. If there is a cause or reason, then God knew it and created them with those characteristics anyway, and is therefore responsible. If the cause is random, than it has nothing to do with anyone's "will," and is therefore not needed as a part of the universe to begin with.

I hope that clears things up.

You seem to be a very nice person, akakiwibear and I've enjoyed discussing this with you.

I wish you a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Sean

akakiwibear said...

Still not thought it through I see Again, it does not follow that if God stops the worst offenses that deny others of their free will, that he has to stop "all negative actions." He could, for example, only stop those negative actions that cause extreme distress and actually interrupt a persons chance for growth.

Two major problems with your concept:
1) It may have happened and you would not know and would still be dissatisfied.

Assume you could eliminate all behaviour below a certain threshold then the that behaviour would cease to exist and knowledge of it would cease to exist - how do you know that has not happened? You don't!

2)Logically it leads to all behaviours being constrained. Faced with any range of behaviours we would rank some as 'good' and some as 'bad'
Still assuming you could eliminate all behaviour below a certain threshold then the next worst behaviour would become the worst know to us, it would be the horror we want eliminated. Within our experience we would want God to eliminate that behaviour too ... and so until all behaviour is constrained.

but enough from me on this topic

Peace

Nick said...

akakiwibear,

I certainly share your sentiments that this has been "enough" but please don't say I have Still not thought it through . I have wrestled with these questions for years and have simply come to a different conclusion than you have, so let's agree to disagree because I think we are both good and honest people (I took a look at your blog and you are doing a good job of presenting your views there, so keep up that good work)!

I do find it hard to debate with someone, however, who refuses to address my major points, though you did attempt to address one with your lastest comment, though not at all adequately.

When a monstrous evil like the holocaust can take place while a god reigns in his heaven, then I think it is safe to conclude that your assertion (you offer no evidence, a common theological tactic)
all behavior below a certain threshold then the that behavior would cease to exist and knowledge of it would cease to exist - how do you know that has not happened? You don't! is nonsense.

Again, there is no logical proof that I am aware of (if you know it please tell us) that it is logically impossible for God to create beings with free will who always do good. Doesn't everybody who goes to heaven do nothing but good? Do they still have free will or not?

When examined carefully, the free will defense of the problem of evil proves to be a complete failure. But I too have had enough of the back and forth on this topic for now, for more you might want to read The Free Will Defense Refuted by Raymond D. Bradley.

Have a great holiday,

Sean