NC Presbyterians Vote To Approve Ordaining Homosexuals
RALEIGH, N.C. -(NBC NEWS 17)
Presbyterian Church leaders in central North Carolina have approved a measure to let gays and lesbians in partnered relationships be ordained.
The News & Observer of Raleigh reports that the amendment was approved Saturday by a vote of 177 to 139 with 10 abstentions during a meeting in Cary of the New Hope Presbytery church leaders.
"The mood at the presbytery meeting was while we differ on this issue, and are committed as Christians to vote our conscience, we also are committed to finding ways to live together with our differences," said the Rev. Joseph Harvard, pastor of Durham Presbyterian. "I don't think it's a radical shift in the presbytery."
The measure must be approved by a majority of the nation's 173 presbyteries and conservative congregations including those in Charlotte and western North Carolina have already approved the amendment.
Gays and lesbians can be ordained within the 2.2-million-member Presbyterian Church (USA), but they must remain chaste as church standards forbid sex outside of traditional marriage between a man and woman.
The standard applies to clergy and lay people in the Presbyterian church who participate as deacons and elders. But even if the standard is struck down, individual churches will not be required to ordain partnered gays and lesbians. It would just give those who want to the freedom to do so.
Still, the issue has divided many churches. At least one church, Raleigh's Hudson Memorial Presbyterian Church, has lost members who formed a new congregation allied with the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in protest of the change.
But the Rev. Moffit Churn, associate pastor at West Raleigh Presbyterian, said Saturday's meeting was not divisive.
"We all held hands and sang 'Blessed be the Tie that Binds' in the Presbyterian way," the Rev. Moffit Churn, associate pastor at West Raleigh Presbyterian, told the newspaper. "The voice of the middle ground is being heard, at least in this presbytery. That was my sense."
Votes have to be completed by June, but half the nation's presbyteries will have voted by the end of this month.
February 22, 2009
Problems of Mountains
Word has it that young Timothy Collins of Woodward, Kentucky got chewed out by his father Harry after last Wednesday night's Bible Study. Both father and son are members of the Woodward Street Church where it's no secret that Harry Collins runs a tight ship as an active and devoted member of the church and father.
"I got on my son for talking like an atheist." said Harry. What Timothy did was make reference to it being a fortunate turn of events that a mountain had formed nearby. A big, bearded Harry, being a photographer, was capturing an image of a beautiful tree-covered mountainside. "And my son made it sound like the mountain was 'just there.' That's atheist talk, and it won't be permitted in my home."
Being slightly puzzled, a bright young Timothy clarified his father's position for us: "My dad got mad at me because I made it sound like mountains 'just are.' But nothing 'just is.' As Christians, we are forced to believe that everything that happens happens for a purpose. All things are made of God, from the design of curvitures running along the deepest sea floors to the arrangement of obscure dust particles on the dark side of the moon. My dad was right to get on me. The secular public schools teach a lot of wrong and evil things, and look how they have influenced my thinking."
"It's ok, son." Harry said, nodding with approval at his son's words, and then continuing: "The secular schools are full of atheists who profess themselves to be wise, but are fools. They think they are smarter than God. Think about how atheists perceive a mountain; to an atheist, a mountain is just a bunch of dirt that got pushed up when things got steaming hot under the earth's surface, causing a raising up of the ground. And that the mountain is 'tall' means nothing to an atheist because atheists think 'tall' is just a perceptual difference and that the mountain isn't really big or little. Everything is relative to an atheist. They have no objective standards. We Christians happen to know that God made all things purposely and according to his will, and in the case of mountains, he made them so that we could be impressed with their size and marvel at his creative power (Psalm 65:5). This was the same reason he created big, worthless planets and put them in orbit in space (Psalm 19:1-6). They don't do anything, but God wanted us to get smart and build telescopes and look up at the sky and say, 'Wow, those are big! God must be great!' And without mountains, how could Moses have gone up to Mt. Horeb to speak to God and get the ten commandments? So there is another reason why God made mountains."
Jumping in, young Timothy said: "And the Lord has revealed to me a third reason for why God made mountains. It was so that Jesus could mention it in Matthew 21:21 where Jesus said: 'Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.'"
Amazed, Harry said: "That's my boy! I sure am proud of him. He's no atheist, that's for sure! But the lesson to take from this is how atheism is never very far from invading our thinking the moment we start to use our minds. That's how atheism starts - with us thinking of natural reasons for why things happen - and then it progresses to making people say things like this or that 'always was' or 'just is.' And when you have a natural explanation for something, tell me, why do you need a supernatural one? What need is there for God once you've explained the world naturally?"
"Atheists think that the matter composing the universe just is and has always been while we believers understand that you have to go back one more step and say that God -- an unknown phantom spook -- just is and has always been. That's the true position; God created everything and everything needs a creator except for God. He just exists all by himself some way. That's how Christians reason, and that's how God wants us to reason. Stay away from secular reasoning. It will only lead to atheism and then to Hell. It is an unfortunate fact that using the brains God gave us to reason with can send us to burn forever. So try not to reason, except perhaps when reason agrees with the Bible. Then it's ok."
(JH)
"I got on my son for talking like an atheist." said Harry. What Timothy did was make reference to it being a fortunate turn of events that a mountain had formed nearby. A big, bearded Harry, being a photographer, was capturing an image of a beautiful tree-covered mountainside. "And my son made it sound like the mountain was 'just there.' That's atheist talk, and it won't be permitted in my home."
Being slightly puzzled, a bright young Timothy clarified his father's position for us: "My dad got mad at me because I made it sound like mountains 'just are.' But nothing 'just is.' As Christians, we are forced to believe that everything that happens happens for a purpose. All things are made of God, from the design of curvitures running along the deepest sea floors to the arrangement of obscure dust particles on the dark side of the moon. My dad was right to get on me. The secular public schools teach a lot of wrong and evil things, and look how they have influenced my thinking."
"It's ok, son." Harry said, nodding with approval at his son's words, and then continuing: "The secular schools are full of atheists who profess themselves to be wise, but are fools. They think they are smarter than God. Think about how atheists perceive a mountain; to an atheist, a mountain is just a bunch of dirt that got pushed up when things got steaming hot under the earth's surface, causing a raising up of the ground. And that the mountain is 'tall' means nothing to an atheist because atheists think 'tall' is just a perceptual difference and that the mountain isn't really big or little. Everything is relative to an atheist. They have no objective standards. We Christians happen to know that God made all things purposely and according to his will, and in the case of mountains, he made them so that we could be impressed with their size and marvel at his creative power (Psalm 65:5). This was the same reason he created big, worthless planets and put them in orbit in space (Psalm 19:1-6). They don't do anything, but God wanted us to get smart and build telescopes and look up at the sky and say, 'Wow, those are big! God must be great!' And without mountains, how could Moses have gone up to Mt. Horeb to speak to God and get the ten commandments? So there is another reason why God made mountains."
Jumping in, young Timothy said: "And the Lord has revealed to me a third reason for why God made mountains. It was so that Jesus could mention it in Matthew 21:21 where Jesus said: 'Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.'"
Amazed, Harry said: "That's my boy! I sure am proud of him. He's no atheist, that's for sure! But the lesson to take from this is how atheism is never very far from invading our thinking the moment we start to use our minds. That's how atheism starts - with us thinking of natural reasons for why things happen - and then it progresses to making people say things like this or that 'always was' or 'just is.' And when you have a natural explanation for something, tell me, why do you need a supernatural one? What need is there for God once you've explained the world naturally?"
"Atheists think that the matter composing the universe just is and has always been while we believers understand that you have to go back one more step and say that God -- an unknown phantom spook -- just is and has always been. That's the true position; God created everything and everything needs a creator except for God. He just exists all by himself some way. That's how Christians reason, and that's how God wants us to reason. Stay away from secular reasoning. It will only lead to atheism and then to Hell. It is an unfortunate fact that using the brains God gave us to reason with can send us to burn forever. So try not to reason, except perhaps when reason agrees with the Bible. Then it's ok."
(JH)
February 20, 2009
Christianity is the Believer's Social Life, That's All it Is, Was or Ever Will Be
On a Christian Blog I had the following exchange today. See what you think:
For you Christianity is your social life. That's all it is. That's all it ever is. It does not require you to explain how God can think (since thinking demand weighing temporal alternatives); it doesn't require you to explain how three persons of the trinity just happened to be united who have always existed as a single Godhead; it doesn't ask you to explain why God created something in the first place given the amount of horrible suffering in the world and the fact that he was supposedly perfect in love neither needing nor wanting anything; it doesn't ask you to explain the criteria for the human DNA chosen that made up Jesus's body (since Joseph was not supplying any); it doesn't ask you to explain how Jesus is 100% man and 100% God with nothing left over; it doesn't require you to explain where the human resurrected body of Jesus will spend eternity (can it simply be discarded since this Jesus was sinless, or does a trinue God now have a member who is embodied forever); it doesn't ask you to explain how a cannabalized body can be resurrected; it doesn't ask you to explain why a supposedly timeless God now chooses to live forever in time subsequent to creation lest all of the results of human history disappear; it doesn't ask you to explain much of anything crucial to what you believe, and I could go on and on and on.
You believe because you worship in a community of other believers who give meaning to your life. Take you out of that community for a few months or more, read some books, and your faith could suffer and even die. A faith like yours should be sustainable apart from the Christian community of believers but you'll never attempt this, will you?
czechaitian, said...I see Jesus as my center, empirically speaking, because it works for me-- makes sense of my experience, focuses my decision making, teaches me foundation and relationship and commitment, opens practical life opportunities. Why would anyone put something/someone at the center of their lives or mature toward something if that "something" is not producing measurable results?My response:
For you Christianity is your social life. That's all it is. That's all it ever is. It does not require you to explain how God can think (since thinking demand weighing temporal alternatives); it doesn't require you to explain how three persons of the trinity just happened to be united who have always existed as a single Godhead; it doesn't ask you to explain why God created something in the first place given the amount of horrible suffering in the world and the fact that he was supposedly perfect in love neither needing nor wanting anything; it doesn't ask you to explain the criteria for the human DNA chosen that made up Jesus's body (since Joseph was not supplying any); it doesn't ask you to explain how Jesus is 100% man and 100% God with nothing left over; it doesn't require you to explain where the human resurrected body of Jesus will spend eternity (can it simply be discarded since this Jesus was sinless, or does a trinue God now have a member who is embodied forever); it doesn't ask you to explain how a cannabalized body can be resurrected; it doesn't ask you to explain why a supposedly timeless God now chooses to live forever in time subsequent to creation lest all of the results of human history disappear; it doesn't ask you to explain much of anything crucial to what you believe, and I could go on and on and on.
You believe because you worship in a community of other believers who give meaning to your life. Take you out of that community for a few months or more, read some books, and your faith could suffer and even die. A faith like yours should be sustainable apart from the Christian community of believers but you'll never attempt this, will you?
February 19, 2009
Christianity Simply Reinvents Itself Over and Over in Every Generation
One of my problems with the Christian faith is that in every generation it reinvents itself to face the challenges of each generation. One would think that if a faith that was "once and for all delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3) this wouldn't be the case.
Christian theology has changed so much that one would not even recognize the Christianities of the first century or two.
Let me just mention some theological changes:
Creation - Not until around 200-700 AD did the church accept creation ex-nihilo.
Hell - From fire and brimstone to the absence of God to annihilation
Baptism - Probably from Immersion to sprinkling; from adults to infants.
Atonement - From ransom to satisfaction to penal-substitutionary to moral influence to relationship theories
Predestination - Possibly "mixed" to Calvinism to Arminianism to Calvinism back to Arminianism
Christology - From Paul to Chalcedon to Kenotic theories
Inspiration - From who knows what to mechanical to verbal-plenary to inerrancy to neo-orthodoxy.
Women - From servants who obey in quietness to teachers and ministers and professors
Slavery - From Paul (Philemon) to southern Slavery to abolition to anti-racism.
There are other theological ideas not mentioned, and there are many details to fill in about these particular ideas, but I dare say if today's Christians went back in time to first century Christianities they would not fit in, nor would they be considered orthodox in most Christian communities. Most all Christians today would actually reject the Christianities of the past. They would reject their theologies, their ethics, and perhaps their church polity (not mentioned previously). In fact, they would simply reject the Christianities of the past!
But what happened is that the church reinvented herself over and over in every generation in response to the challenges of her day. The church and her theology is like a chameleon to me in this respect. But the point is that it changed so slowly that few notice in today's world these drastic changes. Christians today wouldn't even admit that many of the earliest Christianites would be considered Christianity at all! And I know for a fact that the Christianites that will exist in the future will almost certainly be considered strange to the Christianites that exist right now.
I'm not looking for an explanation here, although I know what Christians will say. I'm simply pointing out that Christianity today is probably so far removed from the earliest Christianities that this is evidence that the church is a human not divine organization, one that flows downstream along with the history of human intellectual and cultural life. And I'm claiming this will continue to be true in the future too. At 54 years old I myself have seen these changes slowly take place inside the evangelical church for instance, with "Open Theism," the "Emergent Church," eschatological "Preterism," and an acceptance of babies out of wedlock, divorce in the church, abortion, homosexuality, and so forth.
So I ask, which Christianity is the correct one? There are a multitude of them which exist today all claiming to be the true church, but most all of the present ones would reject most all of the ones in the past, certainly the earliest ones.
Do church history. Do historical theology. It'll probably change your views about the church being a divine institution. It's not at all. The evidence suggests otherwise. Follow the evidence, okay?
Christian theology has changed so much that one would not even recognize the Christianities of the first century or two.
Let me just mention some theological changes:
Creation - Not until around 200-700 AD did the church accept creation ex-nihilo.
Hell - From fire and brimstone to the absence of God to annihilation
Baptism - Probably from Immersion to sprinkling; from adults to infants.
Atonement - From ransom to satisfaction to penal-substitutionary to moral influence to relationship theories
Predestination - Possibly "mixed" to Calvinism to Arminianism to Calvinism back to Arminianism
Christology - From Paul to Chalcedon to Kenotic theories
Inspiration - From who knows what to mechanical to verbal-plenary to inerrancy to neo-orthodoxy.
Women - From servants who obey in quietness to teachers and ministers and professors
Slavery - From Paul (Philemon) to southern Slavery to abolition to anti-racism.
There are other theological ideas not mentioned, and there are many details to fill in about these particular ideas, but I dare say if today's Christians went back in time to first century Christianities they would not fit in, nor would they be considered orthodox in most Christian communities. Most all Christians today would actually reject the Christianities of the past. They would reject their theologies, their ethics, and perhaps their church polity (not mentioned previously). In fact, they would simply reject the Christianities of the past!
But what happened is that the church reinvented herself over and over in every generation in response to the challenges of her day. The church and her theology is like a chameleon to me in this respect. But the point is that it changed so slowly that few notice in today's world these drastic changes. Christians today wouldn't even admit that many of the earliest Christianites would be considered Christianity at all! And I know for a fact that the Christianites that will exist in the future will almost certainly be considered strange to the Christianites that exist right now.
I'm not looking for an explanation here, although I know what Christians will say. I'm simply pointing out that Christianity today is probably so far removed from the earliest Christianities that this is evidence that the church is a human not divine organization, one that flows downstream along with the history of human intellectual and cultural life. And I'm claiming this will continue to be true in the future too. At 54 years old I myself have seen these changes slowly take place inside the evangelical church for instance, with "Open Theism," the "Emergent Church," eschatological "Preterism," and an acceptance of babies out of wedlock, divorce in the church, abortion, homosexuality, and so forth.
So I ask, which Christianity is the correct one? There are a multitude of them which exist today all claiming to be the true church, but most all of the present ones would reject most all of the ones in the past, certainly the earliest ones.
Do church history. Do historical theology. It'll probably change your views about the church being a divine institution. It's not at all. The evidence suggests otherwise. Follow the evidence, okay?
Guest Post by William Lobdell: "Without a Doubt"
(Editor’s note: William Lobdell’s memoir—Losing My Religion: How I Lost My Faith Reporting on Religion in America—and Found Unexpected Peace—hits the bookstores Tuesday.)
Without a Doubt, By William Lobdell
When I wrote an essay for the Los Angeles Times in 2007 about how I lost my faith reporting on religion in America, I prepared for an avalanche of criticism. I was sure I’d be branded a tool of Satan or worse.
As any religion writer will tell you, reporters on the faith beat get the nastiest hate mail and phone calls in the newsroom. In my eight years reporting on religion for The Times, I had people of God cuss me out, threaten me, put up a creepy website designed to “bring Lobdell down,” and predict with a great deal of satisfaction that I would spend eternity in hell.
When my essay was published, I was right about one thing: the response was huge. People read about my 20-year journey from evangelical Christian to reluctant atheist and sent e-mails in record numbers to the paper and to me. I personally received nearly 3,000 messages—a record for a single story at The Times. But here’s what I didn’t expect. The vast majority of them—I’m talking 99 percent—were supportive in their own way.
Some Christians tried to reconvert me, sending me books, tapes, videos and testimonies that formed a small mountain on my desk. Others readers suggested I try their faith, claiming I’d find spiritual peace as a Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Unitarian, Jehovah’s Witness, and Mormon. The atheists welcomed me into the fold (though some pointed out that it took me an awful long time to get to the obvious truth).
But most readers simply thanked me for honestly expressing my doubts about faith and revealing how tortured and helpless I felt as I lost my once-firm grip on Christianity. Many had privately wrestled with their own demons before keeping or leaving their faith. But they all said talking openly about doubt was discouraged—at their place of worship and their home. Several e-mails came from pastors who no longer believed in God but felt they couldn’t tell a soul. Another arrived from deep inside the Vatican. All said they felt like outcasts with no place to turn.
It reminded me of Mother Teresa, one of the most revered religious persons of our time. She symbolized for millions the beauty of Christian devotion, sacrifice, holiness and works. But she suffered excruciating doubt. Recently published letters in Come By My Light reveal that she felt absent from God for the last 50 years of her life.
Frustrated, ashamed, and sometimes in doubt about God’s existence, Mother Teresa kept her spiritual crisis a secret from everyone but a few spiritual mentors.
“Please pray specially for me that I may not spoil His work and that Our Lord may show Himself — for there is such terrible darkness within me, as if everything was dead,” she wrote in 1953.
“Jesus has a very special love for you,” she assured one mentor in 1979. “[But] as for me, the silence and the emptiness is so great, that I look and do not see, — Listen and do not hear — the tongue moves [in prayer] but does not speak ... I want you to pray for me — that I let Him have [a] free hand.”
If Mother Teresa doubted God’s existence for five decades, imagine how many people of all faiths secretly harbor doubts about their religion. Several recent studies have shown that there’s little difference in the moral behavior of evangelical Christians and atheists. I’d argue that’s because both groups don’t really believe, deep down, that God is real.
So it’s time for religious doubt to come out of the closet and be dealt openly and thoughtfully. I was honored (and a little surprised) that Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena made my essay required reading for faculty and students. Seminary leaders wanted to address the issue of doubt head-on, which is the healthy course to take. If Christianity is true, its teachers can dispel just about any doubt.
I have a different theory. I think there are so many closet doubters because people sense there’s no God who personally intervenes in their lives. But they can’t take the final step toward deism, agnosticism or atheism because the religious ties that bind us are thick. I know. I was a closet atheist for four years.
Optimistic Christians ask me if the outpouring of concern, love and support after my original essay was published restored my faith in religion. It didn’t. But it did give me a new appreciation of humanity. Most of us are doubters to one degree or another. And there’s comfort in knowing you’re not alone.
Without a Doubt, By William Lobdell
When I wrote an essay for the Los Angeles Times in 2007 about how I lost my faith reporting on religion in America, I prepared for an avalanche of criticism. I was sure I’d be branded a tool of Satan or worse.
As any religion writer will tell you, reporters on the faith beat get the nastiest hate mail and phone calls in the newsroom. In my eight years reporting on religion for The Times, I had people of God cuss me out, threaten me, put up a creepy website designed to “bring Lobdell down,” and predict with a great deal of satisfaction that I would spend eternity in hell.
When my essay was published, I was right about one thing: the response was huge. People read about my 20-year journey from evangelical Christian to reluctant atheist and sent e-mails in record numbers to the paper and to me. I personally received nearly 3,000 messages—a record for a single story at The Times. But here’s what I didn’t expect. The vast majority of them—I’m talking 99 percent—were supportive in their own way.
Some Christians tried to reconvert me, sending me books, tapes, videos and testimonies that formed a small mountain on my desk. Others readers suggested I try their faith, claiming I’d find spiritual peace as a Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Unitarian, Jehovah’s Witness, and Mormon. The atheists welcomed me into the fold (though some pointed out that it took me an awful long time to get to the obvious truth).
But most readers simply thanked me for honestly expressing my doubts about faith and revealing how tortured and helpless I felt as I lost my once-firm grip on Christianity. Many had privately wrestled with their own demons before keeping or leaving their faith. But they all said talking openly about doubt was discouraged—at their place of worship and their home. Several e-mails came from pastors who no longer believed in God but felt they couldn’t tell a soul. Another arrived from deep inside the Vatican. All said they felt like outcasts with no place to turn.
It reminded me of Mother Teresa, one of the most revered religious persons of our time. She symbolized for millions the beauty of Christian devotion, sacrifice, holiness and works. But she suffered excruciating doubt. Recently published letters in Come By My Light reveal that she felt absent from God for the last 50 years of her life.
Frustrated, ashamed, and sometimes in doubt about God’s existence, Mother Teresa kept her spiritual crisis a secret from everyone but a few spiritual mentors.
“Please pray specially for me that I may not spoil His work and that Our Lord may show Himself — for there is such terrible darkness within me, as if everything was dead,” she wrote in 1953.
“Jesus has a very special love for you,” she assured one mentor in 1979. “[But] as for me, the silence and the emptiness is so great, that I look and do not see, — Listen and do not hear — the tongue moves [in prayer] but does not speak ... I want you to pray for me — that I let Him have [a] free hand.”
If Mother Teresa doubted God’s existence for five decades, imagine how many people of all faiths secretly harbor doubts about their religion. Several recent studies have shown that there’s little difference in the moral behavior of evangelical Christians and atheists. I’d argue that’s because both groups don’t really believe, deep down, that God is real.
So it’s time for religious doubt to come out of the closet and be dealt openly and thoughtfully. I was honored (and a little surprised) that Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena made my essay required reading for faculty and students. Seminary leaders wanted to address the issue of doubt head-on, which is the healthy course to take. If Christianity is true, its teachers can dispel just about any doubt.
I have a different theory. I think there are so many closet doubters because people sense there’s no God who personally intervenes in their lives. But they can’t take the final step toward deism, agnosticism or atheism because the religious ties that bind us are thick. I know. I was a closet atheist for four years.
Optimistic Christians ask me if the outpouring of concern, love and support after my original essay was published restored my faith in religion. It didn’t. But it did give me a new appreciation of humanity. Most of us are doubters to one degree or another. And there’s comfort in knowing you’re not alone.
February 18, 2009
I'm Considered "One of Atheism’s Top Apologists."
That's what an important Christian radio program billed me as, seen here, concerning an upcoming interview on March 1st.
Skeptically Speaking
As some of you know, for about five years I've been a monthly instructional columnist for what I consider to be the best national billiard magazine in America. I'm not too bad at pool, as you would guess.
Last night during our local league play, someone was getting up a game of ringer nine-ball. It's a gambling game in which several people can play. I've played it with as many people as 9 players! Anyone who sinks the 5-ball gets $1 from everyone, and anyone who sinks the 9-ball gets $2 from everyone. If there are five players and I run the rack I get $12 (4 times $3). [Sometimes the bet is $2 on the 5-ball and $5 on the 9]. When you first get into the game you start last, so sometimes you'll have to pay out some money before you even get a chance on a good decent shot. Sometimes even when you get a shot it's a really tough one since you follow a shooter who may miss and accidentally leave you really bad. I got into the game after it started and paid out some money waiting for my first decent shot. Players must get lucky again and again to get other decent shots in subsequent games. Eventually I won about $25. But while I was paying out I called it "the devil's game." That's what it's called because you must get lucky to get some decent shots on the money balls. Depending on how much money you have and how many players are in the game you may never get one before you run out of disposable cash. But when I said it was "the devil's game" a friend of mine said, "Yeah, right, an atheist believes in the devil."
This event reminded me of what I am reading in Dr. David Eller's fantastic book Atheism Advanced. He argues convincingly that western cultures are dominated by Christian language, rituals, symbols, arts, music, habits, and so forth. It's as if we are almost imprisoned in it. He writes:
No more.
Last night during our local league play, someone was getting up a game of ringer nine-ball. It's a gambling game in which several people can play. I've played it with as many people as 9 players! Anyone who sinks the 5-ball gets $1 from everyone, and anyone who sinks the 9-ball gets $2 from everyone. If there are five players and I run the rack I get $12 (4 times $3). [Sometimes the bet is $2 on the 5-ball and $5 on the 9]. When you first get into the game you start last, so sometimes you'll have to pay out some money before you even get a chance on a good decent shot. Sometimes even when you get a shot it's a really tough one since you follow a shooter who may miss and accidentally leave you really bad. I got into the game after it started and paid out some money waiting for my first decent shot. Players must get lucky again and again to get other decent shots in subsequent games. Eventually I won about $25. But while I was paying out I called it "the devil's game." That's what it's called because you must get lucky to get some decent shots on the money balls. Depending on how much money you have and how many players are in the game you may never get one before you run out of disposable cash. But when I said it was "the devil's game" a friend of mine said, "Yeah, right, an atheist believes in the devil."
This event reminded me of what I am reading in Dr. David Eller's fantastic book Atheism Advanced. He argues convincingly that western cultures are dominated by Christian language, rituals, symbols, arts, music, habits, and so forth. It's as if we are almost imprisoned in it. He writes:
"We find in practice that atheists in Christian-dominated societies speak and think in Christian terms just as surely as Christians do. We let Christianity set the agenda, identify the questions, and provide the language of the debate. We quite literally 'speak Christian' just as fluently and just as un-self-consciously as they do."Eller continues:
"We need to stop speaking Christian so as to loosen the grip of Christian language on our thinking....We do well to begin our debunking of religion with a debunking of religious terminology."While I cannot begin to tell you all of the specifics of his brilliant analysis, and there is much more to it, I learned last night he is right. I'm going to make a conscious effort to avoid all religious and Christian terminology for starters. In pool we also speak about "the pool gods," as a metaphor for good luck. When we cuss sometimes we'll say "God damn it," or "Go to hell."
No more.
February 16, 2009
Dr. David Eller Interviewed About His Sure to be a Classic Book, Atheism Advanced
[Written by John W. Loftus] David Eller's book Atheism Advanced should be in every atheist library. I thought I had read up on most every issue concerning the philosophy of religion before reading his book, but I was wrong, dead wrong. His passionate analysis is significant and thought provoking in every single chapter I've read so far (thru chapter six). I think Eller should be the new spokesman for atheism and invited to speak at every atheist conference. I think Christians need to deal with the power of his arguments.
In my book I argue against a specific religious viewpoint likened to a small limb growing out of the very large tree of religion. I'm not arguing against animism, animatism, nor ancestor worship, ethical non-theism (like Buddhism) nor the many polytheistic gods and goddesses, nor do I argue against other monotheisms like the several branches of Judaism or Islam, nor do I argue against whatever original Christianities believed, nor liberalism, nor deism. No. I'm arguing against a small sect in time, evangelical Christianity. And among evangelicals themselves there is no consensus about true Christianity, relegating certain other branches as "cults." Christianity is best understood as a "local Christianity," one situated in a particular time and place held by particular localized people. What a particular Christian believes is a hybrid coming from schism after schism and the conclusions of hindsight through the process of syncretism. Eller effectively argues that Christians believe in a local Christianity or no Christianity at all.
While I argue specifically about the dominant American fundamentalist or evangelical view in my book, Dr. Eller argues against religion itself. Along the way Eller advances (or promotes) our understanding of just what atheism is. [Hint, atheism is not just a view that stands in contrast with the dominant religious view of any particular society. Atheism in Hindu countries would be a-Hinduist, while atheism in Christian countries would be considered a-Christian. But this cannot be what atheism is about!] We atheists have allowed the dominant religious view of our societies to set the definition for what atheism is, and even the language we use to debate the issues, Eller argues. Why is it that most debates in western cultures are debates on such topics as “Christianity vs. Atheism”? Eller wants us to think in larger terms than that. From reading what Eller says the real debate should be set in terms of “Christianity vs. Itself,” since there are so many branches of it, or “Christianity vs. All Other Religions,” since that’s the proper way to think about religion (can you imagine a Christian wanting to debate that topic with an atheist??). Eller writes: “Nothing is more destructive to religion than other religions; it is like meeting one’s own anti-matter twin.” (p. 233).
Eller also argues that there is no specific “Science vs. Religion” problem either, since some religions do not believe in any personal god, and because religious believers are not against most scientific disciplines. Believers are only opposed to those scientific disciplines that come into direct conflict with their own specific religious claims. Some religions don’t even have a creation theory! Surely religious believers are not opposed to quantum theory or gravitational theory or meteorology or botany or gemology (the study of gems), for starters. They are only opposed to specific claims within physics and biology when science crosses over into the arbitrary and sacred/profane boundary of specific religious claims. Religious believers are not opposed to science as a whole, just some aspects of it! So the debate is not about science vs. religion but rather about specific local religions vs specific scientific claims.
There is much more to his book. Every person interested in these issues (both believer and non-believer) should get and read and discuss it. I consider his book essential for understanding these issues. Eller writes well, is passionate, intelligent, and offers very powerful arguments against religion as a whole. In the process he more than adequately advances atheism. This book is destined to be a classic work.
Dealing With More Christian Heuristics.
In a recent comment a Christian Guest said the following.
You know why some of your friends can't see God. How do you know? Would they agree with you?
- generally it comes down to either not wanting to,
So if they don't want to, but they really believe they will be punished by experiencing the worst thing ever after they die, then they are crazy aren't they?
Its like they are headed into a burning building but don't believe they will get burned right? Are they crazy, or do they just not believe anything will happen?
In the case of the burning building, we can demonstrate that something will happen. We can demonstrate that they are crazy and should be restrained from harming themselves. In the case of God, we can't.
Can a person be blamed for not believing in something?
Where is the tipping point between a simple agreement to accept and a belief? A belief is an unconscious commitment to an idea. A belief is something that you can't change consciously. It is an unconscious decision. But it will be demonstrated by the action of the person.
- or insisting that if God doesn't follow their rules, he doesn't exist.
What are Gods Rules?
What are your friends Rules?
More importantly, what are YOUR rules?
What is the difference in those rules? How many of those rules match up with each other? What is the overlap? I'll bet a lot of the compassionate ones do and a lot of the barbaric ones do not.
Is it GODS rule to blame people for not believing?
Is it YOUR rule to blame people for not believing?
Is it GODS rule to blame people for not understanding?
Is it YOUR rule to blame people for not understanding?
What are GODS responsibilities to get people to believe?
What are YOUR responsibilities if you want someone to believe anything?
What are GODS responsibilities to get people to understand?
What are YOUR responsibilities to get someone to understand something?
Is it GODS rule that he will make defective products?
Is it YOUR rule that you will make defective products?
How do your Rules match up with Gods?
What are the differences? How does the percentage of how many of your rules match gods compare with how many of your friends rules match Gods?
If he has no responsibility, and he understands us better than anyone, what was the point in making us at all? What is the point of making defective products? So that they can NOT PERFORM the actions that they are NOT ABLE to perform because they are defective?
Ask yourself why is it that Microsoft outperforms Christianity in the adoption of its product,
or electric light bulbs or blood donation, or chemotherapy or vaccinations. Its because by way of experience, people make the commitment unconsciously that it is the right thing to do.
If god can't get better than 35% adoption rate over 2000 years for his product, its his own fault.
But thats what we would expect if the hype doesn't match the experience. If the experience matched the Hype, you'd see as many Christians as Automobiles.
- All I can do is testify that for me, it's obvious;
I can see the horse in the clouds. Can you?
I believe that it has all the characteristics of a real horse, but do you?
I will walk into that burning building (rhetorically speaking) because I don't believe anything will happen, will you?
Why would I do that?
Why do you believe and the other 65% of the world doesn't?
If its true, why are you in the minority worldwide in your belief in the product of Christianity? If it represents the real world, why do so many people disregard it?
Maybe they've cross-checked it with other data and discovered irreconcilable discrepancies?
Or maybe 65% of the world is Crazy and you aren't?
I do know why some of my friends can't see God;
- generally it comes down to either not wanting to,
- or insisting that if God doesn't follow their rules, he doesn't exist.
- All I can do is testify that for me, it's obvious...
You know why some of your friends can't see God. How do you know? Would they agree with you?
- generally it comes down to either not wanting to,
So if they don't want to, but they really believe they will be punished by experiencing the worst thing ever after they die, then they are crazy aren't they?
Its like they are headed into a burning building but don't believe they will get burned right? Are they crazy, or do they just not believe anything will happen?
In the case of the burning building, we can demonstrate that something will happen. We can demonstrate that they are crazy and should be restrained from harming themselves. In the case of God, we can't.
Can a person be blamed for not believing in something?
Where is the tipping point between a simple agreement to accept and a belief? A belief is an unconscious commitment to an idea. A belief is something that you can't change consciously. It is an unconscious decision. But it will be demonstrated by the action of the person.
- or insisting that if God doesn't follow their rules, he doesn't exist.
What are Gods Rules?
What are your friends Rules?
More importantly, what are YOUR rules?
What is the difference in those rules? How many of those rules match up with each other? What is the overlap? I'll bet a lot of the compassionate ones do and a lot of the barbaric ones do not.
Is it GODS rule to blame people for not believing?
Is it YOUR rule to blame people for not believing?
Is it GODS rule to blame people for not understanding?
Is it YOUR rule to blame people for not understanding?
What are GODS responsibilities to get people to believe?
What are YOUR responsibilities if you want someone to believe anything?
What are GODS responsibilities to get people to understand?
What are YOUR responsibilities to get someone to understand something?
Is it GODS rule that he will make defective products?
Is it YOUR rule that you will make defective products?
How do your Rules match up with Gods?
What are the differences? How does the percentage of how many of your rules match gods compare with how many of your friends rules match Gods?
If he has no responsibility, and he understands us better than anyone, what was the point in making us at all? What is the point of making defective products? So that they can NOT PERFORM the actions that they are NOT ABLE to perform because they are defective?
Ask yourself why is it that Microsoft outperforms Christianity in the adoption of its product,
or electric light bulbs or blood donation, or chemotherapy or vaccinations. Its because by way of experience, people make the commitment unconsciously that it is the right thing to do.
If god can't get better than 35% adoption rate over 2000 years for his product, its his own fault.
But thats what we would expect if the hype doesn't match the experience. If the experience matched the Hype, you'd see as many Christians as Automobiles.
- All I can do is testify that for me, it's obvious;
I can see the horse in the clouds. Can you?
I believe that it has all the characteristics of a real horse, but do you?
I will walk into that burning building (rhetorically speaking) because I don't believe anything will happen, will you?
Why would I do that?
Why do you believe and the other 65% of the world doesn't?
If its true, why are you in the minority worldwide in your belief in the product of Christianity? If it represents the real world, why do so many people disregard it?
Maybe they've cross-checked it with other data and discovered irreconcilable discrepancies?
Or maybe 65% of the world is Crazy and you aren't?
Please Do Not Feed The "Trolls"
"Feeding the Trolls" is a type of Social Engineering, aka manipulation of well meaning guests. Every now and then a "troll" comes along and makes comments that are in poor taste and meant to generate responses from other commenters. We will clean up the blog after one of these events, but I request that when a troll makes a comment that it be ignored because If a troll makes one comment and it gets 2 responses, then 66% percent of the mess is caused by well meaning guests. It takes less time to only have to clean up after the troll. This is simply something we'll have to live with as long as we permit real time free and open discussions.
February 15, 2009
Seven Steps to Recovery
Hello Everyone,
This is a summary outline I've come up with for recovering from authoritarian religions like fundamentalist Christianity. In my years of counseling experience, I've found that for a lot of people (not everyone), the leaving process takes time and has some important steps. This outline is not meant to be a formula or cover the issues in depth, but I hope it is useful for you to think about.
Kind regards,
Marlene Winell
1. Get Real.
Be honest with yourself about whether your religion is working for you. Let go of trying to force it to make sense. Have a look at life and the world AS IT IS, and stop trying to live in a parallel universe. This world might not be perfect but facing reality will help you get your life on track. If you feel guilty, realize that the religion teaches you to feel responsible when it isn’t working and tells you to go back and try harder, just like an abusive relationship.
2. Get a Grip.
Don’t panic. The fear you feel is part of the indoctrination. All those messages about what will happen to you if you leave the religion are a self-serving part of the religion. If you calm down, you’ll be just fine. Many people have been through this.
3. Get Informed.
Do everything you can to educate yourself. You are free to read and expose yourself to all the knowledge in the world – history, philosophy, other religions, mythology, anthropology, biology, psychology, sociology, and more. In particular, read about how the Bible was put together and church history. Read authors who have explained why they deconverted. Many websites have deconversion stories and helpful reading lists.
4. Get Help.
Find support in any way you can. Explore online forums to discuss issues with others leaving their religion. Join a supportive group in your area. If necessary, find a therapist who understands or go to a recovery retreat. Do the work to heal the wounds of religious abuse.
5. Get a Life.
Rebuild your life around new values and engage fully with your choices. Develop your identity as you learn to love and trust yourself. Take responsibility and create the life that works for you – in work, family, leisure, social – all the areas of commitment that make a life structure. If you still want a spiritual life, define it for yourself. Venture into the “world” for new experiences and new friends. This will take time but you can do it.
6. Get With the Program.
Welcome to the human race. Accept the idea that Earth is your home and humanity is your true family. If you aren't part of a special group that is leaving, consider what that means for you. You may want to participating in larger concerns to make the world a better place, such as caring for the environment or working for social justice. Let go of expecting God to take care of all the problems. You can begin with knowing your neighbors.
7. Get Your Groove On.
Reclaim enjoyment of sensation and pleasure as you relax with the idea of being an animal like all the others on Earth. Learn to be present here and now. Discover all the ways to appreciate nature. Enjoy and love other people instead of judging. Reclaim your creativity and express yourself any way you like, not just to “glorify God.” Love your body and take care of it. Embrace this life instead of worrying about the next. Sing and dance and laugh for no reason except Being Alive.
Marlene Winell, Ph.D., is a psychologist who works in religious recovery, and the author of Leaving the Fold: A Guide for Former Fundamentalists and Others Leaving Their Religion. Information about counseling services and weekend retreats can be found at marlenewinell.net
This is a summary outline I've come up with for recovering from authoritarian religions like fundamentalist Christianity. In my years of counseling experience, I've found that for a lot of people (not everyone), the leaving process takes time and has some important steps. This outline is not meant to be a formula or cover the issues in depth, but I hope it is useful for you to think about.
Kind regards,
Marlene Winell
1. Get Real.
Be honest with yourself about whether your religion is working for you. Let go of trying to force it to make sense. Have a look at life and the world AS IT IS, and stop trying to live in a parallel universe. This world might not be perfect but facing reality will help you get your life on track. If you feel guilty, realize that the religion teaches you to feel responsible when it isn’t working and tells you to go back and try harder, just like an abusive relationship.
2. Get a Grip.
Don’t panic. The fear you feel is part of the indoctrination. All those messages about what will happen to you if you leave the religion are a self-serving part of the religion. If you calm down, you’ll be just fine. Many people have been through this.
3. Get Informed.
Do everything you can to educate yourself. You are free to read and expose yourself to all the knowledge in the world – history, philosophy, other religions, mythology, anthropology, biology, psychology, sociology, and more. In particular, read about how the Bible was put together and church history. Read authors who have explained why they deconverted. Many websites have deconversion stories and helpful reading lists.
4. Get Help.
Find support in any way you can. Explore online forums to discuss issues with others leaving their religion. Join a supportive group in your area. If necessary, find a therapist who understands or go to a recovery retreat. Do the work to heal the wounds of religious abuse.
5. Get a Life.
Rebuild your life around new values and engage fully with your choices. Develop your identity as you learn to love and trust yourself. Take responsibility and create the life that works for you – in work, family, leisure, social – all the areas of commitment that make a life structure. If you still want a spiritual life, define it for yourself. Venture into the “world” for new experiences and new friends. This will take time but you can do it.
6. Get With the Program.
Welcome to the human race. Accept the idea that Earth is your home and humanity is your true family. If you aren't part of a special group that is leaving, consider what that means for you. You may want to participating in larger concerns to make the world a better place, such as caring for the environment or working for social justice. Let go of expecting God to take care of all the problems. You can begin with knowing your neighbors.
7. Get Your Groove On.
Reclaim enjoyment of sensation and pleasure as you relax with the idea of being an animal like all the others on Earth. Learn to be present here and now. Discover all the ways to appreciate nature. Enjoy and love other people instead of judging. Reclaim your creativity and express yourself any way you like, not just to “glorify God.” Love your body and take care of it. Embrace this life instead of worrying about the next. Sing and dance and laugh for no reason except Being Alive.
Marlene Winell, Ph.D., is a psychologist who works in religious recovery, and the author of Leaving the Fold: A Guide for Former Fundamentalists and Others Leaving Their Religion. Information about counseling services and weekend retreats can be found at marlenewinell.net
"Seek And Ye Shall Find: The Atheist Doesn't Do It Right"
This is yet another Christian Heuristic that "blames the victim" in the same way as "if you don't understand it, its your fault". Some qualifiers are missing in that statement, mainly SCOPE and DEFINITION but also the ACTIONS of the AGENTS DOING THE SEARCH and AGENTS BEING SEARCHED FOR. What are the responsibilities of the Agents? What is the definition of "a comprehensive" search? And how will you know when you find it? There must be a description to go by or how will one know when they've found it?
Principles Of Searching.
Searching is a comparison of a description to something else. The more specific the search criteria are, the more likely a successful match will be found. Its Baysian in the sense that one has to make decisions about each clue such as "what is the likelihood that I am having success given such and such indication". But it gets even easier if a human is searching for a person, or a pet. When they are searching for each other they take actions to expedite the search and when they see each other, they make contact in an unambiguous way.
The Critical Question Generators: Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How.
John Searle, a philosopher of mind is quoted as saying that he has a maxim that is summed up as "if you can't say it clearly, you don't understand it yourself". I live by that and it has served me well since I first heard it.
So now, lets get a grip on the scope of the search.
- How do you know?
- How is the search carried out?
- How will we know when we find it?
- How long should we expect to look?
- What do you have to go on?
- What actions should the seeker take? What are the seekers responsibilities?
- What actions should the one being sought take? What are the responsibilities of the one being sought?
- What are we looking for? Does it exist? What does it look like, feel like, taste like, smell like, sound like?
- What are some false indictations that may fool us?
- Who says?
- Who are we searching for? Do they exist?
- Who made it? Who originated it? Who lost it? Who hid it?
- Why do you say that?
- Why isn't it obvious?
- Why are we looking? What is the benefit?
- When did it happen?
- When is it happening?
- When should the search take place? What is the best time? When was it lost? When did it originate?
- Where did it happen?
- Where will it happen?
- Where is it happening?
- Where is the search carried out?
Its always good to check the answers to these critical questions with another pass through the critical question generator to do a "reality check".
Searching For The Most Beautiful Work Of Art
I challenge anyone to go find the most beautiful art work in their nearest museum. I challenge anyone to do an experiment where peple are asked before they go in to find and report back which is the most beautiful art work in the museum. There will not be a consensus. A percentage of people will pick a particular work of art but not all will pick the same work of art. If they are given some criteria to look for and If the searchers report back that they've matched the criteria to a work of art, then its likely what they've identified is not what they think is the most beautiful work of art. Its someone else's idea of the most beautiful work of art.
If they should be told what the criteria are, then where did the criteria come from? Who derived them? Were they qualified to derive them? Do the criteria accurately reflect what the seeker holds as being characteristics of the most beautiful work of art?
Searching For Jesus
So if one must seek Jesus to find Jesus, and one was convinced that they found Jesus but had second thoughts, changed their mind and became an apostate, then what they found must have only matched the description superficially. They must have made a mistake.
Searching is a comparison of a description to something else.
So since its possible to mistake something else for Jesus, the description needs to be more specific as to what it is that should be used as criteria for the search. How will one know it? How long should one look before one can conclude that one is not looking in the right place and have to move on? How long should one have to look for a being that is waiting for another or maybe even looking for that other?
If two people, pets or combination want to find each other, they take some actions to expedite the search.
Why should one have to look for more than a minute for a supernatural being that can do anything to make its presence known to someone? Why would it let someone incorrectly identify something when it knows that the seeker will become discouraged and give up in some cases? Why is it easier for an owner to find their cat than Jesus? I'll bet more cats have been found across all categories of people than Jesus.
The Search for Jesus Violates Sound Principles Of Searching.
How can anyone be blamed for not recognizing what it is they are supposed to be looking for, or not finding something when they don't understand what it is they are looking for?
If the presumption is that God exists, then searching until he's found makes sense, but if he's waiting and looking for us, it doesn't make sense that he would hide or let himself be mistaken for something else. If God doesn't exist, then our poor results are what should be expected.
Principles Of Searching.
Searching is a comparison of a description to something else. The more specific the search criteria are, the more likely a successful match will be found. Its Baysian in the sense that one has to make decisions about each clue such as "what is the likelihood that I am having success given such and such indication". But it gets even easier if a human is searching for a person, or a pet. When they are searching for each other they take actions to expedite the search and when they see each other, they make contact in an unambiguous way.
The Critical Question Generators: Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How.
John Searle, a philosopher of mind is quoted as saying that he has a maxim that is summed up as "if you can't say it clearly, you don't understand it yourself". I live by that and it has served me well since I first heard it.
So now, lets get a grip on the scope of the search.
- How do you know?
- How is the search carried out?
- How will we know when we find it?
- How long should we expect to look?
- What do you have to go on?
- What actions should the seeker take? What are the seekers responsibilities?
- What actions should the one being sought take? What are the responsibilities of the one being sought?
- What are we looking for? Does it exist? What does it look like, feel like, taste like, smell like, sound like?
- What are some false indictations that may fool us?
- Who says?
- Who are we searching for? Do they exist?
- Who made it? Who originated it? Who lost it? Who hid it?
- Why do you say that?
- Why isn't it obvious?
- Why are we looking? What is the benefit?
- When did it happen?
- When is it happening?
- When should the search take place? What is the best time? When was it lost? When did it originate?
- Where did it happen?
- Where will it happen?
- Where is it happening?
- Where is the search carried out?
Its always good to check the answers to these critical questions with another pass through the critical question generator to do a "reality check".
Searching For The Most Beautiful Work Of Art
I challenge anyone to go find the most beautiful art work in their nearest museum. I challenge anyone to do an experiment where peple are asked before they go in to find and report back which is the most beautiful art work in the museum. There will not be a consensus. A percentage of people will pick a particular work of art but not all will pick the same work of art. If they are given some criteria to look for and If the searchers report back that they've matched the criteria to a work of art, then its likely what they've identified is not what they think is the most beautiful work of art. Its someone else's idea of the most beautiful work of art.
If they should be told what the criteria are, then where did the criteria come from? Who derived them? Were they qualified to derive them? Do the criteria accurately reflect what the seeker holds as being characteristics of the most beautiful work of art?
Searching For Jesus
So if one must seek Jesus to find Jesus, and one was convinced that they found Jesus but had second thoughts, changed their mind and became an apostate, then what they found must have only matched the description superficially. They must have made a mistake.
Searching is a comparison of a description to something else.
So since its possible to mistake something else for Jesus, the description needs to be more specific as to what it is that should be used as criteria for the search. How will one know it? How long should one look before one can conclude that one is not looking in the right place and have to move on? How long should one have to look for a being that is waiting for another or maybe even looking for that other?
If two people, pets or combination want to find each other, they take some actions to expedite the search.
Why should one have to look for more than a minute for a supernatural being that can do anything to make its presence known to someone? Why would it let someone incorrectly identify something when it knows that the seeker will become discouraged and give up in some cases? Why is it easier for an owner to find their cat than Jesus? I'll bet more cats have been found across all categories of people than Jesus.
The Search for Jesus Violates Sound Principles Of Searching.
How can anyone be blamed for not recognizing what it is they are supposed to be looking for, or not finding something when they don't understand what it is they are looking for?
If the presumption is that God exists, then searching until he's found makes sense, but if he's waiting and looking for us, it doesn't make sense that he would hide or let himself be mistaken for something else. If God doesn't exist, then our poor results are what should be expected.
February 14, 2009
The Bare Minimal Atheist Library!
In the sidebar I linked to six atheist books that could be the only ones you need in your library, given a limited budget. If you were to list only six atheist books on a limited budget, which ones would you list and why?
John Calvin Was Unfit to be a Christian Leader or Teacher of Doctrine!
That's right, so argues one informed Christian. I wholehearted agree.
A Critique of Pastor Dave Schmelzer's Central Thesis in His Book, Not the Religious Type: Confessions of a Turncoat Atheist
Pastor Dave Schmelzer wrote a book called Not the Religious Type: Confessions of a Turncoat Atheist. He and I have been interviewed together on a very popular and respectable Christian program called The Things That Matter Most (publication date March 1st). For a Christian program that's supposed to be fair with both sides, it wasn't. You'll be able to see for yourselves when they post it.
For now let me offer a critique of Pastor Dave Schmelzer's Four Stage faith typology, which can be read in detail right here. If you want to fully understand my critique you need to read what he wrote.
My critique:
This is all rhetoric and completely irrelevant to the truth claims of Christianity in any meaningful sense.
Dave improperly inserts atheism into a rebellious questioning third stage. But there are children who are brought up in good homes without any religious faith at all. Surely someone cannot say these children have been living all of their lives in the third rebellious stage. They were merely raised as non-believers. Only if they question their own atheism could someone say they are in stage three. So to be consistent, the third rebellious stage for the Christian would more properly describe backsliding or questioning Christians, since this is a spiritual four stage process, not a non-spiritual one.
The bottom line is that I could just as easily take these four stages of spiritual growth and apply them to Mormons.
Stage 1: criminal Mormons
Stage 2: rules-based Mormons
Stage 3: rebellious Mormons
Stage 4: mystical Mormons
So this has nothing to do with the truth claims of Mormonism or of Christianity.
The whole reason Dave argues this way is because he claims to have a relationship with an imaginary being. To me that’s representative of young children who play pretend games, not adult thinking, anyway.
To read our further exchange on the value of religious experience read this, leaving him with no reason to believe at all.
[Edited for additional comment below]
I think the four stage process Peck proposes simply represents a four stage personal maturity process. We never ever completely leave any of the earlier stages--sometimes they are necessary.
You can apply this maturity process to spirituality if you want to, or skepticism, or knowledge in general, so long as you keep the focus the same. I could just as easily say that all Christians are in stage 3 from a non-spiritual focus, for I think they are rebelling against the evidence, you see, and I do!
I know of skeptics who think Christians are stupid. I don't consider that a mature stage 4 understanding of the issues that separate us at all, although, I grant that some believers are stupid, as are some skeptics. There are people who think they have all the answers on both sides of this debate, and it is a debate! It's a debate about what to believe. It's a debate about what rules we should live by. And I have every right to rebel against the rules Christians set up, just as Christians might rebel against the rules I might set up. In fact, if atheism were the dominant view in society I could claim that Christians are stuck in stage 3! So you cannot circumvent this whole debate by punting to stage 4 faith. The debate remains regardless.
Let's be done then with this as a focus for describing anything about the content of what a person believes or knows. It doesn't at all. It merely describes the stages that mature adults go through. Some adults never move on to a more mature understanding, I know. But one can have a mature understanding of Islam or Mormonism or atheism too. That's why I describe myself as an "agnostic atheist." I'm not sure there isn't a God but I don't think so. Now that's a true stage 4 if there ever was one! Which Christian here would say the same thing? Which one would say "I think there is a God but I'm not sure"?
For now let me offer a critique of Pastor Dave Schmelzer's Four Stage faith typology, which can be read in detail right here. If you want to fully understand my critique you need to read what he wrote.
My critique:
This is all rhetoric and completely irrelevant to the truth claims of Christianity in any meaningful sense.
Dave improperly inserts atheism into a rebellious questioning third stage. But there are children who are brought up in good homes without any religious faith at all. Surely someone cannot say these children have been living all of their lives in the third rebellious stage. They were merely raised as non-believers. Only if they question their own atheism could someone say they are in stage three. So to be consistent, the third rebellious stage for the Christian would more properly describe backsliding or questioning Christians, since this is a spiritual four stage process, not a non-spiritual one.
The bottom line is that I could just as easily take these four stages of spiritual growth and apply them to Mormons.
Stage 1: criminal Mormons
Stage 2: rules-based Mormons
Stage 3: rebellious Mormons
Stage 4: mystical Mormons
So this has nothing to do with the truth claims of Mormonism or of Christianity.
The whole reason Dave argues this way is because he claims to have a relationship with an imaginary being. To me that’s representative of young children who play pretend games, not adult thinking, anyway.
To read our further exchange on the value of religious experience read this, leaving him with no reason to believe at all.
[Edited for additional comment below]
I think the four stage process Peck proposes simply represents a four stage personal maturity process. We never ever completely leave any of the earlier stages--sometimes they are necessary.
You can apply this maturity process to spirituality if you want to, or skepticism, or knowledge in general, so long as you keep the focus the same. I could just as easily say that all Christians are in stage 3 from a non-spiritual focus, for I think they are rebelling against the evidence, you see, and I do!
I know of skeptics who think Christians are stupid. I don't consider that a mature stage 4 understanding of the issues that separate us at all, although, I grant that some believers are stupid, as are some skeptics. There are people who think they have all the answers on both sides of this debate, and it is a debate! It's a debate about what to believe. It's a debate about what rules we should live by. And I have every right to rebel against the rules Christians set up, just as Christians might rebel against the rules I might set up. In fact, if atheism were the dominant view in society I could claim that Christians are stuck in stage 3! So you cannot circumvent this whole debate by punting to stage 4 faith. The debate remains regardless.
Let's be done then with this as a focus for describing anything about the content of what a person believes or knows. It doesn't at all. It merely describes the stages that mature adults go through. Some adults never move on to a more mature understanding, I know. But one can have a mature understanding of Islam or Mormonism or atheism too. That's why I describe myself as an "agnostic atheist." I'm not sure there isn't a God but I don't think so. Now that's a true stage 4 if there ever was one! Which Christian here would say the same thing? Which one would say "I think there is a God but I'm not sure"?
Why I'm Doing What I'm Doing
Many Christians just don't seem to understand my motivations for this blog and my book. Since they cannot grasp why I'm doing what I'm doing they falsely conclude I'm angry at God. But I'm no more angry with a God that doesn't exist than Christians are angry with Allah or Zeus. So let me explain one more time:
My Motivations
I backed into what I’m doing right now. I initially wanted to explain to people who knew me why I rejected the Christian faith, because several people were surprised about this and they wanted to know. To do this I self-published my first book to explain my reasons. At that point in my mind I was done with the Christian faith. I fully expected to get on with life. Unexpectedly though, I got noticed as a former student of William Lane Craig’s. It hadn’t occurred to me this was important, but people on both sides took notice of it. So I began engaging in the debate online and found the Christian reasoning lame and offensive in the circles I frequented. I was personally attacked by these Christians. This challenged me to no end. It made me want to go for the jugular vein of the faith that justified their abusive treatment of me. I wondered to myself whether they would light the fires that burned me at the stake in a previous century when the church had the power to do so. This made me think about the many heretics who suffered at the hands of Christians because of this same mentality. I decided at that point I would not let their blood be shed in vain, so I took up their cause. It became personal with me.
I began reading more and more skeptical books and found most of their attempts just as lame as the arguments of believers in defense of their faith. I like challenges. I like attempting and succeeding where others fail. That’s who I am. I wondered to myself if I could break through the barrier between Christian believers and non-believers and speak to believers in ways they could relate to. There were just too many authors on both sides of the fence who were merely “preaching to the choir,” so to speak, so I entered the fray with that goal in mind as well.
This probably explains my initial motivations the most.
Now I have additional motivations. I will cease to exist someday so I would like to know I made a difference in this world. I want to leave the world a better place. And I think a world with fewer believers will be a good thing. I want to help change the religious landscape. I believe there are inherent dangers with religious beliefs. I also want to help people who are struggling with their Christian faith to know there are others out there like me. I believe that life is better from my perspective, having been a former Christian myself. I can be more...well...human. And I think I am uniquely qualified to do what I'm doing as a former apologist for the Christian faith.
Other than that, my motivations are now as multifaceted as any author of any book. Like every author who spends a great deal of time writing a book, I’m pleased to hear that people are reading through it and are recommending it very highly. I'm pleased to be recognized by my peers. I also like being asked to speak for groups and to debate the issues between us.
So there you have it. It's not really that hard to understand, is it?
My Motivations
I backed into what I’m doing right now. I initially wanted to explain to people who knew me why I rejected the Christian faith, because several people were surprised about this and they wanted to know. To do this I self-published my first book to explain my reasons. At that point in my mind I was done with the Christian faith. I fully expected to get on with life. Unexpectedly though, I got noticed as a former student of William Lane Craig’s. It hadn’t occurred to me this was important, but people on both sides took notice of it. So I began engaging in the debate online and found the Christian reasoning lame and offensive in the circles I frequented. I was personally attacked by these Christians. This challenged me to no end. It made me want to go for the jugular vein of the faith that justified their abusive treatment of me. I wondered to myself whether they would light the fires that burned me at the stake in a previous century when the church had the power to do so. This made me think about the many heretics who suffered at the hands of Christians because of this same mentality. I decided at that point I would not let their blood be shed in vain, so I took up their cause. It became personal with me.
I began reading more and more skeptical books and found most of their attempts just as lame as the arguments of believers in defense of their faith. I like challenges. I like attempting and succeeding where others fail. That’s who I am. I wondered to myself if I could break through the barrier between Christian believers and non-believers and speak to believers in ways they could relate to. There were just too many authors on both sides of the fence who were merely “preaching to the choir,” so to speak, so I entered the fray with that goal in mind as well.
This probably explains my initial motivations the most.
Now I have additional motivations. I will cease to exist someday so I would like to know I made a difference in this world. I want to leave the world a better place. And I think a world with fewer believers will be a good thing. I want to help change the religious landscape. I believe there are inherent dangers with religious beliefs. I also want to help people who are struggling with their Christian faith to know there are others out there like me. I believe that life is better from my perspective, having been a former Christian myself. I can be more...well...human. And I think I am uniquely qualified to do what I'm doing as a former apologist for the Christian faith.
Other than that, my motivations are now as multifaceted as any author of any book. Like every author who spends a great deal of time writing a book, I’m pleased to hear that people are reading through it and are recommending it very highly. I'm pleased to be recognized by my peers. I also like being asked to speak for groups and to debate the issues between us.
So there you have it. It's not really that hard to understand, is it?
(Edited) TAG: An Informal Debate
Sye of www.proofthatgodexists.com will engage me on the Transcendental Argument from the Existence of God in the accompanying Comments section on my blog, found by clicking here. John has linked in his reply to other DC bloggers' replies to TAG, and does not wish at this time for the debate to continue on this blog, and I will honor his request by moving it to the linked blog above.
February 13, 2009
A Christian That Gets That Christians Don't Get God
RichD is one of our Christian commenters. No matter how much we disagree, we can always find a way to inject a little good humor into the dialog. He's smart, he expresses himself clearly, he doesn't seem to take it personally, he keeps his goal in view and he keeps a positive and humorous outlook which, in my view, exemplifies a "good Christian", adds tremendous value to the dialog, and to this blog in general. In my view RichD is one of the commenters that sets the standard.
In this comment from my article Heuristics and When Ones Values Are Out Of Sync With Ones Thinking, he's teasing me by using my name as a suffix. He's a pleasure to have around and I want to feature one of his comments where (for once) we do agree!
I say that Christians are Agnostic with a Bias for God and RichD seems to agree with me. He disagreed with a comment that another Christian named Logismous made and was providing a rebuttal to it. At the end of his comment he asks rhetorically if its not possible for Christians to come to an agreement on the Primary Tenet of Salvation. See what you think.
Thank you RichD for agreeing with me for once, for constantly keeping me on my toes, and making me smile! Keep that BS detector calibrated and ever vigilant! I'll try not to set it off!
In this comment from my article Heuristics and When Ones Values Are Out Of Sync With Ones Thinking, he's teasing me by using my name as a suffix. He's a pleasure to have around and I want to feature one of his comments where (for once) we do agree!
I say that Christians are Agnostic with a Bias for God and RichD seems to agree with me. He disagreed with a comment that another Christian named Logismous made and was providing a rebuttal to it. At the end of his comment he asks rhetorically if its not possible for Christians to come to an agreement on the Primary Tenet of Salvation. See what you think.
Hello Lee, Logismous, I think I'll jump in, and most likely surprise you once again. I think a key thing that comes up in all of this, and never really takes off, is as follows.
You, Lee, say you were once a Christian and lost your faith, so you obviously understand Christian doctrine. I think we could rule that part out of further discussions, even though I don't recall ever claiming this about you. Logis also claims to understand christian doctrine but not the same as lee, apparently (maybe that's apparentLee). Logis added [the following bold italicized comment] that should clear everything up
If Christians disagree about things, it's not because we're not all listening to the same Holy Spirit, but because we each misunderstand Him in different ways. We actually claim that none of us understands Him well enough.
So obviousLee, no-one knows anything about God. Or did I miss something, because Logis also said she/he knows God because of the spirit that is always misunderstood differently by everyone. There that ought to clear things up.
So in reality we have a bunch of denominations of Christianity because they all have a different misunderstanding of the doctrine of Christ and they form their own groups based on these misunderstandings. Once saved always saved, saved by faith, saved by grace, saved by works, saved by faith and works, and so on. Which is exactLee what Lee, and others, are confused about.
How can anyone say they understand the doctrine of Christ if all Christendom claims to not understand it "well enough"? I agree that we don't understand everything about doctrine, but can't we get enough understanding to come to a consensus about the PRIMARY tenant of the gospel, Salvation?
Thank you RichD for agreeing with me for once, for constantly keeping me on my toes, and making me smile! Keep that BS detector calibrated and ever vigilant! I'll try not to set it off!
February 10, 2009
David Eller's Book, Atheism Advanced, Looks Like A Superior Book!
Frank Zindler just sent me Dr. Eller's new book Atheism Advanced, and it looks fantastic! [Eller is a cultural anthropologist who wrote the college textbook, Introducing Anthropology of Religion (Routledge, 2007)]. The book is 468 pages long, well documented, and looks very well argued. I rarely recommend a book before actually reading through it, but this one looks like it's good enough to be an exception. I'll try to write more about it later, but read for yourselves the astounding reviews on amazon to see what others are saying about it. Anyone else read it yet?
In the tradition of Frederick Nietzsche, Eller begins in the introduction with a few aphorisms which sum up some of the arguments throughout his book. Here’s a small representative sample of eight pages of them:
In the tradition of Frederick Nietzsche, Eller begins in the introduction with a few aphorisms which sum up some of the arguments throughout his book. Here’s a small representative sample of eight pages of them:
An atheist is not a person who knows too little about religion. An atheist is a person who knows too much about religion.
You say your god is unknowable? But the unknowable and the non-existent are indistinguishable.
If atheism is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby.
The best argument against religion is all the other religions.
In the absence of evidence, the scientist says, “I don’t know,” but the religionist says, “I believe.”
One does not have to prove a negative. One must assume a negative.
Old gods don’t get disproved. They get forgotten.
Richard Gale v. Alvin Plantinga on The Problem of Evil
Link. It's roughly about 2 hrs and there isn't a way to pause it or fast forward through it.
February 09, 2009
The Thirty Most Popular Atheist Blogs.
DC ranked 20th. Hmmm, I'm a competitor so let's see about this.... ;-) Any serious suggestions? Maybe we should just blast Christians and Christianity?
Losing Religion on the Religion Beat: A Review of William Lobdell's book, Losing My Religion
My review follows:
William Lobdell’s new book, Losing My Religion, is a page turner from start to finish. As a former religion reporter for the Los Angeles Times he knows how to write in ways that make us feel and think what he does, every step along the way.
Previously I had said Joe Holman’s book, Project Bible Truth, was the most extensive deconversion story I had ever read. But now I must say Lobdell’s book is the most extensive one.
Lobdell’s book does not focus on the arguments against Christianity, like Holman does, although they are there. Rather he takes us on a journey from his evangelical faith to almost becoming a Catholic to what he describes as a “reluctant atheist” or “skeptical deist.”
Lobdell lost his religion on the religion beat: “Like a homicide detective, I had seen too much.” (p. 253). At first he liked his job and it didn’t affect his faith at all. But his doubt started when covering the scandal of Catholic priest molestations and interviewing the victims who were lied to and ignored by the church. For him the most egregious problem wasn’t necessarily the molestations and the ignored children sired from the affairs the priests had with women, although that was bad enough. No. It was the cover-up that the well-organized Catholic Church had for defending them. He just couldn’t understand, nor should anyone for that matter, why the church hierarchy didn’t do as Jesus wanted them to do in upholding the dignity and rights of the downtrodden and the abused. According to him, “the real story wasn’t about the molester priests, but rather the bishops who covered up for them and caused thousands of additional children to be sodomized, orally copulated, raped and masturbated.” (p. 142).
One missionary priest at St. Michael Island, Alaska, “raped an entire generation of Alaska Native boys.” (p. 215) “Though the Jesuits deny it,” Lobdell writes, “there’s evidence to suggest that the villages of western Alaska served as a dumping ground for molesting priests.” (p. 228) Lobdell called this a “pedophile’s paradise.”
As he reported on these abuses he was preparing to become a Catholic himself, and we see him struggle with this decision as he covers the story. Two weeks before doing so he couldn’t go through it. In his words: “Converting to Catholicism during the height of a horrific scandal felt like an endorsement of the establishment,” (p. 158) something he just couldn’t do.
He described going to a “survivor’s meeting” and concurs with Thomas Doyle, a leading advocate for victims of clergy sexual abuse, that molesting priests and their superiors were committing “soul murder.” (p. 105) As he recounts it, the church “acted more like Mafia bosses than shepherds.” (p. 119). And he asked himself this question: “If an institution is corrupt, does that have any bearing on God?” (p. 135). He thinks it does. In fact, he started to see that “religious institutions are MORE susceptible to corruption than their secular counterparts because of their reliance on God, and not human checks and balances, for governance.” (p. 161)
Lobdell covered stories about the Mormons and their lifestyle, which were “mesmerizing.” (p. 122), although their beliefs were “nutty.” (p. 124). He recounted their strange beliefs, despite the fact that scientific evidence from DNA shows us “descendants of American Indians came from Asia, not the Middle East.” (p. 280) And he asks: “what’s so strange about Mormonism compared to traditional Christianity?” (p. 126). He himself didn’t see the disconnect at this stage in his faith journey, but he said, “I just happened to have grown up with the stories of the Bible. I was more used to them.” (p. 127) Indeed, that's the only difference.
Lobdell covered some evangelical TV Evangelist scandals, like Robert Tilton, whose ministry placed the donation checks in one pile and the prayer requests in the dumpster; and Benny Hinn, who raised funds for an alleged $30 million healing center in Dallas, Texas, which was never built; and Trinity Broadcasting Network founders Paul and Jan Crouch, who covered up Paul's homosexual tryst, and Paul's forcing a woman to have sex with him. (pp. 173-197). Lobdell asked himself why his faith “had so few people of principle.” (p. 187).
Lobdell reveals the mental gymnastics of believers in defending their faith and institutions when criticized. After he wrote about TV evangelist Robert Tilton’s financial abuses Tilton subsequently used this criticism by claiming he must be doing something right because Satan (i.e. Lobdell) was attacking him, and donations kept coming in. When a Catholic priest resigned after admitting he had “inappropriate contact” with a child 19 years previously, some parishioners suggested naming the new church wing after him for his years of service in the 19 years since then, failing to realize that pedophiles will only admit to the evil deeds they were forced to admit. Pedophiles usually have many more victims, as Lobdell told them. When the DNA evidence showed the Mormon faith was false, the defenders went on the attack against science and him.
After coming out of the closet in a personal piece written by him detailing his deconversion, one criticism levelled at him was that he only had “witnessed the sinfulness of man and mistakenly mixed that up with a perfect God.” Lobdell writes, "I understand that argument but I don’t buy it. If the Lord is real, it would make sense for the people of God, on average, to be superior morally and ethically to the rest of society. Statistically, they aren’t. I also believe that God’s institutions, on average, should function on a higher moral plain than government or corporations. I don’t see any evidence of this. It’s hard to believe in God when it’s impossible to tell the difference between His people and atheists.” (p. 271).
We see Lobdell struggling, really struggling, to maintain his faith in the midst of his reporting. He attended a weekend retreat. He had an email exchange with a good friend and pastor. He looked into studies of prayer to find evidence that prayer works. He did a study to find if believers are any better morally than non-believers. All to no avail.
This is a very good book written by a credible person. While I doubt believers entrenched in their faith will be caused to lose their religion from reading it, Lobdell still stands as a credible witness against religion and the mental gymnastics of believers who simply choose to believe against the evidence.
William Lobdell’s new book, Losing My Religion, is a page turner from start to finish. As a former religion reporter for the Los Angeles Times he knows how to write in ways that make us feel and think what he does, every step along the way.
Previously I had said Joe Holman’s book, Project Bible Truth, was the most extensive deconversion story I had ever read. But now I must say Lobdell’s book is the most extensive one.
Lobdell’s book does not focus on the arguments against Christianity, like Holman does, although they are there. Rather he takes us on a journey from his evangelical faith to almost becoming a Catholic to what he describes as a “reluctant atheist” or “skeptical deist.”
Lobdell lost his religion on the religion beat: “Like a homicide detective, I had seen too much.” (p. 253). At first he liked his job and it didn’t affect his faith at all. But his doubt started when covering the scandal of Catholic priest molestations and interviewing the victims who were lied to and ignored by the church. For him the most egregious problem wasn’t necessarily the molestations and the ignored children sired from the affairs the priests had with women, although that was bad enough. No. It was the cover-up that the well-organized Catholic Church had for defending them. He just couldn’t understand, nor should anyone for that matter, why the church hierarchy didn’t do as Jesus wanted them to do in upholding the dignity and rights of the downtrodden and the abused. According to him, “the real story wasn’t about the molester priests, but rather the bishops who covered up for them and caused thousands of additional children to be sodomized, orally copulated, raped and masturbated.” (p. 142).
One missionary priest at St. Michael Island, Alaska, “raped an entire generation of Alaska Native boys.” (p. 215) “Though the Jesuits deny it,” Lobdell writes, “there’s evidence to suggest that the villages of western Alaska served as a dumping ground for molesting priests.” (p. 228) Lobdell called this a “pedophile’s paradise.”
As he reported on these abuses he was preparing to become a Catholic himself, and we see him struggle with this decision as he covers the story. Two weeks before doing so he couldn’t go through it. In his words: “Converting to Catholicism during the height of a horrific scandal felt like an endorsement of the establishment,” (p. 158) something he just couldn’t do.
He described going to a “survivor’s meeting” and concurs with Thomas Doyle, a leading advocate for victims of clergy sexual abuse, that molesting priests and their superiors were committing “soul murder.” (p. 105) As he recounts it, the church “acted more like Mafia bosses than shepherds.” (p. 119). And he asked himself this question: “If an institution is corrupt, does that have any bearing on God?” (p. 135). He thinks it does. In fact, he started to see that “religious institutions are MORE susceptible to corruption than their secular counterparts because of their reliance on God, and not human checks and balances, for governance.” (p. 161)
Lobdell covered stories about the Mormons and their lifestyle, which were “mesmerizing.” (p. 122), although their beliefs were “nutty.” (p. 124). He recounted their strange beliefs, despite the fact that scientific evidence from DNA shows us “descendants of American Indians came from Asia, not the Middle East.” (p. 280) And he asks: “what’s so strange about Mormonism compared to traditional Christianity?” (p. 126). He himself didn’t see the disconnect at this stage in his faith journey, but he said, “I just happened to have grown up with the stories of the Bible. I was more used to them.” (p. 127) Indeed, that's the only difference.
Lobdell covered some evangelical TV Evangelist scandals, like Robert Tilton, whose ministry placed the donation checks in one pile and the prayer requests in the dumpster; and Benny Hinn, who raised funds for an alleged $30 million healing center in Dallas, Texas, which was never built; and Trinity Broadcasting Network founders Paul and Jan Crouch, who covered up Paul's homosexual tryst, and Paul's forcing a woman to have sex with him. (pp. 173-197). Lobdell asked himself why his faith “had so few people of principle.” (p. 187).
Lobdell reveals the mental gymnastics of believers in defending their faith and institutions when criticized. After he wrote about TV evangelist Robert Tilton’s financial abuses Tilton subsequently used this criticism by claiming he must be doing something right because Satan (i.e. Lobdell) was attacking him, and donations kept coming in. When a Catholic priest resigned after admitting he had “inappropriate contact” with a child 19 years previously, some parishioners suggested naming the new church wing after him for his years of service in the 19 years since then, failing to realize that pedophiles will only admit to the evil deeds they were forced to admit. Pedophiles usually have many more victims, as Lobdell told them. When the DNA evidence showed the Mormon faith was false, the defenders went on the attack against science and him.
After coming out of the closet in a personal piece written by him detailing his deconversion, one criticism levelled at him was that he only had “witnessed the sinfulness of man and mistakenly mixed that up with a perfect God.” Lobdell writes, "I understand that argument but I don’t buy it. If the Lord is real, it would make sense for the people of God, on average, to be superior morally and ethically to the rest of society. Statistically, they aren’t. I also believe that God’s institutions, on average, should function on a higher moral plain than government or corporations. I don’t see any evidence of this. It’s hard to believe in God when it’s impossible to tell the difference between His people and atheists.” (p. 271).
We see Lobdell struggling, really struggling, to maintain his faith in the midst of his reporting. He attended a weekend retreat. He had an email exchange with a good friend and pastor. He looked into studies of prayer to find evidence that prayer works. He did a study to find if believers are any better morally than non-believers. All to no avail.
This is a very good book written by a credible person. While I doubt believers entrenched in their faith will be caused to lose their religion from reading it, Lobdell still stands as a credible witness against religion and the mental gymnastics of believers who simply choose to believe against the evidence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)