How Loving Jesus Has Transformed My Life
In this post, I will explain why my embrace of Christianity–accepting Jesus as my savior–has transformed my life. I offer this primarily for those who are open-minded and just really don’t understand what this is all about. However, I also offer it in the spirit of specificity for those who will say, “A ha! Bob’s invisible friend in the sky allows him to cope with life. Whoop de doo. I don’t need Sky Man to fight my battles. I have my reason–the finest that 5 billion years of a breeding competition acting upon randomness can buy.”
So to both camps, enjoy.
Among my faults, the worst is arrogance. But the great thing is, I can be cocky comparing myself to other people on a secular scale, so long as I acknowledge that compared to Jesus, we are all ignorant, evil fools. If I just went to church, then my vanity would build up over the week and get knocked back down every 7 days. But if I read the Bible daily, and listen to “praise & worship” songs in the car, my narcissism gets stomped down much more.
Stop and think about the ramifications: I genuinely believe that there is an omnipotent being who has designed the entire history of the human race in order to demonstrate His beauty, grace, and love to us. I genuinely believe that when I die, I will spend eternity basking in the pure intellect and creativity of this amazing Mind, who invented not just quantum mechanics and irrational numbers, but also baby tigers and rainbows. Suppose there really were a Being who deserved a host of angels singing of His glory, for eternity? Wouldn’t that affect how you dealt with getting laid off?
Now, thus far I’ve tried to get you to see how it would change someone’s life if he started respecting Jesus Christ. But let’s kick it up a notch. Suppose someone began loving Jesus Christ, indeed began adoring Him. What would that do to the person?
It would utterly transform him. Quick example: I was (am?) an alcoholic. I was the guy in college who would pass out on the staircase, crawling back to his room. But a year and a half ago–after a particularly “bad decision” in part due to drinking–I decided I was never having another drop of alcohol. I’ve kept to that, boom, done. I can go to a karaoke bar in Las Vegas and not even be tempted to get a drink.
Or how about this? I have no fear of going to prison. (A bunch of you are worried, deep down, that black men with tattoos will suddenly become gregarious in the shower. You can admit that, Free Advice is a safe place.) If and when I go, I’ll join/start a Bible study and a karaoke group, plus I’ll offer to teach math/econ classes to any inmates and/or guards who are interested. I’m not worried about it.
I have been wrong before on several big ideas, which is why I understand these issues so well (now). These include: Goedel’s incompleteness theorem, Kenneth Arrow’s impossibility theorem, and the issue of whether government debt can burden our grandkids. I was confidently wrong on each of these in the past, and now that I see the truth it is funny that I could’ve missed the gaping chasms in my “logic” before, when I wallowed in confident error. (For example, I actually turned in a “counterexample” to Arrow’s theorem to my game theory prof at NYU. Fortunately I came to my senses and retrieved it from his mailbox [it was written on paper] before he saw it. Of course, what happened is that I had originally misunderstood the theorem. Now I can and do teach the proof of Arrow’s Theorem.)
And the biggest mistake of all I made, when I was in college: I confidently embraced atheism.
I’ll close with two examples to show what I mean–why it’s funny now to think back to my confident error on this score. For example, when I was an atheist, I would have found it very compelling if you had told me, “The story of Noah and the Ark isn’t unique to the Bible. There are many cultures that have a Flood myth.”
But now, it occurs to me (thanks to either C.S. Lewis or G.K. Chesterton): If the Biblical flood actually happened, then of course any culture alive today is descended from the survivors, and therefore it shouldn’t surprise us that they remember it too.
A final example: I don’t mean to pick on the guy, but somebody I’m Facebook friends with, wrote up this post arguing that because we don’t see signs of alien life, it should make us think that the secular Darwinian account of the origin of life is more likely. Here’s his thesis in a paragraph:
In short, the seeming unlikelihood of the natural formation of certain life developments, along with the Great Silence—are complements to one another, and would serve to corroborate purely naturalistic evolution against the need for intelligent design arguments. Why, if there were intelligent fine-tuning for life in this universe, would we not expect to see more signs of it elsewhere? Would it not be more commonplace for divine intervention to have cleared the otherwise multitudinous challenges to it? Indeed, this lacking evidence of extraterrestrials pulls our Bayesian probabilities further in the direction of natural evolution from where they were before.
OK, how do we like this argument then? Because there are trillions of stars scattered across the universe–meaning our particular sun is nothing special–then I conclude that they must have been intelligently designed. I mean, if a creative being did invent stars, then this is exactly what we’d expect to see: stars flung out all over the universe. In contrast, if stars arose from purely naturalistic mechanisms, then those specific conditions might only obtain once in the history of the universe.
Does anyone like that argument? I doubt it. Well, both of the above can’t be right simultaneously.
If you are confident in your atheism, thinking that your observations of nature have reinforced your priors, I would ask you to seriously consider the alternative hypothesis, and how the evidence might be just as consistent with it.
Great stuff Bob. Praise God for how He is working in your life and speaking thru you.
“I genuinely believe that when I die, I will spend eternity basking in the pure intellect and creativity of this amazing Mind, who invented not just quantum mechanics and irrational numbers, but also baby tigers and rainbows”
-And the bubonic plague, as you’ve admitted several times.
“I was (am?) an alcoholic.”
-Given you were a physics nerd, I am quite surprised.
“But now, it occurs to me (thanks to either C.S. Lewis or G.K. Chesterton): If the Biblical flood actually happened, then of course any culture alive today is descended from the survivors, and therefore it shouldn’t surprise us that they remember it too.”
-I wouldn’t like to be a survivor of even a couple thousand people on a cruise ship. The inbreeding would have been devastating. French-Canadians have lower incomes in the U.S. even unto this day.
Also, your Facebook friend made a bad argument. I don’t view that as hurting the case for atheism much.
“If you are confident in your atheism, thinking that your observations of nature have reinforced your priors, I would ask you to seriously consider the alternative hypothesis, and how the evidence might be just as consistent with it.”
-How many Hindu thinkers do I have to consider?
“How many Hindu thinkers do I have to consider?”
This illustrates the problem with theism and evidence. The evidence is consistent with any number of speculative creation myths, and there is very little actual evidence to raise any one hypothesis above another.
Bob, have you really been a real alcoholic? I mean you couldn’t make it through a single day without a certain amount (a lot!) of alcohol in your system? So you had proper withdrawal symptoms when stopping to drink?
I am just saying, being drunk sometimes as a student doesn’t count as being an alcoholic.
I think you are making the bar a bit too high. While I know many full-time drunks, the ones you seem to be describing, I don’t think the litmus test is whether or not you have DTs when you stop. I think it’s possible to be an alcoholic at the margin. That is, having one or two more than you should. Oversleeping just a little. Getting a C in a class you would otherwise have gotten an A in. If these things happen continuously due to drink, what would you call it? I think it’s a bit much to say unless you’ve been homeless begging for loose change to buy a bottle of Thunderbird wine than you’re not a alcoholic.
Prison isn’t all karaoke and rape, there is actually a down side.
How does many flood epics prove the Great Deluge? Of course most people have flood stories because people have to live close to water sources which can experience rare, but devastating flooding in which many can be killed and few survive. And don’t forget to take the Great Deluge literally as per the Bible the whole Earth has to be covered under water and there’s not even close enough water that to happen. Not to mention the bottlenecking of all species a one or a few breeding pairs is impossible and so forth.
I’m guessing your part of the – “A ha! Bob’s invisible friend in the sky allows him to cope with life. Whoop de doo. I don’t need Sky Man to fight my battles. I have my reason–the finest that 5 billion years of a breeding competition acting upon randomness can buy.” – group in Bob’s dichotomy.
There is no amount of disaffirmation that will stop Bob, and others, from continuing to believe – that is close minded. There is an amount of affirmation that would make me believe – that is open minded. In Bob’s dichotomy he actually has this more accurate characterization reversed. Bob needs us to be “close minded” because it allows him to claim that he is being intellectually honest and thus hold the high ground of being “open minded.”
I understand why people initially believe, I just don’t understand why they continue to believe given the weight of the evidence, or lack thereof.
“I understand why people initially believe, I just don’t understand why they continue to believe given the weight of the evidence, or lack thereof.”
knoxharrington,
Would you care to elaborate on what you view as the evidence or lack thereof? I’m pretty sure your “evidence” doesn’t mean what you think it means.
Well, Brian, the key is “the weight of the evidence” and the “lack thereof” for the god claim. For example, there is no evidence for the creation myth as set forth in the Bible. There is evidence for evolution. I believe in evolution based on the evidence and not in the creation story in Genesis because of a lack of evidence.
So that we can avoid burden-shifting – I’m not making the positive claim that there is no god – you should supply me with the evidence which justifies your belief in a god assuming that you are a believer.
knoxharrington,
I will be happy to present some evidence in support of God’s existence, once you have offered even one example of evidence indicating that people shouldn’t believe in Him. I have made no claims at all; you have claimed that the weight of the evidence is such that continued belief in God is hard to understand. Surely you have some examples that point in that direction?
What you offered is not evidence for or against God’s existence. It’s a rationalization for not believing. You are basically saying that because some people interpret Genesis literally and the scientific evidence fails to support that interpretation, that God does not exist. Can’t you see that that’s an invalid jump of logic?
Here’s how to approach actual evidence. Take the positive statement “God exists” as a hypothesis and then predict what must be observed if this hypothesis is true. If these predictions are not observed, then that would be evidence against God’s existence. The do the same using “God does not exist” as your hypothesis. Compare the two results. Which hypothesis does a better job of explaining what we observe?
I can’t tell if you believe in evolution or not. Do you? If you believe in Biblical creation story, why? Where is the evidence supporting that story? Are you a young earth creationist? How old is the earth?
Is there any evidence which you would accept that would falsify the “god exists” hypothesis? If not, then it is not a hypothesis. For example, the creation question. If the evidence shows that the earth was not created in six days (god needed to rest on the 7th) and that animals evolved over long stretches of time, would that evidence be enough to convince you that god wasn’t real? If not, why not?
BTW Brian, I don’t think you understand the burden of proof. The person making the positive assertion – Bigfoot exists, Gandalf is real, god is my personal savior, is required to marshal the evidence and prove the assertion is true. I never made a positive assertion that god does not exist – I simply stated that the weight of the evidence, lack of evidence, would lead an objective observer to conclude that there is no god.
The ball is in your court – dazzle us with the evidence for god and make us all into believers. Good luck.
knoxharrington,
What I believe is not relevant to the discussion, though (just to make you happy) I will say that I fully accept evolution and do not hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis. But again, you asserted that the weight of evidence is against belief. This is certainly a positive assertion. Surely you can lay out some of that evidence in the way I indicated above.
I promise I will provide you with evidence once you show an example of the weight if evidence against belief. Again, the Genesis account does not speak to God’s EXISTENCE in any way, so it can’t be used as evidence either way.
Brian,
There is no evidence, of which I am aware, that proves the existence of god. There certainly are arguments and assertions for the god idea but I know of no evidence which would lead me to believe it’s true. I have weighed the arguments and find no evidence for belief in god. My positive assertion is that I don’t know why anyone would believe in a god given the weight of the evidence or the lack thereof for the proposition that god exists.
So, now I’ve told you that I don’t think there is any evidence for god. My assertion is that, since I see no evidence for god, I can’t understand, given the paucity (read: none) of evidence, why anyone would believe in god.
I’ve given my example now deliver the goods. I can hardly wait. Absence of evidence, in this case, is evidence of absence.
The trouble with the hypothesis “God exists” is that the concept of god is too vague to be useful. If we are to make it useful, we must hypothesis something more like “the god as described in the bible exists” or “Gods as described by Hindus exist” or similar.
I see little evidence to support any particular religion’s concept of god.
The hypthesis “god exists” predicts almost no observations, since we could say god started everything billions of years ago and then has had nothing to do with the universe, leaving very little to observe.
Harold,
You may define God any way you like and in enough detail to make predictions, so one can always find potential observations that support or deny God’s existence.
knoxharrington,
I am responding to your latest post up here to make more room. You say
“I have weighed the arguments and find no evidence for belief in god.”
OK, but have you found any evidence AGAINST the idea? That’s what I was saying I was waiting for before I give my evidence for.
The reason I ask is the following. If you say there is no evidence for or against, then the response to your puzzlement is easy. Most people grow up believing in God because that’s what they were told by people they trust. That is their equilibrium position. Absent evidence AGAINST that position, they have no reason to believe otherwise. On the other hand, someone who grew up not believing would likewise have no reason to start believing. That is their equilibrium position. There’s no reason for you to not understand this.
You statement about not understanding only makes sense under one of two conditions: either you have seen evidence suggesting that God does not exist, or you are particularly incapable of understanding that others might have a different equilibrium than you.
I will tell you what–I will provide my evidence here as soon as you either 1) insist that there is evidence against God and then provide an example that actually speaks to his existence (not the truth or falsity of the Judaeo-Christian Scriptures), or 2) admit that there is no evidence against God’s existence.
I think these conditions are simple enough to understand and meet. Don’t try to dodge them.
Let’s try this one more time. The person making the positive assertion for a proposition has the burden of proof. I don’t have to supply evidence – I’m not the one making the positive assertion. You are and you do.
Evolution. Cosmology. Biology. There is your evidence which refutes the god claim. As i stated before, I know of no evidence which proves the god claim. I know of evidence which disproves aspects of the god claim. For example, the theory of evolution completely destroys the creation story in the Bible. Do you believe in evolution or do you think god created the world in a week?
Why wait for me to provide the evidence against the assertion when you clearly have evidence FOR the assertion? Who is dodging whom here? Stop shifting the burden of proof. Shifting the burden of proof is the first refuge of a scoundrel.
“The person making the positive assertion for a proposition has the burden of proof. I don’t have to supply evidence – I’m not the one making the positive assertion.”
The reason this is the case is because there are typically a practically infinite number of assertions that can be made in the negative.
In cases where there can logically be only a small number of negative assertions, it would be fine to argue from the impossibility of alternative positions. But it would still be simpler to argue for the positive position.
There’s an argument from free will that I believe proves the existence of God, but we can talk about that some other time.
I just thought it was important to acknowledge that the burden of proof is on the one arguing for the positive position.
Right. I can’t prove that golden unicorns are not running through the streets of Memphis at this very moment looking for a BBQ restaurant. I have no reason to believe that’s the case and no one is making that assertion. Likewise, I can’t prove there is no god and I’m not ACTUALLY making that assertion. I’m simply stating, like the golden unicorns on the prowl for BBQ, I have no evidence for that proposition and no reason to believe it’s true.
Brian is engaged in a typical apologetics strategy of burden shifting. If he were to acknowledge that evolution is true that wouldn’t move him off the god position – he would simply move to the Kalam cosmological argument or presuppositionalism or something else. They don’t actually want to confront the weakness of their position – they simply move to the next “reason to believe.”
knoxharrington,
Just to be clear, you are asserting that there is evidence against God’s existence, right? You believe evolution is one such example? Then please explain how evolution provides evidence against God’s existence. I am requesting this because many, including me, think that God and evolution are perfectly compatible.
Please understand that I am NOT attempting to shift the burden of proof. I will give you the evidence once you meet my conditions. Just make a simple argument showing how evolution serves as evidence against God. It shouldn’t be that hard.
With regard to the burden of proof, however, you are a little confused. If one or a few people make a claim of unicorns, the burden is clearly on them. But with regard to God, many people (in fact the vast majority) believe in Him and always have. You are the one suggesting this is something weird. You should at least be able to provide justification for that claim.
I am going away this weekend, but promise to offer the evidence when I return. Please indulge me while I’m gone and show how evolution provides evidence against God’s existence. Thanks.
“Just to be clear, you are asserting that there is evidence against God’s existence, right?”
No. I’m asserting there is no evidence for god’s existence. I used the evolution example as the negation of one god claim – namely that god created man. Clearly, the opposite is true. God is a man-made creation and not the reverse.
If you are a Christian presumably you believe that the god of the Bible created humanity in his own image. Evolution disproves that claim. QED
“With regard to the burden of proof, however, you are a little confused. If one or a few people make a claim of unicorns, the burden is clearly on them. But with regard to God, many people (in fact the vast majority) believe in Him and always have. You are the one suggesting this is something weird. You should at least be able to provide justification for that claim.”
Wow. If a person made the claim that at lunch hour on a Friday there were people looking for a BBQ restaurant in Memphis I wouldn’t question it. If the same person made the unicorn claim I would require evidence in support of that claim. The number of people accepting a claim as true does not make the claim true. That would simply be an appeal to the majority. There are many people who still claim the earth is flat. They are wrong. As to the belief being weird – those are your words and not mine. As I said at the beginning I understand why people believe initially – I don’t think they are stupid – I just don’t understand why they would continue to believe if they investigated the claims and arguments more thoroughly.
Just to repeat – the evolution of man is in direct contradiction to the claims made in the Bible. We seem to be discussing the Christian god that is why I focused on it but I think this would apply equally to, minimally, all the monotheistic religions and perhaps all others as well that have a divine creation story.
Again, for the sake of clarity, asking someone to disprove a claim is burden shifting by definition. It is the responsibility of the person making the positive assertion or claim to prove it. Provide a falsifiable test for the existence of god or some argument that is logically and evidentially sound.
knoxharrington,
I’m back, if you’re still checking.
You said in a later post “Brian, when confronted with the evolution example, wants to square the circle and say that the god of the Bible and the creation story are compatible with the theory of evolution. I don’t see how any serious Christian can make that claim.”
Well, that’s part of the problem, isn’t it? There are lot’s of simple things about religious believers that you don’t seem to see or understand. You might ask yourself why things that are obvious to many others are so mysterious to you.
You also say that you are asserting that no evidence supports God’s existence. I know that already, and I am prepared to show otherwise, but I’m not confident you are capable of understanding the argument if I give it.
I asked you to claim one of two possibilities: either there IS evidence AGAINST God’s existence, or there is not. You still have not offered your position on those two mutually exclusive possibilities. You speak as if you believe the former, but then you avoid answering it directly. Evasion is not an honest attempt at debate.
Once you answer my question–which above possibility do you accept?–I will offer some evidence for God. I will even throw in an explanation for how a Christian can accept evolution. There is no contradiction between evolution as currently understood and creation by God.
Are you a Bible believing Christian? If so, do you think the Bible and evolution are compatible?
“You also say that you are asserting that no evidence supports God’s existence. I know that already, and I am prepared to show otherwise, but I’m not confident you are capable of understanding the argument if I give it.”
I have said that there is no evidence of which I am aware which proves the existence of god. You claim otherwise but won’t show me because you don’t think I will understand. We won’t know until you try. Based on your continued dodging of the question I’m going to assume, until proven otherwise, that you have no such evidence.
“I asked you to claim one of two possibilities: either there IS evidence AGAINST God’s existence, or there is not. You still have not offered your position on those two mutually exclusive possibilities. You speak as if you believe the former, but then you avoid answering it directly. Evasion is not an honest attempt at debate.”
No kidding – but who is being evasive? For the fifth? time – I stated that there is no evidence for god’s existence. You are claiming, we still haven’t seen it, that you possess such evidence. Since the person making the positive assertion has the burden of proof it is incumbent on you to provide the evidence. I never said there is no god, I said there is no evidence for a god of which I am aware. The evolution example is an instance where the god claim, at least with regard to the Bible, is disproven. The evidence for evolution is real, the evidence for creationism is not. You think these two are compatible (I think) but I’m not sure how that is possible.
Just so we are clear – I’m not going to play your bait and switch game – you assert you have evidence for god, I assert that there is no evidence for a god of which I am aware. Make me aware. Put your cards on the table and convince me that there is a god. If you provide the evidence, and it is valid, I will have no choice but move off my position.
I will check back and see if you provide the evidence. I have explained the burden of proof – it is on you to provide it. Go ahead.
“Well, that’s part of the problem, isn’t it? There are lot’s of simple things about religious believers that you don’t seem to see or understand. You might ask yourself why things that are obvious to many others are so mysterious to you.”
I have to confess – it is not obvious to me how a Christian can reconcile Genesis and evolution. Explain it so that even I can understand it.
“Once you answer my question–which above possibility [to claim one of two possibilities: either there IS evidence AGAINST God’s existence, or there is not] do you accept?–I will offer some evidence for God.”
Why exactly am I limited to those two choices when my perfectly acceptable answer is that there is no evidence of which I am aware for the god claim? I can’t prove the negative nor am I required too. See burden of proof discussion AGAIN.
I just re-read this:
“I will even throw in an explanation for how a Christian can accept evolution. There is no contradiction between evolution as currently understood and creation by God.”
I’ve got to hear this one even if I won’t understand it.
Knox,
Saying there is no evidence for God is not the same as saying there is evidence against Him. Why not comment directly on the latter possibility.
Here’s a simple formal argument showing why belief in God and evolution are not incompatible. First, I assert that Goad’s existence is compatible (logically consistent) with basic laws of physics and chemistry. Nothing about them implies that God does not exist. (if you disagree, you should say why.) In addition, the laws of physics and chemistry are likewise compatible (logically consistent) with evolution. I know you will agree with this proposition. It then follows logically that since A is compatible with B and B with C, that A is compatible with C. Substituting in the initial propositions then implies that “God exists” is compatible with evolution. There is, in other words, nothing about evolution that precludes God’s existence. (Note that by God I mean the creator of the universe.)
Do you disagree with any part of this argument?
“Saying there is no evidence for God is not the same as saying there is evidence against Him. Why not comment directly on the latter possibility.”
Once more into the breach … If I were to assert there was “evidence against” god that would be a positive assertion for a proposition. I’m not now, nor have I ever asserted that proposition. I have asserted that there is no evidence for god with which I am aware. I will mention burden shifting again. You are attempting to get me to engage in something which shifts the burden of proof to me even though I have made no positive assertion.
“First, I assert that Goad’s existence is compatible (logically consistent) with basic laws of physics and chemistry.”
I don’t need to move beyond your first premise to show you are incorrect. If god is consistent with basic laws of physics then there is no such thing as “laws of physics.” God, by definition, exists outside of the laws of physics. To deny this would be to deny the very nature of what it means to be god. To confine god to the laws of physics means no miracles, no resurrection, no salvation – none of it. I think even Bob would agree on that point. The god of the Bible is not bound by physical laws or even the laws of chemistry. Jesus turned water into wine, right?
Your first premise is incorrect and not supported by any evidence – it is a mere assertion. You would have to first prove that god exists and then move to that existence being logically consistent with physical laws and THEN show that since god is consistent with physics and chemistry that god is therefore consistent with evolution.
knox,
You say “I don’t need to move beyond your first premise to show you are incorrect.”
Good, we are finally getting somewhere. I am beginning to pin down the source of your confusion.
First, you are absolutely wrong to say that one has to prove God’s existence first before proving consistency with physical law. The question is whether the IDEA of God, however one defines it, is consistent with physical law. This idea of God can then be used to draw logical inferences regarding consistency, regardless of whether God actually exists or not. I’m not sure why you think proving God’s existence is a prerequisite for making arguments about the idea of God and its relation to physical law.
Second, the claim that the idea of God precludes any kind of physical law is silly. If God is all-powerful (as is usually assumed), why can’t he choose to create physical laws to run the universe, or choose to act in regular and predictable ways that give the appearance of physical law? Keep in mind that what we call physical law refers to patterns we have observed. There’s no guarantee that these laws are truly universal, much less that they preclude specific acts of God beyond those laws. I don’t know why you think that I said God would be bound by those laws. I never said or implied any such thing. The laws themselves would be part of God’s created order. He can choose to do that, can’t He?
Third, let me make this a little more concrete for you. Many of the scientists who discovered these physical laws believed in God and were even quite devout. They continued to believe after making their discoveries. They consist of the greatest minds the world has ever known.
Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Priestley, Pasteur, Mendel, Maxwell, LeMaitre (Big Bang)
The list of believers is much bigger than this, of course, but these (with the possible exception of Galileo) are known to have been devout believers. If the idea of God is not consistent with physical law, how could all of these brilliant minds have missed the inconsistency? The very idea is absurd. Frankly, if you want to claim that they missed a logical inconsistency that is apparent to you, then the burden of proof really is on you.
I’m going to reply below to get more space.
“Most people grow up believing in God because that’s what they were told by people they trust. That is their equilibrium position.”
So you are saying that the evidence most people have for believing in God is that they have been told he exists by someone they trust?
Brian, you said I can define god any way I like, but that is for the person making the claim for the existence of god. I can say God is being that created the world in 6 days and the Earth is therefore only 6000 years old, in which case evolution is strong evidence against the existence of the god I described.
You cannotreasonably ask what evidence there is against the existence of god unless you say what you mean by god. Otherwise you are able to shift your meaning to negate the evidence.
Harold,
Well said. He clearly doesn’t get the concept of burden shifting. Brian, when confronted with the evolution example, wants to square the circle and say that the god of the Bible and the creation story are compatible with the theory of evolution. I don’t see how any serious Christian can make that claim. It would reduce the Bible to a Chinese menu where people can pick and choose the parts they like. I realize they do this anyway but the creation story is the foundational myth of the entire thing. As Ken Ham and other young earth creationists realize giving up on the creation story reduces the whole thing to rubble.
Knox
I believe that it was once thought by many that a solar-centric solar system would disprove the bible. Once it was proved that the earth did indeed orbit the sun, a re-examination of the bible showed it to be compatible after all. I think there is sufficient flexibility in the holy texts to accommodate most findings with the application of some ingenuity.
Right. I’ve seen the argument that the “days” of creation are metaphor because a day to god is not like a day to you and me, and so on. That is one of the beauties of the Bible as a religious document – it is a vessel that can be filled and emptied at will to serve whatever purpose the weidler is after.
“I mean, if a creative being did invent stars, then this is exactly what we’d expect to see: stars flung out all over the universe”
Why do we expect this configuration if the creator is intelligent?
GabbyD, I’m showing why the guy’s argument about life being due to non-intelligent causes is a bad argument. You’re right (about stars). That’s my point.
would u care to explain why its a bad argument? after all, random placement of stars would be a consequence of non-intelligent creator, assuming the universe was created thru a natural process. thats the guys (possibly unstated) point.
Whats your point? why can you use random stars as evidence for an intelligent creator?
A couple of observations to this post:
1. Embracing atheism in college is not a mistake. College is for challenging yourself. How much of your Christianity is enhanced because you had to leave behind old thought patterns? How much of that leaving behind sprang from atheism?
2 I find this (and often other of your Sunday posts) lacking scope. A post on your embrace of Christianity should not be cluttered with the flood, anti-Darwinism, Intelligent Design, &c. My embrace of Christianity does not mean that I take the bible literally, reject evolution, or consider Intelligent Design a final solution.
Go back and read your post with an Economist’s eyes. My first question observation is that you have included refutable pieces (flood, Darwin, &c) with irrefutable pieces (God’s grace and mercy in your). Let us take pot shots at the priors separately (as, for instance, you have done in the past with ID).
If I understand the post correctly, rpm is contending that the Biblical flood occurred literally as written in the Bible? So an all-powerful, all-knowing being creates man, watches him screw around for a few generations, then decides to kill everyone and everything in a fit of divine regret because, and I’m pretty sure this is a direct quote from Genesis, “they were all bad”? So we’re on the same page, how old is the earth, and how old is human civilization?
What about the Tower of Babel? Was man arrogant in trying to reach God’s home in the firmament, and is that story the real origin of the myriad languages of the globe? How does that fit with evolutionary language, e.g. Old English -> Middle English -> Modern English? Did God set in place a system of linguistic evolution and then neglect to mention it in the account, or is this–is any of Genesis–mythical in the Campbellian sense?
This is one of those outliers of libertarianism that’s so unlikely to me that I can’t help but pick at it every time it comes up. I can kind of understand the hardcore Catholic thinkers like Woods–Catholicism and Aquinian thought being so important to the development of the West and the secular Enlightenment–but evangelical ancaps seem as unlikely a species as Sunni ancaps. How can you believe in an emergent, unplanned social and market order if you believe that the whole universe–literally every atom–is the result of the decision of the ultimate central planner, who, in addition to creating beautiful calculus and the gravitational constant, is presumably fond of amoebic dysentery and spontaneous abortions on an unimaginable scale? Does the question of meaningless suffering, much less the intellectual labyrinth of hell and infinite suffering, really just go away because it’s what God wants?
The question isn’t not rhetorical–I’d really like to know how evangelical or literalist Christians square Market Daoism or Darwinism with divine central planning by someone who, frankly, doesn’t seem remotely trustworthy according to evidence in nature or Biblical accounts.
*isn’t rhetorical
Bob, you wrote “A bunch of you are worried, deep down, that black men with tattoos will suddenly become gregarious in the shower. You can admit that, Free Advice is a safe place.”
Why black men specifically Bob? Is that your own prejudice, or your presumption on the prejudice of the readers? Maybe you just meant men with the mark of Cain.
Blacks make up 40% of the prison population, Hispanics about 21% and the rest white or other, so statistically blacks are the largest group.
A problem of saying religion gives comfort means what of other religions? Sure Islam seems to be good at being anti-science and anti-freedom but without Allah how are people supposed to know how to be good? What does a Christian suppose if they have the right religion then what are Muslims doing then? Is their God the same as the Christian God or a different deity altogether? What constitutes a religion anyway with people claiming seriously to be Jedi? They surely can’t take a movie religion and make a real religion? And so forth.
Hi Bob,
Experiencing a sense of compassion, healing mercy and loving kindness has ennobling qualities that dignify the human spirit. If loving Jesus has transformed your life, that is good. Some have their lives transformed by Buddhism and its loving kindness meditation, though any focusing of the mind and heart on peace and compassion would seem to be beneficial, whether was is a religious believer or not. There is nothing to prevent atheists or anyone else for that matter, focusing on peace and compassion in a divided world.
John Arthur
Hi Bob,
Experiencing a sense of compassion, healing mercy and loving kindness has ennobling qualities that dignify the human spirit. If loving Jesus has transformed your life, that is good. Some have their lives transformed by Buddhism and its loving kindness meditation, though any focusing of the mind and heart on peace and compassion would seem to be beneficial, whether one is a religious believer or not. There is nothing to prevent atheists or anyone else for that matter, focusing on peace and compassion in a divided world.
John Arthur
Nothing to do with religion, but I think too much of a big deal is made of Kenneth Arrow’s impossibility theorem.
Sure, it could happen that one person (or even perhaps a small cooperative consortium) could become a key swinging demographic and manipulate the entire outcome of the election (an unfair “dictator” if you like, who really isn’t a dictator in any normal sense of the word). Is it likely to happen though?
I mean, a very similar theorem says that it’s completely useless having a combination lock because anyone can just walk up off the street and punch in the correct combination to open your lock. Similarly, don’t bother having a password on your Internet banking. Don’t bother using Bitcoin since the hashing system is effectively a combinatorial lock (a little bit fancier, but in principle the same). Someone could simply type in your Bitcoin private key and take all of your money… and they could, it is totally mathematically possible, nothing to prevent it happening… it just happens to be so incredibly unlikely that the universe probably won’t be here long enough for anyone to see an example of that, but it *COULD* happen next week.
There are many other practical problems with elections (you know, thugs hanging around polling booths for example) that are significantly more likely to happen.
I thought the point was not that elections are useless, but that there is no perfect election system (given Arrow’s criteria). It is just a matter of which imperfection you prefer.
Therefore no-one can claim that their system is “the best” system.
“But the great thing is, I can be cocky comparing myself to other people on a secular scale, so long as I acknowledge that compared to Jesus, we are all ignorant, evil fools.”
Pretty much describes men with machine guns and empire.
“First, you are absolutely wrong to say that one has to prove God’s existence first before proving consistency with physical law. The question is whether the IDEA of God, however one defines it, is consistent with physical law. This idea of God can then be used to draw logical inferences regarding consistency, regardless of whether God actually exists or not. I’m not sure why you think proving God’s existence is a prerequisite for making arguments about the idea of God and its relation to physical law.”
I don’t think you realize that you are uttering absolute nonsense. I could say Cthulhu is consistent with the laws of physics, however one wishes to define Cthulhu. That statement is devoid of any meaningful content. You really need to define what god is before we continue. I have an IDEA of Santa but Santa’s travel skills on Christmas Eve are not consistent with the laws of physics. Is Santa real? You must first show a) define what god is, b) prove that god exists, and then c) show that the god you’ve defined and proved exists is consistent with the laws of physics. I have never met a believer who believes that god is limited – by physics or anything else.
“Second, the claim that the idea of God precludes any kind of physical law is silly. If God is all-powerful (as is usually assumed), why can’t he choose to create physical laws to run the universe, or choose to act in regular and predictable ways that give the appearance of physical law? Keep in mind that what we call physical law refers to patterns we have observed. There’s no guarantee that these laws are truly universal, much less that they preclude specific acts of God beyond those laws. I don’t know why you think that I said God would be bound by those laws. I never said or implied any such thing. The laws themselves would be part of God’s created order. He can choose to do that, can’t He?”
I don’t think you realize it but I am the one actually arguing for the powerful god idea here. Can god choose to act inconsistently with the laws it has proscribed? You say yes but then it appears that you want god to be “consistent” with the laws of physics. When I think of consistent in this context I mean bound by the law of physics. It would be inconsistent with the law of physics for me to jump in the air and fly to the top of the Daily Planet building. It would consistent for me remain on the ground. Which one is god? Also, why is god a He and not an it? Does god have male genitalia? Is there a female god counterpart which would actually give a contrast to his maleness?
“Third, let me make this a little more concrete for you. Many of the scientists who discovered these physical laws believed in God and were even quite devout. They continued to believe after making their discoveries. They consist of the greatest minds the world has ever known. Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Priestley, Pasteur, Mendel, Maxwell, LeMaitre (Big Bang). The list of believers is much bigger than this, of course, but these (with the possible exception of Galileo) are known to have been devout believers. If the idea of God is not consistent with physical law, how could all of these brilliant minds have missed the inconsistency? The very idea is absurd. Frankly, if you want to claim that they missed a logical inconsistency that is apparent to you, then the burden of proof really is on you.”
You’ve just made two fallacious arguments – appeal to the majority (all of these people believe so they must be right) and the appeal to authority (all these great minds think X so X must be true). Newton was also an alchemist – he was wrong about that so maybe he is wrong about god. There is a distinguished list of non-believers Einstein, Spinoza, Hume, Russell, Feynman, Hawking – they must be correct, right?
You have made god a vessel for whatever it is you want to fill it with – god is all powerful but consistent with the laws of physics, god is all powerful but inconsistent with the laws of physics, etc. First, define god – don’t appeal to a “however defined” definition – it lacks precision and leads to error. Define what god means. Second, describe god. What are its powers, personality, morality. Stay away from anthropomorphic qualities because we need to figure out how god differs from humans. Third, prove that the god you have defined and described exists with some form of evidence. No more logical fallacies, amorphous definitions, or burden shifting. Define. Describe. Prove. After that the discussion of whether or not god is bound by physical laws or is consistent with those laws will be able to be actually discussed.
knox,
Thanks for the reply. Much of what you’ve said highlights why I put a precondition on my presenting evidence of God. I wasn’t sure you would be in state of mind (sufficiently open and engaged) to understand the argument. It’s clear from your response that you are not. Even your reading comprehension is suspect.
Let me just quickly respond to your points. First, I agree that one has to define God first. That is what I was proposing when I said “however one defines it.” Yes, define God in a way that is specific and agreed upon. Once one does that, that is sufficient to argue for consistency. It is not necessary to prove that God exists first. For example, I agree that the idea of Santa (as usually defined) is not consistent with the laws of physics. It is not necessary to prove that Santa exists first to argue either consistency or inconsistency. Quite the contrary. Showing the inconsistency of the idea with the laws of physics is evidence against his existence. Logical arguments are made based on ideas, not on whether the ideas correspond to reality. That is a separate question.
Second, you say “When I think of consistent in this context I mean bound by the law of physics.” Well, this is not what consistent means. Logically consistent means that both ideas can be true at the same time. Nothing more, nothing less. If God exists and is the creator, then He created the laws of physics. There’s no sense in which He could be considered “bound” by them. Only things that are a part of the Universe are bound by them. But it should be clear that as a free and omnipotent Being (by definition), God can choose to do His work in the Universe through fixed laws. It’s His choice. By the way, the issue of whether miracles exist (in the sense that you would mean the term) is independent of whether God exists. God can choose to work through miracles or not. Part of the problem here is that you are piling together all sorts of claims about what God DOES in your conception of what God IS. These two things are somewhat independent of each other and shouldn’t be confused with each other.
Third, about my example of the many famous scientists who believe in God, you completely missed my point. I am not making an argument from authority, which would say “you should believe in God because they did.” Rather, I am pointing out a fundamental weakness in your claim. You say (and I must give you credit for novelty here–no one else makes this claim) that the natural laws are logically inconsistent with the idea/existence of God. This claim would come as a great surprise to those who developed those laws who believed in God. Surely they would not knowingly hold logically incompatible beliefs? Given their logical brilliance as scientists, this seems unlikely, For your novel claim to hold any water at all, the burden of proof is on you to show that THEIR conception of God (the Judaeo-Christian one) is inconsistent with natural law. Rather than arguing from authority, I am merely pointing out that your claim is far less likely than the reality of unicorns and therefore needs to be specially and convincingly argued. You have not done so and I doubt you are able.
I will close by making the following comments. I agree that YOUR conception of God is a being that does not exist. That’s hardly relevant, because your conception is not the one claimed by religionists. You have constructed at best a strawman.
You want a clear definition of God? Here’s one that is completely nondenominational, but in line with with standard ideas.
The ultimate cause of the universe is an intelligent, self-aware, personal entity who is sufficiently powerful, knowledgeable, and present to exceed what can be produced in the universe itself. This is what we call “God.”
I can present evidence that such an entity exists, but I won’t because you haven’t shown the willingness to understand. But you are certainly welcome to attempt to show how this definition is inconsistent with natural law. I doubt you will be able to with anything resembling logical thought.
I doubt I will be responding any further. I am leaving on vacation and this post will be left far behind by the time I get back. But thank you for the illuminating discussion. I wish you the best of luck.
“The ultimate cause of the universe is an intelligent, self-aware, personal entity who is sufficiently powerful, knowledgeable, and present to exceed what can be produced in the universe itself. This is what we call “God.””
So nothing about commandments, morality, how to live one’s life, the soul, Jesus and that sort of stuff? Maybe he set the universe off and left it to it?
Brian,
You are so misguided it is mindboggling.
Just a couple of your lowlights:
You don’t understand the argument from authority fallacy. You argued that these super-bright people believed in god. Since these people are super-bright how can they be wrong? We should believe in god because these super-bright people did and they can’t be wrong. Your fallacy should be seen clearly below:
“This claim would come as a great surprise to those who developed those laws who believed in God. Surely they would not knowingly hold logically incompatible beliefs?”
These super-bright people developed these laws and they believed in god. They would not knowingly hold inconsistent beliefs (presumably because they are super-bright). Since they are super-bright and developed these laws and believed in god we should accept their belief as our own because they are super-bright and couldn’t be wrong. This is an argument from authority fallacy. It may be the case that this is true but you have not demonstrated that it IS true.
“Logical arguments are made based on ideas, not on whether the ideas correspond to reality.”
You can construct a logically sound proof that is false in reality. For example: “All mammals can fly. A rabbit is a mammal. Therefore, rabbits can fly.” That is a logically sound proof. It is incorrect in reality. Your statement is true as far as it goes – it just doesn’t go far enough. You can evaluate the soundness of an argument based on the proof. You cannot prove the argument is true without seeing whether or not it corresponds to reality.
“The ultimate cause of the universe is an intelligent, self-aware, personal entity who is sufficiently powerful, knowledgeable, and present to exceed what can be produced in the universe itself. This is what we call “God.”
How do you know any of that is true? You keep saying you have evidence for god and it only took you about 15 posts before you actually gave a definition of god. Seriously, you are the boy who cried wolf. “I will give evidence for god but you won’t comprehend it, or, after you give evidence against god, or, after you give a definition for what it is I am trying to prove.” [my quotes] I will beat this horse one final time. The person making the positive assertion has the burden of proof. You assert that a god exists as you define it above (getting a definition out of you may actually prove there is a god because it is a minor miracle). Now prove that the entity you define as god exists. You are taking a physical vacation and over the past week or so you have been on a mental one. You don’t understand logical proofs, you don’t understand the burden of proof, and you continually dodge the question. What are you hiding? I don’t think you actually have evidence – if you did you would have offered it by now. Presumably, your evidence would be so awesome that it would shut the dialogue down. Bring the noise, Brian, bring the noise. I don’t think you will be responding further because you are unable – not because of other concerns. You don’t even know why you believe what you believe.