I am a creationist and a strong proponent of the argument that our existence today leads to a point back in time when we must have been created by a sentient being. I do not quite like to believe that the attributes of the universe we witness today as a result of random-occurring events. The main point I am trying to put out here is that the theories of either camp cannot be empirically proved to be representative of any truth. In my opinion, what separates people into both sides of the arena is pure personal experience and belief. Atheists assert that our ‘faith-based thinking’ is logically flawed and undesirable. But the truth is nobody knows if we are indeed wrong. In the same vein of argument, how is it that atheists could bring themselves to believe that the universe was indeed not created by God when there is no evidence to prove so. Are atheists not, above their arguments which I reiterate have hitherto not been proven to be valid, also putting mere ‘faith’ in their own reasoning?

Hope you could share your thoughts.

I think you’d have a hard time working with this point. There are some major logical problems with the idea of the judeo-christian god being a “loving” God, like the existence of evil for one (see Epicurus). Also, just look to the numerous conflicting claims stemming from the myriad christian denominations, all of whom say that they have the “true interpretation”. The problem with taking the Bible seriously is the major contradictions it presents within its texts. Just compare the story of the ten commandments with Leviticus (or as I once heard it described “101 reasons to stone your neighbour, and his goat”.

And I think this brings me to the main qualm that atheists have with all religions, is the idea of accepting an idea as truth, merely on faith. Faith is making a virtue out of not thinking and it’s inherently dangerous and destructive.

Look, everyone is looking for answers to the big questions (who am I? Why am I here? Where am I going?), but sometimes people want to know the answers so badly, that they’ll believe just about anything. To surrender your powers of reason to the “authority of the Bible” is simply the worst thing you can do for yourself, and society.

“One must be oneself very little of a philosopher not to feel that the finest privilege of our reason consists in not believing in anything by the impulsion of a blind and mechanical instinct, and that it is to dishonour reason to put it in bonds as the Chaldeans did. Man is born to think for himself.” -Denis Diderot-

Let us agree that mere abuses (and idiots to be blunt) do not necessarily void a point. Try this logical following and see if it helps to ground some faith-thinking in at least a justifiable way…
Faith is necessary to accept the Bible as authoritative, because only the Bible can rightly call itself authoritative. God alone can say who He is, really; anyone else must quote Him. This is a circular argument, but it must be for the sake of consistency. If we appeal to reason to justify the Bible’s claims, then we have made our reason – not the Bible – the deciding factor on what is true. Thus, it makes sense – if you believe that God is right and true – to believe the Bible without sufficient rational explanation, because it is based not on rational explanations, but rather on God’s revelation…hmmm…that might be a longer conversation that just here…email me if you want more, okay?

One point that I wish Christians could really take away from your blog – may you gain more and more readers! – is that we must provide – or be able to provide – an explanation for our beliefs. Just saying “Because God said so” is equivalent to saying “Because I said so” unless we can show how God says that…i.e. “Where does God say that in the Bible?” If we’re pointing to the Bible, and having an honest discussion, we should be able to come to a common answer, or at least a very few amount of possible answers. It is a difficult book to interpret, but if Christians are correct that God moved people to say these things, and that God is a God who prefers order to chaos, then these words should move us to common conclusions, ways of life, and ways of thinking.

And Lori: I appreciate the question, “Why does God need a penis?” I can imagine a lot of Christian crowds being shocked that you actually used the anatomical term instead of “wee-wee” or something….It makes me laugh. For what it’s worth, I don’t have a very good answer, but I appreciate the question. Perhaps we’ll be able to discuss that sometime…
Grace and peace,
Will
nunnkind@gmail.com

I do agree with you re Tim’s literal interpretation of nature vis-a-vis god. I liked your sermon and use the same argument when talking about the bible. One can justify anything using that book. It’s all meaningless blather, and quite a vicious god, at that. I was brought up with the bible and found the personification of god rather cruel, lonely, hateful and plainly in need of a wife. The 2nd Testament, relaxes his anger, but then increases it when his disciples interpret what they think are his meanings. My favorite shocking remark is why does god need a penis? That’s always a show-stopper.

I loved your test and I did agree with the conclusion.

Second, you seem to be naive when you think a scientist is being literal when he says “Nature began a grand experiment”. This is called figurative language. He does not literally believe that nature is capable of thoughts and performing experiments. For instance, if I were to tell you that the facts speak for themselves, I’m not saying that facts can literally speak—what this means is that the facts plainly support a certain conclusion. In the example you’ve given, all the biologist is saying is something equivalent to “A long time ago life began to exist” in a poetic, metaphorical way.

Third, I don’t have “faith” in medical science, and I never said it was perfect. But your statistics do not point to the conclusion you seek, which is that medical care is more dangerous than not receiving it. Suppose, for instance, that I formed a clubhouse and only allowed really sick people to enter this club. It wouldn’t be surprising that the statistics would show that many people died in this clubhouse. That doesn’t mean the clubhouse is causing the deaths, only that it is correlated with the deaths—and the reason for that is quite clear in this example. Medical care is quite similar—it is a clubhouse that tends to admit lots of sick people who need complex surgical procedures performed, and it is natural to expect deaths through error or otherwise. If you really want to try to justify your claim, look at statistics comparing lifespans before modern medicine and nutrition and those of today. So no, what you’ve said is not a “rational fact” as you put it, but a misguided interpretation of rational facts. But nice try!