Boing Boing linked to a group of Atheist students at University Texas San Antonio who are handing out free porn to anyone who turns in their Bibles. This is an absolutely puerile stunt that will do nothing but give their organization a bad name.
These students don’t seem to be aware of the analogy they are making, or maybe they are. They are equating the Bible, on of the most highly revered works of literature, history, and religious thinking the world has ever known, to some cheap pornographic magazines. Their sign “Smut for Smut,” is a despicable insult to the billion and a half Christians and Jews in this world.
On a complete aside, Atheism (the belief that there is(are) no god(s)) is as logically an indefensible position as is belief in a religion. Both must be accepted on belief alone, for there is no real evidence either way. Those who imagine themselves to be Atheist because of naturalistic explanations or materialistic philosophy are sorely deceived. Agnosticism is the conclusion that there is no proof either way, but if proof were to materialize, then belief would be possible. Atheism, by contrast, is a religion every bit as much as any other.
And, since I’m already here, I want to correct something that I hear misspoken constantly in the media. Atheism and Agnosticism do not equate with moral relativism. One can, as I do, believe that there are moral laws that can be reached via reason and logic. Murder, rape, theft, graft, corruption…–all are abhorrent within the moral fabric of a reasoned existence. To suggest that humans need the threat of eternal punishment to motivate morality is to say that no one can be moral; I think we can all agree that the child who does not break a window out of fear of punishment is not doing so morally, but shrewdly.
I wanted to respond to your comment that “Both [The existence or nonexistence of God] must be accepted on belief alone, for there is no real evidence either way.”
I have to really disagree here, because there is lots of “real” evidence. You yourself may have no scientific data on God, such as no personal communication or observation, or you’ve never observed any actions that may be of God. But lots of people claim to have.
You can think of it as eyewitness testimony (that’s why its called Witnessing, etc). Undeniably, people for thousands of years have claimed to talk to God, heard responses to prayers, etc. And its not like this stuff wasn’t recorded in a scientific matter either. In a court of law, eyewittness testimony is completely acceptable, as well as written affadavits from people who have witnessed it. Enough so to put people to death even. And, these God-witnesses throughout history have been willing to die for their testimony because they didn’t just believe, they knew that what they saw was true.
I could go on about this forever, but the point is that there is evidence. I myself had one such experience that caused me to become an actual Christian a few years ago.
There are a few books that you might be interested in. The Case for Christ was written by a journalist who set out to disprove Christianty using the American court system principles for evidence, such that you can convice Jesus of not being divine, etc. In the process, the journalist ended up concluding the opposite and became a Christian. A follow up book The Case For Faith is similar and is probably more relevant to this discussion.
On a similar note, a more academically rigoros tome The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict is similar, but I haven’t read it very far because it’s not in a “kick-back on the toilet” style.
Tom,
Thanks for the links to those books, I am definitely interested in reading about evidence for Jesus’ divinity.
But, I disagree that Witnessing God’s presence is akin to witnessing an action. And thus, I don’t believe that Witnessing (with a capital “W”) is evidence (at least beyond the personal level). Fundamentally, witnessing an action is to witness somethiing that physically occurs, thus there can be physical evidence to support such a claim. Witnessing God’s existence is to have a feeling or an experience that occurs within the mind of an individual. Though I believe what you say implicitly, I cannot take your words as evidence because there is no proof of your experience. There is nothing to corroborate, nothing that demonstrates such events occurred. I don’t believe that you are lying, but I cannot rule out that your experience was not something created by a specific state of your brain that resulted in your “religious experience.”
Well, the people who saw Jesus raise people from the dead, make the crippled walk, the deaf hear, etc were witness to a physically observable phenonemon that was recorded and available for you to read.
Anthony, thanks for your interesting report and commentary. I just wanted to add a comment about your statement that there needs to be physical evidence to prove there is a God. There are moments when all of us wonder if what we have faith in is the truth. There are several things that I remember that cement my faith during those moments, and remind me that God is real. One such thing includes a man that experienced the physical proof miracles, and I would say God, exist. When I was growing up in Cote d’Ivoire, there was a time when traveling by bus was very dangerous (it still is, as a matter of fact) due to terrible driving, upkeep of buses, and highway robbers. One man in our church had to travel south from Korhogo to Abidjan due to a family member’s death, a trip that usually takes about 13 hrs by bus. He asked the church to pray for his safety while he was traveling. The church held prayer for him during his entire trip. There is a point in that road south where a tight curve preceeds two-way bridge that can only fit one large vehicle at a time. Needless to say, a car coming around that curve cannot see who is on the bridge. The bus was coming around that curve while another large vehicle in front of it, further preventing the driver from seeing the bridge. The bus driver decided to pass the vehicle in front of him, despite the other driver’s gesture to not do so. As the bus passed the vehicle, it came right onto the narrow bridge. A truck was barreling down the bridge from the other direction, right toward the bus. The man from our church was in the 2nd row. People began standing all around him screaming. He stood up to see what was going on, a man suddenly appeared before him that had not been there before, blocking his vision, and told him, “Do not be afraid. Sit down.” The man from our church sat down. The bus had a horrible collision with the truck, and everyone in the 1st 9 rows was killed. Except for the man from our church, who emerged without even a broken bone. And this is not just his perception of the physical evidence, but those who came to the crash site and had to care for those who had died and were injured.
Ari,
Thank you very much for telling us about that time. That is quite an amazing story. I can see how it gives you comfort and strength in your belief.
In that story, I don’t see a miracle in the Biblical sense, but rather a fantastic stroke of good fortune that I’m sure gave new meaning to that man’s life. We all understimate the power of chance and coincidence, and many things are attributed to miracles that are simply unlikely events. Think, also, what if someone else in those 1-9 rows was killed despite being a member of a different church that was praying for him? Would the members of that church recognize your friend’s survival as a miracle? Inded, probably not. They would think that it was a fortunate happenstance in light of a terrible tragedy.
As for what your friend heard and saw, I cannot know exactly what he experienced, but to me it is far less likely that someone actually emerged to talk to him than for him to have created this person in his mind as a result of an extremely traumatic experience. I’m not suggesting that he’s faking anything, merely that he may have had the tiny flash of insight to sit and be still, knowing deep inside that was safer than panic. Then, when he realized that he had survived, this flash of insight that had saved his life could simply take on a more physical form. After all, that single flash of insight is why he is alive, it’s not difficult to believe that he himself would attribute it to a miracle, and give it a voice and a shadowy mental form.
Miracles are so much in the eye of the beholder, and they give tremendous comfort to those of faith, but to me the far simpler and more powerful explanation is the one I’ve given above.
This discussion we are having about whether or not there is evidence reveals that people of faith can accept certain things as evidence that do not seem so to those not of that mindset. I am not trying to offend you, or to take away the meaning of that experience your friend had, but to me it’s not a miracle, but rather luck, quick thinking, and the complicated workings of an extremely traumatized human mind.
This is an interesting exchange. I think the danger here is that in matters of faith, “evidence” and other words mean different things depending on what you believe. Stories of miracles performed by Jesus, or miraculous survival stories, may seem to many to be strong proof of God’s existence and concern for humanity (or at least selected individuals). But it all seems very selective (or random) to me, and many historians believe that many supposed ancient eyewitness reports were actually written many years after the reported events anyway…
So who really knows? And I guess that’s basically agnosticism. My feeling is that if it’s right for you, if it’s true for you, if it works for you — then it’s real for you. And I completely honor and respect that, and may even be a little envious of the comfort you get from that faith. What I don’t like so much is the approach that says “I know why you’re unhappy (or doomed or whatever) — because you don’t believe what I believe.” That’s the root of a lot of evils. This is one reason why Buddhism really appeals to me (although I’m not a Buddhist myself) — it concentrates on getting oneself right in the universe, whatever or however that may be. It doesn’t dictate anything for anyone else, and it doesn’t require a deity to police right behavior. Buddhists (and Humanists, agnostics, and atheists for that matter) can be caring, moral human beings without God or gods.
You are right (IMO) that atheism is every bit as much a religion as Christianity or Islam — faith and certainty can be a too powerful combination sometimes, especially certainty in what’s right for other people.
-Bruce
Thanks, Anthony, for your respectful answer. I must say one thing, though. It is true that to be a Christian or an Atheist takes faith. However, I also must state that to be an Agnostic takes a great deal of faith in what you believe, too, just as much as Atheism or Christianity. For instance, no matter what anyone says, no matter what anyone witnesses and shares, even the physical evidence we might present to you, your answer is to create another explanation for what happened to continue to maintain faith that there is no proof of God or no God. Not necessarily a simpler one. The explanation that the man may have created the man he saw out of trauma is not simpler, but more complicated. To decide that what anyone else experiences or sees cannot be true because one does not believe in it. I think it really all comes down to faith in a good God who wants what’s best for us, and willingness, out of that faith, to follow Him and do what He asks because of that trust in Him. Until that faith is there, none of what I say will matter. I have many more stories of eyewitness events of how God has revealed himself through physical evidence, but no matter what I say, you will come up with another explanation.
I know that it must feel different being on the other side (i.e. not religious) but I do want to explain something about witnessing or evangelism or whatever one wants to call it. Many people see witnessing as a forcing of one’s beliefs upon the other due to a selfish or self-righteous desire that the other person believe what they believe. In reality, if one has true faith in the God of Christianity, then they must believe that God is the one true god, and that salvation (eternal life) comes only through faith in Jesus as the sacrifice for all of us, since this is what the Bible states. It follows, then, that they would desire their friends to share in this, so that their friends will have life, in the same way that someone who discovers a cure for cancer would want their loved ones who have cancer to receive that cure and have life. Not out of selfishness to be right, but out of love. Never once, however, does the Bible support forcing faith or religion on others. It’s not really faith then, is it?
And I do agree that atheists and agnostics and people of any religion can be kind, caring people who do good things. The thing is, that’s not what the beginning, and ending of Christianity is about. The difference with Christianity is that it does not begin with a moral code, but in fact begins with faith and grace. The moral code follows to help us lead a life that is best for us, but is not a requirement for righteousness or salvation. However, many people do not want to put trust in God who will ask them to do things that they might not want to do.
Ari,
My explanation about the man that apparently appeared to tell your church’s member to sit and be still is still simpler if you consider this: why did not that man appear to everyone on that bus and say the same thing? Are you saying that your invidividual prayers to God actively intervened in the life of that one man, but that everyone else, whom some were probably loved and prayed for as well, were doomed to death? To me, that is an extremely complicated answer, because then you have to answer why, if God has the power to intervene and save the lives of some, that he would choose not to save the lives of all. No, much simpler to me is that your friend survived from luck and quick thinking, and that the miracle and trauma he perceived led to the apparent vision of a man instructing him on how to survive.
I will not invent an explanation for something to disprove God’s existence if that would involve taking the more complicated and less-believable route. However, miracles and witnessing are by their very nature without physical proof. That still remains the difference between us in this discussion. What you can accept as evidence is only to me a wonderful and tragic survival story. Agnosticism could be considered a religion, I suppose, but it stands in opposition to Atheism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. because it does not require the acceptance of a fundamental tenet without evidence.
Your firm belief in your view of the world is to be commended, for I’m sure that it motivates much of your life. My firm belief in the reality of what I see and can physically observe does the same, but in a much different manner for me. I subscribe to a description of Creation, of the fundamental imporatnce of humans, and of the value of life itself. I do not see an afterlife to which I will join in eternity, because to accept this would be to accept a story.
No matter how many believe that story, that is all it is. Christianity is not the first religion, and you are not the first or only to believe that yours is correct. In fact, the majority of the world does not believe what you believe, at least not in salvation by a divine Christ. No matter how convincing a tale can be told for Christian miracles, others can be told for other religions. To me, they are all means of explaining the chance, wonder, and mystery that are part of our lives. To accept otherwise is to accept something on faith alone, which to you is a virtue but is not necessarily so to me.
thanks for a good arguement, but is it not a matter of believing, it is a matter of knowing. i find it ammusing to be honest. i opened my eyes a few years ago. i opened my eyes after reading the bible. its dispicable lies of captivity of pplwho cannot handle the age of new. the halocaust was a terrible time, but is it bad karma that caught up to the jews after commiting bans in the name of their so called “god”? for those who dont kno, a ban is when u massacre, rape, murder and destroy all life in a city. christianity cannot live in this age and should not. my goal is to bring down the church that has killed for ages, but has suffered nothing. jesus was a good man, he had an idea, and went with it. i am a god, or a part of one. lets look back at definition. god is something u go to for help, some aid, some dont, some even hurt, but it has a great deal of impact on peoples lives correct? people in your life, you go to for help, some aid, some dont, some hurt, and they have great deals of impact. alone we r human, but we r the perfect human, and together we r god. this christian god was an idea, ideas are bullet proof, but they are not eternal proof. it has lost all sanctity in my eyes. the people in your life put together are your god, it is right in front of people, just open your eyes, its what i did, its what jesus did. dont try to argue that i dont kno what i am talking about, i have been drilled catholisism, and ive read the entire bible, but just please help yourselves.