When You're Honest With Yourself:

[Voice_of_Reason_1]

So VoR, what is your better explanation for the existence of the cosmos, life, and the human condition? And how does that better explanation hold up to your standards of proof and truth (which I assume you apply impartially to any explanation, not just to explanations involving God/gods)?

Read “A Brief History of Time” by Stephen Hawking. It provides a much better foundation for why things are the way they are. This is a better explanation, I think, irrelevent as that question is. Just because I can explain the rain that fell upon my crops with God, doesn’t mean that there isn’t some better explanation at hand. We shouldn’t plug God as the answer to any unknown phenomenon simply because we don’t know “a better explanation” or because we are mystified by scientific renditions of our origins.

And, I apologize, but I’m not following: what do you mean when you ask how that explanation holds up against my standards of proof and truth?

 

[Voice_of_Reason_1]

I’ve always been taken by the argument:

You cannot name one, not even one, good thing done in the name of faith that couldn’t have been done by someone with no faith at all. However, you can name all kinds of wicked, evil, terrible things done in the name of the faith that would have never entered the mind of someone with no faith.

Hello, thanks for the quote!
I may have heard this before - why are you taken with that argument?

 

[VociMike]

Read “A Brief History of Time” by Stephen Hawking. It provides a much better foundation for why things are the way they are. This is a better explanation, I think, irrelevent as that question is. Just because I can explain the rain that fell upon my crops with God, doesn’t mean that there isn’t some better explanation at hand. We shouldn’t plug God as the answer to any unknown phenomenon simply because we don’t know “a better explanation” or because we are mystified by scientific renditions of our origins.

I’ve read it, and a great deal of other modern cosmology. But you misunderstand my question. None of the books explain why the laws and initial conditions which describe the birth of the universe existed in the first place. No matter how far back/down you go scientifically, there must come a time when you hit the bedrock of “that’s just the way it is”. That should be clear to anybody who understands the scientific method.

And you say that you think this is an irrelevant question. I say that anybody who is not profoundly interested in why there is something rather than nothing, in why the world is, and is the way it is, is not a very thoughtful human being.

And, I apologize, but I’m not following: what do you mean when you ask how that explanation holds up against my standards of proof and truth?

Given the presumption that you accept that the cosmos exists, you (and any thinking person) are then put in a place where you need to account for that existence. If you reject God as accounting for that existence, then you need to come up with another accounting. If you do not come up with another accounting then you are just replacing faith in God with faith in I-don’t-know-what-it-is-I-just-know-it’s-not-God. So I ask do you have more evidence for that faith?

 

[VociMike]

I’ve always been taken by the argument:

You cannot name one, not even one, good thing done in the name of faith that couldn’t have been done by someone with no faith at all. However, you can name all kinds of wicked, evil, terrible things done in the name of the faith that would have never entered the mind of someone with no faith.

Really, I find that argument to be sophomoric and deceptive. Notice, for instance, the change in language going from the “good” part to the “evil” part. A more honest claim would be e.g.

“You cannot name one, not even one, good thing done in the name of faith that couldn’t have been done by someone with no faith at all. However, you can name all kinds of wicked, evil, terrible things done in the name of the faith that couldn’t have been done by someone with no faith.”

Anybody want to defend that claim?

 

[graceandglory]

When you’re honest with yourself - I mean really, really, honest, - and you think about the capacity for folly in the human mind and the innumerable problems with Christianty (let’s not pretend they’re non-existent; they are blaring), it’s absurd to even imagine the God of the Holy Bible. This is what happened to me. I feel I’ve become an atheist (as recently ago as December 15th). This was my last prayer:

It isn’t a change of rationale or a compelling new proof, a review of historical discrepancies, or the consideration of the nature of tenacity that would completely bankrupt my faith – I know it isn’t – It’s circumstances. I’m well informed that the bible calls for a sorrowful life, a rejection of worldly pleasures and joys; I’m aware that there is great an unforgivable evil in the world, and yet if that evil should rest upon me, God would never again exist in my mind. Faith, however, shouldn’t be circumstantial but cognitive (there are good reasons for believing in a religion, and so on). But a faith which leads to salvation shouldn’t be cognitive either, because there are mental deficients and imbeciles and those simply born with a hard head. And if God has chosen his elect and gives grace to whomever he wills, and destruction to the remainder, who can know or please him? One must accept that their faith is based on unstable tenants, or that they don’t have the cognitive fortitude to know God, or otherwise, are just unworthy of Him. If I participate in one man’s religion, I am doomed to the hellfire of another’s – and if neither cognition nor patronage can save me, in what shall I believe for salvation?
I recognized at once that my faith was neither strong, nor built on strong tenants when I adopted it into my philosophy. My saving grace, so to speak, was in the fact that there are secrets and mysteries and glorious things looming just beneath the cover of medieval literature, and in the hearts and minds of God’s alleged messengers (and what a stronghold that is for people that are content to confirm what they believe in the trite and too-common events of life; what a stronghold it is for those who are unwilling to do the investigation). But what I’ve found is poor reasoning, hatred, condemnation, inconsistencies, variance, atrocities against humanity, and subterfuge. I’ve found hypocrisy and the most unspeakable prescriptions for the treatment and judgement of the world’s sinners. I will believe in all earnestness a God that I know by more than man’s decadent authority, and by reason, if reason is permitted. But reason, if it is from God, I pray, cannot condemn me if it doesn’t also have the capacity to save me.
I’ve tried to repent and forgive, but my remorse has always been for my lack of ability to feel contrite over things which, by their very nature, seem perfectly acceptable. When I first began to believe, I know very well that I needed to. I may never know whether the stronghold was divine or psychological. Now, I don’t want to believe that there is a God or that there isn’t, I just want to know what’s true, whatever the case may be.
If God is listening, He will appreciate that this is the most truthful prayer I’ve ever prayed. Amen.

Faith is a gift of the holy spirit, as well as an act of my free will.

The Evidential Power of Beauty by Fr. Thomas Dubay
amazon.com/Evidential-Power-Beauty-Science-Theology/dp/0898707528

 

[Voice_of_Reason_1]

I’ve read it, and a great deal of other modern cosmology. But you misunderstand my question. None of the books explain why the laws and initial conditions which describe the birth of the universe existed in the first place. No matter how far back/down you go scientifically, there must come a time when you hit the bedrock of “that’s just the way it is”. That should be clear to anybody who understands the scientific method.

And you say that you think this is an irrelevant question. I say that anybody who is not profoundly interested in why there is something rather than nothing, in why the world is, and is the way it is, is not a very thoughtful human being.

Given the presumption that you accept that the cosmos exists, you (and any thinking person) are then put in a place where you need to account for that existence. If you reject God as accounting for that existence, then you need to come up with another accounting. If you do not come up with another accounting then you are just replacing faith in God with faith in I-don’t-know-what-it-is-I-just-know-it’s-not-God. So I ask do you have more evidence for that faith?

I’ve already been on the opposing side of the coin; I’m not threatened or intimidated by accusations of thoughtlessness. The question is irrelevant, not because the answer doesn’t seem important to us, but because lack of a more perspicuous scientific explanation does not necessitate the invention of an imaginary one.

I’ve cited Hawking because he has asserted both that the universe requires no beginning per se (hence the title of the book), and that it is not beyond what is simply natural for matter to come into existence, of its own volition (granted, this is only observed on a micro-level). I understand, it is a poverty of the imagation which makes such scientific findings hard to digest. I also agree, science is very bad and prescribing answers to our “why” questions, but that doesn’t mean that we should simply create an answer where one isn’t. Religion, it seems, is very bad at prescribing answeres to our “why” questions about God’s existence.

Finally, I don’t put faith into what I *don’t *know (you can’t prove the null hypothesis, as you’ve doubless read). I simply reject what is not supported (there is insufficient evidence for God). Faith is a religious term, and doesn’t belong in science. You can either provide evidence for your hypothesis or reject the null (but you can never prove the null hypothesis - that’s the main thing).

 

[VociMike]

I’ve already been on the opposing side of the coin; I’m not threatened or intimidated by accusations of thoughtlessness. The question is irrelevant, not because the answer doesn’t seem important to us, but because lack of a more perspicuous scientific explanation does not necessitate the invention of an imaginary one.

You’ve just made a statement of faith. You have faith that science can supply the one, the only ultimate answer as to why the cosmos is, and why it is the way it is. That is a purely faith-based statement. So apparently you do not reject all faith, just faith in God. You are, of course, allowed to do that, but is it a consistent position?

 

[Voice_of_Reason_1]

You’ve just made a statement of faith. You have faith that science can supply the one, the only ultimate answer as to why the cosmos is, and why it is the way it is. That is a purely faith-based statement. So apparently you do not reject all faith, just faith in God. You are, of course, allowed to do that, but is it a consistent position?

I can observe that science is amenable to the phsyical universe, is testable, and reliable. God is not - or no more than any other phantoms that people have thought up over the centuries. If by faith you mean trust, then you’re right. If by faith you mean belief without proof, then you’re mistaken. Branding my belief in science as faith, in an attempt to put religion and science on equal playing ground, does little or nothing for reasons to believe in God. It’s arguments like this which have lead to by renouncing of the faith, because I see that people have convoluted logical gambits, and not answers.

 

[VociMike]

I can observe that science is amenable to the phsyical universe, is testable, and reliable.

Except when it comes to AGW.

But you’re conflating the how with the why. Let me ask, do you believe there is a fundamental physical law or set of laws from which all other physical laws derive, or are imperfect statements of? Or do you believe there is an infinite regress of physical laws?

 

[Voice_of_Reason_1]

Except when it comes to AGW.

But you’re conflating the how with the why. Let me ask, do you believe there is a fundamental physical law or set of laws from which all other physical laws derive, or are imperfect statements of? Or do you believe there is an infinite regress of physical laws?

I’m not sure; why do you ask?

 

[graceandglory]

I can observe that science is amenable to the phsyical universe, is testable, and reliable. God is not - or no more than any other phantoms that people have thought up over the centuries. If by faith you mean trust, then you’re right. If by faith you mean belief without proof, then you’re mistaken. Branding my belief in science as faith, in an attempt to put religion and science on equal playing ground, does little or nothing for reasons to believe in God. It’s arguments like this which have lead to by renouncing of the faith, because I see that people have convoluted logical gambits, and not answers.

The Evidential Power of Beauty: Science and Theology Meet

by Thomas Dubay

amazon.com/Evidential-Power-Beauty-Science-Theology/dp/0898707528

Also check out his other work: Faith and Certitude
amazon.com/Faith-Certitude-Thomas-Dubay/dp/089870054X/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_10#reader_089870054X

Just read the reviews, I think this would be up your alley.

 

[Voice_of_Reason_1]

I must be frank about the difficulties in which my faith resides. I’m not so much of the mindset that “science trumps God. End of story.” It’s that there doesn’t seem to be sufficient evidence for his existence the way there might be sufficient evidence for scientific findings. It’s a mere juxtoposition. As much as I appreciate the efforts, I’m not interested in whether the two are compatable. I’m sure they can be twisted and wrought to be so; my concern is with the Nature of God, and his impressive elusivity.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I must be frank about the difficulties in which my faith resides. I’m not so much of the mindset that “science trumps God. End of story.” It’s that there doesn’t seem to be sufficient evidence for his existence the way there might be sufficient evidence for scientific findings. It’s a mere juxtoposition. As much as I appreciate the efforts, I’m not interested in whether the two are compatable. I’m sure they can be twisted and wrought to be so; my concern is with the Nature of God, and his impressive elusivity.

Here’s a good atheist conversion story which you might find interesting:

conversiondiary.com/2007/03/like-feeling-heartbeat.html

 

[VociMike]

I’m not sure; why do you ask?

I’m just curious as to what you believe regarding the “core” of science.

Let me ask a different question. Do you believe that science can in principle explain everything? If not, what can it not explain?

I’m also curious about your seeming play of science against God. How would you, for example, finish this statement: Science can in principle say ____ about God.

 

[Voice_of_Reason_1]

Here’s a good atheist conversion story which you might find interesting:

conversiondiary.com/2007/03/like-feeling-heartbeat.html

Hello, thank you for the article! It was interesting; I’m happy that he’s found some solace with regards to his philosophical concerns and in his relationship. A number of problems emerge for me in his telling, however:

*If atheism solved all human woe, then the Soviet Union would have been an empire of joy and dancing bunnies, instead of the land of corpses. *

If we should talk about what, exactly, is produced in Christians or Atheists, we should come to the conclusion that there are very little or no differences between the moral stature and happiness of those who believe in either. This is a terrible reflection.

I would look at the rigorous logic of St. Thomas Aquinas

Rigorous, only by the mores of its time, modern philosophers have critiqued. The central arguments which give way to the rest of the Summa Theologica, for example, are filled with logical fallacies – brilliant, though his reasoning may sometimes be.

*I was also able to perform, for the first time in my life, the act which I had studied philosophy all my life to perform, which is, to put aside all fear of death. *

Well, now we’re getting at a potential motive for the belief, and we didn’t have to look very far beneath the surface.

*Then, just to make sure I was flooded with evidence, I received three visions like Scrooge being visited by three ghosts. *

I find such depictions fantastic in the truest sense of the word. Not only are these visions not described further, but he continues to mystify and stupefy his readers with tall tales of great wonders revealed, as if he had been to the other side and came back fraught with its secrets.

I was not taking any pain-killers, by the way, because I found that prayer could banish pain in moments.

Clearly God has shown astonishing patronage to Mr. Wright where even the most humbled and servile believers are left suffering with their infirmities, as many are who pray.

*The illusionary nature of pain, and the logical impossibility of death, were part of the things I was shown. *

Lucky he, because those are some of the biggest problems in Christianity.

*with apologies to my pagan friends, I see that Christianity is the clearest expression of these themes, and also has a logical and ethical character other religions expressions lack). *

And if he had borne this revelation in the middle east, he would have converted to Islam.

*It is a primary impression coming not through the medium of the senses: an intuitive axiom, like the knowledge of one’s own self-being. *

I have seen this type of floral, ambiguous, non-descriptive speech in most conversion stories, and it rarely does anything to appeal to our ordinary sensibilities. The above quote could be shortened to the expression “I just know, okay?”

*Besides, the atheist non-god is not going to send me to non-hell for my lapse of non-faith if it should turn out that I am mistaken. *

A bit of homage to Pascal’s Wager: unfortunately it doesn’t sound like the kind of certainty that faith truly demands. The story really depicts no more than a mere coincidence with some afterthought about the implications of his surviving. Some people feel so thankful for having survived potential death that they must pay reverence to a higher power. Of course, this rendition is painfully negligent of those who simply die of their infirmities, and certainly in considering that people all over the world convert to their society’s promulgated religion.

 

[Voice_of_Reason_1]

I’m just curious as to what you believe regarding the “core” of science.

Let me ask a different question. Do you believe that science can in principle explain everything? If not, what can it not explain?

I’m also curious about your seeming play of science against God. How would you, for example, finish this statement: Science can in principle say ____ about God.

I think science can give us descriptive information about what exists. It doesn’t prescribe “ought,” as they say, but can explain many of the underlying reasons for why the universe is the way it is.

I would finish the statement: "Sceince can, in principal, say as much about God as it can about ghosts, demons, angels, monsters, and leprechauns, which is nothing.

 

[the_phoenix]

I appreciate your depth, Phoenix. Certainly, I believed God in the past (very recently, although the dissolution of such belief has been long-coming). I used to speak very high praises of Him, follow His decrees, evangelize to others, even pray for miracles and healings.

I understand the necessity of citing God as your source of belief (rather than mere environmental influences), but if you would suffer me to inquire further, I must ask in all curiousity how God imputes to you the belief that you hold in Him? Further, I am curious to know whether God should be blamed for misforune and destitution when no heavenly intercession has taken place, in the same way that we would offer Him praises based on good or fortuitous circumstances? Is it not too convenient that we should have a God in the heavens who can be praised based on subjective good, and an evil god in the fires of hell, whom we can curse for subjective evil? God is the necessary author alone, or the author by one degree removed, for both hardships and glories, either way. I feel, oddly, and endlessly thankful that you have not undergone the misfortunes you otherwise might have, but I am at a failure to find supernatural scholarship behind such events. I know you said these are not the reasons, per se, that you believe in God (perhaps anticipating my rebuttle), but they seem to me, still further, to act as evidence against a God, at least, of equality and non-favouritism.

In any event, forgive me for my haranguing (I haven’t told many people about the switch and I feel I need to put my concerns on the table, if not for any better reason than to understand them myself). I find myself doing to others what I have been to scripture and apologetics and spiritual leaders for some time now: searching them through and through to discover if they have some secret which leads to their serenity. It’s been a futile search though, unfortunately.

I appreciate the prayers, if not for anything more than the sentiment it offers. And if it offers more, thank God.

Firstly, Voice of Reason, please pardon in advance that after tonight I will be travelling out-of-state for Christmas and will not be around to participate further in this thread for awhile. I’ll be sure to check in on my return home.

You say you used to believe in God. In that case, I would like to ask the same question of you in the past tense that you asked of me. How did God impute to you the belief you had in Him? He must have made some impression on you in order for you to ever believe in the first place?

As to whether God should be blamed for misfortune and destitution, I’ve seen some challenging times, and in fact am still doing my best dealing with circumstances. A friend told me the proverbial “It’s okay to get mad at God, He’s big enough to take it.” My feeling at the time based on the circumstances was not to blame God, because it wasn’t His fault. It was my responsibility based on how I chose to live my life, as well as a result of the actions of other people of whom I am not in control and who are responsible for how they live their lives.

The three survival stories I’ve told you are mainly to give you a feel for my belief in Divine Providence rather than to prove it to you in scientific or rational terms … sort of an introduction, like the introduction in your first post, so that we’re not totally complete strangers on the internet.

In fact, in fairness I can point out that in those three times that my life was endangered, I did not pray. The first time, I was too young to consciously be aware of prayer. The second time, I was caught up in the moment with what I was facing and think God instilled in me through the help of my guardian angel a sense of calm, confidence that I would somehow live, and an awareness of how to act in the presence of the dogs that now I look back and wonder how in the world did I know how to handle myself and my body language and voice etc like that … seems to me I was in fact gifted with what I needed at that moment, with an ability that I’m not certain I could repeat. The third time, I was too clueless and in a state of shock to pray. What “scholarship” this seems to teach me is that even when I’m too dumb to look out for myself, God looks out after me.

As for favoritism, you are a different person than I am, with different gifts and different needs. God loves everyone with an infinite love … and knows what is best for each one of us individually. This is where trust comes in. It can be tempting to look over at the next person and think the grass is greener, that they might have it better or easier somehow.

Several years ago I had a friend of mine come tell me to my face that she wished she had my adventurous life. I smiled a bit ironically and volunteered, "Oh? Want to switch lives? I’d love a normal life right about now … " and described what I’d been going through the previous three weeks. At the end I asked again, “Still want to trade lives?” Her answer was a firm NO.

Remembered you today in my Rosary, Voice of Reason, and will continue to pray for you in my travels.

and Merry Christmas!

~~ the phoenix

 

[Voice_of_Reason_1]

Remembered you today in my Rosary, Voice of Reason, and will continue to pray for you in my travels.

and Merry Christmas!

~~ the phoenix

Thank you for the kind sentiments and the all-to-rare charity you’ve offered by your words. Pheonix. Have a Merry Christmas yourself

 

[spiritualunity]

By David Wilkerson
December 28, 1998

As we read the words of David in Psalm 38, we find this godly, righteous man at the end of himself. He was downcast and discouraged, and his struggle had drained him of all strength. Listen to his distraught cry: I am troubled; I am bowed down greatly; I go mourning all the day longI am feeble and sore broken: I have roared by reason of the disquietness of my heartMy heart panteth, my strength faileth me: as for the light of mine eyes, it also is gone from meI, as a deaf man, heard not; and I was as a dumb man that openeth not his mouth. Thus I was as a man that heareth not, and in whose mouth are no reproofs (Psalm 38:6, 8, 10, 13-14). As I read this psalm, I imagine David slumped in despair. Perhaps what troubled him most was that he couldnt understand why he was suddenly cast down so low. This man hungered for the Lord, pouring out his heart daily in prayer. He revered Gods word, writing psalms that extolled his glory. But now, in his depressed state, all he could do was cry, Lord, Im at the end of my rope. And I have no idea why its happening!

Like many discouraged Christians today, David tried to figure out why he felt so empty and broken in spirit. He probably relived every failure, sin and foolish deed in his life. At some point he must have thought, Oh, Lord, have all my reckless acts left me so wounded that Im beyond hope?

Finally, David reasoned that God must have been chastening him. He cried, O Lord, rebuke me not in thy wrath: neither chasten me in thy hot displeasure. For thine arrows stick fast in me, and thy hand presseth me sore. There is no soundness in my flesh because of thine anger; neither is there any rest in my bones because of my sin. For mine iniquities are gone over my head: as an heavy burden they are too heavy for me (verses 1-4).

Let me point out here that David isnt just writing about his own condition in this psalm. Hes describing something that all devoted lovers of Jesus face at some point in their lifetime. Hes talking about being under a demonic attack from a plaguing spirit of discouragement!

This kind of discouraging spirit comes straight from the bowels of hell. And the time comes when every dedicated believer is overwhelmed by this sudden and unexpected experience. No Christian brings it on himself, nor does the Lord send it. Such an attack usually has nothing to do with any specific sin or failing by the believer.

Very simply, the spirit of discouragement is Satans most potent weapon against Gods elect. Most often, he uses it to try to convince us weve brought Gods wrath upon ourselves by not measuring up to his holy standards. But the apostle Paul urges us not fall prey to the devils snare: Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices (2 Corinthians 2:11).

Paul is saying, You have to see your discouragement for what it really is! Its a demonic weapon an arrow that Satan shoots at you from his quiver to get you to doubt yourself. He knows he cant tempt you to turn away from Jesus. So he swamps you with vicious lies to make you think youll never be good enough to serve Christ. He wants to get you so downcast that youll want to throw in the towel!

---

 

[Newbie2]

I haven’t read all the replies, but to the OP:

Personally, I can’t rationalize there NOT being a God.

If you’re pondering cosmic questions, you might perhaps try to figure out when time started, and when it will end. Where is the edge of the Universe…and what’s beyond that?

Why were you created? Why was any of us created?

These are questions, legitimate questions that are difficult to answer with reason alone.

I would urge you to continue to pray, even if you don’t feel that you mean it or if you think it is absurd or a total waste of time.