Richard Dawkins new book "The God delusion" has got a few people talking and got me thinking… Why am I not an atheist?
Given the way that I usually like to logically and rationally approach things I tend think that this would be my default spiritual position about the whole God thing. And this is certainly the conclusion that some of my most rational and logical contemporaries have reached.
Too often I have heard Xns give quite unpersuasive explanations for their belief in God. The Godless geeks site has some great examples these kind of proofs of God many of which are painfully familiar. My favourites being…
So why then am I a God believer?
Firstly, Jesus, who he was and his resurrection. Essentially I am a follower of Christ (hence the term Christian) and he is still the lynch pin of my faith. I kind of subscribe to C.S Lewis's “Liar, Lunatic or Lord” idea. Dawkins tackles this somewhat by suggesting that the Lewis triad is missing the category of "honestly mistaken". A fair comment but I think anything that would be covered in the "lunatic" category which is really the "thinks he's right in making a claim but he isn't right" category cover anything that would be in a “honestly mistaken” category. Dawkins also says that Jesus didn't directly claim to be messiah. He certainly does this very directly in the gospel of John and less directly in the synoptics. However, I can understand why from a historian’s point of view you could validly argue that this was written back into the text. Even if we get rid of John’s gospel to me saying that Jesus did not think he was the messiah is like saying that the skinny black guy with the effeminate voice and one white glove who keeps grabbing his crotch singing "I'm bad" and moon walking doesn't think he's Michael Jackson. Personally I’ve always found the disciples a fairly compelling group of people not only did they make Jesus resurrection the lynch pin of their faith put they were prepared to die for this. In simplest terms I see Jesus as some kind of manifestation of God in human form. Maybe that’s a bit like believing in sugar cane after drinking cola.
Secondly, is my own personal experience. Now I’m prepared to admit that this can be pretty dodgy and Dawkins gives a good example of why this can be very dangerous.
The question I like to ask myself is experience of what? In my experience it is often the one off freaky, miraculous an experience that are most likely to be something else. Wether that’s a miraculous healing or speaking in tongues or whatever. My experience has slower and stronger more like an incoming tide than crashing wave. It is perhaps analogous to Mathematical induction. That's where you assume something to be true and then test it, the more I have tested my assumption the more convinced I have become.
Having said that the more convinced I become the more ridiculous I realise it must seem to logical rational people. So what would I like to say to people like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris? Certainly not the above argument. Id' say something like this...
Sorry.
Given the way that I usually like to logically and rationally approach things I tend think that this would be my default spiritual position about the whole God thing. And this is certainly the conclusion that some of my most rational and logical contemporaries have reached.
Too often I have heard Xns give quite unpersuasive explanations for their belief in God. The Godless geeks site has some great examples these kind of proofs of God many of which are painfully familiar. My favourites being…
So why then am I a God believer?
Firstly, Jesus, who he was and his resurrection. Essentially I am a follower of Christ (hence the term Christian) and he is still the lynch pin of my faith. I kind of subscribe to C.S Lewis's “Liar, Lunatic or Lord” idea. Dawkins tackles this somewhat by suggesting that the Lewis triad is missing the category of "honestly mistaken". A fair comment but I think anything that would be covered in the "lunatic" category which is really the "thinks he's right in making a claim but he isn't right" category cover anything that would be in a “honestly mistaken” category. Dawkins also says that Jesus didn't directly claim to be messiah. He certainly does this very directly in the gospel of John and less directly in the synoptics. However, I can understand why from a historian’s point of view you could validly argue that this was written back into the text. Even if we get rid of John’s gospel to me saying that Jesus did not think he was the messiah is like saying that the skinny black guy with the effeminate voice and one white glove who keeps grabbing his crotch singing "I'm bad" and moon walking doesn't think he's Michael Jackson. Personally I’ve always found the disciples a fairly compelling group of people not only did they make Jesus resurrection the lynch pin of their faith put they were prepared to die for this. In simplest terms I see Jesus as some kind of manifestation of God in human form. Maybe that’s a bit like believing in sugar cane after drinking cola.
Secondly, is my own personal experience. Now I’m prepared to admit that this can be pretty dodgy and Dawkins gives a good example of why this can be very dangerous.
One of the cleverer and more mature of my undergraduate contemporaries, who was deeply religious, went camping in the Scottish isles. In the middle of the night he and his girlfriend were woken in their tent by the voice of the devil - Satan himself; there could be no possible doubt: the voice was in every sense diabolical. My friend would never forget this horrifying experience, and it was one of the factors that later drove him to be ordained. My youthful self was impressed by his story, and I recounted it to a gathering of zoologists relaxing in the Rose and Crown Inn, Oxford. Two of them happened to be experienced ornithologists, and they roared with laughter. 'Manx Shearwater!' they shouted in delighted chorus. One of them added that the diabolical shrieks and cackles of this species have earned it, in various parts of the world and various languages, the local nickname 'Devil Bird'.
The question I like to ask myself is experience of what? In my experience it is often the one off freaky, miraculous an experience that are most likely to be something else. Wether that’s a miraculous healing or speaking in tongues or whatever. My experience has slower and stronger more like an incoming tide than crashing wave. It is perhaps analogous to Mathematical induction. That's where you assume something to be true and then test it, the more I have tested my assumption the more convinced I have become.
Having said that the more convinced I become the more ridiculous I realise it must seem to logical rational people. So what would I like to say to people like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris? Certainly not the above argument. Id' say something like this...
Sorry.
- I'm sorry that when Xns blindly inherited our parents beliefs we cursed you saying that you were poor in spirit.
- I'm sorry that Xns have reviled you and persecuted you and uttered all kinds of evil against you falsely because of God.
- I'm sorry that when you talked about how the earth was flat or how world was made we cursed you, when you were right and with God rather than against.
- I'm sorry that when religious groups were fighting and you spoke against it we said cursed you who were peace makers.
- Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
- Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
- Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
- Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.
Bits of Matthew 5:3-11
2 comments:
From the other side, I've noticed that theists often assume that atheists are atheists because they are angry with religious people, they have been injured by religious people, or because they blame the evils in the world on religion.
In most cases, though, it really is just as simple as the fact that atheists don't believe in God because they see no reason to believe in God. Even if Dawkins, Harris and others have a definite quarrel with religious belief, few of us really have a beef with religious people.
Speaking personally, I do get the sense that my atheism, if I am open about it, offends religious people--and offends them in a way that other theisms do not. It goes much deeper than a mere theological disagreement, I think, because the atheist is calling the very notion of theistic belief into question. I can understand how this would seem affronting to believers, and I can see how there may be negative consequences for an individual who chooses to be open about his nonbelief (perhaps more so in a country like the US than in Australia, however).
Hey Arthur,
Thanks for the comment glad to see your still reading. I agree that any anger at religion or religous people won't naturally lead to athiesm. I wonder if it does reinforce somones decision if all the people taking the opposite point of view are behaving in the way that some Xns do towards athiests.
Post a Comment