Creationist - Evolution Belief spectrum

[knapplc]

1 minute ago, dudeguyy said:

I'd lightly take issue with the shed analogy. I think it's a mostly good one, but a Christian would say God put a damn good shed out back in his image, and we IMMEDIATELY screwed it up. Although the immediacy of the temptation by the serpent means one could be forgiven for thinking it was almost intended that way.

 

The point isn't the shed, the point is that God had no reason to put humans in the shed.  God is omnipotent, and could have put humans anywhere, including where we belong (in heaven with him, because we're his children). Instead, the story goes, we got put in the shed, we *might* get to go to heaven if we're good & eat our vegetables and follow the rules in a book that hasn't changed in 1,700 years, but if we don't then we're damned. 

 

I mean... c'mon.  That's not parenting. At best that's child abandonment (a misdemeanor), and at worst it's child abuse (a felony).  That's not a loving god, that's a made-up story to explain how/why we're here. 

[BigRedBuster]

5 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

The point isn't the shed, the point is that God had no reason to put humans in the shed.  God is omnipotent, and could have put humans anywhere, including where we belong (in heaven with him, because we're his children). Instead, the story goes, we got put in the shed, we *might* get to go to heaven if we're good & eat our vegetables and follow the rules in a book that hasn't changed in 1,700 years, but if we don't then we're damned. 

 

I mean... c'mon.  That's not parenting. At best that's child abandonment (a misdemeanor), and at worst it's child abuse (a felony).  That's not a loving god, that's a made-up story to explain how/why we're here. 

 

I greatly appreciate your post and your perspective.

 

I personally don't agree with the shed analogy.  If we are going to use an analogy like that, I would say God built us a beautiful house to live in.  Our house has amazing ability to have us be comfortable with beautiful scenery.  We continually try to screw it up.  I'm 50 years old.  I would not expect my parents to welcome me back into their home if they had purchased a home for me to live in and I destroyed it.

 

I have not had to go through the sadness of losing a parent yet and I dread the day when I have to.  Sorry for your loss.

Edited January 26, 2018 by BigRedBuster

[knapplc]

For those of you who don't like the shed analogy, where do you think good Christians go when they die?

[BigRedBuster]

2 minutes ago, knapplc said:

For those of you who don't like the shed analogy, where do you think good Christians go when they die?

A place without Trump.

[BIG ERN]

I hate to quote 50 Cent on this topic but...."Sunny days wouldn't be special if it wasn't for rain. Joy wouldn't feel so good if it wasn't for pain." That's how I feel about the shed. There would be absolutely no point if no one could feel the hardships of life. Kids can get in a car accident, get sick, get in a fight, lose a loved one, fail out of school, not make the varsity team, get cheated on, made fun of etc. We send them out there knowing that they will fail, but will not lose sight of what actually matters in life. Not being the cool kid or the one with all the material things, but the one who loves his father and knows he will make it back to that house for those reasons. Knowing that our short time on earth isn't what the big picture is about. God sent his only son to this cruel world as well who was mocked, beaten and crucified. 

[knapplc]

You're thinking about the shed as if it is a necessary reality.  But it isn't - heaven is the real reality, according to the myth, and this is just a temporary place. 

 

You'll be in heaven for all eternity.  Comparatively, your time on Earth is less than a millionth billionth trillionth of an eyeblink.  But the Bible tells you that you can be damned for eternity for the things you do - or even believe/not believe - on Earth.

 

That is not the act of a loving father.  It is the kind of typical fanciful story Bronze Age people told around the campfire to answer questions like, "Why are we here? What is existence?"

 

No loving father would do this to their child.  It is not logical, and the very fact that we exist on Earth obviates the creation myth. 

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, knapplc said:

For those of you who don't like the shed analogy, where do you think good Christians go when they die?

An interesting story that pertains to this.

 

A few years ago, I had a good friend die of ALS.  He was in UNMC on many machines keeping him alive.  His brain still functioned perfectly.  He finally made the decision to allow the doctors to pull the plug.  I had a text conversation with him in his final hours that was an absolutely amazing experience that I will never forget.  We shared tears and laughter and memories of high school.  I told him I loved him and tried to make sure he knew a lot of people felt the same way.

 

I came very close to asking him to somehow let me know what it's like on the other side.  I would have had no problem asking him this...that's the type of relationship we had towards the end and the type of conversation we were having.

 

I finally decided not to say that to him.  Not because of how he would take it.  But....because I'm not sure I was ready for the answer.

 

So...to give a serious answer to your question...I'm going to say the same thing you said earlier about when life begins.  I don't know and I'm perfectly fine saying I don't know what it's like after we die.  Some day, I'll find out and that's soon enough.  But...I also don't have a problem doing what Christ claimed I need to do to live forever with him.  I need to care deeply for people, be kind and live life the way Christ taught me.  Now, that is one hell of a long ways away from where I believe the Christian Church is right now in America and it sounds like you experienced that first hand with your church.

 

So, I continue to try to learn and live life really how Christ wanted.....not necessarily the way Christians in America say I should.

 

If I'm wrong about there being a God or an afterlife......I'm not out anything other than being a caring person to others.  I can live (or die) with that.

Edited January 26, 2018 by BigRedBuster

[TGHusker]

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

An interesting story that pertains to this.

 

A few years ago, I had a good friend die of ALS.  He was in UNMC on many machines keeping him alive.  His brain still functioned perfectly.  He finally made the decision to allow the doctors to pull the plug.  I had a text conversation with him in his final hours that was an absolutely amazing experience that I will never forget.  We shared tears and laughter and memories of high school.  I told him I loved him and tried to make sure he knew a lot of people felt the same way.

 

I came very close to asking him to somehow let me know what it's like on the other side.  I would have had no problem asking him this...that's the type of relationship we had towards the end and the type of conversation we were having.

 

I finally decided not to say that to him.  Not because of how he would take it.  But....because I'm not sure I was ready for the answer.

 

So...to give a serious answer to your question...I'm going to say the same thing you said earlier about UFOs.  I don't know and I'm perfectly fine saying I don't know what it's like after we die.  Some day, I'll find out and that's soon enough.  But...I also don't have a problem doing what Christ claimed I need to do to live forever with him.  I need to care deeply for people, be kind and live life the way Christ taught me.  Now, that is one hell of a long ways away from where I believe the Christian Church is right now in America and it sounds like you experienced that first hand with your church.

 

So, I continue to try to learn and live life really how Christ wanted.....not necessarily the way Christians in America say I should.

 

If I'm wrong about there being a God or an afterlife......I'm not out anything other than being a caring person to others.  I can live (or die) with that.

BRB, your story & especially the bold reminded me of Pascal's Wager.  While it isn't meant to be a scientific or evidence based proof of God's existence, it was meant to answer doubters (like any of us) from a philosophical perspective &  at the lowest common denominator - our own self interest . It also presents an angle from the higher motive of justice as well. 

This article places it in perspective.   As the article states, one's whole faith should be built on the wager but this may be the initial step a person may take.  He also later talks about

what in modern language we would say "fake it until you make it'.  Sometimes all of our reasoning & searching clouds our ability to believe. He says do acts of faith and before long faith in deed will be found.   Interesting concepts. 

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/pascals-wager.htm

The author's mini bio:

Peter Kreeft, Ph.D., is a professor of philosophy at Boston College.  He loves his five grandchildren, four children, one wife, one cat, and one God.  His 75 books:

http://www.peterkreeft.com/books.htm
 

 

This is a part of the article/ summary of the wager. 

Quote

 

Suppose someone terribly precious to you lay dying, and the doctor offered to try a new "miracle drug" that he could not guarantee but that seemed to have a 50-50 chance of saving your beloved friend's life. Would it be reasonable to try it, even if it cost a little money? And suppose it were free—wouldn't it be utterly reasonable to try it and unreasonable not to?

Suppose you hear reports that your house is on fire and your children are inside. You do not know whether the reports are true or false. What is the reasonable thing to do—to ignore them or to take the time to run home or at least phone home just in case the reports are true?

Suppose a winning sweepstakes ticket is worth a million dollars, and there are only two tickets left. You know that one of them is the winning ticket, while the other is worth nothing, and you are allowed to buy only one of the two tickets, at random. Would it be a good investment to spend a dollar on the good chance of winning a million?

No reasonable person can be or ever is in doubt in such cases. But deciding whether to believe in God is a case like these, argues Pascal. It is therefore the height of folly not to "bet" on God, even if you have no certainty, no proof, no guarantee that your bet will win.

Atheism is a terrible bet. It gives you no chance of winning the prize.

To understand Pascal's Wager you have to understand the background of the argument. Pascal lived in a time of great scepticism. Medieval philosophy was dead, and medieval theology was being ignored or sneered at by the new intellectuals of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century. Montaigne, the great sceptical essayist, was the most popular writer of the day. The classic arguments for the existence of God were no longer popularly believed. What could the Christian apologist say to the sceptical mind of this age? Suppose such a typical mind lacked both the gift of faith and the confidence in reason to prove God's existence; could there be a third ladder out of the pit of unbelief into the light of belief?

Pascal's Wager claims to be that third ladder. Pascal well knew that it was a low ladder. If you believe in God only as a bet, that is certainly not a deep, mature, or adequate faith. But it is something, it is a start, it is enough to dam the tide of atheism. The Wager appeals not to a high ideal, like faith, hope, love, or proof, but to a low one: the instinct for self-preservation, the desire to be happy and not unhappy. But on that low natural level, it has tremendous force. Thus Pascal prefaces his argument with the words, "Let us now speak according to our natural lights."

Imagine you are playing a game for two prizes. You wager blue chips to win blue prizes and red chips to win red prizes. The blue chips are your mind, your reason, and the blue prize is the truth about God's existence. The red chips are your will, your desires, and the red prize is heavenly happiness. Everyone wants both prizes, truth and happiness. Now suppose there is no way of calculating how to play the blue chips. Suppose your reason cannot win you the truth. In that case, you can still calculate how to play the red chips. Believe in God not because your reason can prove with certainty that it is true that God exists but because your will seeks happiness, and God is your only chance of attaining happiness eternally.

Pascal says, "Either God is, or he is not. But to which view shall we be inclined? Reason cannot decide this question. [Remember that Pascal's Wager is an argument for sceptics.] Infinite chaos separates us. At the far end of this infinite distance [death] a coin is being spun that will come down heads [God] or tails [no God]. How will you wager?"

We are like ships that need to get home.

The most powerful part of Pascal's argument comes next. It is not his refutation of atheism as a foolish wager (that comes last) but his refutation of agnosticism as impossible. Agnosticism, not-knowing, maintaining a sceptical, uncommitted attitude, seems to be the most reasonable option. The agnostic says, "The right thing is not to wager at all." Pascal replies, "But you must wager. There is no choice. You are already committed [embarked]." We are not outside observers of life, but participants. We are like ships that need to get home, sailing past a port that has signs on it proclaiming that it is our true home and our true happiness. The ships are our own lives and the signs on the port say "God". The agnostic says he will neither put in at that port (believe) nor turn away from it (disbelieve) but stay anchored a reasonable distance away until the weather clears and he can see better whether this is the true port or a fake (for there are a lot of fakes around). Why is this attitude unreasonable, even impossible? Because we are moving. The ship of life is moving along the waters of time, and there comes a point of no return, when our fuel runs out, when it is too late. The Wager works because of the fact of death.

 

 

The article goes on to address atheism after this.

[knapplc]

Pascal, and Dr. Kreeft, argue from the position of a Christian.  Pascale, in particular, supposes that it is the nature of Man to have faith in God, and we are always striving for knowledge of Him, and that we intrinsically understand that our lives will be better if we believe. 

 

The problem with Pascale's wager is that the same argument can be used for any religion.  Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, etc.  A Jew could just as easily say that he loses nothing and potentially gains everything by believing in Yahweh, as might a Muslim say about Allah. 

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

5 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

 

The glaring absence of god in the entirety of my life was an ever-gnawing thing in the back of my mind.  If God was this loving, amazing father, why wasn't he there personally in my life?  Physically, touchable, interactive.  That's what makes a real father.  My dad was that person, modeled that behavior for me, and according to the church he's this fallible sinner while God was this perfect infallible being - but my dad was a WAY better father than God. 

 

So that was always a problem, but like most Christians I just ignored those problems.  When those doubts/questions came up I would come up with any number of excuses. 

 

I was a church leader, I was active in Bible study and in general the prototypical Evangelical guy people talk about so much today. 

 

There were a few things that happened about the time that I stopped claiming to be Christian.  Probably the most important one was an exhaustive, two-year cover-to-cover Bible study I did with some friends.  Every book, every chapter.  I learned so much about the Bible that I didn't know before, that most Christians don't because they never actually read it.  Putting that all into fresh memory, understanding it all, gave me the whole picture that I'd never really had before.

 

Combine that with my fascination for ancient history, and the necessary knowledge of the gods/religions of ancient people, and it became really clear that the Judeo-Christian god myth was no different than any other contemporary god myth from any other people of the time.  Religion today would be no different if any other cult had fallen through time and survived. Christianity's prevalence today is an accident. We could just as easily be worshiping any other near-East god(s) with their own ancient texts, their own creation myth, their own salvation myth, etc. 

 

So Christianity is nothing special compared to any other religion, in the same way that our wives are not special compared to anyone else's wife.  Of course we love our wives dearly and they are tremendously special to us because they are ours, but everyone who has a wife feels that way, and wives are, in a broad sense, no different than any other. 

 

There's also the factor of science explaining non-God reasons for the existence of everything allegedly created by God,

 

All of these things had been bouncing around in my head for decades, but for the most part I ignored them. They were inconvenient truths to the religion I professed.  I ignored them because I didn't want them to be true.  But the more I settled into my adulthood, and the personality trait that appreciates fact-based truths, the less I could ignore those inconvenient truths.

 

So all of that is background to the couple-year stretch that made me confront those things honestly.  In that time my church went through a major upheaval with many people leaving because of lies and manipulations by two different pastors and the synod.  On top of all that, my mother - a devout Christian and a very good and well-respected woman - came down with terminal cancer. 

 

I worked long and hard to do my part to keep the church together.  I spent many weekends at mom's house trying to help out, keep stuff clean, just be with her.  Cook, talk, whatever they needed.  I washed windows and cleaned out their car.  All the while, she's just wasting away.  And that's a tremendous injustice, that a woman who had given so much of her life, foregone so many things she wanted to do so that she could take care of others, and here after all that she's dealt this ridiculous s#!tty hand that means she'll never get to enjoy the fruit of her labors.  It was just asinine. 

 

So in that time of church upheaval and mom's passing, one day I'm standing on my deck watching the sun set.  It was Spring, 2011 I think.  And I'm looking at my back yard and thinking that my shed is just a pit, and I need to clean it up.  Mice were in there, old lawn products that needed to be discarded, just a mess.  And there's this joke my dad used to tell my wife when we were playing cards and she'd set him, that he was going to make her sleep in his shed that night, and it clicked to me that I didn't even want to set foot in my shed because it was so crappy, and there was an analogy there with heaven & earth. 

 

The shed is like earth/human existence.  My house is heaven.  As a father, there's ZERO chance I would ever send my child to that shed.  NONE.  Aside from being dirty, it had wasps and mice.  Gross place. 

 

But if we're to believe the Judeo-Christian god myth, that's exactly what God did.  He created mankind and put them in the shed.  They were ignorant of anything, and right away they mucked it up - because God wasn't there walking beside them.  But no loving father would ever leave their kid in that shed.  *I* would never do that.  It's asinine.  Put your kid in the shed, lock the door, leave a vague easy-to-misinterpret set of stories behind telling the kid how to grow up, and if - IF! - the kid did everything right, they could come back to the house and live with me. 

 

That's such utter balderdash. 

 

My kid lives with me, in my house, and I do everything I can to keep it nice for her.  Already, right there, I'm a better father than "god."  And that can't be - but it's an incontrovertible truth. 

 

And when I stopped ignoring all the doubts, added up all the facts, and for the first time allowed myself to realistically entertain the idea that it just wasn't true.... the whole thing fell apart. 

 

That was, perhaps, the biggest thing.  Before that day, I hadn't given myself permission to truly test whether or not it was all real.  I was loyal to my god, I was afraid of the alternative, I was happy and safe in the belief that someone was out there watching over me.  There were a lot of reasons I didn't give the alternative a real chance before. 

 

So, oddly, that's the short version of it, the version I've shared here before.  Of course there's a lifetime of other factors involved, but this is the Cliff's Notes version. 

 

 

What an honest, insightful and well-written accounting of faith. Thanks for taking the time, Knapp.

[Big Red 40]

4 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

If I'm wrong about there being a God or an afterlife......I'm not out anything other than being a caring person to others.  I can live (or die) with that.

My mother said something like that many times . 

[TGHusker]

1 hour ago, knapplc said:

Pascal, and Dr. Kreeft, argue from the position of a Christian.  Pascale, in particular, supposes that it is the nature of Man to have faith in God, and we are always striving for knowledge of Him, and that we intrinsically understand that our lives will be better if we believe. 

 

The problem with Pascale's wager is that the same argument can be used for any religion.  Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, etc.  A Jew could just as easily say that he loses nothing and potentially gains everything by believing in Yahweh, as might a Muslim say about Allah. 

 

yes, it is a philosophical argument that could be used on about anything - as I mentioned and the author mentioned it doesn't care the weight of evidence (however one chooses to define evidence) behind it.   I'm surprised you didn't mention Flying Spaghetti Meatball religion.

[NM11046]

Ok guys, this is a somewhat simplistic question, but I see the theme in many posts (no matter the religious affiliation of the poster) that one is kind and does good things in their life as it's what christ said to do/bible says etc.  My question is why is it that we need a religious person or book to suggest that we're kind and do good?  

 

Like I said, simplistic but I feel like kindness, respect etc is a basic human trait.  Some are better at it than others, and because of my lack of belief in a god I  have to trust that karma plays out, and that honestly at the end of the day I feel better about myself and my fellow man when I'm being a good person.  I don't think that was motivated by church or religious teachings - it was how I was raised and how I now choose to live.

[Big Red 40]

1 hour ago, knapplc said:

Pascale, in particular, supposes that it is the nature of Man to have faith in God, and we are always striving for knowledge of Him, and that we intrinsically understand that our lives will be better if we believe. 

 

 

 

I’ve always thought the basis of all spiritualism , religion, etc was mans way of trying to answer a couple age old, unanswerable, questions .

What is the meaning of life ? And What happens when we die? 

I believe we weren’t created with the ability to “know” these things,  yet we still have a strong desire to try to answer them . 

 

 

[knapplc]

12 minutes ago, Big Red 40 said:

I’ve always thought the basis of all spiritualism , religion, etc was mans way of trying to answer a couple age old, unanswerable, questions .

What is the meaning of life ? And What happens when we die? 

I believe we weren’t created with the ability to “know” these things,  yet we still have a strong desire to try to answer them . 

 

 

 

I think you're right.  Early man observed things they couldn't understand, but their large brains craved certainty so they made up explanations.  Some things, like lightning, earthquakes, storms - big things that they couldn't control - they made up gods for.