Back to Series Index >>
This is part of a series of notes in response to "Why I Became an Atheist" by John W. Loftus
Chapter Seven: The Strange and Superstitious World of the Bible
This chapter was extremely interesting, but also difficult for me. It was not difficult in that it challenged my beliefs (or doubts, for that matter) but that in coming from Catholicism I was just not sure most of the points made were very effective given the fairly "loose" interpretation methods of the CC.
27 July 2010
Why I Became an Atheist | Ch 6
Back to Series Index >>
This is part of a series of notes in response to "Why I Became an Atheist" by John W. Loftus
Chapter Six: The Lessons of Galileo, Science, and Religion
I want to write about this chapter only because in re-skimming, I encountered John's discussion of methodological naturalism and wanted to comment on it. I'm far from being well-versed in epistemological methods but this was my first time seeing this term and thus it was intriguing. As a Catholic I couldn't have told you with the foggiest of words what my "epistemology" was. I didn't know what epistemology was whatsoever.
This is part of a series of notes in response to "Why I Became an Atheist" by John W. Loftus
Chapter Six: The Lessons of Galileo, Science, and Religion
I want to write about this chapter only because in re-skimming, I encountered John's discussion of methodological naturalism and wanted to comment on it. I'm far from being well-versed in epistemological methods but this was my first time seeing this term and thus it was intriguing. As a Catholic I couldn't have told you with the foggiest of words what my "epistemology" was. I didn't know what epistemology was whatsoever.
Why I Became an Atheist | Ch 4
Back to Series Index >>
This is part of a series of notes in response to "Why I Became an Atheist" by John W. Loftus
Chapter Four: The Outsider Test for Faith
I was somewhat amazed when I read of John's original invention (I believe?) called the "Outsider Test of Faith" (OTF). Why? Because when I originally began to doubt and started researching, what immediately came to my mind as one of the surest ways to establish the truth or falsehood of Christianity was to suppose it was false and try to "re-prove" it to myself.
This is part of a series of notes in response to "Why I Became an Atheist" by John W. Loftus
Chapter Four: The Outsider Test for Faith
I was somewhat amazed when I read of John's original invention (I believe?) called the "Outsider Test of Faith" (OTF). Why? Because when I originally began to doubt and started researching, what immediately came to my mind as one of the surest ways to establish the truth or falsehood of Christianity was to suppose it was false and try to "re-prove" it to myself.
Book Series: Why I Became an Atheist | Loftus
In the following series, I'll be posting my notes on Why I Became an Atheist by John W. Loftus. This book is part of the reading I am undertaking in my quest for the truth about god, heavily inspired by the Ultimate Truth-Seeker Challenge (Easy Version) from Common Sense Atheism.
An addendum to seeking truth
As a continuation of some thoughts on the Litany of Gendlin, I have a strong suspicion that fear of being wrong is what keeps most of humanity at odds with one another. Maybe that and love of money and power... and sex... but anyway, just let me run with this for a moment.
Blog tag line (Litany of Gendlin)
Where did I get: "Do not fear the truth, for you are already enduring it"?
It's a modified excerpt from a short piece called the Litany of Gendlin, which I found over at LessWrong Wiki. I'd encountered references to LessWrong before, especially to the post series on How to Actually Change Your Mind, but never really dug around.
It's a modified excerpt from a short piece called the Litany of Gendlin, which I found over at LessWrong Wiki. I'd encountered references to LessWrong before, especially to the post series on How to Actually Change Your Mind, but never really dug around.
26 July 2010
What do I take notes with?
I doubt anyone really thought to ask this question... but perhaps you'd like to know anyway. Several months ago I discovered the best note-taking, todo-managing, variety-of-format-publishing, contact-organizing application in the universe. It's called Org-Mode.
What's So Great About Christianity | Conclusion
Back to Series Index >>
The book definitely improved compared to my initial impressions, but it wasn't extremely helpful from an evidential concrete argument for God's existence or apologetic standpoint. Essentially, he does what he sought out to do: establish "what's so great about Christianity." To him, that seems to lie more in the social benefits, scientific history, decrease in typical horrors attributed to Christianity and increase in those potentially tied to atheism, and the hopes and possibilities Christianity provides such as heaven, hope, purpose, meaning, justice, etc.
Whether these offerings are tangible or not... he does not establish conclusively. His book seems aimed primarily at pragmatic adoption of Christianity as a lifestyle or worldview with the assumption that belief may be willed and simply chosen. I heavily disagree with that assumption and therefore find the invitation to simply adopt a religion as near-impossible.
As I believe I have stated elsewhere, I'm willing to take a hit in the happiness/hope category (if that's even necessary) readily and willingly in exchange for evidence-based beliefs that are objectively established and as sure as one can achieve.
Back to Series Index >>
The book definitely improved compared to my initial impressions, but it wasn't extremely helpful from an evidential concrete argument for God's existence or apologetic standpoint. Essentially, he does what he sought out to do: establish "what's so great about Christianity." To him, that seems to lie more in the social benefits, scientific history, decrease in typical horrors attributed to Christianity and increase in those potentially tied to atheism, and the hopes and possibilities Christianity provides such as heaven, hope, purpose, meaning, justice, etc.
Whether these offerings are tangible or not... he does not establish conclusively. His book seems aimed primarily at pragmatic adoption of Christianity as a lifestyle or worldview with the assumption that belief may be willed and simply chosen. I heavily disagree with that assumption and therefore find the invitation to simply adopt a religion as near-impossible.
As I believe I have stated elsewhere, I'm willing to take a hit in the happiness/hope category (if that's even necessary) readily and willingly in exchange for evidence-based beliefs that are objectively established and as sure as one can achieve.
Back to Series Index >>
What's So Great About Christianity | Ch 26
Back to Series Index >>
This is part of a series of notes in response to "What's So Great About Christianity" by Dinesh D'Souza
Chapter 26 | A Foretaste of Eternity: How Christianity Can Change Your Life
D'Souza concludes with a chapter about the historicity of Jesus, why Christianity makes life better, and a final offer of hope for eternal life. This chapter is essentially his wrapping up point for putting forth that Christianity offers an enchanted worldview in which we play a lead role, the ability to "see deeper realities", comfort, and the possibility of a just world in which all is rewarded or punished in the end.
To Conclusion >>
This is part of a series of notes in response to "What's So Great About Christianity" by Dinesh D'Souza
Chapter 26 | A Foretaste of Eternity: How Christianity Can Change Your Life
D'Souza concludes with a chapter about the historicity of Jesus, why Christianity makes life better, and a final offer of hope for eternal life. This chapter is essentially his wrapping up point for putting forth that Christianity offers an enchanted worldview in which we play a lead role, the ability to "see deeper realities", comfort, and the possibility of a just world in which all is rewarded or punished in the end.
To Conclusion >>
What's So Great About Christianity | Ch 25
Back to Series Index >>
This is part of a series of notes in response to "What's So Great About Christianity" by Dinesh D'Souza
Chapter 25 | Jesus Among Other Gods: The Uniqueness of Christianity
This chapter is essentially about hell and how God sends no one there but atheists, instead, reject God and choose it for themselves. He proposes that it is not about an inability to believe but an unwillingness to believe. I'm not sure how one could establish this point, as one would think the same point could be made about all Gods.
This is part of a series of notes in response to "What's So Great About Christianity" by Dinesh D'Souza
Chapter 25 | Jesus Among Other Gods: The Uniqueness of Christianity
This chapter is essentially about hell and how God sends no one there but atheists, instead, reject God and choose it for themselves. He proposes that it is not about an inability to believe but an unwillingness to believe. I'm not sure how one could establish this point, as one would think the same point could be made about all Gods.
What's So Great About Christianity | Ch 24
Back to Series Index >>
This is part of a series of notes in response to "What's So Great About Christianity" by Dinesh D'Souza
Chapter 24 | The Problem of Evil: Where is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?
This is a chapter of pure speculation. I do admit that it's possible that God has a morally sufficient reason for permitting evil, that some greater good could come from evil, etc. but as D'Souza stated with evidence for consciousness... why believe it until there's any evidence whatsoever to suspect that such reasons really do exist?
This is part of a series of notes in response to "What's So Great About Christianity" by Dinesh D'Souza
Chapter 24 | The Problem of Evil: Where is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?
This is a chapter of pure speculation. I do admit that it's possible that God has a morally sufficient reason for permitting evil, that some greater good could come from evil, etc. but as D'Souza stated with evidence for consciousness... why believe it until there's any evidence whatsoever to suspect that such reasons really do exist?
What's So Great About Christianity | Ch 23
Back to Series Index >>
This is part of a series of notes in response to "What's So Great About Christianity" by Dinesh D'Souza
Chapter 23 | Opiate of the Morally Corrupt: Why Unbelief is So Appealing
Here D'Souza attempts to establish that atheist primarily are atheists because they find the lack of God "convenient" for the immoral lives they want to pursue. I find it difficult to tackle this issue for several reasons.
This is part of a series of notes in response to "What's So Great About Christianity" by Dinesh D'Souza
Chapter 23 | Opiate of the Morally Corrupt: Why Unbelief is So Appealing
Here D'Souza attempts to establish that atheist primarily are atheists because they find the lack of God "convenient" for the immoral lives they want to pursue. I find it difficult to tackle this issue for several reasons.
What's So Great About Christianity | Ch 22
Back to Series Index >>
This is part of a series of notes in response to "What's So Great About Christianity" by Dinesh D'Souza
Chapter 22 | The Imperial "I": When the Self Becomes the Arbiter of Morality
D'Souza presents here an argument that seems to aim at the slippery slope of subjective morality. As I have already stated, moral systems is not my strong point at the present moment and I do agree that allowing everyone to simply decide for him or her self what is right or wrong will not fly. At the highest level, government enforces for the people (or should) what is most beneficial. We have laws against countless things in order to protect the health of society.
This is part of a series of notes in response to "What's So Great About Christianity" by Dinesh D'Souza
Chapter 22 | The Imperial "I": When the Self Becomes the Arbiter of Morality
D'Souza presents here an argument that seems to aim at the slippery slope of subjective morality. As I have already stated, moral systems is not my strong point at the present moment and I do agree that allowing everyone to simply decide for him or her self what is right or wrong will not fly. At the highest level, government enforces for the people (or should) what is most beneficial. We have laws against countless things in order to protect the health of society.
What's So Great About Christianity | Ch 21
Back to Series Index >>
This is part of a series of notes in response to "What's So Great About Christianity" by Dinesh D'Souza
Chapter 21 | The Ghost in the Machine: Why Man Is More Than Matter
D'Souza discusses another concept I find very challenging at this point: the issues with mind-brain monism/dualism, free-will/determinism, etc. I definitely don't understand how consciousness arose or how matter produces the phenomenon of the conscious "I" or decision making faculties. I would suggest that his treatment of the matter seems primarily to follow the format of, "Look at this unexplainable thing. Science can't explain it. Therefore we should stick to the religious definition we have."
This is part of a series of notes in response to "What's So Great About Christianity" by Dinesh D'Souza
Chapter 21 | The Ghost in the Machine: Why Man Is More Than Matter
D'Souza discusses another concept I find very challenging at this point: the issues with mind-brain monism/dualism, free-will/determinism, etc. I definitely don't understand how consciousness arose or how matter produces the phenomenon of the conscious "I" or decision making faculties. I would suggest that his treatment of the matter seems primarily to follow the format of, "Look at this unexplainable thing. Science can't explain it. Therefore we should stick to the religious definition we have."
What's So Great About Christianity | Ch 20
Back to Series Index >>
This is part of a series of notes in response to "What's So Great About Christianity" by Dinesh D'Souza
Chapter 20 | Natural Law and Divine Law: The Objective Foundations of Morality
I will admit that understanding of various moral systems is not a strong point at this particular time. I am definitely perplexed by the competing theories of morality but remain rather ignorant about the strengths and weaknesses of all of them, e.g. divine command theory, relativism, forms of utilitarianism, etc. My primary objection to D'Souza's appeal to our perception of objective moral values existing and having them received from God is that they seem to reduce to a sort of relativism in practice anyway. For example, how is one to actually know what such values are? Various churches seem to interpret them differently and disagree. How can we be sure one or more churches or any church got them right?
This is part of a series of notes in response to "What's So Great About Christianity" by Dinesh D'Souza
Chapter 20 | Natural Law and Divine Law: The Objective Foundations of Morality
I will admit that understanding of various moral systems is not a strong point at this particular time. I am definitely perplexed by the competing theories of morality but remain rather ignorant about the strengths and weaknesses of all of them, e.g. divine command theory, relativism, forms of utilitarianism, etc. My primary objection to D'Souza's appeal to our perception of objective moral values existing and having them received from God is that they seem to reduce to a sort of relativism in practice anyway. For example, how is one to actually know what such values are? Various churches seem to interpret them differently and disagree. How can we be sure one or more churches or any church got them right?
What's So Great About Christianity | Ch 16
Back to Series Index >>
This is part of a series of notes in response to "What's So Great About Christianity" by Dinesh D'Souza
Chapter 16 | In the Belly of the Whale: Why Miracles Are Possible
I did not think much of this chapter. D'Souza spends an entire chapter simply to point out that science cannot be absolutely proven to be true either 1) with infinite repeatability and 2) in any and all times and places. It is not clear to me what the point of this chapter is, though I suspect he's trying to get a foot in the door to make some case based on miracles later on.
This is part of a series of notes in response to "What's So Great About Christianity" by Dinesh D'Souza
Chapter 16 | In the Belly of the Whale: Why Miracles Are Possible
I did not think much of this chapter. D'Souza spends an entire chapter simply to point out that science cannot be absolutely proven to be true either 1) with infinite repeatability and 2) in any and all times and places. It is not clear to me what the point of this chapter is, though I suspect he's trying to get a foot in the door to make some case based on miracles later on.
What's So Great About Christianity | Ch 17
Back to Series Index >>
This is part of a series of notes in response to "What's So Great About Christianity" by Dinesh D'Souza
Chapter 17 | A Skeptic's Wager: Pascal and the Reasonableness of Faith
D'Souza continues in the same vein as the previous chapter, reiterating the limits of science and stating that faith allows one to transcend those limits to know things about the "outer realm." I still fail to see how one can place any reliability in truths attained by faith. If, by definition, science and reason cannot attain any truths outside of their respective domains... what is the domain of faith? Anything that is unsupported by evidence?
This is part of a series of notes in response to "What's So Great About Christianity" by Dinesh D'Souza
Chapter 17 | A Skeptic's Wager: Pascal and the Reasonableness of Faith
D'Souza continues in the same vein as the previous chapter, reiterating the limits of science and stating that faith allows one to transcend those limits to know things about the "outer realm." I still fail to see how one can place any reliability in truths attained by faith. If, by definition, science and reason cannot attain any truths outside of their respective domains... what is the domain of faith? Anything that is unsupported by evidence?
What's So Great About Christianity | Ch 15
Back to Series Index >>
This is part of a series of notes in response to "What's So Great About Christianity" by Dinesh D'Souza
Chapter 15 | The World Beyond Our Senses: Kant and the Limits of Reason
This chapter took an incredibly long time for an extremely brief point that doesn't even seem to follow from the Kantian ideas presented as evidence. D'Souza spends literally ten of his eleven pages discussion essentially one Kantian principle: we can't verify that our senses are recreating reality as reality really is.
This is part of a series of notes in response to "What's So Great About Christianity" by Dinesh D'Souza
Chapter 15 | The World Beyond Our Senses: Kant and the Limits of Reason
This chapter took an incredibly long time for an extremely brief point that doesn't even seem to follow from the Kantian ideas presented as evidence. D'Souza spends literally ten of his eleven pages discussion essentially one Kantian principle: we can't verify that our senses are recreating reality as reality really is.
What's So Great About Christianity | Ch 14
Back to Series Index >>
This is part of a series of notes in response to "What's So Great About Christianity" by Dinesh D'Souza
Chapter 14 | The Genesis Problem: The Methodological Atheism of Science
D'Souza seems to want to show that scientists are often dogmatic in their trust of science and naturalism. He opens up with a claim that scientists can often be shown to support hypotheses despite weak evidence or support hypotheses even despite evidence against it.
This is part of a series of notes in response to "What's So Great About Christianity" by Dinesh D'Souza
Chapter 14 | The Genesis Problem: The Methodological Atheism of Science
D'Souza seems to want to show that scientists are often dogmatic in their trust of science and naturalism. He opens up with a claim that scientists can often be shown to support hypotheses despite weak evidence or support hypotheses even despite evidence against it.
What's So Great About Christianity | Ch 13
Back to Series Index >>
This is part of a series of notes in response to "What's So Great About Christianity" by Dinesh D'Souza
Chapter 13 | Paley Was Right: Evolution and the Argument from Design
D'Souza makes some good points in this chapter. He focuses mainly on two key points: evolution is true indeed (and refutes ID) but it doesn't' form an adequate explanation for the origins of life, consciousness, or morality/rationality.
This is part of a series of notes in response to "What's So Great About Christianity" by Dinesh D'Souza
Chapter 13 | Paley Was Right: Evolution and the Argument from Design
D'Souza makes some good points in this chapter. He focuses mainly on two key points: evolution is true indeed (and refutes ID) but it doesn't' form an adequate explanation for the origins of life, consciousness, or morality/rationality.
What's So Great About Christianity | Ch 12
Back to Series Index >>
This is part of a series of notes in response to "What's So Great About Christianity" by Dinesh D'Souza
Chapter 12 | A Designer Planet: Man's Special Place in Creation
D'Souza summarizes the "Goldilocks Argument" here which states that the evidence for 'fine-tuning' of the universe for the existence of life is too great to pass off as mere chance. I think this argument is very similar to the argument from a rationally operating universe.
This is part of a series of notes in response to "What's So Great About Christianity" by Dinesh D'Souza
Chapter 12 | A Designer Planet: Man's Special Place in Creation
D'Souza summarizes the "Goldilocks Argument" here which states that the evidence for 'fine-tuning' of the universe for the existence of life is too great to pass off as mere chance. I think this argument is very similar to the argument from a rationally operating universe.
Truth-Seeker Challenge
What began as a decision to attempt Luke Muehlhauser's Ultimate Truth Seeker Challenge (Easy Version) has turned into more of a simple reading list. I was originally determined to attempt to read each of his suggested eight books (four apologetic and four skeptical) in an attempt to be more objective in my search. The longer I persisted in both paper and online settings, the more and more familiar I grew with the world of apologetics. I hope those who have also delved into this arena will relate when I say that I rarely saw anything new -- from myself or others. You begin to know the arguments and angles: cosomological, fine-tuning, morality, evil, deductive, historical, scriptural, and so on. You know how they have been advanced, and by whom, and what rebuttals exist.
I grew weary of my quest. I have come to see my non-belief as simply where the current lay of the land has led me. I find it as perplexing as any that two individuals can look at the same data (arguments, evidence, ideas, scientific findings) and come to such radically different conclusions. I really have no explanation except that belief is far more of a complicated phenomenon than many wish it to be. My current stance is that "belief" is simply a name for the resultant output of genetics, background knowledge/experience, observed data, mental processing, biases, and more. It is a state and not a choice.
It is unclear what would change my mind moving forward. Since I have so many questions and objections, and since they all have to be wrong if Christian theism is true, I see little hope in ever finding Christianity believable. As this is the case after spending a massive amount of time and energy on this subject since December 2009, I have been leaning more and more toward just getting on with my life and more interesting things: physics, probability theory, human irrationality and what to do about it, and personal improvement. If god exists, he knows what my threshold is for belief and can provide that information or experience.
I was able to meet up with Luke Muehlhauser of CommonSenseAtheism, the author of the Truth-Seeker Challenge, and shared my thoughts on shifting my attention to more fruitful things and he even discouraged me from tackling this any longer! I've still found it hard to just walk away, so don't be surprised if I end up poking around theology land anyway...
Current List/Progress:
- God Delusion | Richard Dawkins (Skeptical)
--- Finished Feb 2010 | Comments >>
- Why I Became an Atheist | John Loftus (Skeptical)
--- Finished Mar 2010 | Comments >>
- What's So Great About Christianity | Dinesh D'Souza (Apologetic)
--- Finished Jun 2010 | Comments >>
- Faith and Certitude | Thomas Dubay (Apologetic)
--- Finished Jul 2010 | Comments >>
- The Agnostic Inquirer | Menssen & Sullivan (Apologetic)
--- Finished Sep 2011 | Comments >>
- Letters to a Doubting Thomas | C. Stephen Layman (Apologetic)
--- Finished Oct 2011 | Comments >>
- The Christian Delusion | John W. Loftus et al. (Skeptical)
--- In progress
Books on my leisurely agenda
- Sense and Goodness Without God | Richard Carrier (Skeptical)
- Not the Impossible Faith | Richard Carrier (Skeptical)
- 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God | Guy P. Harrison (Skeptical)
- Atheism Advanced | David Eller (Skeptical)
- Jesus, Interrupted | Bart Ehrman (Skeptical)
- Epistemology | Richard Feldman (Apologetic/Neutral?)
- The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave | ed. Robert M. Price & Jeffrey Jay Lowder (Skeptical)
- Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe | Erik Wielenberg (Skeptical)
- Natural Atheism | David Eller (Skeptical)
- A History of God | Karen Armstrong (Skeptical)
- UFOs, Ghosts, and a Rising God | Chris Hallquist (Skeptical)
- Epistemology and the Psychology of Human Judgment | Bishop & Trout (Skeptical/Neutral?)
- Good and Real | Gary Drescher (Skeptical)
- Contending with Christianity's Critics | Paul Copan et al. (Apologetic)
- Handbook of Christian Apologetics | Peter Kreeft & Ronald Tacelli (Apologetic)
- Is there a God? | Richard Swinburne (Apologetic)
- Why Religion is Natural and Science is Not | Robert McCauley (Neutral?)
- Doubting Jesus' Resurrection | Kris Komarnitsky (Skeptical)
- The Righteous Mind | Jonathan Haidt (Neutral)
- The New Revelations: A Conversation with God | Neale Donald Walsch
- Full Catastrophe Living | John Kabat-Zinn
I grew weary of my quest. I have come to see my non-belief as simply where the current lay of the land has led me. I find it as perplexing as any that two individuals can look at the same data (arguments, evidence, ideas, scientific findings) and come to such radically different conclusions. I really have no explanation except that belief is far more of a complicated phenomenon than many wish it to be. My current stance is that "belief" is simply a name for the resultant output of genetics, background knowledge/experience, observed data, mental processing, biases, and more. It is a state and not a choice.
It is unclear what would change my mind moving forward. Since I have so many questions and objections, and since they all have to be wrong if Christian theism is true, I see little hope in ever finding Christianity believable. As this is the case after spending a massive amount of time and energy on this subject since December 2009, I have been leaning more and more toward just getting on with my life and more interesting things: physics, probability theory, human irrationality and what to do about it, and personal improvement. If god exists, he knows what my threshold is for belief and can provide that information or experience.
I was able to meet up with Luke Muehlhauser of CommonSenseAtheism, the author of the Truth-Seeker Challenge, and shared my thoughts on shifting my attention to more fruitful things and he even discouraged me from tackling this any longer! I've still found it hard to just walk away, so don't be surprised if I end up poking around theology land anyway...
Current List/Progress:
- God Delusion | Richard Dawkins (Skeptical)
--- Finished Feb 2010 | Comments >>
- Why I Became an Atheist | John Loftus (Skeptical)
--- Finished Mar 2010 | Comments >>
- What's So Great About Christianity | Dinesh D'Souza (Apologetic)
--- Finished Jun 2010 | Comments >>
- Faith and Certitude | Thomas Dubay (Apologetic)
--- Finished Jul 2010 | Comments >>
- The Agnostic Inquirer | Menssen & Sullivan (Apologetic)
--- Finished Sep 2011 | Comments >>
- Letters to a Doubting Thomas | C. Stephen Layman (Apologetic)
--- Finished Oct 2011 | Comments >>
- The Christian Delusion | John W. Loftus et al. (Skeptical)
--- In progress
Books on my leisurely agenda
- Sense and Goodness Without God | Richard Carrier (Skeptical)
- Not the Impossible Faith | Richard Carrier (Skeptical)
- 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God | Guy P. Harrison (Skeptical)
- Atheism Advanced | David Eller (Skeptical)
- Jesus, Interrupted | Bart Ehrman (Skeptical)
- Epistemology | Richard Feldman (Apologetic/Neutral?)
- The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave | ed. Robert M. Price & Jeffrey Jay Lowder (Skeptical)
- Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe | Erik Wielenberg (Skeptical)
- Natural Atheism | David Eller (Skeptical)
- A History of God | Karen Armstrong (Skeptical)
- UFOs, Ghosts, and a Rising God | Chris Hallquist (Skeptical)
- Epistemology and the Psychology of Human Judgment | Bishop & Trout (Skeptical/Neutral?)
- Good and Real | Gary Drescher (Skeptical)
- Contending with Christianity's Critics | Paul Copan et al. (Apologetic)
- Handbook of Christian Apologetics | Peter Kreeft & Ronald Tacelli (Apologetic)
- Is there a God? | Richard Swinburne (Apologetic)
- Why Religion is Natural and Science is Not | Robert McCauley (Neutral?)
- Doubting Jesus' Resurrection | Kris Komarnitsky (Skeptical)
- The Righteous Mind | Jonathan Haidt (Neutral)
- The New Revelations: A Conversation with God | Neale Donald Walsch
- Full Catastrophe Living | John Kabat-Zinn
23 July 2010
The Quest
I began to doubt god's existence around Christmas 2009 when I was struck with a simple thought: I wonder if anyone besides the gospel writers wrote about Jesus?
I simply googled it and read. I was honestly shocked. I don't recall which websites came up first, but some mentioned sources in a positive light (supporting Jesus being who the gospels portray him as) and others in a negative one. What struck me was that even granting that at least some did write about him, I found two radically different portraits.
On the one hand, from the gospels, I had a man whose "fame spread" throughout many lands and to many ears (Mk. 1:28, Mk. 1:45, Mt. 4:24, Mt. 9:26, Mt. 9:31, Mt. 14:1 to name only a handful), who ministered publicly for 1-3 years (synoptics vs. John), who conducted many amazing miracles (healing of blindness, leprosy, raising several from the dead, walking on water, controlling nature), and spoke words which many thought of as simply incredible.
On the other hand, only a few contemporaries felt the need to write anything about Jesus and all that made the cut was essentially that he lived and had followers? There is much debate about Josephus; surely he confirms Jesus' existence but it is anything but resolved as to whether he held that Jesus might not have been a man, did marvels, and was "the Christ."
In any case, this troubled me deeply. I felt physically nauseous for my first days of doubt. I didn't know how to tell my wife or anyone else. I finally did and was not received warmly. See, when doubt ensued, I decided to plunge head first into research and study to establish whether god existed or not. As with any other research endeavor I have undertaken, I try to suspend preconceived notions and establish the truest opinion I can form based on evidence; I try to avoid personal preference or group consensus as swaying inputs.
My initial thoughts when pursuing this question were:
1) The best way to decide if Christianity is true is to assume that it is false and try to prove it to myself
2) If god is the author of all truth, I cannot end up anywhere but back at him in this quest
3) God would not be disappointed in me for pursuing the truth and should I establish that Christianity is true, I will be a stronger believer and evangelist than ever
A note on #3. In looking back over my life, it became very obvious to me that I had avoided evangelizing the "un-evangelized." When working for a Christian missionary group in college, our goal was to evangelize. Never had I felt comfortable trying to do so with those who did not already identify themselves as some form of Christian, even if they were not being very good ones. If someone was a Christian, it was a lot easier to invite them to a talk or prayer group; if someone was not a Christian, I had always felt at a loss to establish persuasively why they should be Christian and not what they already were... and so I never trod on that ground.
Once I realized this, I decided I never wanted to have unfounded beliefs again. I wanted to know why I believed what I believed. I wanted to believe in whatever was the surest form of reality that could be established by evidence. I wanted whatever I believed in to be objectively and externally available to anyone else who wanted to see or experience the source of my evidence.
Thus, my quest began. I have read and read, listened to countless debates and interviews, and I became fairly involved in the blogosphere. I have set a deadline of Christmas 2010 for my decision. I will read and ponder and receive prayers and try to even pray myself in an attempt to come to a clear decision.
As of July 2010 I have no intellectual belief in god anymore. Emotionally I feel the obligation to continue reading in order to give Christian apologetics a chance and see if there is any hope for reconciling my questions and doubts. I remain unsure of how to proceed as I feel that my options are between leaving Christianity or swallowing a massive horse pill of possible solutions without any evidence. This seems like an extremely difficult position to be in. God could, after all, be true... but the way in which I was made (a critical, doubting, skeptical, studying, researching individual) is asking quite a lot when it comes to belief literally without any supporting evidence but a text (which is a source of doubt in the first place).
I have decided to undertake the Ultimate Truth-Seeker Challenge (Easy Version) as part of my activity in the next months[1]. I'm not sure what else I will attempt. Coming from Catholicism, it has occurred to me to "go out with a bang" and attend confession, begin attending Mass again for the last x months, trying to pray every morning, or something like this to see if anything happens.
At present, the best prayer that has come to my lips is, "Jesus, give me something I can't deny". I believe this is extremely accurate and to the point. God knows me better than I know myself. Thus he knows what my genes, past experiences, and environment has formed me to be at present. He simply has to provide me with enough to convince me of his existence and I will believe.
It's that simple.
[1] My progress and notes to the books I read may be found at my Truth-Seeker Challenge summary page.
I simply googled it and read. I was honestly shocked. I don't recall which websites came up first, but some mentioned sources in a positive light (supporting Jesus being who the gospels portray him as) and others in a negative one. What struck me was that even granting that at least some did write about him, I found two radically different portraits.
On the one hand, from the gospels, I had a man whose "fame spread" throughout many lands and to many ears (Mk. 1:28, Mk. 1:45, Mt. 4:24, Mt. 9:26, Mt. 9:31, Mt. 14:1 to name only a handful), who ministered publicly for 1-3 years (synoptics vs. John), who conducted many amazing miracles (healing of blindness, leprosy, raising several from the dead, walking on water, controlling nature), and spoke words which many thought of as simply incredible.
On the other hand, only a few contemporaries felt the need to write anything about Jesus and all that made the cut was essentially that he lived and had followers? There is much debate about Josephus; surely he confirms Jesus' existence but it is anything but resolved as to whether he held that Jesus might not have been a man, did marvels, and was "the Christ."
In any case, this troubled me deeply. I felt physically nauseous for my first days of doubt. I didn't know how to tell my wife or anyone else. I finally did and was not received warmly. See, when doubt ensued, I decided to plunge head first into research and study to establish whether god existed or not. As with any other research endeavor I have undertaken, I try to suspend preconceived notions and establish the truest opinion I can form based on evidence; I try to avoid personal preference or group consensus as swaying inputs.
My initial thoughts when pursuing this question were:
1) The best way to decide if Christianity is true is to assume that it is false and try to prove it to myself
2) If god is the author of all truth, I cannot end up anywhere but back at him in this quest
3) God would not be disappointed in me for pursuing the truth and should I establish that Christianity is true, I will be a stronger believer and evangelist than ever
A note on #3. In looking back over my life, it became very obvious to me that I had avoided evangelizing the "un-evangelized." When working for a Christian missionary group in college, our goal was to evangelize. Never had I felt comfortable trying to do so with those who did not already identify themselves as some form of Christian, even if they were not being very good ones. If someone was a Christian, it was a lot easier to invite them to a talk or prayer group; if someone was not a Christian, I had always felt at a loss to establish persuasively why they should be Christian and not what they already were... and so I never trod on that ground.
Once I realized this, I decided I never wanted to have unfounded beliefs again. I wanted to know why I believed what I believed. I wanted to believe in whatever was the surest form of reality that could be established by evidence. I wanted whatever I believed in to be objectively and externally available to anyone else who wanted to see or experience the source of my evidence.
Thus, my quest began. I have read and read, listened to countless debates and interviews, and I became fairly involved in the blogosphere. I have set a deadline of Christmas 2010 for my decision. I will read and ponder and receive prayers and try to even pray myself in an attempt to come to a clear decision.
As of July 2010 I have no intellectual belief in god anymore. Emotionally I feel the obligation to continue reading in order to give Christian apologetics a chance and see if there is any hope for reconciling my questions and doubts. I remain unsure of how to proceed as I feel that my options are between leaving Christianity or swallowing a massive horse pill of possible solutions without any evidence. This seems like an extremely difficult position to be in. God could, after all, be true... but the way in which I was made (a critical, doubting, skeptical, studying, researching individual) is asking quite a lot when it comes to belief literally without any supporting evidence but a text (which is a source of doubt in the first place).
I have decided to undertake the Ultimate Truth-Seeker Challenge (Easy Version) as part of my activity in the next months[1]. I'm not sure what else I will attempt. Coming from Catholicism, it has occurred to me to "go out with a bang" and attend confession, begin attending Mass again for the last x months, trying to pray every morning, or something like this to see if anything happens.
At present, the best prayer that has come to my lips is, "Jesus, give me something I can't deny". I believe this is extremely accurate and to the point. God knows me better than I know myself. Thus he knows what my genes, past experiences, and environment has formed me to be at present. He simply has to provide me with enough to convince me of his existence and I will believe.
It's that simple.
[1] My progress and notes to the books I read may be found at my Truth-Seeker Challenge summary page.
What's So Great About Christianity | Ch 11
Back to Series Index >>
This is part of a series of notes in response to "What's So Great About Christianity" by Dinesh D'Souza
Chapter 11 | A Universe with a Beginning: God and the Astronomoers
D'Souza covers the big bang and, essentially, the Kalam Cosmological Argument here. This, like chapter nine, seems like an "I just don't know" kind of an issue. I submit to the best evidence which seems to indicate that all time, space, and matter had a beginning. To step further and assert that this beginning was a personal disembodied mind that is creative and all-powerful seems like a bit of a leap.
This is part of a series of notes in response to "What's So Great About Christianity" by Dinesh D'Souza
Chapter 11 | A Universe with a Beginning: God and the Astronomoers
D'Souza covers the big bang and, essentially, the Kalam Cosmological Argument here. This, like chapter nine, seems like an "I just don't know" kind of an issue. I submit to the best evidence which seems to indicate that all time, space, and matter had a beginning. To step further and assert that this beginning was a personal disembodied mind that is creative and all-powerful seems like a bit of a leap.
What's So Great About Christianity | Ch 9
Back to Series Index >>
This is part of a series of notes in response to "What's So Great About Christianity" by Dinesh D'Souza
Chapter 9 | From Logos to Cosmos: Christianity and the Invention of Invention
This chapter deals primarily with scientists requiring a sort of faith that the universe is rational. We operate expecting that our discovered and observed physical laws will remain intact not only tomorrow and the next day and so on, but also in all times and places outside of our observable domain (e.g. on other planets and in locations light years away).
This is part of a series of notes in response to "What's So Great About Christianity" by Dinesh D'Souza
Chapter 9 | From Logos to Cosmos: Christianity and the Invention of Invention
This chapter deals primarily with scientists requiring a sort of faith that the universe is rational. We operate expecting that our discovered and observed physical laws will remain intact not only tomorrow and the next day and so on, but also in all times and places outside of our observable domain (e.g. on other planets and in locations light years away).
Book Series: What's So Great About Christianity | D'Souza
In the following series, I'll be posting my notes on selected chapters of What's So Great About Christianity by Dinesh D'Souza. This book is part of the reading I am undertaking in my quest for the truth about god, heavily inspired by the Ultimate Truth-Seeker Challenge (Easy Version) from Common Sense Atheism.
Rationality in religion vs. everywhere else
I submitted this post to John Loftus of Debunking Christianity and he posted it. I thought I'd re-produce it here for posterity/backup's sake. Find it on his blog HERE.
---
Background
I've been an faithful, fully-believing, daily-praying, personal-relationship-having Catholic for about 7 years. This past Christmas, out of the blue, I wondered if anyone wrote about Jesus other than the gospels. Doing what I always do, I googled it. I was not happy. I don't want to get into this, but suffice it to say that even if there are some who mention Jesus by name and refer to followers who thought reported to have seen him after death, I was still left with an immense chasm. The gospels told me about a verbally prolific man who traveled the country side for 1-3 years, healed sickness/blindness/demonic possessions, that news spread of him throughout the land, and that in the end he caused a heck of a commotion and died on a cross. On the other hand, I have reports of a man named Jesus and verification that he had posthumous followers. No reference to any miracles, confirmation of his brilliantly wisdom-filled parables and teachings or other facts about his life? It was enough to plant significant seeds of doubt.
---
Background
I've been an faithful, fully-believing, daily-praying, personal-relationship-having Catholic for about 7 years. This past Christmas, out of the blue, I wondered if anyone wrote about Jesus other than the gospels. Doing what I always do, I googled it. I was not happy. I don't want to get into this, but suffice it to say that even if there are some who mention Jesus by name and refer to followers who thought reported to have seen him after death, I was still left with an immense chasm. The gospels told me about a verbally prolific man who traveled the country side for 1-3 years, healed sickness/blindness/demonic possessions, that news spread of him throughout the land, and that in the end he caused a heck of a commotion and died on a cross. On the other hand, I have reports of a man named Jesus and verification that he had posthumous followers. No reference to any miracles, confirmation of his brilliantly wisdom-filled parables and teachings or other facts about his life? It was enough to plant significant seeds of doubt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)