Over the years, I have been threatened with Hell and eternal punishment by countless Evangelicals. Yesterday, a Christian reader named JT left the following comment. All spelling and grammar in the original.My response follows.
I don’t know if you been asked this, but when you die, what are you going to do if you end up in hell?
I have been asked this question numerous times. Threats of judgment and Hell are common from Evangelical readers.
I have no fear about ending up in Hell after I die. None whatsoever. Hell is a religious construct used by clerics to cause fear and elicit obedience. Remove fear of Hell from the equation, and churches would empty overnight. Without threats of Hell, offering plates would be empty and preachers unemployed. Can’t have that, so threats such as yours continue unabated.
I’ve seen no evidence for the existence of Hell. Further, the Hell JT speaks of is not taught in Scripture. A good book on this subject is Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife by Dr. Bart Ehrman. Ehrman’s book shows that what we were taught in Evangelical churches about the afterlife is untrue.
I know you don’t believe in it, it’s your free will to believe in whatever. But my question is, what IF you find out that hell was real?
I don’t believe in the existence of Hell. I have not seen one iota of evidence for its existence. If you want me to believe Hell is real, you are going to have to do more than quote proof texts or make bald assertions. Surely, you don’t believe without sufficient evidence. Just because a preacher reads a few Bible verses out of context about Hell and tells a few sermon illustrations about people who died and went to Hell doesn’t mean it exists. Preachers can and do lie, even if they do so unintentionally. I preached scores of sermons on Hell, yet I never looked at the original Hebrew and Greek behind the English words for Hell in the King James Version of the Bible. I never read any of the history behind the evolution of Hell. I took what the Bible said and what my pastors and professors said about Hell at face value. Surely they wouldn’t lie to me, right? Maybe, but they may have been products of the same indoctrination and conditioning as I was. Generation after generation is taught about the existence of Hell and the eternal damnation and suffering that awaits non-Christians after death. Not one pastor or professor, to quote Paul Harvey, told me the rest of the story. Their goal was the reinforcement of fundamentalist dogma, not knowledge about what the Bible teaches about Hell and the history surrounding the notion of eternal punishment and suffering for everyone who is not a Christian.
And I know what is gonna play in your head, all the people you got to turn from Christianity to Atheism… How do you think you will feel about that knowing you had everything when you were a preacher but only to find out you were wrong and you have led 100s if not 1000s of people away from something that indeed was true?
I am just one man with a story to tell. I am not an evangelist for atheism. I couldn’t care less whether someone deconverts. All I know to do is tell my story and provide an honest, thoughtful critique of Evangelical Christianity. If people deconvert after reading my writing, that’s on them, not me. I don’t pressure people to deconvert. No high-pressure soulwinning tactics. No altar calls.
Have people deconverted as a result of my writing? Sure. I have heard from scores of people who told me my work was instrumental in their loss of faith, including pastors, evangelists, youth workers, missionaries, and college professors. I am humbled that people find my writing helpful. If Christian apologists don’t like my writing, they are free to rebut and challenge me. Produce a podcast, start a blog, preach sermons, etc. I offer a standing invitation to Evangelicals (Muslims, Catholics, Mormons too) to write a guest post rebutting my writing. No editing, no strings attached. I’ve been blogging for seventeen years. I can count on one hand the Christians who have taken me up on this offer. Instead, most of my critics foam at the mouth and rage against me on social media, on their blogs/podcasts, and in their Sunday sermons. I have even offered to debate them publicly. No one has taken me up on the debate offer. Take Dr. David Tee, whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiesen. Thiessen is a college-trained Evangelical preacher. He has written thousands of words attacking me personally or a particular subject I’ve written about on this site. I have challenged him to a public debate several times, without success. What is he so afraid of? I’ve even given him the opportunity to author guest posts for this site, which he did one time before bitching, moaning, and complaining about me changing his writing. I did no such thing, but ever the martyr, he thinks otherwise. Thiessen knows that he is free to respond to anything I have written on this site. Other critics know the same.
Just think about it. I’m not one of those judgemental Christians,
LOL! You threaten me with Hell, and then, with a straight face, you say you are NOT “one of those Christians.” Sure JT, sure.
I believe in God because of my death experience, the things that God has truly shown me… You could never change my mind about what I believe in and I’m sure that I can’t change you back to believing in Jesus.
How do you KNOW your peculiar God did anything for you? Outside of your feelings, what empirical evidence do you have for the existence of your God, and it was he alone who “showed” things to you? I am more than happy to have a discussion with you about the existence of the Christian God.
Unlike you. I am open to being persuaded that God exists. So far, no Christian has successfully persuaded me that their God exists and is personally involved in their lives. but I am not closed-minded. If you think you can prove to me the existence of your God, please do so. There are others on this site who would love to see your evidence for God, too. I’m an agnostic atheist, not an anti-theist. I’m open to persuasion, JT, so bring it on. Keep in mind, I have already heard virtually every defense of the one true faith, so you will need a new argument of some sort to persuade me.
God would have to make that happen..
Then my salvation is up to God, right? If I die and go to Hell, it’s God’s fault, right? God knows where I live. He knows my phone number and email address. He could even write a guest post for me. So far, God is silent. He’s not uttered one word to me outside of apologists who claim to speak for him. If God exists, the salvation of my soul is up to him, not me.
I think one day you may come back as God has not yet taken you out of this world yet… I think he has something up his sleeve that will pull you back to him.
What, exactly, does God have up his sleeve? He is all-powerful, so he could save me at any time. Yet, it’s been seventeen years since I deconverted, and God has not said one word to me or done anything that suggests to me he exists.
You make God sound like a magician — a deity that has a trick up his sleeve that will magically deliver me from atheism. I am confident that I will die sooner and not later, and when I die, it will be because of bad health or my partner crowning me with a Lodge cast iron skillet, and not because God killed me.
And if I was, per chance, drawn back to Christianity, it would not be Evangelicalism. That ship has sailed. I have seen and experienced the ugliness of Evangelicalism, and God himself couldn’t convince me to return to the fold.
Just know, satan hates me right now, because he has you at work, and I’m trying to disrupt that work.
My, oh my, you think highly of yourself; that Satan, the alleged God of this world hates you because you think you have interrupted his work in my life. Satan is no more real than God. You might want to do some reading on how the personage of Satan came into being. He is not who you think he is. You might find The Origin of Satan: How Christians Demonized Jews, Pagans, and Heretics by Dr. Elaine Pagels a good read on this subject.
All I can say is that I love you no matter what you believe in and I will be praying for you. Blessings,
I know you mean well, but you don’t know me, so you can’t possibly “love” me. I suspect you are used to the cheap love bandied about by Evangelicals. The same goes for “praying for me.” Are you really going to continually pray for me? I doubt it. Prayers come and go, and I suspect yours will do the same. I don’t say this to criticize you as much as to remind you that I was an Evangelical Christian for fifty years. I know how Evangelicals use the cheap cliche “I’m praying for you.” Besides, you threatened me with Hell, so I hope you will forgive me if I don’t think much of your love and prayers. Send me a couple of hundred-dollar bills along with your love and prayers, and I might think differently. 🙂
Saved by Reason,
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.
How will JT feel if, when he dies, he discovers that Christianity was just a big con devised by Satan to lure people to Hell? The only people who avoid hell are those who refused to subscribe to any form of religious belief, though perhaps it might also be that only Christians go to hell, and that Muslims, atheists, Jews are all saved.
That’s the problem with belief without evidence; it can come back to bite you.
Ditto on that. The question of what happens to the majority of humanity that does not subscribe to Christianity put me on the slippery slope. My Evangelical minister friend and neighbor had this answer. Just their bad luck being born and raised in heathen lands by heathens. Heck must be wall to wall souls suffering for all eternity due to coincidence. The injustice and irrationality left me nothing but to conclude religion and faith in general are nonsense.
AT: Does eternal punishment solve anything? It gives no 2nd chance to make restitution, it therefore exists for only one reason, for god to enjoy the suffering of those who displeased him. It’s sadistic beyond all measure.
As Obstacle Chick commented recently, this x-tian god gives those in hell fireproof bodies, so they suffer the unimagineable pain of being alight for all eternity.
If a person could hold the hand of their worst enemy on a hotplate as punishment for their crime, I suggest most people would remove it in less than 5 minutes, we couldn’t bear to see our victim’s agony and hear their screams. So, no thank you, AT, I shall continue to count hell as the fiction that it is.
(Cue RF to send us a gloating one liner….like ‘you’ll be sorry one day….’)
He did, I deleted it. He comments 3-4 times a week. Same sort of comments every time.
This ridiculous question from JT requires a ridiculous answer. My answer would be “Cruise up and down the streets of Halloween Town with Jack Skellington, Rob Zombie, and Marilyn Manson.”
Bruce,
Someone “stole” my username, although I’m sure there are A LOT OF JT’s out there and there is probably not a way for you to easily ensure uniqueness for commentors. I know you have my email address, please email me with a good username to distance myself from this particular “JT”. You know my comments and discussions on this site have not been similar to this person and I like to engage in thoughtful discussions rather than “preaching”.
I think what I love most about this particular evangelical approach is that it’s so transparently rhetorical, and by the same token so incredibly misguided. I mean, what am I going to do if I end up in Hell? Suffer eternal torment, duh. Really not a lot of other options at that point, are there? And if I recall correctly, all those saved-by-faith Christians will be able to look down and watch me suffer, if that’s their idea of a morally-acceptable good time. From any kind of orthodox Christian perspective, the case is pretty much open-and-shut, so why even ask?
Oh, right: because we’re supposed to find the possibility terrifying and turn back to our well-considered, entirely rational faith… out of fear. Of something which we definitely didn’t consider at all in the process of losing our faith.
I don’t know about you, but “I’ll embrace this belief because I’m afraid I’ll suffer if I don’t” doesn’t actually sound like Faith to me.
Incidentally — for the benefit of JT and any other Christians who happen to read this — if you find yourself evangelizing in the direction of an ex-Christian and your first thought is, “I don’t know if you’ve been asked this” or anything along those lines, please — I’m begging you — just stop there. I promise you, we’ve been asked this. Yes, we’ve thought about that other point. Absolutely we have also heard the argument that [whatever]. At this point it’s been over two decades since I’ve heard a genuinely novel argument in favor of Christian beliefs, and I’m tired.
Not tired enough not to be snarky about it, apparently, but still: tired.
Mike,
The existence of God is a metaphysical question. I believe it’s been contemplated as long as humans have been able to “contemplate.”
That said, contemplation doesn’t begin and end with empirical warrants for belief. Logical positivists tried that and soon discovered that most of human experience is “ontological” ( what we believe to be true” ) and not subject to empirical verification.
Example, does “love” actually exist?
Can it be materially defined, measured, or falsified?
And yet, without a commonly accepted ontological belief in “love”, most people might agree the experience of being human would be greatly diminished.
Metaphysics was coined following Aristotle as a thought question concerning what was the ultimate truth “behind” (Greek”meta” ) the physical world and its natural laws (physics).
Today quantum physics asks the same question. Experimental results show (conclusively) matter ( defined empirically) is not reducible to particles as once intuitively believed. (ontology)
In the experiment, the wave function collapses into a particle when observed by an intelligent observer (Alain, Clauser, Zeillinger, Nobel Prize in Physics 2023)
What does their experiment imply TODAY about the metaphysical foundations of matter itself?
Where is the “intelligent observer” in the Cosmos which caused its present state (physics)
Einstein wrestled with this question. His statements reveal he was a deist, believing in “Spinoza’s God.”
The Metaphysics of Plato was centered on investigation and speculation about the nature of the human “mind” —
Plato understood consciousness was subjectively experienced (as thinking) but he also recognized that rational coherence (intersubjectivity) was required behind language itself; a set of foundational axioms —approaching a “metaphysical truth.”
His observation and belief, that thought and reality actually corresponded in reality, led to Plato’s conclusion of “mind-body” dualism.
Mind wasn’t reducible to material foundations in Plato’s thinking. ( Scientific Naturalism today asserts just the opposite.)
Plato knew he couldn’t use thought to itself to define itself ( logical solipsism).
So:
Plato’s contribution to philosophy ( “Theory of Forms”) has stood for 2400 years in various guises, even today in modern philosophy.
Circa 1900- present: “Modern and Post-Modern Skepticism:
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) was, in my opinion, skeptical enough to rightfully be called a “skeptic.” Most people attribute the saying “God is dead” to Nietzsche. ( he used the phrase in his work The Gay Science_1882 , and _Also Sprache Zarathustra)
But many skeptics today seem to miss what Nietzsche meant by that phrase “ haven’t you heard — God is dead, we have killed him you and I!” Nietzsche realized that to live in a world of belief and non belief only ( ontology) was to completely repudiate the metaphysical foundations of matter, and thought, and philosophy itself. How then will the fate of humanity proceed? Ontology stripped of metaphysics reduces to incoherence, since one belief or (non-belief) lacks any “knowable” foundation.
Nietzsche’s blind spot was forgivable. He was summarizing the rational tradition from Descartes to then in the late 19th century. He never lived to see the Nazi’s appropriation of his philosopy. Hitler called Nietzsche “ the philosopher of the Reich.” They both had a mystical and undefined faith in the power of “The Will” as something necessary to replace metaphysics, demonstrated in action and the experience of life.
This is why Carl Sagan was a pantheist. And why Albert Einstein was a deist. And why Dr Anthony Flew deconverted from Atheism to a minimal theism. ( There is a God Anthony Flew, 2007.)
After a lifetime of atheist writing and teaching at Oxford University, Dr. Flew concluded that Richard Dawkins book (_ The God Delusion_ 2006) was written by a poor philosopher who trying to refute the “God of Einstein and Spinoza,”
Dawkins according to Flew was an even worse scientist. Dawkin’s book attributed the necessity of Abiogenesis to “chance.”
Dr. Flew had followed the development of evolutionary theory in biology over the course of his own life. The irreducibly integrated complexity of the living cell in 2007 was, and is today, a scientific FACT as well as a an unsolved mystery.
Metaphysically speaking, the same “mind” that is responsible for the existence of matter ( the “ observer” in quantum physics 2023) ) seems also to be responsible for DNA—reflected as bianary coded intelligence, seen in the foundations of biological structures at all levels.
We can clearly recognize this in science today.
So:
is “Atheism” today warranted on empirical warrants?
( I must conclude “No”)
Is modern (and postmodernism) “Atheism”something unique in human philosophical history?
( yes, it certainly is…)
it is unique, because it appears to be a mass delusion, a cognitive logical fallacy in philosophic terms, and also in scientific terms.
What you attribute to the ultimate GOOD and TRUE is, metaphysically speaking,
what “Og the Caveman- through the Zoroastrians, the Egyptians, the Greeks through Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the Romans, the Christians Saint Paul, Aquinas, the rationalists Descartes, Spinoza, Kant, the deists Hegel, Thomas Jefferson, Carl Sagan, Albert Einstein, Dr Anthony Flew, all understood in some way —which they positively defined, as some form of intelligent GOD.
To simply “not believe” in their Gods ( or any God) or in metaphysics —is unique indeed!
Good. Then my belief in the Glittery Blue Unicorn is safe and perfectly valid.
That was… an impressively long wall of text to say that outright/out loud atheism is an unusual position, historically speaking. And depending on how exactly you’re defining atheism, I’d largely agree: it is. That doesn’t make it indefensible or incorrect, though. And frankly, from a historical/anthropological perspective, monotheism is every bit as much of an outlier — it’s just common enough in what we call “the West” that in modern times it seems like some sort of default. If there’s a “natural” religious view inherent to human beings, it’s something more like animism/pantheism, maybe refined into polytheism.
Atheism doesn’t require the sort of naturalistic reductionism you seem to be arguing against. (Heck, Atheism doesn’t even require a lack of religion.) I can feel fairly confident that pain is nothing more than a series of electrochemical reactions within my body and still acknowledge that stubbing my toe on the end table fucking hurts.
So Randy S, you’re happy to reinterpret Nietzsche to suit your agenda but you certainly misrepresent Einstein in your attempt. Einstein can in no way be described as a deist, which is a belief in a higher power, rather he used the word god as a metaphor for nature. For example, he said that “God does not play dice” but he meant only that ultimately everything in the universe is predictable, and that absolute randomness does not exist (though there is doubt on this point). To all intents and purposes Einstein was an atheist.
As for Anthony Flew, there’s still doubt as to whether he changed his views, very late in life regardless. He was a philosopher of religion for most of his career, and there’s no doubt that when he turned 80 he was an atheist. There’s a suggestion that he only changed his position after losing his mental faculties somewhat, but regardless his arguments against belief were much more compelling than those for. I would also point out that Flew was not a scientist, and did not make comments critical of Richard Dawkins as a scientist. Dawkins’ book The God Delusion is largely a matter of common sense and does not require expertise in philosophical theory, I might add. Oh, and Carl Sagan was not a pantheist.
The trouble with the apologetics approach is that the argument from authority is not actually an argument, other than where it is based on empirical factors, such as a professional working in an acknowledged field of expertise. Francis Collins is a well known scientist who is well known for his religious beliefs. Sadly when pressed he says those beliefs began when he saw a frozen waterfall!
You seem to have read the wrong science books. Matter is reducible to particles, but the fact that particles at the quantum level can appear as waves is possibly what you are getting at. Your comment “The irreducibly integrated complexity of the living cell in 2007 was, and is today, a scientific FACT as well as a an unsolved mystery” is utter nonsense. What’s irreducibly complex about it?
Ultimately your comment is little more than word salad from the beginner’s guide to apologetics. If you’re looking for design in the universe then you’ll be searching for a long time. The most basic rule of design is keep it simple. Nothing about any part of the universe is simple. No designer would ever come up with anything so seemingly unnecessarily complex.
JT is laughable and/or sad depending on one’s viewpoint. My response to JT is “What if you are just one more dupe of the religion business and when you die you find yourself nowhere? As for me, in the event I find heck is real after all, I’ll look around for Bruce and maybe we can set up a lemonade stand.
JT, don’t you read what Bruce has said about being open to the idea of God if there’s proof? Everything you sent to him has been repeated countless times. Now, one doesn’t have to be an Evangelical to be a Christian,nor one of those ” Americanism” types. Everyone who’s been down this road has mulled over the subject of Hell many times,no doubt about it. Thank you for not being as horrid as RF is, who obviously has mental issues,not just religious fanaticism going on. By the way, most Christians who view the blog still remain believers, because it will take more than that to walk away from Jesus – everyone has their reasons. One can read the blog, and enjoy how Bruce writes, and not choose to be an a – hole. So, I hope you can do just that, and not carp and nag about this in the future. Because carping and nagging doesn’t work.
((Eye roll))
There’s always the threat of hell with these Christians – always. They relish their FAFO theology. (FAFO means “fuck around find out”). They put on a face of trying to be helpful, to give the correct formula to save people’s immortal physical souls encased in a new everlasting sentient body from eternal torture. But it isn’t difficult to detect that smug “but you’ll find out one day, and then you’ll be sorry if you don’t do what I say – because I’m RIGHT”. they seem to love thinking about all us heathens experiencing the FO phase. 🤣
The thing that makes it so easy to refute folks like “JT” is that they almost invariably contradict themselves, whether in how they use Bible verses or in threatening you with Hell before or after saying “I’m praying for you.”
God loves you so much he sent his son to die for you but if you fail to believe and accept this claim this same god will sentence you to eternal, never ending torture. I write this and read it over and am amazed that I once actually believed this and felt it was justified. Having been raised in a conservative evangelical family this claim was constantly driven into my still developing brain and any effort to challenge this was met with fierce resistance. So this inevitably became my belief system. It was so strongly ingrained that I was in my forties before I could escape it and only after years of struggling. I’m tired of being expected to give religion a free pass. Any of the good it accomplishes is outweighed by the emotional trauma it inflicts.
GEOFFT,
I really don’t have an ‘agenda.’ I do have a point in my post above. My point was and is, in the recorded history of philosophy, “modern atheism” is — unusual.
It’s rather hard to find the non-existence of a ‘god concept’ represented in the entire history of philosophic ideas, until Nietzsche anyway, a modern philosopher who I think was among the first to fully recognise and embrace such metaphysical implications.
For an exhaustive treatise on this subject you might read At Origins of Modern Atheism ( Michael J. Buckley SJ, Yale University Press 1987.) Father Buckley (1931-2019) was a philosophy professor at Notre Dame. He had heard of my own thesis concerning Nietzsche, through my father who was getting a PhD in Systematic Theology at BC back in the early 1990s. He sent me a copy of his book, which ends with Diderot and D’Holbach. Nietzsche came along a century later. From my optic Nietzsche was prescient in recognizing the metaphysical implications for modern philosophy, which he portrayed in Zarathustra, et al.
Buckley’s thesis develops the idea that “modern atheism” was actually a reaction to the rationalists ( Descarte to present) who originally intended to make a rational defence for the actual existence of God.
Unwittingly, 17th century Christian apologists and their descendants soon discovered the noetic effect of reason . Ontology stripped of its presumed metaphysical foundations became in effect, rationally bi-polar. As any good trial attorney knows– a case may be argued either way, depending on first presenting an operating theory of guilt or innocence (metaphysics) and then reasoning from the implications of admissible evidence ( epistemology).
The modern conception of a rational evidentiary basis for “Atheism” was born as a direct result, while the theory itself may still be reasonably questioned on the basis of acceptable evidence (warrants).
The default position for philosophy however, has never been an explicit atheism, as far as I can tell. Anthony Flew once argued that is was, as far back as 1950 in his famous work Theological Falsification. In 2007 some 57 years later he apparently changed his mind. There is no evidence that his mental faculties at age 85 were diminished. This is still a charge levelled at him by those apparently threatened by his conclusions. (Read his book.)
I would agree with Michael Mock above, Animism and pantheism appear to have been the “default mode” of natural theology / philosophy devolving into polytheism and eventually monotheism in the history of western philosophy.
An exception might be seen in a few Greek philosophers ( Democritus, Diagoras, and Lucretius ) whose influence was obscure as foundational to Epicureanism. Epicurus, meanwhile was highly regarded– Epicureanism focused mostly on how to live well, pleasure and hedonism as goals avoiding pain, while not specifically referencing any particular gods. This is akin in some ways to Buddhism.
Anaxagoras is often misquoted as having been an atheist but that isn’t accurate either. His concept of NOUS preceded Plato’s concept of mind. Anaxagoras wasn’t a “modern atheist” in any philosophic sense.
As for Einstein. Here is a quote of his you won’t hear much these days:
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. ”
His full statement in context: ( Out of my Latter Years New York Philosophical Library 1958, P 24)
“Science can only be created by those who are throughly imbued with the aspiration towards truth and understanding. This source of feeling however, springs from the source of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
Concerning Sagan’s ( default) pantheism.
Read a commentary written by Ben Wilson at Quora, below.
(Quote)
He (Sagan) was a pantheist as far as I can tell.
According to his son Dorion Sagan “My father believed in the God of Spinoza and Einstein, God not behind nature but as nature, equivalent to it.”
From Carl Sagan himself.
“A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge.”
“The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by ‘God’ one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying… it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.”
“We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.”
“Our ancestors worshipped the Sun, and they were not that foolish. It makes sense to revere the Sun and the stars, for we are their children.”
“Science has beauty, power, and majesty that can provide spiritual as well as practical fulfillment. But superstition and pseudoscience keep getting in the way, providing easy answers, casually pressing our awe buttons, and cheapening the experience.
The crisis we face today demands more than superficial adjustment. Increasingly, it is realized that any efforts to safeguard and cherish the environment needs to be infused with a vision of the sacred.”
“Now, it would be wholly foolish to deny the existence of laws of nature. And if that is what we are talking about when we say God, then no one can possibly be an atheist, or at least anyone who would profess atheism would have to give a coherent argument about why the laws of nature are inapplicable. I think he or she would be hard-pressed. So with this latter definition of God, we all believe in God.”
“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual … The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both. “
“Every aspect of Nature reveals a deep mystery and touches our sense of wonder and awe. Those afraid of the universe as it really is, those who pretend to nonexistent knowledge and envision a Cosmos centered on human beings will prefer the fleeting comforts of superstition. They avoid rather than confront the world. But those with the courage to explore the weave and structure of the Cosmos, even where it differs profoundly from their wishes and prejudices, will penetrate its deepest mysteries.”
“Cosmos is a Greek word for the order of the universe. It is, in a way, the opposite of Chaos. It implies the deep interconnectedness of all things. It conveys awe for the intricate and subtle way in which the universe is put together.”
“we have a theology that is Earth-centered and involves a tiny piece of space, and when we step back, when we attain a broader cosmic perspective, some of it seems very small in scale. And in fact a general problem with much of Western theology in my view is that the God portrayed is too small. It is a god of a tiny world and not a god of a galaxy, much less of a universe.”
“For myself, I like a universe that includes much that is unknown and, at the same time, much that is knowable. A universe in which everything is known would be static and dull, as boring as the heaven of some weak-minded theologians. A universe that is unknowable is no fit place for a thinking being. The ideal universe for us is one very much like the universe we inhabit. And I would guess that this is not really much of a coincidence.”
Can’t think of anyone who is more of pantheist than Carl Sagan, can you?
(End Quote)
I can’t imagine anyone who was more of a pantheist than Sagan either!
— Randy
you seem to be given to wordiness. 🙂 Keep it simple, what point are you trying to make?
We can debate Einstein and Sagan all day and it takes us nowhere nearer evidence for any kind of god. I think both of these great men, each different, Einstein able to understand concepts most cannot even comprehend as concepts, Sagan a terrific communicator, were so in wonder at the universe in their own way and with their special insights, that they conveyed what we usually refer to as ‘spirituality’. It’s wrong to read into either any real belief in any form of god, and certainly it’s misleading to try and bring Spinoza into the discussion. Spinoza always gets thrown up in these types of debate, because he does offer up the pantheist idea of an actual creator, one that takes no role in the day to day of the universe, but neither Einstein nor Sagan really bought into the concept, albeit they both referred to Spinoza in their writings.
Ultimately atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief in any form of god. That’s it, albeit rising from this base there are countless variations and strands of argument. It dates back thousands of years and is certainly not a modern concept. In fact I’m not at all sure what you mean by ‘modern atheism’, though it’s perhaps inspired by the term ‘new atheist’, a term that I deplore. If you mean by modern atheism the way in which the subject has become dominant in most educated circles, then I think the starting point is probably Robert Ingersoll in the 19th century, who really understood the common sense nub of the argument. He didn’t need to be a trained religious philosopher (though he was the son of a Methodist preacher and very knowledgeable biblically) to be able to construct sound common sense reasons to criticise virtually every aspect of religion in a way that immediately appealed. Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are the same in their appeal to common sense, though Hitchens was extremely knowledgeable biblically and philosophically.
Do an Internet search on the claims Randall makes about Einstein and Sagan and you will find all sorts of opinions. One thing is for sure, neither was a Christian (in the typical use of the word). The same can be said about Flew.
Absolutely right, but it intrigues me the way in which apologists obsess so much on what some figure of acknowledged learning did or did not believe. I’m surprised that Randall didn’t bring Newton into the discussion. Yet so what? The arguments and evidence are what matter, not what words someone in days gone by said.
Absolutely true, Bruce.
I didn’t claim that Flew or Sagan or Einstein were Christians. My original premise was that “metaphysical atheism” (modern atheism) is UNIQUE in the entire span of the recorded history of philosophy.
Sagans own words, and those of those who knew him best, reveal he was a pantheist. That is. to say in support of my original point, he was not an atheist.
I like Sagan, BTW. He got a Pulitzer for his book, The Dragons of Eden back in 1978. (I was actually re reading it recently). I really like his description of celestial time reduced to a 365 day year calendar year. The man was a literary genius.
GEOFFT,
I submit words in science, philosophy, and theology mean specific things.
Im not sure ‘atheism’ should be properly defined as: Simply not-believing something someone else apparently does believe. A positive statement of belief is much clearer.
Sagan apparently believed ( metaphysically speaking) in something theological himself.
The point is, you don’t need to be a Christian to be a theist. ( ask Socrates! )
So, how would you define atheism?
— Randy
I’ve already defined atheism. It’s the lack of belief in any form of god. Put it this way. Suppose you and I are at the very dawn of civilisation, and we stand and discuss what we see around us. We both see trees, and birds, rivers, the disturbance in our surrounding environment caused by the wind, the sun and the moon, the stars. We experience rain and thunderstorms, and the change in the seasons from warm to cold. You turn to me and say ‘I believe the reason for all these things is a creator that I shall call god. I can’t understand how these things can be otherwise’. I reply ‘I see all the things that you see but I don’t see a god. If there’s a god then the same reasons you give for believing in it would surely apply to the existence of god itself? All I see is nature. I don’t understand any more than you do, but I’d rather search for an answer than invent one.’
Geofft,
This sounds oddly reminiscent of Flews original Theological Falsification parable. It went something like this:
You and I are travellers on a long journey. We are walking through the woods and come upon a clearing filled with various sorts of flowers and some weeds. “what a beautiful garden” I say.
You say,
“Garden? There is no gardner! All I see just a bunch of wild flowers and weeds!”
I insist otherwise, so we devise a plan to see if a ‘gardener’ is actually part of this scenario. We camp out and take turns standing watch, waiting for the gardener to return, but he never shows up.
“Are you ready to concede?” you ask me. “No, this is an elusive gardner” I reply. He must be sneaking in when you or I wasn’t watching. Let’s set up an electrified fence, and video cameras!”
And so we do… and.. nothing.
“Damn it, you say.. there is NO GARDENER.” I am not convinced. “There IS a gardener, but he’s invisible and very elusive! Perhaps we need some blood hounds. They will smell or hear him, and then we’ll know…”
So we get a pack of blood hounds. They sleep all day and night and never stir…
“There IS a gardener, I still insist. But he’s invisible, and he can’t be heard, smelled, or touched..”
“FINE. There is as gardener.” You say. “But what has become of your original proposition: “what exactly is a gardener”?
Flews argument in 1950 was that if you qualify away all supposed characteristics of a ‘knowledge’ of God, you end up with a tautology. (I.E. God= God, which appears to tell us nothing.)
To say, “I don’t believe in a gardener” is qualitatively different however. One must first have a conception of a ‘gardener’ to say one doesn’t exist. The very idea of ‘a gardener’ would be incoherent otherwise, in my first statement.
Following Plato (or Jung), is “God” a necessary ‘form’ (or archetype) innate to our conscious minds? It seems to me that it might be, since I have maintained so far that ‘theism’ has been the natural default position seen in the entire history of western philosophy. (until Nietzsche) But have we somehow created God in our own image, as an anthropomorphic projection?
Flew reversed his position at age 85. He explained that over the course of his lifetime the development of biological science included the discovery of DNA, and the apparent intelligence reflected as strictly coded sequences in humans, 5 billion nucleotides; an apparent entropic-reversal of a massive scale. This coding system is shared by all biological systems that we call “life.”
The integrated complexity of the cell couldn’t be explained by existing evolutionary theories in 2007. Flew desperately wanted to find a scientific demonstration of evolutionary theory at that level. “Falsification” wasn’t possible either, without first establishing a repeatable demonstration of a ‘natural’ theory of abiogenesis.
Commenting on Dawkins book, The God Delusion Flew remarked ( I paraphrase) Dawkins attributes this all to a fortunate circumstance of the natural emergence of a self-replicating molecule. “If that’s the best you’ve got, the game is over.” Flew concluded.
A ‘watch’ demands not only the concept of a watch ( metaphysics), but also the purpose of a watch. (teleology) By extension, an intelligent “watchmaker.” Proposing a ‘natural’ explanation for the observed reality of a living cell, itself a precondition for the evolution of ‘purpose-driven’ biological life, for Dr. Flew was like finding ‘Bugs Bunny’ in the pre Cambrian fossil record. (“What’s up Doc?”)
The enduring problem today for a scientific ‘atheism’ based on materialist assumptions is where exactly to integrate “intelligence” into the visible phenomena of the universe. Dr. Flew finally made a ‘leap of faith’ into the metaphysics of “God.” He admitted the necessity of a ‘intelligently created’ universe, which in his mind passed the ‘Michael Mock’ test. (It “made more sense”).
Materialists continue to camp out, believing their empirical warrants are still sufficient to be the default position of reality, while taking their own ’emergent consciousness’ for granted, which itself is a form of circular reasoning.
Sorry, I for one, can’t simply grant the first premise. That would create a circular leap of faith, because the “leap” itself is a derivative of the existence of human consciousness, which itself can’t be simply ‘granted’ apart from the actual biological emergence of intelligent human life.
God, or Materialism? Its a hall of mirrors; an infinite philosophic regression desperately seeking a ‘first cause.’
But then, we humans ARE blessed with a great capacity for rational inconsistency, aren’t we? 🙂
— Randy
I mean, if you want to define God as something akin to “the way the world itself works” then, um, objecting to materialistic understandings of that sort of God — which I would largely consider a metaphorical deity rather than a literal one — seems sort of self-defeating.
Just to clarify, so I have some context:
1. Would you consider yourself a Christian?
2. Are you attempting to argue in favor of a religious view of existence, as opposed to an atheistic view?
3. If so, how are you defining ‘religious’ and ‘atheistic’?
Mike,
( you asked)
Just to clarify, so I have some context:
Would you consider yourself a Christian?
“Declare your hermeneutics” — ok.
To say that “I’m a Christian” would be meaningless.
For me, It’s the flip-side argument of Pascals Wager:
If the Christian God exists, and if He declares me a “Christian” in the hereafter (or not) who am I to argue?
If the Christian God does NOT exist, (personal extinction at death) does it really matter what I call myself now?
I’ll wait and find out soon enough.
Meanwhile:
I don’t go around wearing a religious label, but that doesn’t make me an “atheist” or even a “weak agnostic.” To refer to myself as a “Christian” on the other-hand would be to put the cart before the horse, unless I was able to determine to my own satisfaction that some form of “theism” is at least plausible. I personally don’t think “atheism” should be the default position for many reasons.
I am versed in Christian theology being my father’s son, and one of his lifelong students. That said, I do have a great respect for Paul’s writing.
Whatever else you want to believe about the Bible, its stories and observations are at least an anthropological study which reveal a 2700 year old record of human belief and behaviour, both good and bad. That record is still relevant today, people haven’t changed much over that time, maybe 60 generations or so. Some of Paul’s observations in this regard ( human nature) are quite profound in my estimation, as well as the fact “Saul” became “Paul” in the first place.
Are you attempting to argue in favor of a religious view of existence, as opposed to an atheistic view?
Atheistic View:
I’ve examined a naturalistic understanding of the world for 35 years now. Philosophically I find it’s arguments produce an inescapable and fatal logical solipsism, as well as kicking the can down the road, promising better epistemological warrants for belief in the future– That promise is usually based on the “proven methodology” of science. (Yet, I find the observable gaps in scientific knowledge meanwhile, have been widening, not closing.)
But still… “The check is in the mail.” (Scientism)
Theistic View:
The need for metaphysics in philosophy, and the recognisable failures of logical positivism to provide material warrants for belief about most of the things we humans commonly experience and consider “sacred and meaningful,” (i.e. art, music, emotions, values, morals, etc) combined with the logical solipsism of naturalism, drags me (kicking and screaming) toward a faith-based theistic world view.
If so, how are you defining ‘religious’ and ‘atheistic’?
See above.
The German word: grenzwissenshaft (border science) adequately expresses my own ideas of:
Nature
1. The set of things we commonly experience which do exist, and we seem to know exist,
versus
God/ paranormal/ supernatural
2. Things which may in fact exist, that we can’t fully prove exist, and consequently can’t fully know exist.
Does that help?
Back to you,
–Randy
The reason we ask people to declare their religious affiliation is so we can cut through the stuff that doesn’t matter or hides what a person really believes. If someone says they are a Christian, we can make general observations about their religion, asking more questions as needed. This is better than two weeks of philosophical debate, only to find out the person is an Evangelical or a Catholic or Greek Orthodox. If a person believes in some sort of impersonal or esoteric god, there’s not much of a discussion to be had (at least for me). If God is not materially involved in our lives, why should we care about his/her/its existence?
You read far too much into atheism. Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of gods. That’s it. From that starting point, atheists go in all directions, belief wise. Personally, I’m an agnostic atheist.
This is a reply to your last, Bruce.
(I didn’t see a reply button on your post)
You said:
“You read far too much into atheism. Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of gods. That’s it. From that starting point, atheists go in all directions, belief wise. Personally, I’m an agnostic atheist“.
I find these sort of discussions often start at the end (religion) and never get to the beginning ( philosophy/theology ). That causes many problems for meaningful discussion I observe. Where one ends up “religiously” is contingent on acceptance or denial of certain axiological premises.
I’m not sure that I do understand what you mean by the word “atheist.” There may be a gap in my own understanding.
Here is how I presently understand “agnosticism” and “atheism:”
Atheism: “God does not exist.” (metaphysics / axiology)
Strong agnosticism: “I don’t believe God exists, and neither should you.”
(ontology)
Weak agnosticism: “I don’t believe I can know if God exists, and I don’t believe you can know either.” ( epistemology)
Apathetic agnosticism: “I don’t care if God exists, and you shouldn’t care either.” (utility)
Obviously, “Atheism” makes a metaphysical claim that can’t be demonstrated using any sort of appeal to a “real and coherent” world. “Thought” itself requires a contingent argument. What can be conceived as the self-existent foundation of reality is crucial to any subsequent human reasoning.
An explanation of what I mean might be simpler to examine in mathematics.
Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) once set off to write a three volume treatise called Principia Mathematica with his student Bertrand Russell. It attempted to set up axiom and inference rules used in symbolic mathematical logic.
A really big problem he had was defining the number “0.”
We humans have a hard time defining “nothing.” There is always “something,” either self-existent, or contingently existent on something else. In fact, we humans have a hard time explaining anything “self-existent.”
If we start with the number “1” using a digital approach we try to define all the real numbers between 1 and 0, we discover can never actually get to the number “0.” Yet it seems that we do ‘get to zero” in our own analog experience of space-time relationships. These real numbers are contingent on the existence of an ultimate “1” pre-existing for any meaningful relativistic definitions, not zero.
“God” in philosophy / theology is the search and definition of the number “1” in this example. (“O” theoretically in metaphysics is “atheism.”) The infinite regression of real numbers between 1 and 0 is our own experience of “reality” and is only theoretical ( science). Zero as a starting point is counter-intuitive, since we all seem to agree that we do exist in a real and coherent world. (“1”)
Following this, Whitehead’s “Process philosophy” tried to resolve his apparent axiological problems, but it turned out to be just a shell game- a logical alchemy offering “process relativism” as an axiological reference point. (that essentially, is a contradiction in terms.)
It’s also interesting I think, to note that organic structures are composed as “1s and 0s” at the level of DNA. This biological and computer based synthesis of “affirmation and negation” seems to make up the natural structure of information and knowledge itself, reflected as a code in Nature, which points to a contingent argument; the apparent need for an intelligent axiological reference point. (God?)
Bottom line: If an atheist says, “Show me God exists!” I object, on metaphysical grounds. Should “0” really be the starting point?
Agnosticism meanwhile, focuses on Ontology ( things believed to be true) or Epistemology ( how do we know things are true) which then quickly devolves into questions about our limitations of sensation (data-observation) and method-logic ( science) . The number “1” must still be assumed to exist, however, for any of the above to actually exist. (reality)
If by “atheism” you mean a ‘life stance” and your own personal denial of belief regarding the moral and historical claims of Christianity, well I can understand that position in a relativistic sense.
But “Atheism” so defined, becomes just another very limited religious and cultural bias, not really philosophy and oddly enough, not really a meaningful theological statement either.
— Randy
“God , or Materialism? Its a hall of mirrors; an infinite philosophic regression desperately seeking a ‘first cause.’”
Or we don’t know. Quite frankly, the first cause arguments don’t interest me. When asked, I say I don’t know (and neither does anyone else). I have no interest in or need for “god.” If certain flavors of religion didn’t cause physical and psychological harm, I wouldn’t care one bit about religion. Unfortunately, many religious do cause serious harm, so I feel it is my duty to push back. Engaging in philosophical arguments about God? I know, understand and can debate them, but doing so doesn’t interest much (for a variety of reasons). Life is short. In my case, really, really, really short, so I try to focus on what matters to me. That said, there are people who frequent this site who have an appetite for philosophical debates. You’ve already heard from several of them. I’ll read and respond when warranted, but long philosophical debates are definitely not my cup of tea.
Bruce, as you know I enjoy these debates, but sometimes I maybe overstay my welcome! 😂 I feel like I’m reaching the end of the road with Randall, who I have to say has been polite and courteous, because I don’t want to start repeating the same points. If anything new comes up I’ll maybe respond but otherwise not.
I appreciate your responses ❤️❤️
This is a reply to Randall’s latest, which I know was directed at you, Bruce.
Randall, you’ve been told time and again that atheism is nothing more than the non acceptance of the hypothesis that is belief in god. It makes no positive claims at this level, and your immensely long comment is really an attempt to try and turn the conversation in your favour. Of course, an atheist might take their argument further, so I for example would argue that there’s good evidence that no god exists, but it is a tier above my basic lack of belief in gods.
Agnosticism is a different category to atheism, essentially falling into the area of knowledge of god, as opposed to belief. Admittedly there are different views amongst atheists as to what is meant by agnostic, but all atheists agree (I suppose I should say most) on the basic definition of atheism.
On questions of science, Geoff, I appreciate your willingness to answer, even if the question/comment is addressed to me. You have a much better understanding of science than I do.
Randall is way too verbose for my liking. He seems to want to define atheism differently than most atheists do. Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of gods. That’s it. As you know, someone can be an atheist and still hold irrational beliefs. My Gawd, more than a few atheists voted for Trump. 🤬🤬
I self-label as an agnostic atheist. I cannot know for certain a god/gods does not exist, so I am agnostic on the god question. It is possible (not probable) that a deity of some sort may reveal itself to us someday. As far as extant gods are concerned—namely the Abrahamic gods—I’m convinced they do not exist, thus I’m an atheist as far as those deities are concerned. I operate on evidence. I’ve yet to see compelling evidence for the existence of the Christian deity — in any and all of its flavors.
Randall, the problems you have in defending your belief are clearly set out here. You can’t find any positive reasons to believe and so you continue to try and pick holes in the logic presented to you. Flew was a philosopher, not a biologist, so his views on evolutionary biology are irrelevant. As I’ve said before, philosophy is frequently little more than common sense (though it often gets dressed in the emperor’s new clothes), whilst science is seldom accessible in the same way. DNA evolved. We understand the likely processes (like much in evolutionary biology there are several theories, but not one is so implausible as to amount to ‘therefore god’), which depend on small and simple steps, which looked at in hindsight appear massively complex. We have some pretty good theories on abiogenesis, something we know must have happened, even if caused by a god. The very fact that organic material contains the same basic building blocks as non organic, is highly suggestive that one came from the other.
The gardener analogy is one I recall reading and was easily refuted. The problem is that we already know the concept of a gardener, and have in our mind the form and function of a garden. We don’t have any other universe to compare with, and nor do we have any preconceived notion of what a god is like because, unlike gardeners, we know nothing of their form or function (and plus they’re apparently unique). So playing clever word games to try and create a type of god that atheists don’t believe in is disingenuous. An atheist can stay silent on the subject, inviting the believer to define their god, then not believe in any given definition. Of course, all a believer has to do is keep throwing up an infinite number of gods, enabling them to claim that there are still definitions that an atheist hasn’t excluded.
Dear Bruce,
I appreciate your comments above, and do I respect your time and interests, so I’ll take up Mike’s questions above and leave it at that, and perhaps go on further from there with him.
For me, the baseline common ‘reality test’ of theology (past and present) is some form of intelligence reflected and recognisable in the makeup of the universe. I wouldn’t presume to lecture you or anyone else on this subject. I submit the theory of an “intelligent god ” has a basis in western philosophy, and by extension, the ‘correspondence’ that we all do seem to take for granted these days — Namely, that the external world is: 1. Real
(not illusory) 2. Coherent ( correspondent with our own limited intelligence) assumptions which have formed the basis of science as we know it today. That is the gist of my commentary here.
I really hope you have more time to live than you believe you do, but we all end up in the same place eventually. My friends started dying in their 40s, now I’m your age and we can never know for sure. It’s strange really, the original commentator (JT) blindly asserted hell exists and that you are going there (!) I do not make such grandiose thoughtless assumptions about anyone’s fate or existence myself, and I know such comments from others have been a great source of pain for you. I’ve been reading this blog- as you have indicated, you are not an evangelist for atheism. Rather your interests seem to be to create a community of those who like you, may be recovering from a rigid cultic system of Fundamentalist belief, will all the associated psychic trauma. Perhaps maintaining this blog has been a catharsis for you?
If so, please forgive me, if in any way my comments here might have seemed insensitive to your present journey. You were a Christian preacher once, so I know that you’re familiar with 1 Corinthians 13. Paul insisted in his famous NT commentary, that ‘love’ surpasses ‘knowledge,’ and indeed any limited human philosophy. The existence and expression of “love for your fellow man” (agape) is clearly very important. According to Paul, I myself would run the risk of becoming a “noisy gong” without it, as would those claiming to be ‘atheists.’ I’m fairly certain the caricature of God that JT believes he knows doesn’t exist- or if it does, perhaps that God doesn’t know him. (Matt 25).
Best wishes,
— Randy