Posts
Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for these desires exists. A baby feels hunger; well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim; well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire; well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. (Mere Christianity, Bk. III, chap. 10, "Hope")
I find this proof compelling, personally. But I suppose it depends on whether the individual is or is not conscious of such an unquenchable thirst or hunger—a “hunger and thirsting after righteousness.” My guess is that not everybody feels this. But for those of us who do, it can be an overwhelming thing.
Assuming there is not a God, it is hard to see how random natural selection could leave us with such a compelling thirst. At best, it serves no conceivable survival need; more likely, it distracts us from the matter of our survival.
But it makes profound sense if there is a God.
15 comments:
Steve, of course you would find this "proof" compelling because you, I don't know, maybe assume the antecedent?
We are born with certain desires through evolution (ie to eat, drink, be warm, etc.)
If you raised children on an island and taught them the truth about god, they would not have the delusion (i.e the desire) to believe in Him. Some people do find faith at an older age, but usually when they are suffering from psychological trauma and believe out of desperation instead of rational thought.
Without terrifying youth into believing, church attendance would dwindle to zero. Without the church's propaganda machine brainwashing followers, people would be forced to find their reason.
EJ, your comments are based on speculation, not fact.
And you're reasoning in a circle. What you're saying could only be true if God doesn't exist -- but that's the very thing in debate, so you're using what has to be proved in the proof.
You exalt reason, but then turn around and go against it to try to prove your point.
je, my assertions are all based on fact (i.e, the sun was not created before the earth as it says in the bible, children are brainwashed into believing in religion, it is impossible to know everything, etc. etc. etc.). I have backed everything I have said with iron clad validity.
je, out of curiosity, I'd like to pose the same question that stumped Steve. If you had a dream and were absolutely certain God was speaking to you and He told you to kill a loved one, would you do it?
I'll respond in a bit. And I'm willing to take this debate somewhere else of your choosing if you like.
EJ wrote: "If you had a dream and were absolutely certain God was speaking to you and He told you to kill a loved one, would you do it?"
Such a hypothetical situation is not possible. The same God who, out of love for mankind said, "You shall not murder," does not contradict Himself. God is good and is Himself the very standard of good.
The Bible gives warnings about people who bring claims that are contradictory to the word of God. If someone claimed that God told him in a dream to kill a loved one, then either he had no such dream or it was not God talking to him.
I am glad that your hypothetical question assumes that murder is a problem. In spite of our different worldviews (as pertaining to origins, teleology, epistemology, ethics, ontology, etc.), this provides us with something of a point of contact for discussion. Now, if you do not believe that murder is wrong as an atheist then I really do hope you'd change your mind about that. Though I think you do believe that murder is wrong. The problem is that as long as you're an atheist you can't provide any justification for that belief. Why is murder wrong in an atheist worldview? Because of personal opinion? How foolish is that as a standard for measuring right and wrong?! Is it wrong because that's the majority consensus? But how do you know as an atheist whether the majority consensus is right or wrong? You're left not knowing whether murder is wrong regardless of the opinions of humans. That's a scary prospect.
In the Christian worldview, murder is wrong regardless of consensus or personal opinion. Since God Himself is good and is Himself the very standard of good, and since He forbids murder, and since God is sovereign over all, is immutable and faithful, murder is wrong for all people in all times. Murder is objectively wrong in the Christian worldview.
The ironic thing is that any attempt to use a discussion about murder against Christianity has to assume the truth of the Christian worldview since only if God exists is murder objectively wrong.
I'll leave it at that for now.
EJ:
the sun was not created before the earth as it says in the bible,
SR:
EJ, for some reason you consider this factoid extremely important—you have repeated it several times. Therefore, you really should know that, according to the most popular scientific theories currently, the sun was indeed created before the earth.
Not that this has anything to do with the truth of the Bible.
Sorry, I misspoke. The bible claims the earth was made before the sun. This is wrong. The sun was solidified before the Earth.
je: my hypothetical question is entirely possible because God often tells people to kill in the bible and is a murderer Himself (do I really need to give the multitude of examples again?).
The only reason you do not see God's murdering rampages as wrong is because He is the hero of the story and you have been brainwashed to see His sadistic massacres as good.
Of course, the bible warns you about those who go agaisnt its dogma. This is a classic brainwashing tecnique found in all cults.
Of course, I believe murder is wrong. This is why I'm against the delusions of religion, because its delusions and superstitions lead to war and terrorism.
I know murder is wrong because I have evolved. Empathy and love are human traits hijacked by relgion. No god required.
Your pontificating about Christianity and murder is a classic example of hypocrisy. Ever heard of the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the Catholics vs. the Protestants, etc, etc, etc.
Right now, the American president, a devout Christian, thinks he's doing God's work as his war kills innocent children.
Morals were around long before religion was invented by man. Otherwise, humanity would have never survived prehistoric times (I.e if all early man did was kill and steal to get ahead, humans would have become extinct. It was logically imperative that they learned to work together and care for one another, especially considering their physical inferioity in the animal kingdom.)
EJ:
my hypothetical question is entirely possible because God often tells people to kill in the bible and is a murderer Himself (do I really need to give the multitude of examples again?).
SR:
EJ, so far, you haven’t given any examples, except Abraham and Isaac—which turns out to be a false one. Nobody was murdered, nor did God really ask for it. Want to try again?
You seem to subscribe to the Nazi theory of propaganda: if you just repeat something often enough, people will start to believe it.
But truth matters.
EJ:
The only reason you do not see God's murdering rampages as wrong is because He is the hero of the story and you have been brainwashed to see His sadistic massacres as good.
Of course, the bible warns you about those who go agaisnt its dogma. This is a classic brainwashing tecnique found in all cults.
SR:
EJ, you resort to this explanation constantly: if anyone disagrees with you, they are brainwashed. You repeat it, along with “assume the antecedent,” like a mantra, or a lucky talisman.
Let’s examine it, inasmuch as we can. As noted, according to science, there is no such thing as brainwashing; so as far as we know, it is simply imaginary.
But suppose there were; suppose you are right, and people really can be brainwashed. You have admitted that the majority of people believe in God, and that the majority of people are brainwashed. You also admit that even someone as intelligent as Einstein was brainwashed.
Now let’s stop and think. If all these people can be brainwashed without knowing it, it necessarily follows that you too could be brainwashed, without knowing it. Has this occurred to you yet? If brainwashing is real, you cannot know what the true situation is: it could be that all these people are brainwashed, or it could be that you are.
Now let’s look at probabilities. What would be easier, all things considered: to brainwash the majority of the world’s population, or just Jeff Harmsen? To brainwash someone as intelligent and creative in their thinking as Albert Einstein, or just Jeff Harmsen?
It really does seem to follow that, if brainwashing is real, it is you who are probably brainwashed, and not Einstein and the majority of mankind.
Which would explain why you seem to simply ignore both reason and evidence in your claims. Which would explain why you keep repeating the same few explanations, no matter what.
You might protest that nobody would want to brainwash you. But someone surely would. The devil. Of course, you don’t believe in the devil. But that could just be part of your brainwashing, couldn’t it?
You’ll never know, Jeff. It’s a house of mirrors.
EJ:
I know murder is wrong because I have evolved. Empathy and love are human traits hijacked by relgion. No god required.
SR:
Jeff, here you do not understand the theory of evolution. You have not evolved any further than the Galapagos Islands tortoise. Merely by dint of existing, all current beings have evolved to the same extent. Or, if the question is rapid mutation, fruit flies and planaria are far more evolved than you are.
Yet they have no idea murder is wrong. And apparently no idea of empathy.
EJ:
Morals were around long before religion was invented by man. Otherwise, humanity would have never survived prehistoric times (I.e if all early man did was kill and steal to get ahead, humans would have become extinct. It was logically imperative that they learned to work together and care for one another, especially considering their physical inferioity in the animal kingdom.)
SR:
Not so. All that is required is that they cooperate in small groups; and cooperation is not morality. Chimpanzees have managed to survive as well, after all. So have any number of other species, without morality.
Shamanist societies do seem to be more or less constantly at war. Killing and stealing is perfectly okay outside one’s own small community or tribe.
Formal thinking about and formal systems of morality (as distinct from following individual conscience) predate the great universalist religions in some cultures, but not by that much. They appear in about 800- 500 BC in Greece and China, for example, with Socrates and Confucius. Compare the development of ethical monotheism in Judea (Moses) in about 1500 BC, and Persia (Zarathustra) in about 1200 BC. At best, the lack of a universalist faith seems to retard the development of full ethical consciousness.
I already gave you the example of God telling Moses to stone an innocent man to death in the desert. Plus, the example of God telling Abraham to kill his own son qualifies as an example. This is why: if you knew God was going to stop you at the last minute, it would defeat the sadistic purpose of the whole exercise, now wouldn't it? Abraham didn't know, why should you? Don't tell me you're going to question God's authority!
Steve, manifestations of brainwashing keep surfacing, I wouldn't be much of a debater if I didn't keep pointing them out. Moreover, you keep denying there is such a thing as brainwashing while the verdict is far from settled in academia. Thus, I went to the trouble of defining the term how I meant it. I.e tricking people into believing in something that is not real, as when a child is fooled about Santa.
There are plenty of examples whereby the masses are brainwashed and a minority knew the truth (contrary to what you said, I'm not the only one who is dispossessed from the delusions of religion).
And let me tell you for certain, it's not easy being sane in an insane world--it's downright acerbating!
It doesn't surprise me you don't know much about the theory of evolution. Living things do not evolve equally, or all animals would be the same. Living things evolve according to their environment.
Certain apes, our ancestors, evolved bigger brains to be more intelligent. This streamlined evolution likely occured as a reaction to none other than a climate change as certain groups of apes were caugt in the cold and needed to think more to survive.
Perhaps religion was once a necessary to humanity's evolution of morals (contemplation of history makes this statement debatable). These days, however, the superstition and delusions of religion could literally end humanity (I.e through the insane belief in the apocalypse, not created by a mythical god, but though the self-fulfilling prophecy of men who believe god is real).
EJ, this is a reply to the response you made to me. I had planned on responding to each and every one of your comments, and most of them are worth considering, both as an oportunity to explain the rationonality and coherence of the Christian worldview and to expose the absurdity of atheism. But I'm going to restrict myself to the dominant theme of our recent comments which has to do with murder.
This is an opportunity to place the atheist worldview beside the Christian worldview and see which one can make sense out of the belief that murder is wrong. Close consideration of your previous comments will prompt you to recognize that they stand or fall based on whether you can as an atheist provide justification for the belief that murder is wrong, since you assume that murder is objectively wrong in all the attacks you make against Christianity.
In the Christian worldview, we can make sense out of the belief that murder is wrong. God said, "You shall not murder." Since God is Creator of all, is sovereign over all, is immutable, murder is wrong for all people in all times. He will hold all people to account for their actions. Thus, for the Christian, murder is wrong regardless of personal opinion. Murder is wrong regardless of how one feels about the matter. In the Christian worldview, murder is wrong even if a majority of people think murder's ok.
Atheism, however, is exposed as folly since it can not provide justification for the claim that murder is universally, objectively wrong. For example, you write, "I know murder is wrong because I have evolved." But this is far from anything of an adequate justification. How do you know that someone is wrong when they say, "I know murder is right because I have evolved?" How do you know that person is wrong? If peoples' beliefs are the result of evolution, then what about those people who believe it's ok to murder? Are my Christian beliefs the result of evolution? But wait, you said that I'm brainwashed. Well, perhaps brainwashing is the result of evolution. If brainwashing is the result of evolution, then perhaps you're brainwashed. When you say, "I know murder is wrong because I have evolved," it's really just like saying, "I know this because this is what I've evolved to know." You know because you know it. You still haven't justified the belief that murder is objectively wrong.
You continue to prove Christianity true by having to rely on it in order to attack it. You believe that murder is wrong, but you can only justify that claim in the Christian worlview, not the atheist worlview. Thus your attacks against Christianity as pertaining to murder actually prove Christianity since only if Christianity is true is murder objectively wrong.
Jesus said, "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,' and 'anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment."
God will hold murderers responsible. And what Jesus is saying here is that murder begins in the heart, with anger. That's quite an indictment because all mankind is guilty of angry/hateful thoughts towards one person or another.
Thank God, then, that Jesus offered himself as a sacrifice on the cross to pay for the sin of all those who truly repent of their sin and put their faith in him. It's also an opportunity to stop relying on the incredibly limited knowledge of mankind and to rely instead on the omnipotence, love, and omniscience of God.
je: I agree with you that the notion of atheism is absurd. Why is there even such a word for those who merely state the obvious truth? There's no word for those who do not believe in alchemy, or Santa Clause or All Star wrestling, so there shouldn't be a word for those who do not believe in the delusions of religion either. Nevertheless, since the masses have been brainwashed to believe fiction is fact,such words as atheist, heretic, infidel (as it pertains to religion), etc. exist and we have to live with it.
I have already added to the term to distinquish a new ideology from previous tyrants who did not believe in the god delusion. HUMANISTIC atheism embodies an ideology that places fellow human beings above all else. This answers your concern re how I know murder is wrong (i.e it's inherent in the definition of my ideology), but I'll elaborate more later.
First, the gaping flaws in your Christian world view argument. How do you know a god created man? From the bible. However, the bible is loaded with erroneous content. Genesis is a joke. For one of many examples, the earth was not created before the sun. This is a physical impossibility proven by the observation of billions of other stars and astronomical phenomena (yes, billions i.e there is an average of ten billion stars in a galaxy).
Thus, right off the bat, you begin with a false premise. No wonder arguments in favor of a god are so easy to refute. Your next erroneous statement is "Murder is wrong for all people, all times." Have you ever heard of self-defense? The bible does not explain essential exceptions to its rules on many issues. This is but one example of how we have evolved beyond the good book.
Next, you say murder is wrong regardless of how one feels. However, a conscience is in fact a feeling. We evolved to have a conscience, to feel love and empathy, to care for things besides ourselves. These feelings have been around since before your institution's notion of a supreme being ever existed. Besides, anyone who behaves well without a belief in a god proves such beliefs are not necessary to behave well.
When I was four, I accidentally killed my pet rabbit (roughhousing with a friend). The devastation and guilt haunts me to this day. The feelings came naturally. I would go as far as saying that people without a capcity for guilt or shame are less evolved.
There are plenty of examples whereby religion has spared the believer from his/her conscience, because they place their delusions of a god ahead of their fellow human beings (ie suicide bombers, George Bush, the Pope when he tells aids torn Africans to avoid condoms.) This list goes on and on.
Of course, feeling for fellow human beings also materializes in the form of rational thought, so that people can choose peace over war even when they feel rage. But again, we have evolution to thank for this capacity, as we have developed bigger brains than other base animals.
Your notion that pointing out Christian atorcity actually proves a god is an absurd argument. By your way of thinking, if someone points out the injustice of the Holocaust, for example, they are actually proving Nazism is righteous! (But I understand. Delusions are like lies in that one leads to the twisted thinking of another.)
That Jesus told his followers murder was wrong is a blatant example of hypocrisy. First, in a scripture not included in the bible because of the "criteria of embarrassment", a teenaged Jesus kills another boy, just because the boy made fun of him. Second, mythical God, as is depicted in the bible, kills millions and millions, as well as tells people to kill. The brainwashing of your institution prevents you from seeing the obvious truth inhumanity in the Bible. Or do you believe in the motto: "Do what I say, not what I do"?
Jesus did not die for our sins. He was killed over a tax dispute by fellow Jews, as he did not stand up to the Romans the way he was suppose to. That he died for our sins was great spin doctoring by politicians to gain power over believers (and you're still falling for it, hook, line and sinker!)
As I have already pointed out on this blog, omnipotence is impossible. I.e it is impossible to know all numbers. No matter how many numbers are know, you can ALWAYS add more. Since omnipotence is impossible and God is by definition omnipotent, God does not exist (except in your imagination).
EJ, you continue to evade the problem that has been posed to you.
(An aside: self-defence isn't murder).
How do you know that murder is objectively wrong? You still, as an atheist, haven't justified the belief that murder is wrong.
How do you know that murder is wrong even if your conscience or feelings tells you that murder is ok?
You attack Christians as murderers via guilt by association, you attack God as a murder, you attack the Bible as legitimizing murder. (All of which are absurd lies and a misrepresentation of the Christian position, not to mention a great offense to me as a Christian who rejects murder.) You continue to assume that murder is wrong but you can't even justify that belief.
In the Christian worldview, we can make sense out of the claim that murder is wrong (I've briefly explained it a couple of times). That's why I point out to you that you have to rely on the Christian worldview wherein we can justify the belief that murder is wrong, and then you turn around and try to use a discussion of murder against Christianity.
You prove Christianity because your denial of it leads to absurdity; in this case as it pertains to moral laws, but more specifically murder.
I've been tempted the last time and this time to get distracted by all your other remarks which would take us down other rabbit trails, but we're still waiting for you to be able to demonstrate that atheists can justify the claim that murder is wrong, given the atheist's rejection of God.
I have not evaded the question but answered it directly. I know murder is wrong because of an evolved sense of morals. My conscience does not tell me hurting people is right, quite the contrary. My conscience is entrenched in a feeling of what is right.
Moreover, it's a well known fact that those who suffer antisocial personality disorder have no conscience because the don't have the feeling of it. That is, they don't feel bad when hurting others, they have no innate sense of empathy.
Because you are blinded by your own belief, you simply can not see the reality before your eyes.
How do you know it's right for god to murder? Where is your sense of compassion for His instances of genocide? Can you, for example, imagine the horror of a mother while she watches her children drown in a flood?
You can not show empathy here, can you? Why? Because you are blinded by religious dogma that has brainwashed you to believe that everything God does is righteous.
Since you can't feel empathy for fellow human beings killed in the most sadistic mannor by God (i.e drowning, burned alive, etc.), you are incorperating the trait of the antisocial personality disorder into your pyche.
This is a necessary condition for religious warring and terrorism. This is included in your "Christian World View."
If you accept yourself for who you really are, (a human being), you avoid justifying murder in the name of God. In your current state, you see yourself as part of a supernatural entity, a delusion that has been sparing believers from a conscience for centuries (as well as in modernity, i.e Bush, Bin Ladin, et el., all believe they are doing God's work).
Post a Comment