Faith in God  isn’t a stupid idea because the thought that there is no God creates more problems than in solves.

Faith in God certainly raises it’s share of head scratching thoughts.  I would never deny that.

But, did you ever think that the  “no God” theory has serious difficulties all its own?

The problem with the elimination of God it that it doesn’t stop with the elimination of God.  It logically eliminates all we link to God (without even realizing it).  Without God you don’t just lose a “man upstairs” who may get you out of a jam.  You lose a purpose for life,  a source for true morals and the idea that there is life beyond this life (i.e. hope), just to name a few.

This is not just a nice little weak Christian argument. Some of the bolder (and more honest) atheistic thinkers have admitted the difficulties.

Friedrich Nietzsche, one of Christianity’s most outspoken critics, said:

  “ There are altogether no moral facts.”  Indeed, morality “has truth only if God is the truth—it stands or falls with faith in God.”

 Atheist philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre admitted:  “It [is] very distressing that God does not exist, because all possibility of finding values in a heaven of ideas disappears along with Him.

Then you have William Provine, Cornell University scholar who points out to college students in his lectures the true implications of Darwinism / atheism.  He says it means:

“No life after death; no ultimate foundation for ethics; no ultimate meaning for life; no free will.”‘

Did you read that right?  In other words. Joseph Stalin, murderer of countless millions, was swallowed up by nothingness;  in the exact same way Mother Teresa, servant of the poorest of the poor was. Death made them equals.  There was nothing and no one on the other side to affirm, deny or judge the good or the bad in their lives.

How about the idea that there is “no ultimate foundation for ethics”??!!  Do we grasp what he’s saying?  First, if atheism is true, he’s right.  If there is no God, then our ethical ideas, no matter how strong we feel them or believe in them are, in the end, just human mental constructs and arbitrary social conventions.  Pol Pot lived in a way that most of us do not “prefer” but, in the ultimate sense, what he did was not “wrong”.

I maintain that, no matter what a man says he believes, he will never live his life as if the implications of atheism are actually real.  He can’t.  It doesn’t make any sense. It is the ultimate in irrationality.

We know better than to imagine that evil and good are just figments of our imagination.   Faith in God is far from stupid.  It is the logical basis for the most important matters of life.

 

 

The End of Faith?
Back in 2004 author Sam Harris released a book called, “The End of Faith”.  For my purposes here I am more interested in the title than the content.

Harris is one of the  so-called “Four Horsemen of Atheism” birthed in the aftermath of 9-11 who have treated the reading public to titles like “God is not Great” or “the God Delusion”.

I think it’s fair to sum up their writings as follows:

Faith is a stupid idea.

I disagree.  Here’s reason #1:

Faith is not a stupid idea because faith is an unavoidable idea.
Every human being that has ever lived on planet Earth arrived in the middle of the story.  None of us saw how the story started. We arrived, and things were already up and running.

This whole wild weird universe, with its flamingos, quarks, piglets, popcorn, sea cucumbers and black holes was already here when we got here.

What does that have to do with anything?

We are thinking and reflecting beings.  The best we can tell, human beings are the only living creatures who reflect on their own existence.  Because of that, the question is going to come up, Where did we come from?  How did we get here? How did the story start?

These kinds of questions are unavoidable.

And, that’s what makes faith unavoidable.

In the simplest terms, the Bible defines faith as, “believing in what we do not see”.  The Apostle Paul says things like,  “We walk by faith not by sight”. “Faith in what is seen is no faith at all”

In the Bible faith is never presented as  the opposite of reason.   Faith is the opposite of. . . sight. 

In that case, our interpretations of “how the story began” are all “faith” statements.

All thinking people use the same kind of reasoning to arrive at their beliefs about the “unseen”.  We use a brand of reasoning called “inference”.

Inference is something all people do on more than just the “big questions of life”.  We do it everyday, almost unconsciously.  When I see my garbage strewn all over my backyard, I make the inference that an animal has tried to dig in my trash for food.  I never have to see an animal dig in the trash.  All I need is the trash and the several holes in my trash bags.

Granted, I could be wrong.  Maybe the wind, or my neighbor did it.  I can’t be 100% sure.  But, because the other explanations don’t stand up to what I have experienced in life, I can be reasonably certain my “animal in the trash” theory is correct.

This is the most basic way faith works.  It is not an unreasonable leap.  Faith is not defined as believing something in spite of all the evidence.  It is a reasonable inference from the available data.

I do the same with the resurrection of Christ.  I believe it is the most reasonable inference from the available data.

Sam Harris does the same thing in the opposite direction.  He looks at the available data and makes the inference that God does not exist.  The problem is, he would say he is using reason and anyone who concludes God is there is using “faith” (as if it is the opposite of reason).  This is taking two ideas that are not opposites and forcing them into an unnatural battle.

Harris is using the exact same kind of reasoning to arrive at his conclusion, as I am mine.

The only difference is, we reach opposite conclusions based on our interpretations of the evidence. We are using the same kind of reasoning interpreters of JFK’s assassination use to reach wildly different conclusions.   It’s not that some are being reasonable while others are unreasonable (well, maybe some interpretations are unreasonable).  But, in the end, they are simply arriving at different conclusions based on the data.

Faith is not a stupid idea because people are wired to infer the unseen from the seen.

As long as we keep thinking and reflecting, the “end of faith” is impossible.

Chesterton said he was led to faith in Christianity by reading atheist writings.  I can see why. An example:  

Atheists are very big on how they use “reason” and Christians use “faith”.  What builds my faith is when I hear atheist “reason” and compare it to true Christian faith.

Recently I heard about a “former evangelical pastor turned atheist” named Dan Barker.  He has a book titled “Losing Faith In Faith” and another called: “From Preacher To Atheist”.  He was an Evangelical Pastor for 19 years before officially declaring his atheism.

A story like his, and titles like those, hit close to home.  So, I thought I would do some digging and hear where this guy was coming from.  To be fair, I haven’t read his books in their entirety yet, but I checked his web site, gathered some bio info and read some quotes.

I found this quote from a page labeled “quotations on free thought and religion”.  It was the #1 in a list of Dan Barker quotes (Someone out there is proud of this one):

“The very concept of sin comes from the bible. Christianity offers to solve a problem of its own making! Would you be thankful to a person who cut you with a knife in order to sell you a bandage? [Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith]

Wow.  And he threw away his faith for arguments like this?  Talk about selling your soul for 30 pieces of silver.

Think about it:  “the very concept of sin comes from the bible” (?)

A comment like that kind of makes me wonder where the good (former) Rev. Barker picked up his “evangelical Pastor” credentials before he dumped them.

Let’s see how this atheist argument can build my faith in Christianity:

He says:

1. the “Concept”:  (defined as “something thought or imagined”).
2. “Sin”:  defined as (“offense or moral wrong”).

is a Bible idea.

So, if the Bible had never been written, we would have no concept at all that it’s a “sin” to steal our neighbor’s car, rape his wife and murder his children?

I think I can speak for everyone when I say, I sure am glad the Bible was written!

I’m sure the good (former) Reverend would protest that’s not what he meant (even though that’s what he said).  After all, he’s an atheist and “reason” is his realm, while “faith” is ours.

But, let’s be reasonable, just for kicks.

The Bible DOES offer to solve the problem that it claims we all have:  we are terminal moral violators.  But, the Bible itself would tell us we don’t need the Bible to know that’s true.  Quoting Chesterton again, human depravity is the only Christian doctrine for which there is any empirical evidence.  You can read the daily news or, better yet, just look into your own soul.

I wonder how the good (former) Reverend would express himself if someone were to hack into his bank account and steal all the royalties he made from “Losing Faith in Faith” and then invest the money in the sex slave trade in his name?

Would he call it a “sin”?

The answer is, he probably wouldn’t use the word.  But, he would certainly use a word that conveyed the same “concept”.  He wouldn’t be able to help himself.  He would insist that he had been “morally violated”.  He would also insist that the violation was a breaking of some kind of universal standard of “moral good”.

Desiring the violator to be caught, prosecuted and declared “guilty”, he would find himself completely immersed in concepts like, “sin”, “guilt”, “innocence”, “morals”,  “justice”, “violation” even “punishment”.  And, because he has now dedicated himself to arguing against the Bible, he would insist that all of these ideas are not simply biblical and religious but. . . human, very real and, most importantly, universally binding. And, all the while, the Bible would offer a bandage to the cuts the sin had made on his life.

The Bible gives us a written explanation of the reality we find ourselves in. It didn’t “invent” the concept of sin.  It explains that we are thoroughly moral creatures created by a thoroughly moral God.   We can’t get past it.  Even when we think we can, if someone else “sins” against us, we are completely convinced of its reality, bible or no bible.

When atheists like the good (former) Reverend Barker say weak things like that, it makes me want to stay a “current” Evangelical Pastor.

 

The Bible and Doubt

Whether you are an explorer or already a believer, most of us have struggled with doubts.  I have found the Bible to be very, very helpful in encouraging me in my doubts — by not condemning me for them, but building me through them.

The key? Good old-fashioned, honesty.

I have learned there is a “public reputation” the Bible has and then there are the actual stories, statements and characters. For example, right now my personal time has me in the book of Job and, I gotta say, it is a work of intense, amazing and perplexing art that challenges cliche’s. Check this out and remember, “all scripture is God-breathed”

Then Job replied:

 ² “Even today my complaint is bitter;
his hand^[a] is heavy in spite of^[b] my groaning.
³ If only I knew where to find him;
if only I could go to his dwelling!
⁴ I would state my case before him
and fill my mouth with arguments. Job 23: 1- 4

I didn’t know you were allowed to talk that way.

In my opinion, the Bible’s public reputation is pretty lame.  It goes something like this:  the Bible is about ancient people who knew very little about the real world, wore sandals, had long beards, took care of sheep, were attacked by locusts, talked in Shakespearean English and lived “righteously” in all the dull, uninspiring religious ways we associate with living “righteously”.

Yawn.

On the other hand, I have made the happy discovery that the public reputation is a vicious, inaccurate and very unhelpful rumor.  The real thing is a wild, poetic, fascinating, mysterious, very human / divine book filled with stories that have dirt under their fingernails.

I can say this with confidence:

The Bible is the most beautifully honest book you’ll ever read. 

Here’s an example of a story that is weirdly  and refreshingly honest:  Jesus has risen from the dead.  He’s standing before his closest followers.  The Bible reports the encounter and says simply,  “some worshiped, but some doubted.”

The first response is what you would expect:  the “right” response to a guy who has risen from the dead would be worship; of course.

You would think the writer would leave out the second group, even if he knew they were there.  Why even mention them?   Some doubted?  Are you kidding?  What would they have to doubt?  He was standing right in front of them.  I thought my doubt issues were bad.

Let’s get this straight:  the people who had followed Jesus for three years, watched with their own eyes as he performed miracles, listened with their own ears as he taught, saw him die, got to see the actual empty tomb; then, as if that weren’t enough, were there to see what the Bible elsewhere says he gave “many convincing proofs he was alive” and they still doubted?

I don’t know about you, but I just felt the bar get lowered on how we define belief. I don’t feel nearly as guilty struggling with doubts 2000 years removed from the eyewitness encounters.

That’s a great example of a story with dirt under its fingernails:  doubt in the middle of eyewitness experience belief.  These are my kind of people! We can all take some encouragement in the middle of our doubts from these very human believers.