tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67557539864957093472024-02-20T00:42:17.297-08:00Thoughts of an Ex-Christian ScepticScientist, Biologist, Biomed Graduate, Ex-evangelical Christian, Atheist, ScepticAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11429876150456347816noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6755753986495709347.post-29400075189446102272015-10-26T10:59:00.000-07:002015-10-26T10:59:10.493-07:00Metaphorical Bible Stories<div class="MsoNormal">
As I and others grew up in church, bible stories that we
would read from each week were given, read and discussed in Sunday school.
These would be portrayed as literally true, with no evaluation or critical
thinking about the story perhaps not being an historical event, but rather
metaphorical. Verses were memorised in exchange for sweets or other rewards every
Sunday when I was very young, to stories of God’s literal provision of the
various characters in the books of the bible as I got older. As far as I can remember,
no one ever outright explicitly stated, or even hinted, that some qualified
people and Christians around the world do not take large portions of the bible
as literally true and perhaps therefore, neither should we. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Studying science and biology as I got older and at university,
I began to find evidence that conflicted with the literal stories and words
within the bible, such as the genetic evidence for the impossibility of the whole
human race having two ancestors by which they descended. (I don’t intend to
discuss the evidence here, but suffice it to say, the evidence against the
literal existence of Adam and Eve is clear-cut and anyone can contact me if
they need further convincing.)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Further reading by myself on history and linguistics, seemed
to cast huge doubt on stories in the bible book of genesis and exodus.
Linguists tell us languages are not created in an instant, but evolve over
years, casting doubt on the story of the tower of Babel. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is clear to most people that the story of Noah is also
not meant to be taken literally. The huge number of problems with the logistics
of fitting the number of animals on an ark, combined with the science of
biogeography and other similar criticisms of the story, also show this story to
be figurative. The concept originally was perhaps based on a large flood in the
area at the time, adding to the knowledge of other such flood myths from other
cultures based in the same area, with the Noah story being passed down through
generations and combined with a story of God’s providence. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
One of my favourite parts of the bible, the whole of the exodus
story, from Joseph being taken into Egypt to live under pharaoh and the Egyptians,
to Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt into the Promised Land, is now
considered to be one huge metaphor and literary device. The evidence of this
coming from archaeology and the lack of a presence of a large society in the
area at that time, leading experts to believe that these were figurative,
non-literal stories told at the time and passed down, to express the oppression
of the Egyptian civilisation in the area during that time-frame. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“Cheated” or “betrayed” are perhaps a too strong or
emotional words to use to describe the feeling, but Church and Sunday school
preachers have a responsibility to inform themselves on the facts of the issue
which they are teaching to children. Myself and the generation of children in
my age group (and large amounts of others by which this misinformation is
continuing today) were ultimately let down on this issue. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I am not saying these adults misled children deliberately to
brainwash kids, (although the effect is largely the same, whatever the
intention and cause) but were simply ignorant of the issues themselves and
therefore saw no need to inject critical thinking of the bible verses they
already clung to, as truth, themselves. The leaders and teachers were nothing
but wonderful people during my years at church and I will never say a negative
word about their well-intentioned personalities and conduct. However, a wider
research and reading on the issues preached fell far short and it still does
today. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I’m sure as people read this, they will be disagreeing, out
of hand, with the large list of known metaphorical and non-literal stories in
the pages of scripture, showing the need to address the problem and educate. The
sheer number of events in the bible that formerly were taken to be historical
and now are accepted to not be, seems to deal a death blow to the tenants of
Christianity and large aspects of theology. If large amounts of scripture, such
as Adam and Eve, Moses and the Exodus, Noah and the tower of Babel be taken as figurative
and allegorical then why should the rest be taken as literal. This leads to
fundamentalist, literalist Christians having to jump through intellectual hoops
and deny large portions of the evidence which supports this, to escape the
consequences of these revelations, or as the only alternative, believe almost
the entirety of their bible is metaphorical and perhaps deny their faith
altogether- a step too far which they will not take. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The response of “We always thought these stories were figurative,
no one ever thought they were literal” I find to be intellectually dishonest. This
was never made clear in the years of me going to church and I wasn’t too young
to hear and understand this perspective if it ever was enunciated. This smacks
of back peddling in the light of new evidence given by science and archaeology
in the 21<sup>st</sup> century, to hold to the belief in the Christianity at
all costs, rather than jettisoning the belief as would be done with all over
ideas when evidence of this type comes along. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
To also hold to the belief in the literal truth of these
bible stories and deny the evidence that shows these beliefs to be misguided shows
intellectual dishonesty. People should reject beliefs they hold when
conflicting evidence is discovered that casts them into doubt. I can often almost
see the thoughts in Christian’s minds as they happen, in real time, when
explained the evidence contradicts these events being literally true, as they
come to realise they would have to reject the whole of scripture and theology,
if they accept the evidence for these stories being metaphorical. What’s to
stop the entire bible being in the same category if some parts have been shown
to be metaphorical, they think, and so I can’t accept that any of it can be metaphorical.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is also not my responsibly as an Atheist to try to work
out my theology and which parts I agree and don’t believe- this is for
Christians to work out amongst themselves. I neither sit on the “believe all
parts of the bible are literal” side of the coin, nor “most of it is figurative”
side, such as some very liberal theologians and vicars do. I have rejected the
entire bible as fundamentally untrue, despite some nice, useful parts, as an
atheist and this makes it far simpler. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is clear what the bible writers were trying to do, in writing
these stories, by trying to explain the world to which they found themselves
in, thousands of years ago and we should not blame them for writing a figurative
story that Christians coming later mistook to be literally true. However,
people need to be told the extent to which many of the bible stories are not
considered to be literally true, so they can teach this perspective to children
and others in the church, to keep my experience of finding out years later from
happening over and over again. <o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11429876150456347816noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6755753986495709347.post-19401531685666549092015-07-05T13:01:00.001-07:002015-07-05T13:01:39.720-07:00Alpha?<div class="MsoNormal">
Since becoming an atheist and engaging with Christians within
churches in evangelical circles, the suggestion almost inevitably surfaces that
I and others go on an “Alpha Course” to explore the Christian faith and deal
with our doubts. For those who don’t know, the Alpha Course is a course run
over several weeks, by which people interested in the Christian faith get
invited along, to eat a meal and discuss the Christianity in a relaxed context
and which has shown to be incredibly successful in adding to members of the
church around the world. This course
seems to be the default method of conversion in a Christians mind and often the
only method they have at their disposal, leading to a “one catch all” method in
trying to convert individuals to Christianity. Failing to realise that people have
different mind-sets, different ways of thinking, are in different situations
and are at varying degrees of belief or non-belief before signing up and
attending the Alpha Course each week.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
For ex-Christians like myself, there seems to be a problem.
Having known the gospel message, been saved and baptised, believed and trusted
the bible, been along to church weekly for years and even help run alpha
courses, it’s not the lack of knowledge in God and Jesus and the claims of Christianity
that has made me an atheist, but the knowledge I do have that has made me doubt
the claims of Christianity after years of further study. Saying to sceptics, “You
cannot comment as you do not know enough about Christianity to discuss it and
you haven’t been on an alpha course- I’ll invite you to explore the claims that
Christianity makes”, does not apply in my situation- (although I do not know
how many hours of study of leprechauns you need to engage in before you doubt
their existence…). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In my mind, there are
several major flaws in the course and it is shockingly ineffective in actually addressing
the issues it should address, leaving a huge market needed for other ways to
engage with sceptics, atheists and agnostics. Most fundamentally, it fails to
be an effective resource for engaging with the “big questions” in life, as it
claims in the adverts. The weekly outline has been set out for all churches running
the course, going through issues such as “why did Jesus die” to “how can I find
meaning in my life”. These topics seems to be geared towards people who already
are open, susceptible and interested in finding out about the Christian faith
and are interested in converting to Christianity at the outset. As others have
said elsewhere - “I thought the Alpha Course was supposed to be aimed at people
who were sceptical about the truth claims of Christianity - but to my
disappointment, found the course to be aimed more at the casual Christian,
someone who is looking to have his or her faith boosted, someone in need of a spiritual
enema. I certainly don’t think that the course caters well enough for
non-believers, and certainly not at all well enough for the informed sceptic”.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Lots of what is said on the alpha course is also un-substantiated
claims, based on Christian theology and nothing else. Not particularly
effective when engaging with non-Christians, who don’t have the belief to begin
with. Talk of the devil, angels, demons, sin, salvation and other such talk and
bible verses are, to my ears, completely pointless. A quote from Christopher
Hitchens seems appropriate- “What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed
without evidence.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If persuaded to attend an alpha course in the future, after
lots of thought, I would go along. But have to lay my cards on the table from
the outset and explain that if I don’t hear good evidence for the beliefs and
tenets of Christianity, such of the category that I have never heard before, I
will not be persuaded. If the only benefit to attending an alpha course is that
Christians feel I can comment and discuss with them on an informed level, then
going forwards, this will be worth that effort. Of more interest to me is to
engage, chat and enjoy chatting with people who have different views to me and try
to get to the root of why people believe such things. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I always enjoy debating
and discussing the big questions of life, often for its own sake, without any
hidden agenda and this would be no exception. I wholeheartedly agree with C.S
Lewis who said, “Christianity, if false, is of no importance,
and if true, of infinite
importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important” and so
comments such as “Haven’t you got something better to do”, or “why bother
debating religious people, they don’t hurt anyone” I feel are nonsense, nothing
can be more important to occupy our lives. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Thoughts?</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11429876150456347816noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6755753986495709347.post-148231319993529982015-03-06T13:42:00.000-08:002015-03-06T13:45:22.047-08:00The Hiddenness of God<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">The God of Christianity, as defined as an all-powerful,
all-knowing being, has been observed over the centuries to be more absent,
hidden and distant than people expect. A supremely powerful (God) being would
know the intricate workings of the brains of the creatures that he created and
cares for. Due to this, God also knows
what argumentation and evidence is the most effective at bringing these
individuals freely into relationship with him and into his ultimate goal of
salvation for eternity. He knows the argumentation and evidence that would
convince myself and others, what arguments I respond best to and what evidence
in nature would persuade. However, he hasn't done so and so far, seems to have
refused to give me evidence which would convince me and others of his existence.
Others have died after never seeing convincing evidence to be persuaded. The
character of an all-loving God would surely not deliberately withhold
information and evidence from individuals or not provide evidence which he
knows would convince. This seems immoral for a supremely moral being. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">I want to make it absolutely clear that no part of my mind
is closed to the existence of God, the divinity of Christ, or the truth of
Christianity or religion overall. Drastically changing my mind on a particular
issue and making a U-turn is not just a hypothetical issue that I only give lip
service to. Examples of this happening to me in reality include accepting the
evidence of evolution and moving from a theistic evolutionist to an
evolutionist and changing my mind on the overall truth of Christianity to
become an atheist, amongst others, showing my desire to change if the evidence
presented itself. Other individuals and atheists have quite clearly stated that
they are desperate to believe, but just can’t bring themselves to do it based
on the lack of evidence and seem very sincere in saying so. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">I have heard responses by religious people, who say that
even if the evidence was given to me and others, we would not change our mind,
which I strongly disagree with. This is one of the defining hallmarks of
science- the ability to change minds and only accept given facts tentatively,
never dogmatically holding on to previous understanding when contrary evidence
presents itself and as I scientist, I strive to make sure this is what I do in
reality. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">I am not denying there is evidence for God, Jesus and
Christianity given by various philosophers and theologians over the centuries.
However, this evidence is far from the quality of evidence given for other basic
truths about the universe. As an example, take the evidence science has given
us for the truth of a round, not flat earth. This evidence is practically
universally accepted in civilisation and it seems almost comical to even
suggest, or outright deny that the earth is round. This is not in the same
category as the existence of God, divinity of Jesus or truth of Christianity.
Hundreds of religions around the world and in history have radically differing
views on all of the tenants of religions; with practically nobody knowing whom
is correct. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">The truth of the existence of the God of the bible and the
many doctrines related to this seem far more important, with far more eternal
significance, to humans and to god, than some of the more obvious facts of the world
given by science such as the truth of evolution or the truth of a flat earth. The
famous quote by C.S. Lewis seems relevant here- “Christianity, if false, is of
no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be
is moderately important.” I agree. If Christianity is true, it is enormously
important. So why doesn't God provide the evidence to substantiate this?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Another common response to this objection is, “God doesn't want to overwhelm us with convincing proof. He needs to leave space for choice
and freewill and that’s why the evidence doesn't seem too strong and obvious.”
However, I find this response lacking and inadequate. We are not talking here
about a slap on the wrists for not accepting the truth of Christianity and the
salvation of Jesus and then being let off. The doctrine of hell or eternal
separation from God is the punishment, or logical consequence for this decision
and outcome. Whatever your theology on rejection of salvation, whether
annihilation or eternal torture, it doesn't seem to be justified considering
the severely lacking evidence. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">In addition to this, nobody says, “The evidence for a round
earth is too overwhelming. It doesn't leave people with the choice of accepting
or rejecting this fact. We need to give people more of an chance and
opportunity of freely accepting this, without feeling compelled to do so, as we
may cause them to turn their back on this fact.” Obviously not. The truth of
the overwhelming fact of a round earth is plain to see, based on the huge field
of evidence supporting it and people can only reject it, perhaps based on a
massive conspiracy theory or suchlike. The evidence to support the truth of
this particular belief should not be censored, to rather patronisingly, protect
humans from the body of evidence that we do have, from science in its favour.
If the issue at hand is objectively true, whether the question of the shape of
the earth, or the truth of Christianity, it is irrelevant to what extent the
evidence should be broadcast or revealed to society. This example shows God
could give overwhelming evidence for his existence and no drastic consequences
will result from people having plenty of evidence at their disposal, but he simply doesn't choose to. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Over the years of searching for evidence for the truth of
Christianity, I have consistently been given evidence which is far poorer in
quality and quantity than expected. Answers like, “all the evidence you need is
in the pages of scripture”, or “it’s not about evidence, faith is all you need”,
seems to be on the bottom end of the scales of the hierarchy of rational
evidence. It is a poor reflection on the character of this deity, who only
seems to be able to whisper in his followers’ ears, drastically poor arguments
for his existence and which seem to give myself and other less confidence in
the rational basis for this belief, than if they hadn't tried to give these
poor answers in the first place. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Now of course, the explanation for the lack of good quality
evidence may be God doesn't exist in the first place, (the belief taken by
atheists) or that God is deliberately hiding himself for an unknown (and
immoral) explanation. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">To end, the quote from Delos Banning McKown seems very appropriate - “The invisible and the non-existent look very
much alike.”</span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11429876150456347816noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6755753986495709347.post-62195985349123967912015-03-02T08:45:00.001-08:002015-03-02T08:45:22.378-08:00A word of introduction...<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Numerous friends I know on social media have blogs online
which they regularly update and several well-known scientists and philosophers
I know do the same. I have increasingly felt the need to join them and so, I
intend for this blog to be my thoughts and responses to Christian arguments and
thoughts for and about God. Simply posting on social media I have increasingly
found to be inadequate with too little room, with the addition of various
people giving me feedback that these posts are too in their face and
“depressing” (This smacks to me of hitting a raw nerve due to the intrinsic truth
in what I post and the extreme insecurity of their faith that can’t stand up to
criticism). However, an area to criticise and exchange ideas without being too
in people’s faces I feel will be helpful, without individuals having the
feeling of a personal attack on their particular social media site.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">I also intend to lay out the various arguments against the
existence of God that I have heard over the years, that I consider to be the
strongest against such a deity and that any reasonable person if heard and
accepted these arguments based on the evidence, would have to reject such a
deity that they believe in. I am also incredibly motivated to openly criticise
and dismantle some of the more pervasive and dangerous arguments for God that I
see today, with various more serious connotations if these are accepted and
believed without question. Some positions I have briefly argued against or for
on social media, however, a consolidation and clear gathering and lay-out of
the issues on this blog I feel will be very helpful. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">I find myself at an advantage due to being a born-again
Christian for many years and then losing my religion and becoming an
ex-Christian, as I feel I can adequately represent and lay out the arguments
that both the “everyday” Christian deals going to church each Sunday and the
sophisticated theological lays out in defence of the Christian faith. Having
also spent years researching apologetics and the responses given by the
atheistic/agnostic side, I can also adequately give a representative view on
these issues, these having ultimately convinced me. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">I also wrote a long essay a while back, to lay out my
journey from belief to unbelief. It was suggested from the comments given on
this that I needed to answer several more questions and perhaps write a second
part on the arguments which I laid out. Due to the length I had written
already, I intend to write more about these experiences and arguments on this
blog, responding to the objections and concerns accordingly. I will always feel
that no argument or belief system is immune and not open to criticism, and so
where others may be able to leave religious people and arguments alone and to
themselves, I cannot (this being very different from attacking somebody
personally). This engagement would be exactly the same for me if large amounts
of people I know believed in other misplaced and pernicious beliefs for
society, such as ghosts or fairies or homoeopathy and this affected their
beliefs and actions like religion and other forms of dangerous pseudo-science
does. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11429876150456347816noreply@blogger.com0