Like I said in my last post, I’m open to the very real possibility that I am wrong about there being no God. I even alluded to some criteria. Maybe it’s arrogant of me to tell God the conditions upon which I am willing to believe in him, but I don’t see myself as doing that, really. Instead, I am simply acknowledging what it would take for me to believe. In other words, this isn’t about what God has to do- if God exists, I suppose he can do whatever he wants- it’s about me and what I know about the way I feel and the way I think.
I want to believe. I would like to believe. But I need something to help me take the first step. I need something more than to just say “I want to believe in Jesus” and based on that, throw myself (or even tiptoe, really) into Christianity and/or discipleship. I’ve given my reasons why that is, but in short, it’s because I know from experience that given time and energy I can convince myself to believe pretty much anything, and I am unwilling to do that at this point.
So I need something. I don’t know what that something is- maybe something mystical, maybe something mundane. I don’t know what form it would take, but I know how it would feel. It would feel significant. Weighty. Important. I would be so impressed by it that it would be nearly all I could think about. It would make my hair stand on edge.
I’ve felt this before, with those dreams you have and then you wake up and feel like it was piercingly significant. I’ve felt this beforeso I know what it feels like.
I’ll acknowledge that such a feeling wouldn’t be proof of anything, much less proof of God. But it would be enough for me to help me take the first step. I wouldn’t rest my entire faith on the one experience at all- on the contrary, I would go about seeking to actively build my faith. Yes, I would actively work to cultivate religious feeling in myself, which is almost exactly what I’ve said I cannot do- but the difference is that I would feel like I was doing it based on something other than whim, cultural bias, or convincing argument.
I don’t need a pillar of light, directly above my head. I just need something. Something that makes me sit up and take notice. I’m willing to do the rest from there.
But for now, such a thing seems to not be forthcoming. If God exists and he wants me to know him, I don’t understand why he doesn’t help me out here. So I conclude, tentatively, that either he doesn’t exist or he doesn’t want me to know him, which is as good as if he doesn’t exist.
This isn’t set in stone. People change, and that includes me. It’s entirely possible that down the road I’ll have different criteria, or noe at all- I may feel like I need God so badly that I don’t care anymore and I’m willing to take the first step on my own and act as if he exists even if he doesn’t. If atheism leaves me sad, and a wreck of a human shell, then I’ll know I’m barking up the wrong tree (or more likely, failing to bark up a tree at all when I really should be). But for now, this is where I am.
I believe we thrive and compel ourselves to be better when we have a challenge to face. So, I guess, here’s one – do some digging and try, really honestly try – to disprove the resurrection of Jesus. And take it from there – some people have put a lot of effort into it and others have drawn hastily towards the conclusion they want. It’s up to you.
It’s not exciting, it’s not groundbreaking, but then sometimes in the commonest of places we can sometimes get that brief flicker of light and see, truly see, just perhaps for a moment, further than before.
No; that’s stupid. Under no circumstances will I be able to disprove any such thing.
Furthermore, the fact that I cannot disprove it absolutely does not mean that a thing is true.
Go back and read the post you’re commenting on. You’re trying to convince me logically that Christianity is true, and it’s not working.
I think you should test out Christ and judge the results. Dive in with both feet and see if you see a change in your life. You no longer have him burdened by all that Joseph added on to him. See if he really is different. If there’s no change, then dump it. It will cost you relatively nothing in the long run.
A profound transformation in your heart will be a mystical experience (for lack of a better word) that you can’t deny. And I’m not just saying that your life will be pragmatically better or that Jesus will help you be nice. I sincerely believe that He radically changes people. See if he changes you. Get discipled and own that you have doubts but you’re willing to try any way.
It’s kind of like when your parents made you try new food. You couldn’t claim you didn’t like it until you really tasted it. Right now you’re just putting the tip of your tongue on it.
I appreciate your insight, Dando, but right now I feel like I’ve “dived into Christ” as much as I can.
My search for spirituality didn’t start with this blog; I had really been at it since I first started doubting the Mormon church last year. It wasn’t until January or so, after many months of diving into Christianity ot the best of my ability without anythign really ever clicking, that I started to look even further outside the box.
I read the Bible, I read some apologetics, I prayed, I searched for a church. but somehow Jesus himself seemed simply too elusive.
Anyway, like I said, I am simply unwilling and/or unable to just “dive in” right now, without soemthing more to go on than people telling me I should.
Help me understand why proving that Jesus didn’t die on the cross, proving that he survived his time in the tomb and thus proving that he didn’t rise from the dead is a stupid thing to do. People who are a lot more intelligent than either of us have set out to do exactly that. If you succeed it would lay the issue of Christianity to rest once and for all. If the fact of someone rising from the dead isn’t enough of a “Wow” experience for you, or if you don’t even want to try to find out for yourself if it’s true, then I suspect that you might be having us on about wanting to believe.
Makarios, the reason that it’s stupid for Kullervo to do, in my opinion, is that he doesn’t have the resources. And joining a religion because you can’t disprove it is dumb. Can you disprove Mohammed’s claims? Can you disprove Joseph Smith’s claims? No? Then perhaps you should actually be a Muslim or a Mormon–after all, you can’t disprove them.
How can you prove that Joseph Smith’s revelations were any different than John’s? How can you prove that someone’s mystical experiences were not so? You can’t.
And, even if you could disprove Islam and disprove Mormonism, but couldn’t disprove Christianity. There are still so many religions out there that you also can’t disprove.
I don’t think that believing for that kind of reason would be a very satisfying spiritual life. ‘Well, I guess since I can’t find the holes in this story, I’ll stick with it.’
Sure, some people set out to do it. And if that’s what they want to do, that’s their business. I personally find that going on a mission to false-find leaves me depressed and empty. I’d much rather search for truth than for lies.
Kullervo never said that the idea of someone rising from the dead isn’t enough of a ‘wow’… but how does he know that that really happened? Because the Bible says so? The National Geographic tells me that Britney Spears gave birth to aliens… does that make it true? Because it’s in print? Millions of people believe that the Book of Mormon is the word of God… does that make it true?
Wow, the National Geographic has really let there editorial standards slip.
Re: Dando
LOL
Re: everyone else
I do have to agree with Kullervo on this one. The idea of proving the resurrection true, of course, *would* settle the problem, but am I assuming that we’re all working with the given that that’s not really accessible information. That said, the challenge to “disprove the resurrection” is what they call an “Appeal to Ignorance” in psychology or rhetoric: a challenge counting on winning over the other person by appealing to their uncertainty. This kind of rhetoric is universally identifiable because it sounds just as good turned around. “You want me to be Christian? Well then, prove the resurrection happened!” could well be the snotty argument of the bitter Atheist. Of course, neither approach does anything substantial except remind us of our inability to prove or disprove the event in question.
So I’m not saying that it’s not food for thought or anything. But neither side of the table– Christian or Atheist– has any mystical patent on the “appeal to ignorance” that makes it fair game to use it one way and not the other. Obviously, the reality/ falsehood of the resurrection can only be dealt with obliquely, by trying to structure a series of provable supports that would either make it likely or unlikely (including history, personal experience, internal logical soundness, etc). And then set out to prove or disprove those.
All said, I think that skepticism is as big a danger as “blind faith”– on the one hand, the skeptic rejects anything that cannot be directly proven; on the other, the fanatic accepts everything that cannot be directly disproven (I’m not accusing Makarios of fanaticism here by any means, just in case somebody’s reading too much into my argument). In either case, it is not the evidence itself but the predetermined attitude towards the unavailability of evidence that determines the outcome. And I don’t think that’s any more sensible than arguing over whether a cup is half empty or half full.
Raticas,
I think that mischaracterizes skepticism. Skeptics don’t require absolute proof. Even if some skeptics think they require absolute proof, that would be completely dysfunctional. We doubt and try to act on the most likely truth based on the evidence available. I like the following definition:
“skepticism is a philosophical movement that emphasizes that absolute knowledge is unattainable, and therefore inquiry must be a process of doubting in order to acquire approximate or relative certainty.”
So (philosophical) skeptics even question the existence of absolute proof.
Raticas,
I agree. It’s the same folly to believe everything you hear as it is to believe nothing you hear.
Actually – I did read the post, I’m sorry I made you so mad…
On the other notes – I looked at the possibility of the resurrection as my defining crux of argument. I know others who have as well who say how daft it is to believe something so impossible/implausible/etc
The reason I suggested it was because not only is it possible to get good books on this subject, with different conclusions – so you can have a critical look at it for yourself but also because in so taking a challenge you’d also be looking at things of a spiritual nature with a questioning mind and whilst on that journey – you may catch a brief glimpse of where you want to go.
There have, to date have been no chariots found in South America dating back to the time Mormonism demands them to be present – so it is possible to be critical. I believe that you have the ability and resources for the challenge I offered, but it was just an idea and it’s entirely up to you whether or not you accept that that is what you want to spend/waste your time on.
Re: Jonathan Blake
Thanks for the feedback on Skepticism. Let me qualify my thought, then:
The *blindly* skeptical rejection of everything is the ideological equal opposite of fanaticism; mild to moderate skepticism might be the ideological opposite of mild to moderate gullibility. In any case, I still place them on the same axis, as a priori assumptions about how willingly a person is to accept new and unverifiable information.
I think that your definition of skepticism might represent a very reasonable kind of skeptic (like you, maybe?); however, faith could be likewise toned down into a reasonable, intelligent definition that embodies the perspective of some believers but fails to capture the reality of the garden-variety, non-educated believer. I still think that in practice, your average “skeptic” tends towards rejecting of the unprovable rather than humbly acknowledging of the unknowable. I guess I have the audacity to think that most self-proclaimed believer and skeptics are, in fact, totally dysfunctional; but you raise a good point that, like the reasonable believer, there is such thing as a reasonable skeptic.
You miss the point. The Resurrection is by its nature completely impossible to prove or disprove. There is in fact no evidence that would conclusively prove that the Resurrection never hapened.
Much like how it is in fact completely impossible to disprove the existence of God. It can’t be done.
I don’t say that the Resurrection is daft or impossible. I say the attempt to conclusively disprove it is daft or impossible. Completely futile.
I get your point, though- in delving into Christianity and the arguments for and against it, that I will encounter the spiritual along the way. Fine. Maybe. But I’m not going to do it.
Basically, I just don’t think that if God wants us to know him that he would make it that hard ot find him, that he would set us up so that only by pursuing an in-depth academic study (and I’m a law student- I honestly just don’t have time for that kind of thing) would possibly lead us to him.
Second, I already don’t believe in God. Embarking on this quest you propose, what would be my motivation? To gain faith in Christ? Again, that requires an a priori decision about the answer before I start looking. Furthermore, if just purposely cultivating religious fervor is what I’m going to do, I know easier ways to do it.
Well, if you want the easy way – try Dando’s suggestion in his first comment…
But seriously, I get the fact that you’re not into Christianity, I’m also not in favour of religious fervor.
I wish you well on your journey.
I’m with Kullervo on this one. It just doesn’t seem like the God that the Mormon religion describes would leave someone hanging like he did me when everything to me pointed to “it’s not true” and I wanted very much to believe in it and have my path to salvation clear. God (if he’s there) knows how completely sincere my prayers were; he knows how very much I wanted the church to be true. He knows how such a decision would affect my salvation according to the way Mormonism works. Instead, I got nuthin.’
So I was forced to ask myself the hard question: Why would a god who loves me do that? It just doesn’t make sense. A loving father wouldn’t.
Amen, sister Mary.
I stopped being Mormon when I stopped percieving ignoring doubts about seriously faith-undermining problems as a mystical backwards truthy testament to the truthiness of the truth.
“backwards truthy testament to the truthiness of the truth”
Whew! Say that ten times fast!
Dennis said,
I posted this on another segment of this site ( I thought) but maybe this is a better fit since the subject of the LDS religion has come up.
I thought my personal experience with conversion might be relevant (at least to me it was).
In my 19th year I was accustomed to playing poker throughout the night on weekends. A group of us boys got together smoked, drank and mocked just about everything under the sun that was good or praiseworthy. On a whim and to garner more material with which to make merry, I decided to attend my girl friend’s church. She was an inactive Mormon who had the curious habit of often warning me never to listen to the Mormons or “they’d get you.”
I was the least religious of people, I did not believe in God and had no desire to believe or become religious. My parents were not religious nor were my friends. I did not even know anyone that was religious or who even went to church. As you might imagine if I ever uttered the name of the Savior it was not in any worshipful sense.
My intentions to attend her church were the least honorable of all. I was only attending her church to get material to ridicule it. I felt that I was therefore, safe in attending her church even if they were determined to “get” me.
I went to her church, took two lessons with the missionaries at which time they presented me with a Book of Mormon and asked me to pray about it.
So I read in the book, was a bit more than mildly impressed and on a lark I prayed about it. Immediately I had a feeling come over me that was something I had never felt previously and that conveyed the information to me that the book was indeed true. It was unexpected, unwanted and simply unbelievable but there it was.
So I have received a testimony of the LDS church. To go with that I have to say that the doctrine and teachings of the church make sense to me. They keep me interested and excited about the Lord’s church.
I love the idea of more revelation and more scripture.
I love the idea that to an extent the Book of Mormon is “evidence and evidenced.” We don’t know all things about it but more evidence is coming forth each year and what we do know gives a person great cause to adhere to and rejoice in the gospel.
Now when I read material that does not support what I “know” to be true I figure out another way to handle it. I change my paradigm, exercise faith and I call up my attorney and he has never failed me.
The human brain is, in large part, a machine for winning arguments, a machine for convincing others that its owner is in the right – and thus a machine for convincing its owner of the same thing. The brain is like a good lawyer: given any set of interests to defend, it sets about convincing the world of their moral and logical worth, regardless of whether they in fact have any of either. Like a lawyer, the human brain wants victory, not truth; and, like a lawyer, it is sometimes more admirable for skill than for virtue. – Robert Wright
I have really tried hard to argue with this guy but I can’t. Every time I think I have a point he presents a counter-point.
Dennis
Hey, I randomly stumbled onto this page and you can all tell me to g’way if you like but im probably never going to end up on this page again so i dont really care.. i thought i throw in my opinion on kullervo’s blog about god, I can see where you’re coming from when you say how hard it is to believe in something that you cant see or feel at all..but as far as i know thats what true belief in god is…trusting and having faith in him without evidence or security to back you up…also I think if you go about trying to prove or disprove jesus’ resurrurection, id say you could search your whole life and find nothing. the real search is in you. also im not even sure about my own faith so i dont know what im saying really. I just believe that god is something inexplainable, way of life, a feeling.. aaaah now im all confused!!!! i was just looking for study notes on the poem by yeats!
I grew up being a Christian and yet, I’ve had days when I have had my doubts about all of the teachings I was given. Even now, at 56-years-old and a pastor of a non-denominational church, I still have days when I wonder if this could be a fairy tale, of sorts. But I have come to realize that doubt is as much a part of my being where I am as belief is. Doubt can play a role in where we are, and where we end up. In the Bible, Thomas was known as a doubter, but in truth, he was simply a skeptic. He simply said, “unless I see…unless I touch….” He was willing to believe if the risen Christ could be proven to him. He was, and Thomas did.
Doubt is important. Everyone said the world was flat, but Christopher Columbus doubted that philosophy and challenged it, proving it wrong.
But, as much as I have days that I have doubted the teachings of, and about Christ are true, there are more days that I doubt that the teachings of agnosticism and athiesm are true. So, I must choose which one seems more right to me in my spirit and deep in my soul.
And, deep down inside, I have to believe there is more to this life than to simply live and die with no real purpose or accountability. In my case, I’d rather believe in Christ and be wrong, than to not believe and be wrong.
Don, do keep in mind that this post is more than two years old. I didn’t stay atheist for very long. But if you will take a look at where I’ve been since I posted this, you will see that talking about religion in terms of a Christianity/Atheism dichotomy is not going to get very far with me.
Also, people did not really say the world was flat. That’s a myth. Europeans had known the world was a sphere since ancient times; that’s why the earth’s shadow on the moon was always a circle and never an ellipse.
In my case, I’d rather believe in Christ and be wrong, than to not believe and be wrong.
I hesitate to stoke long dead fires. How do you feel about being wrong about Vishnu or Horus? I’d hate to miss the boat to Aaru if the ancient Egyptians had it right.