Recently, I got caught up in a religious discussion on a gun forum (!). That started me working on the following essay, something I'd been planning to do but it took the forum to get me started. Thought I'd put it up here, my "home forum" (warning, it's a little more than two typewritten pages) and see what happens.
Here 'tis:
1st. It is axiomatic that it's impossible to prove a negative ("there is no god"), so demanding that someone do so is inherently a dishonest deflection of the conversation.
2nd. There is no objective evidence of the workings of a super-being in nature. All observable phenomena can be explained through natural means; where natural explanations suffice, supernatural explanations are unnecessary
3rd. History does not corroborate the Bible. Those religious accounts of Jesus not in the Bible were rejected by the early Church, itself. Claimed corroboration by secular sources such as Tacitus and Josephus were written long after the events related in the four Gospels supposedly occurred and, in fact, refer to what the early church followers believed and did rather than to Jesus himself. Also, evidence is strong that the relevant passages in Josephus are pious frauds, altered or added long after the original text was written. As to any Biblical references to otherwise known historical events, they are no more corroborative of biblical inerrancy than is "Ben Hur."
4th. It has never been established that "prophecy" exists in any form, and Biblical prophecy has not been shown to be more accurate than any other kind. It can be and is manipulated in the same manner as are the quatrains of Nostradamus. Anyone with an agenda can bolster their position through "interpretation" of cherry - picked passages, tortured definitions and vague generalization applied to events after the fact. This is identical to the process by which various groups have repeatedly drawn from the Bible to support political and "moral" arguments. Illustrative are the pro- and anti-slavery factions preceding the American Civil War, where each sought to justify it's opinion of the "peculiar institution" through biblical interpretation.
5th. It is easily demonstrated that the Bible is abundantly inconsistent, with conflicting accounts of Creation, the Ten Commandments, Jesus' resurrection, etc, but its believers are inconsistent as well. They are divided into opposing factions on every conceivable aspect of Bible teaching: the Bible is to be understood as it is written, the Bible speaks metaphorically; all can be saved, some are predestined to Heaven and some to hell; there are but two sacraments, there are seven sacraments; pray to Mary, don't pray to Mary; Jesus was God *and* man, Jesus was God *in* man. And so on.
6th. Even if an individual finds it necessary to believe in "God," he is therefore faced with the perplexing necessity of choosing which faction to join or, indeed, whether to form his own. It should be noted here that this discussion is limited to mainstream Christian beliefs and does not consider Mormons, Gnostics, or the more esoteric Christian sects. And then there are all of the non-Christian beliefs in the world today (Islam is the world's largest religion but it is almost as factional as is Christianity). In fact, there is no way to tell how many thousands or millions or hundreds of millions of gods humanity has believed in, and more are being born every day. The United States alone has given rise to at least three major sects in the last two centuries (LDS, Seventh Day Adventists, Scientology). Nor are the old gods necessarily giving way; Zoroastrianism, the religion of the first Mesopotamian civilizations, still exists.
7th. Most believers will tell you that you must believe as they do in order to receive the benefits of a belief in God. A few will allow that it is (barely/theoretically) possible to believe otherwise and still receive at least some benefit, but usually only if a stern set of (their) rules is strictly adhered to.
What, then, to believe? And why? Whether to believe at all, oddly enough, is easier to answer. Belief in a deity can help make sense of a world or universe that might otherwise be inexplicable. Belief in a compassionate god can give succor in time of trouble. Belief can foster a sense of community. In short, believing feels good. But this still begs the question, why should I believe as you do? Will it make me feel better than believing the way someone else does? How and why will it do that?
Personally I envy believers. Having once been of their number I have personal knowledge of how comforting and comfortable it can be. Having an Our Father Who Art in Heaven, in whose lap you can safely sit until life's demons leave you in peace, is marvelous. Some of us, however, have chosen to depart from the nest and strike out on our own. We are experiencing the world outside the warm comfort in which the rest have chosen to remain. Yes, it's cold, wet and dangerous out here, but it's the way things really are. We hold that it is better to see the world as it is, without it being filtered through an ancient set of morality plays.
What comes after this life? I don't know. As with the question of god, I don't see any reason to think or believe anything comes after. I could be wrong. If I am, would a god who, as I am told, created me and gave me my reason and intellect and who, as I am also told, is infinitely compassionate, really abandon me for all eternity simply because I misunderstood? Intellect is what separates us from the so-called "lower orders." If humanity really is the special product of a creator god, then our intellect is his special gift to us. To not use it to the best of our ability would be to refuse that gift and thereby insult the giver. It therefore seems appropriate to ask whether, if using our intellect to the best of our ability results in an honest error, that merits divine punishment? At the very least it strikes me that an honestly-held disbelief would be more-favorably received by a creator god than would a more-cynical "faith" professed for the sake of playing it safe or hedging a bet (Pascal's Wager).
I do not believe that the religious are necessarily my enemy, or that they are deluded. The world is full of good and decent people; if these good and decent people wish to attribute their goodness and decency to a perceived deity, I will not argue. I do, however, believe that the religious are honestly mistaken. If I should not be condemned for honest error then neither should they, and I therefore extend to them the same courtesy I expect for myself. Further, I defend their right to their belief as I defend my own conclusions, providing that belief does not intrude into such realms as education, health or government. These areas are of public concern; public policy must be guided by facts and evidence which are non-partisan in nature, and not by belief, tenet, faith or bias.
There is a prayer that could have been written by an atheist: "Lord, Thy sea is so great and my boat is so small." So it is that I in my little boat bob up and down on the wide ocean. I have accepted the inevitability that I will eventually founder, but I have also determined that in the meantime my voyage will be smoother if I occupy my hands with rowing rather than with praying.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
.
