There is a tendency to hold on to what we have because it’s what we have. It’s only in hindsight that we realize we were stuck in a rut, closed off to the new or different because, well, it’s new and different. When we have the courage and objectivity to step back and look, really look at our circumstances, when we take a few moments to live an examined life, we risk seeing things we aren’t all that comfortable with.
Either inch by inch or in a flash, sometimes we discover our comfort zones aren’t all that comfortable.
If you’re new to the party, HERE are the previous posts in this series. If you want to skip the history and prefer the twitter version, I’m having an ongoing conversation with a “born-again atheist” as we continue to explore my original questions:
“Why do you believe faith in God is unreasonable, illogical and irrational?”
and
How did a born-again Christian become an atheist?
Note: This is some in-between/behind the scenes conversation between AtypicalAtheist and myself. I’m including it in the blog series because I want to remind readers that he and are actually friends in real life – even though we hold very, very different beliefs about God.
AtypicalAtheist: Actually… one thing at a time. I’d love to get your opinion of my prior e-mail before I get your input from my last e-mail. Sorry – – – didn’t mean to overload the queue.
JSM: “One thing at a time.” NOW you say that? 🙂
Seriously. You called yourself a “free-thinker” but I would also describe you as a “shotgun thinker!” Following those first few emails was like trying to watch a bullet in a steel room. This might be a personal question, but all the coffee you drink…do you have ADD? Because if you do, you are very good at it. Meanwhile, I’ll try to keep up.
For my own clarity, I need to break up my responses into more manageable pieces. I’ve got so much written and it’s all starting to blend together. The pages are growing and there’s no reason not to start sending you the responses I have written. Unless you load up another shotgun…
Later, Julie
AtypicalAtheist: Naw … I don’t have another shot…
Oooh – Squirrel!
Uh, where was I?
Yeah – I was diagnosed with ADHD way back before it was common-place. I was on Ritalin for years until I worked out that Nicotine was a great substitute. Nicotine – what a fantastic drug … it just has a crappy delivery mechanism. Anyway – I smoked from the age of about 14 to about 40. I am proud to say though that my kids never saw me with a cigarette although my middle child did find an empty pack of smokes in my car once. But alas, I digress. I now treat my ADHD with a pot of coffee and 3 hits of crystal meth every day whether I need it or not (uhh, just kidding about the crystal meth) 😉
Hope you’re still retaining your sense of humor, AtypicalAtheist
JSM: lol! Definitely. In that vein, here’s a little atheist music for you:
Later, Julie p.s. I’m loving this. You are really making me think. But I’m far from convinced that faith in God is illogical. 🙂
AtypicalAtheist:
[… snip …] “I’m far from convinced that faith in God is illogical” [… snip …]
I’d just like to reiterate that I have no intention of trying you convince you of anything. My past attempts to wrest my wife’s faith from her were misguided and completely unfair – she’s a theist, and I’m an atheist – live and let live. My experience indicates that it’s not really possible to convince you (or any other thorough-going theist) of anything regarding your beliefs. I will happily present the things that convince me that theism is absurd and the product of a time when mysticism abounded. That said, I don’t believe that there will be any argumentation or force in the presentation – that’s not the point of our fun discussion. If this were a proper debate, I would have started the discussion with something like “So – if I am able to demolish your evidence for theism, are you willing to immediately relinquish your belief in God?” Of course, about 99.9770233% of the time, the answer is No. So why bother really.
I did receive your book, and the admonition to not read it cover-to-cover. [Note to blog readers: “The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict” It’s GIANT]
Regarding my book, I have located a PDF version of “Atheism, the Case Against God” – the one I’d love you to read cover-to-cover/ Would you like me to send you a PDF, or do you want a physical book to thumb through?
Love the conversation, AtypicalAtheist
JSM: I got a copy of “Atheism: the Case Against God” from an online book swap. It arrived today. My yellow highlighter and I need the freedom to explore (and to ruin the resale value of the book).
I’m a “thorough-going theist?” ooooo. I like that label. And I know I can’t convince you of anything either. My focus for the conversation is still on digging through your statement that belief in God isn’t logical, reasonable or rational. As well as my continued interest in how you went from born-again Christian to atheist. For me, that’s by far the most intriguing part of all this.
And right back atcha. If and when you come to a place where you no longer think that my belief in God is irrational, illogical or unreasonable, I do not expect you to instantly believe in God yourself. I’ve met more than a few people who believe in God but are not a Christian.
I have the exact same copy of Evidence that Demands a Verdict, so if we discuss it anything in it, our page numbers will match up.
If you’re new to the party, HERE are the previous posts in this series. If you want to skip the history and prefer the twitter version, I’m having an ongoing conversation with a born-again atheist. When I say “born-again atheist” I mean he was a born again Christian, but is now an atheist.
Note: Santa tangent ahead. Before I could reply to the “Shotgun” email, AtypicalAtheist asked me for my thoughts on his “Santa Comparison.” [snip] “Also, do you have a suggestion of better language or terms that I could use, knowing how I feel about the topic, and how you feel about having your beliefs seemingly trivialized?”
We have ourselves some apples and oranges here. When you used the Santa comparison with me, your premise was:
“I don’t believe in Santa, but I respect your right to believe in Santa.”
When you used the Santa comparison with your wife, you said:
“just because millions of people believe that something is real, doesn’t in any way mean that it is real.”
You were using Santa to make a completely different point with me than the point you were trying to make with your wife.
Santa did not serve you well in either situation.
You asked:
“do you have a suggestion of better language or terms that I could use, knowing how I feel about the topic, and how you feel about having your beliefs seemingly trivialized?”
Now you’re tapping into my formal education and training. I was a communication major and later taught a business and professional communication course at UCF for 7 years before I started training and coaching back in 2001. Learning about interpersonal communication and conflict resolution is something I do for fun.
So, I have two answers to this question, based on (1) how I reacted to the comparison and (2) how “normal” people might be offended by it.
How I Reacted to Your Comparison of a Belief in God to a Belief in Santa, Fairies, etc.: I promise you, I wasn’t “touched (irritated / annoyed / pissed)” at your language. Seriously. Not trying to smooth anything over. Not even a little. You are such a phenomenally nice guy, I know you probably don’t believe that’s possible, but if we’re going be authentic in these conversations, we have to get you to a place where you believe that what you say will not hurt my feelings or make me mad, or whatever.
I’ve alluded to my “issues” before, but here’s a peek into my “normal.” It’s very, very rare that I react emotionally. I won’t say never. In the last year, I can remember only two occasions:
January 2012– dealing with people after my mother passed away.
April 2012– an intentional communication experiment that only lasted a few weeks before I abandoned it for my normal.
Both situations were exponentially bigger than an inference that I have the reasoning capacity of a small child. So, again, I promise, the Santa/UFO/Fairy/God comparison didn’t hurt my feelings or insult me.
However, because of both my background and my issues, it’s possible my actual response may irritate, annoy or tick you off: When you used inflammatory language (good description, btw) with me, your credibility took a hit. Your argument was weakened. You told me in our initial conversation that you were a logical person and that was one of the reasons you didn’t believe in God. I asked you to explain why you don’t believe faith is logical (or reasonable or rational) and then you compare belief in God to things most grown-ups don’t believe in. My honest reaction when I read that?
“hhhhhhhhhhhh”
Why Might Other People Take Offense to the Santa Comparison? With your wife, your point was not “I don’t believe in Santa, but I support your right to believe in him.” Your wife said “Look at the sheer number of people that believe in God – they clearly can’t all be wrong…”
and you compared all those people to children.
young children.
Here’s the thing. She had a point. A LOGICAL point. And the logic of it has absolutely nothing to do with whether God (or Santa) exists.
With that very recent poll in mind, let me restate her point:
All these people who believe in God? They are not ALL stupider than you.
When you compare God to Santa, it’s NOT that the other person’s beliefs are “seemingly trivialized” by your comparison.
You’re calling them ignorant. You’re telling them they have the reasoning capacity of a small child, while assuring them at the same time that you support their right to continue thinking like a child. The only way it could be more condescending and arrogant would be if you were to pat them on the head at the same time.
Everyone who believes in God is ignorant and has the reasoning capacity of a small child? It’s not plausible. Can you see it? When you (albeit unintentionally) set up a statistically improbable premise like that, you become the unreasonable one.
and now you’ve added elves, leprechauns and “WibbleFoo”
So the Christian communication coach is going to give the atheist some advice on how to strengthen his argument. (who’da thunk it?)
Don’t compare faith in God to any of those things. Too many people don’t believe in any of the things/entities in your list. Too many people think they are fiction.
For those times when you might use “The Santa Comparison” to make the “just because lots of people believe something, doesn’t make it true” argument, just don’t. The negative connotations far overshadow the point you are trying to make. Some might call it sibling rivalry. You’ve got two points in your statement and one of them (the unintentional one) is clobbering the other (intentional one).
For those times when you might use it to tell someone that you respect their right to believe, use politics instead:
“We don’t agree. I don’t respect your candidate, but I respect your right to support your candidate.”
Can you see how much more respectful and logical you would appear by saying something like this instead? With politics, people have strong opinions about both sides, but because everyone agrees the issues actually exist, the foundation of the disagreement – first and foremost – is about a difference of opinion. Sure, underlying, spoken or unspoken is the assumption by each person they are right and the other person is wrong. But, by comparing political views, you are using an example that most reasonable and intelligent people would view as a difference of opinion instead of a verbalized inference that they had the reasoning capacity of a small child.
I understand you think you’re making a good point, but it does more damage than it does good – both in a discussion and a relationship.
In writing, there’s a saying. “kill your darlings.” Here’s how one writer explains it:
“I should be taking a good, long look at my “darlings” and analyzing whether their presence . . . was the result of necessity or just my smug enjoyment of my own supposed brilliance.
If this is arguably the most painful lesson an author has to learn, it’s also arguably the most valuable. Self-editing is the keenest blade in a writer’s armory. Too often, we fall so much in love with . . . [our darlings] . . . that we miss the bigger picture. We fail to see that our darlings are actually stumbling blocks, both to our writing of the story and certainly to the reading of it.
K.M. Weiland at WordPlay-kmweiland.blogspot.com
My advice to you as a communication trainer and coach? Kill your darling. Ditch the Santa/God allegory (along with all the multiple choice gods and fairytale creatures on your list). It doesn’t strengthen your point, it just makes you come off condescending and arrogant. And that shuts down communication. Because interacting with someone who is condescending and arrogant is unpleasant.
My treadmill has needed a new belt for a while but I’ve been putting it off (click to zoom in and see the peeling). Now the motor needs a new belt, forcing me to actually DO something about it. Two belts ordered.
If you’re new to the party, HERE are the previous posts in this series. If you want to skip the history and prefer the twitter version, I’m having an ongoing conversation with a born-again atheist. When I say “born-again atheist” I mean he was a born again Christian, but is now an atheist.
Note: This started as my brief reply to what I fondly refer to AtypicalAtheist’s “shotgun email” (because it spread out and hit so many points at once, I couldn’t possibly address everything in one email response).
Before I could reply to the rest of the shotgun email, he asked me for my thoughts on his “Santa Comparison.” So. Santa tangent ahead.
JSM: AtypicalAtheist,
I’m so sorry I haven’t gotten back to you yet. It was a whirlwind family weekend and I have to work on client site today, but I have been thinking (a LOT) about your emails and I have some thoughts I’d like to get to you either tonight or tomorrow.
Just wanted to let you know you haven’t scared me off, I’m not blowing you off and that I’ve been thinking intently about all that’s been said/written so far.
I will respond to the first request in your “Shotgun Email” – I’ve definitely included myself in praying for an open heart and mind. I should have stated that directly. I realize now that by not mentioning it, you might think I hadn’t. (I’ve been praying that for myself since you compared faith to belief in fairies.)
Have a great day! Julie
AtypicalAtheist: Hey Julie,
No problem. I was trying to be really careful not to be inflammatory, but I realize that this topic can, by it’s very nature, be inflammatory.
Could you answer this question from the heart/gut?
A few back-and-forth correspondences between us has made something clear – you were touched (irritated / annoyed / pissed) by my equation of ‘Belief in God’ with ‘Belief in ‘. The reason I’m drilling into this reaction is because of a similar reaction that my wife had when we had the aforementioned conversation while we circumnavigated the neighborhood Park. I’ll describe how that conversation went:
Wife: Of course God (or at least some gods) has to exist. Look at the shear number of people that believe in God (or gods) – they clearly can’t all be wrong…
Me:(somewhat smugly) Well – consider this. There’s a whole population of little people in the world that believe in Santa Clause. In fact, their observations are that Santa Clause delivers gifts to them every Christmas morning. There are television commercials with Santa Clause, books about Santa Clause. Santa Clause visits with them at the mall. Indeed, on Christmas Eve, you can get onto an American government web site, and track Santa’s progress as he delivers gifts to all the children of the world. There are millions of little people that have plenty of evidence that Santa Clause exists, and can rationally demonstrate the existence of Santa Clause. However, we as adults know that there really is no Santa Clause. So – just because millions of people believe that something is real, doesn’t in any way mean that it is real.
So – what does my wife recollect from that conversation, even today? Not that I had a really good point, but that she was injured by my equation of “belief in God” with “belief in Santa Clause.”
This injured her sensibilities in a way I’ll never understand, and she heard nothing of the logic of the matter (regardless of my attempts to explain). I suspect something similar has happened with you.
If I’ve insulted your faith or the object of your faith, it was unintentional. However, if I get into a similar conversation in the future, I’d really like to have a less insulting allegory… Would you mind rating the following from least insulting to most insulting?
‘belief in God’ … blah blah … like ‘belief in Isis’ (Egyptian God) ‘belief in God’ … blah blah … like ‘belief in Buddha’ (Indian God) ‘belief in God’ … blah blah … like ‘belief in UFOs’ (Concept, not a God) ‘belief in God’ … blah blah … like ‘belief in Fairies’ (No comment required) ‘belief in God’ … blah blah … like ‘belief in Thor’ (Norse God) ‘belief in God’ … blah blah … like ‘belief in Krishna’ (Hindu God) ‘belief in God’ … blah blah … like ‘belief in Magic Elves’ (No comment required) ‘belief in God’ … blah blah … like ‘belief in Santa Clause’ (No comment required) ‘belief in God’ … blah blah … like ‘belief in WibbleFoo’ (WibbleFoo is a nonsensical nothing) ‘belief in God’ … blah blah … like ‘belief in Zeus’ (Greek God) ‘belief in God’ … blah blah … like ‘belief in Leprechauns’ (Irish Fairy) ‘belief in God’ … blah blah … like ‘belief in Hercules’ (Roman God)
Also, do you have a suggestion of better language or terms that I could use, knowing how I feel about the topic, and how you feel about having your beliefs seemingly trivialized?
If you’re new to the party, HERE are the previous posts in this series. If you want to skip the history and prefer the twitter version, I’m having an ongoing conversation with a born-again atheist. When I say “born-again atheist” I mean he was a born again Christian, but is now an atheist.
I fondly refer to this as “the shotgun email” because it spread out and hit so many points at once, I couldn’t possibly address everything in one email response. wowza.
AtypicalAtheist: Hey Julie,
Do me a favor in your prayers… pray for God to open your heart and your mind as well – not just mine… Fair?
A couple of quick points and answers:
A – I didn’t really mention that in during my inquiry in my 30s, I did re-validate my findings with the King James version, as well as the New Standard Edition. All the verses I’ve sent you have been verified on biblegateway.com as well just so you know.
B – I really don’t mind having visited all these various churches actually. To me, it was part of free-inquiry – something a free thinker like myself should do.
C – I’d actually claim that the variety of churches forced me to read the bible. The churches didn’t warp my sense of things so much, I believe the bible did. The bible alone is responsible for my distaste of Christianity really, not all the churches. The churches made me think … huh … WTH (why the heck) 😉 does everyone demand something different if the source material is the same??? Reading the bible cleared it up for me. The inerrant word of God is filled with horrors, murders of children, rape, incest, and absurdities.
D – ** Danger – possibly inflammatory statements ahead… deep breath ** – You and I have both read plenty of apologetics on the subject of the bible I’m sure. One thing that should strike you though, and that’s the basic difference between reason and theology. Philosophy is committed to the discovery of truth – it is not required to defend any particular set of beliefs at any cost. On the other hand, theology is concerned with the defense of religion (Christianity in this case) regardless of the evidence. The theologian will never find a contradiction between faith and reason, because it’s the job of the theologian to interpret them away. As a theologian, a decision has been made that proposition of faith can be defended – defending those propositions is what theology is. So – through the prior assumption that belief in faith is true, the theologian *must* conclude that any conflict must be a mistake in transcription, or in translation somewhere, or that when the bible said “square”, it really meant circles aligned in a square. There literally is nothing that a theologian will accept as evidence of a contradiction because he can’t (or else surrender being a theologian). I don’t mean to be harsh with this statement, but it’s my conclusion (and others as well) based on reading many many books and apologist rationalizations.
E – ** Danger – more inflammatory statements ahead… putting on the fundamentalist hat here ** – Conflicting beliefs of Christians on the topic of Hell abound. In fact, many (often liberal Christians) simply choose to ignore that part of the New Testament because it’s hard to believe that a just and loving God would create a place of eternal torment and would cast people there to suffer for eternity. So the uncomfortable is often ignored which is simply anti-scriptural. An example of this is a quote from theological liberal Leslie Weatherhead:
“[… snip …] when Jesus is reported as consigning to everlasting torture those who displease him or do not “believe” what he says, I know in my heart that there is something wrong somewhere. Either he is mis-reported or misunderstood…. So I put this alleged saying in my mental drawer awaiting further light, or else I reject it out of hand. By the judgment of a court within my own breast … I reject such sayings”
This also relates to the closely held belief of some of the existence of an ‘age of accountability’ which is thoroughly unsupported by scripture. The doctrine of original sin (Genesis 8:21, Psalm 51:5, Ephesians 2:3, Proverbs 22:15, Ecclesiastes 9:3, Romans 3:23, and most importantly, Romans 5:12 ) and the teachings of the New Testament (John 14:6 and Acts 4:12) indicate clearly that all have sinned or are tainted by original sin, and salvation is an individual choice that must be assented to. Apologists and biblical gerrymanderers will try to twist the Gods law for the purpose of appearing to say what “seems right in our eyes”. It’s unbiblical and self-serving because it presupposes that sin must first be recognized as sin before it’s accountable. There is no scriptural basis for this. Romans 3:10 should clear that up somewhat.
Of course, as mentioned in ‘D’ above, I can easily find a less dogmatic view of the scripture that can ease ones mind – the more liberal “I know in my heart because the Lord is a just Lord” version. But the age of accountability is (without significant re-interpretation of scripture) unbiblical. And hence, if babies and those with mental retardation are to be cast into hell because they haven’t assented to the Lord’s word, then the whole concept is ridiculous and must be rejected out of hand as capricious, irrational, unjust, and unworthy of belief in any form or fashion. (wince … sorry for the harshness of the above)
F- Regarding your question on “God commanded the killing of children”, I have quite an impressive list for you – please, look them up using the links I’ve provided on biblegateway.com
Specific Mentions of Killing, Raping, or defiling Children – Asterisks (*) are God commanded or God performed
So – these are specific mentions of horrible things done to children specifically calling out children or things like first-born. It doesn’t begin to scratch the surface though when you consider general murder by God including (but not limited to) numerous plagues that kill indiscriminately which presumably kill men, women, and children. If you really want chapter and verse all the horrors in the bible, I could literally spend hours compiling them if you wish. Even Jesus is known to order slayings (although most don’t admit it – read Luke 19:22-27).
G – Response to ” Irrelevant. What does all that have to do with CHRIST?’ … ‘ I mean that religion and doctrine have nothing to do with a relationship with Christ.
Well, Christ is part of the Christian religion which has a specific set of doctrines. To wrest Christ from the moorings of theism would be to render him meaningless. Indeed, without the doctrine of hell, what is the fuss about sin and saving me about then? The bible is the only remaining so-called authority for the historicity of Jesus Christ, and if it contains the fabulous and horrific, it should (in my opinion) be discarded as irrational and irrelevant … as well as any notion of Jesus. Put another way, we have not seen (in any time of enlightenment) nature going out of course. Things behave according to their nature, plain and simple. We have seen however, man tell lies – millions of them in that same time. So – what’s more probable? That nature go out of course (the dead suddenly rising / seas part mysteriously / Jesus walking on water), or that a man should lie? I submit that the latter rather than the former is millions to one more likely. I’m not trying to turn this into a debate, I’m just trying to convey my opinion on the matter, that’s all. No offense or intention to coerce intended – really. For this, I’ll quote David Hume:
“When any one tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.”
Suffice it to say – I believe the bible alone is sufficient to smother out any notion of a loving God, and all conceptions of Jesus Christ. I’m content to let it choke itself out by its horrific and absurd content (sorry if this is resoundingly harsh – I edited this a few times and settled on these adjectives as the least inflammatory).
If you’re new to the party, HERE are the previous posts in this series. If you want to skip the history and prefer the twitter version, I’m having an ongoing conversation with a born-again atheist. When I say “born-again atheist” I mean he was a born again Christian, but is now an atheist.
Below is AtypicalAtheist’s response to my second question: (CLICK HERE to read my first question and his two-part answer.)
JSM: Why do you view faith in God as unreasonable, illogical and irrational?
AtypicalAtheist: Regarding question #2, I’ll try to answer in a form less than a book this time… 😀
The super-short answer is this – I don’t accept the existence of God, gods, or any documents, books, letters, or anything ‘on faith’ because I reject faith as a valid means to acquire knowledge. The specific object of faith, whether UFOs or gods is irrelevant. Reason is one’s only guide to knowledge. From this position, if doctrines of theism must be accepted on faith, theism is necessarily excluded from the realm of reason.
Further, the entire book is replete with contempt for man’s ability to reason our desire for knowledge. You need go no further than Genesis and the story of Adam and Eve. Beyond this though, is verse after verse of hostility to wisdom and knowledge.
Add to that the biblical means of tying faith and morality together which ends up equating doubt and disbelief with immorality. Rather, one must believe uncritically, or be condemned as immoral.
Finally, consider the coercive nature of faith: * The bribery side – if you have faith, you go to heaven ( John 3:!6 ) * The blackmail side – you face God’s wrath if you do not have faith ( John 3:36 ).
Essentially, the bible says that you must believe in Jesus, regardless of the evidence on the matter, or be subjected to eternal torture (2 Thessalonians 1:7-10).
Threatening punishment for disbelief is strong-arm coercion and intimidation. On these grounds alone, it must be rejected as irrational and unreasonable.
Whew – that one was much shorter than the other one. 😀
