Andrée Seu Peterson on the "Time" cover 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Atheist: “Africa needs God”
In the Times, atheist Matthew Parris says as reluctant as he is to admit it, Africa needs missionaries more than money. In a nakedly honest column, Parris says Africa needs not just the physical help missionaries provide but the faith they teach as well: “In Africa Christianity changes people’s hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.”
As a child growing up in Africa, Parris saw the difference Christianity made in its African converts:
Far from having cowed or confined its converts, their faith appeared to have liberated and relaxed them. There was a liveliness, a curiosity, an engagement with the world – a directness in their dealings with others – that seemed to be missing in traditional African life. They stood tall.
In a recent trip to Africa, Parris concluded that Christianity can break through the “tribal groupthink” he says holds Africa back. It can shatter the passivity that accompanies tribal hierarchies:
Christianity, post-Reformation and post-Luther, with its teaching of a direct, personal, two-way link between the individual and God, unmediated by the collective, and unsubordinate to any other human being, smashes straight through the philosphical/spiritual framework I’ve just described. It offers something to hold on to to those anxious to cast off a crushing tribal groupthink. That is why and how it liberates.
Read Parris’ column here.
back to top99 Comments to “Atheist: “Africa needs God””
Exactly!
Report comment to moderator
Interesting. A few atheists I talk to are hostile toward Christianity (mostly here at WMB). However, most atheists I know personally accept that it is a comfort to some, a crutch if you will, that helps people deal with their problems and have a sense of community.
I sense some of that here, but he appears willing to go beyond and speak of liberation and independent thinking. What atheists usually miss is that Christians are truly free to think for themselves, more so than those who have no other options. We no longer have to run with the earthbound crowd who have no hope.
On caveat, is that I reject the false idea, even preached widely from pulpits, that God simply here to solve our problems, like some celestial pharmacist. Our purpose in life is to glorify him because he is worthy of it. The rest are simply side effects.
Report comment to moderator
Now there is change we can believe in….
Report comment to moderator
A number of years ago, I read a famous anthropological novel, one that is taught in many beginning anthropology class, written as a novelistic memoir by an anthropologist who spent time among an animist tribe in Nigeria. The impression I got from reading the novel is consistent with Parris’ point. The superstition of the Christian missionaries may be more beneficial than the superstition of many native peoples. I share with Parris an enormous cynicism about this. This is why I call Christianity (for lack of a better brief tag) a “benevolent swindle.”
The novel is Return to Laughter. It’s not explicitly pro-Christian or anti-Christian, but I think people enthusiastic about missionary work in Africa might find it inspiring in a way. (I have no idea if the anthropologist author was a Christian or not. I read as much about her as I could find, which is not much. She had a distinguished career, but there just isn’t that much biographical information about her.)
She wrote under the pen name Elenor Smith Bowen, but her working professional name was Laura Bohannon.
The historical record of Christianity is that over the ages it has done enormous good and enormous harm. Many Christians (especially in this web site) deny or rationalize or “spin” the harm of the religion’s record while clutching to their hearts the good that it has done. I suppose some Christians are more honest about this mixed record. Historically, I once again point to Roger Williams, a very eccentric and devout Puritan. In modern times I would cite Garry Wills, a very eccentric and devout Catholic. I don’t expect to see such honesty or critical self-examination very often here. Self congratulation is usually the order of the day.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not sure, but it seems to me that it may take even more arrogance, and a harder heart, for a person to acknowledge some other people’s need for God while denying his own than it does for a person to deny all people’s need. I know the author believe’s that it’s something about their belief in a non-existent God that helps them and not God Himself, but it’s incredibly condescending. I just pray that God reveals to Him his own need.
Report comment to moderator
The author sees the great difference in the lives of those who believe in GOD, yet his own life stands in disbelief as he considers his ability, confident his observations apply to others while avoiding the obvious – which is a heart change, that’s difference which alludes the author – God changes peoples hearts, but only if they accept HIM -
Report comment to moderator
Random Name,
Have you considered the possibility that YOU are the one being dishonest or insufficiently introspective?
Hm.. We could go back and forth like this all day without really saying anything meaningful. If only there were some way we could avoid it..
Wait, I know! How about we stop publicly engaging in baseless speculation about the motives of other people in favor of dealing with the actual content of what they have said?
Report comment to moderator
WMBers so often miss a key point – Just because Christianity may have a psycho-social utility (and that’s debatable as a general proposition) does not make it true.
In fact, any such motive to belief makes it more likely that true believers are fooling themselves, since there is a strong element of wish fulfillment in their belief, irrespective of honest consideration of the facts!
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza is only saying what people really mean when they say, “It’s true for you.”
Report comment to moderator
“WMBers so often miss a key point – Just because Christianity may have a psycho-social utility (and that’s debatable as a general proposition) does not make it true.”
Spinoza,
Has it ever occurred to you that WMB have NOT missed that point? That they realize that there is no Proof that absolutely nails down the truth of Christianity? That’s why they call it faith after all…. Their only assertion is that isn’t unreasonable to trust in this belief.
Report comment to moderator
MIM, Sounds like you’re agreeing with me.
Except that Christianity is very unreasonable – I think most theologians would agree with that.
But I do think posts like #5 illustrate the point I’m making – the charge is made that Atheists don’t acknowledge their “need” and that’s why they don’t believe. I would say that if you believe primarily because of your “need,” your belief is worthless, since it is the product of your own imagination.
Report comment to moderator
This can easily be translated into Christian superstition is better than Tribal superstition. And over this is there gloating from WMBloggers? If yes, uuuuuuugh.
Report comment to moderator
. . . as reluctant as he is to admit it . . .
The fastest way for a liberal to smash straight through the obstacles to fame and fortune is to reluctantly admit stuff that gratifies conservatives.
But his point is understood. Religion ameliorates some of the harm it causes, and switching religions often boosts the effect.
Report comment to moderator
“Except that Christianity is very unreasonable – I think most theologians would agree with that.”
Most theologians would agree that Christianity is very unreasonable? What kind of heretics have you been listening to?
Report comment to moderator
Many Prophecies which were foretold in the Bible (OT) have come to pass, most certainly show very clearly that the Bible is true.
Report comment to moderator
No, Spinoza, I didn’t miss that. I don’t believe in the truth of the Christian faith because of its “psycho-social utility,” but the fact that Christian faith improves individuals and cultures is certainly one good evidence for its truth.
I’ve lived on both sides of the fence, and in my interactions with my brothers and sisters in Christ, I speak with the presupposition that the universal need for forgiveness and for fellowship with God is a given, but I don’t expect the unbelievers in our midst to concur. I certainly wouldn’t have when I was still bent on the idea that I had the innate right to govern myself.
Even so, I don’t see the need to defend my starting assumptions in an environment consisting of primarily Christians.
Report comment to moderator
What kind of heretics have you been listening to?
My suspicion isn’t that he’s citing heretics, but that he’s misinterpreting a theological point that’s been voiced by no less reknowned theologians than Martin Luther. Heck, even the apostle Paul stated this point when he said that the gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing.
The gospel is considered “unreasonable” by unbelievers because the unregenerate mind only understands personal merit, not grace, and unbelievers are generally blind to man’s inability to merit God’s favor.
Report comment to moderator
the fact that Christian faith improves individuals and cultures is certainly one good evidence for its truth.
No it’s not.
wrt “unreasonable” – even the NT says the gospel is “foolishness,” and please don’t try to tell me it is “reasonable” foolishness.
Eternal damnation for finite crimes – unreasonable
Punishing one member of the Godhead to let humans off free – unreasonable
Eternally condemning anybody who doesn’t believe this unreasonable “foolishness” – more unreasonable
I could make this list really long – but we’d all get tired of it pretty quick!
Report comment to moderator
The gospel is considered “unreasonable” by unbelievers because the unregenerate mind only understands personal merit, not grace, and unbelievers are generally blind to man’s inability to merit God’s favor.
This is just the kind of thing a delusionary cult leader would say to intimidate the gullible into believing what is otherwise nonsense.
Report comment to moderator
Xion, the atheists you talk to are not the kind to hassle innocent bloggers on a Christian blog because they’re secretly insecure about their faith. The atheists (and agnostics, not to leave any of ya’ll out) around here are.
I think what Mr. Parris has observed has the potential to change many lives, his included.
Report comment to moderator
p.s. Atheists typically don’t believe in God, so why would they think they can merit his favor?
Report comment to moderator
No, Spinoza dear. His logic is sound. Instead of brushing the comment away by calling our friend REE a cult leader, can you demonstrate your point?
Report comment to moderator
#20 OT – I’m a lot more insecure about your faith…
Report comment to moderator
#22 I didn’t call Ree a cult leader – I said he spoke as one. This demonstrated my point, which you are unable to understand. Perhaps its because of your unregenerate mind that my wisdom is as foolishness to you.
Report comment to moderator
On a more serious note – I really do believe that what Africa needs is secular education and a lot of it. Replacing one superstition with a “better” one could be an improvement, but there will still be an eventual need to replace the latter.
Report comment to moderator
Spin – 24
Ree is a woman –
REE WROTE in post 17: “The gospel is considered “unreasonable” by unbelievers because the unregenerate mind only understands personal merit, not grace, and unbelievers are generally blind to man’s inability to merit God’s favor.”
Spin COPIED above comment 19 and then added “This is just the kind of thing a delusionary cult leader would say to intimidate the gullible into believing what is otherwise nonsense.”
Spin you most certainly intimated by a sly comment, that Ree emulates a “cult leader” -
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza,
It might be that WMBers make that mistake, but there’s another explanation for the interest in these stories.
Utility and truth aren’t the same, but they are related in this case. Many or perhaps most Christians believe that faith in Christ will be accompanied by moral improvement. It’s called sanctification. If we find that Christianity has no “psycho-social utility”, then it has been falsified. “Psycho-social utility” is not good evidence for the truth of Christianity, but it does refute certain arguments.
Also, while the tendency of Christianity to improve individual lives and socities is debatable, data is piling up in its favor. And when I say data, I mean actual data, not “I read a book once about the Witch Trials/Galileo/Slavery. Boy, Christians are jerks!”
For example, Bob Woodberry, a sociologist at the University of Texas, has been studying the social impacts of Christian missions for several years. According to his research, the introduction of Christianity into new cultures in the 18th and 19th centuries was usually accompanied by improvements in the social status and treatment of women (contrary to the false claims of one or two WMBers that Christianity is misogynistic), general level of education, per capita wealth, etc. Through the magic of statistics, these things can be attributed specifically to the introduction Christianity with a high level of confidence. (I think Dr. Woodberry might occasionally read WMB, so maybe he can correct me if I’m wrong about any of that.)
Report comment to moderator
Interesting Aritcle!
Report comment to moderator
And there we have it again! It’s like some neurotic urge with these anti-theists to be self-refuting. Spinoza says Africa “needs” secular education. How does any non-theist assert what anyone needs?
Report comment to moderator
Isn’t it sad that I felt I needed to patronize a friend, someone who is older than me, no less? I apologize, Spinoza; will you forgive me? I have the feeling that you’re an extremely intelligent person. I’ll be praying for you, for what it’s worth.
Now that I think about it, while it’s an appropriate usage, ‘regenerate’ does seem to be a cult-leader favorite.
Victoria,
“Spin – 24
Ree is a woman -”
Why didn’t you pick on me? I posted first. That’s kind of unfair; it’s stuff like that which seems to contribute to your *hem hem* reputation around here.
Report comment to moderator
“Except that Christianity is very unreasonable …”
But it WORKS!
Report comment to moderator
OP – 30
Sorry you feel that way, there was nothing intentional meant by not posting to you “first” –
“*hem hem*” ? LOL
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza said, “Except that Christianity is very unreasonable – I think most theologians would agree with that.”
Oh, that’s rich. So … then .. they chose a theological career because …?
Report comment to moderator
#31 NJLawyer. I bristle at the notion that we are Christians because “it works”. That is what I was getting at in #2.
This may shock many of you, but as far as I can tell, there is very little evidence that Christianity “works”. Biblical principles consistently applied certainly prove true, but I have never seen a miracle. I’ve never seen or heard or sensed God’s presence in any way. I can’t prove a prayer has ever been answered. And yet I believe!
The only evidence I have that God exists comes from two sources:
- The things he has made.
- The things he has written.
And the first is used by most people as proof he doesn’t exist.
I am a Christian NOT because it works. I am a Christian because the Word of God is so compelling that there can be no other explanation.
My favorite exchange between Jesus and his disciples sums up my faith in a nutshell (John 6:64-69):
Jesus said, “Some of you do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no-one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.” From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve. Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.”
Report comment to moderator
I believe the Bible to be true, many prophecies have come to pass – the Dead Sea Scrolls are identical to Scripture – GOD’s Word is TRUTH –
I have seen miracles
I have sensed God’s presence in my life on many occasions
I have been lead by the Holy Spirit many, many times, it is always a joy to feel HIS presence
I have had many prayers answered, some right away, some took time
Report comment to moderator
Gee, Xion, it works for me! Doesn’t it work for you? What you said here: “Biblical principles consistently applied certainly prove true,” is what I meant by “it works.” But I would have to add the following:
I have felt God’s presence, though the only way I can prove it is to say so. They day before my father died, I was driving alone late at night, and an unseen something sitting on the hood of my car told me that it was going to happen. There had been no phone calls or hints in any way that death was imminent. This was as unexpected as 9/11. But I’ll go to my grave believing that this experience came from God. We could tell stories of miracles all day, too, but Jesus felt that the miracles he performed on earth were sufficient for us to believe in him. Everything we need to make our decision is in the Bible.
There is a lot about Christ that is “unreasonable” because Jesus is unique, one of a kind. It comes down to faith whether or not you believe in the resurrection — but that’s the way God set it all up. It comes down to yes or no, and that answer has to come from the heart. We can either believe those who testified that he resurrected, we can either believe that Paul had the experience he had on the road to Damascus or we can reject it. But once we accept it, what “works” is the peace in the soul of the believer.
Many are called, but few are chosen. No one comes to the Father unless the Father draws him nigh. (But don’t despair Spinny, there’s still time….)
Report comment to moderator
I find nothing that convinces me that humans have a soul that survives our death. I am an agnostic about the origin of the universe, but I am an atheist about life after death.
It seems perfectly likely to me that there are no “absolute moral values.” The Christian response to that comes across to me as that such a possibility is too horrible to envision, so there must be absolute values; otherwise why not murder, or rape, or steal or become Stalin, etc. Makes me nervous about you folks; how many bad temptations are you fighting; how many wicked deeds does Christ help you resist?
Seriously, I think both wicked and evil behavior (which humans demonstrate in vast quantities) and altruistic and good behavior (which humans often exhibit but not quite as well) are probably explainable in terms of evolutionary behavior. Evolution refers both to our biological evolution and our cultural evolution.
One of the arguments often illustrated here (though rarely nakedly) is Pascal’s wager. Another might be called Keats’s Theorem: Truth is Beauty; Beauty is Truth.
Something along the lines of Christianity is so true; it must be good. Christianity is so good it must be true.
Two problems with those arguments are:
a) Christianity is a mixture of good and evil. As I said, people here focus on the good (and there is plenty) and ignore, rationalize, and spin the evil, such as the Catholic/Protestant wars; the torture and gore of the Inquisition; the Protestant witch persecutions; the Catholic genocide against Indians in Hispaniola, Central America, and South America; the Protestant genocide in Ireland, against aborigines in America and Australia.
b) Claims that the Bible is inerrant, including every miracle must be true; the Garden of Eden must be true; evolutionary theory must be a myth; and so on. This does not overwhelm me as a convincing “must be true,” argument.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, that’s rich. So … then .. they chose a theological career because …? they know that what they believe is nonsense and they’re trying to rationalize it somehow – you know, the lipstick on a pig thing.
NJL – “I have felt God’s presence, though the only way I can prove it is to say so. They day before my father died, I was driving alone late at night, and an unseen something sitting on the hood of my car told me that it was going to happen. There had been no phone calls or hints in any way that death was imminent. This was as unexpected as 9/11. But I’ll go to my grave believing that this experience came from God.”
Why? Maybe you’re just ‘psychic’ – this kind of experience is actually quite common and I frankly don’t know what to make of it. But to connect it to Christianity and – even worse – the Bible as if these are causally involved is a whopping non sequitur.
Jesus felt that the miracles he performed on earth were sufficient for us to believe in him. Everything we need to make our decision is in the Bible.
Nonsense – the historical Jesus probably thought nothing of the sort.
Report comment to moderator
NJL
I had a similar experience the night my father passed away – I had talked to him on the phone about 5PM – I had put some potatoes in a baking dish, in the oven, however I KNEW that we would never eat them, it was the strangest feeling – at about 7PM my mom called and said my father was lying down, not doing well – I was on my way out the door (my husband was due home any minute) there he was, we jumped in the car, and drove through the hills to my parents home, all of a sudden, at about 7:27PM I knew my father was gone, I told husband to slow down, papa had gone to be with the LORD – and he had, the ambulance was there when we arrived, we followed to the hospital, but my dad had gone on to be with the LORD -
I knew we wouldn’t eat what I had put in the oven, I knew through the Spirit that my dad had passed away, there was no reason to race through the hills in the dark – GOD has directed my path so many times since I was a child -
When I was about 6, I was with my mother and two of her friends, it was in the morning they had attended some sort of womens group together – my sister and I were in the back seat – my mother and her friends parked in front of a small market to get some snacks – all of a sudden I knew to put the button down on the car lock, it was only a few seconds later when two or three men all dressed in suits tried in vain to open the car door, I was shocked, but understood the danger – I had never fooled with the locks on the car doors in the past, but was prompted to lock the car doors that day – GOD is in control, even children understand, and follow HIM -
Report comment to moderator
Xion – I am a Christian because the Word of God is so compelling that there can be no other explanation.
It is no more compelling as history than the Book of Mormon or the Night Before Christmas, and I believe in neither the angel Moroni nor a literal Santa Claus.
Report comment to moderator
#39 Alas, I had no inkling at all when my brother died 2 weeks ago. I guess it’s the plight of the damned (i.e. moi) to miss out on these psychic privileges.
Report comment to moderator
GOD is in control, even children understand, and follow HIM –
Victoria this is selective bias – you lucked out, but children are murdered and abused every day in the world. Apparently God is not in control for them.
Report comment to moderator
Random Name:
You’ve said on numerous occasions:
Is that the most challenging Christian response to the no-absolutes concept you’ve heard? I’m wondering, because it seems like you’ve never interacted with any kind of probing, thoughtful Christian viewpoint. Your pervasive caricatures of the Christian position indicate you’re not even interested in such interaction.
Report comment to moderator
Spin
I don’t know why some children are spared and others aren’t, but I do know that my life has been spared many times, and it was only because of the LORD that I’m still here.
Report comment to moderator
NJL – “we can either believe that Paul had the experience he had on the road to Damascus or we can reject it. But once we accept it, what “works” is the peace in the soul of the believer.”
I think Paul probably did have that experience or one very nearly like it. But I interpret it as a psychotic delusion; it doesn’t do a whole lot for me!
Report comment to moderator
:cringe:
Random Name: In light of a few posts by other Christians in here, I retract my post #43 for now. We now return you to your regularly scheduled whatever it was you were doing. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Report comment to moderator
#44 Well Victoria I’m glad you know you’re special!
Of course, everyone still alive has had their lives spared continually since birth. I’m not exactly sure what that has to do with God.
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin recently posted to me an argument that the Bible has lasted so long it must be true. (See his posts for a better summary.)
In every field of endeavor there are remarkable accomplishments by certain remarkable individuals and cultures. This is mysterious. Why are Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart such great composers? Why are Chaucer and Shakespeare perhaps the two greatest narrative/dramatic poets of English literature?
Why were the Classic Greeks so marvellous at geometry, medicine, philosophy? Why were the Romans so great as engineers, conquerers, nation builders?
The Jews were among the greatest myth builders and moral philosophers of human history. With the rise of the scientific method, their myths no longer provide an convincing creation explanation to most people, but quite a few (especially here) cling to “Creation Classic” (the classic Coke of human development). Science does not answer questions of ultimate origins. Science does not answer questions of ethics and morality. The Bible was one of the greatest efforts to answer questions such as “Why are we here”; “What is our purpose?”; “What does it mean to be good or evil?”
However, this effort, however, noble, is showing signs of fray. Human civilization is going to have to find another way to deal with the demon of sexual compulsion; another way to deal with the pesky mystery of homosexuality. Or (as I consider more likely) we humans will simply destroy ourselves because we mistake cunning for wisdom and we are far too cunning for our own good.
Report comment to moderator
p.s. to 47 – your argument about God is like the old joke:
A person is snapping his fingers
Someone asks, “Why are you doing that?”
Answer – “To keep tigers away. Have you seen any?”
“No”
“See – it works doesn’t it!”
Report comment to moderator
From Francis Bacon:
“It was a good answer that was made by one who when they showed him hanging in a temple a picture of those who had paid their vows as having escaped shipwreck, and would have him say whether he did not now acknowledge the power of the gods,—‘Aye,’ asked he again, ‘but where are they painted that were drowned after their vows?’ And such is the way of all superstition, whether in astrology, dreams, omens, divine judgments, or the like; wherein men, having a delight in such vanities, mark the events where they are fulfilled, but where they fail, though this happens much oftener, neglect and pass them by. (Bacon 1620)”
Report comment to moderator
The problem with “more education” as the solution is education in Africa is problematic.
In Uganda, children are taught by rote, 50 to a classroom, and they learn all about British history, not Ugandan history. They’re not taught to think, they’re taught to parrot back whatever the teacher says. That means they can tell you the dates of all Cromwell’s battles, but don’t know anything about what happened in their own country, much less how to think about it.
A society that doesn’t know how to think for itself is a society that can be easily led by leaders, and thus much more maleable. 15 million people in Uganda are under the age of 15.
A friend in Kampala runs a program which gives those same government-educated kids an opportunity to learn differently by providing them with music, art, drama, sports and character development via Bible study. She provides parenting classes for their families–in most cases grandparents since most of the parents are dead from AIDS. A drop in the bucket, but her program this year swelled from 200 to 1100 and she hopes to change at least a few drops.
Following Jesus can change your life in countless ways, mostly for the better. Education . . . sort of depends on who’s doing the teaching.
Report comment to moderator
Well, then, Spinny, your answer is a clear “no.” And you’re also saying no to the Gospels. I say “yes” — something profound happened to Paul, and something even more profound happened to the apostles. You don’t go home dejected and despairing after witnessing a crucifixion and do a complete 180 a few days later unless something profound happens to you. You are free to say “no” to that, too. “Behold, I stand at the door and knock” — it is up to you to open the door. God will not force you.
What you’re really doing is mocking people for their faith because you have none and in your arrogance you are certain that anyone who has faith is wrong. You can’t prove that, of course. If you haven’t experienced something, it can’t exist, right? You can sneer at Victoria and call her “special,” but you can’t disprove her belief (a belief I share; I, too, have been spared some pretty awful things, even though I’ve experienced some awful things).
So, maybe the Father has not yet drawn you nigh to Him, and then again, maybe He won’t ever. I can’t know the answer to that.
Report comment to moderator
#41 Sorry to hear about your brother Spinoza.
When all is said and done, it is death that is the most compelling, horrible issue. All else pales in comparison. We all have this one thing in common and there isn’t a good thing that can be said about it. The separation angers me. If I did not understand the grand plan, I would shake my fist at the notion of God.
The same goes for question of evil. Death and evil go hand in hand. The only explanation unbelievers have is as Solomon said, “A time and chance happens to them all”.
But the biblical story of Grace is so exceedingly high, that it could not have been conceived over thousands of years by goat herders and fig harvesters.
Unbelievers understand ideals such as truth and justice and love in a limited sense, but nothing in human philosophy goes to the extremes that the Bible does. Just as Newtonian physics breaks down at light speeds, so do all the pitiful manmade ideals when compared to absolute perfection.
If your life is all you have, by what logic would you ever lay it down for another? Instinct? Love? Perhaps, but without life beyond the grave it is pointless.
Only greed and selfishness make any true sense for the damned. Utilitarianism may serve the common good, but in the end it is all pointless. Vanity of vanities, all is vanity under the sun.
Those things which give life ultimate meaning cannot be found under the sun in the temporal world. Ultimate meaning is a spiritual matter.
Those who refuse to acknowledge accountability to a higher power have their wish. Their life does not count.
It is no wonder then that an atheist observes the joy and liberty of those with faith. He stands outside the glass and ponders his own sorrow.
We understand that the Bible is not compelling to you, but your certitude betrays you. To be so certain God does not exist, you would need to be omniscient yourself. Are you a god then? If so, why do you ridicule others who are at least as spiritual as you?
Report comment to moderator
It seems to me quite possible that Christianity and some Christians often do quite a bit of good. If true, it provides no convincing argument to me that Christianity is true.
One of the events described in the fictional memoir Return to Laughter I mentioned earlier had to do with illness and medicine. Laura Bohannan and her husband Paul Bohannan did their original anthropological research among a Nigerian tribe known as the Tiv. At the time, the Tiv were very resistant to efforts to convert them by either Muslims or Christians. (I don’t know the current status.)
One of things that Laura highlighted in her novel was the role of sickness. The Tiv regarded anyone getting ill as the result of malign magic by a sorcerer. This led to something like a kind of “McCarthyism” within the culture. Whenever someone became ill or died, the malign sorcerer had to be identified and punished. This created huge amounts of conflict and trouble within the culture. Although the point was never explicit in the novel, I can imagine that Christian medical missionaries who cured illnesses and taught some basic principles of hygiene and medical care might improve the life of people in such a culture considerably. I offer this as a small (and greatly oversimplified) example of how Christian missionary work in some cultures might bring considerable improvement to people’s lives. No supernatural belief is necessary to acknowledge this benefit of Christian missionary work.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks NJL #36. I agree with you.
Do you know what I mean about the preaching that says, “If you only believe in Jesus…” and then cite all the wonderful things that will happen?
That is a false gospel, but it is so prevalent these days. I think that is why so many fall away, when those things don’t happen. The seed falls on shallow ground.
To hear Paul tell it, there is no compelling reason to become a Christian. People were tortured to death for it. Yeah, sign me up! C.S. Lewis made the same point in Mere Christianity. Everything would seem to be against faith, but we believe anyway because it is true.
I want to thank Spinoza for helping me to realize just how precious my faith really is. I’ve been taking it for granted. Most people spend their lives in bondage to a fear of death. They entertain themselves, they purchase diversions and inebriate themselves, but in the end it catches them anyway.
What blessed freedom to live with eyes wide open. Once death is no longer scary, the troubles of this life become so minor in comparison. So what if everything we have burns to the ground? What peace and joy is ours, anticipating the hope that is laid before us!
Report comment to moderator
Random Name,
Twins can also be glad for African missionaries. (My parents met and married as African missionaries; my oldest brother was born in Nigeria, though none of the rest of us have ever been there.) In my parents’ day, the second twin was being killed, because it was believed to be a demon. (It wasn’t human at all, not that it was possessed by a demon.) Missionaries changed that. Supernatural belief is necessary for that change, among others.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza–Atheists typically don’t believe in God, so why would they think they can merit his favor?
Atheists may not specifically believe that they can “merit God’s favor,” but they still typically hold to a variation on that idea by regarding themselves as “basically good people.” And this despite the fact that the concept of “goodness” is incoherent within the context of their own worldview assumptions.
Report comment to moderator
Random Name:
To make philosophically honest, coherent statements about “good,” you have to do more than just type the word. You have to give an account for its very existence (or lack thereof). To say you think, along with some scientists, that our perception *of* the so-called “good” means that there actually *is* “good” isn’t enough to give any weight to all these moral pronouncements you go around making. Why do you think it means anything to anybody to merely say something is good or bad because you think it’s good or bad. When you claim there are no moral absolutes, you cheat rhetorically whenever you subsequently speak as though there are. In other words, don’t think you’re getting away with disclaiming moral absolutes on the one hand, and making moral judgments based on them on the other. It’s transparent to all of us who give a moment’s thought to the notion.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza–This is just the kind of thing a delusionary cult leader would say to intimidate the gullible into believing what is otherwise nonsense.
And no doubt you regard the apostles as “delusionary cult leaders,” correct?
Report comment to moderator
You can sneer at Victoria and call her “special,”
I actually do think Victoria is special… But I also think that the many children that die in war and poverty every year without God’s rescue are also special. If Victoria’s “miracles” are proof of God, their deaths are proofs there is no God. I frankly don’t believe either postulate.
#53 Xion yer downright poetic tonight! For the record, though – I’m not an atheist.
But the biblical story of Grace is so exceedingly high, that it could not have been conceived over thousands of years by goat herders and fig harvesters.
That’s an unwarranted slur against goat herders and fig harvesters.
#57 Ree that’s just not true – I know lots of atheists who think they’re bad people! And I know quite a few who are quite correct in that belief!
#56 ok Cheryl D that’s a good one – Christianity definitely better there!
#59 Hmmm have to think about that. I don’t think that exactly. I think that Christianity as y’all practice it was invented a generation after the apostles. I pretty much think the first generation apostles would have a lot of disagreement with the historical narrative in writings selected for the NT hundreds of years later.
But – to be clear – As a general rule, I don’t see such a big dividing line between “cults” and the major religions. I think of the word in the Wikipedia sense: In traditional usage, the cult of a religion, quite apart from its sacred writings (”scriptures”), its theology or myths, or the personal faith of its believers, is the totality of external religious practice and observance, the neglect of which is the definition of impiety. This has to include Christianity.
My point in #19 was a bit different though – I didn’t mean to single out Ree as a unique cult leader – rather, the point was intended as a general one:
Hypothetical – let’s say you are a leader of a non-mainstream cult and you have weird views that are not acceptable to most people. How would you convince them? You can’t use evidence cause there isn’t any. So, instead, you could invoke the need for personal belief and try to intimidate someone into thinking they just need to have this “conversion” and then they’ll “know” the truth.
This tactic is used OVER and OVER and OVER again in cults and religions. The Mormons, for example, say – “Just *read* the Book of Mormon and follow your heart, and you’ll *know* it’s true.”
Baloney!
Christian appeals to a magic God-given “faith” – not so different.
Report comment to moderator
#58 Yeah
I have said, I think the legitimate point of atheists and religionists talking to each other is to make each other feel uneasy. I have posted many comments that I think should make conservative Christians feel uneasy (though I suspect that few do). That makes me feel uneasy.
That I have a sense of good and evil and regard certain actions as evil and other actions as good makes me much more uneasy.
I think this is a serious philosophical problem. I have no solution to it. I consider the usual philosophical solution presented here: consider that the Bible is the Word of God and that the Bible is inerrant no better than my solution.
The Christian solution comes down to me as circular reasoning:
God is Good because God says He is Good.
I don’t fly airplanes into buildings or walk into cafes with bombs strapped to me. I presume you don’t fly airplanes into buildings or plan to blow yourself up in a crowded public place. We agree that such restraint and self-control is good, but neither of us has an overwhelmingly convincing reason to present to those people who think such behavior is just peachy keen.
Report comment to moderator
Christian appeals to a magic God-given “faith” – not so different.
Spinoza, what do you appeal to for whatever it is you believe?
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza, I’m sorry to hear about your brother.
Report comment to moderator
Random Name:
The difference here, and it’s a big one, is that your starting assumptions do not allow for you to make your concluding assertions–namely, that this or that is good or bad. You just can’t keep talking this way.
Report comment to moderator
#52 NJL you sound so mad! I think you misunderstand me – first off, I am quite sure that I have had more than my share of “special experiences” as you describe. I worked in a healing ministry out of the Jesus movement, and experienced stuff there that holds its own with any testimony I’ve ever read on this blog. And I spent a great deal of time intensely thinking about these experiences and what they really mean. I don’t yet know the answer, but I concluded that the literal fundamentalist interpretation of them is not only wrong, it’s BAD. Immoral, if you will.
I loved your story in #36 by the way, and I hope you will always find the comfort in it that you profess here.
Report comment to moderator
Random Name:
The thing that you don’t seem to be following is that it is completely irrational–and you can’t have that in a foundational belief…you just can’t–to first state that there are no moral absolutes, then, in the very same post make absolute moral statements. Yet you continue to respond to requests to assemble some coherence from the mess with foofaraw about what the Christian view is. The fact remains that without giving an answer for yourself, it’s disingenuous to continue to making these judgments as if just dropping them from your brain makes them true and applicable to anyone. And I’m not requesting here that you cease posting; I’m just pointing out to you (and any Christian who happens to think your posts have substance) that your footing is entirely unsound.
Report comment to moderator
For someone with no ultimate hope, it’s ironic that atheist Matthew Parris believes faith in Christ is a psychogenic, spiritual placebo. Pray that he’ll find that faith in the saving work of Jesus also liberates a crushing atheist groupthink too.
Report comment to moderator
#62 Hmmm – big question – Sounds like an invitation to write an essay for NPR’s “This I Believe” – I don’t know what such an essay would actually look like from me! Suffice it to say that neither I nor Random “believe” anything with the kind of certainty you seem to find indispensable.
But off the top of my head:
I do believe in the universe. It is magnificent and fills me with wonder. “God” is one possible answer to its existence, but it’s not the only one and, of course, it raises as many questions as it answers.
I believe that what we know of the universe is unlikely to be more than a minute fraction of what exists. But we don’t have much luck at knowing anything about the other part.
What I wish –
I do SO wish there is a heaven-like afterlife! There might be. Or maybe not.
I wish to believe that “God is Love” – I really like that!! I want it to be true. Maybe it even is true! I think I will try to believe it more.
What I don’t believe –
That any of the established religions in the world today provide even a semi-accurate portrait of a reality beyond the empirical one we know about. And not only are the untrue, they are wholly inappropriate for modern cultures.
Report comment to moderator
Xion, yes, I know what you mean. I write tongue in cheek when I say I’m still waiting for that happy little life of the false gospel! Ain’t happening, brother!
I was thinking about this very thing the other day, thinking that had I made different decisions and done what so many of my contemporaries had done, my life would be much easier. But I remembered what the Psalmist said: my feet well nigh slipped when I considered the prosperity of the wicked until I went into the temple and saw their end. (Psalm 51, I think.) We all have regrets, to be sure, but God has provided me with what I need and the opportunity to realize that it is all that I need.
My mother often said, “coffins have no pockets” and I think she was right. You are so right about how people divert themselves with drink or sex, or the latest electronic device or entertainsments, all the while failing to lay up the treasure that moth and time cannot corrupt. I am freer than those around me who feel this need to have every thing or the need to compete with those around them. How many of them understand what it is to fight the good fight?
I understand the freedom you talk about, but I don’t know that we can explain it to those who don’t have it.
Report comment to moderator
#62 ok I answered wrong – you were asking about epistemology and I answered about propositions.
I am, of course, a thorough-going empiricist, a scientist by profession. I don’t think empiricism answers the big questions of existence conclusively though. So, I too “leap” in hope/faith on the basis of personal psychological experiences. But I do look before I leap!
The difference – I hold all my personal religious experiences – and they are MANY – to be tentative and am inherently skeptical about them. If empirical results contradict them, I give them up immediately. The hyper-religious psychotic experiences of some immediate family members (one bipolar and another schizophrenic, now dead) is a constant reminder to me that our subconscious mind is able to create religious experiences that we think are external and “real,” when anyone watching can see they’re not.
Report comment to moderator
#68 Spinoza,
I appreciate your answer, but maybe I should have bolded the words “appeal to” in my question at #62. It’s possible you were addressing that aspect when you mentioned the “empirical [reality] we know about.” Maybe not. So to what do you appeal (sans icky “faith”) as a foundation for all these uncertain beliefs you hold?
Report comment to moderator
Cool, Spinoza. Thanks for clarifying. So are you circumventing faith by using your senses to verify your senses?
Report comment to moderator
So are you circumventing faith by using your senses to verify your senses?
Depends on what you mean by “faith” –
I define “belief” to simply refer to the act of accepting something to be true. There are, of course, “degrees of belief,” sometimes called “confidence levels”. I don’t believe anything 100%. Even things I typically don’t question have a confidence level of no more than 99% followed by – at best – a lot of 9’s after the decimal point.
I suppose that I would say empirical experience is the worst possible guide to truth, just as capitalism is the worst possible economic system, except for all the others.
Report comment to moderator
The other definition of “faith” used here, is of course, believing in something when there is no empirical evidence. This is the Mark Twain version, “Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.”
I do think that my empiricism avoids this …
Report comment to moderator
At bottom, the question is really, “How probable is it that the NT gospel describes a historically correct account of a virgin-born Jewish messianic figure that was actually God incarnate?”
After a HUGE investment of time studying both scripture and nature and reflecting deeply on my personal experience as charismatic Jesus freak, Bible teacher and evangelist, I’d put the probability so low as to be negligible.
Report comment to moderator
#68 Spinoza, I’ve underestimated you. Why, you sound like Jesus! He didn’t like the world’s religions either. They are the only people he yelled at.
In #65 you say you worked in a healing ministry and concluded that the literal fundamentalist interpretation of them is not only wrong, it’s BAD. Immoral, if you will.
Absolutely! Most of us here would agree. It is immoral because it is a lie! Can God heal? Of course. But those swindlers are not of God. Why would God use a lie to proclaim the truth?
Maybe I am beginning to understand you a bit better now. I know many people who have come out of that environment and are scorched. Some of my inlaws just went nuts as you described and are trying to heal now away from the church.
I am sorry to hear all this. I went through my own ordeal with fundamentalism and legalism which I think damaged one of my children. We almost need a church survivors group! It wasn’t until I taught a series on Galatians that I finally understood grace. God isn’t interested in our long lists of things we do to pretend we are holy and earn his favor. We already have his favor, based on what Christ did. It is a gift.
What you were a part of was false teaching. I say, don’t listen to anyone. If you are a scientist then ask the big questions. I came to God through nature first and then the Bible. I hope one day you’ll be able to read the Bible again through a new light. Perhaps Galatians might help. Gal 3:24,25 is the key to understanding the Old Testament.
Report comment to moderator
Spinny kinda reminds me of Thomas….he doubts so much he must want to be certain.
Report comment to moderator
Spin – 75
This probably means little to nothing to you, but I don’t believe one word of your so called “personal Experience as…..” – you use it as a badge, for credibility –
Hey Spin check out Posts 336 – 338 – 351 – 347 – 363 ——- you blew it, “I grew up in a non-denominational denomination
Here’s the thread just to prove it: http://online.worldmag.com/2008/08/29/mccain-picks-palin/#comments
BY Spinoza 08.29.08 AT 6:48 PM
#358 – huh? ok – well the “Church of Christ” would be recognized as a denomination by those outside, but those inside consider it not to be one. So I call it a “non-denominational denomination” .
Spin, you blew it on this one, a “non-denominational denomination” LOL
Report comment to moderator
#77 Yes I agree – call me “Doubting Spinoza” if you will!
#78 Victoria, that comment makes you appear much less special and merely flippant.
I thought of your complete non-understanding about this point when I read my brother’s auto-biography last week. He wrote this over many months, possibly as a precursor to suicide. In it, he says:
And let’s not forget the righteous nazi tradition of the unknown Restoration Movement and the mighty non-denominational denomination, The Christian Church.
I was rather floored, cause I don’t remember ever using this term in a conversation with him, but it’s quite possible that we did. Anyway, he used it just the way I would (without the Nazi stuff…).
Report comment to moderator
p.s. I recently watched “Frisbee” – about the Calvary Chapel evangelist Lonnie Frisbee. And I believe one of the interviewees refers to Calvary Chapel as a non-denominational denomination as well.
Good movie though – http://www.lonniefrisbee.com/
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza,
You must have been confronted with this before. Do you see any problem in saying, “The other definition of “faith” used here, is of course, believing in something when there is no empirical evidence…. I do think that my empiricism avoids this …“?
You can’t have empirical turtles all the way down, can you?
And how HUGE was your investigation so that it you could come to some estimation of NT reliability? Earlier you talked about our smallness in relation to the universe. Is your mind HUGE or small or what?
Report comment to moderator
How can any empiricist make any approximation about what is possible at all in this universe?
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza: You’re a sport for hanging in here with us!
Report comment to moderator
Spin
I’m sorry to hear about your brother passing away –
I had nothing to do with what you posted back in August of this year, nor anything else which has to do with “nazi’s” – I can’t and won’t take responsibility for something which I had nothing to do with, nor knew anything about –
I have known many close friends who were members of Church of Christ, they most certainly considered themselves a denomination – they NEVER considered it a non-denomination.
As I said Spin, I’m very sorry that you lost your brother.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza, I too am sorry about your brother. Someone I love (a relative by marriage) lost a brother and then a mother that way–it’s exceedingly hard, and I’m sorry.
As to your #68, “That any of the established religions in the world today provide even a semi-accurate portrait of a reality beyond the empirical one we know about. And not only are the untrue, they are wholly inappropriate for modern cultures.” I strongly disagree. One of the startling things about Scripture is how very relevant it is for our day. (Ecclesiastes for instance–stunningly up to date.) In a day that is throwing out morality and common sense, we have a Bible that has both. Our casualness toward marriage and sex, for just one example, cannot hold a society together. Neither can our disregard of authority, of honor, and of many other things the Bible emphasizes. Archaeology and many other fields keep finding evidence that supports Scripture. That’s not even dealing with fulfilled prophecy and “religious” issues. And when anyone really comes face to face with Jesus, everything else is so insignificant.
I’m sorry that the falseness of your religious experience innoculated you against the truth of Scripture, and I do hope that you will find yourself face to face with Christ in this life.
Report comment to moderator
#4: “The historical record of Christianity is that over the ages it has done enormous good and enormous harm”
This canard of “Christianity has killed more people than anything else” is so absurd that the only reason people keep bringing it up must be to make us waste time and effort on refutation. But if that’s what you want, here goes:
Think of all the wars going back in western history. WWII, WWI, the Crimean War, the Civil War, the NAPOLEONIC Wars, the Seven Years’ War, the War of the Spanish Succession, the conquests of Charlemagne, the conquests of Rome, The Punic Wars, the conquests of Alexander the Great, the Pelloponesian War, the Persian War, the SIEGE OF FREAKING TROY. NONE of them had ANYTHING to do with religion. The only two I can think of are the Crusades, which, while unfortunate, had political causes as well and were essentially started by Muslim attacks on Europe. Then there were some minor European conflicts associated with the rise of Protestantism. Neither of those had anywhere NEAR the casualty counts of the others I listed. Case closed.
Report comment to moderator
John M – 86
YOU WRITE: “This canard of “Christianity has killed more people than anything else” is so absurd that the only reason people keep bringing it up must be to make us waste time and effort on refutation.”
It’s a hoax, but as you say its meant to waste time. It’s a deliberate attempt to side step the Gospel -
Report comment to moderator
Victoria–I have known many close friends who were members of Church of Christ, they most certainly considered themselves a denomination – they NEVER considered it a non-denomination.
Maybe your friends saw it differently, but I was first exposed to the gospel in a Church of Christ and the people there definitely considered their denomination to be the “one true church,” and not a denomination. To them, leaving their denomination was leaving Christ.
Report comment to moderator
Ree
I can see your point just as the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) considers themselves the one true church – however, The Church of Christ is a denomination. Many denominations believe theirs to be the ‘one true church’ but that does not mean it is not a denomination. There are many groups within the denomination, some split off in 1957 -
Report comment to moderator
Yes, they definitely are a denomination, but traditionally, they’ve vehemently denied it. Maybe things are changing now, though. I think that many of them are also letting go of some of their distinctive doctrines such as the prohibition against musical instruments in worship.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, I’m not aware of any of them actually adopting the use of musical instruments in worship, but there seems to be a loosening of that conviction in many of the members anyway.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know what the situation is with musical instruments. Perhaps there are groups which have split off and now use them.
Report comment to moderator
#86 John M,
I will recommend to you as I did to others that you read Blood and Soil by Kiernan. It is a historoy of genocide.
The author is not “anti-Christian” by any means in that he does not single out Christians. The lists genocides by various groups, including Spartans,Romans, Muslims, and Communists.
The genocides involving Christians were the Catholic ones involving the Caribbean and Central America, and the Protestant ones involving Ireland, aborigines in North America, and aborigenes in Australia.
I was surprised when Peter Leavitt said that he had read the book, but I was astonished when his further comments seemed to indicate that he had read an entirely different book than the one that I read.
After that amazing exchange, I don’t know what to do about your comment, John. Have you read this book? Are you familiar with the events I talk about, in which many people who called themselves Christians engaged in wholesale slaughter and destruction of native peoples, and their habitat and ability to survive?
Are you going to tell me that the people who perpepretated these actions were not the “real” Christians, just people who falsely called themselves Christians? Once people start that type of argument, the discussion becomes totally impossible. It’s a totally heads we win tails everybody else loses discussion.
Perhaps that should become the motto and tag line of Worldmagblog and World Magazine.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah, I am willing to engage more with you about the discussion of values and right and wrong and whether or not it is possible to have a sense of evil and virtue without agreeing to your religious assumptions. But I have other tasks to attend to at the moment and as one topic scrolls off the screen, it is impossible or difficult to continue a conversation. I don’t know the answer to this. As I said somewhere else, you can email me and we can arrange when and how to talk. My “throw-away” email that I use for this purpose is eman_modnar@yahoo.com. It works. I check it. If you contact me, I will maintain the privacy and confidentiality of your email. If you don’t contact me, then it is not my fault that the conversation languishes or disappears.
Report comment to moderator
I see where this is going. I’m out.
Yes, Victoria. hem hem, cough cough, roll my eyes, mutter name under my breath. I used it to emphasize my point, because you have a reputation of 1)taking things too literally, 2)being the stereotypical loveless Bible-thumping Republican, 3)trying to teach the truth in love but using words that rub people the wrong way. Just a friendly warning, is all.
Report comment to moderator
Trying to give Victoria a “friendly warning” is like trying to put lipstick on a …. well, never mind.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
#97
Have you been sipping the prayer sauce too much? I am not sure that comment makes coherent sense.
Report comment to moderator
I said LOVELESS Bible-thumper.
You’re not rubbing me the wrong way. On the contrary, the teenagers around here seem to be the least offended by you.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!