Deconversion
Gareth McCaughan
I have come to the conclusion that Christianity is not
(for me) intellectually tenable. As of a few days ago
(no, not 6/6/6!) I am no longer a Christian.
I'm less sure that mere theism is wrong than I am that
Christianity is; but it seems very much more likely
wrong than right.
If you want more details, you can find some at
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/g.mccaughan/g/essays/atheist.html
or ask me.
*
This gives rise to a question of etiquette: Should I
stay on uk.r.c, or go away, or go away for a while and
then come back?
- The denizens of uk.r.c are an extremely cool bunch
of people, and I'd prefer not to lose contact with
you.
- The purpose of uk.r.c, according to the charter,
is discussion of Christianity in the UK. If there
are too many participants who aren't Christians,
some Christians may be repelled, greatly to the
detriment of the group's ability to fulfil its
function. uk.r.c already has quite a few atheist
and otherwise skeptical participants...
- It might feel weird to have me suddenly arguing
the opposite side from what you're used to (though
of course not *all* my opinions have changed, so
I won't always be). I wouldn't want to freak anyone
out. :-)
*
Those of you who wish to speculate that this is all
because I wasn't a member of the One True Church, or
because I accepted the devilish heresy of evolution,
or because I held on to an outmoded supernaturalist
conception of Christianity, or [etc., etc., etc.] are
welcome to do so. I can't think of any such speculation
that I find at all plausible.
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
Peter R
news:87y7w4b...@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com...
> After a very great deal of thought, reading and prayer,
> I have come to the conclusion that Christianity is not
> (for me) intellectually tenable. As of a few days ago
> (no, not 6/6/6!) I am no longer a Christian.
>
> I'm less sure that mere theism is wrong than I am that
> Christianity is; but it seems very much more likely
> wrong than right.
Well well, a very brave move old chap and one I wish you well in. I've often
said on the group that I feel like an atheist acting out the part of a
Christian because I so want it to be true and I havn't the balls to walk
away from what has become an intrinsic part of my world view and my social
groupings so I really do admire someone who has got the courage.
It's funny you know, I've often thought, though I've never said it to you,
that your "non" stance on Homosexuality made you look a bit wishy washy and
unable to make decisions on important issues, but of course this blows that
impression outta the water :-)
> If you want more details, you can find some at
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/g.mccaughan/g/essays/atheist.html
> or ask me.
Ok;
1)Are you scared?
2)How do you think such a move will it change your social arrangements.
(will you lose friends over it)?
3)What now regarding morality and meaning?
4)Will you now finally make up your mind about the rightness or wrongness of
H? :-)
> This gives rise to a question of etiquette: Should I
> stay on uk.r.c, or go away, or go away for a while and
> then come back? <snip>
Oh do please stay, I am fascinated by what you've done, and how it will play
out.
Peter R
Richard Dudley
< snippage >
> Those of you who wish to speculate that this is all
> because I wasn't a member of the One True Church, or
> because I accepted the devilish heresy of evolution,
> or because I held on to an outmoded supernaturalist
> conception of Christianity, or [etc., etc., etc.] are
> welcome to do so. I can't think of any such speculation
> that I find at all plausible.
I speculate that its a step forward in discipleship. You might find
authors such as M Scott Peck and James Fowler helpful for this new
stage in your life. Like Peter R, I see this as a courageous move.
Peck's '4 stages' theory would probably have you making the progression
from stage 2 to stage 3.
Richard
Peter R
> < snippage >
>> Those of you who wish to speculate that this is all
>> because I wasn't a member of the One True Church, or
>> because I accepted the devilish heresy of evolution,
>> or because I held on to an outmoded supernaturalist
>> conception of Christianity, or [etc., etc., etc.] are
>> welcome to do so. I can't think of any such speculation
>> that I find at all plausible.
Richard
> I speculate that its a step forward in discipleship. You might find
> authors such as M Scott Peck and James Fowler helpful for this new
> stage in your life. Like Peter R, I see this as a courageous move.
> Peck's '4 stages' theory would probably have you making the progression
> from stage 2 to stage 3.
Sighhh....don't you think that's somewhat patronising[1] Richard? I can't
speak for Gareth but I know that response would annoy me big time. Just the
lack of reading[2] it assumes would piss me off.
[1]This has brought on a rush of nostalgia. I seem to remember that my very
first post to this group was to tell Anabel I thought she was being
patronising for quoting M Scott Peck to another member of the group who was
struggling with belief...Angie[3] I think??
[2]For what it's worth I think Peck's "Different Drum" is pop-psychology at
its worst
[3]What ever happened to those two? Anyone still in contact?
Peter R
Paul Dean
<Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
> After a very great deal of thought, reading and prayer,
> I have come to the conclusion that Christianity is not
> (for me) intellectually tenable. As of a few days ago
> (no, not 6/6/6!) I am no longer a Christian.
>
> I'm less sure that mere theism is wrong than I am that
> Christianity is; but it seems very much more likely
> wrong than right.
>
> If you want more details, you can find some at
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/g.mccaughan/g/essays/atheist.html
> or ask me.
Hmmm. One practical question - how does Emma feel? If I made that step
my wife would feel like I'd not kept my promises to her in terms of
jointly living our spiritual life and being there to support hers.
I'll post more later, but for now I just wanted to say along with Peter, a
kind of "well done" for being honest with yourself. If you truly don't
have the experience of a personality being the "ground of being", then
you're right - I certainly wouldn't believe in God without the
experience. All your arguments could have been produced by me before I
became a Christian and the experience caused me to re-orientate my whole
scheme of thought so that the ground of being was at the centre of any
conclusions I make; without that experience there's no point. I've always
maintained that I simply can't understand how anyone becomes, or is, a
Christian based only on careful consideration and intellectual analysis
and your move has removed a counter-example to that. So I'm glad you've
seen sense, and hope that this is only the start of your journey with God
(by which word I'm completely sure I mean something different to that
which you've always meant).
> This gives rise to a question of etiquette: Should I
> stay on uk.r.c, or go away, or go away for a while and
> then come back?
I personally would be almost damaged and actually dismayed if you weren't
around to not let me get away with loose thinking. We can tell one of the
other atheists to get lost if there are too many!
--
Paul
http://www.deancentral.net/
a quick note from my usenet sponsor:
Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>After a very great deal of thought, reading and prayer,
>I have come to the conclusion that Christianity is not
>(for me) intellectually tenable. As of a few days ago
>(no, not 6/6/6!) I am no longer a Christian.
[FX: checks headers. No, this isn't a delayed post from April 1st.]
Well. That's a bit of an unexpected thing to read, to say the least.
>I'm less sure that mere theism is wrong than I am that
>Christianity is; but it seems very much more likely
>wrong than right.
>
>If you want more details, you can find some at
>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/g.mccaughan/g/essays/atheist.html
>or ask me.
Summary: The Problem of Evil is Insurmountable. Up to a point, I can
understand; I think this is probably the only serious objection to
Christianity (or, at least, to some form of theism) which stands up to
detailed scrutiny.
>This gives rise to a question of etiquette: Should I
>stay on uk.r.c, or go away, or go away for a while and
>then come back?
That depends a lot on how much you want to be a real live example of
how Festinger's Theory of Cognitive Dissonance affects someone in your
situation :-)
Mark
--
Visit: http://www.CorporateContact.info - phone and email contacts for Amazon, Paypal, eBay and lots of other hard-to-contact organisations
Listen: http://www.goodge.co.uk/files/dweeb.mp3 - you'll love it!
Gordon Hudson
news:87y7w4b...@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com...
> I have come to the conclusion that Christianity is not
> (for me) intellectually tenable. As of a few days ago
> (no, not 6/6/6!) I am no longer a Christian.
>
> I'm less sure that mere theism is wrong than I am that
> Christianity is; but it seems very much more likely
> wrong than right.
I went through a similar crisis last October.
This did not make sense as I had been through so many major trials in myh
life with my faith completely intact.
What caused the problem for me was that I started to associate my faith with
church.
As I was not really going to church I concluded that I couldn't be a
Christian.
That probably sounds bonkers, but I decided to give up.
A couple of months later I was running on the treadmill in the gym and I had
an overwhelming feeling that God loved me regardless of anything I might do
and my faith gradually returned.
If you had spoken to me before that I would have said there was no chance of
me believing again.
The faith I have now seems to be different from before.
Gradually I am learning to hear God's voice in a way I have not for many
years.
My advive would be to have a rest and maybe God will meet you in an
unexpected place.
John Blake
>After a very great deal of thought, reading and prayer,
>I have come to the conclusion that Christianity is not
>(for me) intellectually tenable. As of a few days ago
>(no, not 6/6/6!) I am no longer a Christian.
>
>I'm less sure that mere theism is wrong than I am that
>Christianity is; but it seems very much more likely
>wrong than right.
>
How very brave and honest of you Gareth. I understand now why you were
often the only one to see things, at least to some extent, my way in
the past.
>If you want more details, you can find some at
>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/g.mccaughan/g/essays/atheist.html
>or ask me.
>
> *
>
>This gives rise to a question of etiquette: Should I
>stay on uk.r.c, or go away, or go away for a while and
>then come back?
>
Please stay! Your debating skills are too valuable to be lost to the
group.
> - The denizens of uk.r.c are an extremely cool bunch
> of people, and I'd prefer not to lose contact with
> you.
>
> - The purpose of uk.r.c, according to the charter,
> is discussion of Christianity in the UK. If there
> are too many participants who aren't Christians,
> some Christians may be repelled, greatly to the
> detriment of the group's ability to fulfil its
> function. uk.r.c already has quite a few atheist
> and otherwise skeptical participants...
>
I see no reason why any Christians should be repelled by atheists. On
the contrary, I would hope they would relish the opportunity to put
over their views on their religion.
JB
Paul Dean
<Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
> If you want more details, you can find some at
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/g.mccaughan/g/essays/atheist.html
> or ask me.
You wrote on your web-site:
> I'm fairly sure (let's say, well over 95% and probablyover 99%) that the
> universe is not being overseen by a
> perfectly good and infinitely powerful being, nor anyvery close
> approximation to one. (The problem of evilsuffices, all on its own.)
>
> I have no idea whether the world was created. The merefact of its
> existence is a bit of a mystery, but not one
> that's helped by postulating a creator: the fundamentalpuzzle is "how
> come there's anything?", and a creatorneeds explaining no less than a
> universe.
>
> I'm adopting materialism as a working hypothesis; itseems to hold up
> pretty well, but the world is strangeenough that I'm not terribly
> confident about it.
The definition of existence seems central to your article, as you deny the
existence of a particular non-physical being and suggest materialism
which, AIUI, is the idea that the only things that exist are physical
things - basically atoms and their constituent parts. As
ex-mathematicians, I need to ask you what definition of 'existence' you're
using and why have you chosen that one?
To me it's an entirely open question and the choice is usually determined
by our experience and culture (we live in an extremely materialist
culture) and I wonder whether you've gone through a conscious exercise of
examining your definitions and assumptions about existence. If so, I'd be
interested in your sources and conclusions; if not, then I've got some
puzzlement in need of a solution I can't imagine ;-)
Quasin
> After a very great deal of thought, reading and prayer,
> I have come to the conclusion that Christianity is not
> (for me) intellectually tenable. As of a few days ago
> (no, not 6/6/6!) I am no longer a Christian.
>
Absolute honesty works far better for me than trying to
believe stuff I don't believe merely because I was taught to
or I'm supposed to. :) So I totally respect and appreciate
this step in your life.
If my belief in God were based on the Bible or reason or
anything learned in church, I would not be a Christian. I'm
stuck because of too many experiences and encounters that
have no other explanation than madness (but that doesn't
cover the physical miracles I've experienced) or God.
I agree with you that there are some big problems that the
typical "Christian" answers do not satisfy. I appreciate
your willingness to say so out loud.
> This gives rise to a question of etiquette: Should I
> stay on uk.r.c, or go away, or go away for a while and
> then come back?
>
> - The denizens of uk.r.c are an extremely cool bunch
> of people, and I'd prefer not to lose contact with
> you.
>
> - The purpose of uk.r.c, according to the charter,
> is discussion of Christianity in the UK. If there
> are too many participants who aren't Christians,
> some Christians may be repelled, greatly to the
> detriment of the group's ability to fulfil its
> function. uk.r.c already has quite a few atheist
> and otherwise skeptical participants...
>
> - It might feel weird to have me suddenly arguing
> the opposite side from what you're used to (though
> of course not *all* my opinions have changed, so
> I won't always be). I wouldn't want to freak anyone
> out. :-)
>
If you are concerned about confusing people why not just add
to your sig "no longer a Christian as of 6-6-06"?
Question - how do you feel? Elated, depressed, puzzled,
freed, directionless, no different than the day before or
the year before June 6, 06?
Gareth McCaughan
> Well well, a very brave move old chap and one I wish you well in.
Thanks.
> 1)Are you scared?
No. (I'm not sure whether you mean "of hell", "of death", "of living
without God", or "of making such a big change in my life", but the
answer is no in all three cases. Of course if (er, when) I find myself
facing imminent death I'll probably feel scared of it, but I think
most Christians do too.
> 2)How do you think such a move will it change your social arrangements.
> (will you lose friends over it)?
I hope not, but it remains to be seen.
> 3)What now regarding morality and meaning?
I never thought morality and meaning needed to be derived
from a deity in the first place, so I'll be finding out
practically whether I was right :-).
> 4)Will you now finally make up your mind about the rightness or wrongness of
> H? :-)
The only reason I had for thinking that it might be wrong
was religious, so I suppose I conclude that it's not-wrong.
I still don't think it's something I need to have much of
an opinion on, what with being married and heterosexual :-).
(Of course I need to be nice and uncomdemnatory of my gay
acquaintances, but that was needed just as much before.)
> Oh do please stay, I am fascinated by what you've done, and how it will play
> out.
Thanks for the kind words!
Gareth McCaughan
> I speculate that its a step forward in discipleship.
Always possible in principle: it may turn out in the end
that I've rejected some deeply wrong version of Christianity
and that I'll come round to a deeply right one in time.
But I have to say it doesn't look terribly likely at
present.
(It's also possible that I'll come round to the same one
I left, if I encounter really compelling new evidence.
Or that I'll turn into a firebreathing atheist of the
"religion is the scourge of humanity" type. Those seem
quite unlikely too.)
> You might find
> authors such as M Scott Peck and James Fowler helpful for this new
> stage in your life. Like Peter R, I see this as a courageous move.
> Peck's '4 stages' theory would probably have you making the progression
> from stage 2 to stage 3.
Whereas you, I'm sure, are at stage 4 at least, or possibly stage 5.
Quasin
> <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>After a very great deal of thought, reading and prayer,
>>I have come to the conclusion that Christianity is not
>>(for me) intellectually tenable. As of a few days ago
>>(no, not 6/6/6!) I am no longer a Christian.
>>
>>I'm less sure that mere theism is wrong than I am that
>>Christianity is; but it seems very much more likely
>>wrong than right.
>
> How very brave and honest of you Gareth. I understand now why you were
> often the only one to see things, at least to some extent, my way in
> the past.
>
Hey, John! Haven't I occasionally agreed with you, or you
with me? :)
Quasin
Gareth McCaughan
>> If you want more details, you can find some at
>> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/g.mccaughan/g/essays/atheist.html
>> or ask me.
>
> Summary: The Problem of Evil is Insurmountable.
Well, no, actually, there are a bunch of other things too.
But it's the problem of evil that makes me reasonably convinced
that not only Christianity but most forms of theism are wrong.
> Up to a point, I can
> understand; I think this is probably the only serious objection to
> Christianity (or, at least, to some form of theism) which stands up to
> detailed scrutiny.
I've scrutinized it in a lot of detail, and I think it stands up
very well (perhaps I should say very ill, since it argues from
disagreeable facts to a disagreeable conclusion) indeed. And it
seems to me that if anything that purports to be a refutation or
near-refutation of Christianity *does* stand up, then Christianity
is refuted or near-refuted.
But, to repeat, there are other objections that I think have
considerable force.
>> This gives rise to a question of etiquette: Should I
>> stay on uk.r.c, or go away, or go away for a while and
>> then come back?
>
> That depends a lot on how much you want to be a real live example of
> how Festinger's Theory of Cognitive Dissonance affects someone in your
> situation :-)
I don't think I understand; sorry to be dim. What particular
dissonance do you think I'll suffer from by remaining in uk.r.c,
and what do you expect me to do to reduce it? I don't, e.g.,
see any incompatibility between believing that the denizens
of uk.r.c are an excellent bunch of people, while also believing
that they're mostly wrong about something very important. After
all, *I* was wrong about the same thing until very recently :-).
Gareth McCaughan
> Hmmm. One practical question - how does Emma feel? If I made that
> step my wife would feel like I'd not kept my promises to her in terms
> of jointly living our spiritual life and being there to support hers.
She's not overjoyed about it, of course. I understand what you say
about keeping promises, and for that matter any more-than-nominal
Christian has promised to remain one. I don't like breaking promises,
and that's one reason why I've hung on for so long, having had grave
misgivings for years.
But sometimes you have to break a promise. If you promise someone
that you'll see them at a particular time and then you get hit by
a bus and land in hospital, you can't keep that promise. If you
promise obedience to someone and it turns out that the person didn't
even *exist*, then you can't keep that promise. (Though sometimes
you might want to, if they were some sort of proxy for another
person or institution you trust even after finding that the proxy
didn't exist.)
> I'll post more later, but for now I just wanted to say along with
> Peter, a kind of "well done" for being honest with yourself. If you
> truly don't have the experience of a personality being the "ground of
> being", then you're right - I certainly wouldn't believe in God
> without the experience.
It's certainly possible that at some time in the future I'll have
some experience so stunning and life-changing that I'll have to
re-re-consider. Or, for that matter, it's possible that Calvinism
is right and that will never happen because I'm not one of the
Elect and God has no interest in saving me. (In the latter case,
I'm not sure I'd want much to do with him anyway; but we've had
that discussion before.)
> So I'm glad you've seen sense,
> and hope that this is only the start of your journey with God (by
> which word I'm completely sure I mean something different to that
> which you've always meant).
Understood. (Please don't think, by the way, that I've ever
thought my understanding of God was definitive or complete.)
>> This gives rise to a question of etiquette: Should I
>> stay on uk.r.c, or go away, or go away for a while and
>> then come back?
>
> I personally would be almost damaged and actually dismayed if you
> weren't around to not let me get away with loose thinking. We can
> tell one of the other atheists to get lost if there are too many!
But they, unlike me, aren't offering to leave if uk.r.c
would be better without them. :-)
Gareth McCaughan
> I went through a similar crisis last October.
...
> As I was not really going to church I concluded that I couldn't be a
> Christian.
> That probably sounds bonkers, but I decided to give up.
It seems ... unusual. But not bonkers.
> Gradually I am learning to hear God's voice in a way I have not for many
> years.
Cool.
> My advive would be to have a rest and maybe God will meet you in an
> unexpected place.
Always possible. Do you mean a rest from uk.r.c, or a rest from
going to church, or a rest from having anything to do with Christians,
or what? :-)
Gareth McCaughan
>> This gives rise to a question of etiquette: Should I
>> stay on uk.r.c, or go away, or go away for a while and
>> then come back?
>
> Please stay! Your debating skills are too valuable to be lost to the
> group.
Well, you *would* say that, wouldn't you? I was wondering
more what the Christians would say; it's not hard to predict
the atheists' preferences in this. :-)
> I see no reason why any Christians should be repelled by atheists. On
> the contrary, I would hope they would relish the opportunity to put
> over their views on their religion.
You might hope so, but it's perfectly reasonable to be
confident that something is true but not confident in
one's ability to defend it before a hostile jury.
Gareth McCaughan
> If you are concerned about confusing people why not just add to your
> sig "no longer a Christian as of 6-6-06"?
I might. Except that it *wasn't* 6/6/6, as I said. (I suppose
it would be amusing to pretend that it was, but I'm not very
keen on the winding-people-up sort of humour.)
> Question - how do you feel? Elated, depressed, puzzled, freed,
> directionless, no different than the day before or the year before
> June 6, 06?
Not much different. I think there are a few reasons.
- I'm not a very emotional person; I think much more
than I feel. This may well be a weakness but, well,
it's how I am.
- This has been brewing for a long time, and the process
of re-evaluation that led to my decision to jump ship
had been fairly clearly heading that way for a while.
- My *values* are largely unchanged. I was always committed
to God because I was committed to truth and goodness, not
the other way around. So -- so far, at least -- there's
no great revolution in that aspect of my life.
But it's always possible that in a week, a month, a year,
I'll be in a state of total despair at the finitude of life,
or of joyful liberation at not having to believe all that
Wrong Stuff any more, or something. But not yet.
Gareth McCaughan
> The definition of existence seems central to your article, as you deny
> the existence of a particular non-physical being and suggest
> materialism which, AIUI, is the idea that the only things that exist
> are physical things - basically atoms and their constituent parts.
> As ex-mathematicians, I need to ask you what definition of
> 'existence' you're using and why have you chosen that one?
Actually, no; it's just that the language of "existence" is
convenient. I don't know of any *definition* of the word that
works adequately to cover all the sorts of things that might
be thought to exist -- people, electrons, opinions, gods,
other universes, physical laws, numbers, dimensions, purposes,
values, possible worlds -- without begging crucial questions
or failing to enlighten at all.
If God "exists", then of course it's likely to be a very different
kind of existence from that of the physical objects we're most
familiar with.
> To me it's an entirely open question and the choice is usually
> determined by our experience and culture (we live in an extremely
> materialist culture) and I wonder whether you've gone through a
> conscious exercise of examining your definitions and assumptions
> about existence. If so, I'd be interested in your sources and
> conclusions; if not, then I've got some puzzlement in need of a
> solution I can't imagine ;-)
I'm confident that I'm not assuming that "exists" means "exists
in the universe" or "exists in the same way as a physical object"
or anything like that. Beyond that, I don't think I'm making much
in the way of assumptions about existence. Whatever the sense in
which (according to Christianity) God "exists", it's a sense that
allows statements like these to be true, or at least to be good
approximations to the truth:
- God created the universe.
- God never sins.
- God loves you.
- God knows everything.
- God can do anything to the universe that he wants.
- God became incarnate in Jesus.
And Christians, day by day, get on with their lives and their
faith on the basis of this sort of thing; they don't need to
decide *exactly* what the author to the Hebrews meant when he
said that God "is". All talk about God is to some extent
analogical, and talk of his existence is presumably the same.
Do you have some reason to think that subtleties related to
the nature of existence might make a difference to such things
as the problem of evil, or God's apparent inactivity, or the
deficiencies I find in the Bible?
Tim W
news:87y7w4b...@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com...
...
Blimey. How awful. You must have been going through some agonies. I can only
think you must be experiencing something like a kind of bereavement now. My
thoughts are with you, in complete sincerity.
I fear you may have landed in the dillema between the horns of both stools
where religion is intellectually untenable but atheism is emotionally and
morally untenable. If it's any help I think that is where modern life puts
most of us at some time.
I do hope you will stick around.
Tim w
Paul Dean
<Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Paul Dean wrote:
>
>> Hmmm. One practical question - how does Emma feel? If I made that
>> step my wife would feel like I'd not kept my promises to her in terms
>> of jointly living our spiritual life and being there to support hers.
>
> She's not overjoyed about it, of course. I understand what you say
> about keeping promises, and for that matter any more-than-nominal
> Christian has promised to remain one. I don't like breaking promises,
> and that's one reason why I've hung on for so long, having had grave
> misgivings for years.
>
> But sometimes you have to break a promise. If you promise someone
> that you'll see them at a particular time and then you get hit by
> a bus and land in hospital, you can't keep that promise. If you
> promise obedience to someone and it turns out that the person didn't
> even *exist*, then you can't keep that promise. (Though sometimes
> you might want to, if they were some sort of proxy for another
> person or institution you trust even after finding that the proxy
> didn't exist.)
Please understand I'm not being hostile when I say this, but it can be a
problem if her interpretation of your promise differs from yours; will you
continue to actively support and encourage her in what sees as her
relationship with God, or will you feel obliged to subtlely steer her
towards the truth (as you see it)? I can see strong arguments for both
courses and I assume you've discussed it thoroughly.
Peter R
>>This gives rise to a question of etiquette: Should I
>>stay on uk.r.c, or go away, or go away for a while and
>>then come back?
Mark
> That depends a lot on how much you want to be a real live example of
> how Festinger's Theory of Cognitive Dissonance affects someone in your
> situation :-)
It's funny you should say that. I was pondering, after I read Gareths post,
why I havn't made the same decision and I concluded that though I have a
sense of dissonance with my current position, because I can see so many
negative aspects with it, I'm not at all sure that *for me* choosing as
Gareth has would reduce said dissonance and increase a sense of consonance,
as the alternative doesn't seem to have a lot of positive aspects and just
as many negative ones.
Still I shall be very interested to watch and learn from Gareth experience
in the treadmill, should he decide to stay ;-)
Peter R
Gordon Hudson
Just let yourself stop struggling.
Stopping going to church might help, but I don;t know your current
situation.
My wife does not go to church now although we both met in church and were
both Christians at the time.
I would probably go to church if she was willing to go but its not worth the
aggro so I don't make an issue of it.
I have a good excuse though, there are very few churches near here of any
type.
To be honest the biggest pressure on us has been the great disappointment
felt by Christian friends.
Here is a useful point:
If you keep going to church they will probably just go on considering you as
a Christian.
I know that when I meet other Christians, the first thing they ask is whay
chirch I go to and when i say I don't they give the impression they doubt my
sincerity.
Peter R
>> how Festinger's Theory of Cognitive Dissonance affects someone in your
>> situation :-)
> I don't think I understand; sorry to be dim. What particular
> dissonance do you think I'll suffer from by remaining in uk.r.c,
> and what do you expect me to do to reduce it? I don't, e.g.,
> see any incompatibility between believing that the denizens
> of uk.r.c are an excellent bunch of people, while also believing
> that they're mostly wrong about something very important. After
> all, *I* was wrong about the same thing until very recently :-).
I think he's saying that having made such a major decision the dissonance
that, according to Festinger, should accompany this decision, and how you
cope with it will make you a "real live example" (like a rat in a cage
so-to-speak) if you stay.
I may be missunderstanding him though :-/
Peter R
Ian Smith
> Peter R wrote:
>
> > 1)Are you scared?
>
> No. (I'm not sure whether you mean "of hell", "of death", "of living
> without God", or "of making such a big change in my life", but the
> answer is no in all three cases. Of course if (er, when) I find myself
> facing imminent death I'll probably feel scared of it, but I think
> most Christians do too.
I have faced imminent death on a few occasions (for those not
already aware - I have a life-threatening allergy, I have on occasion
suffered from this without the appropriate medication to hand, on one
occasion losing consciousness in expectation of not regaining it,
though as it happens I did come round - in a serious-looking hospital
room).
Death, in itself, does not scare me, and did not scare me at the time.
I think my most profound emotion on both most serious occasions was
regret. On one occasion, I was some distance from my wife who was 6
months pregnant with our first child. On the other (earlier), I
simply felt that it was a shame not to have achieved something more.
Of course, this in no way invalidates Gareth's assertion (I may well
simply be abnormal), but it's just a personal observation - in fact,
the notion of facing losing the hope of God is a good deal scarier
than merely death.
On a marginally happier note, I would like to add my exhortation to
Gareth not to stop contributing to this group.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
Peter R
<snip>
> I fear you may have landed in the dillema between the horns of both stools
> where religion is intellectually untenable but atheism is emotionally and
> morally untenable.
Well that's where I'd be but if you read what Gareth is saying it doesn't
seem he is. It's really all very fascinating.
Peter R
Frederick Williams
>
> After a very great deal of thought, reading and prayer,
> I have come to the conclusion that Christianity is not
> (for me) intellectually tenable.
I'm not surprised!
> As of a few days ago
> (no, not 6/6/6!) I am no longer a Christian.
Does any other religion appeal?
> If you want more details, you can find some at
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/g.mccaughan/g/essays/atheist.html
Maybe that will answer my question. I'll take a look at it.
> This gives rise to a question of etiquette: Should I
> stay on uk.r.c,
I hope so.
> ... I held on to an outmoded supernaturalist
> conception of Christianity,
What's one of those?
--
Remove "antispam" and ".invalid" for e-mail address.
Frederick Williams
>
> Peter R wrote:
> > 3)What now regarding morality and meaning?
>
> I never thought morality and meaning needed to be derived
> from a deity in the first place, so I'll be finding out
> practically whether I was right :-).
You are. No need for religion never mind deities, but if you think that
some kind of religion might appeal, look into Buddhism. (Bet you
already have?)
Phil Saunders
> After a very great deal of thought, reading and prayer,
> I have come to the conclusion that Christianity is not
> (for me) intellectually tenable. As of a few days ago
> (no, not 6/6/6!) I am no longer a Christian.
snip
> Those of you who wish to speculate that this is all
> because I wasn't a member of the One True Church, or
> because I accepted the devilish heresy of evolution,
> or because I held on to an outmoded supernaturalist
> conception of Christianity, or [etc., etc., etc.] are
> welcome to do so. I can't think of any such speculation
> that I find at all plausible.
Hi Gareth,
I couldspeculate but I wont.
I am saddened but unsurprised. I cant imagine that any intellectual search
for God will find Jesus.
Dont go away, stay and play :-)
Phil
Gareth McCaughan
> Please understand I'm not being hostile when I say this, but it can be
> a problem if her interpretation of your promise differs from yours;
Of course.
> will you continue to actively support and encourage her in what sees
> as her relationship with God, or will you feel obliged to subtlely
> steer her towards the truth (as you see it)? I can see strong
> arguments for both courses and I assume you've discussed it
> thoroughly.
We haven't discussed that issue much yet, but certainly will.
I too see strong arguments both ways. I am, as I think I already
mentioned, not really the proselytizing sort, so I lean more
towards the former. There are, as it were, boundaries on each
side: being supportive and respectful to my wife is not negotiable,
and nor is being honest. Beyond that: well, it's early days yet.
Gareth McCaughan
Oh, I see. So, not that being in uk.r.c will make a difference
to whether I suffer cognitive dissonance and how I deal with it,
but that it will make a difference to whether it's observed.
Fair enough. Anyway, that's not a prospect that bothers me;
anyone is free to draw whatever conclusions they like from
what I say and do, and I in turn am free to laugh. :-)
Gareth McCaughan
>>> My advive would be to have a rest and maybe God will meet you in an
>>> unexpected place.
>>
>> Always possible. Do you mean a rest from uk.r.c, or a rest from
>> going to church, or a rest from having anything to do with Christians,
>> or what? :-)
>
> Just let yourself stop struggling.
Have done :-).
> Stopping going to church might help, but I don;t know your current
> situation.
I actually stopped going to church a while ago, because it was
not-helping in two opposite ways.
1. It was definitely unhelpful that I kept having to sit
through sermons filled with (in my view) Silly Things; it
was putting me off Christianity in not-very-rational ways.
I didn't want that to happen.
2. I suspect it was working the other way in even less
rational ways, in that repeating "I believe X" over and
over is always going to tend to make you believe X,
regardless of whether you have any reason for believing it.
> To be honest the biggest pressure on us has been the great disappointment
> felt by Christian friends.
It'll be interesting to see how that one plays out.
> Here is a useful point:
> If you keep going to church they will probably just go on considering you as
> a Christian.
Not if I'm honest with them.
Gareth McCaughan
> Well that's where I'd be but if you read what Gareth is saying it doesn't
> seem he is. It's really all very fascinating.
Glad to be of service.
--
Gareth McCaughan
uk.r.c laboratory rat
Gareth McCaughan
> Blimey. How awful. You must have been going through some agonies. I can only
> think you must be experiencing something like a kind of bereavement now. My
> thoughts are with you, in complete sincerity.
Thanks. Actually, it doesn't feel particularly bad, though it may be
that the awfulness (or wondrousness) of it will dawn later.
> I fear you may have landed in the dillema between the horns of both stools
> where religion is intellectually untenable but atheism is emotionally and
> morally untenable. If it's any help I think that is where modern life puts
> most of us at some time.
I don't find atheism emotionally or morally untenable. Again, it's
possible that I'll change my mind after trying it for a while :-).
> I do hope you will stick around.
Thanks!
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>>> If you want more details, you can find some at
>>> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/g.mccaughan/g/essays/atheist.html
>>> or ask me.
>>
>> Summary: The Problem of Evil is Insurmountable.
>
>Well, no, actually, there are a bunch of other things too.
>But it's the problem of evil that makes me reasonably convinced
>that not only Christianity but most forms of theism are wrong.
Well, I was partly summarising your own summary!
>> Up to a point, I can
>> understand; I think this is probably the only serious objection to
>> Christianity (or, at least, to some form of theism) which stands up to
>> detailed scrutiny.
>
>I've scrutinized it in a lot of detail, and I think it stands up
>very well (perhaps I should say very ill, since it argues from
>disagreeable facts to a disagreeable conclusion) indeed. And it
>seems to me that if anything that purports to be a refutation or
>near-refutation of Christianity *does* stand up, then Christianity
>is refuted or near-refuted.
I'm not sure I'd agree with this. At the risk of saying precisely what
you'd expect an evangelical Christian to say, this assumes that we are
capable of conducting such scrutiny with the necessary rigour to be
able to draw strong conclusions from it. And I don't think we can make
that assumption. All we can say is that there are things we cannot
reconcile with our understanding of God - with the words "we" and "our
understanding" being the important ones. It may well be that we simply
don't have the necessary knowledge or intellectual ability to make the
reconciliation work.
I am aware that this can seem like an intellectual cop-out, a get out
of jail card that allows us to simply dismiss anything which we can't
explain. And I'm also painfully aware that many Christians,
particularly evangelicals, do tend to use it in that way. But I don't
think that invalidates it, for two reasons. Firstly, it is a principle
which is explicitly stated in the Bible - "my ways are not your ways"
- and thus is contained firmly within the mainstream of Christianity.
I appreciate that this may not carry much weight with someone who has
already chosen to reject the possibility of the Bible being divinely
inspired, but for someone who still has that option open it's a very
important passage. And, secondly, it seems to me to be simple logic to
conclude that there are things beyond my comprehension. There are
plenty of things I don't know, and plenty more that I simply can't
know. I can't do the maths involved in splitting the atom, and I have
only a rudimentary understanding of English criminal law. No doubt,
with study, I could get close enough to have a functional knowledge in
each, but certainly not both and even with one I'd still be a long way
from being in a position to claim certainty on the great mysteries of
either. So it seems entirely reasonable to me to believe that if
something which purports to be a refutation or near-refutation of
Christianity does seem to stand up to scrutiny, then we're almost
certainly not scrutinising it well enough.
>But, to repeat, there are other objections that I think have
>considerable force.
Sure. But let me ask you a question: if I could prove you wrong on any
or all of them, which one would be the killer argument that caused you
to reconvert? Or, to put it another way, which one of them,
unanswered, would leave you still deconverted even if the others were
all adequately answered?
>>> This gives rise to a question of etiquette: Should I
>>> stay on uk.r.c, or go away, or go away for a while and
>>> then come back?
>>
>> That depends a lot on how much you want to be a real live example of
>> how Festinger's Theory of Cognitive Dissonance affects someone in your
>> situation :-)
>
>I don't think I understand; sorry to be dim. What particular
>dissonance do you think I'll suffer from by remaining in uk.r.c,
>and what do you expect me to do to reduce it?
I don't think you'll suffer anything more than possibly being
uncomfortably aware of being watched, like a lab rat in someone else's
experiment. It's just that, having had a debate about FTCD in the not
too distant past in ukrc, having someone go through the process of a
major belief readjustment in full view of us all is likely to be, at
the very least, interesting. Based on my understanding of FTCD, I'd
predict that you'll start to find more things about Christianity (or,
more precisely, about what Christians tend to think and do) that you
disagree with, even though you currently think that not much has
changed other than your specific belief (or otherwise) in God. I'd be
interested to see if I'm right :-)
>I don't, e.g.,
>see any incompatibility between believing that the denizens
>of uk.r.c are an excellent bunch of people, while also believing
>that they're mostly wrong about something very important. After
>all, *I* was wrong about the same thing until very recently :-).
But how wrong were you? To what extent is this entirely new, and to
what extent has it been a nagging doubt all along?
Mark
--
Visit: http://www.FridayFun.net - jokes, lyrics and ringtones
Listen: http://www.goodge.co.uk/files/dweeb.mp3 - you'll love it!
Paul Dean
<Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Paul Dean wrote:
>
>> The definition of existence seems central to your article, as you deny
>> the existence of a particular non-physical being and suggest
>> materialism which, AIUI, is the idea that the only things that exist
>> are physical things - basically atoms and their constituent parts.
>> As ex-mathematicians, I need to ask you what definition of
>> 'existence' you're using and why have you chosen that one?
>
> Actually, no; it's just that the language of "existence" is
> convenient.
Actually, no, what? No, it's not central to your article? But your
comments are about what exists and what doesn't. If that's just a
convenient way of saying something else, what is that something else?
> I don't know of any *definition* of the word that
> works adequately to cover all the sorts of things that might
> be thought to exist -- people, electrons, opinions, gods,
> other universes, physical laws, numbers, dimensions, purposes,
> values, possible worlds -- without begging crucial questions
> or failing to enlighten at all.
"A thing exists if it derives its existence from God." God is existence
and anything which exists, does so by virtue of its connection and
sustenance from God. That's my definition and it's a current throughout
the history of Christian philosophy.
> I'm confident that I'm not assuming that "exists" means "exists
> in the universe" or "exists in the same way as a physical object"
> or anything like that. Beyond that, I don't think I'm making much
> in the way of assumptions about existence.
Then what did you mean by saying you incline towards Materialism?
> Do you have some reason to think that subtleties related to
> the nature of existence might make a difference to such things
> as the problem of evil, or God's apparent inactivity, or the
> deficiencies I find in the Bible?
For me, God as the ground of being is the ground of my life. I see God's
role as the ground-of-being used as a vital argument time and again in
historical Christian writing so I don't believe it's my innovation! So,
to answer your question, what happens to those issues when everything is
built around this definition of existence (and of God, insofar as He can
have a definition)?
1) The problem of evil - everything that exists derives its existence from
God. Evil is the privation of good, or that which doesn't derive its
existence from God (i.e. doesn't exist in this sense). The "problem of
evil" is then, "why does God allow gaps in the universe where He-is-Not?"
The answer is that those gaps will cease to exist (hence my belief in
anhilation for that not destined for Eternity). We live in the middle of
the process and so only see that it apparently exists, but it doesn't
exist by this Eternity-focused definition.
2) God's apparent inactivity - with this definition, everything is God's
activity. God is pure Act, with no potential at all. What activity do
you expect? Note that here I am arguing for theism, not for Christianity!
3) Deficiencies in the Bible - that's an issue with Christianity, not
theism. For me personally, the Bible proves itself to me time and time
again as so far superior to any other literature that it earns itself a
very special place.
Frederick Williams
>
> ... atheism is emotionally and
> morally untenable.
What on earth makes you think that?
Gareth McCaughan
> Gareth McCaughan wrote:
>>
>> Peter R wrote:
>
>>> 3)What now regarding morality and meaning?
>>
>> I never thought morality and meaning needed to be derived
>> from a deity in the first place, so I'll be finding out
>> practically whether I was right :-).
>
> You are. No need for religion never mind deities, but if you think that
> some kind of religion might appeal, look into Buddhism. (Bet you
> already have?)
I've never understood why such different things get lumped
together as "religion" as if they're interchangeable. I can't
really imagine what it would feel like to want *a religion*
rather than, at least, *a particular kind of religion*. And
Buddhism isn't really the same kind of religion as Christianity.
I haven't looked at it much, but it clearly has at least some
good things in it. (As does Christianity, and as I expect does
every other major "religion".)
Gordon Hudson
> 1. It was definitely unhelpful that I kept having to sit
> through sermons filled with (in my view) Silly Things; it
> was putting me off Christianity in not-very-rational ways.
> I didn't want that to happen.
Oh that sounds so familiar!
Are you sure you are not my sock puppet?
>> Here is a useful point:
>> If you keep going to church they will probably just go on considering you
>> as
>> a Christian.
>
> Not if I'm honest with them.
Christians are funny animals.
I remember one church which was unnaturally anti homosexual (I mean in an
overtly, mke a big issue kind of way) but the church secretary's brother was
a string player in a symphony orchestra (nudge nudge), lived with a man and
was the campest person you are likely to meet.
Needless to say they sort of glossed over this anomaly.
[NB I didn't mind them doing so, I just tho0ught it was odd]
Another organisation of similar views had someone on the board who lived
with a man and was known to frequent bars of a crtain persuasion, yet his
paritioners did not seem to put two and two together, assuming it was just a
lodger in the manse.
I think Christians tend to see what they want to see in others, whether that
be good or bad.
I would describe myself as a reulctant, non religious, Christian.
Which is why I have such an odd set of ideas and a fairly laid back attitude
to other peoples beliefs, provided they let me have my own odd ones.
Gordon Hudson
> "Quasin" wrote:
>
>> If you are concerned about confusing people why not just add to your
>> sig "no longer a Christian as of 6-6-06"?
>
> I might. Except that it *wasn't* 6/6/6, as I said. (I suppose
> it would be amusing to pretend that it was, but I'm not very
> keen on the winding-people-up sort of humour.)
>
>> Question - how do you feel? Elated, depressed, puzzled, freed,
>> directionless, no different than the day before or the year before
>> June 6, 06?
>
> Not much different. I think there are a few reasons.
>
> - I'm not a very emotional person; I think much more
> than I feel. This may well be a weakness but, well,
> it's how I am.
>
> - This has been brewing for a long time, and the process
> of re-evaluation that led to my decision to jump ship
> had been fairly clearly heading that way for a while.
>
> - My *values* are largely unchanged. I was always committed
> to God because I was committed to truth and goodness, not
> the other way around. So -- so far, at least -- there's
> no great revolution in that aspect of my life.
OK.
You are definitely my sock puppet.
Have you time warped through from last year?
Paul Wright
wrote:
> After a very great deal of thought, reading and prayer, I have come to
> the conclusion that Christianity is not (for me) intellectually
> tenable. As of a few days ago (no, not 6/6/6!) I am no longer a
> Christian.
OMGWTFBBQ!!!!!1111!!ONEONE
Ahem.
Like the other posters, I admire your honesty and courage of your
convictions.
> I'm less sure that mere theism is wrong than I am that
> Christianity is; but it seems very much more likely
> wrong than right.
>
> If you want more details, you can find some at
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/g.mccaughan/g/essays/atheist.html
> or ask me.
That's interesting to contrast with my own experience. You're rather
more kindly disposed to the Christianity you have come out of than I was
(although I'm told I've mellowed :-). I suppose that's partly because my
emotions were more involved in my initial decision to stop going to
church, if not in my eventual decision to leave Christianity, whereas
you've said it hasn't been a very emotional experience so far. I'd go so
far as to say I hope you *don't* experience some of the emotions I did.
I'm a bit puzzled by the part where you say that you'd be mortified if
your essay made someone else give up being a Christian. I considered
that when I put my story on the web and decided that if someone could be
convinced by my essay, they were probably better off out of Christianity
anyway. I specifically wanted to re-assure people who were at an earlier
stage of that process that the world does not end when you leave.
> Those of you who wish to speculate that this is all because I wasn't a
> member of the One True Church, or because I accepted the devilish
> heresy of evolution, or because I held on to an outmoded
> supernaturalist conception of Christianity, or [etc., etc., etc.] are
> welcome to do so. I can't think of any such speculation that I find at
> all plausible.
You left out not speaking in tongues (assuming you didn't speak in
tongues, of course).
wrt uk.r.c, I never thought to ask whether anyone objected to my return,
but nobody seems to have chased me off yet. I can't be said in any way
to speak for the group, but I think you should stay if it still seems
beneficial to you. (I left when I stopped going to church because I
couldn't bear to have anything to do with Christian stuff for a while
and the group seemed full of people espousing the sort of Christianity I
was least keen on, but your mileage varies).
--
Paul Wright | http://pobox.com/~pw201 | http://blog.noctua.org.uk/
Reply address is valid but discards anything which isn't plain text
Gareth McCaughan
[me:]
>> Actually, no; it's just that the language of "existence" is
>> convenient.
>
> Actually, no, what? No, it's not central to your article? But your
> comments are about what exists and what doesn't. If that's just a
> convenient way of saying something else, what is that something else?
Indeed: it's not central. Of course it's possible that there are
assumptions implicit in my use of the language of existence --
well, of course there are, but it's possible that they're relevant --
and you're welcome to point out any that you think I need to think
through more carefully.
The sorts of "something else" it's a more convenient way of saying
are things like these, each of which I would formerly have agreed
with (perhaps with reservations) but now find no good reason to
accept:
- "A proper understanding of the universe will show that
reality is ultimately personal rather than impersonal"
- "Jesus was God in human form"
- "Nothing in the universe would be there if it weren't
for God"
>> I don't know of any *definition* of the word that
>> works adequately to cover all the sorts of things that might
>> be thought to exist -- people, electrons, opinions, gods,
>> other universes, physical laws, numbers, dimensions, purposes,
>> values, possible worlds -- without begging crucial questions
>> or failing to enlighten at all.
>
> "A thing exists if it derives its existence from God." God is
> existence and anything which exists, does so by virtue of its
> connection and sustenance from God. That's my definition and it's a
> current throughout the history of Christian philosophy.
A definition is useless unless it can be applied. Your
definition can't be applied without begging the question.
Are there such things as unicorns? Well, there are if
unicorns derive their existence from God, and not otherwise.
Should we say that numbers exist, or adopt an eliminativist
attitude to them? Well, they exist if they derive their
existence from God. And so on: all entirely useless, since
to decide whether something derives its existence from God
you first of all have to decide whether there's any existence
to be so derived.
Not to mention that this "definition" begs another question
by presupposing a God from whom existence can be derived.
I'm afraid I have no time at all for attempts to decide
controversial matters by definitional fiat.
>> I'm confident that I'm not assuming that "exists" means "exists
>> in the universe" or "exists in the same way as a physical object"
>> or anything like that. Beyond that, I don't think I'm making much
>> in the way of assumptions about existence.
>
> Then what did you mean by saying you incline towards Materialism?
I'm not sure I can give a definition of materialism that doesn't
rest on dubious assumptions about the nature of existence, but I'll
have a go. Please consider it a shorthand for something along
the following lines.
"the belief that all the things we observe, or could
in principle observe, can be explained purely materially
as well as they can be explained at all"
That's certainly not entirely satisfactory, but it'll do for now.
>> Do you have some reason to think that subtleties related to
>> the nature of existence might make a difference to such things
>> as the problem of evil, or God's apparent inactivity, or the
>> deficiencies I find in the Bible?
>
> For me, God as the ground of being is the ground of my life. I see
> God's role as the ground-of-being used as a vital argument time and
> again in historical Christian writing so I don't believe it's my
> innovation! So, to answer your question, what happens to those
> issues when everything is built around this definition of existence
> (and of God, insofar as He can have a definition)?
For the reasons I've given above, this definition seems unusable
to me. (I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with
the idea of God as the ground of being; it's the idea of building
the notion into your *definition* of existence that seems all wrong
to me.)
> 1) The problem of evil - everything that exists derives its existence
> from God. Evil is the privation of good, or that which doesn't
> derive its existence from God (i.e. doesn't exist in this sense).
> The "problem of evil" is then, "why does God allow gaps in the
> universe where He-is-Not?" The answer is that those gaps will cease
> to exist (hence my belief in anhilation for that not destined for
> Eternity). We live in the middle of the process and so only see that
> it apparently exists, but it doesn't exist by this Eternity-focused
> definition.
Do you find this a satisfying answer? And do you not think that
if a definition of "existence" denies the "existence" of, say,
cancer or bigotry then that's a sign of something wrong with the
definition?
> 2) God's apparent inactivity - with this definition, everything is
> God's activity. God is pure Act, with no potential at all. What
> activity do you expect? Note that here I am arguing for theism, not
> for Christianity!
>
> 3) Deficiencies in the Bible - that's an issue with Christianity, not
> theism. For me personally, the Bible proves itself to me time and
> time again as so far superior to any other literature that it earns
> itself a very special place.
As I said, I'm much more sure that Christianity is wrong
than I am that mere theism is wrong. And on the basis of
Christianity, though not of mere theism, I would expect
that God would interact more detectably with those who
seek to be his people, I would expect that he would do
more to deal with suffering and evil. (According to
Christianity, he has defeated suffering and death and
evil, but not in a way that actually stops them happening.)
Could you say more about the ways in which the Bible
proves itself to you as so far superior to any other
literature? I assume you don't primarily mean *literarily*
better, but that it provides a particularly effective
guide to life and truth and so on?
Gareth McCaughan
> I could speculate but I wont.
Very gentlemanly of you :-).
> I am saddened but unsurprised. I cant imagine that any intellectual search
> for God will find Jesus.
>
> Dont go away, stay and play :-)
It seems that everyone's saying this, so I guess I shall.
Perhaps I should modify my signature so as not to cause
confusion, or something.
Gareth McCaughan
[me, on the problem of evil]
>> I've scrutinized it in a lot of detail, and I think it stands up
>> very well (perhaps I should say very ill, since it argues from
>> disagreeable facts to a disagreeable conclusion) indeed. And it
>> seems to me that if anything that purports to be a refutation or
>> near-refutation of Christianity *does* stand up, then Christianity
>> is refuted or near-refuted.
[Mark:]
> I'm not sure I'd agree with this. At the risk of saying precisely what
> you'd expect an evangelical Christian to say,
Why's that a risk? You think I'd prefer you to behave inconsistently
with your beliefs? :-)
> this assumes that we are
> capable of conducting such scrutiny with the necessary rigour to be
> able to draw strong conclusions from it. And I don't think we can make
> that assumption. All we can say is that there are things we cannot
> reconcile with our understanding of God - with the words "we" and "our
> understanding" being the important ones. It may well be that we simply
> don't have the necessary knowledge or intellectual ability to make the
> reconciliation work.
>
> I am aware that this can seem like an intellectual cop-out, a get out
> of jail card that allows us to simply dismiss anything which we can't
> explain.
Yup :-).
There's clearly *something* right about that line of argument;
obviously God, should there be one, is infinitely cleverer and
better informed than we are, and it would be surprising if his
doings were never puzzling. But, well, here I am with the
limitations I have, and I have to make decisions on the basis
of the information and understanding available to me.
I think the possibility you raise is a bit like the possibility
that I might really be a "brain in a vat", Matrix-style, or
be being deceived about everything by a malicious demon, a la
Descartes, or be utterly mad and hallucinating everything I
(seem to) see. These are all possible, but if any of them is
true then there's no point in my thinking about what would
follow because then all bets are off, as it were, and I have
no basis for trusting anything I think.
Likewise, it's possible that I (in common with just about
everyone else who's considered the matter) am terribly wrong
in my ideas about what's good, or about what an omnipotent
being could achieve, or something. But if I'm that badly
wrong then all my thinking on these matters is pointless
and I might as well just give up. I certainly couldn't trust
any judgement I might make that God (meaning, perhaps,
"the creator of the universe" or "the One revealed in
the Bible" or "the awesome being I seemed to encounter
last night"[1]) is good or worthy of worship.
[1] No, I didn't really :-).
> And I'm also painfully aware that many Christians,
> particularly evangelicals, do tend to use it in that way. But I don't
> think that invalidates it, for two reasons. Firstly, it is a principle
> which is explicitly stated in the Bible - "my ways are not your ways"
> - and thus is contained firmly within the mainstream of Christianity.
> I appreciate that this may not carry much weight with someone who has
> already chosen to reject the possibility of the Bible being divinely
> inspired, but for someone who still has that option open it's a very
> important passage.
I haven't chosen to reject the *possibility*. I just think it's
wrong :-).
> And, secondly, it seems to me to be simple logic to
> conclude that there are things beyond my comprehension. There are
> plenty of things I don't know, and plenty more that I simply can't
> know. I can't do the maths involved in splitting the atom, and I have
> only a rudimentary understanding of English criminal law. No doubt,
> with study, I could get close enough to have a functional knowledge in
> each, but certainly not both and even with one I'd still be a long way
> from being in a position to claim certainty on the great mysteries of
> either. So it seems entirely re