About a year ago I attended my very first and possibly my
very last atheist meet up. Leading up to that evening we were all told that we
should read chapter one of ‘The Demon Haunted World’ since that book would be
analyzed and discussed then and on subsequent meetings that followed. It was
the first time that I had ever come into contact with atheists that have never
subscribed to any religious belief system. They were for the most part brought
up without religious beliefs in a secular environment with non-religious
parents.
One of the things that stood out with me during that meeting
was the look of amazement on their faces as I briefly informed them that I had
at one time been an evangelist with the Pentecostal faith. Another thing that
shocked me was how difficult it was for them to grasp how a fundamentalist
believer could be taken by such foolishness as religious beliefs without any
evidence. I came to the conclusion that some things have to be experienced to
be fully understood.
That experience led me to think a lot about evidence and how
it is interpreted by both believers and non-believers. The two main types of
evidence are subjective evidence and objective evidence and the difference
between the two is quite substantial. We both look at the
evidence and interpret it differently and this leads us to very different and
contradictory conclusions.
Evidence: Your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on
which to base belief.
Objective: Undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on
observable phenomena.
Subjective:Taking place within the mind and modified by
individual bias.
A theist bases his/her beliefs primarily on faith. In the
book of Hebrews 11:1 it says: “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain
of what we do not see.” This is a perfect description of subjective
evidence. In the bible it is often repeated that you do not need evidence that
faith should suffice to sustain your belief. After providing evidence of his resurrection
Jesus scolds the apostle Thomas with these words: Then Jesus told him, “Because
you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and
yet have believed.” John 20:29
When theists are pressed into a corner and asked to present
evidence for their beliefs every possible argument that they present is
subjective and based entirely on the presupposition that what they believe are
facts. Even William Lane Craig arguing for the evidence of the resurrection
states all of his points as facts. The
following is how Dr. William Lane Craig presents his arguments for the
resurrection.
FACT #1: After his crucifixion,
Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea.
FACT #2: On
the Sunday following the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of
his women followers.
FACT #3: On
multiple occasions and under various circumstances, different individuals and
groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead.
FACT #4: The
original disciples believed that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their
having every predisposition to the contrary.
As you can see he states all of these “facts” based entirely on his
presuppositions and his faith on the truth of the biblical narratives about
Jesus. For those of you interested in reading this article you can find it here. He even
went as far as making the following statement in his book ‘Reasonable Faith’
“Should
a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental
truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then
it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa. [William Lane Craig, Reasonable
Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, (Revised edition, Wheaton, IL:
Crossway, 1994), p. 36.]
When you read the statements by Christianity’s foremost
apologist, it is so much easier for you to understand how the theistic mind
thinks. An atheist on the other hand thinks quite differently, in fact we think
a lot like the apostle Thomas who has been dubbed doubting Thomas by believers.
Like Thomas we want objective evidence. Your so called experiences based on faith
are invalid to us and because of their “supernatural” nature they are also
unverifiable by any natural means. In a court of law most “evidence” presented
by theists for their beliefs would barely be considered evidence at all. In
fact, hearsay is not admissible in court and since the bible is nothing more
than a book based entirely on hearsay it is not recognized as evidence by the
standards of evidence.
Objective evidence is based on what can be observed both
directly or indirectly inferred from what we observe. For example; we can’t see
oxygen with the naked eye but all that it would take to convince someone of the
existence of oxygen is to simply deprive him of it. Doctors are able to
diagnose certain diseases and physical disorders by their symptoms indirectly. When an atheist asks for evidence he is asking
primarily for objective evidence. What you felt or heard or thought you saw is
useless to us since we haven’t had the same experience as you.
In closing, it is evidence that divides theists from
atheists. The definition of evidence and what each side considers evidence.
When I was a theist I had religious experiences, visions, dreams, and
experienced the so called 9 gifts of the Holy Spirit. Those experiences were
sufficient evidence for me at that time. The physical sensations I felt due of
course to my mental conditioning and my beliefs, was evidence enough for me to
establish my beliefs as the absolute truth. Theists speak as if their beliefs
are absolutely true and undeniable and it takes a special person to dare to be
bold enough to challenge what they believe and notice the inconsistencies in
those beliefs. Subjective evidence alone will only keep you deluded, while objective evidence will set you free.
Note: All
biblical citations are from the NIV of the bible.
As usual all my word definitions were taken from the Sage Dictionary and Thesaurus if you are interested you may download the latest copy here.
" When you read the statements by Christianity’s foremost apologist, it is so much easier for you to understand how the theistic mind thinks. An atheist on the other hand thinks quite differently,..."
ReplyDeleteI on the otherhand would not define what Craig or his kind do as "thinking." I classify it as "non-think." It follows a predictable pattern of rejection of any "thought" that is grounded in simple analysis, or reasoned inquiry. It is reducing reason to a bothersome burden to be ignored, instead preferring to defer to only dectrinal non-think and convoluted apologetics. It is the antithesis of thinking in any true sense, IMO. It is "slave think" with the company line indoctrination as the master of the enslaved follower. Atheists aren't called "freethinkers" for nothing.
Curious..why no more atheist meet ups? If you found it as uninspiring and mundane as I do, I'll understand. I've sworn off them a few times, but then it gets me out of the house so I go anyway ;)
You're absolutely correct on your assessment of theistic thought. Theist think within the confines of their own doctrines and presupposed beliefs. Anything outside of those confines is forbidden and shunned vehemently by the church establishment. Theist purposely twists science and misapply philosophy (apologetics) to try and validate their already faulty and skewed belief system.
DeleteRegarding atheists meet ups its just a personal issue with me. I am very selective of my friends and although I met some nice people there I didn't feel right in that setting. I am not an activist nor do I care for large gatherings too often. I am and have been pretty much the loner type my whole life.
I would like to attend one of those annual skepticon events though before I leave this shitty earth.
*dectrinal* = doctrinal
ReplyDeleteI can understand why people don't understand religion. Many were probably raised like me. It's like that saying: religion is like circumcision, if you wait util someone is 21 to tell them about it they probably won't be interested;)
ReplyDelete"people don't understand religion"?
ReplyDeleteWe understand it all too well.
That's why we are atheists.