(7 votes, average: 4.71 out of 5)
Loading...Isn’t atheism an extreme position to take? If you (or, well, I) give up believe in the Christian God we were (I was) raised on, why give up on the idea of any god entirely?
I’m on a trip giving lectures to a group of folks who, well, want to see Norway (!) but also want to discuss issues closely related to what we do on the Blog – questions about the New Testament, the historical Jesus, early Christianity, related topics in religion, and questions about religion in general. It’s a great group with people of a wide range of backgrounds and lots of interesting stories.
Already we have discussed lots of interesting things, and one of my fellow travelers has pushed me on
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Both theism and atheism require belief in something unprovable. The only approach justified by this lack of evidence is to be agnostic.
For me, ironically, the existence of suffering does point to the existence of a loving God. That sounds heartless, so I must explain. When an earthquake struck in Asia around 2000, I was attending a large industry conference. Terrible scenes of suffering appeared on TV monitors in the hotel lobby. This prompted me to disappear to my room, where I wept uncontrollably. My heart was with those who suffered through no fault of their own.
In Dawkins’ “Selfish Gene”, he builds an argument around the idea that our genes behave so as to propagate their own at the expense of others. If this is true, why was I upset? Surely I should be pleased when thousands of my genetic competitors are wiped out – but the very opposite is true.
One more point: As a scientist, I’m convinced our world is more complex than we realize. In particular, I suspect we live in a moral multiverse. That concept ensures every single one of us lives one life without extremes of pain and suffering. By no means do I wish to imply that suffering is not real, but, if God is indeed loving, surely he allows each of us to thrive.
Another idea is that a god is an emergent phenomenon, like life itself. A god might emerge from life as a product of evolution, say, rather than being preexisting. A god might be powerful or intelligent in ways difficult for us to imagine, perhaps, without being omnipotent or omniscient. Such a god might be just (or not). (Maybe Joan Osborne had sonething …) This god might or might not choose to interact with us, yet might have real limitations on what he/she/it/they can do, or want to do.
There isn’t any hard evidence for this either, of course, and one could argue that it is essentially the atheist position.
God is forever becoming everything to experience everything. The Infinite becomes the Finite. We are one hundred percent human and 100 percent God. (Just like Jesus!)
Paul Tillich argued (and Aquinas would have agreed): “As the power of being, being-itself cannot have a beginning and an end. Otherwise it would have arisen out of nonbeing. But nonbeing is literally nothing except in relation to being. Being precedes nonbeing in ontological validity, as the word ‘nonbeing’ itself indicates.” What, though, is “being-itself”? Tillich identifies it with God. I find the formulation insightful but see no reason to go beyond it and make the identification of being-itself with any God, Christian-flavored or otherwise. Calling it God puts a face on a purely abstract idea, which seems to be what religion does. I accept that being-itself is the cause of all that exists and is present in all that exists, but I have no clue how or why. All it’s possible to say is “It is.” (“I am who I am”–Exodus 3:14 may have been on to something!) Regardless, I don’t find the word “God” meaningful but do accept what others might see as a shadow of their God. That’s not deism, I agree with you about deism, but apophatic theology driven beyond apophatic theology.
Is the problem of evil the only reason that you are an agnostic atheist? Or did the undermining of evangelical dogmas (e.g., inerrancy and infallibility) also play a role in your deconversion?
No, I had given up on my strong evangelical views for years before I left the faith. I was quite happy being a non-evangelical Christian, but I finally came to the point taht I simply did not believe there was a God who was active in the world, who answered prayer, who worked to make life better for people.
In his last book ‘Brief answers to the Big Questions, Professor Stephen Hawking contrasted Einstein’s dictum that “God does not throw dice”, with his own observation: “All the evidence is that God is quite a gambler. The Universe is like a giant casino, with dice being rolled, or wheels being spun, on every occasion.”
I agree with Dr Hawking. However, I believe that ‘God’ does not throw dice. ‘God’ built ‘The House’, ‘God’ set the odds, and then ‘God’ gave us the dice. ‘God’ lets us throw them as often as we choose, as no matter how many times we throw them, as ‘God’ knows, ‘The House’ will always win.
This is my starting point of how I get my head around:-
1. The fundamental questions of Philosophy (Who are we/Where are we/Why are we here)
2. How we can have free will within a Universe determined by the fundamental Physical Constants and the second law of Thermodynamics
3. Theodicy- good, bad, common, rare: all events are shared between multiple realities, according to the ‘Many Worlds Interpretation’ of Quantum Theory.
Dear Bart,
You have often spoken about your own religious development, and I think I understand the broad outlines of it, but I am not entirely clear on the timeline.
As I understand it, it was roughly something like this:
1955–1970: Episcopalian
1970–1980: Evangelical Christian
1980–1990: “Liberal” Christian
1990–present: Agnostic/atheist
I am, of course, aware that these changes in belief were gradual processes that did not happen overnight and may have taken several years. Even so, would you say that this timeline is approximately correct?
Kinda. I was active in the Episcopal church even as an Evangelical, up to 1983. My move toward a more liberal kind of Christianity probaly started 1979-81; I became an agnostic-atheist probably around 1994-96.
I just searched Recent Posts for “Original Sin.” I didn’t find anything. Google says, “Jesus did not talk about original sin because the specific term and formal doctrine did not exist during his lifetime.” But Paul was the first biblical author to put that in Early Christianity. Then St. Augustine put it in his theology.
Did Paul read Genesis and Jesus didn’t? What in the world is going on here?
Genesis does not speak about “original sin.” The doctrine of original sin depends in part on a particular interepreation of GEnesis. And Paul’s view was not at all Augustine’s
De. Ehrman. This is my attempt to ask you a question you’ve likely never been asked on here before. Are the Carolina Hurricanes going to win the Stanley Cup this year?
This is asked by a very sad Toronto Maple Leafs fan.
I’m answering post hoc. The Canes were clearly pre-destined. Go CArolina!
Dear Dr Ehrman-If I may ask, within the wider realm of Biblical and Pauline Studies, would you recommend the work of Jason Staples as a scholarly and rigorous source of information?
I better. I was his advisor and directed his PhD dissertation. (!)
Dr. Ehrman,
Based entirely on what I have heard about AA and other self help programs, there seems to be a theme that people can get on much better in their lives if they come to terms with the idea of a higher power. This to me means that many people improve their life if they accept a kind of god even if there is no other reason than that.
There may be other or better ways to sobriety but it appears that this acceptance is a widespread part of the solution.
I quite like Deism. I think it’s more than just a ‘fall back’ position, although it could be a bit of a ‘sitting on the fence’ stance. It gets around the issue of creation, ie. ‘why are we here/what’s it all about?’ while also explaining the problem of suffering.
I suppose that most folks on the blog know that deism became a big thing in the 1700s, largely due to Newton’s theories that explained motion, including that of the planets. Halley’s prediction based on Newton’s laws that the great comet would return in 1758, followed by confirmation was, well I don’t know how to describe it. Nothing in current science has had such impact. I grew up in an Evangelical denomination, then was trained in physics. I used to think of the laws of physics as “God in action”, which I suppose was some mish-mash of conservative Christianity, deism, pantheism. You name it. From where I stand now, the world doesn’t need God to keep it going. The vastness of the cosmos is well beyond the ability of any being I can think of to comprehend, let alone control. Just dive into it: the number of atoms, quarks, galaxies, … And yet there is this sense of awe, this desire to bow down before someone, something. “What is man that you are mindful of him …”